That is too legalistic a view. Obviously a 2nd pilot can always take over or at least spot unsafe conditions and advise the PIC. Do you think I would let a PIC kill me and sit on the RHS without interfering? I would split the PICs head with the onboard axe before that happens…
I don’t think that view is legalistic. An instructor is trained in recognising and correcting (in a safe way) trouble, other pilots are not.
The Swedish view seems to be that it is not ok to fly with a another rated and current pilot, but it is ok to fly with an instructor (FI or CRI).
The Swedish view seems to be that it is not ok to fly with a another rated and current pilot, but it is ok to fly with an instructor (FI or CRI).
Which, to the best of my knowledge, is also the worldwide view, some UK CAA exemptions notwithstanding.
Have to say, I agree with this. The variance in the abilities of any plain-vanilla PPL who may occupy the RHS are simply too great. You can easily get into a situation where one pilot isn’t current at all, the other barely so. A bit like two drunks propping each other up after a night out. You really don’t want any unforeseen situation to arise in that scenario.
Even if I could, I wouldn’t do my currency check with another PPL, rather prefer a CFI. Due to my travel and renting situation I have to do 90-day insurance checks once or twice a year and always try to include some training in there, not just the three t/o and landings.
The Q one always ends up asking in these discussions is Why is the USA not littered in wreckage resulting from this?
I was in a meeting last week on LPV approaches and asked the same Q. The answer was simply that the CAA holds a different view.
The reasons why the USA is not littered in wreckage could be
etc
The Q one always ends up asking in these discussions is Why is the USA not littered in wreckage resulting from this?
What does the OP’s Q have to do with the US? In FAA-land you either fly alone or with a CFI if you’re out of 90 days. No funny, if, but, perhaps business, as the CAA apparently likes to play.
Quote How does a “passenger pilot” make the flight safe?
He doesn’t. But he’s in a reasonable position to assess the risk associated with an out-of-currency pilot, and choose to take that risk if he wishes to do so. He’s not someone who needs the extra layer of regulatory protection that a non-pilot passenger is entitled to.
I think the 90 day rule does not aim that much on the ability to execute a safe landing, otherwise the flight with an instructor would be mandatory, instead of the allowed solo flights. I would argue that you might need mental capacity for handling passengers that are able to interact with the pilot directly. So if you were not current, you could concentrate on the aviate part, since one possible major distraction is left on the ground for that flight. Three landings isn’t that much, if you haven’t flown for one year or more, so clearly it is not aimed at proficiency.
Following this argument, there would be no reason not to take an instructor or a fellow aviator, whom you trust and who would be able to comment on your flying (why would you want to take anyone, who isn’t able to help you on that situation in the first place?)
BTW: @Steve6443, Münster has no LBA-branch. Are you sure you have spoken to LBA inspectors and not for members of the Landesluftfahrtbehörde (german regional aviation authority) in Münster?
Bookworm,
here are two references:
In the US, anything not explicitly prohibited by the regulations is permitted.
We use the terms “Acting as PIC” in a similar way that I have seen others in Europe discuss the aircraft commander. The pilot “acting as PIC” is the one responsible for the safety of the flight (91.3). There is no requirement in the US regulation that the “pilot acting as PIC” sit in the left or right seat. In an aircraft equipped with fully functioning dual controls, either the left or right seat may be used as a duty station.
Assume two private pilots, both rated for single engine land, neither of which is an instructor. Assume the aircraft is a C172. Pilot A is rated for the C172 and has not made any takeoff and landings within the previous 90 days. Pilot B is rated for the C172 and is current to act as PIC carrying passengers. For a legal flight, pilot B must act as PIC for the flight (61.57). Either pilot may occupy either seat. Pilot A and pilot B agree that pilot B must act as PIC for the flight prior to the flight.
May pilot A be the sole manipulator of the controls? Yes, as long as pilot B permits it. Who is responsible for the safety of the flight, pilot B of course. Is there a passenger on board? Yes pilot A is a passenger of pilot B the pilot “acting as PIC”.
A flight is conducted with pilot A as the sole manipulator of the controls and three takeoffs and landings are accomplished. Pilot B acts as the PIC for the entire flight.
Who may log PIC time, assuming that pilot A is the sole manipulator of the controls? Only pilot A may log PIC time IAW 61.51(e)(1)(i). To satisfy the currency requirement, pilot A must log this time as PIC. Pilot B is not permitted to log PIC time in this case as pilot B does not meet any of the regulatory requirements for logging PIC time, even though they are acting as PIC.
At the completion of the flight, is pilot A current? Yes. Was this a legal flight? Yes.
Here is what 61.57(a) states in part:
(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.
One can explore some questions on if this regulation was met by pilot A.
Section e does not apply because the exceptions only apply to certificated carriers and or turbine aircraft requiring two pilots.
Did pilot A act as PIC for this flight? No, pilot B acted as PIC for the flight and pilot A is a passenger.
Does the C172 require more than one pilot flight crew member? No.
At the beginning of the flight, has pilot A accomplished three takeoffs and landings within the preceeding 90 days? No.
At the end of the flight, has pilot A accomplished three takeoffs and landings within the preceeding 90 days? Yes
Was pilot A the sole manipulator of the controls? Yes
Were the takeoff and landings conducted in an aircraft for which pilot A was rated? Yes.
Does the C172 have a tail wheel ? No.
Section (2) does not apply because pilot A was a passenger and able to act as PIC.
Pilot A is required to log the time as PIC and pilot B may not log the time as PIC.
May pilot A be the sole manipulator of the controls? Yes, as long as pilot B permits it. Who is responsible for the safety of the flight, pilot B of course
This raises one issue: insurance. In most scenarios in Europe, the PIC is not insured unless
So if the B becomes the PIC, there is no insurance. Well, that’s if I got this right 
Who may log PIC time, assuming that pilot A is the sole manipulator of the controls? Only pilot A may log PIC time IAW 61.51(e)(1)(i). To satisfy the currency requirement, pilot A must log this time as PIC. Pilot B is not permitted to log PIC time in this case as pilot B does not meet any of the regulatory requirements for logging PIC time, even though they are acting as PIC.
EASA regs are clear that in such a case, only pilot B may log PIC time and (s)he may log all of it. Pilot A may not log any time at all. The question of who is manipulating the controls does not matter. (Section (b) of AMC to FCL.050.)
