Do you have to solo to get current?

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

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 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

On 3/9/2007 8:33:12 AM, Judah wrote:



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.

No it doesn't, read 1.1 again.
Pilot in command can be designated either before or DURING the flight.

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).

I will be the first to admit, that is the most confusing, and possibly
damning verbage I can find in the regs relative to this whole *proposed*
concept.

But I also can't find anything in the regs that would forbid two pilots from
piloting an aircraft that only requires one pilot. Just that only one can log
the flight time, and 1.1 states pilots can share that duty on the same
flight.

If so, you have a flight with two pilots, and no passengers, and 61.57
doesn't apply in part, or in whole. Because 61.57 is all about currency for
carrying passengers.





--
Skidder

"Maxwell" wrote in
:


"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.

Based on Paragraph (2) of 61.57, it doesn't matter whether the other guy is
qualified to solo. If the flight is used to establish currency (ie: you
count the takeoffs and landings toward your 90 day requirement) then it
violates paragraph (2) to have anyone at all in the right seat if you are
PIC.

If you do it with an instructor, that instructor is PIC for the flight.

If you do it with a current pilot, that pilot is PIC for the flight.

If you do it with a dog, you violate.

If you do it with a fat woman named Betty, you violate.

If you do it with a package that you are dropping off at a friends house,
you violate.

The only exception I can see is if you don't log the takeoffs and landings.
However, the wording in 61.57 refers to MAKING takeoffs and landings, not
logging them, so even making a takeoff or landing without logging it might
be a violation.


I see his point, too. But it's written in black and white (well, depends on
the screen colors, anyway).

"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.

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

Pilot is a subset of passenger. All persons in the aircraft are passengers, and some passengers are also pilots....

On 3/9/2007 10:44:15 AM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:


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.


When you ask your local FSDO for an interpretation of the regs, do you think
they are OBLIGATED to tell you the truth?

I can assure you all to often, if you ask someone in authority how to
interpret any law, they are going to tell you how they think it should be,
and to heck with how it really is.


--
Skidder

"Skidder" wrote in
:

On 3/9/2007 8:33:12 AM, Judah wrote:



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.

No it doesn't, read 1.1 again.
Pilot in command can be designated either before or DURING the flight.

Sure, two pilots in an aircraft can agree to change their roles during the
flight. But only one can be the Pilot In Command at any given moment.

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).

I will be the first to admit, that is the most confusing, and possibly
damning verbage I can find in the regs relative to this whole *proposed*
concept.

But I also can't find anything in the regs that would forbid two pilots
from piloting an aircraft that only requires one pilot. Just that only
one can log the flight time, and 1.1 states pilots can share that duty
on the same flight.

If so, you have a flight with two pilots, and no passengers, and 61.57
doesn't apply in part, or in whole. Because 61.57 is all about currency
for carrying passengers.

I disagree with your interpretation of 1.1 (as noted in a separate post).
Being able to change the pilot in command during a flight does not in any
way imply that more than one person can be pilot in command at a time.

I agree with your final paragraph if the second pilot is not considered a
passenger, but I do not agree that the second pilot is not considered a
passenger.

Regardless, if there is no passenger on a flight with a crewmember who is
not required for the safe conduct of the flight, the flight cannot be used
to establish currency for carrying passengers in the future, according to
paragraph (2). The pilot, if he eventually went to carry a passenger, would
need to have taken off and landed 3 times BESIDES this flight in order to
be permitted to carry that passenger.

If a pilot never carries passengers, he never needs to have 3 takeoffs and
landings in the previous 90 days.

"Blueskies" wrote in
:

Pilot is a subset of passenger. All persons in the aircraft are
passengers, and some passengers are also pilots....

Are you sure? If that's the case, how can the pilot himself fly?