Another night currency question

kaiser

kaiser

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
2,441
Location
Chicagoland
Display Name
Display name:
The pilot formerly known as Cool Beard Guy
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?
 
sigh

f6f68a5a649c997c6ff4018411c519e5.gif
 
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 one of the pilots (A) can act as PIC and the other is an instructor, then pilot A can log the three landings as required and become current. (The instructor is not considered a passenger according to the FAA.) Once he is current, the instructor in the rear seat (who was not previously qualified to act as PIC) can then perform and log the three takeoffs and landings (to a full stop) as sole manipulator of the controls and also become night current.

The radios have nothing to do with the legal aspects.
 
We can assume something like a Cessna 172. Neither pilot is a CFI.

We just wrapped up a club meeting and this was an interesting academic discussion that came up. The argument for it being legal hinges on the following:
1) 1.1 definition of Crewmember and Flight Crewmember (relates to assigned duties, I.e. running radios)
2) 61.57b which prohibit passengers
3) Pilot B would not be able to log the time

So where I see debate is how we define Crewmember. 1.1 defines it as a person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft during flight time. No where does it differentiate between required or not - until we talk about logging time.
 
no person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers or of an aircraft certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember unless that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings within the preceding 90 days,

Pilot A is not night current and may not act as PIC.
Pilot B could act as PIC if he was night current. (A really dumb idea)
 
Hijacking this thread: What about a Canadian license holder flying in the U.S. on a Canadian aircraft? Canadian currency requirements are different from FAA currency requirements. We are current if we conduct 5 takeoffs and landings within the preceding six months. So, let's say I did that four months ago, but no night landings and takeoffs since then, would I be allowed to fly at night in the U.S. with my Canadian airplane?
 
Clip4 said:
no person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers or of an aircraft certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember unless that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings within the preceding 90 days,
Click to expand...
That's the FAR for day. There are few subtle differences for night.
Pilot A is not night current and may not act as PIC.
Pilot B could act as PIC if he was night current. (A really dumb idea)
Click to expand...
Disagree with the parenthesis. It might be a dumb idea. There are cases where it's not.
 
kaiser said:
So where I see debate is how we define Crewmember. 1.1 defines it as a person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft during flight time. No where does it differentiate between required or not - until we talk about logging time.
Click to expand...
so, if you have your smart 8 year old handle the radios, no passenger currency required (as you said, the reg says "person" not "pilot")?

If you are really interested you can continue your research into Chief Counsel options. I don't have the reference handy, but there is at least one Chief Counsel letter saying that not everyone asked to do something during a flight is a crewmember as opposed to a passenger.
 
Last edited:
Why didn't Pilot A just go do three night takeoffs and landings to get his/her night currency back without involving Pilot B?
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
Hijacking this thread: What about a Canadian license holder flying in the U.S. on a Canadian aircraft? Canadian currency requirements are different from FAA currency requirements. We are current if we conduct 5 takeoffs and landings within the preceding six months. So, let's say I did that four months ago, but no night landings and takeoffs since then, would I be allowed to fly at night in the U.S. with my Canadian airplane?
Click to expand...
If those 5 were the only preceding TO/L you made, then your day currency would also be in question. If it counts for day then it should also count for night.
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
Hijacking this thread: What about a Canadian license holder flying in the U.S. on a Canadian aircraft? Canadian currency requirements are different from FAA currency requirements. We are current if we conduct 5 takeoffs and landings within the preceding six months. So, let's say I did that four months ago, but no night landings and takeoffs since then, would I be allowed to fly at night in the U.S. with my Canadian airplane?
Click to expand...
You'd need to delve into some of the ICAO treaty stuff for that. I could be remembering this completely wrong but If my memory serves me correctly, so long as it meets some minimum ICAO standard, pilot qualification and currency is the province of the member state issuing the license, at least when flying an aircraft registered to that member state.

So, if I fly IFR into Canada, if I meet US IFR currency requirements, I'm current. I don't need to check or even know about Canadian currency rules. Same vice versa as in your example.
 
midlifeflyer said:
You'd need to delve into some of the ICAO treaty stuff for that. I could be remembering this completely wrong but If my memory serves me correctly, so long as it meets some minimum ICAO standard, pilot qualification and currency is the province of the member state issuing the license, at least when flying an aircraft registered to that member state.

