PUT or P1/S???

[Pudnucker]

Guys,

Little confused here.... Had a ppl for 18 months now. Regularly go up with instructors to ensure not developing bad habits.

Recently one of the instructors told me that once you had passed the GFT, any time with an instructor should be logged as P1/S since you are a qualified Pilot.

Went up with a mate of mine who is an airline pilot and instructor and wanted to log the time with him as instructional. He insists that it should be logged as PUT or dual...

Airfield doesn't know... who's right???? :ugh:

[S-Works]

Oh god not again......

The ONLY time you can log P1/S is following the successfull completion of a skill test with an examiner. Like my recent IR test with the CAA.....

No other time can you log P1/s.

I fflying with an Instructor and receiving Instruction then you are PUT. If you are doing a club checkout for instance on a type you are current on you can claim P1 but most Instructors (especially the hour builders) will take it as P1 for themselves and leave you to PUT.

[EGBKFLYER]

Not quite so simple I think...

I don't see why you couldn't log a check-flight etc as P1/s or PICUS, which is the same thing.

LASORS 2006, Section A, Appendix B 'Recording of Flight Time':

'He [a 'co-pilot'] may log as PIC U/S all the time he occupies a pilot’s seat and acts as pilot-in-command under the supervision of the pilot in command'...

i.e. there is a commander stipulated for the flight but others may act as PIC at various times for various reasons.

One such instance is if it is a multi-pilot aircraft and the Captain is not doing the flying but the FO is. In this case the Captain is always the PIC but the FO is acting as PIC for that sector. FO can log the time as PICUS and the Capt as PIC. Nothing to do with flight tests.:)

But we don't fly multi-pilot aircraft, so how does the above apply?

ANO article 129(1) defines a 'co-pilot' as:

'a pilot who in performing his duties as such is subject to the direction of another pilot carried in the aircraft'

Sounds like that would apply to a licenced pilot who is with an instructor I think. Instructor is the 'Captain' and the person on the check is the co-pilot acting as pilot in command. By the rule above, PICUS time would be what is logged.

In the case of a flight test, the Examiner is PIC but the candidate is doing the flying under the Examiner's direction and acting as PIC, though he is legally the co-pilot. Assuming the test is successful, time logged by the candidate is PICUS. If the test is unsuccessful, see the next paragraph below...

Of course, official differences training or other formal training for ratings/ licences etc do not come under the above and time would be PUT. Same would be if the check ride was appalling and the instructor had to intervene maintain safe flight. That would link to another statement in LASORS Sect A App B:

'PICUS (Pilot-in-command under supervision):Provided that the method of supervision is acceptable to the Authority, a Co-pilot may log as PIC flight time flown as PICUS, when all of the duties and functions of PIC on that flight were carried out, such that the intervention of the PIC in the interest of safety was not required.'

Lastly, 'dual' is not a category for a logbook. You are PIC, PUT, SPIC, PICUS, P2 etc etc but 'dual' has no meaning for the recording of flight time.

Probably as clear as mud, but I tried! ;)

[Mark 1]

I've also wondered about this case.

As an instructor you are supervising a pilot who is outside the 90 day requirements for the carriage of passengers. You cannot be a passenger, as the pilot isn't allowed to take them, so you must log it as crew time.
The normal interpretation is instructor logs P1, and pilot logs Pu/t.

This won't upset anyone, but, as no instruction or intervention has taken place, wouldn't it be more appropriate for the pilot to log the time as P1S?

I stick to the interpretation that Bose-x describes, but don't necessarily agree with it.

[EGBKFLYER]

If the pilot cannot carry pax, that is one matter. He can still fly alone and therefore can act as PIC. The instructor is always entitled to be the commander if giving instruction or supervising (according to LASORS).

So you can conduct a flight in which the instructor is PIC and the other person is PICUS. You do the requisite flying to be able to take pax and then the instructor gets out.

Logging the above flight as PUT makes no difference, as you say Mark1. It only means your PICUS total is less than it could be.

