Do you have to solo to get current? [Archive]

Tony

March 8th 07, 01:15 AM

Someone is the pilot in command, and he is not current. He may not
carry a PX. Kick the other guy out, do your three landings to a full
stop.

Now even though you're current, he is not, is he? So you stand around
while he makes himself whole in the eyes of the FAA.

Now go forth and sin no more!

On Mar 7, 8:10 pm, "Skidder" > wrote:
> As we all know, you can't carry a passenger unless you are current. But if
> two pilots get in an aircraft with dual controls, can either of them really
> be considered a passenger? You can log PIC from either seat.
>
> Lets say, I have a PPL but am not current. My best friend has a PPL but is
> not current. Both of us have a current medical? Is it legal for both of us to
> get in an aircraft with dual controls, at the same time, shoot 6 take offs
> and landings, 3 each, and log ourselves as current and split the flying time
> in our logs?
>
> Would be both absolutely have to have a current medical?
>
> He is an attorney and says the way he reads the regs, that it's not exactly
> clear. I myself don't know, but thought the group might enjoy debating the
> question.
>
> Along the same lines, if a PPL *is* current. Can he go for insurance check
> ride with an instructor that is not, or doesn't have a current medilcal?
>
> --
> Skidder

Skidder

March 8th 07, 01:23 AM

On 3/7/2007 7:15:18 PM, "Tony" wrote:
>Someone is the pilot in command, and he is not current. He may not
>carry a PX. Kick the other guy out, do your three landings to a full
>stop.
>
>Now even though you're current, he is not, is he? So you stand around
>while he makes himself whole in the eyes of the FAA.
>
>Now go forth and sin no more!
>
>

Can you bottom post, and quote a reference in the regs??

--
Skidder

RST Engineering

March 8th 07, 01:25 AM

There is no requirement for a CFI to be flight or medical current if the PPL
is pilot in command.

Jim

"Skidder" > wrote in message
...
>
> Along the same lines, if a PPL *is* current. Can he go for insurance check
> ride with an instructor that is not, or doesn't have a current medilcal?

[email protected]

March 8th 07, 01:35 AM

Skidder > wrote:
> As we all know, you can't carry a passenger unless you are current. But if
> two pilots get in an aircraft with dual controls, can either of them really
> be considered a passenger? You can log PIC from either seat.

> Lets say, I have a PPL but am not current. My best friend has a PPL but is
> not current. Both of us have a current medical? Is it legal for both of us to
> get in an aircraft with dual controls, at the same time, shoot 6 take offs
> and landings, 3 each, and log ourselves as current and split the flying time
> in our logs?

> Would be both absolutely have to have a current medical?
>
> He is an attorney and says the way he reads the regs, that it's not exactly
> clear. I myself don't know, but thought the group might enjoy debating the
> question.

> Along the same lines, if a PPL *is* current. Can he go for insurance check
> ride with an instructor that is not, or doesn't have a current medilcal?

I don't know about the first case, but for the second, the answer is
yes.

The pilot is PIC and it doesn't matter what the other person is there
for as long as he doesn't have to PIC to do it, like give IFR training
in actual IFR to a non-IFR rated pilot.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

March 8th 07, 02:01 AM

Guillermo

March 8th 07, 02:18 AM

On Mar 7, 8:10 pm, "Skidder" > wrote:
> As we all know, you can't carry a passenger unless you are current. But if
> two pilots get in an aircraft with dual controls, can either of them really
> be considered a passenger? You can log PIC from either seat.
>
> Lets say, I have a PPL but am not current. My best friend has a PPL but is
> not current. Both of us have a current medical? Is it legal for both of us to
> get in an aircraft with dual controls, at the same time, shoot 6 take offs
> and landings, 3 each, and log ourselves as current and split the flying time
> in our logs?

No. The requirement is that the PIC of the flight has to be current.
There is only one PIC and the other pilot will be considered a pax.
However, a "pax" can fly the airplane without being the PIC. If one
pilot is current, he will be the PIC for that flight. The other pilot
could do three touch and goes as sole manipulator of the controls and
become current. However, the first pilot is the PIC of the flight and
therefore responsible for the safety of the flight. If the manipulator
of the controls screws up and crashes the airplane, the PIC will be
responsible. I am personally not a big fan of letting somebody else
land the airplane while I am the PIC...... At least until I become a
CFI.

> Would be both absolutely have to have a current medical?

Only the PIC for the flight

> He is an attorney and says the way he reads the regs, that it's not exactly
> clear. I myself don't know, but thought the group might enjoy debating the
> question.

> Along the same lines, if a PPL *is* current. Can he go for insurance check
> ride with an instructor that is not, or doesn't have a current medilcal?

The CFI does not need a medical nor to be current if he is not the PIC
of the flight.

>
> --
> Skidder

Robert M. Gary

March 8th 07, 02:25 AM

On Mar 7, 5:10 pm, "Skidder" > wrote:
> As we all know, you can't carry a passenger unless you are current. But if
> two pilots get in an aircraft with dual controls, can either of them really
> be considered a passenger? You can log PIC from either seat.

You've gotten pretty good advice here. The key is that someone must
serve as PIC. Interestingly, I had about a 1/2 hour conversation with
Lynch before he retired from the FAA. My question to him was, does a
MEI need to be current to give instruction to a non-ME pilot? The core
of the question is whether or not a student is considered a pax to the
CFI. His answer is that students are not pax when receiving
instructions and that CFI's do not need to be 61.57 current to give
instruction and serve as PIC. Not sure if every FSDO would agree but I
thought it was an interesting point. This is a frequent problem
because MEI's almost *NEVER* get any "sole manipulator" time on
landings unless they fly outside of the instructing environment. I
would estimate that at least 75% of all active MEIs can not maintain
61.57 currency.

-Robert, CFII

C J Campbell

March 8th 07, 02:26 AM

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:10:05 -0800, Skidder wrote
(in article >):

> As we all know, you can't carry a passenger unless you are current. But if
> two pilots get in an aircraft with dual controls, can either of them really
> be considered a passenger? You can log PIC from either seat.
>
> Lets say, I have a PPL but am not current. My best friend has a PPL but is
> not current. Both of us have a current medical? Is it legal for both of us to
> get in an aircraft with dual controls, at the same time, shoot 6 take offs
> and landings, 3 each, and log ourselves as current and split the flying time
> in our logs?
>

It depends. First of all, you are misreading the reg. You have to be current
in the aircraft to act as PIC of an aircraft carrying passengers. Required
crewmembers are not passengers. Are both pilots required to fly the airplane?
If not, the one who is not acting PIC is a passenger.

> Would be both absolutely have to have a current medical?
>

Whoever is acting as PIC has to have a medical. If a pilot has no medical,
then another pilot who has a medical has to go with him and act as PIC, so a
pilot with a medical becomes a required crewmember, not a passenger. There
could be some debate as to whether the guy without the medical is a required
crewmember, however. If neither pilot is qualified to act as PIC, then they
cannot fly.

Let us put it this way: What do you think the FAA will say if there is an
incident and neither pilot was current in the airplane and only one of them
had a current medical? Can you say "emergency revocation?"

> He is an attorney and says the way he reads the regs, that it's not exactly
> clear. I myself don't know, but thought the group might enjoy debating the
> question.
>
> Along the same lines, if a PPL *is* current. Can he go for insurance check
> ride with an instructor that is not, or doesn't have a current medilcal?

Yes, at least as far as the medical goes. The instructor does not need to act
as PIC if the pilot is qualified to be PIC. Even so, the instructor still
gets to log the time as PIC, as does the pilot.

However, an instructor must be qualified and current in an aircraft that he
is giving instruction in. The instructor actually flies on the basis of his
commercial certificate, not his instructor certificate. Instructor
certificates do not confer flight privileges in and of themselves. Thus, he
can only instruct in those aircraft listed on both his commercial and
instructor certificates, and then only if he is current in them. A classic
example frequently asked by examiners and on instructor renewal exams is
whether an instructor can give instruction in a single-engine seaplane. His
commercial certificate says, "Airplane single and multiengine land,
instrument airplane." His instructor certificate says "Airplane single and
multiengine; instrument airplane." The correct answer is that the instructor
may not give instruction in a seaplane, because the commercial certificate is
limited to land planes. If the instructor gets a commercial seaplane
certificate then he is good to go.

Similarly, an instructor may not give instruction in a tailwheel airplane
unless he has a tailwheel signoff. The moment he gets the signoff he can
instruct in tailwheel airplanes without getting a new instructor certificate.
Same goes for other signoffs such as high performance or pressurized planes.
Since there is no instructor certificate in blimps, any commercial blimp
pilot may give instruction.

So, an instructor may give instruction without a medical, but he may not give
instruction in an aircraft that he is not allowed to fly at a commercial
level. That means he has to be current in that aircraft IN ORDER TO GIVE
INSTRUCTION. BUT:

If a pilot wants to act as PIC while an instructor gets his landings current,
that is another matter. As long as the pilot is qualified to act as PIC then
he can do so for the benefit of the instructor. You let the instructor get
current on his landings, then the instructor starts giving instruction for
the insurance check ride. That is done all the time.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Robert M. Gary

March 8th 07, 02:27 AM

On Mar 7, 5:10 pm, "Skidder" > wrote:

> He is an attorney and says the way he reads the regs, that it's not exactly
> clear. I myself don't know, but thought the group might enjoy debating the
> question.

This makes the post sound like trolling. The attorney you asked
certainly has no experience with FAA regs because the regs are very
clear in the case you pointed out. If you are flying a real plane I
recommend joining AOPA (www.aopa.org), they answer these questions
everyday from student pilots.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary

March 8th 07, 02:32 AM

On Mar 7, 6:26 pm, C J Campbell
> wrote:
His instructor certificate says "Airplane single and
> multiengine; instrument airplane." The correct answer is that the instructor
> may not give instruction in a seaplane, because the commercial certificate is
> limited to land planes. If the instructor gets a commercial seaplane
> certificate then he is good to go.

That is another interesting point I spoke with Lynch about before his
retirement. At the time I held a PP-ASES and CFI-A. My question was,
'what reg prohibits me from instructing in a sea plane?". He couldn't
come up with a good answer. He said it didn't sound right, but no reg
actually says you must be at a commercial level to instruct (only to
take a CFI checkride). The question ended up becoming academic because
I upgraded my SES rating to commercial when my next BFR came up.

-Robert, CFII (land and sea, tailwheel, round dials and glass)

Skidder

March 8th 07, 03:15 AM

On 3/7/2007 7:10:07 PM, "Skidder" wrote:
>As we all know, you can't carry a passenger unless you are current. But if
>two pilots get in an aircraft with dual controls, can either of them really
>be considered a passenger? You can log PIC from either seat.
>
>Lets say, I have a PPL but am not current. My best friend has a PPL but is
>not current. Both of us have a current medical? Is it legal for both of us to
>get in an aircraft with dual controls, at the same time, shoot 6 take offs
>and landings, 3 each, and log ourselves as current and split the flying time
>in our logs?
>
>Would be both absolutely have to have a current medical?
>
>He is an attorney and says the way he reads the regs, that it's not exactly
>clear. I myself don't know, but thought the group might enjoy debating the
>question.
>
>Along the same lines, if a PPL *is* current. Can he go for insurance check
>ride with an instructor that is not, or doesn't have a current medilcal?
>
>

Ok, first things first, I am not a troll, and this is a very legitimate
question that could be applicable to lots of flyers.

Second, were all over the place here. MEIs, seaplanes, instructor without
medicals, you can't be PIC unless you are current (who's pic when you do your
currency work), ......sheesh guys let's keep our eyes on the ball.

You have two pilots, dual controls, both have full control of the aircraft.
To simplify more, let's say they both have current medicals, and have logged
at least 100 hours in this specific aircraft in the past. It's just been 95
days since each have flown.

What in the regs states that, a pilot with a full set of controls in front of
him, must be considered a passenger, just because someone else is flying the
plane.

It's a fair question, and I can't find a clear answer in the regs. But I'm
not a book worm either. I was just hoping there was enough experience *with
the regs* somewhere in this group, to locate a definitive answer.

--
Skidder

Danny Deger

March 8th 07, 03:44 AM

"Skidder" > wrote in message
...
snip

> What in the regs states that, a pilot with a full set of controls in front
> of
> him, must be considered a passenger, just because someone else is flying
> the
> plane.
>

I think there is a reg that says if the crew position is not required, the
person is a pax. For example a non-current person can be a safety pilot for
practicing IFR. Just because the plane has dual controls, it doesn't mean
the airplane requires a second it command.

Danny Deger
> It's a fair question, and I can't find a clear answer in the regs. But I'm
> not a book worm either. I was just hoping there was enough experience
> *with
> the regs* somewhere in this group, to locate a definitive answer.
>
>
> --
> Skidder

Jose

March 8th 07, 04:07 AM

> What in the regs states that, a pilot with a full set of controls in front of
> him, must be considered a passenger, just because someone else is flying the
> plane.

Well, what =is= a passenger? You can be a required crew member, or a
something else. What else would it be?

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Guillermo

March 8th 07, 04:28 AM

On Mar 7, 10:15 pm, "Skidder" > wrote:
> On 3/7/2007 7:10:07 PM, "Skidder" wrote:

> You have two pilots, dual controls, both have full control of the aircraft.
> To simplify more, let's say they both have current medicals, and have logged
> at least 100 hours in this specific aircraft in the past. It's just been 95
> days since each have flown.
> What in the regs states that, a pilot with a full set of controls in front of
> him, must be considered a passenger, just because someone else is flying the
> plane.

When you have two pilots on board, they should always agree who the
PIC for the flight should be. Many pilots do not do this.
Only one person can be the PIC of the flight. The other person, as
Jose says, has no other option than to be a considered passenger, what
else could he be? He's not a PIC, he is not a SIC, he's not a required
crewmember. It doesn't matter who's flying the airplane and it doesn't
matter who is in which seat, the non-PIC will be considered a pax.
This has nothing to do with LOGGING pic time, I better not get into
that.

In your scenario, none of the pilots is qualified to ACT as PIC of a
flight with a pax (i.e. an individual who is not the PIC or required
crewmember), per 61.57 (1). so the flight cannot be conducted. Even in
an aircraft where there is a required crewmember the PIC has to be
current as well (also per 61.57 (1))

>
> It's a fair question, and I can't find a clear answer in the regs. But I'm
> not a book worm either. I was just hoping there was enough experience *with
> the regs* somewhere in this group, to locate a definitive answer.
>
> --
> Skidder

C J Campbell

March 8th 07, 04:50 AM

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 18:32:32 -0800, Robert M. Gary wrote
(in article . com>):

> On Mar 7, 6:26 pm, C J Campbell
> > wrote:
> His instructor certificate says "Airplane single and
>> multiengine; instrument airplane." The correct answer is that the instructor
>> may not give instruction in a seaplane, because the commercial certificate
>> is
>> limited to land planes. If the instructor gets a commercial seaplane
>> certificate then he is good to go.
>
> That is another interesting point I spoke with Lynch about before his
> retirement. At the time I held a PP-ASES and CFI-A. My question was,
> 'what reg prohibits me from instructing in a sea plane?". He couldn't
> come up with a good answer. He said it didn't sound right, but no reg
> actually says you must be at a commercial level to instruct (only to
> take a CFI checkride). The question ended up becoming academic because
> I upgraded my SES rating to commercial when my next BFR came up.
>
> -Robert, CFII (land and sea, tailwheel, round dials and glass)
>
>
>

Yeah, I remember you talking about that before. But I think most FSDOs (and
Jeppesen's CFI course also) take the position that I stated.

Your point about the difficulty that MEIs have in staying current is also
good. Personally, I hate to be in a position where any FAA inspector who has
had a bad day can find some excuse to take it out on me.

Some FSDOs have been way over the top. Oakland FSDO actually tried to yank my
instructor's certificate because his 2nd class medical was more than a year
old and he was going to take me up for instrument instruction. The FSDO
argued that not only was I, a PPL at the time, really a passenger, but also
that instruction was a commercial flight and therefore required a 2nd class
medical! This was clearly wrong, but it caused a lot of problems for awhile.
It was a very nasty incident.

My instructor was lucky. Sometimes a FSDO will pull a stunt like this that is
clearly wrong, but when the victim shows up to the hearing the infraction
will be changed to something else. And if that won't stand, they invent
another one. Bob Hoover was a victim of that. Every time he showed up for a
hearing on the emergency revocation of his medical, the FAA had a different
reason for it.

The FAA is in the process of revising part 61 in its entirety. Now would be a
good time to submit your ideas for changes. I have heard of some good ones,
such as getting rid of the high performance sign-off, which accomplishes
basically nothing, and replacing it with a high-speed sign-off which might
actually mean something. Another idea is to simply get rid of the complex
aircraft sign-off and have a retractable gear sign-off instead. After all,
there are a very large number of planes that have controllable pitch
propellers and flaps now, but fixed gear. (Consider the Diamond DA-40, for
example.) And there are some that have retractable gear, but a fixed prop. It
is the gear that is the problem -- so have the sign-off for that only.

Tailwheel aircraft are getting to be rare enough that possibly they should be
like a type rating on the certificate. It is becoming increasingly difficult
to find tailwheel instruction.

And it would be nice to have some actual clarification as to whether
instructors need to have 3 takeoffs and landings in the last 90 days in order
to instruct.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Guillermo

March 8th 07, 04:57 AM

On Mar 7, 9:26 pm, C J Campbell
> wrote:

> It depends. First of all, you are misreading the reg. You have to be current
> in the aircraft to act as PIC of an aircraft carrying passengers. Required
> crewmembers are not passengers. Are both pilots required to fly the airplane?
> If not, the one who is not acting PIC is a passenger.

Even if the aircraft needs two crewmembers, the PIC has to be current,
per 61.57 (1)

> However, an instructor must be qualified and current in an aircraft that he
> is giving instruction in. The instructor actually flies on the basis of his
> commercial certificate, not his instructor certificate. ..... If the instructor gets a commercial seaplane
> certificate then he is good to go.

My interpretation is that he only needs private pilot ASES to instruct
in seaplanes. 61.195 (b) only states that the CFI must hold a pilot
certificate (i.e private or commercial) and flight instructor
appropriate to the category and class rating. It is a little shady
because there is not such thing as CFI airplane sea or CFI airplane
land. According to 61.183, you can get a CFI airplane having a
commercial-ASEL certificate. However, I don't see anything that
prevents that pilot to instruct seaplanes if he is private pilot ASES.
if I am wrong, please point me to the specific reg that prohibits
this.

> Similarly, an instructor may not give instruction in a tailwheel airplane
> unless he has a tailwheel signoff. The moment he gets the signoff he can
> instruct in tailwheel airplanes without getting a new instructor certificate.
> Same goes for other signoffs such as high performance or pressurized planes.

The regs say that he only needs applicable category and class ratings.
However, if he wants to instruct somebody in a taildragger, the
student is probably not endorsed, so if the instructor is not
endorsed, nobody could be the PIC of the flight, so it makes sense
that the CFI has to be tailwheel endorsed, even though its not
specified in the regs.

