Night Currency

MEPilot

Well-Known Member
I am a CFI, and not night current. Can I fly with a licensed pilot (ATP), who is also not current at night, while he does the required 3 t/o and landings? As a CFI I am not a passenger, but will not being current prevent me from acting as an instructor?
 

U_of_I_Tweak

Well-Known Member
If neither of you are night current, neither of you can act as PIC with the other on the plane.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 

Fly_Unity

Well-Known Member
As long as your acting as an instructor, I see nothing wrong with it. (stole this from one of Rframe's post).

61.57(b)

(b) Night takeoff and landing experience. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers


There are a couple letter of interpretations from the FAA on this. Here's a snippet from one from Rebecca MacPherson (Assistant Chief Counsel).


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.
 

z987k

Well-Known Member
If neither of you are night current, neither of you can act as PIC with the other on the plane.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
As long as your acting as an instructor, I see nothing wrong with it. (stole this from one of Rframe's post).

61.57(b)

(b) Night takeoff and landing experience. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers


There are a couple letter of interpretations from the FAA on this. Here's a snippet from one from Rebecca MacPherson (Assistant Chief Counsel).


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.
OH SNAP! :)
 

TwoTwoLeft

o- - - - - - -l
What if the airplane requires a type rating and is an airplane in which the ATP is typed? Can the ATP give the CFI dual in that airplane at night if the ATP isn't night current?

OHHHHH DOUBLE SNAP!
 

A150K

Well-Known Member
What if the airplane requires a type rating and is an airplane in which the ATP is typed? Can the ATP give the CFI dual in that airplane at night if the ATP isn't night current?

OHHHHH DOUBLE SNAP!
I haven't had nearly enough coffee yet to try to figure that one out.
 

U_of_I_Tweak

Well-Known Member
Well you learn something new every day. Figures that the FAA would require a safety pilot to hold a medical, but not expect a CFI to be night current.

Does this interpretation apply to currency in general? For example, a CFI who hasn't instructed in years, and isn't singke engine current...could they fly with someone who doesn't have their 3 landings?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
The interpretive letter does not make any distinction between landing currency, night landing currency and tailwheel landing currency.
 

TwoTwoLeft

o- - - - - - -l
Figures that the FAA would require a safety pilot to hold a medical...
Really....? Tell me what you know about this.


Because 91.109 says that they don't...
(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless—
(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.
(2) The safety pilot has adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft, or a competent observer in the aircraft adequately supplements the vision of the safety pilot; and
Now it is entirely possible that I may me missing something, somewhere..... I just want to be sure.
 

U_of_I_Tweak

Well-Known Member
I don't have the time or desire to look it up directly from the source, but there was an AOPA nite awhile back citing an interpretation that stated safety pilots are required crewmembers, and therefore have to have at least a third class medical.

I'm just leaving the airport after a 14 hour day. If I think about it tomorrow I'll see if I can find it.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 

Fly_Unity

Well-Known Member
Now it is entirely possible that I may me missing something, somewhere..... I just want to be sure.
Safety pilots are required to hold a medical just as SIC's are also required to hold a medical.

61.3(c)(1)

(c)Medical certificate. (1) A person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of an aircraft only if that person holds the appropriate medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter, or other documentation acceptable to the FAA, that is in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft. Paragraph (c)(2) of this section provides certain exceptions to the requirement to hold a medical certificate.
 

TwoTwoLeft

o- - - - - - -l
Safety pilots are required to hold a medical just as SIC's are also required to hold a medical.

61.3(c)(1)

(c)Medical certificate. (1) A person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of an aircraft only if that person holds the appropriate medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter, or other documentation acceptable to the FAA, that is in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft. Paragraph (c)(2) of this section provides certain exceptions to the requirement to hold a medical certificate.
Ahhh, there it is! Thanks!

