Hypothetical Night currency scenarios

Jaybird180

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,034
Location
Near DC
Display Name
Display name:
Jaybird180
Note: If you feel any critical information is missing from the scenario, feel free to make whatever assumptions you like to the scenario

Stage: Pilot Joe Bob is out of night currency and hasn’t flown at night in over 2 years. He’s a little concerned about safety and decides to bring a CFI along on a night training flight.
Scenario 1: While en-route on the return trip, the CFI realized that he’s also out of night currency and mentions this to the pilot, but the both think everything will be okay, and besides they’re already on the way back to home base with 1 landing already done. The return to home base is landing #2. They take-off into the night for landing #3. Upon rollout of this landing, due to a freak mechanical failure, the airplane veers right of center and wingtip damage ensues.
Q1a: Are both certificates on the line with the FAA?
Q1b: Who will the insurance company hold accountable for the damaged wingtip? Will they consider that the accident was caused by a freak mechanical failure?
Scenario 2: On rollout of landing #4, the airplane veers right of center and a wingtip strikes an immovable object. The airplane cartwheels and both occupants are unconscious but both are expected to survive. The pilot’s logbook is at home and therefore the landings are not inked into his logbook.
Q2a: How will the FAA view this?
Q2b: Who will the insurance company hold accountable?
 
First and foremost, per the Kortokrax interpretation, they are legal for the flight even though neither is night current. That interpretation specifically says that an instructional flight with only the instructor and trainee aboard is not a "passenger-carrying flight" and thus the 61.57(b) night currency requirements to not apply. So, there is no enforcement action in either scenario.

1a: Probably not if it's shown it was an unforeseeable mechanical failure.

1b: Probably nobody as long as no insurance contract clauses were violated.

2a: Whichever of the two was flying at the time is probably on the line for a pilot 709 ride for the botched landing. If the trainee was flying, the instructor is probably on the line for a CFI 709 ride for not keeping things under control.

2b: Worst case the insurance company subrogates against the instructor for what it has to pay the owner. There's also the chance the owner will sue the instructor for any injuries/medical bills the insurance doesn't cover (think $100K/seat limit for liability, and medical payment limits down around $5-10K).
 
Last edited:
What Ron said, except why would the FAA even find out? It's not a reportable incident as far as I can see. Airplanes get dinged all the time.
 
TMetzinger said:
What Ron said, except why would the FAA even find out? It's not a reportable incident as far as I can see. Airplanes get dinged all the time.
Click to expand...

Good old NTSB 830. More folks should read it before dialing cell phones.

Of course nowadays someone will dial for you and you'll get to report that you had an FAA investigation for the rest of your life that didn't even need to be reported to anyone in the first place...

Here's fun for the group, 'cause it's always fun to hear all the answers.

Is a gear up landing with the prop stopped and no prop strike required to be reported?

How about if your G-1000 PFD fails in-flight? On the ground?

How about taxiing the aircraft through a closed hangar door?

Defend and discuss your opinions using NTSB 830 criteria. :)

This is great hangar fodder at the airport.

Ask any group of pilots some questions like these and see what they say. Don't mention NTSB 830.

Wink at the CFI so he shuts up so you can both watch the fun. :)
 
The FAA has never been my primary concern, it's the insurance company that's important.

Does anybody on this forum know why the logbook is not kept with you??? Let's think about this!
 
Because it's part of post-accident investigations.
 
I was going to link to NTSB 830 but there's also changes to it that are separate documents.

I like linking straight to the sources but the NTSB website isn't cooperating. Can find the main doc but the changes are buried in notices after the NPRM's expired in the Federal Registry.

It'd be nice if they'd put it all in one document. Sigh.
 
TMetzinger said:
What Ron said, except why would the FAA even find out? It's not a reportable incident as far as I can see. Airplanes get dinged all the time.
Click to expand...
There are lots of ways the FAA hears about things like this, and even if it's not reportable under 49 CFR Part 830, the FAA still can and does look at landing accidents as a possible indicator of lack of competency, and that causes them to consider ordering a 44709 reexamination ("709 ride") of the pilot/instructor skills of those involved.
 