> So, an instructor may give instruction without a medical, but he may not give
> instruction in an aircraft that he is not allowed to fly at a commercial
> level. That means he has to be current in that aircraft IN ORDER TO GIVE
> INSTRUCTION.

Where can you find this in the regs? If he doesn't need to act as PIC,
he doesn't need to be current. If I am wrong, please give me the
specific regulation that supports what you say.

> If a pilot wants to act as PIC while an instructor gets his landings current,
> that is another matter. As long as the pilot is qualified to act as PIC then
> he can do so for the benefit of the instructor. You let the instructor get
> current on his landings, then the instructor starts giving instruction for
> the insurance check ride. That is done all the time.

March 8th 07, 05:16 AM

I hate bottom posting... but..

"Skidder" > wrote in message
...
> On 3/7/2007 7:15:18 PM, "Tony" wrote:
>>Someone is the pilot in command, and he is not current. He may not
>>carry a PX. Kick the other guy out, do your three landings to a full
>>stop.
>>
>>Now even though you're current, he is not, is he? So you stand around
>>while he makes himself whole in the eyes of the FAA.
>>
>>Now go forth and sin no more!
>>
>>
>
> Can you bottom post, and quote a reference in the regs??
>
> --
> Skidder

61.57, PIC needs 3 landings in 90 days to carry pax

neither one of you has 3 landings.. neither one of you can be PIC

one is a PAX, the other is PIC, non current PIC cannot carry PAX

go solo.

As for second pilot... to "act as PIC" when not at the controls, the
aircraft must require a second pilot.
Unless he is under the hood for his touch and goes, the aircraft does not
require a second pilot to ACT as PIC.

He needs to go solo too... other wise, who ever flew first and is now
current, is really only only a PAX as a second pilot is not required in this
situation. (assuming ASEL)

second pilot goes solo

BT

"Skidder" > wrote in message
...
> On 3/7/2007 7:10:07 PM, "Skidder" wrote:
>>As we all know, you can't carry a passenger unless you are current. But if
>>two pilots get in an aircraft with dual controls, can either of them
>>really
>>be considered a passenger? You can log PIC from either seat.
>>
>>Lets say, I have a PPL but am not current. My best friend has a PPL but is
>>not current. Both of us have a current medical? Is it legal for both of us
>>to
>>get in an aircraft with dual controls, at the same time, shoot 6 take offs
>>and landings, 3 each, and log ourselves as current and split the flying
>>time
>>in our logs?
>>
>>Would be both absolutely have to have a current medical?
>>
>>He is an attorney and says the way he reads the regs, that it's not
>>exactly
>>clear. I myself don't know, but thought the group might enjoy debating the
>>question.
>>
>>Along the same lines, if a PPL *is* current. Can he go for insurance check
>>ride with an instructor that is not, or doesn't have a current medilcal?
>>
>>
>
> Ok, first things first, I am not a troll, and this is a very legitimate
> question that could be applicable to lots of flyers.
>
> Second, were all over the place here. MEIs, seaplanes, instructor without
> medicals, you can't be PIC unless you are current (who's pic when you do
> your
> currency work), ......sheesh guys let's keep our eyes on the ball.
>
> You have two pilots, dual controls, both have full control of the
> aircraft.
> To simplify more, let's say they both have current medicals, and have
> logged
> at least 100 hours in this specific aircraft in the past. It's just been
> 95
> days since each have flown.
>
> What in the regs states that, a pilot with a full set of controls in front
> of
> him, must be considered a passenger, just because someone else is flying
> the
> plane.
>
> It's a fair question, and I can't find a clear answer in the regs. But I'm
> not a book worm either. I was just hoping there was enough experience
> *with
> the regs* somewhere in this group, to locate a definitive answer.
>
>
> --
> Skidder

Skidder

March 8th 07, 05:17 AM

>I think there is a reg that says if the crew position is not required, the
>person is a pax.

I've never seen one. Has anyone else?

For example a non-current person can be a safety pilot for
>practicing IFR. Just because the plane has dual controls, it doesn't mean
>the airplane requires a second it command.

I don't think it would have to. The regs don't specify which side of the
plane have to you sit on, when you log your tuch and gos.

--
Skidder

Skidder

March 8th 07, 05:26 AM

It doesn't matter who's flying the airplane and it doesn't
>matter who is in which seat, the non-PIC will be considered a pax.

What reg establishes this?

>
>In your scenario, none of the pilots is qualified to ACT as PIC of a
>flight with a pax (i.e. an individual who is not the PIC or required
>crewmember), per 61.57 (1). so the flight cannot be conducted. Even in
>an aircraft where there is a required crewmember the PIC has to be
>current as well (also per 61.57 (1))

Not until we find a reg that stipulates the second pilot is a pax.

--
Skidder

Tom L.

March 8th 07, 05:47 AM

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 21:15:14 -0600, "Skidder" >
wrote:

>...
>
>You have two pilots, dual controls, both have full control of the aircraft.
>To simplify more, let's say they both have current medicals, and have logged
>at least 100 hours in this specific aircraft in the past. It's just been 95
>days since each have flown.
>
>What in the regs states that, a pilot with a full set of controls in front of
>him, must be considered a passenger, just because someone else is flying the
>plane.
>
>It's a fair question, and I can't find a clear answer in the regs. But I'm
>not a book worm either. I was just hoping there was enough experience *with
>the regs* somewhere in this group, to locate a definitive answer.

It seems to me that FAR 61.57(a)(2) would apply here.

"For the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1)
[..that would be the 3 takeoffs & landings..] of this section, a
person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft under day VFR or
day IFR, provided no persons or property are carried on board the
aircraft, other than those necessary for the conduct of the flight."

So doesn't matter whether the other pilot is considered a passenger,
he just shouldn't be there if he's not necessary for the flight.

- Tom

Crash Lander[_1_]

March 8th 07, 05:54 AM

"Tom L." > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 21:15:14 -0600, "Skidder" >
> "For the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1)
> [..that would be the 3 takeoffs & landings..]

These 3 take offs and landings. They don't mean 3 touch and goes do they?
They mean take off, land, taxi back to active, take off, land, taxi back to
active, take off, land, pick up passenger, taxi to active, take off.
Correct?
Oz/Crash Lander

Guillermo

March 8th 07, 06:00 AM

On Mar 8, 12:26 am, "Skidder" > wrote:
> It doesn't matter who's flying the airplane and it doesn't
>
> >matter who is in which seat, the non-PIC will be considered a pax.
>
> What reg establishes this?

Unfortunately, I could not find the definition of "Passenger" in the
FAR.
I would say though, that in an aircraft, you can have two types of
people:
Passengers and crewmembers. (I couldn't find anything in the regs that
supports this either, but I don't see how it could be other way)

However, there is a definition of crewmember in FAR 1.1

Crewmember: "person assigned to perform a duty during flightime"

So you could get by with assigning a duty to the other pilot, and
he'll be a crewmember.
However next time I am not current and I need to take a friend flying,
I could also tell him: "hey, you are in charge of handing me the
charts whenever I request them"
So now he's also a crewmember per FAR 1.1. He doesn't need to be
qualified because he's not a required crewmember, but I assigned him
duties.

I doubt the FSDO would be happy with either of these arguments,
though.

> >In your scenario, none of the pilots is qualified to ACT as PIC of a
> >flight with a pax (i.e. an individual who is not the PIC or required
> >crewmember), per 61.57 (1). so the flight cannot be conducted. Even in
> >an aircraft where there is a required crewmember the PIC has to be
> >current as well (also per 61.57 (1))
>
> Not until we find a reg that stipulates the second pilot is a pax.
>
> --
> Skidder

Tom L.

March 8th 07, 06:06 AM

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 05:54:59 GMT, "Crash Lander" >
wrote:

>"Tom L." > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 21:15:14 -0600, "Skidder" >
>> "For the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1)
>> [..that would be the 3 takeoffs & landings..]
>
>These 3 take offs and landings. They don't mean 3 touch and goes do they?
>They mean take off, land, taxi back to active, take off, land, taxi back to
>active, take off, land, pick up passenger, taxi to active, take off.
>Correct?
>Oz/Crash Lander
>

Touch and go is all that's required for day operations.

Night landings for currency have to be to full stop. 61.57(b)(1)

- Tom

Guillermo

March 8th 07, 06:08 AM

On Mar 8, 12:54 am, "Crash Lander" > wrote:
> "Tom L." > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 21:15:14 -0600, "Skidder" >
> > "For the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1)
> > [..that would be the 3 takeoffs & landings..]
>
> These 3 take offs and landings. They don't mean 3 touch and goes do they?
> They mean take off, land, taxi back to active, take off, land, taxi back to
> active, take off, land, pick up passenger, taxi to active, take off.
> Correct?
> Oz/Crash Lander

No, you don't need to do any of that for it to be considered a
landing.

A touch and go is composed of a landing and a take-off. Your wheel
touched the asphalt/grass, (i.e. you landed) and then took off
immediately after landing.

If you want to be night current, per 61.57 (b) the landings have to be
to a full stop. That means that you have to stop the aircraft after
landing. You can then take off immediately after that. This is known
as a "Stop and go".

Morgans[_2_]

March 8th 07, 06:19 AM

"Skidder" > wrote

> Ok, first things first, I am not a troll, and this is a very legitimate
> question that could be applicable to lots of flyers.

I was just hoping there was enough experience *with
> the regs* somewhere in this group, to locate a definitive answer.

For someone who is not a troll, this above wording is almost exactly what MX
would have said.

Why do you need the specific? If you had ever read the regs at all, you
would have read about "required crew members" in multiple places. If you are
not a required crew member, or an instructor, you are a passenger. Period.
Sheesh.

PLONK

Jay Beckman

March 8th 07, 07:09 AM

"Crash Lander" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom L." > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 21:15:14 -0600, "Skidder" >
>> "For the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1)
>> [..that would be the 3 takeoffs & landings..]
>
> These 3 take offs and landings. They don't mean 3 touch and goes do they?
> They mean take off, land, taxi back to active, take off, land, taxi back
> to active, take off, land, pick up passenger, taxi to active, take off.
> Correct?
> Oz/Crash Lander
>
The US FARs allow T/Gs for daylight landings...

Night must be full stop (but not taxi back if you have enough runway...)

Jay B

Jay Beckman

March 8th 07, 07:10 AM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Skidder" > wrote
>
>> Ok, first things first, I am not a troll, and this is a very legitimate
>> question that could be applicable to lots of flyers.
>
> I was just hoping there was enough experience *with
>> the regs* somewhere in this group, to locate a definitive answer.
>
> For someone who is not a troll, this above wording is almost exactly what
> MX would have said.
>
> Why do you need the specific? If you had ever read the regs at all, you
> would have read about "required crew members" in multiple places. If you
> are not a required crew member, or an instructor, you are a passenger.
> Period. Sheesh.
>
> PLONK
>

Interesting that when I also PLONKED "Skidder", my OE took quite a while to
run through all the cached posts.

Methinks Skidder just might be The Albatross in disguise.

Jay B

Jim Macklin

March 8th 07, 07:45 AM

If you're not current to carry a passenger and the aircraft
does not require two pilots, then one of the pilots onboard
must be current to have a legal flight. That pilot must be
PIC and does not have to be a CFI.
The pilot getting current must make the required TO&L and
can log that time as PIC.

Once three TO&L have been done [and logged] the pilot is
current to carry passengers. The CFI can log the landings
for his/her currency w/o ever touching the controls and w/o
a medical. But as I understand it, unless the "passenger"
is a CFI, legal to be PIC with a medical, the sole
manipulator PIC must be fully current. Or in a LSA.

"Skidder" > wrote in message
...
| On 3/7/2007 7:10:07 PM, "Skidder" wrote:
| >As we all know, you can't carry a passenger unless you
are current. But if
| >two pilots get in an aircraft with dual controls, can
either of them really
| >be considered a passenger? You can log PIC from either
seat.
| >
| >Lets say, I have a PPL but am not current. My best friend
has a PPL but is
| >not current. Both of us have a current medical? Is it
legal for both of us to
| >get in an aircraft with dual controls, at the same time,
shoot 6 take offs
| >and landings, 3 each, and log ourselves as current and
split the flying time
| >in our logs?
| >
| >Would be both absolutely have to have a current medical?
| >
| >He is an attorney and says the way he reads the regs,
that it's not exactly
| >clear. I myself don't know, but thought the group might
enjoy debating the
| >question.
| >
| >Along the same lines, if a PPL *is* current. Can he go
for insurance check
| >ride with an instructor that is not, or doesn't have a
current medilcal?
| >
| >
|
| Ok, first things first, I am not a troll, and this is a
very legitimate
| question that could be applicable to lots of flyers.
|
| Second, were all over the place here. MEIs, seaplanes,
instructor without
| medicals, you can't be PIC unless you are current (who's
pic when you do your
| currency work), ......sheesh guys let's keep our eyes on
the ball.
|
| You have two pilots, dual controls, both have full control
of the aircraft.
| To simplify more, let's say they both have current
medicals, and have logged
| at least 100 hours in this specific aircraft in the past.
It's just been 95
| days since each have flown.
|
| What in the regs states that, a pilot with a full set of
controls in front of
| him, must be considered a passenger, just because someone
else is flying the
| plane.
|
| It's a fair question, and I can't find a clear answer in
the regs. But I'm
| not a book worm either. I was just hoping there was enough
experience *with
| the regs* somewhere in this group, to locate a definitive
answer.
|
|
| --
| Skidder
|

Jon Kraus

March 8th 07, 11:48 AM

Tony wrote:

> do your three landings to a full stop.
>

Why? Full stop landings are not required except at night.

Jon Kraus

Judah

March 8th 07, 01:02 PM

"Skidder" > wrote in
:

> As we all know, you can't carry a passenger unless you are current. But
> if two pilots get in an aircraft with dual controls, can either of them
> really be considered a passenger? You can log PIC from either seat.
>
> Lets say, I have a PPL but am not current. My best friend has a PPL but
> is not current. Both of us have a current medical? Is it legal for both
> of us to get in an aircraft with dual controls, at the same time, shoot
> 6 take offs and landings, 3 each, and log ourselves as current and split
> the flying time in our logs?
>
> Would be both absolutely have to have a current medical?

Who is PIC when pilot #1 is flying the plane?

What role is pilot #2 playing when pilot #1 is flying the plane? Is he a
required crew member? Is he manipulating the controls?

If pilot #2 were sitting in the back seat instead of the front seat during
the flight would his role as passenger be any more or less clear?

I think the answers are pretty cut and dry, and your attorney friend is just
trying to play loophole games with the regs because that's what attorneys do,
and it's convenient for him.

Skidder

March 8th 07, 01:37 PM

On 3/7/2007 11:47:45 PM, Tom L. wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 21:15:14 -0600, "Skidder" >
>wrote:
>
>>...
>>
>>You have two pilots, dual controls, both have full control of the aircraft.
>>To simplify more, let's say they both have current medicals, and have logged
>>at least 100 hours in this specific aircraft in the past. It's just been 95
>>days since each have flown.
>>
>>What in the regs states that, a pilot with a full set of controls in front of
>>him, must be considered a passenger, just because someone else is flying the
>>plane.
>>
>>It's a fair question, and I can't find a clear answer in the regs. But I'm
>>not a book worm either. I was just hoping there was enough experience *with
>>the regs* somewhere in this group, to locate a definitive answer.
>
>It seems to me that FAR 61.57(a)(2) would apply here.
>
>"For the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1)
>[..that would be the 3 takeoffs & landings..] of this section, a
>person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft under day VFR or
>day IFR, provided no persons or property are carried on board the
>aircraft, other than those necessary for the conduct of the flight."
>
>So doesn't matter whether the other pilot is considered a passenger,
>he just shouldn't be there if he's not necessary for the flight.
>
>- Tom
>

That's correct, and I read the FAR the same way. But it puts us in a loop
because the entire focus 61.57 is the currency required to carry
*passengers*. My point is, another pilot with a full set of controls in front
of him is not defined anywhere as a passenger. Furthermore, nothing says that
anyone present in an aircraft that only requires one pilot, has to be
considered a passenger.

--
Skidder

Skidder

March 8th 07, 01:41 PM

On 3/8/2007 12:19:17 AM, "Morgans" wrote:
>
>"Skidder" > wrote
>
>> Ok, first things first, I am not a troll, and this is a very legitimate
>> question that could be applicable to lots of flyers.
>
> I was just hoping there was enough experience *with
>> the regs* somewhere in this group, to locate a definitive answer.
>
>For someone who is not a troll, this above wording is almost exactly what MX
>would have said.
>
>Why do you need the specific? If you had ever read the regs at all, you
>would have read about "required crew members" in multiple places. If you are
>not a required crew member, or an instructor, you are a passenger. Period.
>Sheesh.
>
>PLONK
>
>

Oh really. At what point have I insulted anyone, or encouraged an arguement.
If anything I would have to say you are the troll here because you want to
cause and arguement, when you have nothing to add to the discussion.

Or perhaps you just want to disturb or sabatoge the thread because you don't
personally happen to like the question.

--
Skidder

Skidder

March 8th 07, 01:43 PM

>>
>
>Interesting that when I also PLONKED "Skidder", my OE took quite a while to
>run through all the cached posts.
>
>Methinks Skidder just might be The Albatross in disguise.
>
>Jay B
>
>

Thanks troll.

--
Skidder

Skidder

March 8th 07, 01:53 PM

On 3/8/2007 1:45:33 AM, "Jim Macklin" wrote:
>If you're not current to carry a passenger and the aircraft
>does not require two pilots, then one of the pilots onboard
>must be current to have a legal flight. That pilot must be
>PIC and does not have to be a CFI.
>The pilot getting current must make the required TO&L and
>can log that time as PIC.
>
>Once three TO&L have been done [and logged] the pilot is
>current to carry passengers. The CFI can log the landings
>for his/her currency w/o ever touching the controls and w/o
>a medical. But as I understand it, unless the "passenger"
>is a CFI, legal to be PIC with a medical, the sole
>manipulator PIC must be fully current. Or in a LSA.
>
>

I appreciate your input Jim, but the regs don't say that. It says you have to
be current to carry a passenger. It does not say you have to be current to
carry another pilot seeking currency, or that anyone in an aircraft that
requires only one pilot, has to be considered a passenger.

--
Skidder

Judah

March 8th 07, 01:56 PM

"Skidder" > wrote in
:

> What in the regs states that, a pilot with a full set of controls in
> front of him, must be considered a passenger, just because someone else
> is flying the plane.

What in the regs says a pilot with a full set of controls in front of him is
considered pilot in command of an aircraft?

There is mention of "SOLE MANIPULATOR of controls". But if one of the pilots is
the sole manipulator of the controls, what is the other pilot doing, except
being a passenger?