Bose-x quotes a common view, but I think my post above demonstrates that this is not necessarily how the rules actually work...

[bookworm]

But we don't fly multi-pilot aircraft, so how does the above apply?
ANO article 129(1) defines a 'co-pilot' as:
'a pilot who in performing his duties as such is subject to the direction of another pilot carried in the aircraft'
Sounds like that would apply to a licenced pilot who is with an instructor I think. Instructor is the 'Captain' and the person on the check is the co-pilot acting as pilot in command. By the rule above, PICUS time would be what is logged.

Unfortunately, there's a note:

2) A pilot claiming time spent as co-pilot performing
the duties and functions of pilot-in-command,
under the supervision of the pilot-in-command,
toward meeting the licence requirements as
given in Case B [PICUS], will be credited with that flight
time only if:

a) the flight was conducted in an aircraft having
a Certificate of Airworthiness that requires its
flight crews to include not less than two pilots;
..

[Pudnucker]

I'm now seriously confused... Looks like the CAA have done their best again... :bored:

[EGBKFLYER]

Interesting - I can't find that reference Bookworm - can you tell me where it is?

[Say again s l o w l y]

It is very simple really and already put here, but to summarise:

If you are a PPL holder flying with an FI, then you can only log P/UT NOT P1/S or PICUS.

Only a successful flight test is able to be counted as P1/S.
Bookworms post simply shows that you can only have a co-pilot on a multi-crew a/c. SEP's etc. are classified as single crew. So there is only one pilot needed. The only difference is when an FI is onboard and two people can log the flight, but only one can be captain ie P1.

However, as a caveat if I'm doing a checkout with someone and I don't have to touch the controls or utter any "advice", then I tell them to log it as P1 and I won't log it at all. An hour here or there makes no difference to my log book and as long as I get paid I'm happy.

[Pudnucker]

Thank's guys... Looks like I better get the Tippex out!! :{

[Mike Cross]

It's in JAR-FCL 1.080(c) (http://www.jaa.nl/publications/jars/563247.pdf). Wouldn't life be simple if everything referred to the one source?

[Say again s l o w l y]

Don't worry about that, It isn't a proper pilot's logbook until it weighs twice as much as it should due to the tippex used!

I keep meaning to take shares out in Tippex with the amount I use!

[EGBKFLYER]

:O The definition of 'co-pilot' given in the ANO article 129(1) is not as complete as that given in JAR FCL 1.001 - god knows why... therefore disregard most of my previous effort!

Given the latest info, what I still can't find is a reference saying:

Successful Flight tests are PICUS - why should that be on a single pilot aircraft by the logic above?

Under what circumstances PUT should be logged - everything else is detailed in JAR FCL 1.080

:ugh: why can't it just be straightforward:\

[IO540]

What matters is not what you log, but what you need logbook entries for in the future!!

Let's say you want to do the FAA CPL one day. Then, you will need a 100nm VFR cross-country flight with an instructor, and I believe another one at night. Not easy to do the latter in the UK, since night=IFR :)

That is the sort of thing one wants to meticulously log, and get the instructor's signature next to each such flight just to make sure nobody can argue with it.

I've just discovered that I have 8 hours last year, FAA rules, IFR across Europe, dual, which was logged PU/T when it should have been logged P1. But who cares?

[bookworm]

Interesting - I can't find that reference Bookworm - can you tell me where it is?

After the table in Sec A App B, page 43 in LASORS 2006.

[Julian]

If you are qualified and current its P1.

Dont let an instructors nick your hours just because he is sat beside you. Agree before hand if the flight is instructional purposes or not.

No where in LASORS does it state that a club or insurance requirements can dictate how hours are logged in line with any 28 day requirement, etc.

LASORS states that an instructor can only log PIC for "all flight time during which he acts as an instructor in an aeroplane or supervises SPIC flying". Well you arent a student and if he isnt instructing you because you have already agreed its a club requirement not a licence requirement.....