Ron Levy said:
Some, including me, have substantial assets. And there's always the chance of obtaining a judgement against future earnings.
Click to expand...

I know, Ron...I was making a (bad) joke about the earning potential of many beginning CFIs!
 
JeffDG said:
I know, Ron...I was making a (bad) joke about the earning potential of many beginning CFIs!
Click to expand...
I know, but even for the ones who do not yet even have the proverbial pot, there should be the concern about the future, and I suspect many of them don't even know that can happen. For too many kids of that age, "financial planning" means making sure you still have enough cash left in your pocket at the end of the week to cover your Friday Happy Hour bar tab.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Note: If you feel any critical information is missing from the scenario, feel free to make whatever assumptions you like to the scenario

Stage: Pilot Joe Bob is out of night currency and hasn’t flown at night in over 2 years. He’s a little concerned about safety and decides to bring a CFI along on a night training flight.
Scenario 1: While en-route on the return trip, the CFI realized that he’s also out of night currency and mentions this to the pilot, but the both think everything will be okay, and besides they’re already on the way back to home base with 1 landing already done. The return to home base is landing #2. They take-off into the night for landing #3. Upon rollout of this landing, due to a freak mechanical failure, the airplane veers right of center and wingtip damage ensues.
Q1a: Are both certificates on the line with the FAA?
Q1b: Who will the insurance company hold accountable for the damaged wingtip? Will they consider that the accident was caused by a freak mechanical failure?
Scenario 2: On rollout of landing #4, the airplane veers right of center and a wingtip strikes an immovable object. The airplane cartwheels and both occupants are unconscious but both are expected to survive. The pilot’s logbook is at home and therefore the landings are not inked into his logbook.
Q2a: How will the FAA view this?
Q2b: Who will the insurance company hold accountable?
Click to expand...

Q1a, no, not really, the non current pilot was not qualified to be PIC which is why he employed a CFI. He is not responsible for the professionals liability in accepting the engagement. It's mostly the CFI's ticket on the line because this was specifically a currency/training flight.

Q1b, Whomever has the primary coverage on the airplane will indemnify the owner for the damages. From there they will select whethther or not to subrogate.

Q2a FAA will look very heavily upon the CFI.
Q2b Both.
 
Ron Levy said:
There are lots of ways the FAA hears about things like this, and even if it's not reportable under 49 CFR Part 830, the FAA still can and does look at landing accidents as a possible indicator of lack of competency, and that causes them to consider ordering a 44709 reexamination ("709 ride") of the pilot/instructor skills of those involved.
Click to expand...
Sure, they CAN hear about it, but as far as I can tell, merely dragging a wingtip isn't something that anyone's required to tell them about.

And unless someone does explicitly bring it to their attention, or they witness it, I think they're busy enough.
 
TMetzinger said:
Sure, they CAN hear about it, but as far as I can tell, dragging a wingtip isn't something that anyone's required to tell them about.
Click to expand...
I agree, but that doesn't mean they won't hear about it (and they often do), and it doesn't mean they can't involve themselves if they do hear about it.
 
Our airport manager is spring loaded to call the local FSDO and alert NTSB for any incident. So the pilot has to call and clear the issue and hear NTSB say, non-reportable.
 
BillTIZ said:
Our airport manager is spring loaded to call the local FSDO and alert NTSB for any incident. So the pilot has to call and clear the issue and hear NTSB say, non-reportable.
Click to expand...
...and then the FSDO calls and says, "C'mon in and let's talk about it." :(
 
Ron Levy said:
For too many adults of that age, "financial planning" means making sure you still have enough cash left in your pocket at the end of the week to cover your Friday Happy Hour bar tab.
Click to expand...

Ahh how I do miss those days (sorta) do many fond memories!
 
Ron Levy said:
...and then the FSDO calls and says, "C'mon in and let's talk about it." :(
Click to expand...