C J Campbell

March 8th 07, 02:04 PM

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 20:57:26 -0800, Guillermo wrote
(in article . com>):

> On Mar 7, 9:26 pm, C J Campbell
> > wrote:
>
>> It depends. First of all, you are misreading the reg. You have to be current
>> in the aircraft to act as PIC of an aircraft carrying passengers. Required
>> crewmembers are not passengers. Are both pilots required to fly the
>> airplane?
>> If not, the one who is not acting PIC is a passenger.
>
> Even if the aircraft needs two crewmembers, the PIC has to be current,
> per 61.57 (1)
>

Right. The PIC has to be current in an aircraft that is certificated for more
than one crewmember. However, a safety pilot is probably not flying in such
an aircraft. Neither is an instructor. 61.57 (2) appears to allow that a
safety pilot might be on board:

(a) General experience. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this
section, no person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft carrying
passengers or of an aircraft certificated for more than one pilot flight
crewmember unless that person has made at least three takeoffs and three
landings within the preceding 90 days, and‹
(i) The person acted as the sole manipulator of the flight controls; and
(ii) The required takeoffs and landings were performed in an aircraft of the
same category, class, and type (if a type rating is required), and, if the
aircraft to be flown is an airplane with a tailwheel, the takeoffs and
landings must have been made to a full stop in an airplane with a tailwheel.
(2) For the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, a person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft under day VFR
or day IFR, provided no persons or property are carried on board the
aircraft, other than those necessary for the conduct of the flight.
(3) The takeoffs and landings required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section
may be accomplished in a flight simulator or flight training device that is‹
(i) Approved by the Administrator for landings; and
(ii) Used in accordance with an approved course conducted by a training
center certificated under part 142 of this chapter.

>> However, an instructor must be qualified and current in an aircraft that he
>> is giving instruction in. The instructor actually flies on the basis of his
>> commercial certificate, not his instructor certificate. ..... If the
>> instructor gets a commercial seaplane
>> certificate then he is good to go.
>
> My interpretation is that he only needs private pilot ASES to instruct
> in seaplanes. 61.195 (b) only states that the CFI must hold a pilot
> certificate (i.e private or commercial) and flight instructor
> appropriate to the category and class rating. It is a little shady
> because there is not such thing as CFI airplane sea or CFI airplane
> land. According to 61.183, you can get a CFI airplane having a
> commercial-ASEL certificate. However, I don't see anything that
> prevents that pilot to instruct seaplanes if he is private pilot ASES.
> if I am wrong, please point me to the specific reg that prohibits
> this.

Your interpretation is at odds with Jeppesen's flight instructor course and
with the interpretation of most FSDOs. We have already noted the absence of a
specific reg that says this.

>
>> Similarly, an instructor may not give instruction in a tailwheel airplane
>> unless he has a tailwheel signoff. The moment he gets the signoff he can
>> instruct in tailwheel airplanes without getting a new instructor
>> certificate.
>> Same goes for other signoffs such as high performance or pressurized planes.
>
> The regs say that he only needs applicable category and class ratings.
> However, if he wants to instruct somebody in a taildragger, the
> student is probably not endorsed, so if the instructor is not
> endorsed, nobody could be the PIC of the flight, so it makes sense
> that the CFI has to be tailwheel endorsed, even though its not
> specified in the regs.
>

Actually, where this usually comes up is where the instructor is giving a BFR
to somebody who owns a taildragger. You are correct; it is not specified in
the regulations, but it is the most common position taken by local FSDOs.

>> So, an instructor may give instruction without a medical, but he may not
>> give
>> instruction in an aircraft that he is not allowed to fly at a commercial
>> level. That means he has to be current in that aircraft IN ORDER TO GIVE
>> INSTRUCTION.
>
> Where can you find this in the regs? If he doesn't need to act as PIC,
> he doesn't need to be current. If I am wrong, please give me the
> specific regulation that supports what you say.
>

Again, we already noted the absence of a regulation. It is up to individual
FSDOs to rule on it. The irritating thing about this is that even the old
Part 61 FAQ gave contradicting rules on this. This is definitely a section
that needs to be re-worked.

What it comes down to is you may technically be right. In fact, I have made
the same arguments that you have. However, you can argue with an inspector
until you are blue in the face and you will lose.

>> If a pilot wants to act as PIC while an instructor gets his landings
>> current,
>> that is another matter. As long as the pilot is qualified to act as PIC then
>> he can do so for the benefit of the instructor. You let the instructor get
>> current on his landings, then the instructor starts giving instruction for
>> the insurance check ride. That is done all the time.
>
>
>

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Travis Marlatte

March 8th 07, 02:21 PM

"Skidder" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not until we find a reg that stipulates the second pilot is a pax.
>
> --
> Skidder

I think that's asking a bit much. Why would there be such a reg? The vast
majority of laws, guidelines and beliefs in our society define requirements
to be an "X." Why would we need to continue, then, to clarify the
requirements for not being an "X?"

We have the sole manipulator of the controls (PIC) and we have a person
responsible for the flight (loggable PIC). That's usually the same person
but, by negative inference, everyone else is a passenger - unless one of
them is a CFI in which case they get blamed for everything even if they are
in the back seat. (that's a bad joke that has seen the light of day)
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

Travis Marlatte

March 8th 07, 02:24 PM

"Skidder" > wrote in message
...
> That's correct, and I read the FAR the same way. But it puts us in a loop
> because the entire focus 61.57 is the currency required to carry
> *passengers*. My point is, another pilot with a full set of controls in
> front
> of him is not defined anywhere as a passenger. Furthermore, nothing says
> that
> anyone present in an aircraft that only requires one pilot, has to be
> considered a passenger.
>
> Skidder

You're grasping. The regs do define what it means to be a PIC, SIC or
required crew member. Why would they need to define what it means to not be.
That's silly.

-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

Judah

March 8th 07, 02:29 PM

"Skidder" > wrote in
:

> That's correct, and I read the FAR the same way. But it puts us in a
> loop because the entire focus 61.57 is the currency required to carry
> *passengers*. My point is, another pilot with a full set of controls in
> front of him is not defined anywhere as a passenger. Furthermore,
> nothing says that anyone present in an aircraft that only requires one
> pilot, has to be considered a passenger.

I don't understand why you think that a person sitting in the passenger's
seat who happens to hold a pilot's certificate is anything different than a
person who happens to not hold a pilot's certificate.

If he holds an ATP does that make the flight part 121 airline transport?

Judah

March 8th 07, 02:40 PM

"Skidder" > wrote in
:

> I appreciate your input Jim, but the regs don't say that. It says you
> have to be current to carry a passenger. It does not say you have to be
> current to carry another pilot seeking currency, or that anyone in an
> aircraft that requires only one pilot, has to be considered a passenger.

Actually, the regs (61.57) prohibit a pilot from acting as THE PILOT IN
COMMAND of a flight if he has not, as sole manipulator of the flight
controls, performed 3 takeoffs and landings within the preceding 90 days.

Furthermore, according to section (2), if he is out of currency, he may act
as THE PIC of a flight under day VFR or IFR, *** provided no persons or
property are carried on board the aircraft, other than those necessary for
the conduct of the flight. ***

In what way is pilot #2 necessary for the conduct of the flight?

http://tinyurl.com/2n5epj

For further clarification, the PILOT IN COMMAND of an aircraft is defined
in 91.3

"(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and
is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft."

There can only be 1 final authority. There is only one Pilot in Command of
the aircraft, even if there are 100 other pilots in the plane.

http://tinyurl.com/2v9266

Travis Marlatte

March 8th 07, 02:43 PM

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> If you're not current to carry a passenger and the aircraft
> does not require two pilots, then one of the pilots onboard
> must be current to have a legal flight. That pilot must be
> PIC and does not have to be a CFI.
> The pilot getting current must make the required TO&L and
> can log that time as PIC.
>
> Once three TO&L have been done [and logged] the pilot is
> current to carry passengers. The CFI can log the landings
> for his/her currency w/o ever touching the controls and w/o
> a medical. But as I understand it, unless the "passenger"
> is a CFI, legal to be PIC with a medical, the sole
> manipulator PIC must be fully current. Or in a LSA.
>
>

Huh? Your first paragraph says that the non-flying pilot doesn't have to be
CFI. Your second paragraph says that the non-flying pilot does (I think).
Maybe that was two options - either the non-flying pilot is a CFI or is a
non-CFI current to be PIC.

The discussion was about two non-current pilots going up together. I agree
that doesn't work. But, a non-current pilot could go up with a current pilot
(not CFI) and, as sole manipulator of the controls become current.

To be clear: non-current pilot A and current pilot B (not CFI). Pilot A
pre-flights, climbs in the left seat. Pilot B gets in the right seat. Pilot
A starts, taxiis, takes off, flys the pattern three times, taxiis back in.
Pilot B never touched the controls but was legal PIC for practically the
whole flight and logs it as such. Pilot A could not be PIC (i.e. a
passenger) until the third landing. Pilot A cannot log PIC even though he
was sole manipulator because he was not current to carry passengers until
after the third landing.

-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

Judah

March 8th 07, 02:50 PM

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in
t:

> [snip] unless
> one of them is a CFI in which case they get blamed for everything even
> if they are in the back seat. (that's a bad joke that has seen the light
> of day)

Unless the pilot in the left seat is a professional ball player, in which
case the CFI doesn't get blamed but the propeller manufacturer does.

C J Campbell

March 8th 07, 03:33 PM

Bob Moore

March 8th 07, 03:39 PM

Judah wrote
> What role is pilot #2 playing when pilot #1 is flying the plane? Is he
> a required crew member? Is he manipulating the controls?
>
> If pilot #2 were sitting in the back seat instead of the front seat
> during the flight would his role as passenger be any more or less
> clear?
>
> I think the answers are pretty cut and dry, and your attorney friend
> is just trying to play loophole games with the regs because that's
> what attorneys do, and it's convenient for him.

I frequently fly with my neighbor/aircraft owner/Private Pilot in his
Cessna 172.
I almost always occupy the front/right seat when either he or another
Private Pilot friend is flying the airplane (a/c owner in back seat).
I am very relieved to hear that (by your reasoning), I am just a
"passenger" and that my Flight Instructor Certificate and ATP will not
come under FAA scrutiny if one of the others bends the airplane or
violates a regulation.

HEY!! I'm not a crewmember....just a passenger. :-)

Bob Moore

Bob Moore

March 8th 07, 03:50 PM

C J Campbell wrote
> The regs also say that anyone who is not a required crewmember is a
> passenger.

Not true JC.

From FAR Part 1

Crewmember means a person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft
during flight time. "required or not" my comment.

Flightcrew member means a pilot, flight engineer, or flight navigator
assigned to duty in an aircraft during flight time.

The following is an interesting disseration:

http://www.aircareaccess.com/FAValue101.pdf

Bob Moore
CFII ATP

Jose

March 8th 07, 04:11 PM

> That means that you have to stop the aircraft after
> landing. You can then take off immediately after that. This is known
> as a "Stop and go".

Do consider runway remaining when deciding to do it that way. :)

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

RST Engineering

March 8th 07, 05:49 PM

I have a few questions/comments myself of Skidder ...

1. Are you msxmaniac in drag?

2. We don't call people who sit in the left front seat "flyers". Nobody
from the greenest student up calls them that.

3. were <> we're

4. Dual controls do NOT imply full control of the aircraft. One person or
the other has full control, and we call that person Pilot In Command. The
other person is called a passenger. I could be flying with Hoover or
Yeager, and if it is MY plane and I'M the PIC, they are passengers.

5. People in this NG that have more hours flying and instructing in aircraft
than you have in bed have given you a correct answer that you apparently are
unwilling to accept. Deal with it.

6. Nothing in the regs is clear. They were written by lawyers specifically
so that they could be "bent" to fit the occasion as suits the FAA. Deal
with it. The scenario that you present, however, is crystal clear.

Jim

"Skidder" > wrote in message
...
> On 3/7/2007 7:10:07 PM, "Skidder" wrote:

>
> Ok, first things first, I am not a troll, and this is a very legitimate
> question that could be applicable to lots of flyers.
>
> Second, were all over the place here. MEIs, seaplanes, instructor without
> medicals, you can't be PIC unless you are current (who's pic when you do
> your
> currency work), ......sheesh guys let's keep our eyes on the ball.
>
> You have two pilots, dual controls, both have full control of the
> aircraft.
> To simplify more, let's say they both have current medicals, and have
> logged
> at least 100 hours in this specific aircraft in the past. It's just been
> 95
> days since each have flown.
>
> What in the regs states that, a pilot with a full set of controls in front
> of
> him, must be considered a passenger, just because someone else is flying
> the
> plane.
>
> It's a fair question, and I can't find a clear answer in the regs. But I'm
> not a book worm either. I was just hoping there was enough experience
> *with
> the regs* somewhere in this group, to locate a definitive answer.
>
>
> --
> Skidder

RST Engineering

March 8th 07, 05:52 PM

And the reg goes on to state "... REQUIRED crewmember". Unless the TC for
the aircraft requires two pilots, the person handing you the charts is a
crewmember who happens to be a passenger, not a REQUIRED crewmember.

Jim

> Crewmember: "person assigned to perform a duty during flightime"
>

RST Engineering

March 8th 07, 05:54 PM

Then screw it, top post. Just because somebody asks you to do something is
no reason for you to do it if you don't want to.

Jim

"BT" > wrote in message
...

>I hate bottom posting... but..

RST Engineering

March 8th 07, 05:57 PM

That's an interesting hiccup I've never considered before. You land. You
turn off onto the taxiway, you taxi to the approach end of the runway, no
traffice, so you keep rolling and take off. Where did the "full stop"
occur?

Jim

"Tom L." > wrote in message
...

>
> Night landings for currency have to be to full stop. 61.57(b)(1)
>
> - Tom

Skidder

March 8th 07, 06:06 PM

On 3/8/2007 8:29:28 AM, Judah wrote:
>"Skidder" > wrote in
:
>

>I don't understand why you think that a person sitting in the passenger's
>seat who happens to hold a pilot's certificate is anything different than a
>person who happens to not hold a pilot's certificate.

Safety pilot.

>
>If he holds an ATP does that make the flight part 121 airline transport?

No clue, but that's not my question anyway.

--
Skidder

Skidder

March 8th 07, 06:10 PM

>
>You're grasping. The regs do define what it means to be a PIC, SIC or
>required crew member. Why would they need to define what it means to not be.
>That's silly.
>

Well I really don't mean to be, and I'm really not trying to start an
arguement among friends.

However, it seems very plausable to me that either pilot could be considered
a safety pilot for the other for the purpose of traffic and collision
avoidance alone. I'm told that is acrually so for IFR currancy but I don't
recall actually reading it myself.

--
Skidder

Skidder

March 8th 07, 06:16 PM

On 3/8/2007 8:40:50 AM, Judah wrote:
>"Skidder" > wrote in
:
>
>> I appreciate your input Jim, but the regs don't say that. It says you
>> have to be current to carry a passenger. It does not say you have to be
>> current to carry another pilot seeking currency, or that anyone in an
>> aircraft that requires only one pilot, has to be considered a passenger.
>
>Actually, the regs (61.57) prohibit a pilot from acting as THE PILOT IN
>COMMAND of a flight if he has not, as sole manipulator of the flight
>controls, performed 3 takeoffs and landings within the preceding 90 days.

Keep reading. You left out the part that says for the purpose of carring
passengers, not instructors, examiners and safety pilots.

>Furthermore, according to section (2), if he is out of currency, he may act
>as THE PIC of a flight under day VFR or IFR, *** provided no persons or
>property are carried on board the aircraft, other than those necessary for
>the conduct of the flight. ***
>
>In what way is pilot #2 necessary for the conduct of the flight?

He clearly is not. But the entire content of 61.57 is the purpose of
excluding *passengers* unless currency requirements are met.

>
>For further clarification, the PILOT IN COMMAND of an aircraft is defined
>in 91.3
>
>"(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and
>is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft."
>
>There can only be 1 final authority. There is only one Pilot in Command of
>the aircraft, even if there are 100 other pilots in the plane.

I don't disagree with that either, but I don't think that is relative.

--
Skidder

Skidder

March 8th 07, 06:22 PM

On 3/8/2007 7:56:29 AM, Judah wrote:
>"Skidder" > wrote in
:
>
>> What in the regs states that, a pilot with a full set of controls in
>> front of him, must be considered a passenger, just because someone else
>> is flying the plane.
>
>What in the regs says a pilot with a full set of controls in front of him is
>considered pilot in command of an aircraft?

I didn't say he was PIC, that's a different issue.

>
>There is mention of "SOLE MANIPULATOR of controls". But if one of the pilots is
>the sole manipulator of the controls, what is the other pilot doing, except
>being a passenger?

He could easily be considered a safety pilot. Nice to have an extra set of
trained eyes, especially at night.

--
Skidder

Skidder

March 8th 07, 06:25 PM

On 3/8/2007 9:32:58 AM, C J Campbell wrote:

>Actually, what the regs say is that you cannot act as PIC in an airplane
>carrying passengers if you have not made the three takeoffs and landings
>and/or your medical is not current. Whether you log PIC is another matter
>entirely, having almost nothing to do with acting as PIC. Instructors giving
>instruction, for example, always log PIC even if they are not allowed to act
>as PIC.
>
>The regs also say that anyone who is not a required crewmember is a
>passenger.

I haven't seen this one, which one is it? I think that would clarify a great
deal.

>
>So, unless you both are required crewmembers, the pilot who is not acting PIC
>is a passenger. A safety pilot on an instrument training flight would be a
>required crewmember. An instructor giving instruction would be a required
>crewmember.
>

--
Skidder

Jose

March 8th 07, 06:53 PM

> That's an interesting hiccup I've never considered before. You land. You
> turn off onto the taxiway, you taxi to the approach end of the runway, no
> traffice, so you keep rolling and take off. Where did the "full stop"
> occur?

It didn't. So that one doesn't count. (At least the landing doesn't.)
I always stop somewhere when I do these.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose

March 8th 07, 06:55 PM

> However, it seems very plausable to me that either pilot could be considered
> a safety pilot for the other for the purpose of traffic and collision
> avoidance alone. I'm told that is acrually so for IFR currancy but I don't
> recall actually reading it myself.

A safety pilot is a required crewmember when the pilot flying is under
the hood. However, when the pilot flying is not under the hood, the
safety pilot is not a required crewmember. That makes him a passenger.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Judah

March 8th 07, 07:09 PM

Bob Moore > wrote in
46.128:

> Judah wrote
>> What role is pilot #2 playing when pilot #1 is flying the plane? Is he
>> a required crew member? Is he manipulating the controls?
>>
>> If pilot #2 were sitting in the back seat instead of the front seat
>> during the flight would his role as passenger be any more or less
>> clear?
>>
>> I think the answers are pretty cut and dry, and your attorney friend
>> is just trying to play loophole games with the regs because that's
>> what attorneys do, and it's convenient for him.
>
> I frequently fly with my neighbor/aircraft owner/Private Pilot in his
> Cessna 172.
> I almost always occupy the front/right seat when either he or another
> Private Pilot friend is flying the airplane (a/c owner in back seat).
> I am very relieved to hear that (by your reasoning), I am just a
> "passenger" and that my Flight Instructor Certificate and ATP will not
> come under FAA scrutiny if one of the others bends the airplane or
> violates a regulation.
>
> HEY!! I'm not a crewmember....just a passenger. :-)
>
> Bob Moore

If at the time you are instructing the person in the front/left seat who
happens to be sole manipulator of the controls, who has the final authority
with respect to the flight?

