does cross channel check count as PIUS?

[nuclear weapon]

Just before applying for my license I want to make sure I have the correct P1 hours. I did a cross channel check to Le touquet with an instructor on a 172. I was already checked out on the aircraft and also had my ppl license. He only came along as it was the policy of my school if you are going for the first time. I want to know if this counts as Pilot in command under supervision as I flew the aircraft and planned it and I was not beign taught how to fly.
Also do the caa go through every single trip you log to add it up or they just go with the school stamps on your log book as I did 90% of my hour building and training at a uk school and have a couple of stamps verifying my hours.

[nuclear weapon]

just checked with the caa and they said it could be logged as P1 (sorry it wasp1 they told me)

[shaun ryder]

This flight should be logged as P1S, the instructor would have been the commander of the aircraft during the flight. Correct, but if the flight was handled solely by you i.e the instructor did not take over at any point, then its P1S, otherwise it would be PUT.

Read LASORS.

[potkettleblack]

Page 60 of LASORS sets it out all very nicely in an easy enough to follow table. Case H from their table looks like it is the bit you need for future reference since the CAA has come to your aid.

I can't see how it would ever be P/UT as someone said above as you were not "under instruction for the purpose of gaining a licence or rating or gaining lessons in a new aircraft type". Interestingly enough if the instructor had to take over during the check out for safety reasons then I would say he logs P1 and you get nought. Well that is my interpretation of the rules anyway.

[LFS]

potkettleblack not sure about your reference. The table about logging time gives to options for logging PIC U/S: Case J which is only for the successful completion of a flight test with a JAA or CAA examiner; Case B co-pilot performing the duties of PIC under the supervision of the PIC. Case B might look to apply except in the notes it says this is only applicable if the aircraft has a C of A requiring it to be operated two crew.

I don't actually understand how the CAA came to their conclusion as it appears to contradict other written information. However this really is an old chestnut and liable to be debated on here ad infinitum. Personally I think P1/s should be abolished as it just causes confusion for the small amount of it that a pilot gains. This case really should be either P1 or PU/T, and the deciding factor is whether or not the instructor is named as P1 and logs the time themselves (which is most likely what happened).

[LFS]

I agree LASORS is for refrence only, but it can get frustrating if the CAA start quoting different things to LASORS.

[potkettleblack]

The problem with logging it as "Case A" is that you will invariably get into a situation where both yourself and the instructor will want to log P1 which clearly is outside of the rules considering you are in a light aircraft that is not certified for multi crew operations/no AOC etc etc. Therefore H seems to be the only thing left until the CAA come along with a new letter. I is free!

As for P/UT I was always taught (and that table seems to bear it out) you log this when under recognised training. In a checkout where you are acting as the commander and demonstrating your skills mainly for insurance purposes I can't see how this would fit under P/UT.

I agree it would be nice for the CAA to add to their notes and assign a letter for these sorts of things as it is a regular debate. That way we can put it to bed once and for all.

[LFS]

Potkettleblack, Case H SPIC is something specifically reserved for integrated training (see notes at end of table). It is where on an integrated course instead of the 'hour building' element the student does supervised solo where there is an instructor on board but the instructor takes no action during the flight. It cannot be used for anything else.

[Julian]

PUT for a XChannel check is a con.

All they did on mine was brief me on the customs procedures and just sat next to me on my first crossing for insurance purposes.

Prehaps the fact the instructor has to 'intervene' to 'instruct' you on customs at L2K makes it PUT :}

[Mercenary Pilot]

PUT for a XChannel check is a con.

"Cross channel checks" are a con FULL STOP! If you feel under confident or are just generally unsure then by all means take an instructor, that’s what they are there for but for a school to FORCE a pilot to take an instructor with him to exercise the privileges of his licence?! :*

[FougaMagister]

X-Channel check w/ an instructor IS a con! Or are these clubs/FTOs afraid of their own shadow? All those who have crossed the Channel on a light aircraft will know that it's a non-event. Basically, file VFR, then head South-East until reporting mid-Channel, when ATC will advise to contact Paris Information with your details. That's it! Big deal... :rolleyes:

As long as you have a life jacket on board and can swim, you should be OK :E

If the school requires an instructor to be present when crossing the Channel, why not also when doing a X-country to North Wales or the Highlands (which have some pretty foreboding terrain), or the Isle of Man, or even the Isle of Wight? Nobody requested me in Florida to take an instructor along when overflying the Everglades (even though it wasn't recommended on a single-engine). Likewise in South Africa, no instructor necessary for navigation flights over the highveld and the bush, or the Kalahari... pretty inhospitable too!

