Currency Question

[DrEvil]

PK/A^2,

Guyz, take a valium, you are still wrong!

The VFR Day currency, which is the 3 TO&L's in 90 days does NOT, I say again does NOT start yesterday, the previous day. It is effective from 1 minute ago, and back! As WM stated, if you do 3 TO&L's this morning, you ARE good to go to carry passengers this afternoon. You do NOT, I repeat DO NOT, need to wait until tomorrow to carry your passengers!

Oy gavey!!!

 

[paulkinzelman]

DrEvil...
I thought that was one thing about which we're all in violent agreement.

 

[DrEvil]

So, from this, the 90 day currency should count the previous day as day 1. I stand corrected and logbookpro is too pessimistic.

No, the current day is day one, and I reviewed Logbook Pro and it's dead on accurate, correct, and what should be followed. As WM stated, if you fly TODAY, you can carry passengers TODAY.

Enough on this, people are confusing themselves, it's not this difficult, and if you use Logbook Pro, you have nothing to worry about, it's showing the correct information as it appears they have done their research!

 

[paulkinzelman]

The issue whether you can fly passengers immediately after doing 3TO&L was a red herring I believe. Yes, you could read that problem into it, but I don't think anybody would seriously say you couldn't fly passengers immediately after 3TO&L because of the intent of the rule.

The question of when day 1 is is what's the issue - and (as A^2 pointed out) to be analagous to annuals, you have to start with the previous day as day #1 when counting back 90.

Try it with annuals.
You want to fly on Jan 31, 2003.
You got your annual done Jan 15, 2002. Count 12 back with the current month (Jan 2003) as month 1. You get Feb 2002 as when your annual had to have been done, not Jan 2002. And we all know the answer should be Jan 2002.
See?

 

[A Squared]

Dr. Evil,

No one is suggesting that the reg should be interpreted to exclude takeoffs and landings done the current day. That's obviously not the intent of the regulation, and it was discussed only as a semantic problem with one possible interepretation.

Now, do you have anything to offer which supports your view? I mean something other than repeating you position and using capitals? You can insist that you're right all you want, but unfortunately, insisting, doesn't make you right. Do you have anything real to support your position? Legal Counsel interpretations? Enforcement histories? NTSB rulings? Something other than "I say again......"?

While you're at it, can you explain why 91.409, which uses the word "preceeding" in a very similar context is interpreted to *not* include the current time period?


regards

 

[DrEvil]

Now, do you have anything to offer which supports your view? I mean something other than repeating you position and using capitals? You can insist that you're right all you want, but unfortunately, insisting, doesn't make you right. Do you have anything real to support your position? Legal Counsel interpretations? Enforcement histories? NTSB rulings? Something other than "I say again......"?

Yeah, "just because"

 

[A Squared]

Yeah, "just because"

Ahhh, OK that makes sense