If it is you, because, for example, the guy in the left seat doesn't have
the necessary currency or ratings to allow him to be responsible, then I
would say you are PIC and you are responsible.

If it is not you, and the guy in the left seat is current and has every
right to accept full responsibility for the flight, then I would say you're
just a passenger who happens to have a lot of experience and knowledge
sitting in the right seat talking some.

I suspect that the FAA will still try to come after you (and perhaps after
the propellor manufacturer as well). But I don't think that has anything to
do with whether you are a required crewmember or acting as PIC...

Is there something I am missing that would imply otherwise?

Skidder

March 8th 07, 07:14 PM

>
>A safety pilot is a required crewmember when the pilot flying is under
>the hood. However, when the pilot flying is not under the hood, the
>safety pilot is not a required crewmember. That makes him a passenger.
>

Is there a reg that states that?

It has always been my understanding that if something is not prohibited by
written law, it's not illegal, and therefor permitted.

--
Skidder

Jose

March 8th 07, 08:03 PM

>> A safety pilot is a required crewmember when the pilot flying is under
>> the hood. However, when the pilot flying is not under the hood, the
>> safety pilot is not a required crewmember. That makes him a passenger.
>
> Is there a reg that states that?
>
> It has always been my understanding that if something is not prohibited by
> written law, it's not illegal, and therefor permitted.

There is case law, and case law is written (though in the FAA's case,
sometimes I think they make it up as they go along, but don't get me
started). There may be a reg that states it too, but I'm too lazy to
look it up.

In any case, it is =not= true that the only regs are the ones you study.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Gig 601XL Builder

March 8th 07, 08:30 PM

Skidder wrote:
> On 3/8/2007 8:29:28 AM, Judah wrote:
>> "Skidder" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>
>> I don't understand why you think that a person sitting in the
>> passenger's seat who happens to hold a pilot's certificate is
>> anything different than a person who happens to not hold a pilot's
>> certificate.
>
> Safety pilot.
>

If you are not in a situation where a safety pilot is REQUIRED then he would
be called a passenger. In the accident he might be called "rated pilot"

Skidder

March 8th 07, 08:56 PM

On 3/8/2007 2:03:33 PM, Jose wrote:

>There is case law, and case law is written (though in the FAA's case,
>sometimes I think they make it up as they go along, but don't get me
>started). There may be a reg that states it too, but I'm too lazy to
>look it up.
>

Agreed, case law is always relavent too.

--
Skidder

Skidder

March 8th 07, 08:58 PM

On 3/8/2007 2:30:20 PM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:

>
>If you are not in a situation where a safety pilot is REQUIRED then he would
>be called a passenger. In the accident he might be called "rated pilot"
>

The regs don't say that do they??

--
Skidder

Newps

March 8th 07, 09:30 PM

Skidder wrote:

>
> He could easily be considered a safety pilot. Nice to have an extra set of
> trained eyes, especially at night.

No such thing as a safety pilot, as that term is defined by the FAA, for
this operation. Safety pilot is for IFR training when the person
receiving instruction is under the hood.

Tom L.

March 8th 07, 11:43 PM

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 07:37:13 -0600, "Skidder" >
wrote:

>
>That's correct, and I read the FAR the same way. But it puts us in a loop
>because the entire focus 61.57 is the currency required to carry
>*passengers*. My point is, another pilot with a full set of controls in front
>of him is not defined anywhere as a passenger. Furthermore, nothing says that
>anyone present in an aircraft that only requires one pilot, has to be
>considered a passenger.

You're right -- the FARs don't say that the second pilot is a
passenger. Worse, the FARs don't even define "passenger." But the FARs
don't deifne many other words that are liberarly used throughout the
FARs. It's not the written word alone that counts in courts, but the
interpretation of it. And the interpretation would probably consider
the following:

- A person on board a flying aircraft is either a crewmember or a
passenger (a dead person might be considered cargo, but let's not
discuss that here). And your next comment is correct -- this is not
written anywhere in the FARs either, but I have a feeling that FAA,
NTSB, court, and most pilots would agree with this.

- Knowledge and skill of piloting a plane don't make anyone a
crewmember.

- Moreover, full flight controls in front of a pilot don't make
him/her a crewmember.

- Assigned duty makes a person a crewmember (even if the person is not
a pilot and has no flight controls in front of her/him).
But I seriously doubt that you will be able to convince FAA, NTSB, and
court that your chart-handling friend is a bona-fide crewmember, FAR
1.1 notwithstanding.

- Tom

Judah

March 8th 07, 11:46 PM

"Skidder" > wrote in :

> On 3/8/2007 2:30:20 PM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:
>
>>
>>If you are not in a situation where a safety pilot is REQUIRED then he
>>would be called a passenger. In the accident he might be called "rated
>>pilot"
>>
>
> The regs don't say that do they??

Actually, IIRC, the safety pilot actually acts as PIC of a VFR flight. The
pilot under the hood logs PIC time because he is sole manipulator of the
controls, but the safety pilot accepts ultimate responsibility for the safe
conduct of the flight and is therefore the Pilot in Command. Both pilots
log PIC time because of 61.51.

It brings up an interesting circle of questions...

In theory, I could see how it could be argued that the pilot under the hood
is a required crew member and the safety pilot is PIC, but therefore not in
violation of the non-required crew part of 61.57

However, this would mean that the other pilot was under the hood from the
moment the plane left the ground until the end of the third landing.

Even then, I think it's a stretch, because the two pilots were not really
both required for the safe conduct of the flight. They were required for
the Instrument Currency session... But your attorney can certainly try to
sell his interpretation to the nearest FSDO...

Skidder

March 9th 07, 12:10 AM

On 3/8/2007 4:40:04 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:

>
>Holy ****!
>It's Anthony's dumber little brother!
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: N/A
>
>iQCVAwUBRfCmZJMoscYxZNI5AQGS4gP/RBNoK2BD+wKPYmMgj+B9eTl4Gpdv9oIU
>zFP+2VlVV7RcgHyHyJT/hGVZ3roGJPiS7BPNmp0yjBGWQ5EnK5x24lOp5a2w6zth
>v6iugGxltMmZ301ZsS5Wxpcz3a81HtjlKhVHUa3wd7aL6Dr0Ss n/SGrWFmj6JIMt
>pWvCMwWM+ac=
>=g2ny
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

Top of the evening to you to Trollo

--
Skidder

Skidder

March 9th 07, 12:22 AM

On 3/8/2007 5:46:19 PM, Judah wrote:

>Actually, IIRC, the safety pilot actually acts as PIC of a VFR flight. The
>pilot under the hood logs PIC time because he is sole manipulator of the
>controls, but the safety pilot accepts ultimate responsibility for the safe
>conduct of the flight and is therefore the Pilot in Command. Both pilots
>log PIC time because of 61.51.
>
>It brings up an interesting circle of questions...
>
>In theory, I could see how it could be argued that the pilot under the hood
>is a required crew member and the safety pilot is PIC, but therefore not in
>violation of the non-required crew part of 61.57
>
>However, this would mean that the other pilot was under the hood from the
>moment the plane left the ground until the end of the third landing.
>
>Even then, I think it's a stretch, because the two pilots were not really
>both required for the safe conduct of the flight. They were required for
>the Instrument Currency session... But your attorney can certainly try to
>sell his interpretation to the nearest FSDO...

He had suggested this too, but it didn't sould like a fit to me. Our
discussion was based on two PPLs, so they couldn't be seeking instrument
currency. They would be doing instrument training during VFR currency.

--
Skidder

Guillermo

March 9th 07, 12:38 AM

On Mar 8, 6:46 pm, Judah > wrote:
> "Skidder" > wrote :
> Actually, IIRC, the safety pilot actually acts as PIC of a VFR flight. The
> pilot under the hood logs PIC time because he is sole manipulator of the
> controls, but the safety pilot accepts ultimate responsibility for the safe
> conduct of the flight and is therefore the Pilot in Command. Both pilots
> log PIC time because of 61.51.

The safety pilot is not necessarily the PIC. This has to be agreed
between the two pilots. If the safety pilot chooses to be PIC, then he
gets to log time. If he doesn't act as PIC, he doesn't log time.
Furthermore, there could be cases in which the safety pilot cannot act
as PIC, such as being safety pilot in a complex aircraft without being
complex endorsed. Nothing prevents that pilot to be safety pilot, and
long as he has a private certificate in the same category and class
(i.e. ASEL). But he can't act as PIC, therefore, he doesn't get to log
any time. Same if he is not current or he hasn't had a biennial. He
does need a medical certificate because he is a required crewember.

Guillermo

March 9th 07, 12:52 AM

On Mar 8, 1:16 pm, "Skidder" > wrote:
> On 3/8/2007 8:40:50 AM, Judah wrote:
>
> >"Skidder" > wrote in
> :
>
> >> I appreciate your input Jim, but the regs don't say that. It says you
> >> have to be current to carry a passenger. It does not say you have to be
> >> current to carry another pilot seeking currency, or that anyone in an
> >> aircraft that requires only one pilot, has to be considered a passenger.
>
> >Actually, the regs (61.57) prohibit a pilot from acting as THE PILOT IN
> >COMMAND of a flight if he has not, as sole manipulator of the flight
> >controls, performed 3 takeoffs and landings within the preceding 90 days.
>
> Keep reading. You left out the part that says for the purpose of carring
> passengers, not instructors, examiners and safety pilots.

Well, you are just making "names" for people on the aircraft in order
for them for not to be passengers.
I am an engineer so I would say "I am not a passenger, I am an
engineer". It doesn't say anywhere in the regs that a non-current
pilot can't take an engineer on board. But it doesn't make any sense.
You are carrying another pilot as a passenger on your flight.

There are many unclear parts in the FAR where there are different
interpretations among pilots. However, I would say that 99% of the
pilots would agree with the interpretation that anyone who is not a
required crewmember in an airplane is considered a passenger.

And yea, its not in the regs, you don't need to say it again.

Skidder

March 9th 07, 01:00 AM

On 3/8/2007 5:43:09 PM, Tom L. wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 07:37:13 -0600, "Skidder" >
>wrote:
>
>
>You're right -- the FARs don't say that the second pilot is a
>passenger. Worse, the FARs don't even define "passenger." But the FARs
>don't deifne many other words that are liberarly used throughout the
>FARs. It's not the written word alone that counts in courts, but the
>interpretation of it. And the interpretation would probably consider
>the following:
>
>- A person on board a flying aircraft is either a crewmember or a
>passenger (a dead person might be considered cargo, but let's not
>discuss that here). And your next comment is correct -- this is not
>written anywhere in the FARs either, but I have a feeling that FAA,
>NTSB, court, and most pilots would agree with this.
>
>- Knowledge and skill of piloting a plane don't make anyone a
>crewmember.
>
>- Moreover, full flight controls in front of a pilot don't make
>him/her a crewmember.
>
>- Assigned duty makes a person a crewmember (even if the person is not
>a pilot and has no flight controls in front of her/him).
>But I seriously doubt that you will be able to convince FAA, NTSB, and
>court that your chart-handling friend is a bona-fide crewmember, FAR
>1.1 notwithstanding.
>

Very well put Tom and I would have to say I fully agree with 90% of it. I'm
just not certain a court would agree with it, but hey, I'm just guessing on
this part too. I think we got lost on trying to find a label for the second
pilot.

I think the second pilot is still a pilot. What most of us are struggling
with is who is PIC, and perhaps who logs the time. It seems clear to me that
both pilots are clearly there for currency, and would have to hold themselves
jointly accountable in case of an incident. What else could they possible
argue. The know that neither of them can claim to be the others passenger, so
joint accountability seem implied and assured.

Next, both should be fully capible of executing their currency requirements
without incident or assistance, or there is something wrong with the currency
FARs to begin with. So the safety of the flight is assures, to the best of
the FARs ability to control it. And certainly as well as it is if each pilot
when up solo.

Finally, the overall fight is safer, because you have a fully qualified
back-up for it's entire duration.

The only thing left is how to log the time. To keep it simple, pilot A should
maitain all control from the time the prop starts until the end of his third
landing, and log only the time it took. Pilot B should then take the controls
until the prop stops, and record the balance.

How could a reasonable person argue against this? What would the arguement
be? If it is safe for each pilot to go up solo to record their currency. How
could you argue that both going together would not be more prudent?

To me the only down side is if your friend bends the airplane during his
watch. Cause then you are in the soup with him.

--
Skidder

Tony

March 9th 07, 01:04 AM

Need we get any more evidence that lawyers should not be pilots?

It seems clear to most of us that if you're going to get current
without an instructor you're allowed only to put yourself at risk, not
a passenger who might also be a pilot. Remember, the reg applies to
those who have not done 3 take off and landings in the last 90 days.
Suppose, for example, neither of these PP who are rated fpr SEL have
not flown for the last 23 months and want to get ready for their next
BFI. The regulations are intended to prevent one idiot from killing
more than just himself. Why would one argue that it should be other
than that?

On Mar 8, 1:25 pm, "Skidder" > wrote:
> On 3/8/2007 9:32:58 AM, C J Campbell wrote:
>
> >Actually, what the regs say is that you cannot act as PIC in an airplane
> >carrying passengers if you have not made the three takeoffs and landings
> >and/or your medical is not current. Whether you log PIC is another matter
> >entirely, having almost nothing to do with acting as PIC. Instructors giving
> >instruction, for example, always log PIC even if they are not allowed to act
> >as PIC.
>
> >The regs also say that anyone who is not a required crewmember is a
> >passenger.
>
> I haven't seen this one, which one is it? I think that would clarify a great
> deal.
>
>
>
> >So, unless you both are required crewmembers, the pilot who is not acting PIC
> >is a passenger. A safety pilot on an instrument training flight would be a
> >required crewmember. An instructor giving instruction would be a required
> >crewmember.
>
> --
> Skidder

Bob Moore

March 9th 07, 01:38 AM

Guillermo wrote
> There are many unclear parts in the FAR where there are different
> interpretations among pilots. However, I would say that 99% of the
> pilots would agree with the interpretation that anyone who is not a
> required crewmember in an airplane is considered a passenger.

I must be the 1% that knows better.

First, posters in this thread are not distinguishing between the
definitions in Part 1 for "crewmember" and "flight crewmember".
There are several categories of individuals aboard aircraft that do
not posess airman certificates and yet are designated as "crewmember".

FAR Part 1
Crewmember means a person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft
during flight time.

Some of these are obvious....Flight Attendants, Medical Attendants,
Flight Test Engineers, Loadmasters and even "Grooms" accompanying a
load of racehorses are listed on the manifest as "crewmembers". It is
common for airlines to staff a flight with more than the FAA required
minimum number of Flight Attendants. Are they listed on the passenger
manifest? Of course not, they, although not "required crewmembers" are
none-the-less, crewmembers.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727 L-188
Flight Instructor, ASE, Instrument
PanAm (retired)

March 9th 07, 02:36 AM

Skidder... you are grasping at straws and starting to **** off a lot of
people.

The Aircraft POH and the FARs define when a second pilot is a required crew
member.
Those items have been covered in previous netgroup responses. i.e. a safety
pilot is a required crew member when the stick shaking pilot is under the
hood. Otherwise a second pilot is not required and he is a passenger.

You do not need a second pilot as a required crew member for most SEL
airplanes VFR in the traffic pattern doing landings.

Period Dot. Complete.

BT

"Skidder" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>>A safety pilot is a required crewmember when the pilot flying is under
>>the hood. However, when the pilot flying is not under the hood, the
>>safety pilot is not a required crewmember. That makes him a passenger.
>>
>
> Is there a reg that states that?
>
> It has always been my understanding that if something is not prohibited by
> written law, it's not illegal, and therefor permitted.
>
>
>
> --
> Skidder

March 9th 07, 02:39 AM

Is Skidder... Maximo (Mxsmaic) in drag?
I have not seen him in this tread..

Bye
BT

"Skidder" > wrote in message
...
> As we all know, you can't carry a passenger unless you are current. But if
> two pilots get in an aircraft with dual controls, can either of them
> really
> be considered a passenger? You can log PIC from either seat.
>
> Lets say, I have a PPL but am not current. My best friend has a PPL but is
> not current. Both of us have a current medical? Is it legal for both of us
> to
> get in an aircraft with dual controls, at the same time, shoot 6 take offs
> and landings, 3 each, and log ourselves as current and split the flying
> time
> in our logs?
>
> Would be both absolutely have to have a current medical?
>
> He is an attorney and says the way he reads the regs, that it's not
> exactly
> clear. I myself don't know, but thought the group might enjoy debating the
> question.
>
> Along the same lines, if a PPL *is* current. Can he go for insurance check
> ride with an instructor that is not, or doesn't have a current medilcal?
>
>
> --
> Skidder

Guillermo

March 9th 07, 03:05 AM

On Mar 8, 8:38 pm, Bob Moore > wrote:
> Guillermo wrote
>
> > There are many unclear parts in the FAR where there are different
> > interpretations among pilots. However, I would say that 99% of the
> > pilots would agree with the interpretation that anyone who is not a
> > required crewmember in an airplane is considered a passenger.
>
> I must be the 1% that knows better.
> First, posters in this thread are not distinguishing between the
> definitions in Part 1 for "crewmember" and "flight crewmember".
> There are several categories of individuals aboard aircraft that do
> not posess airman certificates and yet are designated as "crewmember".
> FAR Part 1
> Crewmember means a person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft
> during flight time.

Sorry, my bad. I didn't mean to say "required crewmember", but simply
"crewmember".
Would you agree that a person in an airplane who is not a crewmember,
will be considered a passenger?

Now, for part 91 operations, do you think it is reasonable that the
PIC can assign a ask to a person in the airplane, and then the person
will be considered a crewmember? (therefore circunventing 61.57
requirement of currency)?

>
> Some of these are obvious....Flight Attendants, Medical Attendants,
> Flight Test Engineers, Loadmasters and even "Grooms" accompanying a
> load of racehorses are listed on the manifest as "crewmembers". It is
> common for airlines to staff a flight with more than the FAA required
> minimum number of Flight Attendants. Are they listed on the passenger
> manifest? Of course not, they, although not "required crewmembers" are
> none-the-less, crewmembers.
>
> Bob Moore
> ATP B-707 B-727 L-188
> Flight Instructor, ASE, Instrument
> PanAm (retired)

Morgans[_2_]

March 9th 07, 03:25 AM

"BT" > wrote in message
...
> Is Skidder... Maximo (Mxsmaic) in drag?
> I have not seen him in this tread..

If not, I would propose that we have another troll amongst us, and that
everyone should take notice, and "govern themselves accordingly."
--
Jim in NC

Jose

March 9th 07, 04:04 AM

> Actually, IIRC, the safety pilot actually acts as PIC of a VFR flight.