Based on the interpretation that a safety pilot must have a current medical. I wonder what the FAA's reasoning is behind a CFI being able to provide instruction with out one? I understand that, as long as the CFI is not acting as PIC or a required crew member. Sometimes the CFI is much more involved with the safety the flight, even if not PIC, than a "crewmwmber" would be.
 

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
Ahhh, there it is! Thanks!

Based on the interpretation that a safety pilot must have a current medical. I wonder what the FAA's reasoning is behind a CFI being able to provide instruction with out one? I understand that, as long as the CFI is not acting as PIC or a required crew member.
...because the reg (quoted above) that requires a medical only requires one when acting as a required crewmember.

A CFI who is training a student pilot is required to have a medical because the CFI must act as PIC. Same for a CFI that is giving training to a pilot under the hood (required crewmember). But not when giving, for example, a FR to a current private pilot who is acting as PIC for the flight.
 

TwoTwoLeft

o- - - - - - -l
...because the reg (quoted above) that requires a medical only requires one when acting as a required crewmember.

A CFI who is training a student pilot is required to have a medical because the CFI must act as PIC. Same for a CFI that is giving training to a pilot under the hood (required crewmember). But not when giving, for example, a FR to a current private pilot who is acting as PIC for the flight.
I understand the regulatory reason why. What I don't understand is HOW the FAA came to the conclusion that it would be OK for a CFI to provide any kind of dual (as long as they're not acting PIC or as a required crew member) without out a medical? What's reasoning behind the exception?

Why does the FAA think it's ok to allow a CFI with out a medical to hop in a plane with a pilot who could have possibly not flown in 24 calendar months to give a flight review? Yet, it's NOT ok to let a certified private pilot (with out a medical) act as a pair of eyes to a another pilot in simulated IMC conditions? Yes, I know the "crewmember" thing... But WHY? From a safety standpoint it really doesn't make any sense....
 

Mike H

Well-Known Member
...all the more reason to eliminate the medical requirement for most operations.



see what I did there?
 

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
I understand the regulatory reason why. What I don't understand is HOW the FAA came to the conclusion that it would be OK for a CFI to provide any kind of dual (as long as they're not acting PIC or as a required crew member) without out a medical? What's reasoning behind the exception?
Permitting current, certificated pilots who are capable of and in fact acting as PIC to benefit from the knowledge and experience of older CFIs. A bit of failing eyesight would not make a CFI who has spent 50 years flying in the mountains unqualified to provide mountain instruction. And the current certificated pilot receiving that instruction is in a good position to make the determination if he wants that instruction.

Why does the FAA think it's ok to allow a CFI with out a medical to hop in a plane with a pilot who could have possibly not flown in 24 calendar months to give a flight review?
What makes you say that? The FAA doesn't think it's OK at all. A CFI who hops in an airplane with a pilot without a current FR is required to have a medical.

Read the reg again. The CFI rule is not carte blanche for CFIs without medicals to give "any kind of dual" - only that instruction that does not require a CFI to act as PIC or as a required pilot crewmember. That excludes a whole bunch of training.
 

TwoTwoLeft

o- - - - - - -l
Permitting current, certificated pilots who are capable of and in fact acting as PIC to benefit from the knowledge and experience of older CFIs. A bit of failing eyesight would not make a CFI who has spent 50 years flying in the mountains unqualified to provide mountain instruction. And the current certificated pilot receiving that instruction is in a good position to make the determination if he wants that instruction.

What makes you say that? The FAA doesn't think it's OK at all. A CFI who hops in an airplane with a pilot without a current FR is required to have a medical.


Read the reg again. The CFI rule is not carte blanche for CFIs without medicals to give "any kind of dual" - only that instruction that does not require a CFI to act as PIC or as a required pilot crewmember. That excludes a whole bunch of training.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 2

Fair enough.

By "any kind" I meant as a general term, not literal. On the last day of month 24, the pilot is still current. Therefore a CFI without a medical could provide dual for the FR.
 
Top