Do you have to solo to get current?

"Maxwell" wrote in :

Good morning Mr Troll.

But same question.
No life,
ingorant,
arrogant tone,
agruement on snippits.

Point them out and be specific, or you are just trying to sabotoge the
thread.

Headers would seem to indicate that Maxwell and Skidder are one and the same.

I'm not a Usenet header guru, but at first glance I don't see evidence of
them being the same as Manic.

Still, it's hard to tell - perhaps he proxies using one of the two sets of
identities.

Who knows? Perhaps we're all just Manic in disguise?

"Skidder" wrote in message
...
On 3/9/2007 7:00:02 AM, "Travis Marlatte" wrote:
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.


That's uncalled for Travis, clearly we are talking about pilots.

--
Skidder

OK. It may have been harshly sarcastic but why are we clearly talking about
pilots? Your thesis is built on a negative inference - the regs do not
clearly say that a non-flying, non-current pilot is a passenger, therefore,
it is acceptable for a non-current pilot to become current with another
non-current pilot on board. In fact, the regs don't define a passenger at
all. So, maybe there is no such thing. OK. More sarcasm.

I think it was a somewhat reasonable question. But you have now argued it
beyond reason.

If this is all theoretical, then quit trying to penny pinch a taxi to the
ramp to change pilots. Go out, do your three in the pattern and feel the joy
of flying. Then, let the other guy do it.

If you are fighting an FAA action, then I think you're screwed. Pick one of
the two of you to claim PIC and take your medicine. The non-PIC was just a
passenger and can be the chauffer for 60 or 90 days.
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

"Brian" wrote in message
ups.com...


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?

What would be the difference in the above if you replaced "two
licensed pilots" with "two student pilots"?

It would appear to me that the same would apply.

(BTW. IMO it is not legal for two pilots out of 90 day currency to fly
together. )

Brian

More importantly, in my mind, it's not a good idea to have two non-current
pilots becoming current together. In this case, I think the regs have a
valid point. In fact, it is almost generous. Put you're own life at risk but
no one else's. They could require three in the pattern with a CFI.

Did I say that out loud?

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

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

Good morning Mr Troll.

But same question.
No life,
ingorant,
arrogant tone,
agruement on snippits.

Point them out and be specific, or you are just trying to sabotoge the
thread.

Headers would seem to indicate that Maxwell and Skidder are one and the
same.

I'm not a Usenet header guru, but at first glance I don't see evidence of
them being the same as Manic.

Still, it's hard to tell - perhaps he proxies using one of the two sets of
identities.

Who knows? Perhaps we're all just Manic in disguise?

Skidder and I work together for the same small firm. So our mail comes from
the same IP address, the company router. We agree on most things, but not
all. He is out of town today, and I was just taking up for him for what
seemed to me to be a very malicious attack from someone that just wants to
end the thread.

One place I do agree with him though, is that if someone doesn't want to
attempt constructive participation in a thread, they shoud go elsewhere o r
be considered a destrucive troll.

Maxwell wrote:
He is out of town today, and I was just taking up for him for what
seemed to me to be a very malicious attack from someone that just wants to
end the thread.

The thread was ended with the first reply. It's cut and dried. get
over it.

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


Maxwell wrote:
He is out of town today, and I was just taking up for him for what
seemed to me to be a very malicious attack from someone that just wants
to end the thread.

The thread was ended with the first reply. It's cut and dried. get over
it.


Who died and made you God?

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
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.

And in what way does have anything to do with this topic?

"Judah" wrote in message
.. .
"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?

No he would not. But no mater what you call him, if he is any kind of
quaified pilot, as opposed to a passenger, 61.57 does not apply. Because
61.57 is about carrying passengers.

Maxwell wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
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.

And in what way does have anything to do with this topic?



I was giving an example where the FAA would care. It is a similar
situation where the flight would be legal with one of two pilots on
board but not both of the pilots at the same time.

If you don't see the similarity you are either stupid or a troll.

"Maxwell" wrote in news6HIh.16227$TK5.12353
@newsfe13.lga:

No he would not. But no mater what you call him, if he is any kind of
quaified pilot, as opposed to a passenger, 61.57 does not apply. Because
61.57 is about carrying passengers.

If he ever intends to fly with passengers in the future, he may not use
three takeoffs and landings during a flight carrying non-required persons
or property to meet his currency requirement. That's pretty clear.

I disagree with your definition of a passenger. But I'm not an authority.

However, the definition is suspicious to me because you qualify a non-
passenger pilot as anyone who holds a pilot certificate, and also is BFR
and Medical current.

Nothing in 61.23 says that a person needs a Medical in order to "be" a
pilot. Only to excercise the privileges of the pilot. Is "being" a pilot
instead of a passenger a privilege?

And nothing in 61.56 says that a person needs a BFR to "be" a pilot. One
need only have a BFR in order to act as Pilot in Command.

Additionally, 61.56 (h) specifically says that a BFR can be accomplished in
combination with 61.57 at the discretion of the instructor. The implication
to me is that if the rule were not there, and a pilot were to not be
current per 61.57, the instructor would have to be PIC for the flight, and
the pilot getting his BFR would have to kick the instructor out in order to
meet 61.57.

YMMV