No, either (rated and current) pilot can ACT as PIC.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

C J Campbell

March 9th 07, 04:30 AM

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 07:50:25 -0800, Bob Moore wrote
(in article 8>):

> C J Campbell wrote
>> The regs also say that anyone who is not a required crewmember is a
>> passenger.
>
> Not true JC.
>
>
> From FAR Part 1
>
> Crewmember means a person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft
> during flight time. "required or not" my comment.
>
> Flightcrew member means a pilot, flight engineer, or flight navigator
> assigned to duty in an aircraft during flight time.
>
>
> The following is an interesting disseration:
>
> http://www.aircareaccess.com/FAValue101.pdf
>

Fascinating. Well, okay -- I see the point.

> Bob Moore
> CFII ATP

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell

March 9th 07, 04:52 AM

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 10:25:35 -0800, Skidder wrote
(in article >):

> On 3/8/2007 9:32:58 AM, C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> Actually, what the regs say is that you cannot act as PIC in an airplane
>> carrying passengers if you have not made the three takeoffs and landings
>> and/or your medical is not current. Whether you log PIC is another matter
>> entirely, having almost nothing to do with acting as PIC. Instructors
>> giving
>> instruction, for example, always log PIC even if they are not allowed to
>> act
>> as PIC.
>>
>> The regs also say that anyone who is not a required crewmember is a
>> passenger.
>
> I haven't seen this one, which one is it? I think that would clarify a great
> deal.
>

Well, as Bob pointed out, it might be anyone who is not a crewmember,
passenger not being specifically defined for the purposes of part 91
operations. A flight attendant, for example, is certainly not a passenger,
whether a flight attendant is required for the flight or not.

However, part 121.583 and 135.85 give examples of other persons who might not
be considered 'passengers,' although I think the FAA would have a problem
with you doing your currency takeoffs and landings with hazardous cargo and a
person required to handle it on board. :-)

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Maxwell

March 9th 07, 05:08 AM

"Guillermo" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Now, for part 91 operations, do you think it is reasonable that the
> PIC can assign a ask to a person in the airplane, and then the person
> will be considered a crewmember? (therefore circunventing 61.57
> requirement of currency)?
>

No one is suggesting circumvention of currency. Nor are we talking about
asking just *anyone* to be a crew member.

We are talking about two licensed pilots, both quaified and legal to fly an
aircraft with dual controls and setting in the front seat. Both with current
medical certificates and let me add BFRs for the point of discussion. That
is a far cry from being a stereo typical passenger.

If either pilot is qualified to get in the plane fly solo, what in the regs
says they both can't pilot the plane, as long as they log only the time and
landings made while their own hands operate the controls.

And if we absolutely insist this person must have a title, what is wrong
with a back-up pilot?

Skidder

March 9th 07, 05:24 AM

On 3/8/2007 8:36:14 PM, "BT" wrote:
>Skidder... you are grasping at straws and starting to **** off a lot of
>people.

Ok I'll bite. Who are all these people I am ****ing off. Let's see how many
you can name.

>The Aircraft POH and the FARs define when a second pilot is a required crew
>member.
>Those items have been covered in previous netgroup responses. i.e. a safety
>pilot is a required crew member when the stick shaking pilot is under the
>hood. Otherwise a second pilot is not required and he is a passenger.

Sorry partner, but the regs just don't say that. If they do, point it out.
The purpose of 61.57 is to outline the minimum currency required to carry
*passengers*. The discussion is about an aircraft with dual controls and two
*pilots*. And no one said he was required.

>
>You do not need a second pilot as a required crew member for most SEL
>airplanes VFR in the traffic pattern doing landings.
>
>Period Dot. Complete.
>
>BT
>

--
Skidder

Judah

March 9th 07, 05:25 AM

"Guillermo" > wrote in
oups.com:

> The safety pilot is not necessarily the PIC. This has to be agreed
> between the two pilots. If the safety pilot chooses to be PIC, then he
> gets to log time. If he doesn't act as PIC, he doesn't log time.
> Furthermore, there could be cases in which the safety pilot cannot act
> as PIC, such as being safety pilot in a complex aircraft without being
> complex endorsed. Nothing prevents that pilot to be safety pilot, and
> long as he has a private certificate in the same category and class
> (i.e. ASEL). But he can't act as PIC, therefore, he doesn't get to log
> any time. Same if he is not current or he hasn't had a biennial. He
> does need a medical certificate because he is a required crewember.

But the point is that someone is still PIC, and that PIC needs to be
current...

Judah

March 9th 07, 05:30 AM

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

> If either pilot is qualified to get in the plane fly solo, what in the
> regs says they both can't pilot the plane, as long as they log only the
> time and landings made while their own hands operate the controls.

This part:

"(2) For the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, a person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft under day VFR
or day IFR, **** provided no persons or property are carried on board the
aircraft, other than those necessary for the conduct of the flight. **** "

> And if we absolutely insist this person must have a title, what is wrong
> with a back-up pilot?

Is this "back-up pilot" necessary for the conduct of the flight?

Judah

March 9th 07, 05:34 AM

Bob Moore > wrote in
46.128:

> Guillermo wrote
>> There are many unclear parts in the FAR where there are different
>> interpretations among pilots. However, I would say that 99% of the
>> pilots would agree with the interpretation that anyone who is not a
>> required crewmember in an airplane is considered a passenger.
>
> I must be the 1% that knows better.
>
> First, posters in this thread are not distinguishing between the
> definitions in Part 1 for "crewmember" and "flight crewmember".
> There are several categories of individuals aboard aircraft that do
> not posess airman certificates and yet are designated as "crewmember".
>
> FAR Part 1
> Crewmember means a person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft
> during flight time.
>
> Some of these are obvious....Flight Attendants, Medical Attendants,
> Flight Test Engineers, Loadmasters and even "Grooms" accompanying a
> load of racehorses are listed on the manifest as "crewmembers". It is
> common for airlines to staff a flight with more than the FAA required
> minimum number of Flight Attendants. Are they listed on the passenger
> manifest? Of course not, they, although not "required crewmembers" are
> none-the-less, crewmembers.

"(2) For the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of
this section, a person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft under
day VFR or day IFR, **** provided no persons or property are carried on
board the aircraft, other than those necessary for the conduct of the
flight. **** "

It doesn't matter what you call the guy in the right seat. For the purpose
of meeting 61.57, the person in the right seat is not necessary for the
conduct of the flight, and therefore doesn't belong there.

The implication being that perhaps if you DON'T log the landings you make
for the purpose of currency, you could assign the other pilot a task, call
him a crewmember, and still fly somewhere. But you cannot carry persons or
property that are not necessary for the conduct of the flight in a 61.57
currency flight.

Skidder

March 9th 07, 05:35 AM

On 3/8/2007 8:39:07 PM, "BT" wrote:
>Is Skidder... Maximo (Mxsmaic) in drag?
>I have not seen him in this tread..
>
>Bye
>BT

On 3/8/2007 9:25:55 PM, "Morgans" wrote:
>If not, I would propose that we have another troll amongst us, and that
>everyone should take notice, and "govern themselves accordingly."

Why on earth would either of you two say such a thing. I have done nothing to
irritate or insult anyone, and I have certainly not said anything to, or
about either of you.

You two are the ones trolling now. If you don't wish to participate in the
discussion, you certainly don't have to. But you have no right to attempt
starting a flame war in hopes of ending the thread.

--
Skidder

Judah

March 9th 07, 05:41 AM

"Skidder" > wrote in :

> Very well put Tom and I would have to say I fully agree with 90% of it.
> I'm just not certain a court would agree with it, but hey, I'm just
> guessing on this part too. I think we got lost on trying to find a label
> for the second pilot.
>
> I think the second pilot is still a pilot. What most of us are
> struggling with is who is PIC, and perhaps who logs the time. It seems
> clear to me that both pilots are clearly there for currency, and would
> have to hold themselves jointly accountable in case of an incident. What
> else could they possible argue. The know that neither of them can claim
> to be the others passenger, so joint accountability seem implied and
> assured.
>
> Next, both should be fully capible of executing their currency
> requirements without incident or assistance, or there is something wrong
> with the currency FARs to begin with. So the safety of the flight is
> assures, to the best of the FARs ability to control it. And certainly as
> well as it is if each pilot when up solo.
>
> Finally, the overall fight is safer, because you have a fully qualified
> back-up for it's entire duration.
>
> The only thing left is how to log the time. To keep it simple, pilot A
> should maitain all control from the time the prop starts until the end
> of his third landing, and log only the time it took. Pilot B should then
> take the controls until the prop stops, and record the balance.
>
> How could a reasonable person argue against this? What would the
> arguement be? If it is safe for each pilot to go up solo to record their
> currency. How could you argue that both going together would not be more
> prudent?
>
> To me the only down side is if your friend bends the airplane during his
> watch. Cause then you are in the soup with him.

What if Pilot A hasn't flown in 10 years? Would you still feel this is
safer than if Pilot A didn't fly with an instructor in the right seat
instead of his buddy, Pilot B who hasn't flown in 15 years?

Skidder

March 9th 07, 05:45 AM

On 3/8/2007 11:25:35 PM, Judah wrote:
>"Guillermo" > wrote in
oups.com:
>
>But the point is that someone is still PIC, and that PIC needs to be
>current...

Well not really. Maybe that is a bit of the confusion.

61.57 says the PIC has to be current to carry a *passenger*, not another
*pilot*. And I can't find anything in the regs that says just because the
aircraft doesn't require two pilots, you can't have two pilots.

--
Skidder

March 9th 07, 05:53 AM

but the other pilot is not current either... so neither of you can be PIC

and you are in a "single pilot airplane", so there is only one pilot
required and the other is a passenger
BT

"Skidder" > wrote in message
...
> On 3/8/2007 11:25:35 PM, Judah wrote:
>>"Guillermo" > wrote in
oups.com:
>>
>>But the point is that someone is still PIC, and that PIC needs to be
>>current...
>
> Well not really. Maybe that is a bit of the confusion.
>
> 61.57 says the PIC has to be current to carry a *passenger*, not another
> *pilot*. And I can't find anything in the regs that says just because the
> aircraft doesn't require two pilots, you can't have two pilots.
>
>
> --
> Skidder

Maxwell

March 9th 07, 06:34 AM

"Judah" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> It doesn't matter what you call the guy in the right seat. For the purpose
> of meeting 61.57, the person in the right seat is not necessary for the
> conduct of the flight, and therefore doesn't belong there.
>

It matters if you call him a pilot. How can you consider someone mearly a
passenger, if they are as qualified to fly the aircraft as the pilot. And if
he is indeed a pilot, you are not carrying a passenger, and you don't have
to meet the requirements of 61.57.

Currency to carry a passenger is what 61.57 is all about.

I see where the guy is going with this, and I for one think he might have a
point.

Not to mention the fact that if both people are qualified to solo the
aircraft, why would the FAA care. They are both pilots and they are not
carrying passengers.

Maxwell

March 9th 07, 06:57 AM

"BT" > wrote in message
...

> but the other pilot is not current either... so neither of you can be PIC

Neither of you can be PIC to carry a *passenger*, but 61.57 doesn't say you
can't carry another *pilot*.

> and you are in a "single pilot airplane", so there is only one pilot
> required and the other is a passenger

The regs do not specify that you can't have two pilots *present* in a
aircraft that doesn't require them, just that they can't both log the time.

Skidder

March 9th 07, 07:00 AM

>What if Pilot A hasn't flown in 10 years? Would you still feel this is
>safer than if Pilot A didn't fly with an instructor in the right seat
>instead of his buddy, Pilot B who hasn't flown in 15 years?

Certainly not. I think the regs clearly indicate both pilots would have to
medicals and BFRs.

--
Skidder

Travis Marlatte

March 9th 07, 12:54 PM

What? Are you kidding me? You're saying that you think the FAA would not
consider a landing with a rolling turn off at a taxiiway as a full-stop
landing?

[Top posted just 'cause]

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK
"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>> That's an interesting hiccup I've never considered before. You land.
>> You turn off onto the taxiway, you taxi to the approach end of the
>> runway, no traffice, so you keep rolling and take off. Where did the
>> "full stop" occur?
>
> It didn't. So that one doesn't count. (At least the landing doesn't.) I
> always stop somewhere when I do these.
>
> Jose
> --
> Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
> follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
> understands this holds the world in his hands.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Travis Marlatte

March 9th 07, 12:59 PM

What if the other person was a woman? Where do the regs say that a woman is
a passenger? How about a skinny guy? Where do the regs say that a skinny guy
is a passenger?

OK. So it's clear. I can take another pilot, a woman, or a skinny guy along
on my flight to becomme current to carry passengers.

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK
"Skidder" > wrote in message
...
> On 3/8/2007 11:25:35 PM, Judah wrote:
>>"Guillermo" > wrote in
oups.com:
>>
>>But the point is that someone is still PIC, and that PIC needs to be
>>current...
>
> Well not really. Maybe that is a bit of the confusion.
>
> 61.57 says the PIC has to be current to carry a *passenger*, not another
> *pilot*. And I can't find anything in the regs that says just because the
> aircraft doesn't require two pilots, you can't have two pilots.
>
>
> --
> Skidder

Jose

March 9th 07, 01:14 PM

> What? Are you kidding me? You're saying that you think the FAA would not
> consider a landing with a rolling turn off at a taxiiway as a full-stop
> landing?

Ever gotten a ticket at a stop sign because you didn't stop completely,
even if there was no other traffic?

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Judah

March 9th 07, 02:33 PM

"Skidder" > wrote in news:gw6Ih.2489$xh2.574
@newsfe14.lga:

> On 3/8/2007 11:25:35 PM, Judah wrote:
>>"Guillermo" > wrote in
oups.com:
>>
>>But the point is that someone is still PIC, and that PIC needs to be
>>current...
>
> Well not really. Maybe that is a bit of the confusion.

Absolutely and without question, there is always one and only one Pilot in
Command, even if more than one person has the right to log themselves as
Pilot In Command, only one person meets the definition of FAR Part 1.

> 61.57 says the PIC has to be current to carry a *passenger*, not another
> *pilot*. And I can't find anything in the regs that says just because the
> aircraft doesn't require two pilots, you can't have two pilots.

By your definition, if the second "Pilot" is not a "passenger", a non-
current pilot could be allowed to carry him without violating 61.57.
However, section (2) clearly says that he cannot fly with anything in the
plane that is not necessary for the flight "for the purpose of meeting the
requirements of paragraph (a)(1)" (ie: as sole manipulator of the controls
during take-off and landing).

The other pilot is not necessary for the flight. So he can FLY the plane
with a non-passenger entity, he just can't take off or land it as sole
manipulator of the controls. If he does, he is in violation of section (2).

If neither pilot can be sole manipulator of the controls during takeoff or
landing, they might be able to do it together, but then they wouldn't have
met the currency requirements. Alternatively, they could use a CAT III
autoland, but then neither pilot was sole manipulator of the controls
during takeoff and landing either - the plane landed itself.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see a way around this.

BTW: In addition to not seeing the definition of a "passenger", I don't see
the definition of a "pilot" in any of the FAA regs. I do see references to
"a person serving as a pilot" and "a person who holds a pilot certificate"
(61.3.j) But I simply cannot find anywhere where a pilot is defined, except
with respect to acting as Pilot in Command.

"(j) Age limitation for certain operations—(1) Age limitation. Except as
provided in paragraph (j)(3) of this section, no person who holds a pilot
certificate issued under this part shall serve as a pilot on a civil
airplane of U.S. registry in the following operations if the person has
reached his or her 60th birthday— "

Presumably, one can serve as a pilot by piloting a civil airplane of US
registry. But from this, I can deduce that one is not transformed into an
entity called a pilot just by holding a pilot certificate. You have to be
actually serving/acting as a pilot - ie: flying the plane or taking
responsibility for it.

If you have regs that say otherwise, I'd be interested to hear...

Gig 601XL Builder

March 9th 07, 04:44 PM

Skidder wrote:
> On 3/8/2007 11:25:35 PM, Judah wrote:
>> "Guillermo" > wrote in
>> oups.com:
>>
>> But the point is that someone is still PIC, and that PIC needs to be
>> current...
>
> Well not really. Maybe that is a bit of the confusion.
>
> 61.57 says the PIC has to be current to carry a *passenger*, not
> another *pilot*. And I can't find anything in the regs that says just
> because the aircraft doesn't require two pilots, you can't have two
> pilots.

You are act much like another troll from around these parts. But, since you
say you are a pilot why don't you find out this way.

Call your local FSDO and tell them exactly what you are going to do. Tell
them what airport you are going to it and at what day and time.

Let us know how it works out for you and your buddy.

Gig 601XL Builder

March 9th 07, 05:54 PM

Maxwell wrote:
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> It doesn't matter what you call the guy in the right seat. For the
>> purpose of meeting 61.57, the person in the right seat is not
>> necessary for the conduct of the flight, and therefore doesn't
>> belong there.
>
> It matters if you call him a pilot. How can you consider someone
> mearly a passenger, if they are as qualified to fly the aircraft as
> the pilot. And if he is indeed a pilot, you are not carrying a
> passenger, and you don't have to meet the requirements of 61.57.
>
> Currency to carry a passenger is what 61.57 is all about.
>
> I see where the guy is going with this, and I for one think he might
> have a point.
>
> Not to mention the fact that if both people are qualified to solo the
> aircraft, why would the FAA care. They are both pilots and they are
> not carrying passengers.

The FAA cares in several situations. Let's take for example my Homebuilt.
For the first 40 hours only one person can be in it at a time. I can't even
have a fully qualified CFI in the plane with me during that Phase 1 time.

Gig 601XL Builder

March 9th 07, 05:57 PM

Skidder wrote:
> On 3/8/2007 8:39:07 PM, "BT" wrote:
>> Is Skidder... Maximo (Mxsmaic) in drag?
>> I have not seen him in this tread..
>>
>> Bye
>> BT
>
> On 3/8/2007 9:25:55 PM, "Morgans" wrote:
>> If not, I would propose that we have another troll amongst us, and
>> that everyone should take notice, and "govern themselves
>> accordingly."
>
>
> Why on earth would either of you two say such a thing. I have done
> nothing to irritate or insult anyone, and I have certainly not said
> anything to, or about either of you.
>
> You two are the ones trolling now. If you don't wish to participate
> in the discussion, you certainly don't have to. But you have no right
> to attempt starting a flame war in hopes of ending the thread.

You have done exactly what MX has done in the past. Ask a reasonable
question then agrue with virtually everyone that answers you.

Brian[_1_]

March 9th 07, 06:18 PM

>
> No one is suggesting circumvention of currency. Nor are we talking about
> asking just *anyone* to be a crew member.
>
> We are talking about two licensed pilots, both quaified and legal to fly an
> aircraft with dual controls and setting in the front seat. Both with current
> medical certificates and let me add BFRs for the point of discussion. That
> is a far cry from being a stereo typical passenger.
>
> If either pilot is qualified to get in the plane fly solo, what in the regs
> says they both can't pilot the plane, as long as they log only the time and
> landings made while their own hands operate the controls.
>
> And if we absolutely insist this person must have a title, what is wrong
> with a back-up pilot?

