Do you have to solo to get current?

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

"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?

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

"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...

"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?

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.

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

"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?

On 3/8/2007 11:25:35 PM, Judah wrote:
"Guillermo" wrote in
roups.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

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
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.


--
Skidder