Question about currency

[midlifeflyer]

Are you sure you want to act as PIC while someone is brushing up on their rusty skills (asking respectfully)?

(Just as respectfully) Are you sure that doesn't depend on who the two pilots are?

Yes, I think a private pilot who passed his checkride last week and never flew from the right seat would be a complete idiot to have a friend practice rusty skills from the "normal" pilot position.

But what if it's an ATP (who never got his CFI) who retired from the airlines a few years ago with 30,000 hours, 5,000 of which were in his own single-engine plane, from both seats?

And what about the infinite variations between those two extremes?

 

[midlifeflyer]

I guess I look at it just like any training flight. The instructee isn't required to be in the plane either. Granted the PIC logging for the CFI is under a different section, but that's how I look at it.

The point is it's under a different section with it's own words and requirements. Isn't that what your PIC logging flowchart is all about?

 

[Palmpilot]

I just don't see anyone taking the FAA to court saying the FAA shouldn't let them count time they've already logged, and until that happens, the interpretation stands as written.

As you know, people have asked some pretty dumb questions of the Chief Counsel's office, though.

 

[EdFred]

What does my flowchart say about CFIs and ATPs?

 

[poadeleted20]

What does my flowchart say about CFIs and ATPs?

Your flow chart only tells us what time it is; it does not tell us why the clock operates the way it does. Until your flow chart carries the FAA Chief Counsel seal of approval, it has very little relevance to Neil's questions about the meaning and interpretation of 14 CFR 61.51 with respect to various other sections of Title 14 of the CFR.

 

[EdFred]

Of course, the same thing could be said for anything you write as well.

And I can tell you haven't looked at it.

 

[poadeleted20]

Of course, the same thing could be said for anything you write as well.

Absolutely true, except that in this particular case, Neil has been asking about the logic behind the interpretations, not just what you can/can't do, and I've linked/quoted Chief Counsel letters on point to explain that logic. Your flow chart, while highly useful and accurate for the average pilot trying to figure out what you can/can't log, does not contain any references to the specific paragraphs/sections of the governing regs, or the Chief Counsel's explanations of why the regulations are interpreted that way, and thus won't help Neil understand the legal background of your flowchart.

As for whether I've looked at it, you are assuming facts not in evidence. And wrongly, I might add.

 

[EdFred]

Absolutely true, except that in this particular case, Neil has been asking about the logic behind the interpretations, not just what you can/can't do, and I've linked/quoted Chief Counsel letters on point to explain that logic. Your flow chart, while highly useful and accurate for the average pilot trying to figure out what you can/can't log, does not contain any references to the specific paragraphs/sections of the governing regs, or the Chief Counsel's explanations of why the regulations are interpreted that way, and thus won't help Neil understand the legal background of your flowchart.

As for whether I've looked at it, you are assuming facts not in evidence. And wrongly, I might add.

The bold, coupled with your first comment about it makes it seem you need to have your vision rechecked, then.

 

[poadeleted20]

The bold, coupled with your first comment about it makes it seem you need to have your vision rechecked, then.

Apologies -- it does have those references to the relevant sections. But it still does not, as I said, answer Neil's questions about how the Chief Counsel came to conclude as they did that those sections say what you say they mean despite somewhat difficult to see contradictions with other regulations.

 

[midlifeflyer]

What does my flowchart say about CFIs and ATPs?

Nothing at all. If the comment was in response to mine, I'm definitely confused.

 

[EdFred]

Nothing at all. If the comment was in response to mine, I'm definitely confused.

You quoted me where I mentioned the CFI logging time. I figured that's what you were getting at.

 

[Gerhardt]

This is certainly an interesting thread. I've always been hung up on this part:

(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.

So, if understand some people more learned than me...when getting your 3 TO/landings with another pilot on board...
* you are the sole manipulator of the controls
* you are NOT PIC
* your passenger is not a CFI

huh.

=================================


§61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command.

(a) General experience. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, 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, and—
(i) The person acted as the 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), and, if the aircraft to be flown is an airplane with a tailwheel, the takeoffs and landings must have been made to a full stop in an airplane with a tailwheel.
(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.

 

[midlifeflyer]

You quoted me where I mentioned the CFI logging time. I figured that's what you were getting at.

Not at all.

When you said

I guess I look at it just like any training flight. The instructee isn't required to be in the plane either. Granted the PIC logging for the CFI is under a different section, but that's how I look at it.

I took it as saying that you saw logging equivalence in the CFI situation and a private pilot acting as PIC while a friend gets current.

You went through a lot of trouble to put together a pretty good flowchart based on pilots answering questions about whether certain requirements for logging PIC are met (what I like to call fitting into 61.51 "boxes") but seemed willing to reject that type of analysis in favor of allowing it when they didn't follow it since a CFI doesn't have to. Just pointing out that a CFI follows a different "flow."

Sorry if I misunderstood your point.

 

[midlifeflyer]

This is certainly an interesting thread. I've always been hung up on this part:

(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.

This paragraph relates to the part of (a)(1) that says

==============================
no person may act as a pilot in command ... 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...
==============================

All (a)(2) does allows a PIC of a two crew in a 2-pilot-required aircraft to act as PIC to regain currency while her copilot is on board.

