Do you have to solo to get current?

On Mar 8, 1:16 pm, "Skidder" wrote:
On 3/8/2007 8:40:50 AM, Judah wrote:

"Skidder" wrote in
:

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.

Actually, the regs (61.57) prohibit a pilot from acting as THE PILOT IN
COMMAND of a flight if he has not, as sole manipulator of the flight
controls, performed 3 takeoffs and landings within the preceding 90 days.

Keep reading. You left out the part that says for the purpose of carring
passengers, not instructors, examiners and safety pilots.

Well, you are just making "names" for people on the aircraft in order
for them for not to be passengers.
I am an engineer so I would say "I am not a passenger, I am an
engineer". It doesn't say anywhere in the regs that a non-current
pilot can't take an engineer on board. But it doesn't make any sense.
You are carrying another pilot as a passenger on your flight.

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.

And yea, its not in the regs, you don't need to say it again.

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

Need we get any more evidence that lawyers should not be pilots?

It seems clear to most of us that if you're going to get current
without an instructor you're allowed only to put yourself at risk, not
a passenger who might also be a pilot. Remember, the reg applies to
those who have not done 3 take off and landings in the last 90 days.
Suppose, for example, neither of these PP who are rated fpr SEL have
not flown for the last 23 months and want to get ready for their next
BFI. The regulations are intended to prevent one idiot from killing
more than just himself. Why would one argue that it should be other
than that?




On Mar 8, 1:25 pm, "Skidder" wrote:
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.



So, unless you both are required crewmembers, the pilot who is not acting PIC
is a passenger. A safety pilot on an instrument training flight would be a
required crewmember. An instructor giving instruction would be a required
crewmember.

--
Skidder

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.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727 L-188
Flight Instructor, ASE, Instrument
PanAm (retired)

Skidder... you are grasping at straws and starting to **** off a lot of
people.

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.

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" wrote in message
...


A safety pilot is a required crewmember when the pilot flying is under
the hood. However, when the pilot flying is not under the hood, the
safety pilot is not a required crewmember. That makes him a passenger.


Is there a reg that states that?

It has always been my understanding that if something is not prohibited by
written law, it's not illegal, and therefor permitted.



--
Skidder

Is Skidder... Maximo (Mxsmaic) in drag?
I have not seen him in this tread..

Bye
BT

"Skidder" wrote in message
...
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?

He is an attorney and says the way he reads the regs, that it's not
exactly
clear. I myself don't know, but thought the group might enjoy debating the
question.

Along the same lines, if a PPL *is* current. Can he go for insurance check
ride with an instructor that is not, or doesn't have a current medilcal?


--
Skidder

On Mar 8, 8:38 pm, Bob Moore wrote:
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.


Sorry, my bad. I didn't mean to say "required crewmember", but simply
"crewmember".
Would you agree that a person in an airplane who is not a crewmember,
will be considered a passenger?


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)?




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.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727 L-188
Flight Instructor, ASE, Instrument
PanAm (retired)

"BT" wrote in message
...
Is Skidder... Maximo (Mxsmaic) in drag?
I have not seen him in this tread..

If not, I would propose that we have another troll amongst us, and that
everyone should take notice, and "govern themselves accordingly."
--
Jim in NC

Actually, IIRC, the safety pilot actually acts as PIC of a VFR flight.

No, either (rated and current) pilot can ACT as PIC.

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.

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 07:50:25 -0800, Bob Moore wrote
(in article 28):

C J Campbell wrote
The regs also say that anyone who is not a required crewmember is a
passenger.

Not true JC.


From FAR Part 1

Crewmember means a person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft
during flight time. "required or not" my comment.

Flightcrew member means a pilot, flight engineer, or flight navigator
assigned to duty in an aircraft during flight time.


The following is an interesting disseration:

http://www.aircareaccess.com/FAValue101.pdf


Fascinating. Well, okay -- I see the point.

Bob Moore
CFII ATP



--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor