Night currency question

farmerbrake

farmerbrake

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
578
Display Name
Display name:
farmerbrake
With it being darker so much earlier now I had a question.
61.57 of the FAR talks about night currency requirements.
Pilot A and B are in the plane doing practice instrument work.
Pilot A is doing simulated instrument time (right seat), pilot B is safety pilot (left seat ).
Both are just ppl rated.
Flight begins after the 1 hr period after sunset.
Do both pilots need to have their 3 TO&L to full stop within 90 days? Just pilot A since he will be landing? Or neither?
61.57 says for carrying PASSENGERS.

What sayeth all the wise POA pilots?
 
Last edited:
One of them needs to be night current so he can act as PIC. Doesn't matter which one it is.


Woah Woah Woah, this flight isn't operating under part 135. Not applicable.
 
Part 135 is not relevant to you or your flight. You should be reading Part 61.57
 
How can 14 CFR 135.247 possibly apply to two private pilots?

The relevant regulation is 14 CFR 61.57 (b).
 
I knew I was crazy but gosh.... I knew it didn't seem right
I'm really kicking myself over this. I should've caught that.
At any rate, at least one needs to be night current right?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
 
Under part 61 at least one of them needs to be night current to act as PIC because at one point someone will be considered a passenger. Doesn't matter if it is the sole manipulator or safety pilot - assuming no endorsements are required for the airplane.
 
If the pilot flying is under the hood during the whole flight, including takeoffs and landings, then the safety pilot is acting as such during the whole flight and there are no passengers, only crew members. So neither pilot should need to be night-current.

But if the hood is removed at all during the flight, then there is no safety pilot at that time, and the PIC then needs to be night-current.
 
acrophile said:
If the pilot flying is under the hood during the whole flight, including takeoffs and landings, then the safety pilot is acting as such during the whole flight and there are no passengers, only crew members. So neither pilot should need to be night-current.

But if the hood is removed at all during the flight, then there is no safety pilot at that time, and the PIC then needs to be night-current.
Click to expand...

You really gonna sit safety pilot while someone tries to land under the hood at night?
 
Should we examine the seat positions? Looks a bit backward that the guy flying for proficiency is in the RIGHT seat and the safety pilot is in the LEFT.

That not withstanding, I don't think the PIC can have anyone in the plane for any operation for which he is not current, which includes the Safety Pilot at night without the recency of experience. (Unless the SP is also a CFI)
 
Last edited:
rolivi said:
That not withstanding, I don't think the PIC can have anyone in the plane for any operation for which he is not current, which includes the Safety Pilot at night without the recency of experience.
Click to expand...

Even when there are no passengers, only crew members? What regulation says so?
 
acrophile said:
Even when there are no passengers, only crew members? What regulation says so?
Click to expand...

I think "required" is usually used with "crew member" regulations... The good news is that I can relax with some popcorn for the rest of this thread :)
 
rolivi said:
Should we examine the seat positions? Looks a bit backward that the guy flying for proficiency is in the RIGHT seat and the safety pilot is in the LEFT.

That not withstanding, I don't think the PIC can have anyone in the plane for any operation for which he is not current, which includes the Safety Pilot at night without the recency of experience. (Unless the SP is also a CFI)
Click to expand...

Maybe there's dual GTN650s. I know someone who has that in their Comanche - or maybe they are 750's. So there's no reason they couldn't fly from the right seat.

The PIC may not have passengers. Required crew isn't a passenger. Safety pilot is required crew for that portion of the flight, but not the other portions.
 
rolivi said:
I think "required" is usually used with "crew member" regulations...
Click to expand...

Yes, and it's well established that when a pilot is flying under the hood, both that pilot and the safety pilot are considered required crew members.
 
I hope the answer is that the guy who asked for a safety pilot is current for all INTENDED operations and the safety pilot is there for safety.

How long would it take one or both of these guys to do three full-stop landings at night? Less time than this thread will spindle I'm sure.
 
It's not clear if everyone's understanding it, so I'll repeat what EdFred is getting at:

Yes, with a safety pilot both pilots are required crew. Therefore neither is a passenger for purposes of night currency.

However, once the hood-wearing pilot takes off the hood, then the safety pilot is no longer a safety pilot, and therefore is not a required crewmember, and therefore is a passenger, and therefore SOMEONE needs to meet the currency requirements.

Presumably at some point during the flight the hood-wearing pilot will indeed not be using the hood, for example during takeoff and landing. Therefore, somebody needs to already be current before they go fly.

CFIs get special dispensation in a rather (IMO) convoluted interpretation of the regulations, in that neither the trainee nor the CFI are "passengers", they are "instructor" and "trainee", so the currency rules don't apply. I actually used this provision just a couple of nights ago myself. Though by the end of the night flight we were both current!
 
rolivi said:
The good news is that I can relax with some popcorn for the rest of this thread :)
Click to expand...

rolivi said:
How long would it take one or both of these guys to do three full-stop landings at night? Less time than this thread will spindle I'm sure.
Click to expand...

