Do you have to solo to get current?

"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.

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

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

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

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

"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?

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

"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

"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

"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?