I said training, not qualification requirement. Big difference.
If there is required training, that means there has to be a formal qualification to show you received the training. Otherwise, some % of people will think they don’t need the training and just do “it”.
mh wrote:
I said training, not qualification requirement. Big difference.
Thanks for the clarification, I certainly agree with that in relation to aerobatics, but was responding to this apparent unintentional sequence of statements…
mh wrote:
I do not think, that a plain PPL should be legally sufficient (snip)
mh wrote:
Same thing as with flying in IMC or aerobatics (snip)
I would agree with that as written that for flying in IMC under IFR a rating beyond a Private Certificate should be required. I would not agree based on the evidence that a rating should be required for aerobatic flight. Apart from the long record proving it unnecessary, I believe fear prevents most pilots from trying aerobatics without training, making a rating pointless, and there are few special procedural or communication requirements for aerobatic flight.
In reference to this:
mh wrote:
flying with passengers (unless being directly related to the pilot and/or wearing pink slippers) does need a seperate license for FAA pilots, no? Shared flights are working very well here.
Yes, answering your question as stated, under FAA regs you need to advance from a student license to a private pilot certificate to carry passengers.
I think what you’re trying to say is that under FAA rules flying passengers for compensation requires a commercial license, which is true. The requirements are here It’s the same qualification required for banner towing etc. You do not need an instrument rating to obtain a Commercial Pilot Certificate but if you don’t have an IR you are limited to local flying when carrying passsengers for money.
Silvaire wrote:
For 115 years there has been no FAA pilot qualification required for aerobatics, and it’s working well enough so far
I said training, not qualification requirement. Big difference.
Likewise, flying with passengers (unless being directly related to the pilot and/or wearing pink slippers) does need a seperate license for FAA pilots, no? Shared flights are working very well here.
For 115 years there has been no FAA pilot qualification required for aerobatics, and it’s working well enough so far… You actually don’t see “plenty” of PPLs “just killing themselves without training”.
If I haven’t flown for a while, as is actually the case right now as I wait for parts, I generally go flying with a ex-military instructor friend, with him as PIC. At least he would rapidly become PIC if there were an accident 
He might let me manipulate the controls. Then I do a solo flight or two before carrying real passengers.
For some reason my very first landing is always the best in this circumstance, and they go downhill from there. On the second flight, after a break, things go back to normal.
From a practical point of view:
As an Instructor in an aeroclub environment, I often get asked to “come along a round or two” after the pilot hasn’t been in an aircraft for a while. With no exception, the landings two and three are much safer, the pilot is much more relaxed and capable of dealing with passengers, even if the first landing and the first takeoff is a bit rough.
I think this regulation is one of the easiest and best written ones: No FI required (but not ruled out), no skill test required, just plain proficiency.
I do not think, that a plain PPL should be legally sufficient to accompany a pilot in the role of crew or instructor. There are certainly people who just don’t meet the regulatory minima but would be perfectly capable of doing the job. But you can’t base regulation on these few pilots. Many more PPL would be outright dangerous in playing instructor or crew without proper training.
Same thing as with flying in IMC or aerobatics: anyone can be trained to perform these flights, there are pilots who do not have a problem and would not have needed training, but plenty PPL would just kill themselves without training.
Snoopy wrote:
Now what exactly could that mean if two pilots fly privately in their own Cirrus, and one of them is out of the 90days currency? Could the other (current 90days) be pic and then let the non current one fly 3 landings?
If the other is an instructor. I think you are overthinking the problem. A PPL is a licence with the privilege to fly as PIC in an aircraft. Only one can act as PIC. A PPL does not give you the privilege for two pilots to team up and fly the aircraft as a crew. To bring passengers you need a minimum currency (those landings). If you don’t have those landings, you fly solo. It is a much better training than to bring along an instructor IMO, because the whole idea of a PPL is to act alone as PIC as the sole pilot. There is also a requirement for a check ride with an instructor every other year, and that is the only time you actually need an instructor, no matter what you fly.
Maoraigh wrote:
We had no suitable instructor at times
I don’t understand the problem. There are single seaters around. You cannot bring an instructor along for a flight obviously. How is that any different than a Jodel?
There is also a difference between crew and pilot. At my club we fly SAR missions. The crew consists of a pilot, a crew leader and a photographer (in the back). No one are passengers, they are all part of the crew. The crew leader is the one in contact with ground base(s) and other aircraft and teams. He decides where to fly, what to do and so on. The pilot flies the aircraft, and the photographer take pictures. Even though the crew leader is the “boss” so to say, the pilot is the PIC and has ultimately all responsibility of the aircraft. The crew leader is in charge of the mission, but not the actual execution of the flight.
If there is an accident, it would have to be on the current pilot’s insurance, if he was declared Pi/c.
Before the CAA issued the document I pasted earlier, we often had the currency problem with some of our Jodel Group. We had no suitable instructor at times. To pay for a check-out on a Pa38 would not help the pilot, although it would make a subsequent flight with a current Jodel pilot legal.
X many times carried me as an illegal passenger. But he was the one designated as Pi/c.
Y once handed me control after several go-arounds. I then logged the time from then, and the landing, with no logged take-off.
Thanks Bookworm.
Nomen is Omen.
Now what exactly could that mean if two pilots fly privately in their own Cirrus, and one of them is out of the 90days currency? Could the other (current 90days) be pic and then let the non current one fly 3 landings?
Peter wrote:
That was what I remembered, and I recall seeing a proposal to change this. In fact I recall @bookworm writing about it, several years ago, somewhere… It is silly to require a pilot regaining his passenger carrying privilege by having to do solo flights. Allowing a qualified pilot in the RHS is much better risk management.
You might mean this:
GM1.NCO.OP.180 Simulated situations in flight
DESIGNATION OF PERSONS AS CREW MEMBERS
(a) The operator may designate any person as a crew member (including a task specialist) provided that:
(1) the role, according to the reasonable expectation of the operator, will enhance the safety of the flight or achieve an operational objective of the flight;
(2) the person, according to the reasonable expectation of the operator, is capable of fulfilling the role;
(3) the person has been briefed on the role as a crew member and informed that they are crew, not a passenger; and
(4) the person agrees to the role as a crew member.
(b) Crew members are not considered to be passengers.
(c) Crew members may be required, by specific provisions of this Regulation and other Implementing Rules, to hold licences, ratings or other personnel certificates to fulfil certain roles such as instructor, examiner or flight engineer in certain circumstances.
Le Sving, I actually enjoy flying IFR and I have done ever since a CRE first introduced me to it when travelling to a suitable area of VMC to do my MEP revalidation.
I get a buzz everytime I break through the clouds at 200 feet and see the runway in front of me.
On short trips from say Pontoise to Toussus I enjoy being vectored over Paris, I never tire of seeing the Palace of Versaille below me or the Eiffel Tower peaking through the clouds, then flying directly overhead Orly.
And yes I do enjoy the time that the autopilot gives me to plan ahead and think a little on longer journeys.
I do agree with Peter that many PPL’s do just fly locally or to the same places, it doesn’t mean they are not having fun.
As you say aerobatics, homebuilding, tail wheel are also fun.
I like to enthuse about the type of flying I like to do and I am delighted if someone asks to share that but I am well aware that everyone has different ideas of the aviation they enjoy so I am careful not to indicate to them that what they are doing is not real flying and they should try something else. After all they might just decide to take up golf instead, or buy an Aston Martin instead of a Cirrus.