You seem intent on provoking an extended discussion that isn't in fact arising, except for your own contributions to it. The regulatory facts here are pretty clear and uncontroversial.
 
Whew! Even knowing the rules, this thread is incredibly confusing!

farmerbrake, do you have the answer or are you as confused with the responses as I am?
 
midlifeflyer said:
Whew! Even knowing the rules, this thread is incredibly confusing!

farmerbrake, do you have the answer or are you as confused with the responses as I am?
Click to expand...

To make it even more confusing, it would be legal in DAY VFR for both the safety pilot and PIC to be out of currency. There is an exemption for day VFR or day IFR (!) for crew members necessary for the conduct of the flight. No 0/0 takeoffs and landings required.

Why that doesn't extend to night is beyond me.
 
MAKG1 said:
To make it even more confusing, it would be legal in DAY VFR for both the safety pilot and PIC to be out of currency. There is an exemption for day VFR or day IFR (!) for crew members necessary for the conduct of the flight. No 0/0 takeoffs and landings required.

Why that doesn't extend to night is beyond me.
Click to expand...

What? I think you're reading something wrong, or writing it wrong.

If you and I are both non-CFI's and neither of us have flown in 100 days, whether day or night, we can not go flying together - even if one of is going to be safety pilot. At some point during the flight one of us will be a passenger - assuming we don't do the takeoffs and landings under the hood.

If you are the one under the hood, I am not a required crew member until you put it (the hood) on. Prior to, and after that, I am a passenger.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
What? I think you're reading something wrong, or writing it wrong.

If you and I are both non-CFI's and neither of us have flown in 100 days, whether day or night, we can not go flying together - even if one of is going to be safety pilot. At some point during the flight one of us will be a passenger - assuming we don't do the takeoffs and landings under the hood.

If you are the one under the hood, I am not a required crew member until you put it (the hood) on. Prior to, and after that, I am a passenger.
Click to expand...

See 14 CFR 61.57(a)(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.
Click to expand...

Note that's day currency, not night currency. There is no such language in 14 CFR 61.57(b).

If you go under the hood at all, the safety pilot is necessary for the conduct of the flight.

Not that this makes much sense, but to be honest, I don't think much of 61.57 does.
 
Last edited:
If you are planning on doing hood work. I am not necessary until you put on your hood. Until you put on your hood, I am a passenger and not required crew. So, you need to be PAX current to do the takeoff, and you'll need to be PAX current to do the landing. But you don't need to be PAX current while under the hood.

Since I'm not going to let you do the takeoff under the hood, nor the landing, we have a currency problem.

To expound further. We are going to fly from MRY to HII. Neither of us are current. We decide to throw some foggles in the plane. You take off from MRY, and around, oh, Barstow you throw on the foggles for 0.1 and take them back off. Then land at HII. Was I *really* required crew for the entire flight?

The one I like is I have 2 night takeoffs in the last 90 days. I have three night landings in the last 90 days. I technically don't take off until my wheels leave the runway - so can I have passengers with me for this night flight?

As soon as the wheels come off I'm current. And I'm not flying until the wheels come off the ground, soooooo.....
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
The one I like is I have 2 night takeoffs in the last 90 days. I have three night landings in the last 90 days. I technically don't take off until my wheels leave the runway - so can I have passengers with me for this night flight?

As soon as the wheels come off I'm current. And I'm not flying until the wheels come off the ground, soooooo.....
Click to expand...

Oooh, I like that. Good thought-provoker for student discussion.
 
RussR said:
Oooh, I like that. Good thought-provoker for student discussion.
Click to expand...

I don't have an "official" answer, and I am NOT writing the CC to get one. :no::no:

Me personally, since I only ever log from wheels up to wheels down, I'm not acting as PIC until I'm airborne. I make the flight and call myself current in that situation.
 
EdFred said:
If you are planning on doing hood work. I am not necessary until you put on your hood. Until you put on your hood, I am a passenger and not required crew. So, you need to be PAX current to do the takeoff, and you'll need to be PAX current to do the landing. But you don't need to be PAX current while under the hood.

Since I'm not going to let you do the takeoff under the hood, nor the landing, we have a currency problem.

To expound further. We are going to fly from MRY to HII. Neither of us are current. We decide to throw some foggles in the plane. You take off from MRY, and around, oh, Barstow you throw on the foggles for 0.1 and take them back off. Then land at HII. Was I *really* required crew for the entire flight?

The one I like is I have 2 night takeoffs in the last 90 days. I have three night landings in the last 90 days. I technically don't take off until my wheels leave the runway - so can I have passengers with me for this night flight?

