Is a student a passenger or a crew member?

[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.

 

[svcta]

The original question concerned whether or not it was legal to give dual in a single-engine a/c while not single-engine current. The following quote is taken DIRECTLY from the interpretation circulating above:\

""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.) ""

Question answered right?

Regarding the night currency in the Robinson: I haven't read the applicable SFAR 73 (2) (d), but the following leads me to believe that this is also not a pass on night currency:

""We agree with your analysis, that a neither a properly trained and qualified instructor nor the person receiving instruction is a passenger for purposes of SFAR 73(2)(d).""

It's the use of the abstract term "qualified" that would cause me to err on the side of caution. But I could see the interpretation in a pinch.

Regardless, it seems perfectly clear that in an airplane the flight instructor needs to be current.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Avbug: The document you have used to quote from seems to fully address the question of a student pilot receiving instruction from a non-currert CFI in ASEL. The answer is that the flight is legal it seems. Now the quote: (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.) Doesn't seem to apply here becasue this is not an aircraft that requires a class and type rating.

Could someone please provide the full document that the quotes are coming from.

Thank you.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Could someone please provide the full document that the quotes are coming from.

You can click on the link I provided a few posts above.

 

[svcta]

Doesn't seem to apply here becasue this is not an aircraft that requires a class and type rating.

I'm beginning to question your NASA credentials

Category:

Airplane, Rotorcraft, Glider, etc.

Class(for airplane category): Single Engine Land, Multi-Engine Land, S.E. Seam M.E. Sea(for Rotorcraft): Helicopter, Gyrocopter.(and then the rest for the other categories)

And then type ratings as applicable.

The point is that every aircraft has a requirement to be rated for category and class. So the rule quoted above absolutely applies. It's the type rating that is not always required.

 

[avbug]

Doesn't seem to apply here becasue this is not an aircraft that requires a class and type rating.

A class rating is usually applicable; Airplane (Category), Single engine Land (Class). It's a type that's not required.

The point is that every aircraft has a requirement to be rated for category and class. So the rule quoted above absolutely applies.

What's the class rating for glider and powered lift? It doesn't apply in every case.

""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.) ""

Question answered right?

Not in the slightest. Clearly per the interpretation the emboldened statement does not mean the flight instructor must be current with respect to 14 CFR 61.57 (recency of flight experience)...the entire interpretation points to that. What it does tell us, however, is that an instructor must be current...the instructor certificate must be renewed every two years to be current.

The instructor must also be qualified to instruct, which includes holding the necessary privileges on his or her flight instructor certificate.

Further, the instructor must be rated in the airplane (category, class, and where appropriate, type).

 

[svcta]

I'm still not so sure.....if this is the correct interpretation then there are two very different vernaculars for "current and qualified".....my point now becoming that even with this legal interpretation in hand, I'm not sure that it's all black and white. Where in the interpretation did it relieve the instructor of maintaining 90-day currency?

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm still not so sure.....if this is the correct interpretation then there are two very different vernaculars for "current and qualified".....my point now becoming that even with this legal interpretation in hand, I'm not sure that it's all black and white. Where in the interpretation did it relieve the instructor of maintaining 90-day currency?

Probably the part where FAA Lega says
==============================
This training may take place, even though neither pilot has met the 61.57(b) requirements.
==============================
...at least with respect to a CFI and at least a private pilot flying together.

 

[svcta]

I think that earlier in the thread I scoped my comments down to the student pilot/CFI, if not, I accepted that as a given.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I think that earlier in the thread I scoped my comments down to the student pilot/CFI, if not, I accepted that as a given.

I don't think that the new opinion that says it's okay applies to a CFI and a "student pilot." The older opinion that deals with a "student pilot" and a CFI (that requires the CFI to have pilot currency) does.