Another night currency question

Sluggo63 said:
Here's another currency problem that we came upon when I was flying in the Guard. It was more than just hangar flying, it was an actual real world scenario that I was eventually overruled on. It gets a little in the weeds, but I'm going to try to convey as simple as I can. It deals with touch and go currency.

Three basic types of heavy pilots in the Air Force. Instructor Pilots (IP), Aircraft Commanders (AC), Copilots (CP).

Currency Restrictions:
Instructor Pilots are touch and go current if they are current for landings.

Aircraft Commanders have a touch and go currency that is different than their landing currency (i.e. they can be current for landings, but not current for touch and goes).

Copilots only have landing currency because they will always be supervised by either an IP or AC while doing touch and goes.

If you are non-current for an item (landing, touch and go, etc.) you can only regain that currency by flying with an IP.

IPs are qualified to fly in either the left or right seat. Most ACs are qualified to fly in the left seat or the right seat with an IP or another AC in the left seat.

Click to expand...
Perhaps the Guard has different rules. We had no touch-and-go currency rules in the regular Air Force. Any pilot could do them, and we frequently did. I was in TAC and PACAF.
 
Gilbert Buettner said:
Perhaps the Guard has different rules. We had no touch-and-go currency rules in the regular Air Force. Any pilot could do them, and we frequently did. I was in TAC and PACAF.
Click to expand...
What MDS? We used the same rules as AD AF. Maybe it was a 11-2-KC-135 thing, but it was definitely a thing.
 
Lindberg said:
The question is not whether you can make him a "crewmember," it's whether you can make him a "required crewmember." And the answer is no.
Click to expand...
Suppose Pilot A is instrument rated or nearly so. If they're willing to get close to the 91.13 violation Pilot A can wear a hood with Pilot B as a required crew member. Pilot B coaches Pilot A to touchdown.

Stupid but possibly legal.*

*Not actual advice.
 
kaiser said:
Ok. Here’s a fun scenario.


Pilot A: rated but not night current
Pilot B: also rated


Pilot A flies with Pilot B at night to regain currency. Pilot A assigned radio duties to Pilot B for the flight.


Legal?
Click to expand...

Not legal. Since two pilots are not required to operate the plane, that makes the non PIC pilot a passenger regardless if they are assigned some random task.
 
Pi1otguy said:
Suppose Pilot A is instrument rated or nearly so. If they're willing to get close to the 91.13 violation Pilot A can wear a hood with Pilot B as a required crew member. Pilot B coaches Pilot A to touchdown.

Stupid but possibly legal.*

*Not actual advice.
Click to expand...

Clip4 will think that’s a bad idea...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Clip4 said:
Sorry, still a bad idea. That fact that you didn’t bash the plane does not make it a good idea.
Click to expand...

Ok dad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
kaiser said:
Ok. Here’s a fun scenario.


Pilot A: rated but not night current
Pilot B: also rated


Pilot A flies with Pilot B at night to regain currency. Pilot A assigned radio duties to Pilot B for the flight.


Legal?
Click to expand...

If they were to agree on pilot B being acting PIC, then pilot A could regain currency if they were the sole manipulator of the controls.
 
Bob Buchner said:
If they were to agree on pilot B being acting PIC, then pilot A could regain currency if they were the sole manipulator of the controls.
Click to expand...

This is valid only if pilot B is fully qualified to act as PIC with a passenger at night, that is Pilot A. If both were not night current, then neither could act as PIC because of the limitation in 61.57(b)(1), but if pilot B complied with this section and otherwise was qualified to act as PIC for the flight, then yes Pilot B would be the one acting as PIC, and his passenger could perform the night takeoffs and landings as specified in 61.57(b)(1).
 
The phrase "acting PIC" always strikes me funny, because it sounds like he's not the real PIC. Of course, I'm pretty sure that when the FAA uses the phrase "act as pilot in command," they are talking about the person who meets the definition in 14 CFR 1.1.

Pilot in command means the person who:

(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;

(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and

(3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.​
 
Gilbert Buettner said:
Perhaps the Guard has different rules. We had no touch-and-go currency rules in the regular Air Force. Any pilot could do them, and we frequently did. I was in TAC and PACAF.
Click to expand...

We had a no touch and goes without an IP on board in TAC. Of course, flying a single seater meant no touch and goes at all. :)

The USAF later is not the one that you and I remember. We should talk about how they changed formation landings, then stopped teaching them because the stupid way they were teaching them lead to a crash.
 
Palmpilot said:
The phrase "acting PIC" always strikes me funny, because it sounds like he's not the real PIC. Of course, I'm pretty sure that when the FAA uses the phrase "act as pilot in command," they are talking about the person who meets the definition in 14 CFR 1.1.

Pilot in command means the person who:

(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;

(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and

(3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.​
Click to expand...
Well, ultimately it's a role. But yes, "acting" as PIC refers to the pilot who "is" PIC, "serves as PIC, or any other verb you can come up with for someone who takes on the command role.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top