Something to think about (61.57)

EdFred

EdFred

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
31,402
Location
Michigan
Display Name
The Ed
Home Airfield
9D9 / 6Y9 / 88TN
Joe (non-CFI) Pilot owns a Beech 18, a Cessna 170, and a Bonanza.

He hasn't flown the 170 in 100 days because it was in for an extensive annual/upgrades. In the past 90 days he has a bunch of take offs and landings in both of the Beeches.



Is he legal to take his A&P up with him on a post-annual flight in the 170?
 
Current in category, class and type.
Current in tailwheel.

Why not?
Can there only be one set of "the takeoffs and landings"?

Ought to be a flowchart...
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Joe (non-CFI) Pilot owns a Beech 18, a Cessna 170, and a Bonanza.

He hasn't flown the 170 in 100 days because it was in for an extensive annual/upgrades. In the past 90 days he has a bunch of take offs and landings in both of the Beeches.



Is he legal to take his A&P up with him on a post-annual flight in the 170?
Click to expand...

18 is tailwheel, doesn't require a type rating, so good to go in the 170 is my answer.
 
EdFred said:
Joe (non-CFI) Pilot owns a Beech 18, a Cessna 170, and a Bonanza.

He hasn't flown the 170 in 100 days because it was in for an extensive annual/upgrades. In the past 90 days he has a bunch of take offs and landings in both of the Beeches.



Is he legal to take his A&P up with him on a post-annual flight in the 170?
Click to expand...
Did the extensive annual and upgrades include maintaining, rebuilding, or altering in a manner that may have appreciably changed the plane's flight characteristics or substantially affected its operation in flight? If so, I would say the answer is, "No."
 
Lindberg said:
Did the extensive annual and upgrades include maintaining, rebuilding, or altering in a manner that may have appreciably changed the plane's flight characteristics or substantially affected its operation in flight? If so, I would say the answer is, "No."
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with currency? The mechanic isn't "required crew" no matter what you've done.

The rule with the tailwheel doesn't appear to be severable from the category and class restriction. It says you must do you currency in the same category and class (and if type is required type), and if it's a tailwheel, it also needs to be full stop in a tailwheel.

100 landings in the Bonanza and the 18 doesn't meet the requirement to fly the 170 with a passenger.
 
Bonanza - Category and class -- check
18 - tailwheel -- check
I say good to go
 
flyingron said:
What does that have to do with currency? The mechanic isn't "required crew" no matter what you've done.

The rule with the tailwheel doesn't appear to be severable from the category and class restriction. It says you must do you currency in the same category and class (and if type is required type), and if it's a tailwheel, it also needs to be full stop in a tailwheel.

100 landings in the Bonanza and the 18 doesn't meet the requirement to fly the 170 with a passenger.
Click to expand...

Are you sure?

(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.


It does not state must be in a tailwheel in the same category class and type, simply that it must be in an airplane.
 
EdFred said:
Joe (non-CFI) Pilot owns a Beech 18, a Cessna 170, and a Bonanza.

He hasn't flown the 170 in 100 days because it was in for an extensive annual/upgrades. In the past 90 days he has a bunch of take offs and landings in both of the Beeches.



Is he legal to take his A&P up with him on a post-annual flight in the 170?
Click to expand...

Legal yes, but irrelevant, you'll never get the A&P to ride with you.:lol:
 
Henning said:
Legal yes, but irrelevant, you'll never get the A&P to ride with you.:lol:
Click to expand...

Mine always does. It's a condition of him doing the annual/repairs for me. If he won't get in the plane, I wont' get in the plane either. Of course he wouldn't fly with me in a 170, because one I don't have one, and two, I've never gotten around to getting my tailwheel. :D
 
flyingron said:
What does that have to do with currency? The mechanic isn't "required crew" no matter what you've done.

The rule with the tailwheel doesn't appear to be severable from the category and class restriction. It says you must do you currency in the same category and class (and if type is required type), and if it's a tailwheel, it also needs to be full stop in a tailwheel.

100 landings in the Bonanza and the 18 doesn't meet the requirement to fly the 170 with a passenger.
Click to expand...

I think that is arguable. There are often times that non required maint engineers make test flights. I'm pretty sure that a mechanic observing a test flight is allowed as crew same as with Restricted Catagory planes. Especially considering tradition of making the mechanic go on the RTS flight as part of the QA process, I think mechanics are exempted as Pax on a test flight.
 
EdFred said:
Are you sure?

(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.


It does not state must be in a tailwheel in the same category class and type, simply that it must be in an airplane.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. Read slowly and carefully -- must be in same cat/class and if tailwheel is to be flown then they must also must be in a tailwheel. The "and" is the critical word. It doesn't ever count if it wasn't in cat/class no matter what else, with the tailwheel requirement being additive to the cat/class requriement.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Yes, it does. Read slowly and carefully -- must be in same cat/class and if tailwheel is to be flown then they must also must be in a tailwheel. The "and" is the critical word. It doesn't ever count if it wasn't in cat/class no matter what else, with the tailwheel requirement being additive to the cat/class requriement.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. You might want your eyesight checked. It does not say AND in the same category and class, just "...in an airplane..."

Just like in 61.129

(a) For an airplane single-engine rating. Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, a person who applies for a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane category and single-engine class rating must log at least 250 hours of flight time as a pilot that consists of at least:
(1) 100 hours in powered aircraft, of which 50 hours must be in airplanes.
(2) 100 hours of pilot-in-command flight time, which includes at least—
(i) 50 hours in airplanes; and



It doesn't say in single engine airplanes. Just airplanes. Could be multi, could be singles. If they wanted it in single engine airplanes they would say single engine. If they want the tailwheel in the same cat/class then it would say in the same cat/class.

