[matthew_w100]

Yeah - read it like this. "If you haven't done three take offs and landings in the last 90 days you may not fly with a passenger unless that passenger is actually a pilot who understands the risk. The requirement that the passenger should be qualified to fly the plane is to *ensure* that they can properly understand the risk, not so they can take over.

But as has been remarked before, does a licenced pilot who is not “qualified” because he does not meet his own currency requirement, then fail to understand the risk? If he does indeed still understand the risk, as he surely must do, then why does he need to be “qualified”?

Not necessarily . He may have been expired for twenty years. The CAA only recognise two states - "qualified" and "not qualified". If you're "qualified" they can reasonably expect you to understand the risk. If you are "not qualified" they cannot say anything with sufficient certainty. And it keeps things simple.

[Crash one]

If we analyse this thing to the nth degree for long enough it just might be seen as a good idea, well thought out and well done to the CAA!
Keep it up guys

[marioair]

Can anyone point me to where the ANO it now states that a qualified Pilot can be on board during the 90d recency flights? It used to be in ORS 1087 but can't see where its gone in the ANO

[marioair]

Disregard:
SCHEDULE 8
FLIGHT CREW OF AIRCRAFT – LICENCES, RATINGS, QUALIFICATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF LICENCE PRIVILEGES
PART 1
Flight Crew Licences
CHAPTER 1
General conditions