14 CFR 61.57(a)(2) question

[TangoWhiskey]

BFR brush up. Going back and re-reading all the basic stuff, good to do from time to time, eh?

61.57 covers Recent Flight Experience required to act as PIC in an aircraft with passengers aboard, or in an aircraft requiring more than one pilot flight crew member.

My question surrounds 61.57(a)(2); what's the purpose of that clause? As with many FAR's, I find it written ambiguously. With the "for the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1)" clause, and no disclaimer of "unless otherwise satisfied through recent flight experience", one could argue that your can't satisfy the "3 takeoffs and 3 landings in the preceding 90 days" requirement with any flights that actually had passengers on board in those past 90 days.

Why is "day VFR or day IFR" specified? Is that to keep you from satisfying 61.57(a) and 61.57(b) (Night takeoff and landing experience) in the same flight?

Again, unless I'm reading it wrong, I think somebody could reasonably argue that (a)(2) requires every pilot to go fly solo, during the day (IFR or VFR), and do three takeoffs and three landings in the category/class/type rating-if-required aircraft in order to remain current to carry passengers. I don't think that was the INTENT of (a)(2), but I could see it being interpreted that way.

Maybe it's the "may" after "a person" that is the tie breaker. That could be interpreted as "you don't have to do it this way, but you can".

I know I'm missing something, and my good friends and FAR-gurus on POA will set me straight.

Sec. 61.57 - Recent flight experience: Pilot in command.

(a) General experience.

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers or of an aircraft certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember unless that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings within the preceding 90 days, and --

(i) The person acted as the sole manipulator of the flight controls; and

(ii) The required takeoffs and landings were performed in an aircraft of the same category, class, and type (if a type rating is required), and, if the aircraft to be flown is an airplane with a tailwheel, the takeoffs and landings must have been made to a full stop in an airplane with a tailwheel.

(2) For the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft under day VFR or day IFR, provided no persons or property are carried on board the aircraft, other than those necessary for the conduct of the flight.

 

[chucky]

I thought it just meant that, in the event the category, class, and type of aircraft in question requires more than one crew member, you can legally act as pilot in command while you do your three takeoffs and landings to regain currency - i.e. it's okay to have someone else in the aircraft if they are required to be there. I'm sure others who know this stuff much better than I will correct me, though.

 

[poadeleted20]

Chucky's got it.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Chucky's got it.

Wow, I would have never come up with that interpretation. Where does paragraph 2 limit it's application to just one of the two situations described in paragraph 1 ("of an aircraft carrying passengers or of an aircraft certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember")? It simply says "for the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1)"...

 

[poadeleted20]

Can't speak to the "why," just the "what." And the FAA has extended that provision by legal interpretation to allow an instructor giving training to act as PIC when neither the instructor nor the trainee is 61.57(a)-current, as long as nobody else is aboard.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Can't speak to the "why," just the "what." And the FAA has extended that provision by legal interpretation to allow an instructor giving training to act as PIC when neither the instructor nor the trainee is 61.57(a)-current, as long as nobody else is aboard.

OK, that's cool. And rereading it, I can see how the last phrase in (a)(2) ("provided no persons or property are carried on board the aircraft, other than those necessary for the conduct of the flight" could be interpreted it to restrict application to the 2nd "or" in (a)(1).

I am still curious why it's restricted to day flight (VFR or IFR).

 

[poadeleted20]

I am still curious why it's restricted to day flight (VFR or IFR).

Unlike 61.57(a), 61.57(b) only covers flights with passengers, so the exemption is built in for 2-pilot airplanes as long as there are no passengers, only required crew. Can't say why they wrote it that way. Also, the Chief Counsel has issued legal interpretations basically exempting all instructor/trainee flights from all landing currency rules, as long as nobody else is aboard.