Yes, we had a Super Cub nose over, prop strike but did not go all the way over after a landing that the brakes locked up. The aircraft was 3 days out of brake maintenance and rebuild.

FSDO wanted a 709 ride on the pilot (non owner) in a tailwheel aircraft, but none of the FSDO inspectors where tailwheel current. They have also been all over the aircraft books and maintenance procedures for "shoddy maintenance".

They were happy that the pilot had logged additional dual since the incident in a C-170. He had about 50 hrs in the Super Cub before the incident, and the previous summer had ferried a CalAir from NV to Virginia.

The inspector did not even know if the Super Cub had "band" brakes or hydraulics and could not find how they worked. Where is the master cylinder? under the seat. And he had no clue about heal brakes.

FSDO can be clueless at times.
 
Ron Levy said:
...and then the FSDO calls and says, "C'mon in and let's talk about it." :(
Click to expand...


Been there, walked away unscathed, not a big deal. Understand what happened, have analyzed what decisions you could have made better, accept responsibility with humility and the worst you get is a quick ride with a Fed, which I never got. Never had an encounter that didn't end amicably with a simple face to face or phone call. Sh-t happens, they know it, as long as you aren't throwing your own sh-t in the air and getting hit with it and as long as you show the elemental correct attitude, you're ok.
 
BillTIZ said:
Yes, we had a Super Cub nose over, prop strike but did not go all the way over after a landing that the brakes locked up. The aircraft was 3 days out of brake maintenance and rebuild.

FSDO wanted a 709 ride on the pilot (non owner) in a tailwheel aircraft, but none of the FSDO inspectors where tailwheel current. They have also been all over the aircraft books and maintenance procedures for "shoddy maintenance".

They were happy that the pilot had logged additional dual since the incident in a C-170. He had about 50 hrs in the Super Cub before the incident, and the previous summer had ferried a CalAir from NV to Virginia.

The inspector did not even know if the Super Cub had "band" brakes or hydraulics and could not find how they worked. Where is the master cylinder? under the seat. And he had no clue about heal brakes.

FSDO can be clueless at times.
Click to expand...

First off, the inspector neither needs to be TW current nor in the plane to apply an inspection ride. If you ever do a Pt 137 ride with a Fed, they administer that watching you from the ground.

USCG inspectors can be every bit as clueless as FSDO inspectors. Running century old schooners with CG Pax certificates on them, I found it good policy to politely and professionally educate them on what they obviously didn't know. In the long run it made my life easier.
 
Henning said:
First off, the inspector neither needs to be TW current nor in the plane to apply an inspection ride. If you ever do a Pt 137 ride with a Fed, they administer that watching you from the ground..
Click to expand...

Wrong.

If an Inspector performs a duty such as an examination he must be current and qualified in the aircraft. If the FSDO doesn't have an Inspector qualified (such as TW) then they find one in National Resource and have him perform the task.
 
BillTIZ said:
Yes, we had a Super Cub nose over, prop strike but did not go all the way over after a landing that the brakes locked up. The aircraft was 3 days out of brake maintenance and rebuild.

FSDO wanted a 709 ride on the pilot (non owner) in a tailwheel aircraft, but none of the FSDO inspectors where tailwheel current. They have also been all over the aircraft books and maintenance procedures for "shoddy maintenance".

They were happy that the pilot had logged additional dual since the incident in a C-170. He had about 50 hrs in the Super Cub before the incident, and the previous summer had ferried a CalAir from NV to Virginia.

The inspector did not even know if the Super Cub had "band" brakes or hydraulics and could not find how they worked. Where is the master cylinder? under the seat. And he had no clue about heal brakes.

FSDO can be clueless at times.
Click to expand...

Understand that not every FSDO has personnel trained and qualified in all aircraft. Staffing levels, budget cuts, etc have really taken a toll.

There are resources available if they don't have someone readily available, and I have found if you just work with them and explain things (such as your brakes) it goes a long way in resolving the issue.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Wrong.

If an Inspector performs a duty such as an examination he must be current and qualified in the aircraft. If the FSDO doesn't have an Inspector qualified (such as TW) then they find one in National Resource and have him perform the task.
Click to expand...

