Do you have to solo to get current?

"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...

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

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

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

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?

On 3/9/2007 3:39:01 PM, Judah wrote:
"Skidder" wrote in news

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

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

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

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
groups.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

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