So, if I fly IFR into Canada, if I meet US IFR currency requirements, I'm current. I don't need to check or even know about Canadian currency rules. Same vice versa as in your example.
Click to expand...
I agree. I fly all over the world and I do not know (nor do I care) what all those various countries’ currency regulations are.
 
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 pilot B is night current, this isn't hard. The prohibition on flying with passengers at night if not current applies only to acting as PIC. So pilot B acts as PIC, pilot A performs 3 takeoffs and 3 landings to a full stop, and Bob's your uncle. What am I missing?
 
Sluggo63 said:
I agree. I fly all over the world and I do not know (nor do I care) what all those various countries’ currency regulations are.
Click to expand...
I took a quick look. Basically, pilot certification is ICAO Annex 1 with language about recognizing the validity of member state licensing and certification. Rules of the road, which we have to obey is ICAO Annex 2. Reading through it makes the FARs seem clear and concise :D
 
midlifeflyer said:
I took a quick look. Basically, pilot certification is ICAO Annex 1 with language about recognizing the validity of member state licensing and certification. Rules of the road, which we have to obey is ICAO Annex 2. Reading through it makes the FARs seem clear and concise :D
Click to expand...
The differences caught us once though.

A couple years ago, I was landing in Helsinki early one morning and we were ramp checked by the Finnish authorities. The inspector was a really good guy, did all his flight training in Florida, then went back to Finland and got hired by their version of the FAA. After a few minutes of BSing with him, he asked to see our licenses. Then he asked "how do I know you are qualified to fly this 757?" I jokingly said "didn't you just see me land?" I didn't know what he was getting at. I obviously had a B757 type listed on the back of my certificate. He agreed, but he was asking how he knows that I'm qualified as far as my checkride and other training. I didn't know at the time, but EASA licenses have a validity date on them and every time you get your checkride done, you get an updated license, with an "expiration date." The FO and I scrambled and were looking on our company's pilot dashboard for anywhere where it showed our checkride date. It wasn't there. We eventually called our Duto Officer and he was able to email us a copy of our training records, which the inspector accepted. After that, we can now access our training records online, thankfully.

So, all's well that ends well. Well, except for the fact that the inspection took long enough that we ended up missing the free breakfast at the hotel.
 
Good discussion. You are right, this is purely academic. Personally, the only time I've ever been not night current was right after my Multi ride.

I suppose the dividing line on the argument at our meeting was leveraging the definition of "passengers" and "crewmember". S1.1 defines crewmember and it seemed open as it was focused on someone given a duty. Does giving someone that duty remove them from the status of passenger? Once can reasonably require anyone with a flight duty to be a pilot, but then how do we define duty? running radios?

Perhaps duty is defined in the certificate of the A/C, which is where we get single or 2x pilot plane definitions from? But that is an assumption and not defined in the FARs.
 
I should mention, I wrote the scenario specifically to ignore whether Pilot B is night current. The focus of the question here is whether you can upgrade a pilot rated passenger to a crewmember by giving a duty - then - does that make it legal to be not current at night.

Two non-night rated pilots walk into a bar...
 
AlphaMike said:
Okay, what if pilot A puts on the foggles and pilot B is his safety pilot. They do 3 approaches to full stop. Doesn't that make pilot B a required crew member?
Click to expand...
Yes. The problem is, a safety pilot is only a required crewmember when the Foggles are on. You can have some fun with this one.
 
kaiser said:
I should mention, I wrote the scenario specifically to ignore whether Pilot B is night current. The focus of the question here is whether you can upgrade a pilot rated passenger to a crewmember by giving a duty - then - does that make it legal to be not current at night.
Click to expand...
You can not. To be a required crewmember he must be required by the type certificate of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.
 
asicer said:
That's the FAR for day. There are few subtle differences for night.

Disagree with the parenthesis. It might be a dumb idea. There are cases where it's not.
Click to expand...

Oh please, tell us the situations where another pilot other than a CFI is a good idea in this scenario.
 
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.

