Night Recency of Experience

African_Swallow

Well-Known Member
Does anyone have any input on this scenario: student needs to log night experience (landings, night x/c, etc.) but CFI is not night-current to "fly passengers" per 61.57.

So...does the CFI need to first make his night landings before the training flight can legally proceed, or is the flight legal as-is?

Discuss...
 
I am pretty sure the CFI does not have to legally be night current as per some wording of the FARs the student is not a passenger.

....
 
The age old debate continues...

If I am not night current I always take the time to get current before I fly with my students at night. This is what we do where I work. But, I have worked at other places where this was not the common practice.
 
When I was instructing, if the student held only a student certificate, then I made myself current prior to their flight. If they held a private certificate or higher and they were current, then I would not concern myself with being current prior to starting their flight (although I may request a landng).

That said, my boss was always good with letting me use the plane to go do a some landings if I needed them to be current. I also had a couple of students that owned their own planes, and would let me get current in them if I needed to (for their purposes of course).
 
When I was instructing, if the student held only a student certificate, then I made myself current prior to their flight. If they held a private certificate or higher and they were current, then I would not concern myself with being current prior to starting their flight (although I may request a landng).

That said, my boss was always good with letting me use the plane to go do a some landings if I needed them to be current. I also had a couple of students that owned their own planes, and would let me get current in them if I needed to (for their purposes of course).

:yeahthat: Except my boss is of a religious believing that is often associated with being stingy with money. So I have to pay for my own currency when I was getting night current. Luckily a CFI needed a BFR so he paid for my night currency while paying for his BFR.


Edit: Crockrocket94 might be right about some obscure regulation, I just use this because I am unsure if one exists so I am covering my butt.
 
That was my understanding...does anyone know the reg or reg chain on this?
There are two 2006 FAA Chief Counsel opinions that say that neither student nor CFI is a "passenger" on an instructional flight and so landing currency is not required.

Kortokrax, which deals with qualified pilots as the "student":
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...tations/data/interps/2006/Kortokraxinterp.doc

and Olshock, which deals with student pilots:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...tations/data/interps/2006/Kortokraxinterp.doc


Remember though, this is what's legal. The safety analysis will be different from CFI to CFI.
 
Good question and interesting discussion. I prefer to get current first. You can adhere to the letter of the regs and still have a problem w/ the NTSB if there is an incident.
 
I don't mean to hijack but it is along the same lines.

Is another qualified pilot considered a passenger? The situation is this: Pilot A is not current with instruments nor night. Pilot A asks Pilot B to be his/her safety pilot which begins late in the evening but with the sun still up. About half way through their flight night has fallen. Is Pilot A no longer legal to be flying and would therefore have to let Pilot B take over as sole manipulator? Or can Pilot A continue on to the destination and even do his/her 3 stop and goes to become current again?

My gut tells me that they would not be legal to fly even if the 'passenger' is a qualified pilot since only one can manipulate the controls and it's not considered an instructional flight with a CFI with dual time being logged. In a way I can see where this is going to dive into the age old discussion of safety pilot PIC. I guess what it depends on is whether or not the sole manipulator PIC, or the safety pilot PIC overseeing and responsible for the safety of the flight, is the one who needs to be current.
 
I think your gut is correct.

Remember that a safety pilot is not a required crewmember for the whole flight. The rest of the time he's just a passenger. I doubt that the FAA would extend the super powers of instrutors to mere mortal pilots.

At least one of them - whichever one is acting as PIC - needs to be current.
 
So I have to pay for my own currency when I was getting night current. Luckily a CFI needed a BFR so he paid for my night currency while paying for his BFR.
So why did this guy pay for you to fly for ~15 mins while you did landings as the sole manipulator of the flight controls? Pretty good customer.
 
So why did this guy pay for you to fly for ~15 mins while you did landings as the sole manipulator of the flight controls? Pretty good customer.

A fellow CFI, he just shot the approaches for his BFR then after that I did 3 quick 500' patterns, took about 5 minutes to get current. I also bought him lunch a couple times after to pay for it.
 
So, is it OK if I hijack my own thread though? :insane:

We've established that no one needs (legally) to be night-current if we're talking about CFI-student in the plane; the CFI can still "teach" the currency to the student.

Let's extend this to shooting approaches. A CFII teaches and watches students shoot approaches, holds, tracking and intercepting courses, probably well more than the legal requisite 6 per preceding 6-month period (let's assume, for discussion). However, these approaches can only be logged by the CFII only when the flight is in IMC, on a flight plan. Fair enough. But, if a flight comes along where the CFII needs to be instrument-proficient, then the logbook needs to show the currency. (In my case, this is defiinitely where simulators and favors from other CFIIs comes in.)

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems inconsistent with the reasoning for night currency. I'm sure this isn't the only instance of this in the regs...but, hey, discuss anyway...
 
Let's extend this to shooting approaches. A CFII teaches and watches students shoot approaches, holds, tracking and intercepting courses, probably well more than the legal requisite 6 per preceding 6-month period (let's assume, for discussion). However, these approaches can only be logged by the CFII only when the flight is in IMC, on a flight plan. Fair enough. But, if a flight comes along where the CFII needs to be instrument-proficient, then the logbook needs to show the currency. (In my case, this is defiinitely where simulators and favors from other CFIIs comes in.)
A CFI may not log approaches flown by student. He may log the time flown while giving instrument instruction in actual instrument conditions.
 
You have a common misconception... but the CFII actually CAN log approaches flown by the student in actual conditions for his own currency.

Here is the FAA legal letter of interpretation which allows it:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2008/Ronald%20B.%20Levy.pdf

You're correct. But it wasn't a misconception. I actually have the letter you posted in my own files, but I had forgotten about it at the time I posted.
 
What's your point? I acknowledged that my response was incorrect, and the reason why.

It was a joke, you know ha ha laugh kind of thing? But since it need be serious...

Misconception: A mistaken thought, idea, or notion; a misunderstanding

You inaccurately recalled a situation which is a misconception. Saying it wasn't then excusing it away isn't admitting a fault it is covering it up with an excuse.

But like I said before I was only joking around with you it really didn't matter, was going for the ha ha aspect but failed.
 
Back
Top