Night Currency

[digits_]

I worked at 2 companies where one handles the yoke, the other sets the power. It's impossible to take off without doing both.

I would expect as per the TC approved 2 crew SOP's the person handling the yoke is the pilot flying and the person monitoring is handling the power controls and setting them as commanded by the pilot flying. Seems pretty obvious who should get the credit for the takeoff.

That might work for currency during commercial ops, and it certainly doesn't break any CARs. But if a pilot wanted to use his PNF landings or takeoffs to count to fly a private twin with pax at night, then I don't see what CAR he would be breaking.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I worked at 2 companies where one handles the yoke, the other sets the power. It's impossible to take off without doing both.

I would expect as per the TC approved 2 crew SOP's the person handling the yoke is the pilot flying and the person monitoring is handling the power controls and setting them as commanded by the pilot flying. Seems pretty obvious who should get the credit for the takeoff.

That might work for currency during commercial ops, and it certainly doesn't break any CARs. But if a pilot wanted to use his PNF landings or takeoffs to count to fly a private twin with pax at night, then I don't see what CAR he would be breaking.

I find it discouraging that pilots are looking for ways to avoid meeting what seems to me a logical requirement, having to demonstrate night landing proficiency before you carry passengers. If you are comfortable watching someone else land the airplane and then count that towards your personal competency then I guess I have an issue with your decision making. My opinion represent one data point and is obviously not binding on you or anyone else so go do what you want to do.

[photofly]

I'm comfortable with understanding the requirement to be the one of handling the flight controls for the relevant number of recent takeoffs and landings - either by day or by night - just to get your eye in, so to speak. I don't see ones status as PIC, sole occupant, or accompanied by another pilot, as relevant to achieving or failing at that goal.

It's also a minimum bar, there to provide just the tiniest bit of reassurance for people who are genuine passengers. Just like the "have flown as PIC or co-pilot in the last 5 years" rule, it doesn't guarantee any particular level of competence, and it's not supposed to.

[digits_]

I find it discouraging that pilots are looking for ways to avoid meeting what seems to me a logical requirement, having to demonstrate night landing proficiency before you carry passengers. If you are comfortable watching someone else land the airplane and then count that towards your personal competency then I guess I have an issue with your decision making.

Of course, the good old 'you disagree with me / you dare to question the CARs so I have an issue with your decision making'.

But, since it's been brought up, let's explore that avenue.
A few points I'd like to make:

1) I would like to point out that completing a 2 crew take off or landing involves much more than just 'waching someone else land the airplane'

2) If the regulator deems this issue to be of the utmost importance, the least they can do is publish clear rules.

3) one could argue that 'watching someone else land the airplane' while actually being physically located in said airplane might be more beneficial than performing 5 'night' landings in a simulator.

4) This particular passenger recency requirement is a regulation that falls into the 'protecting the public without any benefit to the pilot' category. It's not surprising that a pilot would want to satisfy this in the easiest/cheapest way possible. If you think your skills are not up to par to perform a night landing with passengers on board, it's likely not a good idea to perform a landing *without* passengers on board either

5) Landing on a 10 000 ft highly lit runway on a full moon night while just not being recent is arguably significantly safer than landing in a dark night on a minimum length runway with minimum lights while just meeting the recency requirements. The night landing requirement is quite arbitrary -as many regulations are-, which also means that people will try to find possibly creative -yet allowed- ways of meeting the regulation. I don't think that's evidence of bad decision making. Merely an indication of a keen mind, with the willingness to follow the regulations.

6) Note that you don't have to demonstrate night landing proficiency. You merely have to perform 5 landings. They can be horrible landings. Nobody's judging you. And as long as you don't break the plane, nobody will likely know.

7) I looked up if the terminology of 'perform' was used anywhere else in the CARs. It is, while describing the 6/6/6 recency rule.
I found this:

(3.1) No holder of a Canadian pilot licence endorsed with an instrument rating or to which is attached instrument rating privileges shall exercise the privileges of the instrument rating unless, following the first day of the 13th month after the completion date of a test referred to in subsection (3) and within six months before the flight, the holder has

(a) acquired six hours of instrument time; and

(b) completed six instrument approaches in an aircraft in actual or simulated instrument meteorological conditions, or in a Level B, C or D simulator or an approved flight training device configured for the same category as the aircraft

(i) under the supervision of a person who holds the qualifications referred to in subsection 425.21(9) of Standard 425 — Flight Training, or

(ii) while acting as a flight instructor conducting training in respect of the endorsement of a flight crew licence or permit with an instrument rating.

The regulator there specifically allows an instructor, in a simulator, to count all the simulated IFR approaches their students are flying towards their recency. Is it then so far fetched to believe a required crew member in an actual airplane would be able to count the landings during which he is performing duties -albeit not necessarily touching the yoke-, towards his recency?