Scenario:
We had a flight that was going with 2 ACs on board. It was scheduled for 2 hours of pattern work after returning from the air refueling. One of the ACs was landing and touch and go current (AC1), the other was landing current, but non-current for touch and goes (AC2). The question was, could AC1 supervise AC2 doing a touch and go, even though AC2 was non-current for touch and goes? I said "yes." My reasoning was that if AC1 could supervise a CP doing a touch and go (who has no T&G currency) why couldn't they supervise a non-current AC? I was overruled. It still makes no sense to me though. You can have a CP who hadn't done a T&G in 6 months, and it would be fine for AC1 to let them do a T&G, but another AC who is one month out of currency is a no-go? Stupid application of the regulations.
 
Clip4 said:
Oh please, tell us the situations where another pilot other than a CFI is a good idea in this scenario.
Click to expand...
I don't see a problem with an experienced private pilot allowing an experienced pilot friend with whom he has flown many times to take some landings for currency purposes.
 
Clip4 said:
Oh please, tell us the situations where another pilot other than a CFI is a good idea in this scenario.
Click to expand...
In this scenario, pilot A could have legally regained currency by going solo. Perhaps pilot A had a bazillion night landings 91 days prior and a bazillion late evening/early morning landings since. Perhaps pilot A already had 3 really good night landings the day of and just needed one more night takeoff. If that were OK, I don't see how adding pilot B would make it not OK (assuming pilot B's personality was not a hinderance) if pilot B were night current.
 
Last edited:
kaiser said:
I should mention, I wrote the scenario specifically to ignore whether Pilot B is night current. The focus of the question here is whether you can upgrade a pilot rated passenger to a crewmember by giving a duty - then - does that make it legal to be not current at night.

Two non-night rated pilots walk into a bar...
Click to expand...
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.
 
Clip4 said:
Oh please, tell us the situations where another pilot other than a CFI is a good idea in this scenario.
Click to expand...

I’ve got a great one. Me.

Years ago I was grounded for a bit waiting out a medical thing. During that time my pilot friend (who was also co-owner with me in the plane) agreed to sit right seat and keep the FAA gods happy while I kept the rust knocked off.

He trusted me to not get him into a pickle and I trusted him to take the plane if I got him into a pickle...

Oh, to stay on sorta topic, while he was ACTING as PIC, he wasn’t LOGGING PIC (I never went under any foggles).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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...
Where does it say in 61.57(b) that there is any restriction on what type of crewmember or mention crewmember at all? All is says is that you can't carry passengers.
 
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...
In this academic discussion, this is where my personal opinion resides.

However to argue (this is PoA afterall), the FARs do not outline the term "required" anywhere [that I can find]. It goes back to 1) Out of night currency disallows passengers; 2) a crewmember is defined as a pilot with flight duty. And that's just blowing my mind... maybe a crewmember IS a passenger? o_O
 
crash7 said:
I’ve got a great one. Me.

Years ago I was grounded for a bit waiting out a medical thing. During that time my pilot friend (who was also co-owner with me in the plane) agreed to sit right seat and keep the FAA gods happy while I kept the rust knocked off.

He trusted me to not get him into a pickle and I trusted him to take the plane if I got him into a pickle...

Oh, to stay on sorta topic, while he was ACTING as PIC, he wasn’t LOGGING PIC (I never went under any foggles).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Sorry, still a bad idea. That fact that you didn’t bash the plane does not make it a good idea.
 
Sluggo63 said:
Where does it say in 61.57(b) that there is any restriction on what type of crewmember or mention crewmember at all? All is says is that you can't carry passengers.
Click to expand...
To be more precise, it says you can't act as PIC of a flight carrying passengers. The distinction is important here, because the non-current pilot can fly the plane with passengers on board, he just can't act as PIC. So if he wants to act as PIC with another person on board, we have to know when is a person on a plane not a passenger?
 
Lindberg said:
To be more precise, it says you can't act as PIC of a flight carrying passengers. The distinction is important here, because the non-current pilot can fly the plane with passengers on board, he just can't act as PIC. So if he wants to act as PIC with another person on board, we have to know when is a person on a plane not a passenger?
Click to expand...

When they are a required crew member or student - according to CC rulings.
 
crash7 said:
I’ve got a great one. Me.

