Night currency with co pilot?

[dmspilot]

I’m not sure if we’re saying the same thing or not. If a human is in a 172 and they’re not a “required crew member”, then what are they?

We are not saying the same thing. You can be a crewmember without being a required crewmember. 14 CFR 1.1.

 

[crash7]

We are not saying the same thing. You can be a crewmember without being a required crewmember. 14 CFR 1.1.

So if an FAA inspector sees me and my buddy hop out of a 172 at midnight and asks to see my three hour-after-sunset takeoffs and landings and I can’t prove that, I can just say my buddy was assigned the duty of holding my drink, so he’s not a passenger, he’s a “crew member”?

I’d love to see how that conversation goes...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dmspilot]

I can just say my buddy was assigned the duty of holding my drink

Because that's totally the same thing as having a pilot who is flying the plane.

 

[crash7]

Because that's totally the same thing as having a pilot who is flying the plane.

Right. That was me. The guy the inspector is looking at trying to figure out why I had another human in the 172 performing the “non-passenger” duties of holding my drink when I landed at midnight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kath]

If they are a rated pilot, I'd call them an "additional crewmember."

Not saying it's inherently a bad idea. But think of how many additional regulations would have to be written to accommodate this in Part 91. Everything is much simpler if ONE person is the sole responsibility for the safety of the flight and that's the end of the story.

 

[Palmpilot]

There is no such definition of passenger as "not a required crewmember". If there was, there would be no need for the FAA to distinguish between crewmembers and required crewmembers.

14 CFR 61.57(b)(1) uses the word "passengers" when setting out the night currency requirements. What do you think they mean by that term?

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise, unless within the preceding 90 days that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise, and -

(i) That person acted as sole manipulator of the flight controls; and

(ii) The required takeoffs and landings were performed in an aircraft of the same category, class, and type (if a type rating is required).​

 

[dmspilot]

14 CFR 61.57(b)(1) uses the word "passengers" when setting out the night currency requirements. What do you think they mean by that term?

It doesn't matter what I think, it only matters what the FAA thinks, and I don't know what they think, because there is no formal definition of "passenger", nor any legal interpretations that I'm aware of. The distinction in the FARs between a crewmember and required crewmember implies that one can be a crewmember without being a required crewmember, and being a crewmember seems to imply not being a passenger.

 

[midlifeflyer]

How did this turn into a discussion of both pilots trying to log time simultaneously?

Easy.

 

[Sluggo63]

14 CFR 61.57(b)(1) uses the word "passengers" when setting out the night currency requirements. What do you think they mean by that term?

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers ...​

​

I don't know. The FAA doesn't define "passenger." But they do define "crewmember":

CFR 14 § 1.1
Crewmember means a person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft during flight time.

Outside of @crash7's example, there could be legitimate duties assigned. For example "while we're flying, if I get more than 5 knots slow or 10 knots fast on approach, call a go-around. Anytime you see me get 3 red on the PAPI, call a go around. Anytime you feel I am in an unsafe position to land, call a go around" would be legitimate pilot duties (a safety pilot, if you will) and would make the operation safer than just going out solo after not doing night landings in 5 years and wanting to get recurrent.

Not saying it's inherently a bad idea. But think of how many additional regulations would have to be written to accommodate this in Part 91. Everything is much simpler if ONE person is the sole responsibility for the safety of the flight and that's the end of the story.

Like I hinted at above, just expand the use of "Safety Pilot." If a pilot can go out with a PPL who doesn't have a Instrument Rating as a safety pilot, why couldn't you have a Safety Pilot on board during this night-scenario (and others). Just because someone isn't a CFI, doesn't mean they can't be a valuable asset to safely completing a flight.

It doesn't matter what I think, it only matters what the FAA thinks, and I don't know what they think, because there is no formal definition of "passenger", nor any legal interpretations that I'm aware of. The distinction in the FARs between a crewmember and required crewmember implies that one can be a crewmember without being a required crewmember, and being a crewmember seems to imply not being a passenger.

Exactly.

 

[MauleSkinner]

CFR 14 § 1.1
Crewmember means a person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft during flight time.

Outside of @crash7's example, there could be legitimate duties assigned. For example "while we're flying, if I get more than 5 knows slow or 10 knows fast on approach, call a go-around. Anytime you see me get 3 red on the PAPI, call a go around. Anytime you feel I am in an unsafe position to land, call a go around" would be legitimate pilot duties (a safety pilot, if you will) and would make the operation safer than just going out solo after not doing night landings in 5 years and wanting to get recurrent.

Which is why the FAA put the “solo” requirement in the commercial cross country stuff.

just to tie in an unrelated, but regular, discussion.

 

[midlifeflyer]

It doesn't matter what I think, it only matters what the FAA thinks, and I don't know what they think, because there is no formal definition of "passenger", nor any legal interpretations that I'm aware of. The distinction in the FARs between a crewmember and required crewmember implies that one can be a crewmember without being a required crewmember, and being a crewmember seems to imply not being a passenger.

