[kanga]

..Perhaps he could open the biscuit packet and log Flight attendant/Stewardess?

those who cater to flight crew can be very important ..

The Gloucestershire Aircraft Company [sic] was formed in 1915 as a subsidiary of the H H Martyn furniture company. Martyn's had an order to make wings for deHavilland, and their Directors thought there might be a future for these funny contraptions called aeroplanes, and decided to aim for designing and making their own in future ..

Anyway, for the centenary we at JAM held a reception last year for former GAC workers. One delightful lady in her (I guess) '70s told me that she had been a teenage secretary at GAC in the '50s. At one point she had been on the flight line, taking test pilots' notes scribbled on their kneepads (often at high G), typing up a first draft, and getting the pilots to correct them while their memories were fresh. But on landing they were always gasping for a (non-alcoholic) drink, and having that ready for them as they walked through the crewroom door was actually her first duty. She looked at our display of photographs of GAC Test Pilots and for those of her era she could remember each one's preference, eg: 'tea, Indian, strong, 2 sugars, mug not cup'

I told her that her job was just as important to the test programme as the pilots' ..

[MercianMarcus]

...
Yes I did read that, I still fail to see the need to call anyone "Crew" other than the single pilot of a single pilot aircraft. No other crew member is required, so why invent one?

Because you are not allowed to take passengers so the other person on the a/c needs a status. Who cares what they are called provided it enables 2 pilots to fly together when the pilot in command as not done 3 movements in the last 90 days?

[welkyboy]

Suggest you read this
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... _06-13.pdf

[MercianMarcus]

Suggest you read this
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... _06-13.pdf

What's your point?

[G-BLEW]

Yes I did read that, I still fail to see the need to call anyone "Crew" other than the single pilot of a single pilot aircraft. No other crew member is required, so why invent one? What is the unnecessary crew member going to log the time as? Perhaps he could open the biscuit packet and log Flight attendant/Stewardess?

As I read it you need to call someone crew in order for them not to be a passenger and to make the flight legal. They don't have to log anything at all do they?

Ian

[skydriller]

I must be missing something or Ive been in france too long, because it seems bleedin' obvious that if you have a slightly "different" aeroplane which you havent flown for a while, it would be better to take along a PPL with a thousand hours on it as a check pilot than a freshly minted FI who has only ever flown a C152/C172!!

6 pages

Regards, SD..

PS: We REALLY need a gallic shrug smilie on here...

[MercianMarcus]

Sky

It's 6 (well 7) pages because It can't be simplified into something like the statement you made. There are lots of arguments for dropping the rule, yours being just one, and probably not the strongest one either.

The biggest issue for me is that those in support of the rule always seem to start form the position that the people captured by its scope: have not flown at all for 90 days or more, are not fully confident to handle the a/c in question and thus want to take another pilot to supervise them. In practice the rule's scope captures many many pilots not in that situation. Result - people arguing at cross purposes.

MM

[Crash one]

This thread is developing into a farce.
I can see the reason for designating a duty for the (other person) . To try to make things legal.
I cannot see the legality in creating an unnecessary position/status/job/name, for someone who in the eyes of the regulator is not required to be a part of the crew of a single pilot aircraft because that aircraft can and always is flown by one single person who does not need any assistance.
The CAA say you can take your Mate who is a pilot.
EASA say you can't.
Where is the ambiguity in that?

[bookworm]

I must be missing something or Ive been in france too long, because it seems bleedin' obvious that if you have a slightly "different" aeroplane which you havent flown for a while, it would be better to take along a PPL with a thousand hours on it as a check pilot than a freshly minted FI who has only ever flown a C152/C172!!

Somewhere I have a letter from the CAA in about 1993 responding to a question asked about the interpretation of the aerial work rules. In those days, it was illegal to pay an instructor to fly with you in your group owned aircraft if it was on a private C of A. It pre-dates, of course, the 90-day currency rule.

The letter sets out, very eloquently, all the reasons it may be better for a pilot who is out of practice to fly with another experienced group member rather than a flight instructor.

[MercianMarcus]

...
The CAA say you can take your Mate who is a pilot.
EASA say you can't.
Where is the ambiguity in that?

Did you read bookworm's post of the 19th? In summary, after the 25th Aug, although you can't take a passenger, you can take someone who agrees to act as crew. They go on to define crew and it clearly includes things other than a/c handling. So WEF 25th you can take your mate, provided he agrees to fulfil a role that enhances safety - such as looking out.

MM

[Flyin'Dutch']

Everything else notwithstanding, one thing is very sure.

There is more time spent on writing and contemplating this rule than there can ever be needed to fly those three circuits and bumps.

We may not need to be rescued by the RNLI every two seconds but the amount of angst and debate around this issue seems a tad excessive.

[FlarePath]

Without trawling through all this, does the "designated crew" have to be current on type or can be a non-pilot?

[MercianMarcus]

Without trawling through all this, does the "designated crew" have to be current on type or can be a non-pilot?

Flare, Here's the relevant post: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=101325#p1478221

MM

[FlarePath]

Thanks, seems like anyone on-board then with a valid reason.

[kanga]

Recall when new rule came in that all AOC 'passenger' operation in aircraft over some MAUW had to have a hijacker-proof cockpit door, and DC-3 was over that weight; fortunately, Rapide was under it. Anyway, refitting DC-3 with appropriate door would have been prohinitively expensive. However, this rule did not apply to freight operations, and it was established practice that a freight could be accompanied by couriers eg for consignor's security concerns; and sometimes must be, eg grooms/vets with horses and livestock.

I heard that one DC-3 operator wondered whether he could offer charter services to operators wishing to despatch 'freight' (which might be one envelope or parcel) accompanied by enough 'essential' couriers to fill every thitherto 'passenger' seat ..