Do you have to solo to get current?

On 3/8/2007 5:43:09 PM, Tom L. wrote:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 07:37:13 -0600, "Skidder"
wrote:


You're right -- the FARs don't say that the second pilot is a
passenger. Worse, the FARs don't even define "passenger." But the FARs
don't deifne many other words that are liberarly used throughout the
FARs. It's not the written word alone that counts in courts, but the
interpretation of it. And the interpretation would probably consider
the following:

- A person on board a flying aircraft is either a crewmember or a
passenger (a dead person might be considered cargo, but let's not
discuss that here). And your next comment is correct -- this is not
written anywhere in the FARs either, but I have a feeling that FAA,
NTSB, court, and most pilots would agree with this.

- Knowledge and skill of piloting a plane don't make anyone a
crewmember.

- Moreover, full flight controls in front of a pilot don't make
him/her a crewmember.

- Assigned duty makes a person a crewmember (even if the person is not
a pilot and has no flight controls in front of her/him).
But I seriously doubt that you will be able to convince FAA, NTSB, and
court that your chart-handling friend is a bona-fide crewmember, FAR
1.1 notwithstanding.


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.






--
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?

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.



--
Skidder

On Mar 9, 12:00 am, "Skidder" wrote:
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.

--
Skidder

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.

Brian

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

"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.

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