Source: http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?6431-91-307-Ambiguity/page2&s=388e09e6f34af426f0d69c110a9a7803
Timestamp: 2017-12-18 14:29:11
Document Index: 68869336

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 23', 'art 23', 'art 25', 'art 135', 'art 135', 'art 135', 'art 91', 'art 135', 'art 91', 'art 91', 'art 91', 'art 135']

91.307 Ambiguity - Page 2
91.307 Ambiguity
01-03-2016, 07:52 PM #11
Set during certification? Reference? In the aircraft flight manual? Reference? How that applies to EAB? Reference? I'd love to do more reading, and I will. Reference? Chapter and verse?
Interesting discussion regarding "required flight crew". I could find references in 14 CFR part 23.1523 and 25.1523, both of which state, in part:
"The minimum flight crew must be established so that it is sufficient for safe operation considering..."
and then list stuff that they need to consider. Since these are both in the certification of aircraft sections, my interpretation would be that the MFG of the aircraft needs to determine how many required crewmembers there will be for the aircraft for it to be certified. That then implies that EVERY time the aircraft flies, required crew must be on board. So it's not a pilot's decision, and it's not on a flight by flight basis (I suppose unless the POH lists conditions under which different crewmembers might be required - i.e., VFR = 1 but IFR = 2). The aircraft type will determine how many crew is required.
Now, of course, EAB aircraft aren't type certificated. But using the logic of part 23 and part 25 (and who knows whether the FSDO would do so), the MFG of the plane (in my case, for my COZY MKIV, me) gets to determine how many required crewmembers are needed for the plane (not the aircraft designer, in my case, Nat Puffer - the MFG, by analogy). BUT, using the same logic as 23 and 25, whatever number I choose for required crew is then required for EVERY flight - I can't pick and choose some flights to have a 2nd person (or Cthulhu/FSM forbid, a third) be "required" for that flight so that they can take pics or retract the nose gear or take data or tell me good jokes. If I stupidly chose to get my plane's airworthiness certificate with "2 required crewmembers" (and I have no idea how that would happen for an EAB aircraft, but let's just say...) then EVERY flight would have to have 2 people on it to be legal.
So, I'm not at all sure how this applies to Ron's original question about 91.307, but it at least forced me to do a bit of research on what the hell "required crew" means (or seems to, or might in an EAB environment).
01-03-2016, 08:27 PM #12
So... if you're doing aerobatics while wearing a hood for simulated instrument time, you and your safety pilot don't have to wear parachutes because the safety pilot is a "required crew member".
01-04-2016, 10:28 AM #14
So. A person assigned (by the owner, operator, or final authority as to the operation of the aircraft) to duty during flight time is a crewmember.
Interesting set of rulings. The first highlighted section, in response to the EMT related question, is the most interesting one to me and which gives what I see as the ambiguity in the interpretation. It specifically says that:
"...they must be assigned a duty by the certificate holder..."
In this case, per the beginning of the letter, they're referring to the "Part 135 certificate holder", who is the one that makes the determination about crewmember status, apparently. The part 135 certificate is separate from the TC for the aircraft, so the certificate referred to here is NOT the aircraft's TC or AC.
Minimum flight crew is listed in certification documents and AFM for certificated aircraft, in operating limitations (if listed at all) for experimental aircraft.
Crewmembers in addition to certification minimums may be required by regulation, by type of operation, and/or by the operator.
In Part 135 ops, that certainly seems to be the case.Would it still be the case for Part 91 ops (what we do with EAB aircraft)? In that case, there's no "certificate holder", in the same sense as the Part 135 operations certificate... there's only the aircraft AC/TC. I'm out of my depth here on interpreting these rules, as I have no experience whatsoever in anything other than Part 91 ops.
The owner or operator may not designate a person as a crewmember for a position requiring an FAA airman certification unless that person holds the appropriate airman certification with any required category, class, etc rating and current medical certificate (with some exceptions on the medical certificate). And no, parachutes are not required when doing acrobatic maneuvers with only crewmembers aboard.
Agreed again. Assuming we can determine WTF a crewmember is :-).
I guess the only question left in my mind is whether in Part 91 ops of EAB aircraft (or TC'd aircraft operating under part 91), the "owner/pilot" has the right to assign "crewmembers" above and beyond minimum required crew per the OL's. I don't think the letter shown really addresses that question, since it's only referring to part 135 certificate holder privileges.
Why is this stuff so complex? I guarantee you I could write a logic tree that would indicate exactly who could do what when, if asked, under any given set of circumstances...
01-04-2016, 07:59 PM #15
"the certificate holder"
For folks who are not familiar with 135 certificates, 121 ops specs, Certificates of Authorization, and other documents that the FAA uses to supplement the FAR's, those certificates call out "required crew members" as well as who can be carried aboard the aircraft at different times. This is mentioned in the docs copied above. It all looks like gobblety-gook to folks who do not deal with it all on a regular basis.
EAB's have "Operating Limitations" that specify who is who.
You can make a career out of FAA (or other regulatory agency) paperwork.
So find a competent aerobatic teacher, 'chute up, and have fun.
01-06-2016, 04:31 PM #16
You started this on purpose, didn't you.
01-06-2016, 09:29 PM #17
Yeah, it was too quiet, and I was worried for Glory's job if she didn't have to step in and supervise the playground on occasion. :-)
Ron "Make him stop looking at me!" Wanttaja
01-07-2016, 08:41 AM #18
Byron, Ron, et al, I apologize for the thread creep. Have gone back and deleted my irrelevant posts. Thanks, folks, for pointing it out. In response to the original question, "Has there been any formal clarification of this from the FAA?" the answer is "Yes".....
Last edited by Mike M; 01-07-2016 at 09:50 AM.
01-07-2016, 11:31 AM #20
No need to apologize to me .... I was just having some fun. I've never felt constrained by a forum thread topic.