Years ago I was grounded for a bit waiting out a medical thing. During that time my pilot friend (who was also co-owner with me in the plane) agreed to sit right seat and keep the FAA gods happy while I kept the rust knocked off.

He trusted me to not get him into a pickle and I trusted him to take the plane if I got him into a pickle...

Oh, to stay on sorta topic, while he was ACTING as PIC, he wasn’t LOGGING PIC (I never went under any foggles).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You're a CFI. Call it instruction ("let me show you some tricks for landing at night") and you don't have to be night current. "Passenger" is now a "student."
 
asicer said:
In this scenario, pilot A could have legally regained currency by going solo. Perhaps pilot A had a bazillion night landings 91 days prior and a bazillion late evening/early morning landings since. Perhaps pilot A already had 3 really good night landings the day of and just needed one more night takeoff. If that were OK, I don't see how adding pilot B would make it not OK (assuming pilot B's personality was not a hinderance) if pilot B were night current.
Click to expand...


In your scenario Pilot A is fully capable of performing the night landings solo. So you think somehow in your scenario Pilot B operating radios was needed on this flight?

My comment was this putting Pilot B in the aircraft as PIC is not a good idea. You just demonstrated under the most ideal situation Pilot B isn’t needed.

Another scenario, Pilot A was marginal with night landing and desires Pilot B to go along as PIC to operate the radios to reduce work load. Pilot B does night landings better than Pilot A, but has zero right seat time. On approach pilot pilot A fails to flair and bashes the nose gear damaging the fire wall and a prop strike. .Pilot B is now on the hook for an accident (fire wall is substantial damage) which is going to have future insurance and employment ramifications.
 
Last edited:
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...

If you are referring to Pilot B, he is rated and current and can be acting as PIC. Pilot B has a passenger, Pilot A. Pilot A is rated, but can't act as PIC, because that would make Pilot B a passenger. So with Pilot B as the pilot acting as PIC, he can let his passenger, Pilot A, do the night takeoffs and landings. Pilot A can log the time as PIC while the sole manipulator of the controls, even though they are a passenger and count the takeoff's and landings at night toward his or her night currency. Pilot B can't log the time as PIC when his passenger, Pilot A is the sole manipulator of the controls, because there is no provision in 61.51 that allows Pilot B to do so. The only required crew member is Pilot B who is acting as the PIC.

If pilot B happens to be an instructor, neither he nor Pilot A need to be current for night training if Pilot B is providing dual instruction as neither are considered as passenger of the other pilot.
 
kaiser said:
...a crewmember is defined as a pilot with flight duty. And that's just blowing my mind... maybe a crewmember IS a passenger? o_O
Click to expand...
Well, what if the crewmember is not a pilot. What if the crewmember is a navigator? A loadmaster? A flight engineer?
 
Clip4 said:
In your scenario Pilot A is fully capable of performing the night landings solo. So you think somehow in your scenario Pilot B operating radios was needed on this flight?

My comment was this putting Pilot B in the aircraft as PIC is not a good idea. You just demonstrated under the most ideal situation Pilot B isn’t needed.

Another scenario, Pilot A was marginal with night landing and desires Pilot B to go along as PIC to operate the radios to reduce work load. Pilot B does night landings better than Pilot A, but has zero right seat time. On approach pilot pilot A fails to flair and bashes the nose gear damaging the fire wall and a prop strike. .Pilot B is now on the hook for an accident (fire wall is substantial damage) which is going to have future insurance and employment ramifications.
Click to expand...
Now you're just twisting my response around. I said pilot B being rated and current acting as PIC might be a dumb idea. The scenario I put forward that it might not is:

Pilot A: Is rated and has a bazillion night takeoffs and landings 91 days prior. Also has a bazillion takeoffs and landings in the moments between civil twilight and 1 hour before/after sunrise/sunset the day before. Already has 2 takeoffs and 3 landings that night.

Pilot B: Is rated and night current.

A and B text each other before the flight and both agree B will act as PIC until after takeoff, upon which pilot A becomes PIC. A and B have flown together many times before and know each other's flying very well.

Your "other scenario" might be a dumb idea, but that means you're just agreeing with me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top