There's a bit of semantics going on, but I think the FAA's use of the terms is at least partly contextual.

A "required crewmember" is pretty straightforward. Some rule or regulation requires that person to be on board. There are plenty. Rules requiring more than one pilot in aircraft typed for two. Rules requiring more than one pilot in operations requiring two. Safety pilot and a second pilot in Part 135 IFR passenger ops are two familiar examples. The logging rules allow logging by a required non-manipulator in certain, defined, circumstances.

But yes, someone can be a crewmember although not required. I haven't read too deeply into them but I think there is some reference to this in the FAA's treatment of Part 135 and 121 duty time limitations. There are also situations where, even though the airplane and the operation only require one pilot, Part 135 operators contractually obligate themselves to provide two-pilot crews. I'm confident that the FAA would have no problem treating them as crewmembers in case of a mishap despite their lack of required status. That's what I mean by contextual.

 

[bflynn]

Seems counter intuitive.

Unless you consider it from the passenger's standpoint. Should they be a guinea pig to your currency? The fact that you're not current implies a lower level of competency, so why should you have any passengers along? If you're going to crash, don't take someone else along.

There are no additional crewmembers. There are required crewmembers, but the airplanes we fly don't require anything beyond the pilot.

 

[Lindberg]

Jeez. The FAA doesn't no require insurance considerations to determine who is PIC or if the flight is legal. Insurance coverage issues are more than just a handshake about who is PIC, as well.

Who owns the airplane doesn't enter into whether someone is a passenger or not.

And no, 61.56 just requires the person wanting to be PIC to "make three takeoffs and landings." In fact, they didn't even need to be rated in the aircraft at the time they do that .

It's 61.57, and I think it is a stretch to say he doesn't have to be rated. The night takeoffs and landings have to be in the same category and class you want to carry passengers in, and you have to be rated to carry passengers. Sure, in the edge case, you could make the takeoffs and landings and then get your rating in the intervening 90 days, but that's not really germane.

 

[EdFred]

I get it. I read a couple interpretations that show that I'm incorrect. It just seems like the FAA is forcing people to be less safe. You can go out solo and get yourself current all by yourself, but if you take another (non-CFI) pilot with you who is rated and current, they are all of a sudden a passenger and you can't do the takeoffs and landing. Seems counter intuitive.

It's funny how POA wraps itself around the axle on the minutia of some of these issues, but on others it is more than happy to "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" itself into "what nobody knows won't hurt you."

Yup. Look at their stance on medicals. Not about safety at all. But if the other pilot is current, you can do the takeoffs and landings. It's the whole acting vs logging thing again.

 

[Palmpilot]

It doesn't matter what I think, it only matters what the FAA thinks, and I don't know what they think, because there is no formal definition of "passenger", nor any legal interpretations that I'm aware of. The distinction in the FARs between a crewmember and required crewmember implies that one can be a crewmember without being a required crewmember, and being a crewmember seems to imply not being a passenger.

Yeah, I haven't seen a definition either, but the idea has been around for long time that if you're not a required crew member you're a passenger for the purposes of the night-currency regulation, so personally, I'm going to keep treating it that way.

 

[Lindberg]

I get it. I read a couple interpretations that show that I'm incorrect. It just seems like the FAA is forcing people to be less safe. You can go out solo and get yourself current all by yourself, but if you take another (non-CFI) pilot with you who is rated and current, they are all of a sudden a passenger and you can't do the takeoffs and landing. Seems counter intuitive.

If he's rated and current, then he can act as PIC whether or not one of us (me) is a passenger and whether or not I make the takeoffs and landings. So in this case, no the FAA isn't requiring anything other than what you apparently think is the correct result.

So if an FAA inspector sees me and my buddy hop out of a 172 at midnight and asks to see my three hour-after-sunset takeoffs and landings and I can’t prove that, I can just say my buddy was assigned the duty of holding my drink, so he’s not a passenger, he’s a “crew member”?

I’d love to see how that conversation goes...

Since I'm not required to have my logbook with me, it would go like this: "I don't have my logbook with me, but I'd be happy to allow you to review it at another reasonable time."

 

[Palmpilot]

I just looked at the Kortokrax letter, which is one of the ones that says an instructor is not a passenger when giving instruction, and I noticed this paragraph.

"We note that this interpretation is limited to the specific circumstances of §61.57(b) and
SF AR 73(2)(d). We also note that our interpretation of passenger is limited to the instructor
scenario. Absent the instructor scenario above, except where any individual is a required
flight crewmember, the person would have to meet §61.57(b)."
​

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or.../2006/Kortokrax_2006_Legal_Interpretation.pdf

 

[midlifeflyer]

Right. That was me. The guy the inspector is looking at trying to figure out why I had another human in the 172 performing the “non-passenger” duties of holding my drink when I landed at midnight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the scenario presented, the non-flying pilot is the pilot in command allowing the flying pilot to manipulate the controls and perform the landings. I would have no problem saying that to the hypothetical ASI.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Since I'm not required to have my logbook with me, it would go like this: "I don't have my logbook with me, but I'd be happy to allow you to review it at another reasonable time."