[bookworm]

Agree before hand if the flight is instructional purposes or not.

Moreover, agree who is the pilot in command. The operator of an aircraft is entitled to assign the commander, who has the final authority as to the safety of the flight. Most clubs would insist that that is their instructor, not the hirer.

[englishal]

That is the sort of thing one wants to meticulously log, and get the instructor's signature next to each such flight just to make sure nobody can argue with it.
Couldn't agree more, I have a ton of signatures in my logbook.

I log all dual flight in the UK (and G registered aeroplanes) as DUAL (PUT) and all dual flights in the USA (and N registered aeroplanes that I am rated for which is anything under 12501 lbs unless it is turbojet) as PIC as well as DUAL.

I ensure that I meet any requirements for JAA seperately from the FAA regs, I was going to start two logbooks ages ago, but it is beyond that now, so I ensure that whenever I have contact with the CAA or have to fill out CAA forms, that I only include their requirements (i.e. FAA PIC/Dual flights get filled in as PUT).......I only bother to log cross country if >50nm, and I don't bother to log "IFR" flights, only Actual or simulated.

[Say again s l o w l y]

If you require an FI, then you are P/UT. It doesn't matter if you are needing a check for club/syndicate rules or for licence purposes.

FI's don't "nick" hours, they are PIC and have the responsibility, so therefore should log the time. I only let PPL's log P1 time out of the goodness of my heart, not because the law says so and I have very specific criteria for allowing them to do so. Most don't reach it so very few are allowed to log P1 instead of me.

If you want to fly aircraft I'm responsible for, then you follow the rules I lay down in the flying order book. These supercede and are far harsher than the ANO, but if you sign it, then you are agreeing that you will abide by them.

If you don't sign it, then find another club......

[Julian]

If your club is stating that you must fly with an instructor then you are entering a whole different arena and you are not loggin hours as in App B of LASORS.

In our group you can request one of the other members to act as a safety pilot if you havent flown for a while. You are PIC. No FI required as you are not out of currency as regards your licence - its just common sense if you have not flown for a while. End of.

I only let PPL's log P1 time out of the goodness of my heart, not because the law says so and I have very specific criteria for allowing them to do so. Most don't reach it so very few are allowed to log P1 instead of me.

[Say again s l o w l y]

If a pilot is within the currency rules as laid down, then they can fly with another PPL as a safety pilot, but only they can log the time.

But, If any instructor is with them, then they are PIC and the PPL must log P/UT. There can only be one commander on a flight.

If I am on board and responsible for successful flight, then I log the time. If any training occurs, then I am instructing, therefore I am PIC.
A checkout is usually because someone hasn't flown very often and invariably turns into an instructional flight either on my or more often on the PPL's urging.

I never understand why people get in such a tizzy about what to log. It's not as if it makes much difference to the recreational flyer. Your total time goes up the same whether you log P1 or P/UT. So if someone has done well, then I have no problem in not logging the time, but if it's a bit ropey, then I will say so and try and help them fix the problem. It is my job after all.

A check flight isn't the same as a solo flight, mainly because the the person handling the controls, isn't in charge of the flight in total. The FI is directing the PPL.

That is a totally different thing to just having a safety pilot on board.

Currency is the most important thing for flight safety and club rules are usually as they are because of bitter experience. Most PPL's are very sensible and understand when they are rusty, but there a few muppets out there who seem to think that flying with an FI is bashing their ego.

Use your common sense and if you do have to fly with an FI, then get the most out of it, after all you are paying for it! Get them to show you something new or re-explain something. It's far better than just having us sitting there bored.

[S-Works]

Actually the norm for a check flight maybe that the pilot is question is not current and would certainly benefit from the wisdom of an instructor.

The cases I refer to where I would insist on being PIC is when I am made to do a checkout on a type I am totally current on for "insurance" purposes.