Not sure about your ultimate conclusion:

So, if understand some people more learned than me...when getting your 3 TO/landings with another pilot on board...
* you are the sole manipulator of the controls
* you are NOT PIC
* your passenger is not a CFI

Sounds complicated.

You can't act as PIC with passengers on on board. To be able to do so you need to do three takeoffs and landings within the prior 90 days. You can do that:
• solo (no passengers on board)
• with another pilot who is current acting as PIC (you are not acting as PIC and since she's the PIC, she's not a passenger - you are)
• with a CFI who is equally non-current (dues to an Chief Counsel interpretation that says that, with respect to each other and landing currency, neither an instructor or student is a passenger)

 

[poadeleted20]

This is certainly an interesting thread. I've always been hung up on this part:

(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.

So, if understand some people more learned than me...when getting your 3 TO/landings with another pilot on board...
* you are the sole manipulator of the controls
* you are NOT PIC

Good so far...

* your passenger is not a CFI

In this situation, where you aren't legal to be PIC with a passenger, you aren't the one with a passenger -- the pilot riding shotgun as PIC is the one with a passenger (namely, you). The point is that from a regulatory standpoint, the only person necessary for the conduct of the flight is your pal acting as PIC -- you are entirely superfluous. Also, from a legal perspective, the fully passenger-qualified PIC in this situation doesn't have to be a CFI, but from a safety perspective, it might help in case you're rustier than you think.

 

[EdFred]

Not at all.

When you said

I took it as saying that you saw logging equivalence in the CFI situation and a private pilot acting as PIC while a friend gets current.

You went through a lot of trouble to put together a pretty good flowchart based on pilots answering questions about whether certain requirements for logging PIC are met (what I like to call fitting into 61.51 "boxes") but seemed willing to reject that type of analysis in favor of allowing it when they didn't follow it since a CFI doesn't have to. Just pointing out that a CFI follows a different "flow."

Sorry if I misunderstood your point.

I was simply saying a pilot under the hood is not a required crew member.
A student pilot is not a required crew member.
But in both cases the RSP is required.

Just because one is required, doesn't mean the other is. Some rectangles are squares...

 

[poadeleted20]

I was simply saying a pilot under the hood is not a required crew member.

A pilot under the hood may or may not be a required crewmember -- depends on the qualifications of the safety pilot and the agreement between the two pilots before start.

A student pilot is not a required crew member.

A Student Pilot is most definitely a required pilot crewmember when solo, or when training in a 2-pilots-required airship. However, I don't think that's the context of your statement.

But in both cases the RSP is required.

What's an "RSP"? Right Seat Pilot? Yes, if the pilot flying is under the hood, a safety pilot is required by 91.109(c). But that doesn't mean the hooded pilot is not required -- the safety pilot may also be acting as PIC, in which case only one pilot is required, but the safety pilot may not be PIC-qualified, in which case the hooded pilot acting as PIC is definitely required, making two pilots required.

Just because one is required, doesn't mean the other is. Some rectangles are squares...

Now that is true.

 

[EdFred]

A pilot under the hood may or may not be a required crewmember -- depends on the qualifications of the safety pilot and the agreement between the two pilots before start.

A Student Pilot is most definitely a required pilot crewmember when solo, or when training in a 2-pilots-required airship. However, I don't think that's the context of your statement.

What's an "RSP"? Right Seat Pilot? Yes, if the pilot flying is under the hood, a safety pilot is required by 91.109(c). But that doesn't mean the hooded pilot is not required -- the safety pilot may also be acting as PIC, in which case only one pilot is required, but the safety pilot may not be PIC-qualified, in which case the hooded pilot acting as PIC is definitely required, making two pilots required.

Now that is true.

I was making the statement under the (assumed) premise that the right seat pilot was acting as PIC, and in your typical brand P, G, C, M, B Airplane.

 

[poadeleted20]

I was making the statement under the (assumed) premise that the right seat pilot was acting as PIC, and in your typical brand P, G, C, M, B Airplane.

Were you also assuming the "RSP" was or was not a CFI? Makes a big difference in terms of what the Student Pilot in the left seat can log. Also, are you assuming the LSP is rated? That makes a difference in what the RSP can log if not flying the plane.

Point is, you have to be careful in what you say on this, because so much is dependent on the exact qualifications and assigned duties of each person involved.

 

[EdFred]

Were you also assuming the "RSP" was or was not a CFI? Makes a big difference in terms of what the Student Pilot in the left seat can log. Also, are you assuming the LSP is rated? That makes a difference in what the RSP can log if not flying the plane.

Point is, you have to be careful in what you say on this, because so much is dependent on the exact qualifications and assigned duties of each person involved.

The original comment was based on "the person under the hood isn't required." My parallel was neither is anyone on a training flight, and has nothing to do with logging. You keep injecting additional scenarios.

 

[poadeleted20]

The original comment was based on "the person under the hood isn't required." My parallel was neither is anyone on a training flight, and has nothing to do with logging. You keep injecting additional scenarios.

No, you keep injecting additional assumptions.

Good night.

 

[EdFred]

Yeah, because we were all talking about airships before you added that.