Currency

[easyflyer]

Sorry to be a bore on this subject guys, but advice appreciated (search here and on the CAA does not yield the answer)...

My flying club has going a 6 monthly proficiency check rule for all its members, which is, according to them, a regulatory requirement. I cannot find any mention of this in the relevant blurb, everything referring to the 2 year CoE type system (which I get).

Can anyone clarify what this 6 monthly check is? Is it another regulatory burden - it sounds a little harsh to me. Any relevant links (beyond the CAA, Flyer, JAA)???

Thanks chaps!

[FlyingForFun]

Do you have to do this check even if you're current? Never heard of that before. More likely an insurance requirement. Or I could be cynical and suggest that it's a way of getting money out of you by forcing you to pay for some dual time.

Most clubs that I know of insist on you having a checkout with an instructor if you haven't flown (either at all, or on type, depending on the club) within a certain period (a month being quite typical I think). But I've never heard of anyone insisting on you having a check when you're already current, other than the two-yearly renewal/revalidation which you already know about, obviously.

FFF
-----------

[Genghis the Engineer]

Not a regulatory requirements, those are 3 t/o+ldg in 90 days to carry pax, and the biannual flight with an instructor. That said, if included in the Flying Order Book, and the school has an AOC, it de-facto becomes regulation.

However, most if not all clubs have more stringent requirements, which are usually negotiated with their insurance company to keep premiums down. This sounds like another such and isn't unreasonable given it's their, not your, aeroplane you are flying. Presumably it's also been incorporated in the FOB.

Most clubs it's along the lines of having to fly with an instructor if not flown within 28 / 60 / 90 days. Just a variation upon a theme really.

G

[robin]

The 6 month check must be a club-specific rule - there are no mandatory requirements - except the 90-day rule for passenger flying or maintaining the 12 hours on the second year (although weven this is not critical if supported bu a skills test)

Some clubs (and groups) have a rule of flying once each calendar month, and that is what you have to accept if you fly with these groups/clubs

Others are less proscriptive - a 90 day currency for example - but this is a function of the insurance guidelines or the experience of the pilots

[Keef]

I've never yet rented from a club that doesn't have some kind of "check" routine if you haven't flown with them in the past X days.

The checks I've had to do have varied from a quick circuit to what was almost a full GFT. They always explained it as an insurance requirement.

I've only got ratty once, when the instructor was going totally overboard on what he wanted me to do. So I pointed out that I was P1, not Put and that he wouldn't be logging it. That flushed out the reason!

[S-Works]

I had the same situation once at a club in the SW. I own an aircraft of the same type that I wanted to rent, with more than 3 00 hours on type and having flown it the day before. Mine had to go for an annual and we were going to our house down there and I thought it would be nice to fly. Turned up and was told I would need a checkout to fly a club aircraft as expected, its there aircraft afterall.

1 hour later after what amounted to a full skills test I was getting a little annoyed and told them I was calling it a day. Got back to the club house and the Instructor proceeded to argue that I had to log the flight as PUT with them named as Captain. I refused on the grounds that I was in current check on an aircraft type that I owned and not under Instruction merely being "checked out". At that point the Instructor turned round and said that I would have to come back and "complete" the check before I could fly!!

I complained and it was sorted, but I wonder how many peope end up with PUT time logged in this manner? Or was I in the wrong and should have logged PUT?

[easyflyer]

Thanks for the answers guys.

Genghis, my English is probably not as good as yours, but when you say "...and the biannual flight with an instructor", doesn't biannual mean twice a year? (i.e. flight with an instructor every 6 months, which is what my club is saying).

I understood the system to be biennial, i.e. once every two years....

:-( Hurumph!

PS. For the avoidance of doubt, the club tells me that EVEN IF YOU ARE CURRENT, there is a REGULATORY requirement to have a proficiency check (which is above and beyond the standard over-30-days-do-a-few-circuits check - it involves upper air work and nav) every 6 months.

[S-Works]

easy,

Not sure where they are getting that regulatory bit from. I jsut called the CFI of my club and he laughed. He tells me that provided you have done your 90 day take off and landings and your 1 hour fo flight with an Instructor prior to renewal etc then thats it.

There is NO regulatory requirement for any air work or nav every six months. I think they are pulling your chain!

Current means exactly that!!!

[FlyingForFun]

Bose-x,

Re logging P1 or PUT: you have two choices. Either you log P1 and the instructor logs nothing at all. Or the instructor logs P1 and you log PUT. Either is valid.

