CAPF FORM 5 CHECKRIDE

[RAZOR]

I would like to pose this question/scenario to you for discussion.

An individual is receiving a FORM 5 checkride in a C-182. We will call this person pilot 1. His Form 5 is expired. The individual performing as the check pilot in the right front seat, PILOT 2 is a checkpilot but medically disqualified to act as PIC by FAA standards. The third pilot, Pilot 3 is in the rear seat as a sefety pilot who is fully qualified in the aircraft.

Q: is this by CAP standards/FAA standards and illegal checkride since both Pilot and Co-pilot are not current & qualified in the aircraft but the pilot in the back seat is current & qualified.

[Eclipse]

So, if I read this right, no one legal to fly the airplane is in control of it.

Why is the only qualified pilot in the back?

By my understanding you ability to function as a checkpilot is void if you are not qualified yourself, so I believe this is an "illegal" ride, and could get a lot of people in trouble.

[RAZOR]

Thats what I thought. I have seen this as a common practice in some wings where by the checkpilot is medically disqualified, the individual receiving the checkride is not current in the aircraft but by FAA standards they are current and the safety pilot in the rear seat just to say they had a qualified pilot on board but not reveal the seating arrangement.

So which regulations to follow, CAP or FAA?

[Eclipse]

Thats what I thought. I have seen this as a common practice in some wings where by the checkpilot is medically disqualified, the individual receiving the checkride is not current in the aircraft but by FAA standards they are current and the safety pilot in the rear seat just to say they had a qualified pilot on board but not reveal the seating arrangement.

So which regulations to follow, CAP or FAA?

Both in a CAP plane, FAA first, then CAP.

[Al Sayre]

I'm pretty sure that the checkpilot could perform his function from the backseat with the safety pilot in the right seat, and all would be well with the world.  The check pilot is performing an admin function and does not need to be PIC.

[Eclipse]

I'm pretty sure that the checkpilot could perform his function from the backseat with the safety pilot in the right seat, and all would be well with the world.  The check pilot is performing an admin function and does not need to be PIC.

This would make much more sense, because then yo have at least one legal pilot in the front.  But I don't' believe the checkpilot's sig means anything if they aren't current during the ride.

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

Lets break it down as to FAA or CAP under the situation you addressed.

FAA - The pilot with the expired form 5 is legal to fly the Cessna 182 and is PIC unless decided otherwise before the flight.   The FAA does not require the CFI to have a current medical, unless he is PIC.   The Safety pilot in the back means nothing as he is not part of the crew.

CAP - The pilot with the expired form 5 cannot be PIC (If renewal was sought before it expired he would be PIC);

The Check Pilot could give the Form 5 with an expired medical but cannot be PIC.
60-1 (3.2) (e)(5) Be current and qualified in at least the aircraft group used for any flight check. Individuals who do not possess a current medical certificate and cannot maintain currency in group may function as a CAP check pilot as long as they are approved in writing by the region/wing commander, can show prior currency in CAP aircraft within the group aircraft in which they will be administering check flights, and are not the pilot-in-command of the flight activity.

The Safety Pilot who is the only one qualified to fly the aircraft as PIC cannot be in the back seat since he would not have access to the controls.  He could fly in the right seat, the Form 5 Renewal Pilot in the left seat, and the Check Pilot in the rear seat, as I saw nothing in 60-1 that prevents this.   However, there may be regulations that Check Pilots have to follow that I am unaware of.

This situation would not present itself unless the person renewing the Form 5 waits until it expires to renew it.   In the above situation, there would be a  violation of 60-1 by the only person qualified to be the PIC sitting in the back seat.
This is the way I see it.  I would be interested in others comments.

[BlueLakes1]

SoCal has pretty much hit the nail on the head. While there would be no violation of the FARs as long as "pilot #1" was current to carry passengers IAW Part 91, there would definitely be a violation of CAPR 60-1 if pilot #1 didn't hold a current CAP Form 5 qualification as well.

[RAZOR]

Quoting SoCal
'While there would be no violation of the FARs as long as "pilot #1" was current to carry passengers IAW Part 91.

The individual was not current to carry passengers IAW Part 91.

This would be a good time to review Form 5 procedures and align them with FAA Standards. In this case the checkpilot failed to do a thorough review of PILOT #1's log book and opted to just go and fly.

[av8]

SoCalCAPOfficer, MCreedKY214 &Razor are correct.

The flight should not have taken place.  Since Pilot1 was FAR current, the flight was FAA legal but, per CAP 60-1 neither person with full access to the controls (front seats) was CAP current.

Though Pilot3 was rated and current IAW Part 91 and CAP 60-1, he could not act as PIC (Safety Pilot) as he did not have access to the flight controls from the rear seat, nor was he required crew. So he was a passenger on the flight.

Had the Check Pilot been in the back seat and Pilot3 in the right seat, Pilot1's ride would have been CAP "legal".

[dhon27]

As an FYI, the fact scenario posited in this post strongly resembles an issue raised on the following website: http://starrswon.com/ (See link about "Two-Pilots-In-Charge Policy").  Folks might want to review this website before offering opinions on this issue.  And that's all I'll say about that   

[fyrfitrmedic]

As an FYI, the fact scenario posited in this post strongly resembles an issue raised on the following website: http://starrswon.com/ (See link about "Two-Pilots-In-Charge Policy").  Folks might want to review this website before offering opinions on this issue.  And that's all I'll say about that   

That's not exactly a website that I'd personally consider authoritative on anything, but perhaps that's just me...

[dhon27]

I didn't intend to cite that website as an authority, but wanted to perhaps caution that opinions made in response to this topic could be conceivably used to advance the objective(s) of that website's author.  Just offered as an FYI...

[CFI_Ed]

An individual is receiving a FORM 5 checkride in a C-182. We will call this person pilot 1. His Form 5 is expired. The individual performing as the check pilot in the right front seat, PILOT 2 is a checkpilot but medically disqualified to act as PIC by FAA standards. The third pilot, Pilot 3 is in the rear seat as a sefety pilot who is fully qualified in the aircraft.

Q: is this by CAP standards/FAA standards and illegal checkride since both Pilot and Co-pilot are not current & qualified in the aircraft but the pilot in the back seat is current & qualified.

Okay - until a few days ago I was in the above category as a check pilot without a medical certificate.  I can't speak for other Wings or their interpretations -  but I would not have been able to give the the above check ride even if the safety pilot was sitting the right seat.  The only exception was if the safety pilot was another check pilot who was themselves undergoing a Form 5 by the back seat examiner.

[SJFedor]

Wow, that website hates pretty hard both on Tennessee Wing as well as my group.



Well before my time down here.

[Eclipse]

Wow, that website hates pretty hard both on Tennessee Wing as well as my group.



Well before my time down here.

Thats ok, its brought in conversation about every 5th thread..

[Frenchie]

This situation would not present itself unless the person renewing the Form 5 waits until it expires to renew it.   In the above situation, there would be a  violation of 60-1 by the only person qualified to be the PIC sitting in the back seat.
This is the way I see it.  I would be interested in others comments.

That's the way I see it.  It sounds as if Pilot #1 would be FAA qualified to be PIC, since it's a renewal I'm assuming a previous form 5 was held in the 182.  However neither Pilot #1 or Pilot #2 is CAP qualified to be PIC per 60-1 para 3-3.  I don't of any specific FAA reg that disallows PIC without a set of controls, but it certainly defies any sound decision making and would most likely be a violation of 91.13(careless or reckless).  Assuming Pilot #1 would be PIC, the flight would be legal by the FAA, but illegal per 60-1.