What would be the difference in the above if you replaced "two
licensed pilots" with "two student pilots"?

It would appear to me that the same would apply.

(BTW. IMO it is not legal for two pilots out of 90 day currency to fly
together. )

Brian

Brian[_1_]

March 9th 07, 06:31 PM

On Mar 9, 12:00 am, "Skidder" > wrote:
> >What if Pilot A hasn't flown in 10 years? Would you still feel this is
> >safer than if Pilot A didn't fly with an instructor in the right seat
> >instead of his buddy, Pilot B who hasn't flown in 15 years?
>
> Certainly not. I think the regs clearly indicate both pilots would have to
> medicals and BFRs.
>
> --
> Skidder

Still Pilot B could have a medical and a BFR and have not flown a
powered aircraft in 10 years. Actually in your scenerio so could pilot
A.

In fact a know a few pilots that could easily qualify for this by
simply going down and getting their medical. They probably have a 1000
hrs of glider time in that last ten years.

I think that is the point of the 90 day currency. Is that to take any
person in the aircraft with you must be current in that category of
aircraft.

Brian

Skidder

March 9th 07, 09:14 PM

On 3/9/2007 7:00:02 AM, "Travis Marlatte" wrote:
>What if the other person was a woman? Where do the regs say that a woman is
>a passenger? How about a skinny guy? Where do the regs say that a skinny guy
>is a passenger?
>
>OK. So it's clear. I can take another pilot, a woman, or a skinny guy along
>on my flight to becomme current to carry passengers.
>

That's uncalled for Travis, clearly we are talking about pilots.

--
Skidder

Skidder

March 9th 07, 09:33 PM

On 3/9/2007 8:33:12 AM, Judah wrote:

>
>Absolutely and without question, there is always one and only one Pilot in
>Command, even if more than one person has the right to log themselves as
>Pilot In Command, only one person meets the definition of FAR Part 1.

No it doesn't, read 1.1 again.
Pilot in command can be designated either before or DURING the flight.

>By your definition, if the second "Pilot" is not a "passenger", a non-
>current pilot could be allowed to carry him without violating 61.57.
>However, section (2) clearly says that he cannot fly with anything in the
>plane that is not necessary for the flight "for the purpose of meeting the
>requirements of paragraph (a)(1)" (ie: as sole manipulator of the controls
>during take-off and landing).

I will be the first to admit, that is the most confusing, and possibly
damning verbage I can find in the regs relative to this whole *proposed*
concept.

But I also can't find anything in the regs that would forbid two pilots from
piloting an aircraft that only requires one pilot. Just that only one can log
the flight time, and 1.1 states pilots can share that duty on the same
flight.

If so, you have a flight with two pilots, and no passengers, and 61.57
doesn't apply in part, or in whole. Because 61.57 is all about currency for
carrying passengers.

--
Skidder

Judah

March 9th 07, 09:35 PM

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> It doesn't matter what you call the guy in the right seat. For the
>> purpose of meeting 61.57, the person in the right seat is not necessary
>> for the conduct of the flight, and therefore doesn't belong there.
>>
>
> It matters if you call him a pilot. How can you consider someone mearly
> a passenger, if they are as qualified to fly the aircraft as the pilot.
> And if he is indeed a pilot, you are not carrying a passenger, and you
> don't have to meet the requirements of 61.57.
>
> Currency to carry a passenger is what 61.57 is all about.
>
> I see where the guy is going with this, and I for one think he might
> have a point.
>
> Not to mention the fact that if both people are qualified to solo the
> aircraft, why would the FAA care. They are both pilots and they are not
> carrying passengers.

Based on Paragraph (2) of 61.57, it doesn't matter whether the other guy is
qualified to solo. If the flight is used to establish currency (ie: you
count the takeoffs and landings toward your 90 day requirement) then it
violates paragraph (2) to have anyone at all in the right seat if you are
PIC.

If you do it with an instructor, that instructor is PIC for the flight.

If you do it with a current pilot, that pilot is PIC for the flight.

If you do it with a dog, you violate.

If you do it with a fat woman named Betty, you violate.

If you do it with a package that you are dropping off at a friends house,
you violate.

The only exception I can see is if you don't log the takeoffs and landings.
However, the wording in 61.57 refers to MAKING takeoffs and landings, not
logging them, so even making a takeoff or landing without logging it might
be a violation.

I see his point, too. But it's written in black and white (well, depends on
the screen colors, anyway).

Judah

March 9th 07, 09:39 PM

"Skidder" > wrote in :

>
>>What if Pilot A hasn't flown in 10 years? Would you still feel this is
>>safer than if Pilot A didn't fly with an instructor in the right seat
>>instead of his buddy, Pilot B who hasn't flown in 15 years?
>
> Certainly not. I think the regs clearly indicate both pilots would have to
> medicals and BFRs.

Where do they state that? Nothing in 61.57 says anything about medicals or
BFRs. And I don't see anywhere the definition of a Pilot. A pilot, by your
own definition, is anyone who holds a valid Pilot Certificate. If he doesn't
have to be current, why does he have to have a medical and a BFR?

You're making up your own rules and haven't thought it through.

Blueskies

March 9th 07, 10:19 PM

"Maxwell" > wrote in message ...
:
: "BT" > wrote in message
: ...
:
: > but the other pilot is not current either... so neither of you can be PIC
:
: Neither of you can be PIC to carry a *passenger*, but 61.57 doesn't say you
: can't carry another *pilot*.
:
:
: > and you are in a "single pilot airplane", so there is only one pilot
: > required and the other is a passenger
:
: The regs do not specify that you can't have two pilots *present* in a
: aircraft that doesn't require them, just that they can't both log the time.
:
:

Pilot is a subset of passenger. All persons in the aircraft are passengers, and some passengers are also pilots....

Skidder

March 9th 07, 10:39 PM

On 3/9/2007 10:44:15 AM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:

>
>You are act much like another troll from around these parts. But, since you
>say you are a pilot why don't you find out this way.
>
>Call your local FSDO and tell them exactly what you are going to do. Tell
>them what airport you are going to it and at what day and time.
>

When you ask your local FSDO for an interpretation of the regs, do you think
they are OBLIGATED to tell you the truth?

I can assure you all to often, if you ask someone in authority how to
interpret any law, they are going to tell you how they think it should be,
and to heck with how it really is.

--
Skidder

Judah

March 9th 07, 10:41 PM

"Skidder" > wrote in
:

> On 3/9/2007 8:33:12 AM, Judah wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Absolutely and without question, there is always one and only one Pilot
>>in Command, even if more than one person has the right to log themselves
>>as Pilot In Command, only one person meets the definition of FAR Part 1.
>
> No it doesn't, read 1.1 again.
> Pilot in command can be designated either before or DURING the flight.

Sure, two pilots in an aircraft can agree to change their roles during the
flight. But only one can be the Pilot In Command at any given moment.

>>By your definition, if the second "Pilot" is not a "passenger", a non-
>>current pilot could be allowed to carry him without violating 61.57.
>>However, section (2) clearly says that he cannot fly with anything in
>>the plane that is not necessary for the flight "for the purpose of
>>meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1)" (ie: as sole manipulator
>>of the controls during take-off and landing).
>
> I will be the first to admit, that is the most confusing, and possibly
> damning verbage I can find in the regs relative to this whole *proposed*
> concept.
>
> But I also can't find anything in the regs that would forbid two pilots
> from piloting an aircraft that only requires one pilot. Just that only
> one can log the flight time, and 1.1 states pilots can share that duty
> on the same flight.
>
> If so, you have a flight with two pilots, and no passengers, and 61.57
> doesn't apply in part, or in whole. Because 61.57 is all about currency
> for carrying passengers.

I disagree with your interpretation of 1.1 (as noted in a separate post).
Being able to change the pilot in command during a flight does not in any
way imply that more than one person can be pilot in command at a time.

I agree with your final paragraph if the second pilot is not considered a
passenger, but I do not agree that the second pilot is not considered a
passenger.

Regardless, if there is no passenger on a flight with a crewmember who is
not required for the safe conduct of the flight, the flight cannot be used
to establish currency for carrying passengers in the future, according to
paragraph (2). The pilot, if he eventually went to carry a passenger, would
need to have taken off and landed 3 times BESIDES this flight in order to
be permitted to carry that passenger.

If a pilot never carries passengers, he never needs to have 3 takeoffs and
landings in the previous 90 days.

Judah

March 9th 07, 10:42 PM

"Blueskies" > wrote in
:

> Pilot is a subset of passenger. All persons in the aircraft are
> passengers, and some passengers are also pilots....

Are you sure? If that's the case, how can the pilot himself fly?

Judah

March 9th 07, 10:44 PM

"Skidder" > wrote in
:

> When you ask your local FSDO for an interpretation of the regs, do you
> think they are OBLIGATED to tell you the truth?
>
> I can assure you all to often, if you ask someone in authority how to
> interpret any law, they are going to tell you how they think it should
> be, and to heck with how it really is.

At the end of the day, laws will be interpreted by SOMEONE. Be it the FDSO
officer or the Judge or the Jurors.

So ultimately, it doesn't matter any more or less how you think it really is
or how the FSDO thinks it really is until someone calls you on it, brings you
in front of a judge, and tries to sell their interpretation while you try to
sell yours...

Skidder

March 9th 07, 10:46 PM

On 3/9/2007 12:31:58 PM, "Brian" wrote:

>Still Pilot B could have a medical and a BFR and have not flown a
>powered aircraft in 10 years. Actually in your scenerio so could pilot
>A.
>
>In fact a know a few pilots that could easily qualify for this by
>simply going down and getting their medical. They probably have a 1000
>hrs of glider time in that last ten years.
>
>I think that is the point of the 90 day currency. Is that to take any
>person in the aircraft with you must be current in that category of
>aircraft.
>

I'm not up to speed on how a BFR in a sailplane could relate to powered
flight, but if it does I'm not trying to argue that point. Nor am I arguing
the need for currency.

--
Skidder

Skidder

March 9th 07, 10:50 PM

On 3/9/2007 12:18:43 PM, "Brian" wrote:
>
>What would be the difference in the above if you replaced "two
>licensed pilots" with "two student pilots"?
>
>It would appear to me that the same would apply.
>

I don't see how to apply currency for carrying passengers to student pilots.
I think allowing two student pilots to fly together would be a very different
issue.

>(BTW. IMO it is not legal for two pilots out of 90 day currency to fly
>together. )
>

Understood.

--
Skidder

Skidder

March 9th 07, 10:56 PM

On 3/9/2007 4:44:41 PM, Judah wrote:
>
>At the end of the day, laws will be interpreted by SOMEONE. Be it the FDSO
>officer or the Judge or the Jurors.
>
>So ultimately, it doesn't matter any more or less how you think it really is
>or how the FSDO thinks it really is until someone calls you on it, brings you
>in front of a judge, and tries to sell their interpretation while you try to
>sell yours...

That's exacty right. That's why I thought I might be fun the test the
arguement in, in front of a jury of my peirs. Take advantage of the groups
collective experience and desire to check out the regs and wring the topic
out a bit. I must say I have learned a lot of things I didn't know, and
really appreciate almost everyone ones input.

Sorry for those of you that insist it's a troll, but I hope many of the
others enjoyed pondering it.

--
Skidder

Gig 601XL Builder

March 9th 07, 11:01 PM

Skidder wrote:
> On 3/9/2007 10:44:15 AM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:
>
>>
>> You are act much like another troll from around these parts. But,
>> since you say you are a pilot why don't you find out this way.
>>
>> Call your local FSDO and tell them exactly what you are going to do.
>> Tell them what airport you are going to it and at what day and time.
>>
>
> When you ask your local FSDO for an interpretation of the regs, do
> you think they are OBLIGATED to tell you the truth?
>
> I can assure you all to often, if you ask someone in authority how to
> interpret any law, they are going to tell you how they think it
> should be, and to heck with how it really is.

That wasn't really the point. I didn't tell you to ask them about the law
what I wanted you to do is to give them a chance to enforce the law so you
could tell us how it turned out.

I'm in the process of building and have asked for the FSDO to answer exactly
3 questions. Each time I sent them an e-mail and each time I received a
perfectly well reasoned answer back via e-mail. 2 of the times I agreed with
the answer and the third while I didn't really agree with it I don't see how
I could have successfully argued the other side to any higher authority
especially an administrative law judge.

But your response to my e-mail sounds exactly like something MX would write.
So, tell me, how is the weather in Paris?

Skidder

March 9th 07, 11:11 PM

On 3/9/2007 3:39:01 PM, Judah wrote:
>"Skidder" > wrote in :
>
>>
>>>What if Pilot A hasn't flown in 10 years? Would you still feel this is
>>>safer than if Pilot A didn't fly with an instructor in the right seat
>>>instead of his buddy, Pilot B who hasn't flown in 15 years?
>>
>> Certainly not. I think the regs clearly indicate both pilots would have to
>> medicals and BFRs.
>
>Where do they state that? Nothing in 61.57 says anything about medicals or
>BFRs. And I don't see anywhere the definition of a Pilot. A pilot, by your
>own definition, is anyone who holds a valid Pilot Certificate. If he doesn't
>have to be current, why does he have to have a medical and a BFR?
>
>You're making up your own rules and haven't thought it through.

Your right. Medicals and Flight Reviews are covered in 61.23 and 61.56 I
think.

No my definition of a pilot for this discussion is someone who has all
required quailfications for the aircraft in question, except his 90 currency
to carry passengers.

--
Skidder

Skidder

March 9th 07, 11:27 PM

On 3/9/2007 5:01:06 PM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:
>Skidder wrote:
>> On 3/9/2007 10:44:15 AM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You are act much like another troll from around these parts. But,
>>> since you say you are a pilot why don't you find out this way.
>>>
>>> Call your local FSDO and tell them exactly what you are going to do.
>>> Tell them what airport you are going to it and at what day and time.
>>>
>>
>> When you ask your local FSDO for an interpretation of the regs, do
>> you think they are OBLIGATED to tell you the truth?
>>
>> I can assure you all to often, if you ask someone in authority how to
>> interpret any law, they are going to tell you how they think it
>> should be, and to heck with how it really is.
>
>That wasn't really the point. I didn't tell you to ask them about the law
>what I wanted you to do is to give them a chance to enforce the law so you
>could tell us how it turned out.
>
>I'm in the process of building and have asked for the FSDO to answer exactly
>3 questions. Each time I sent them an e-mail and each time I received a
>perfectly well reasoned answer back via e-mail. 2 of the times I agreed with
>the answer and the third while I didn't really agree with it I don't see how
>I could have successfully argued the other side to any higher authority
>especially an administrative law judge.
>
>But your response to my e-mail sounds exactly like something MX would write.
>So, tell me, how is the weather in Paris?
>
>

You're the one trolling now, you're the one trying to provoke a response.

--
Skidder

Skidder

March 9th 07, 11:28 PM

On 3/9/2007 11:57:41 AM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:
>Skidder wrote:
>> On 3/8/2007 8:39:07 PM, "BT" wrote:
>>> Is Skidder... Maximo (Mxsmaic) in drag?
>>> I have not seen him in this tread..
>>>
>>> Bye
>>> BT
>>
>> On 3/8/2007 9:25:55 PM, "Morgans" wrote:
>>> If not, I would propose that we have another troll amongst us, and
>>> that everyone should take notice, and "govern themselves
>>> accordingly."
>>
>>
>> Why on earth would either of you two say such a thing. I have done
>> nothing to irritate or insult anyone, and I have certainly not said
>> anything to, or about either of you.
>>
>> You two are the ones trolling now. If you don't wish to participate
>> in the discussion, you certainly don't have to. But you have no right
>> to attempt starting a flame war in hopes of ending the thread.
>
>You have done exactly what MX has done in the past. Ask a reasonable
>question then agrue with virtually everyone that answers you.
>
>

Again. You're the one trolling now, you're the one trying to provoke a
response. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, don't do so.

--
Skidder

Robert M. Gary

March 10th 07, 12:18 AM

On Mar 9, 8:44 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> Skidder wrote:
> > On 3/8/2007 11:25:35 PM, Judah wrote:
> >> "Guillermo" > wrote in
> oups.com:
>
> >> But the point is that someone is still PIC, and that PIC needs to be
> >> current...
>
> > Well not really. Maybe that is a bit of the confusion.
>
> > 61.57 says the PIC has to be current to carry a *passenger*, not
> > another *pilot*. And I can't find anything in the regs that says just
> > because the aircraft doesn't require two pilots, you can't have two
> > pilots.
>
> You are act much like another troll from around these parts. But, since you
> say you are a pilot why don't you find out this way.
>
> Call your local FSDO and tell them exactly what you are going to do. Tell
> them what airport you are going to it and at what day and time.

Since this guy is clearly wrong, I'm not going to argue with him. I
already suggested that he call AOPA, let them deal with him. I
wouldn't take the time if he doesn't want to listen. If he thinks two
pilots can both be required crew member s on a 172 while just goofing
off in the sky (no hood, etc), then let him tell that story to AOPA
(or better yet, the FSDO ;) ).

-Robert

Robert M. Gary

March 10th 07, 12:21 AM

On Mar 7, 7:15 pm, "Skidder" > wrote:
> On 3/7/2007 7:10:07 PM, "Skidder" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >As we all know, you can't carry a passenger unless you are current. But if
> >two pilots get in an aircraft with dual controls, can either of them really
> >be considered a passenger? You can log PIC from either seat.
>
> >Lets say, I have a PPL but am not current. My best friend has a PPL but is
> >not current. Both of us have a current medical? Is it legal for both of us to
> >get in an aircraft with dual controls, at the same time, shoot 6 take offs
> >and landings, 3 each, and log ourselves as current and split the flying time
> >in our logs?
>
> >Would be both absolutely have to have a current medical?
>
> >He is an attorney and says the way he reads the regs, that it's not exactly
> >clear. I myself don't know, but thought the group might enjoy debating the
> >question.
>
> >Along the same lines, if a PPL *is* current. Can he go for insurance check
> >ride with an instructor that is not, or doesn't have a current medilcal?
>
> Ok, first things first, I am not a troll, and this is a very legitimate
> question that could be applicable to lots of flyers.
>
> Second, were all over the place here. MEIs, seaplanes, instructor without
> medicals, you can't be PIC unless you are current (who's pic when you do your
> currency work), ......sheesh guys let's keep our eyes on the ball.

Because the answer to your question is trivial. We already answered
it. If you don't like the answer call AOPA, don't bug us about the
fact that you disagree with what we already told you is fact. Call
AOPA (or the FSDO) if you want to argue it.