Or is this another Ron's opinion is regulation post?
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Yes, it does. Read slowly and carefully -- must be in same cat/class and if tailwheel is to be flown then they must also must be in a tailwheel. The "and" is the critical word. It doesn't ever count if it wasn't in cat/class no matter what else, with the tailwheel requirement being additive to the cat/class requriement.
Click to expand...

But it just says "in an airplane with a tailwheel," instead of "in an aircraft of the same category, class, and type (if a type rating is required) with a tailwheel."

That seems to be a pretty fair distinction. Has anybody asked an aviation lawyer in passing how this should be read?
 
EdFred said:
No it doesn't. You might want your eyesight checked.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. You cannot iignore the "and" in that sentence. Or did you miss that word when you were highlighting the part you apparently wanted to be true by itself?
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes, it does. You cannot iignore the "and" in that sentence. Or did you miss that word when you were highlighting the part you apparently wanted to be true by itself?
Click to expand...

See my edited post. And I'm not ignoring it. It says "and if".
 
mkosmo said:
But it just says "in an airplane with a tailwheel," instead of "in an aircraft of the same category, class, and type (if a type rating is required) with a tailwheel."

That seems to be a pretty fair distinction. Has anybody asked an aviation lawyer in passing how this should be read?
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to. The second half of that sentence cannot be taken out of the entire sentence and interpreted in isolation. The "and" cannot be ignored.
 
Ron Levy said:
It doesn't have to. The second half of that sentence cannot be taken out of the entire sentence and interpreted in isolation. The "and" cannot be ignored.
Click to expand...

It says "in an airplane," not in an airplane of the same category, class, and type. Huge difference. Ginormous difference. 61 and 91 are littered with similar wordings.
 
Ayn Rand said:
Just pass the kinds of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of lawbreakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.
Click to expand...

Not saying anyone is wrong or right in their interpretation, I'm just sayin'...
 
Seems like when they want something done in Category & Class, they use "category & class" in the reg. When they want something in an "airplane" without regard to cat and class they use airplane.

My reading is if you did 3 cycles in a C172 and 3 cycles in a B17 you could fly a 170 with people.
 
EdFred said:
Using or in that statement would make no sense.
Click to expand...

Believe what you want, but if you teach people what you're saying without confirming it with the FAA, you are doing your trainees a terrible disservice and potentially leading them into a violation. Please let us know what the Chief Counsel says about your interpretation.
 
Using "or" instead of "and" would nullify the first half of the sentence if you completed the second half. Using "and" means both halves must be satisfied.
 
Last edited:
Direct C51 said:
Using "or" instead of "and" would nullify the first half of the sentence if you completed the second half. Using "and" means both halves must be satisfied.
Click to expand...

Right. First, the landings to counted must be in cat/class, and second, if you're flying a TW, they must have been in a TW. Both criteria must be met for the landings to count. If the TW landings weren't in cat/class, they don't count, and if the cat/class landings weren't in a TW, they don't count.

Again, if you don't believe me, ask the FAA.
 
(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.
Click to expand...

When I read the passage in question, it appears to me that the key is the word "the" that I've highlighted above. To me, that implies that the takeoffs and landings used to provide the tailwheel experience must be the same takeoffs and landings that were used to provide the category and class experience. Otherwise, it would just say takeoffs and landings, or "additional" takeoffs and landings, not "the" takeoffs and landings. That would seem to prevent experience in a tricycle single and a tailwheel multi from being combined to meet the requirement. :dunno:
 
Palmpilot said:
When I read the passage in question, it appears to me that the key is the word "the" that I've highlighted above. To me, that implies that the takeoffs and landings used to provide the tailwheel experience must be the same takeoffs and landings that were used to provide the category and class experience. Otherwise, it would just say takeoffs and landings, or "additional" takeoffs and landings, not "the" takeoffs and landings. That would seem to prevent experience in a tricycle single and a tailwheel multi from being combined to meet the requirement. :dunno:
Click to expand...

You're reading too much into it.
 
Palmpilot said:
When I read the passage in question, it appears to me that the key is the word "the" that I've highlighted above. To me, that implies that the takeoffs and landings used to provide the tailwheel experience must be the same takeoffs and landings that were used to provide the category and class experience. Otherwise, it would just say takeoffs and landings, or "additional" takeoffs and landings, not "the" takeoffs and landings. That would seem to prevent experience in a tricycle single and a tailwheel multi from being combined to meet the requirement. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Thank you for that more complete and understandable explanation than I gave.
 
Ron Levy said:
No, he's not. Just ask the FAA -- they read it the same (or at least they said they did the last time I asked).
Click to expand...

Then why is there no interpretation for it on the FAA site?

Is this like the mystery letter that is conveniently left at the university?
 
Palmpilot said:
When I read the passage in question, it appears to me that the key is the word "the" that I've highlighted above. To me, that implies that the takeoffs and landings used to provide the tailwheel experience must be the same takeoffs and landings that were used to provide the category and class experience. Otherwise, it would just say takeoffs and landings, or "additional" takeoffs and landings, not "the" takeoffs and landings. That would seem to prevent experience in a tricycle single and a tailwheel multi from being combined to meet the requirement. :dunno:
Click to expand...

"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."

Any airplane with the little wheel in the back is "an airplane with a tailwheel". If they wanted a specific airplane, I'd think it would read "the airplane with a tailwheel".
 
Ron Levy said:
It doesn't have to. The second half of that sentence cannot be taken out of the entire sentence and interpreted in isolation. The "and" cannot be ignored.
Click to expand...

It's the second comma that makes me question it more than anything apart from the usage of the word airplane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top