Do you brief who is PIC?

[jaylw314]

2 hours ago, Yetti said:

Don't discuss.  It's like the check ride.   It's my plane and they are my passengers that I need to keep safe.   There is nothing that the person in the right seat should need to do that takes away my responsibility to keep them safe during the entire flight.

It's a mindset that I take into every flight.  

 

 

As long as you're willing to take a chance the guy in the right seat isn't suddenly going to have a moment of doubt during landing and try to grab the controls from you thinking that he is PIC for the flight.  After all, for your checkride, how did you know this wasn't your DPE's first checkride, too?

[RobertGary1]

50 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

As long as you're willing to take a chance the guy in the right seat isn't suddenly going to have a moment of doubt during landing and try to grab the controls from you thinking that he is PIC for the flight.  After all, for your checkride, how did you know this wasn't your DPE's first checkride, too?

That's why when receiving instruction is a bit moot since the FAA expects the CFI to recover anything that could cause unsafe flight regardless of who PIC is.

 

-Robert

 

[Hank]

We discussed many things during my Flight Review today, but this didn't come up. And he didn't try to grab the yoke when he made me do a no flap landing at my 3150' long home field, although he did say something about how close the trees were to the wheels . . . . Not my fault I need a slow descent without flaps at 100 mph to not accelerate and float off the far end. 

I did tell him it wouldn't be my first choice for a real "flaps don't work" landing, since there's a 5000' field just 10nm away with wide open approaches on both ends. And our trees aren't even that bad!

Edited May 1, 2018 by Hank

[Yetti]

6 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

 After all, for your checkride, how did you know this wasn't your DPE's first checkride, too?

Because he was 91 years old, a Navigator on a B17 in WWII,  had an A&P, and a test pilot for Navion.  Guy was sharp as a tack.    For my flight review at least one patch I saw on his jacket was 2000 hrs in the F18.  Both much better pilots than me, but that is not the point.  The point is that I can demonstrate that I can keep them safe through all the manners of the flight envelope and return them safely to the ground.  Their job is to push me to the limit but not break me.   60 degree bank angle turns are something I need to practice.

[Yetti]

22 minutes ago, Hank said:

We discussed many things during my Flight Review today, but this didn't come up. And he didn't try to grab the yoke when he made me do a no flap landing at my 3150' long home field, although he did say something about how close the trees were to the wheels . . . . Not my fault I need a slow descent without flaps at 100 mph to not accelerate and float off the far end.

How in the world did you get going that fast on final?  Put the gear down at threshold on downwind. They are awesome speed brakes.

[Hank]

4 minutes ago, Yetti said:

How in the world did you get going that fast on final?  Put the gear down at threshold on downwind. They are awesome speed brakes.

I was straight in. Kept a little speed for no flaps (Vs = 67 mph; 1.3 Vs = 87, so I was a little fast). That's what happens when unexpected stuff goes on. It worked well, though, didn't even need to brake much. And now I know the right speed . . . 90-100 mph will work, no need to divert.

P.S.--I did slow to 90 mph on short final  didn't have a huge float, but I was low over the numbers on my flat approach.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Hank

[midlifeflyer]

8 hours ago, Hank said:

We discussed many things during my Flight Review today, but this didn't come up. And he didn't try to grab the yoke when he made me do a no flap landing at my 3150' long home field, although he did say something about how close the trees were to the wheels . . . . Not my fault I need a slow descent without flaps at 100 mph to not accelerate and float off the far end. 

I did tell him it wouldn't be my first choice for a real "flaps don't work" landing, since there's a 5000' field just 10nm away with wide open approaches on both ends. And our trees aren't even that bad!

No comment in the speed, but looks like good tree clearance to me.

[steingar]

I  kinda had to at my recent BFR.  After 6 months off I wasn't even legal to carry a passenger.  Right now I'm legal, but far less than competent.

[Hank]

3 hours ago, steingar said:

I  kinda had to at my recent BFR.  After 6 months off I wasn't even legal to carry a passenger.  Right now I'm legal, but far less than competent.

Fortunately, CFIs don't count as passengers while they are instructing. It's even legal to fly with a CFI at night when both are not night current, if your purpose is to regain currency. Been there, done that--we took turns, one takeoff and landing each, until we both had three.

[Andy95W]

47 minutes ago, Hank said:

It's even legal to fly with a CFI at night when both are not night current, if your purpose is to regain currency.

That is a very different interpretation of the regs than what I was taught.

[steingar]

5 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

That is a very different interpretation of the regs than what I was taught.

Yeah, me too.  If the CFI isn't current, then he or she isn't current to instruct at night, making her or her a passenger which we'd not allowed to take if we aren't current.  If I'm wrong I'd love to be corrected.

[RobertGary1]

For the purpose of instructional flights  the FAA considers the instructor and the student to be crew members not passengers since both are mandatory to satisfy the regulatory purpose of the flight. Just like 2 pilots in a 737 are both legally crew and neither are considered passengers regardless of which is flying since they are both serving a required purpose for the flight.

 

-Robert 

[steingar]

7 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

For the purpose of instructional flights  the FAA considers the instructor and the student to be crew members not passengers since both are mandatory to satisfy the regulatory purpose of the flight. Just like 2 pilots in a 737 are both legally crew and neither are considered passengers regardless of which is flying since they are both serving a required purpose for the flight.

 

-Robert 

But if neither one meets the regulatory requirements (e.g. night currency) how can both be crew?

[RobertGary1]

Just now, steingar said:

But if neither one meets the regulatory requirements (e.g. night currency) how can both be crew?

There is no regulatory requirement to be night current if there are no passengers.

