Do you have to solo to get current?

"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 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

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

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".

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.

"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

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" 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

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" 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?