As soon as the wheels come off I'm current. And I'm not flying until the wheels come off the ground, soooooo.....
Click to expand...

Under that interpretation, why does 14 CFR 91.57(a)(2) exist at all? It's wholly unnecessary. (a)(1) contains the passenger language.

(a)(2) talks about the flight as a whole, not of each instant of the flight.

You could reasonably say that such a flight needs to be for the purpose of establishing currency, so a cross-country might be excluded.

For that night takeoff thing, you would be in deep doo-doo if you f'd up the takeoff. And I think most people would not consider the takeoff to be over until established in the climb, not when the wheels leave the ground.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
Under that interpretation, why does 14 CFR 91.57(a)(2) exist at all? It's wholly unnecessary. (a)(1) contains the passenger language.

(a)(2) talks about the flight as a whole, not of each instant of the flight.

You could reasonably say that such a flight needs to be for the purpose of establishing currency, so a cross-country might be excluded.
Click to expand...

91 deals with flight rules
61 deals with people rules
 
rolivi said:
Should we examine the seat positions? Looks a bit backward that the guy flying for proficiency is in the RIGHT seat and the safety pilot is in the LEFT.
Click to expand...

In general, the FAA doesn't care which control seat a pilot occupies.
 
MAKG1 said:
To make it even more confusing, it would be legal in DAY VFR for both the safety pilot and PIC to be out of currency. There is an exemption for day VFR or day IFR (!) for crew members necessary for the conduct of the flight. No 0/0 takeoffs and landings required.
Click to expand...
I think you are misreading it. I'm fairly certain 61.57(a)(2) is a special rule intended to allow a pilot to act as PIC while regaining currency in an aircraft that is certified for 2 pilots, since he would be unable to do the flight solo.
 
dtuuri said:
Here's one law firm that apparently thinks otherwise: http://www.aerolegalservices.com/Archives/2013_02_01_index.shtml

See the February 1, 2013 entry. You see, it's the difference between "Acting" and "Logging" SIC time. :wink2:
Click to expand...

Huh? What does that difference have to do with the question of whether the safety pilot is a required crew member?

In fact, the very entry you cite explicitly affirms that the safety pilot is indeed a required crew member:

Under the regulations, an airman may log second in command time for the portion of the flight during which he or she was acting as safety pilot because the safety pilot was a required flight crewmember for that portion of the flight under FAR § 91.109(b).
Click to expand...
 
midlifeflyer said:
I think you are misreading it. I'm fairly certain 61.57(a)(2) is a special rule intended to allow a pilot to act as PIC while regaining currency in an aircraft that is certified for 2 pilots, since he would be unable to do the flight solo.
Click to expand...

The use of the phrase, "For the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section" at the beginning of (a)(2) appears to support your reading of it, since the purpose of (a)(1) is takeoff and landing currency, and a safety pilot is not required to fulfill that purpose.
 
acrophile said:
Huh? What does that difference have to do with the question of whether the safety pilot is a required crew member?

In fact, the very entry you cite explicitly affirms that the safety pilot is indeed a required crew member:
Click to expand...

Gee, it sounds to me like the lawyers are saying the aircraft needs to require a second in command by certification or FARs require a "designated" second in command, such as in Part 135.101. Part 91.109(c) doesn't refer to a second in command at all. My emphasis:

Unfortunately, some airman can be confused about the role of the safety pilot during a simulated instrument flight. It isn't uncommon for airmen to refer to their safety pilot as being "second in command." However, unless the aircraft being used is type certificated for operation by more than one pilot or the operation conducted by the pilots requires a designated second in command (e.g. an operation conducted under FAR § 135.101 which requires a second in command for IFR operations), the designation of a safety pilot as an acting second in command crewmember is not accurate.​

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
Gee, it sounds to me like the lawyers are saying the aircraft needs to require a second in command by certification or FARs require a "designated" second in command, such as in Part 135.101. Part 91.109(c) doesn't refer to a second in command at all.
Click to expand...

Again, what does being SIC have to do with being a required crew member?

Yes, the lawyers are saying that the safety pilot is not the SIC in an aircraft that doesn't require an SIC (though the safety pilot can still log SIC time).

And the lawyers also say, in the very next paragraph, which I excerpted above, that the safety pilot is a required crew member (which is why they can still log SIC time).

How could it be any clearer?
 
Last edited:
acrophile said:
Again, what does being SIC have to do with being a required crew member?

Yes, the lawyers are saying that the safety pilot is not the SIC in an aircraft that doesn't require an SIC (though the safety pilot can still log SIC time).

And the lawyers also say, in the very next paragraph, which I excerpted above, that the safety pilot is a required crew member (which is why they can still log SIC time).

How could it be any clearer?
Click to expand...

Ah, upon further review the call on the field has been changed. You said "required crewmember" not "second in command". :) They aren't the same. Can't explain why I thought you said they were.

dtuuri
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top