Is a student a passenger or a crew member?

[UndauntedFlyer]

What do you think? If a CFI is current with 3 Takeoffs and Landings in the last 90 days in AMEL but not similarly current in ASEL, can that CFI give flight instruction in a single engine land airplane?

While the CFI clearly can not carry a passenger without being current, does the fact that the "passenger" here is a "crew member" make it legal? I would think so but does anyone have any information on this with maybe a reference?

 

[svcta]

If the student were already at least a Private Pilot and current, then yes. However, my interpretation of 61.89 leads me to believe the following:

A student pilot cannot act as PIC of an airplane that is carrying a passenger. As we've established, no pilot can act as PIC of any airplane unless he's current in class, category, and type. So, effectively you would be a passenger if not legal to act as PIC(since only one crewmember is required).

The problem being created here(as I see it) is that there is no one who can legally act as the PIC. So go get current and then you've got no problem, no interpreting, no gray area.

Now, in just a few seconds someone will prove me wrong. 3..............2................1............

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

As we've established, no pilot can act as PIC of any airplane unless he's current in class, category, and type.

The problem being created here(as I see it) is that there is no one who can legally act as the PIC. So go get current and then you've got no problem, no interpreting, no gray area.

Now, in just a few seconds someone will prove me wrong. 3..............2................1............

Svcta: With all due respect your above statements are simply not correct.

Certainly a pilot may act at PIC and log PIC and not be current in an airplane, such as flying an airplane solo when he or she is not takeoff and landing current. The only requirement is that no person may act as PIC of an aircraft carrying passengers unless that person has made at least 3 takeoffs and landings within the preceding 90 days as the sole manipulator of the flight controls.

The the question still stands: Can a non-current CFI give flight instruction in a C-172 to a student pilot? The thought being that the student pilot is not a passenger but a crewmember!

 

[SSDD]

This is one of those grey areas. While a student pilot is not a passenger, neither is he a required crewmember. If this is a primary student, ie doens't yet hold a private certificate, I would think that the CFI must be current.

 

[pilotyip]

No

The student is a passenger unless a second crewmember is required to perform duties in the cockpit. You establish currency without a second pilot, therefore you would have to establish currency before instructiing. In a DC-3 you could take a student with you while you establised landing currency

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

The student is a passenger unless a second crewmember is required to perform duties in the cockpit. You establish currency without a second pilot, therefore you would have to establish currency before instructiing. In a DC-3 you could take a student with you while you establised landing currency

Pilotyip: You sound very confident, do you have a reference of any kind for this answer? If you look up the Part 1/61 definition of a crewmemer it seems to fully fit a student pilot, presolo or not.

 

[bizjet800]

It depends, if he or she is working for a commuter, then yes they must supplement their income by flight instructing!

 

[MauleSkinner]

If the student is a crewmember, he would have to be a required crewmember. If the CFI is in the airplane with him, he can't be a passenger, so he would be a required crewmember as well, per the operating regulations (Parts 61 & 91).

Among other things, 61.89 says:

(b) A student pilot may not act as a required pilot flight crewmember on any aircraft for which more than one pilot is required by the type certificate of the aircraft or regulations under which the flight is conducted, except when receiving flight training from an authorized instructor on board an airship, and no person other than a required flight crewmember is carried on the aircraft.

It would be similar to saying that if everybody on board is a pilot, we can make them all crewmembers so we can do loops without parachutes.

Fly safe!

David

 

[svcta]

Svcta: With all due respect your above statements are simply not correct.

Certainly a pilot may act at PIC and log PIC and not be current in an airplane, such as flying an airplane solo when he or she is not takeoff and landing current. The only requirement is that no person may act as PIC of an aircraft carrying passengers unless that person has made at least 3 takeoffs and landings within the preceding 90 days as the sole manipulator of the flight controls.

I think you failed to read the part where I claimed that as a non-current pilot and therefore unable to act as the PIC, you would in effect be a passenger. Therefore the fact is that the student would then be carrying a passenger in an airplane. The situation that you suggest leaves no one as legally capable of acting as the PIC because you are both each other's passenger; One non-rated passenger and one non-current passenger.

Regardless, why not just go and get current? Poof---problem solved.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

If the student is a crewmember, he would have to be a required crewmember. If the CFI is in the airplane with him, he can't be a passenger, so he would be a required crewmember as well, per the operating regulations (Parts 61 & 91).

Among other things, 61.89 says:

(b) A student pilot may not act as a required pilot flight crewmember on any aircraft for which more than one pilot is required by the type certificate of the aircraft or regulations under which the flight is conducted, except when receiving flight training from an authorized instructor on board an airship, and no person other than a required flight crewmember is carried on the aircraft.

It would be similar to saying that if everybody on board is a pilot, we can make them all crewmembers so we can do loops without parachutes.

Fly safe!

David

So your answer is they were legal or not? What is it?

 

[svcta]

I think I'm answering out of turn...sorry for that.

The student can't be a crewmember because there is no requirement (per the type cert. of the a/c) for there to be more than one pilot. It's the same reason that I can't log SIC time while riding with you in 150. There is no requirement under 61 or 91 for there to be 2 crewmembers in your average single-engine a/c.

So, once again, the situation that you propose leaves two pilots who cannot legally be the pilot of that airplane......we're in grave danger of causing some sort of tear in the fabric of space-time!! And then we'll be asking if a concurrent-reality version of yourself can fly on the certificate of a person from right here and now. And I know that I can't answer that.

In any event, the answer to your question is that this is simply not legal.

 

[MauleSkinner]

So your answer is they were legal or not? What is it?

Not..