However, this must be decided and agreed before flight. It could have a serious impact if, say, there is an emergency and it is not clear who's in charge. Even if there is no emergency, it affects who has authority if there is any disagreement between the two of you.

Personally, I'm always happy to log PUT in these cases. I can't think of a single flight I've had with an instructor (or with another pilot doing a large share of the flying, whichever of us is P1, for that matter) where I didn't learn something, even if all I learnt was how not to do something.

FFF
----------------

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I've never yet rented from a club that doesn't have some kind of "check" routine if you haven't flown with them in the past X days. My club only require that you have flown. They aren't bothered about where, and don't seem very bothered about what.

Most recently I claimed currency because I'd done some floatplane training within the required period, even though I hadn't done a landing on wheels, and they accepted this.

[S-Works]

FFF,

I agree with your comment about learning something on every flight, that is the fun of flying!

But I did not sign up for a lesson or a type conversion, I expected them to ensure that I could operate there aircraft safely and professionally.

I don't believe I benefited in anyway from the flight and in fact resented paying for someone else to build hours at my expense!

This was not an aircraft I was new to by any means and while I am always keen to learn (demonstrated by the mountain of ATPL books on my desk) this Instructor gave me no input on any of the skills.

[shortstripper]

Sounds like some profiteering going on to me.
Club rules, for the pacification of insurance companies are just that ... club rules! There is NO mandatory requirement other than those in the ANO, which are the ones stated by Gengis ( and you know what he meant by biannial so don't be predantic! lol :p )

We all need a check out now and then .... but some clubs really do take the p.ssssss!

IM

[DFC]

It can only be a club rule.

Thus, as a club member, you are entitled to know the reason behind the rule.

As for completing checkouts with pilots.....thanks guys.....next time I must remember to impress at the very start that I as the instructor am P1. They (regardless of experience) are Dual. Unless they are clear about that then we don't fly. I am not in the hour building game - too old and too many hours for that - I am however in the remaining within the legal and insurance limitations placed on our flying game.

If the pilot being checked could be P1 for legal and insurance purposes then there is no requirement for a checkout and I have better things to do.

Regards,

DFC

[S-Works]

Sorry DFC I disagree, if you are there to check the person is capable of flying the aircraft then they are the legal commander you are along as a spectator. A PPL who is current on type is legally entitled to check someone out on the same aircraft, an Instructor is not required.

Maybe for club Insurance purposes you are required to be in the plane but there is no call for you to be legal commander. Fair enough if the pilot is so bad you have to take over and become commander. But checkout is not a lesson.

[flyingwysiwyg]

Can you log P1S, and then both claim the time for your log book? or does the instructor lose out?

F - Wyg

[shortstripper]

P1/s can only be logged on a successful flight test, ie GFT. I'm pretty sure that is all it can be logged for

IM

[Evo]

Oooh, don't get P1/s started again... :)

But yes, for single-crew flight you should only log P1/s for a successful flight test with an examiner ... however, the nobody actually cares if you log P1/s for a checkflight unless you try and count the hours towards licence issue or renewal, at which point the CAA may recount them as Pu/t (IIRC somebody over on Wannabes had his CPL application returned due to him counting P1/s hours as P1)

[shortstripper]

P1 can only be logged by one pilot. In such circumstances most pilots would log P1/ut as the "instructor" usually puts some kind of training imput in. However, as bose says even a PPL can check another PPL out on an aircraft if both are current so there really is no need for an instructor. Indeed, I remember at one club a PPL did most of the check flights for potential hirers. That said, the PPL being checked out must be legally "current" otherwise it is indeed an "instructional" flight and must be done by an instructor.

The point really is what constitutes a check flight? That surely is at the decretion of the club CFI and his appointed check pilot. If the hirer is current, and obviously compitant, then anything more than a quick circuit is unjustified. If they are very rusty, or actually request it, then a more in depth check out/training flight is fine. This should be disgussed (along with who logs what) before the flight. If in the air things change (ie instructor has to take over) then all bets are off and you must agree umungst yourselves afterwards what, or who was the problem. There will always be clashes of character, dented egos and outright profiteering ... but as long as there are no dented aeroplanes or pilots then things can always be resolved later.

Currency checks are a bit hard when you fly small single seaters out of farm strips anyway ... It's odd to note that although most pilots might think this kind of flying is harder, I find the transition back to larger airfields more difficult! ... all that regulation stuff, circuits, radios, ect ect ( and landing fees :uhoh: )

IM

[flyingwysiwyg]

Evo, Shortstripper,

Cheers, that sorts that out.

F - Wyg