Do you have to solo to get current?

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

"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

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

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

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".

"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

"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

"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

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
|

Tony wrote:

do your three landings to a full stop.


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

Jon Kraus