For example, I fly 400hrs per year own a 152 and 172XP, fly a Twin on a regular basis and have a JAA IR-SPA-ME (instrument rating) and turn up to a club and want to rent a 152 for an hour to go sight seeing and am told I must do a 1h checkout with an Instructor. Fair enough if they want to see me fly I have nothing to hide. But there is no way I will allow the Instructor to be pilot in command.

And to be fair I have not actually had any Instructor disagree with me on one of these flights yet! I dont' actually even need the hours, it is just a matter of principle!!!

[3 Point]

Bose-x

How's this for a principle? An aeroplane has to have a pilot in command, if there is more than one pilot on board the owner or operator has to specify who is to fill that role. If you are not suitable to fill the role, either because you are not qualified, not current, not known to the owner/operator or for any other reason the owner thinks fit he is quite entitled to nominate someone else!

You say you don't need the hours, fine but, if you want to fly someone else's aeroplane they make the rules; if you don't like it get your own aeroplane and do what you like!

If you came to my training organisation with your "principles" you'd be leaving again with nothing to write in your logbook!

Happy landings

3 Point

[S-Works]

3 Point - And I would be happy to leave your establishment with nothing in my logbook. You may be well advised to learn who the customer is......

It is little wonder that the PPL market is on the decline and flying schools can't generate new business. It is about time the industry had a shake up and the obvious arrogant attitude displayed towards the customer is taken stock off.

I own 2 aircraft, but this does not mean I am not prepared to give business to forward thinking customer facing schools.

I did not say I would not do a checkout, I said I did not expect to pay for a PUT lesson when I am current on type........ :ugh:

[3 Point]

Bose-x,

"I did not say I would not do a checkout, I said I did not expect to pay for a PUT lesson when I am current on type........ "

Well .. you actually said

"But there is no way I will allow the Instructor to be pilot in command"

No one is asking you to pay for a PUT leesson if you don't need it but, you have the right, and indeed the legal responsibility to nominate the pilot in command of one of your own aeroplanes when it flies; the owner/operator of an aeroplane you hire has the same legal responsibilities and probably also has constraints placed on him by his insurer. It is for him, not you to say who is pilot in command! If you are not the nominated pilot in command it is illegal for you to make a logbook entry showing that you are. I don't make the rules, I just operate within them!

This is an interestinng discussion because it demonstrates the paradox in our industry and the difficulty in reconciling the customer/supplier relationship with the expert flier/less expert flier relationship. I fully accept that there are some instructors who are not very expert and some hirers who are; this further complicates the picture! I am sure that you are an expert pilot bose-x and if you did come to me to rent an aeroplane I'm sure we could come to a sensible agreement but, just look for a moment at your earlier remarks and how they come accross. What sort of reaction do you usually get when you make remarks like the one I quoted above?

Happy landings (wherever you go flying!)

3 Point

[FlyingForFun]

Sorry, Bose-X, but 3-point is absolutely right.

I accept that you do more hours than the average PPL. I don't know what kind of hours you do, and it's not really very relevant. You may or may not practice PFLs regularly, for example.

But let's assume that the engine fails during your checkout. For whatever reason (maybe you don't do PFLs often enough, maybe the instructor prefers a different technique to you and doesn't understand what you are doing) the instructor wants to take control. If you are PIC, would you let him? If he messes up the forced landing, it will be you who will have to declare to your insurance company that you've had an accident. If you decide not to let him take control (as you have every right to do, since you are PIC) and subsequently the aircraft is damaged, the club's insurance policy probably won't cover it since you had not met the club's requirements of being checked out. Will you pay?

Or, the alternative - the instructor is PIC. Now, whether the instructor decides to let you continue the forced landing, or whether he takes over himself, it is his record against which the accident and the outcome will be recorded, and there will be no query about insurance issues.

As a paying customer who doesn't need hours, I know which I'd prefer.....

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

[S-Works]

3 point, I sugeest if you are going to quote me you quote the whole text not just the part that highlights your point........

<<If you came to my training organisation with your "principles" you'd be leaving again>>>> Leaving with with what, a bottle of Champagne, a Kiss and a cuddle?????