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

The only problem I have with this is that the CFI is qualified to act as PIC with no passengers. In this case the student is not a passenger because he is manipulating the flight controls and even logging that time as a form of pilot time, not passenger or observer time. The student must be a crewmember because he is not a passenger, and how he logs his flight time seems to prove that. 61.57 says that a pilot can not carry PASSENGERS unless that pilot has logged 3 TO's and LNDGS in the last 90 days.

While this may seem like a silly argument, the FAA may review a pilots log book at some time and find such a situation. What will your position be then?

Any further comments would be appreciated!

 

[svcta]

The thing that you need to remember is that the CFI has no PIC or currency privileges beyond any other certificated pilot. The student IS a passenger, only one that happens to be logging dual recieved. The Student Pilot Certificate held by a student only allows him to act as PIC in the absence of a rated pilot and with the specific limitation against carrying passengers.

I could give my next door neighbors aunt an hour of dual and she would still be a passenger, regardless of whether or not she even had a logbook or student pilot cert. You've actually just solidified a "no" answer with the reg that you quoted. This is because a crewmember must be REQUIRED in order to be anything beyond a regular passenger. So 61.57 applies to any pilot, even one with a flight instructor certificate.

There should be no instance of this in your logbook, either. If you're not current, there's just no way to get fancy about it and be current. Do the landings and cover yer butt.

The answer remains "NO"

 

[igneousy2]

The only problem I have with this is that the CFI is qualified to act as PIC with no passengers. In this case the student is not a passenger because he is manipulating the flight controls and even logging that time as a form of pilot time, not passenger or observer time. The student must be a crewmember because he is not a passenger, and how he logs his flight time seems to prove that. 61.57 says that a pilot can not carry PASSENGERS unless that pilot has logged 3 TO's and LNDGS in the last 90 days.

While this may seem like a silly argument, the FAA may review a pilots log book at some time and find such a situation. What will your position be then?

Any further comments would be appreciated!

This is the kind of thing that gets you violated. Under your definition of "crewmember" then a passenger sitting in an exit row could be considered a "crewmember" and the pax the FA's recruit to help the blind lady would be "crewmembers" - but we probably all agree that that is not the case. Could you fly a 737 without a flight attendant if everybody sat in the exit rows? I think not.

Further - let's assume we accept your definition and the student is not a passenger - the FAA would slap you with a recklessness charge as this would clearly be reckless. I think it takes a higher level of currency/proficincy to monitor/teach someone flying then it takes to do the flying yourself, therefore, how can it not be reckless if you are teaching someone to fly while you are so out of currency that you cannot even carry passengers.

3 landings every 90 days is not difficult to maintain for a pro.

Later

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

All of the points discussed in this thread by FI members are valid and do support the idea that a CFI must be current to give instruction to a student. Thank you for your inputs in this discussion.

 

[nosehair]

I don't have time to find it now but i saw a legal interpretation from FAA legal that supported the concept that a student is not considered a passenger for the purposes of night currency. A non-night current cfi can go up with a student. That surprised me also, and I thought I copied that thread. I'm looking.

I will look later, but sombody posted that.

 

[pgcfii2002]

I think you may be right.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The other thread on CFI currency talks a bit about this opinion
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...tations/data/interps/2006/Kortokraxinterp.doc

But, at least as I read it, that 2006 opinion is talking about a CFI and a pilot who is not a student pilot.

As for a student pilot, I think the language from an older (1985) FAA Legal opinion is applicable:

==============================
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).
===============================

 

[avbug]

We agree that, for purposes of section 61.57(b), an authorized instructor providing instruction in an aircraft is not considered a passenger with respect to the person receiving instruction, even where the person receiving the instruction is acting as PIC. (The instructor must be current, qualified to instruct, and hold a category, class and type rating in the aircraft, if a class and type rating is required.) The instructor is not a passenger because he is present specifically to train the person receiving instruction. Neither is the person receiving instruction a passenger with respect to the instructor. This training may take place, even though neither pilot has met the 61.57(b) requirements.

That paragraph, quoted from the previously named night currency thread (legal interpretation contained therein) makes a fairly clear statement regarding the relationship of the student and instructor in the airplane.

Several posters have tried to expand on this concept by including flight attendants and passengers on an airliner, however, the legal interpretation goes on to state that this concept applies ONLY to the instructor-student relationship. Therefore, attempting to enlarge the view by adding examples outside a cockpit instruction scenario has no relevancy.

Further, while the specific question cited in that legal interpretation, the question which spurred the authoring of that interpretation involves an instructor and a rated pilot certificate holder, we may infer that it applies beyond the only flying with a private pilot and instructor because of the use of the word "even." We find that word in the first sentence, showing that the instructor would not be a passenger with or without the student holding a pilot certificate. Likewise, the student is not a passenger.

I believe there's some confusion here becuase an assumption is being made in this thread that one is either a required crewmember, or a passenger. This is not necessarily the case...any more than one must be either PIC or SIC in the cockpit. A student is neither...we even have a category for logging flight time (a separate issue) which involves "dual" or instruction received...it's not PIC, nor is it SIC. Can a student be neither a required crewmember, nor a passenger? This would appear so.

Perhaps one should look closely at the purpose of the flight. The purpose is flight instruction. If the purpose were otherwise, such as flying to another location to drop off a case of beer, the reationship and the definition might change, even though instruction might take place during the flight. Much of the regulation regarding PIC issues is closely tied to additional consideration, such as purpose...this spills over into other regulations we frequently address as well, such as quasi-135 type issues.

Were the instructor on board to pilot the airplane to another location to drop the student in order to visit his sick poodle Millie, at the vets, perhaps the student might become passenger rather than student. Whereas the purpose of the flight is instruction, and the student-instructor relationship has been presumed to exist for the purposes of this discussion, might we contemplate an additional aspect of one's standing on board beyond required crewmember, and passenger?

The interpretation certainly would make it appear so.