I was going to add that but since my only logbook is digital, I do have it with me.

 

[crash7]

In the scenario presented, the non-flying pilot is the pilot in command allowing the flying pilot to manipulate the controls and perform the landings. I would have no problem saying that to the hypothetical ASI.

Fair enough. I would assume that means that *I* become the passenger (who just happens to be pushing the airplane around) and the ASI will now be very interested in the drink-holding non-flying pilot’s takeoff/landing currency.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[midlifeflyer]

Fair enough. I would assume that means that *I* become the passenger (who just happens to be pushing the airplane around) and the ASI will now be very interested in the drink-holding non-flying pilot’s takeoff/landing currency.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You bet!

 

[Lindberg]

I was going to add that but since my only logbook is digital, I do have it with me.

Mine too. But I assumed he wanted the printed out version that I have at home. If i misunderstood, that's my bad.

FWIW, I had reason to have my documents inspected by an ASI not too long ago. Other than comparing me to my DL photo, he wanted to verify that I hadn't cut the conditions of issue off my medical certificate or laminated it. He didn't ask for logbooks.

 

[flyingron]

It's 61.57, and I think it is a stretch to say he doesn't have to be rated. The night takeoffs and landings have to be in the same category and class you want to carry passengers in, and you have to be rated to carry passengers. Sure, in the edge case, you could make the takeoffs and landings and then get your rating in the intervening 90 days, but that's not really germane.

It's perfectly germane. Don't insert requirements that aren't in the egulations.

 

[Hang 4]

I get it. I read a couple interpretations that show that I'm incorrect. It just seems like the FAA is forcing people to be less safe. You can go out solo and get yourself current all by yourself, but if you take another (non-CFI) pilot with you who is rated and current, they are all of a sudden a passenger and you can't do the takeoffs and landing. Seems counter intuitive."

I believe the OP stated that neither he nor his "passenger" were night current. Not sure a non-current pilot taking along another non-current pilot is "more safe" ? If the OP isn't comfortable getting current himself, then he should find a CFI. Or if he thinks his friend in more proficient, than have his friend get current. Avoiding using a CFI is less safe. Definitely not the same as a safety pilot who is just looking out the window for traffic. "Your airplane" on a go-around from the right seat is CFI territory.

 

[Skip Miller]

You could just go up by yourself and do 3 landings. If you’re nervous, start just after sunset and do several full stop landings and ease into the dark.

Or you can pick a night with a bright full moon. Plenty of light to ease your concerns about doing it solo.

-Skip

 

[DaveInPA]

So after reading the discussion and rereading the part 91 far this seems clear to me. For me to get current I need to be sole manipulator of the controls. I see no mention that I need to be PIC. I cannot bring a passenger but I don’t see anything stopping another pilot in the plane acting as PIC such as a CFI or anyone else that can act as PIC. So if I bring a fellow pilot along who can legally act as PIC then I can be sole manipulator and get my 3 landings.

Now I’ve never landed this plane at night so at the end of the day finding a CFI is the best thing to do. But in the future to get current or if I’m with a pilot friend and we need to fly at night this is good to know.

 

[asicer]

So if I bring a fellow pilot along who can legally act as PIC then I can be sole manipulator and get my 3 landings.

Well, that person needs to agree beforehand to act as PIC. You can't just say at the end of the flight "surprise!"

That person also needs to understand that they are responsible for that flight in case something goes wrong, which may color their decision to act as PIC.

 

[TimRF79]

Also keep in mind it is 3 take off and landings, no pattern flight required.
A take-off per definition is when the wheels leave contact with the ground.
Meaning on a long runway you can safely take off-land and taxi back.

 

[Albany Tom]

Also keep in mind it is 3 take off and landings, no pattern flight required.
A take-off per definition is when the wheels leave contact with the ground.
Meaning on a long runway you can safely take off-land and taxi back.

I want to hear a recording of that process at a controlled field. "Tower, Bonanza 2345 requesting short flight, runway 3". Then request taxi back for another "short flight".

 

[flyingron]

Many years ago I did a quick night currency run at IAD. I had intended to shoot down to HEF to do them but it looked like some ground fog was starting down there so I just returned to IAD. After I touched I asked the tower if they were busy and they said no. I asked for a series of stop-and-goes on the runway (it is 11,000' long, the Navion needs 850'). It was my goal some day to do one on each of the (then) three runways some night. I also wanted to do a similar run at all three airports in the class B (BWI-DCA-IAD) but DCA is right out these days (even though I was one of the first people cleared for DC-3 access having been based at VKX on 9/11).