Be carefull what you quote to suite your own ends.... :)

What I actually said was this:

"For example, I fly 400hrs per year own a 152 and 172XP, fly a Twin on a regular basis and have a JAA IR-SPA-ME (instrument rating) and turn up to a club and want to rent a 152 for an hour to go sight seeing and am told I must do a 1h checkout with an Instructor. Fair enough if they want to see me fly I have nothing to hide. But there is no way I will allow the Instructor to be pilot in command."

If I was going to a school and flying a new type or had not flown for a few months then I would expect some sort of refresher training and be gratefull for it.

But as I also said before it seems that either I have been very lucky or chosen the operations that I fly with carefully as none so far have insisted on enforcing the PUT situtuation. The most I have had to do is a couple of circuits. I guess a good Instructor should be able to recognise if the guy flying is current and safe or just a muppet. If I was behaving like a muppet then I would expect the Instructor to assume command and either train or ban me!!!

I also did not claim to be an expert at any point in my post, just rightly claim that I am current and deemed by IR & MEP renewals to be safe to operate aircraft in an "advanced" manner.

Enjoy!

[DFC]

bose-x,

My car had it's MOT last month. Does that guarantee it is roadworthy today? NO. Same for having passed a skill test.

If you are to do a checkout with me, I will be PIC, you will be student. I will have the authority to tell you what to do and I will have the authority to terminate the flight at the appropriate time and I will be responsible for the safety and conduct of the flight. You will do what you are told when you are told because I am pilot in command. That is because the law provides me with the authority to do whatever is required to ensure the safety of the aircraft.

Until I have signed the dual flight in your logbook as being to my satisfaction you are not entitled to be Pilot in command of the aircraft.

If that is not to your satisfaction, then you will not fly one of our aircraft.

I am long long past thinking of hours in my logbook. Those who say things like I have lots of experience, I do lots of hours, I fly lots of aircraft and have lots of ratings, I should be P1 and then go on to say "I am going to bag the P1 hours not the pimply hour grabbing instructor"........stink of double standards....who exactly is grabbing p1 hours they are not legally entitled to?

It is a legal requirement that a dual training flight complies with;

The Club Flying Order Book; and

The insurance requirements.

Both say that you are not entitled to be P1 until checked out.

Regards,

DFC

[3 Point]

Quoting the entire paragraph doesn't alter the fact that you claim the right to decide who is pilot in command; it is not your right to make this decision except for on your own aeroplanes! When you turn up to hire an aeroplane the owner/operator has a legal duty to nominate a pilot in command; some may chose you, some may not but, who ever is the nominated pilot in command logs the time as P1, that's the law!

A good instructor can often recognise a muppet even before they get near the aeroplane but if, as FFF suggests you have got airborne in the rented aeroplane and the instructor feels the need to take control he can not do so legally unless he is the pilot in command. If you are the pilot in command and he tries to take over without your apporoval he is comitting a serious criminal offence! Some operators and instructors may be happy putting themselves in that situation, I am not and I choose not to do it.

If I fly on a check out with a pilot I don't know, I am pilot in command or I stay on the ground.

See Ya!

[S-Works]

DFC,

Good job I write everything y ou say on my toilet roll and your attitude as ever is a good reason why you and I will NEVER fly together......:ok:

There is no reason on this planet that you will ever TELL me what to do...........

Enough said on this subject I think, otherwise it will degrade into a war of words.

[englishal]

And how can it be P1(whatever) when sucessfully completed a flight test and not p1(whatever) after sucessfully completing a club checkout? I am sure the examiner is going to take control when the engine fails, just as the instructor may do on a club checkout flight. Prehaps there should be a new class of logging, called "P1 As flight instructor".....

Personally I don't give a toss who logs what, I do my 1 hr with a JAA instru ctor every 2 years to keep the CAA happy and will log it as dual - what the hell. Actually, thats a point...this year I did it with an Examiner, who was acting as FI. Maybe I can log it as P1(whatever)....;)