-Robert, CFII

Skidder

March 10th 07, 12:29 AM

On 3/9/2007 6:18:34 PM, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

>Since this guy is clearly wrong, I'm not going to argue with him. I
>already suggested that he call AOPA, let them deal with him. I
>wouldn't take the time if he doesn't want to listen. If he thinks two
>pilots can both be required crew member s on a 172 while just goofing
>off in the sky (no hood, etc), then let him tell that story to AOPA
>(or better yet, the FSDO ;) ).
>

Where did I say two pilots can both be required crew members on a 172?

And where is you make reference to the regs?

And most important, why do you care. If you're interested in the discussion,
why are you here?

--
Skidder

Skidder

March 10th 07, 12:32 AM

On 3/9/2007 6:21:27 PM, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

>
>Because the answer to your question is trivial. We already answered
>it. If you don't like the answer call AOPA, don't bug us about the
>fact that you disagree with what we already told you is fact. Call
>AOPA (or the FSDO) if you want to argue it.
>

Well what can I say Robert. If you think the answer is that trivial, and open
and shut, and you have no interest in exploring the topic, why are you here?
There are lots of other threads, and groups to explore.

--
Skidder

Robert M. Gary

March 10th 07, 01:30 AM

On Mar 9, 4:32 pm, "Skidder" > wrote:
> On 3/9/2007 6:21:27 PM, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
>
>
>
> >Because the answer to your question is trivial. We already answered
> >it. If you don't like the answer call AOPA, don't bug us about the
> >fact that you disagree with what we already told you is fact. Call
> >AOPA (or the FSDO) if you want to argue it.
>
> Well what can I say Robert. If you think the answer is that trivial, and open
> and shut, and you have no interest in exploring the topic, why are you here?
> There are lots of other threads, and groups to explore.

Now I know you're trolling. You're not looking for answers, you're
looking for argument.

-Robert, CFII

Morgans[_2_]

March 10th 07, 01:42 AM

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>
> Now I know you're trolling. You're not looking for answers, you're
> looking for argument.

Exactly.

OK, group. You all have a decision to make. You all can go on with this
new troll, or choose to cut him off before things get out of hand, as they
have with another certain person.

Your choice.

I say it is time to ignore this one; totally, and completely. No responses.
Anything less, and this forum steps another foot deeper into the grave.
--
Jim in NC

Newps

March 10th 07, 03:35 AM

Skidder wrote:

>
If you think the answer is that trivial, and open
> and shut, and you have no interest in exploring the topic,

What's to explore? You are dead wrong.

Skidder

March 10th 07, 04:42 AM

On 3/9/2007 9:35:42 PM, Newps wrote:

>
>What's to explore? You are dead wrong.
>

Dead wrong about what? Can you be more specific?

--
Skidder

Skidder

March 10th 07, 04:49 AM

On 3/9/2007 7:30:00 PM, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

>>
>> Well what can I say Robert. If you think the answer is that trivial, and open
>> and shut, and you have no interest in exploring the topic, why are you here?
>> There are lots of other threads, and groups to explore.
>
>Now I know you're trolling. You're not looking for answers, you're
>looking for argument.
>

You came on my thread, insisiting that the conversation end with your advice,
and calling me a troll because I'm not satisfied with your answer and
continue to discuss the topic with other. Now you tell me. Who is the real
troll?

I've tried to be a gentleman, but you don't want to settle for that. So get
lost.

--
Skidder

Skidder

March 10th 07, 05:47 AM

On 3/9/2007 7:42:31 PM, "Morgans" wrote:
>
>"Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>>
>> Now I know you're trolling. You're not looking for answers, you're
>> looking for argument.
>
>Exactly.
>
>OK, group. You all have a decision to make. You all can go on with this
>new troll, or choose to cut him off before things get out of hand, as they
>have with another certain person.
>
>Your choice.
>
>I say it is time to ignore this one; totally, and completely. No responses.
>Anything less, and this forum steps another foot deeper into the grave.

No wonder you guys are having so much trouble with trolls. You think you have
the right to sabotage someone else’s thread just because you don't like the
topic? Just because it doesn't meet your standards, just because the person
is unwilling to end the thread upon your advice?

This is Usenet, a very public form. You are never obligated join a thread,
and you have no right publicly try to end someone's thread by pier pressure.
Much less attempting to blackball someone just because they don't agree with
you.

I can't speak for everyone else here, but if you two are having troll
problems, it's easy for me to see why.

--
Skidder

Skidder

March 10th 07, 06:58 AM

On 3/10/2007 12:20:18 AM, Nomen Nescio wrote:

>So, let's see. He's got no life. He's sidestepping every rational explanation.
>He replies to everybody in an ignorant, arrogant tone. And he bases his
>argument on select snippets of info and ignores the rest.

There are some blazing generalities for you. Let's see you substantiate them.

Top of the evening to you too Mr. Troll.

--
Skidder

Maxwell

March 10th 07, 04:53 PM

>
>>>So, let's see. He's got no life. He's sidestepping every rational
>>>explanation.
>>>He replies to everybody in an ignorant, arrogant tone. And he bases his
>>>argument on select snippets of info and ignores the rest.
>>
>>There are some blazing generalities for you. Let's see you substantiate
>>them.
>
> Just read the posts from some dickhead who calls himself "Skidder"
> under the subject "Do you have to solo to get current?". That
> substantiates
> my thoughts quite well.
>
>>Top of the evening to you too Mr. Troll.
>
> Kiss my ass, Clone.

Good morning Mr Troll.

But same question.
No life,
ingorant,
arrogant tone,
agruement on snippits.

Point them out and be specific, or you are just trying to sabotoge the
thread.

Judah

March 10th 07, 05:32 PM

"Maxwell" > wrote in :

> Good morning Mr Troll.
>
> But same question.
> No life,
> ingorant,
> arrogant tone,
> agruement on snippits.
>
> Point them out and be specific, or you are just trying to sabotoge the
> thread.

Headers would seem to indicate that Maxwell and Skidder are one and the same.

I'm not a Usenet header guru, but at first glance I don't see evidence of
them being the same as Manic.

Still, it's hard to tell - perhaps he proxies using one of the two sets of
identities.

Who knows? Perhaps we're all just Manic in disguise?

Travis Marlatte

March 10th 07, 06:23 PM

"Skidder" > wrote in message
...
> On 3/9/2007 7:00:02 AM, "Travis Marlatte" wrote:
>>What if the other person was a woman? Where do the regs say that a woman
>>is
>>a passenger? How about a skinny guy? Where do the regs say that a skinny
>>guy
>>is a passenger?
>>
>>OK. So it's clear. I can take another pilot, a woman, or a skinny guy
>>along
>>on my flight to becomme current to carry passengers.
>>
>
> That's uncalled for Travis, clearly we are talking about pilots.
>
> --
> Skidder

OK. It may have been harshly sarcastic but why are we clearly talking about
pilots? Your thesis is built on a negative inference - the regs do not
clearly say that a non-flying, non-current pilot is a passenger, therefore,
it is acceptable for a non-current pilot to become current with another
non-current pilot on board. In fact, the regs don't define a passenger at
all. So, maybe there is no such thing. OK. More sarcasm.

I think it was a somewhat reasonable question. But you have now argued it
beyond reason.

If this is all theoretical, then quit trying to penny pinch a taxi to the
ramp to change pilots. Go out, do your three in the pattern and feel the joy
of flying. Then, let the other guy do it.

If you are fighting an FAA action, then I think you're screwed. Pick one of
the two of you to claim PIC and take your medicine. The non-PIC was just a
passenger and can be the chauffer for 60 or 90 days.
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

Travis Marlatte

March 10th 07, 06:30 PM

"Brian" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>>
>> No one is suggesting circumvention of currency. Nor are we talking about
>> asking just *anyone* to be a crew member.
>>
>> We are talking about two licensed pilots, both quaified and legal to fly
>> an
>> aircraft with dual controls and setting in the front seat. Both with
>> current
>> medical certificates and let me add BFRs for the point of discussion.
>> That
>> is a far cry from being a stereo typical passenger.
>>
>> If either pilot is qualified to get in the plane fly solo, what in the
>> regs
>> says they both can't pilot the plane, as long as they log only the time
>> and
>> landings made while their own hands operate the controls.
>>
>> And if we absolutely insist this person must have a title, what is wrong
>> with a back-up pilot?
>
> What would be the difference in the above if you replaced "two
> licensed pilots" with "two student pilots"?
>
> It would appear to me that the same would apply.
>
> (BTW. IMO it is not legal for two pilots out of 90 day currency to fly
> together. )
>
> Brian
>
More importantly, in my mind, it's not a good idea to have two non-current
pilots becoming current together. In this case, I think the regs have a
valid point. In fact, it is almost generous. Put you're own life at risk but
no one else's. They could require three in the pattern with a CFI.

Did I say that out loud?

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

Maxwell

March 10th 07, 08:39 PM

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Maxwell" > wrote in
> :
>
>> Good morning Mr Troll.
>>
>> But same question.
>> No life,
>> ingorant,
>> arrogant tone,
>> agruement on snippits.
>>
>> Point them out and be specific, or you are just trying to sabotoge the
>> thread.
>
> Headers would seem to indicate that Maxwell and Skidder are one and the
> same.
>
> I'm not a Usenet header guru, but at first glance I don't see evidence of
> them being the same as Manic.
>
> Still, it's hard to tell - perhaps he proxies using one of the two sets of
> identities.
>
> Who knows? Perhaps we're all just Manic in disguise?

Skidder and I work together for the same small firm. So our mail comes from
the same IP address, the company router. We agree on most things, but not
all. He is out of town today, and I was just taking up for him for what
seemed to me to be a very malicious attack from someone that just wants to
end the thread.

One place I do agree with him though, is that if someone doesn't want to
attempt constructive participation in a thread, they shoud go elsewhere o r
be considered a destrucive troll.

Newps

March 10th 07, 10:14 PM

Maxwell wrote:
He is out of town today, and I was just taking up for him for what
> seemed to me to be a very malicious attack from someone that just wants to
> end the thread.

The thread was ended with the first reply. It's cut and dried. get
over it.

Maxwell

March 10th 07, 11:17 PM

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Maxwell wrote:
> He is out of town today, and I was just taking up for him for what
>> seemed to me to be a very malicious attack from someone that just wants
>> to end the thread.
>
> The thread was ended with the first reply. It's cut and dried. get over
> it.
>

Who died and made you God?

Maxwell

March 10th 07, 11:19 PM

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Maxwell wrote:
>> "Judah" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter what you call the guy in the right seat. For the
>>> purpose of meeting 61.57, the person in the right seat is not
>>> necessary for the conduct of the flight, and therefore doesn't
>>> belong there.
>>
>> It matters if you call him a pilot. How can you consider someone
>> mearly a passenger, if they are as qualified to fly the aircraft as
>> the pilot. And if he is indeed a pilot, you are not carrying a
>> passenger, and you don't have to meet the requirements of 61.57.
>>
>> Currency to carry a passenger is what 61.57 is all about.
>>
>> I see where the guy is going with this, and I for one think he might
>> have a point.
>>
>> Not to mention the fact that if both people are qualified to solo the
>> aircraft, why would the FAA care. They are both pilots and they are
>> not carrying passengers.
>
> The FAA cares in several situations. Let's take for example my Homebuilt.
> For the first 40 hours only one person can be in it at a time. I can't
> even have a fully qualified CFI in the plane with me during that Phase 1
> time.
>
And in what way does have anything to do with this topic?

Maxwell

March 10th 07, 11:24 PM

"Judah" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Maxwell" > wrote in
> :
>
>> If either pilot is qualified to get in the plane fly solo, what in the
>> regs says they both can't pilot the plane, as long as they log only the
>> time and landings made while their own hands operate the controls.
>
> This part:
>
> "(2) For the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of
> this
> section, a person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft under day
> VFR
> or day IFR, **** provided no persons or property are carried on board the
> aircraft, other than those necessary for the conduct of the flight. **** "
>
>
>> And if we absolutely insist this person must have a title, what is wrong
>> with a back-up pilot?
>
> Is this "back-up pilot" necessary for the conduct of the flight?

No he would not. But no mater what you call him, if he is any kind of
quaified pilot, as opposed to a passenger, 61.57 does not apply. Because
61.57 is about carrying passengers.

601XL Builder

March 10th 07, 11:47 PM

Maxwell wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Maxwell wrote:
>>> "Judah" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> It doesn't matter what you call the guy in the right seat. For the
>>>> purpose of meeting 61.57, the person in the right seat is not
>>>> necessary for the conduct of the flight, and therefore doesn't
>>>> belong there.
>>> It matters if you call him a pilot. How can you consider someone
>>> mearly a passenger, if they are as qualified to fly the aircraft as
>>> the pilot. And if he is indeed a pilot, you are not carrying a
>>> passenger, and you don't have to meet the requirements of 61.57.
>>>
>>> Currency to carry a passenger is what 61.57 is all about.
>>>
>>> I see where the guy is going with this, and I for one think he might
>>> have a point.
>>>
>>> Not to mention the fact that if both people are qualified to solo the
>>> aircraft, why would the FAA care. They are both pilots and they are
>>> not carrying passengers.
>> The FAA cares in several situations. Let's take for example my Homebuilt.
>> For the first 40 hours only one person can be in it at a time. I can't
>> even have a fully qualified CFI in the plane with me during that Phase 1
>> time.
>>
> And in what way does have anything to do with this topic?
>
>

I was giving an example where the FAA would care. It is a similar
situation where the flight would be legal with one of two pilots on
board but not both of the pilots at the same time.

If you don't see the similarity you are either stupid or a troll.

Judah

March 11th 07, 12:32 AM

"Maxwell" > wrote in news:D6HIh.16227$TK5.12353
@newsfe13.lga:

> No he would not. But no mater what you call him, if he is any kind of
> quaified pilot, as opposed to a passenger, 61.57 does not apply. Because
> 61.57 is about carrying passengers.

If he ever intends to fly with passengers in the future, he may not use
three takeoffs and landings during a flight carrying non-required persons
or property to meet his currency requirement. That's pretty clear.

I disagree with your definition of a passenger. But I'm not an authority.

However, the definition is suspicious to me because you qualify a non-
passenger pilot as anyone who holds a pilot certificate, and also is BFR
and Medical current.

Nothing in 61.23 says that a person needs a Medical in order to "be" a
pilot. Only to excercise the privileges of the pilot. Is "being" a pilot
instead of a passenger a privilege?

And nothing in 61.56 says that a person needs a BFR to "be" a pilot. One
need only have a BFR in order to act as Pilot in Command.

Additionally, 61.56 (h) specifically says that a BFR can be accomplished in
combination with 61.57 at the discretion of the instructor. The implication
to me is that if the rule were not there, and a pilot were to not be
current per 61.57, the instructor would have to be PIC for the flight, and
the pilot getting his BFR would have to kick the instructor out in order to
meet 61.57.

YMMV

Maxwell

March 11th 07, 01:11 AM

"601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet> wrote in message
...
> Maxwell wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Maxwell wrote:
>>>> "Judah" > wrote in message
>>>> .. .
>>>>> It doesn't matter what you call the guy in the right seat. For the
>>>>> purpose of meeting 61.57, the person in the right seat is not
>>>>> necessary for the conduct of the flight, and therefore doesn't
>>>>> belong there.
>>>> It matters if you call him a pilot. How can you consider someone
>>>> mearly a passenger, if they are as qualified to fly the aircraft as
>>>> the pilot. And if he is indeed a pilot, you are not carrying a
>>>> passenger, and you don't have to meet the requirements of 61.57.
>>>>
>>>> Currency to carry a passenger is what 61.57 is all about.
>>>>
>>>> I see where the guy is going with this, and I for one think he might
>>>> have a point.
>>>>
>>>> Not to mention the fact that if both people are qualified to solo the
>>>> aircraft, why would the FAA care. They are both pilots and they are
>>>> not carrying passengers.
>>> The FAA cares in several situations. Let's take for example my
>>> Homebuilt. For the first 40 hours only one person can be in it at a
>>> time. I can't even have a fully qualified CFI in the plane with me
>>> during that Phase 1 time.
>>>
>> And in what way does have anything to do with this topic?
>>
>>
>
> I was giving an example where the FAA would care. It is a similar
> situation where the flight would be legal with one of two pilots on board
> but not both of the pilots at the same time.
>
> If you don't see the similarity you are either stupid or a troll.

No, I'm not stupid, and I'm certainly not a troll.

You want to compare as sutation where you have,

two certifed pilots, each flying the same certified airplane individually,

to two certified pilots, flying in the same certified airplane at the same
time,

to a builder flying the initial 40 hours off an amauter build aircraft.

In no way are either of the first two examples in any way related to a test
pilot flying and unknown ship during it's it's initial 40 hours.

Maxwell

March 11th 07, 01:43 AM

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Maxwell" > wrote in news:D6HIh.16227$TK5.12353
> @newsfe13.lga:
>
>> No he would not. But no mater what you call him, if he is any kind of
>> quaified pilot, as opposed to a passenger, 61.57 does not apply. Because
>> 61.57 is about carrying passengers.
>
> If he ever intends to fly with passengers in the future, he may not use
> three takeoffs and landings during a flight carrying non-required persons
> or property to meet his currency requirement. That's pretty clear.

That's an interesting angle, but I don't think it would be correct. The way
I am reading it, if he has done three takeoffs and landings in the past 90
days under any circumstances, he is current to fly passengers.

>
> I disagree with your definition of a passenger. But I'm not an authority.

Agreed, and this is the question if the hour so to speak.

>
> However, the definition is suspicious to me because you qualify a non-
> passenger pilot as anyone who holds a pilot certificate, and also is BFR
> and Medical current.
>
> Nothing in 61.23 says that a person needs a Medical in order to "be" a
> pilot. Only to excercise the privileges of the pilot. Is "being" a pilot
> instead of a passenger a privilege?
>
> And nothing in 61.56 says that a person needs a BFR to "be" a pilot. One
> need only have a BFR in order to act as Pilot in Command.
>

True, but to present himself to fly SIC, even in an aircraft that doesn't
required him, wouldn't he have to have his medical and BFR? The way I read
it he would. It looks to me like he would have to have everthing except the
3 t&ls in the past 90, to seek such currency, with or without another pilot
in the aircraft.

> Additionally, 61.56 (h) specifically says that a BFR can be accomplished
> in
> combination with 61.57 at the discretion of the instructor. The
> implication
> to me is that if the rule were not there, and a pilot were to not be
> current per 61.57, the instructor would have to be PIC for the flight, and
> the pilot getting his BFR would have to kick the instructor out in order
> to
> meet 61.57.

That's interesting. I wonder if you need to have the instructor specify this
in his endorsement? I always thought 3 T&Ls in the past 90, was 3 T&Ls in
the past 90. I think I will check some of mine. I have always specifed I
wanted to cover that base when I take a BFR, and have always done the 3 T&Ls
at night when I take a BFR. But I don't recal any note from the instructor
indicating it was included. Just the T&Ls count for that line item in my
log.