-Robert

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, steingar said:

Yeah, me too.  If the CFI isn't current, then he or she isn't current to instruct at night, making her or her a passenger which we'd not allowed to take if we aren't current.  If I'm wrong I'd love to be corrected.

OK.  2006 Kortokrax Chief Counsel letter There is another one which says the same thing with a student pilot and yet another reconfirming a few years later.

Edited May 1, 2018 by midlifeflyer

[jaylw314]

17 hours ago, Yetti said:

Because he was 91 years old, a Navigator on a B17 in WWII,  had an A&P, and a test pilot for Navion.  Guy was sharp as a tack.    For my flight review at least one patch I saw on his jacket was 2000 hrs in the F18.  Both much better pilots than me, but that is not the point.  The point is that I can demonstrate that I can keep them safe through all the manners of the flight envelope and return them safely to the ground.  Their job is to push me to the limit but not break me.   60 degree bank angle turns are something I need to practice.

Holy smokes, so he was flying F/A-18's in his 60's?  Was he a test pilot for the Navy as well?

[Andy95W]

42 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

OK.  2006 Kortokrax Chief Counsel letter There is another one which says the same thing with a student pilot and yet another reconfirming a few years later.

I get it, and I'm glad to learn something new.  I still think it's goofy because in the same letter it states clearly "the instructor must be current..." just prior to it saying that neither instructor nor PIC-qualified student is a passenger.

My assumption would be that if the student were a true student pilot, i.e., not holding a pilot's license, the instructor would have to meet the recency requirements in order to flight instruct him/her.

Mark- do you have a letter that shows that?

[MBDiagMan]

Did my BFR in the Mooney last November.  Right after I yelled clear and started the 3ngine, the instructor asked, “who is the PIC”?  I said “I am.”

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, Andy95W said:

I get it, and I'm glad to learn something new.  I still think it's goofy because in the same letter it states clearly "the instructor must be current..." just prior to it saying that neither instructor nor PIC-qualified student is a passenger.

My assumption would be that if the student were a true student pilot, i.e., not holding a pilot's license, the instructor would have to meet the recency requirements in order to flight instruct him/her.

Mark- do you have a letter that shows that?

Yep.  No passenger currency required even then. ahttps://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2007/olshock-panam2 - (2007) legal interpretation.pdf

this is one of the few that surprised me.

Edited May 1, 2018 by midlifeflyer

[RobertGary1]

It goes back to the fact that with a student (rated or not) and an instructor both are crew and nether are passengers. So passenger requirements do not apply. It has nothing to do with the FAA allowing an operation without currency. 

Note that someone has to be able to be PIC. If the student isn't rated the CFI obviously has to. If the student is rated (and current) then the he can be PIC and the CFI doesn't need currency, medical, BFR. So technically if you keep up your CFI you can allow everything else to lapse and still provide instruction to rated students.

(and again logging PIC has nothing at all to do with who is serving as PIC).

 

-Robert

[midlifeflyer]

13 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

It goes back to the fact that with a student (rated or not) and an instructor both are crew and nether are passengers. So passenger requirements do not apply. It has nothing to do with the FAA allowing an operation without currency. 

Note that someone has to be able to be PIC. If the student isn't rated the CFI obviously has to. If the student is rated (and current) then the he can be PIC and the CFI doesn't need currency, medical, BFR. So technically if you keep up your CFI you can allow everything else to lapse and still provide instruction to rated students.

(and again logging PIC has nothing at all to do with who is serving as PIC).

 

-Robert

Well, I wouldn't call it a "fact." And I don't bother trying to create a rationale behind what is essentially a policy decision to allow flight instruction to take place without passenger currency. 

The reason I was surprised by the student pilot one is, there is an older FAA interpretation in another regulatory context saying,  a student pilot is  always a passenger with respect to an instructor. 

[midlifeflyer]

2 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

Well, I wouldn't call it a "fact." And I don't bother trying to create a rationale behind what is essentially a policy decision to allow flight instruction to take place without passenger currency. 

The reason I was surprised by the student pilot one is, there is an older FAA interpretation in another regulatory context saying,  a student pilot is  always a passenger with respect to an instructor. 

A correction: Here's the language from a 1985 interpretation. And it does deal with passenger currency. It's in some collections of Legal opinions but  actually came from a different branch of the FAA than the Chief Counsel's office, although it ends by saying, " this letter has been coordinated with the Office of the Chief Counsel/"

For example, a student pilot taking lessons from a certificated flight instructor is a passenger with respect to the flight instructor and, therefore, the flight instructor must meet the recency experience requirements of Section 61.57(a), (c) and (d).

Edited May 2, 2018 by midlifeflyer

[kris_adams]

17 hours ago, MBDiagMan said:

Did my BFR in the Mooney last November.  Right after I yelled clear and started the 3ngine, the instructor asked, “who is the PIC”?  I said “I am.”

Interesting. During my ipc a few years back my instructor asked the same thing. My response was the same as yours and the instructor said “correct”.  

[RobertGary1]

2 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

A correction: Here's the language from a 1985 interpretation. And it does deal with passenger currency. It's in some collections of Legal opinions but  actually came from a different branch of the FAA than the Chief Counsel's office, although it ends by saying, " this letter has been coordinated with the Office of the Chief Counsel/"

For example, a student pilot taking lessons from a certificated flight instructor is a passenger with respect to the flight instructor and, therefore, the flight instructor must meet the recency experience requirements of Section 61.57(a), (c) and (d).



Maybe that's the confusion, vs the FAA Council  interpretation the FAA released in 2007 which says the opposite.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2007/olshock-panam2 - (2007) legal interpretation.pdf

-Robert

[bradp]

Maybe the confusion has to do whether the student pilot requires the instructor for purposes of solo flight?  Pre solo student role interpreted as passenger?