Do you have to solo to get current?

"Judah" wrote in message
.. .

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.


It matters if you call him a pilot. How can you consider someone mearly a
passenger, if they are as qualified to fly the aircraft as the pilot. And if
he is indeed a pilot, you are not carrying a passenger, and you don't have
to meet the requirements of 61.57.

Currency to carry a passenger is what 61.57 is all about.

I see where the guy is going with this, and I for one think he might have a
point.

Not to mention the fact that if both people are qualified to solo the
aircraft, why would the FAA care. They are both pilots and they are not
carrying passengers.

"BT" wrote in message
...

but the other pilot is not current either... so neither of you can be PIC

Neither of you can be PIC to carry a *passenger*, but 61.57 doesn't say you
can't carry another *pilot*.


and you are in a "single pilot airplane", so there is only one pilot
required and the other is a passenger

The regs do not specify that you can't have two pilots *present* in a
aircraft that doesn't require them, just that they can't both log the time.

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

What? Are you kidding me? You're saying that you think the FAA would not
consider a landing with a rolling turn off at a taxiiway as a full-stop
landing?

[Top posted just 'cause]

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK
"Jose" wrote in message
.. .
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?

It didn't. So that one doesn't count. (At least the landing doesn't.) I
always stop somewhere when I do these.

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.

What if the other person was a woman? Where do the regs say that a woman is
a passenger? How about a skinny guy? Where do the regs say that a skinny guy
is a passenger?

OK. So it's clear. I can take another pilot, a woman, or a skinny guy along
on my flight to becomme current to carry passengers.

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK
"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

What? Are you kidding me? You're saying that you think the FAA would not
consider a landing with a rolling turn off at a taxiiway as a full-stop
landing?

Ever gotten a ticket at a stop sign because you didn't stop completely,
even if there was no other traffic?

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.

"Skidder" wrote in news:gw6Ih.2489$xh2.574
@newsfe14.lga:

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.

Absolutely and without question, there is always one and only one Pilot in
Command, even if more than one person has the right to log themselves as
Pilot In Command, only one person meets the definition of FAR Part 1.

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.

By your definition, if the second "Pilot" is not a "passenger", a non-
current pilot could be allowed to carry him without violating 61.57.
However, section (2) clearly says that he cannot fly with anything in the
plane that is not necessary for the flight "for the purpose of meeting the
requirements of paragraph (a)(1)" (ie: as sole manipulator of the controls
during take-off and landing).

The other pilot is not necessary for the flight. So he can FLY the plane
with a non-passenger entity, he just can't take off or land it as sole
manipulator of the controls. If he does, he is in violation of section (2).

If neither pilot can be sole manipulator of the controls during takeoff or
landing, they might be able to do it together, but then they wouldn't have
met the currency requirements. Alternatively, they could use a CAT III
autoland, but then neither pilot was sole manipulator of the controls
during takeoff and landing either - the plane landed itself.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see a way around this.

BTW: In addition to not seeing the definition of a "passenger", I don't see
the definition of a "pilot" in any of the FAA regs. I do see references to
"a person serving as a pilot" and "a person who holds a pilot certificate"
(61.3.j) But I simply cannot find anywhere where a pilot is defined, except
with respect to acting as Pilot in Command.

"(j) Age limitation for certain operations—(1) Age limitation. Except as
provided in paragraph (j)(3) of this section, no person who holds a pilot
certificate issued under this part shall serve as a pilot on a civil
airplane of U.S. registry in the following operations if the person has
reached his or her 60th birthday— "


Presumably, one can serve as a pilot by piloting a civil airplane of US
registry. But from this, I can deduce that one is not transformed into an
entity called a pilot just by holding a pilot certificate. You have to be
actually serving/acting as a pilot - ie: flying the plane or taking
responsibility for it.


If you have regs that say otherwise, I'd be interested to hear...

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

You are act much like another troll from around these parts. But, since you
say you are a pilot why don't you find out this way.

Call your local FSDO and tell them exactly what you are going to do. Tell
them what airport you are going to it and at what day and time.

Let us know how it works out for you and your buddy.

Maxwell wrote:
"Judah" wrote in message
.. .

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.

It matters if you call him a pilot. How can you consider someone
mearly a passenger, if they are as qualified to fly the aircraft as
the pilot. And if he is indeed a pilot, you are not carrying a
passenger, and you don't have to meet the requirements of 61.57.

Currency to carry a passenger is what 61.57 is all about.

I see where the guy is going with this, and I for one think he might
have a point.

Not to mention the fact that if both people are qualified to solo the
aircraft, why would the FAA care. They are both pilots and they are
not carrying passengers.

The FAA cares in several situations. Let's take for example my Homebuilt.
For the first 40 hours only one person can be in it at a time. I can't even
have a fully qualified CFI in the plane with me during that Phase 1 time.

Skidder wrote:
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.

You have done exactly what MX has done in the past. Ask a reasonable
question then agrue with virtually everyone that answers you.