You're gonna tell me that every inspector witnessing a 137 ride in a Pawnee, Ag Wagon or Ag Cat is qualified and current in that aircraft? I'm having trouble seeing it.
 
Henning said:
You're gonna tell me that every inspector witnessing a 137 ride in a Pawnee, Ag Wagon or Ag Cat is qualified and current in that aircraft? I'm having trouble seeing it.
Click to expand...
You need to look in 8900.1 to see it.
5-27
image002.gif
FAA ASI (OPERATIONS) PILOT AND FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDUCTING CERTAIN TESTS AND CHECKS. In general, FAA ASIs (Operations) must possess at least a commercial pilot certificate and/or flight instructor certificate in the aircraft category and class (and type, if applicable) for which they conduct practical tests that result in certification or the addition of a pilot type rating.
Click to expand...
B.General Aviation (GA) Practical Tests. In accordance with § 61.1(b)(13), a practical test “means a test on the areas of operations for an airman certificate, rating, or authorization that is conducted by having the applicant respond to questions and demonstrate maneuvers in flight, in a flight simulator, or in a flight training device.”

1)FAA ASIs (GA—Operations) who administer practical tests for an airman certification, rating, or authorization, must hold either a commercial pilot certificate or ATP certificate, and flight instructor certificate with the appropriate aircraft category and class rating for the kind of practical test being administered.

2)FAA ASIs (GA—Operations) who administer certain proficiency/competency checks, must hold either a commercial pilot certificate or ATP certificate with the appropriate aircraft category and class rating for the kind of practical test being administered. However, they do not necessarily need to hold a flight instructor certificate with the appropriate aircraft rating. This reflects a change in policy concerning the pilot and flight instructor certificate qualifications of FAA ASIs (GA—Operations) for conducting certain proficiency/competency checks.

Note: Some of our regional offices may have applied this guidance inconsistently, resulting in some proficiency/competency checks being conducted outside this policy guideline. We have determined there was no compromise of safety in the conduct of these checks and have decided to adopt the practice of allowing an FAA ASIs (GA—Operations) without a flight instructor certificate to conduct certain tests and checks. This guidance is being published to immediately clarify that all proficiency/competency checks performed contrary to the previous guidance are valid checks.
Click to expand...
I.Special Currency Requirements. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section, an inspector who conducts a practical test in a small aircraft while occupying a pilot station, regardless of the inspector’s status as required flight crewmember, must have made at least three takeoffs and landings in that category and class of aircraft within the preceding 90 days. If the practical test is in a tailwheel airplane, the takeoffs and landings must be in a tailwheel airplane unless rental is impractical. If rental of such aircraft is impractical, a qualified inspector approved by the RFSD may conduct practical tests in tailwheel aircraft under the provisions of paragraph 5‑34B below.
Click to expand...
B.Letter of Authorization. If an application is received for a practical test in an aircraft for which a rated and current inspector is not available, the regional office may issue a letter of authorization (LOA) in lieu of a type rating to an inspector who is best qualified in an aircraft with similar characteristics. This provision is limited to those cases in which an appropriately rated inspector does not exist. The LOA must name the applicant to be checked.

1)Blanket authorizations to individual inspectors shall not be issued. Each flight test must be handled on a case‑by‑case basis.

2)Inspectors issued such an LOA shall conduct the practical test from an approved jump seat unless circumstances such as those described in paragraph 5‑26C preclude it. In such cases, specific permission to conduct the practical flight test from a pilot seat must be granted in the LOA issued by the regional office.

3)The LOA shall not be used as a means to circumvent the recurrent training requirements of paragraph 5‑32.
Click to expand...
5-35INSPECTOR QUALIFICATIONS TO PERFORM JOB FUNCTIONS.