>
> YMMV

Judah

March 11th 07, 02:06 AM

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Maxwell" > wrote in news:D6HIh.16227$TK5.12353
>> @newsfe13.lga:
>>
>>> No he would not. But no mater what you call him, if he is any kind of
>>> quaified pilot, as opposed to a passenger, 61.57 does not apply.
>>> Because 61.57 is about carrying passengers.
>>
>> If he ever intends to fly with passengers in the future, he may not use
>> three takeoffs and landings during a flight carrying non-required
>> persons or property to meet his currency requirement. That's pretty
>> clear.
>
> That's an interesting angle, but I don't think it would be correct. The
> way I am reading it, if he has done three takeoffs and landings in the
> past 90 days under any circumstances, he is current to fly passengers.

Section (2) of 61.57 is quite clear. For the purpose of meeting the
requirements of (a)(1), if he was PIC he can't have carried persons or
property that weren't necessary aboard the flight.

How else is that to be interpreted?

Danny Deger

March 11th 07, 02:50 AM

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
t...
> "Skidder" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Not until we find a reg that stipulates the second pilot is a pax.
>>
>> --
>> Skidder
>
> I think that's asking a bit much. Why would there be such a reg? The vast
> majority of laws, guidelines and beliefs in our society define
> requirements to be an "X." Why would we need to continue, then, to clarify
> the requirements for not being an "X?"
>
> We have the sole manipulator of the controls (PIC) and we have a person
> responsible for the flight (loggable PIC). That's usually the same person
> but, by negative inference, everyone else is a passenger - unless one of
> them is a CFI in which case they get blamed for everything even if they
> are in the back seat. (that's a bad joke that has seen the light of day)
> -------------------------------

Don't forget about safety pilot if flying under the hood.

Danny Deger

Newps

March 11th 07, 03:56 AM

Maxwell wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>
>>Maxwell wrote:
>>He is out of town today, and I was just taking up for him for what
>>
>>>seemed to me to be a very malicious attack from someone that just wants
>>>to end the thread.
>>
>>The thread was ended with the first reply. It's cut and dried. get over
>>it.
>>
>
>
> Who died and made you God?

Has nothing to do with god. The fact that the second person is a pilot
is irrelavant.

Guillermo

March 11th 07, 04:05 AM

On Mar 10, 7:32 pm, Judah > wrote:
> "Maxwell" > wrote in news:D6HIh.16227$TK5.12353
> @newsfe13.lga:
>
> > No he would not. But no mater what you call him, if he is any kind of
> > quaified pilot, as opposed to a passenger, 61.57 does not apply. Because
> > 61.57 is about carrying passengers.
>
> If he ever intends to fly with passengers in the future, he may not use
> three takeoffs and landings during a flight carrying non-required persons
> or property to meet his currency requirement. That's pretty clear.

What you are saying here doesn't make any sense at all. The intent of
61.57 (2) is to allow somebody in an aircraft which requires more than
1 crewmember to regain their currency. For example, you have a non-
current pilot in a jet certified for more than one crewmember. He
cannot act as PIC per 61.57 (1) (talks also about aircraft for more
than one pilot). However, if he wants to regain currency, 61.57 (2)
allows him to act as a PIC of the aircraft in order to do his three
touch and goes, and allows to carry the required crewmember. But he
can only fly if the purpose of his flight is to get current.

Guillermo

March 11th 07, 04:14 AM

On Mar 9, 4:35 pm, Judah > wrote:
> Based on Paragraph (2) of 61.57, it doesn't matter whether the other guy is
> qualified to solo. If the flight is used to establish currency (ie: you
> count the takeoffs and landings toward your 90 day requirement) then it
> violates paragraph (2) to have anyone at all in the right seat if you are
> PIC.
>
> If you do it with an instructor, that instructor is PIC for the flight.
>
> If you do it with a current pilot, that pilot is PIC for the flight.
>
> If you do it with a dog, you violate.
>
> If you do it with a fat woman named Betty, you violate.
>
> If you do it with a package that you are dropping off at a friends house,
> you violate.
>
> The only exception I can see is if you don't log the takeoffs and landings.
> However, the wording in 61.57 refers to MAKING takeoffs and landings, not
> logging them, so even making a takeoff or landing without logging it might
> be a violation.

This is absolute non-sense. 61.57 (2) just allows a pilot who cannot
comply with 61.57 (1) to do a legal flight in order to regain
currency, in aircraft certified for more than one pilot (because if
you don't need more than one pilot then 61.57 allows you to do the
flight).
What you are saying implies that I can't count any flights I do with
passengers for currency purposes, which doesn't make any sense either.
And saying that a flight can be legal or not legal depending on the
fact that you log or not log the landings is non-sense as well.
You have completely misinterpreted 61.57 (2)

Guillermo

March 11th 07, 04:26 AM

On Mar 9, 7:32 pm, "Skidder" > wrote:

> >Because the answer to your question is trivial. We already answered
> >it. If you don't like the answer call AOPA, don't bug us about the
> >fact that you disagree with what we already told you is fact. Call
> >AOPA (or the FSDO) if you want to argue it.
>
> Well what can I say Robert. If you think the answer is that trivial, and open
> and shut, and you have no interest in exploring the topic, why are you here?
> There are lots of other threads, and groups to explore.

Well, I think that for almost everyone the answer is trivial.

You are confusing the qualifications of a specific person (i.e. being
a pilot), with the role that the person is doing during a flight.

The person who is not the PIC can be A pilot, but not THE pilot for
the specific flight.
If the other pilot sits in the back seat, he is still A pilot right,
so it can be carried without the guy in the front being current? Even
sitting in front of my computer, I am still A pilot. I am just not
being THE pilot of any flight.
If I sit in the back of an airliner, I am still a pilot right?.. I
still have my pilot's license.....but I am a passenger of that
specific flight.
If I am not THE pilot of a specific flight, or other crewmember, then
I am a passenger, who happens to be qualified as a pilot.

Judah

March 11th 07, 07:34 AM

"Guillermo" > wrote in news:1173585901.106379.264560
@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> What you are saying here doesn't make any sense at all. The intent of
> 61.57 (2) is to allow somebody in an aircraft which requires more than
> 1 crewmember to regain their currency. For example, you have a non-
> current pilot in a jet certified for more than one crewmember. He
> cannot act as PIC per 61.57 (1) (talks also about aircraft for more
> than one pilot). However, if he wants to regain currency, 61.57 (2)
> allows him to act as a PIC of the aircraft in order to do his three
> touch and goes, and allows to carry the required crewmember. But he
> can only fly if the purpose of his flight is to get current.

But it doesn't specify anything in (1) or (2) that limits it to currency in a
jet certified for 2 crewmembers. It just says that if you want to fly a
mission for the purpose of being sole manipulator of the controls to regain
currency, you can be PIC of a plane in day VFR or IFR provided you're not
carrying anything aboard that is not necessary for the conduct of the flight.

As far as I can tell, that would mean that anytime you are out of currency,
you can't count a flight with passengers or non-required crewmembers toward
currency. If you are current, however, and take off and land with passengers,
crewmembers, packages, dogs, or elephants on the plane, you can count it. But
once you come out of currency, section (2) applies...

Guillermo

March 11th 07, 01:32 PM

On Mar 11, 3:34 am, Judah > wrote:
> "Guillermo" > wrote in news:1173585901.106379.264560
> @n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > What you are saying here doesn't make any sense at all. The intent of
> > 61.57 (2) is to allow somebody in an aircraft which requires more than
> > 1 crewmember to regain their currency. For example, you have a non-
> > current pilot in a jet certified for more than one crewmember. He
> > cannot act as PIC per 61.57 (1) (talks also about aircraft for more
> > than one pilot). However, if he wants to regain currency, 61.57 (2)
> > allows him to act as a PIC of the aircraft in order to do his three
> > touch and goes, and allows to carry the required crewmember. But he
> > can only fly if the purpose of his flight is to get current.
>
> But it doesn't specify anything in (1) or (2) that limits it to currency in a
> jet certified for 2 crewmembers. It just says that if you want to fly a
> mission for the purpose of being sole manipulator of the controls to regain
> currency, you can be PIC of a plane in day VFR or IFR provided you're not
> carrying anything aboard that is not necessary for the conduct of the flight.
>
> As far as I can tell, that would mean that anytime you are out of currency,
> you can't count a flight with passengers or non-required crewmembers toward
> currency. If you are current, however, and take off and land with passengers,
> crewmembers, packages, dogs, or elephants on the plane, you can count it. But
> once you come out of currency, section (2) applies...

Well, it is not that you can't count the flight. You can't even DO the
flight legally with passengers if you are not current (I don't want to
start a discussion of whether elephants and dogs are passengers, so
lets focus now on the packages).
You have to remember the fact that in general the regulations tell you
what you CAN'T do, as opposed to what you CAN do. If the FARs tell
don't tell you that you can't do something, then you can do it.
If I am not-current in a C-152, I still can carry non-necessary
packages on board. There is no regulation than prevents me to do so.
61.57 (1) just talks about passengers. And 61.57 (2) never says that
somebody may not act as PIC with packages, just says that you MAY
conduct a flight if the flight is is done for the purpose of regaining
currency, and provided no elephants, passengers or packages are
carried. But remember that you can carry anything or anybody necessary
for the conduct of the flight. The only case you will be taking
advantage of 61.57 (2) is if you are in an aircraft certified for more
than 1 crewmember, because 61.57 (1) does not allow y ou to fly, but
61.57 (2) gives you authorization to do it only if your purpose is to
regain currency and certain conditions are met.

John T

March 11th 07, 02:02 PM

"Skidder" > wrote in message

>
>> I think there is a reg that says if the crew position is not
>> required, the person is a pax.
>
> I've never seen one. Has anyone else?

I think the intent of the regs is clear. The FAA wants pilots carrying
passengers to demonstrate a minimum level of proficiency. If you are not
acting as a required crewmember (pilot, acting PIC, SIC, etc.), then you are
a passenger.

If the two of you were planning to split the flying time anyway, what's the
big deal about only one of you being in the plane at a time while the other
watches (and perhaps grades) the performance? Both of you would spend about
the same amount of time at the controls of the plane as you would by
stretching the regs. What do you gain by pushing it?

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

Judah

March 11th 07, 02:42 PM

"Guillermo" > wrote in
oups.com:

> Well, it is not that you can't count the flight. You can't even DO the
> flight legally with passengers if you are not current (I don't want to
> start a discussion of whether elephants and dogs are passengers, so
> lets focus now on the packages).
> You have to remember the fact that in general the regulations tell you
> what you CAN'T do, as opposed to what you CAN do. If the FARs tell
> don't tell you that you can't do something, then you can do it.
> If I am not-current in a C-152, I still can carry non-necessary
> packages on board. There is no regulation than prevents me to do so.
> 61.57 (1) just talks about passengers. And 61.57 (2) never says that
> somebody may not act as PIC with packages, just says that you MAY
> conduct a flight if the flight is is done for the purpose of regaining
> currency, and provided no elephants, passengers or packages are
> carried. But remember that you can carry anything or anybody necessary
> for the conduct of the flight. The only case you will be taking
> advantage of 61.57 (2) is if you are in an aircraft certified for more
> than 1 crewmember, because 61.57 (1) does not allow y ou to fly, but
> 61.57 (2) gives you authorization to do it only if your purpose is to
> regain currency and certain conditions are met.

I disagree with your interpretation. If (2) was specifically for aircraft
requiring two crewmembers, it would have said for aircraft requiring two
crewmembers, and would have probably also used the work "required" instead
of "necessary". I say the purpose of the flight in question doesn't have to
be determined at the time of the flight, but is established when you are
looking to establish currency to fly passengers.

eg:

Day 1: Out of currency.
Day 2: Fly a flight taking 3 takeoffs and landings with a dog on board.
(Presumably, a dog is someone's property, even if it's not a passenger.)
Day 3: Now you want to carry passengers. So you determine that the flight
on Day 2 serves the purpose to establish your currency.

61.57(2) says that flight cannot serve that purpose. You need to have a
flight with 3 take-offs and landings that did not include passengers or
property, since you were already out of currency.

Guillermo[_2_]

March 11th 07, 06:07 PM

On Mar 11, 10:42 am, Judah > wrote:
> "Guillermo" > wrote groups.com:
>
>
>
> > Well, it is not that you can't count the flight. You can't even DO the
> > flight legally with passengers if you are not current (I don't want to
> > start a discussion of whether elephants and dogs are passengers, so
> > lets focus now on the packages).
> > You have to remember the fact that in general the regulations tell you
> > what you CAN'T do, as opposed to what you CAN do. If the FARs tell
> > don't tell you that you can't do something, then you can do it.
> > If I am not-current in a C-152, I still can carry non-necessary
Aga
> > packages on board. There is no regulation than prevents me to do so.
> > 61.57 (1) just talks about passengers. And 61.57 (2) never says that
> > somebody may not act as PIC with packages, just says that you MAY
> > conduct a flight if the flight is is done for the purpose of regaining
> > currency, and provided no elephants, passengers or packages are
> > carried. But remember that you can carry anything or anybody necessary
> > for the conduct of the flight. The only case you will be taking
> > advantage of 61.57 (2) is if you are in an aircraft certified for more
> > than 1 crewmember, because 61.57 (1) does not allow y ou to fly, but
> > 61.57 (2) gives you authorization to do it only if your purpose is to
> > regain currency and certain conditions are met.
>
> I disagree with your interpretation. If (2) was specifically for aircraft
> requiring two crewmembers, it would have said for aircraft requiring two
> crewmembers, and would have probably also used the work "required" instead
> of "necessary". I say the purpose of the flight in question doesn't have to
> be determined at the time of the flight, but is established when you are
> looking to establish currency to fly passengers.
>
> eg:
>
> Day 1: Out of currency.
> Day 2: Fly a flight taking 3 takeoffs and landings with a dog on board.
> (Presumably, a dog is someone's property, even if it's not a passenger.)
> Day 3: Now you want to carry passengers. So you determine that the flight
> on Day 2 serves the purpose to establish your currency.
>
> 61.57(2) says that flight cannot serve that purpose. You need to have a
> flight with 3 take-offs and landings that did not include passengers or
> property, since you were already out of currency.

I wish more pilots stepped in this conversation, because I'd say most
of them agree with my interpretation. If the dog is considered
property, I can still take it even not being current, and I can still
count the landings. Your interpretation is plain wrong.

61.57 (2) never says that I you can't log or count any specific
landings. Where does it say that the flight can't serve that purpose?
No place in that regs it says anything that you MAY NOT do or SHALL
NOT do, or MAY NOT log, or MAY NOT count.

61.57 (1) just says you have to make 3 take-offs and landings, that's
it. if you have made 3 take-offs and landings in the past, you are
good to go. End of story. If not, you can't act as PIC.

61.57 (2) just says that you MAY act as PIC for the purpose of meeting
the requirements of 61.57 (1). It is authorizing you to be the PIC of
a flight if your purpose is meeting the requirements of 61.57 (1).

Guillermo[_2_]

March 11th 07, 06:35 PM

On Mar 11, 10:42 am, Judah > wrote:
> "Guillermo" > wrote groups.com:
>
>
>
> > Well, it is not that you can't count the flight. You can't even DO the
> > flight legally with passengers if you are not current (I don't want to
> > start a discussion of whether elephants and dogs are passengers, so
> > lets focus now on the packages).
> > You have to remember the fact that in general the regulations tell you
> > what you CAN'T do, as opposed to what you CAN do. If the FARs tell
> > don't tell you that you can't do something, then you can do it.
> > If I am not-current in a C-152, I still can carry non-necessary
> > packages on board. There is no regulation than prevents me to do so.
> > 61.57 (1) just talks about passengers. And 61.57 (2) never says that
> > somebody may not act as PIC with packages, just says that you MAY
> > conduct a flight if the flight is is done for the purpose of regaining
> > currency, and provided no elephants, passengers or packages are
> > carried. But remember that you can carry anything or anybody necessary
> > for the conduct of the flight. The only case you will be taking
> > advantage of 61.57 (2) is if you are in an aircraft certified for more
> > than 1 crewmember, because 61.57 (1) does not allow y ou to fly, but
> > 61.57 (2) gives you authorization to do it only if your purpose is to
> > regain currency and certain conditions are met.
>
> I disagree with your interpretation. If (2) was specifically for aircraft
> requiring two crewmembers, it would have said for aircraft requiring two
> crewmembers, and would have probably also used the work "required" instead
> of "necessary". I say the purpose of the flight in question doesn't have to
> be determined at the time of the flight, but is established when you are
> looking to establish currency to fly passengers.
>
> eg:
>
> Day 1: Out of currency.
> Day 2: Fly a flight taking 3 takeoffs and landings with a dog on board.
> (Presumably, a dog is someone's property, even if it's not a passenger.)
> Day 3: Now you want to carry passengers. So you determine that the flight
> on Day 2 serves the purpose to establish your currency.
>
> 61.57(2) says that flight cannot serve that purpose. You need to have a
> flight with 3 take-offs and landings that did not include passengers or
> property, since you were already out of currency.

Other way of explaining it also, would be:
I think we both agree that day 2 flight was done legally. You already
acted as pilot in command of that flight, and was a legal flight. It
is done.
Now you come to fly on day 3. Have you done 3 take-offs and landings
in the last 90 days? Yes? Ok, then 61.57 (1) says you are good to go.
61.57 (2) is talking about acting PIC a flight for the purpose of
meeting 61.57(1). You already legally acted as PIC of some flight
before, and did so legally. 61.57(2) doesn't talk about counting
flights for anything. Just talks about acting PIC.

Pushing it, I can even do 3 take-offs and landings with passengers on
day 2. It will be an illegal flight, yes, because of 61.57 (1).
However, when I come on day 3, I meet the requirements of 61.57 (1). I
have done 3 take-offs and landings in the last 90 days. So that flight
would be legal.

Maxwell

March 11th 07, 08:44 PM

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> But it doesn't specify anything in (1) or (2) that limits it to currency
> in a
> jet certified for 2 crewmembers. It just says that if you want to fly a
> mission for the purpose of being sole manipulator of the controls to
> regain
> currency, you can be PIC of a plane in day VFR or IFR provided you're not
> carrying anything aboard that is not necessary for the conduct of the
> flight.
>
> As far as I can tell, that would mean that anytime you are out of
> currency,
> you can't count a flight with passengers or non-required crewmembers
> toward
> currency. If you are current, however, and take off and land with
> passengers,
> crewmembers, packages, dogs, or elephants on the plane, you can count it.
> But
> once you come out of currency, section (2) applies...
>

61.57 (a) (2) says:

For the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (A) (1) of this
section, a person *MAY* act as pilot in command of an aircraft under day VFR
or day IFR, provided no persons or property are carried on board the
aircraft, other than those necessary for the conduct of the flight.

This is something someone *MAY* do to satisfy (a)(1), not something someone
*MUST* due to satisfy (a)(1). If it said *MUST* due, every 89 days, even
pilots that flew passengers daily, would have to empty their aircraft and go
shoot 3 T&Ls.

This just give the pilot the right to hop in his empty plane and go get
current of he needs to. But it in no way limits him to this method. As long
as he has 3 legally obtained T&Ls in the past 90, he is good to go.