A.Prerequisites. Throughout this handbook, each job task normally describes inspectors’ qualification prerequisites as “qualification as an ASI (Operations).” Before performing pilot certification or in-flight surveillance tasks without supervision, inspectors must have a current 4040.9 PIC check in the applicable category and class of aircraft. A recurrent Category III (93) check satisfies the requirement for Category II (92) and Category I (91). Inspectors must also have completed on‑the‑job training (OJT) in the task to the satisfaction of their supervisor. Inspectors hired after January 1986 may not conduct practical tests for flight instructor applicants prior to their successful completion of the Pilot Certification Testing Procedures Course (21100). Unless otherwise specified in this order, one of the following conditions must be met in order for an ASI (Operations) to be considered qualified to perform specific job functions without supervision:

·Satisfactory completion of an FAA Academy or out‑of‑agency course on that job function;
·Satisfactory completion of all OJT requirements for that job function, in accordance with FAA Order 3140.19, On‑the‑Job Training (OJT) of Aviation Safety Inspectors; or
·Specific written authorization from the RFSD or ASW‑260, as appropriate.
Click to expand...
C.Operations Inspector Currency Requirements. This guidance is for inspectors and managers at all levels of Flight Standards for the management of flight training course quotas and the qualification of ASIs (operations).

1)Inspector qualifications involve meeting the following:

a)Before performing airmen certification and/or testing functions, an inspector must have completed either the air carrier or general aviation indoctrination course, as appropriate to the certification task. The inspector must hold a valid pilot certificate with the appropriate ratings that relate to the inspector’s job function.

b)An inspector conducting an ATP practical test in a small helicopter does not need to hold a type rating in that helicopter type on his or her ATP certificate, but must hold an ATP certificate with the rotorcraft helicopter rating (and without a visual flight rules (VFR) limitation). An inspector holding an ATP with multiengine land or sea ratings may give ATP practical tests for single‑engine land or sea ratings, as appropriate, provided the inspector holds the corresponding class rating (land or sea) at the commercial level.

c)All inspectors must satisfactorily complete the applicable OJT in accordance with FAA Order 3140.19.
Click to expand...
However, make/model currency is not required if a type rating is not involved.
 
I am not seeing where they need anything more than C/SEL to observe me do my spray runs from the ground. The planes are single seat, the examiner never boards the aircraft on a 137 ride. I'm not sure there is any requirement for an examiner to be onboard the aircraft to observe T/O & Landing for a 709 ride either as I've seen that done in a Pawnee as well.
 
Henning said:
I am not seeing where they need anything more than C/SEL to observe me do my spray runs from the ground.
Click to expand...
Did you see the part about being qualified for that particular task? They must be specifically qualified to check ag ops.

The planes are single seat, the examiner never boards the aircraft on a 137 ride. I'm not sure there is any requirement for an examiner to be onboard the aircraft to observe T/O & Landing for a 709 ride either as I've seen that done in a Pawnee as well.
Click to expand...
That is possible.
E. Single Controls. At the discretion of the inspector, an aircraft furnished by the applicant may have a single set of flight controls. In this situation, the inspector observes the applicant from the ground or from another aircraft.
Click to expand...
However, note the part about inspector's discretion. If the issue is the pilot's competence in tailwheel aircraft, the inspector does not have to allow the test to be done in an aircraft with only one set of controls (regardless of number of seats). If the inspector does not agree to a single-seat aircraft, the applicant must furnish one with at least two seats and dual controls. Either way, the inspector must, as noted above, be TW qualified in order to evaluate TW proficiency, even if not experienced in make/model.
 
I will admit it's possible, I met one inspector the FAA sent to get qualified in the 503 AT, but he made out that it was not that common for there to be ag qualified inspectors and that is typically borne out as some radio guy who caught duty gets sent out to an ag crash.
 
Henning said:
I will admit it's possible, I met one inspector the FAA sent to get qualified in the 503 AT, but he made out that it was not that common for there to be ag qualified inspectors and that is typically borne out as some radio guy who caught duty gets sent out to an ag crash.
Click to expand...

Now you are confusing issues.

Any ASI (Ops/AW/AV) can investigate an accident. If he needs help he will have the resources available to assist him.

For certification flights, only an Ops Inspector properly rated and current may perform certifications.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top