Cheers :cool:

[Tuned In]

So how does the pilot navigate cross-channel? I would say that it is not unreasonable for a trip where the aircraft might be out of sight of recognisable navigation features for a school to ask for a checkout, considering the navigation test in the PPL skills test only allows for use of ground features. Where is it written that trips to the IOM don't need a check? Of course trips to the IOW don't go out of glide range, let alone out of sight of land.

If it is done by an instuctor, and the instructor logs it as P1, instructional time then the other pilot must log it as dual instruction, as my log book would have it, I assume that is P/UT to others. You cannot log P1S in a single-crew a/c unless it is a flight test!

[Julian]

Tuned In,

Passing the PPL does not limit you to navigating via ground features, however if you are crossing VFR then you can see France anyway so you will be using ground features. If you pick a suitable xing altitude then even the humble 172 can glide for approx. 10 miles from 7k and 20 miles from 12k.

Its not PUT. Or to invert your question - show me where it is written down that xchannel trips require an instructor logging P1 except in the flying schools book.

If it was a group aircraft then you would be P1, even if you took someone with you who had done the trip before and can explain those oh-so-tricky French customs.....

[Edited for splleing :) ]

[LFS]

In this circumstance if it is a school aircraft that you are renting then it is really up to them. It should be detailed in either their Flying Order Book or Ops Manual. If one of these states that the school require you to complete a x-channel dual checkout before you can complete it solo then you have to and the flight is PU/T. Whether you agree with their thinking is irrelevant if its their aircraft you are renting its up to them to set the requirements for using it.

[FougaMagister]

As has been mentioned, in VMC, one can see the French coast long before reaching mid-Channel, so dead-reckoning isn't too difficult - not to say that VOR/DME/ADF/GPS/VDF shouldn't be used. Belt and braces - never let an instrument unused.

The schools in question might require an instructor, but they either want to make a fast buck :* , or they need to remember that Louis Bleriot first crossed the Channel (with no navaids or ATC to help him) over a hundred years ago...

Cheers :cool:

[High Wing Drifter]

JAR-FCL 1 seems to be pretty clear (after more than one reading!) that you cannot log a flight such as a cross-channel checkout as PICUS (P1S) because you are not multi-crew and not flying for a rating or type/class checkout, neither can you log PUT as there is no such examiner qualification for channel checkouts. That leaves only two possibilities: P1 or unloggable. Unloggable is untennable so it is probabaly appropriate to insist that you claim the P1 time.

[flybyday]

Although not strictly related to the original post I thought it relevant to post here (sorry for duplicating anything above).

I have a JAR PPL and recently underwent some difference training on a single engine with a variable pitch prop. I've just phoned the CAA to clarify the "Guide to logbook annotation" table on Page 42 section A of LASORS 2006 and they've made it clear to me that:

- "PIC U/S" or "P1 U/S" is for really for use with multi-pilot aircraft or for flight tests
- I should log my difference training as "P/UT". The instructor would log his time as "P1".

This is also the case for my colleague who recently underwent a check-out flight on a non-complex SE aircraft (Piper Warrior) that he'd flown before. He is also a JAR PPL but his currency on that aircraft had lapsed. His time can only be logged as "P U/T" and not "PIC U/S". Again the instructor will log "P1".

[Julian]

We have 2 different situations above:

Yourself - Undergoing comlpex training in an aircraft, agree you are PUT and instructor P1 as you did not (I presume) hold a complex signoff prior to your training with the instructor.

Your mate - He is also a JAR PPL but his currency on that aircraft had lapsed. His time can only be logged as "P U/T" and not "PIC U/S". Again the instructor will log "P1".

How has his currency lapsed? If you mean that in the flying clubs eyes it has lapsed (i.e. not flown for 28days, etc) then that is their requirement to allow him fly their aircraft - however that is all, his PPL SEP has not lapsed. This is where club/group differ, if he had been in a group and gone up with a group member, as a safety pilot, he would log P1. Likewise if he had taken the local instructor up in his group aircraft to act as safety, with no instruction recieved, then again he would be P1, not the instructor.

[flybyday]

Julian - you're correct. My friend's PPL SE rating hasn't lapsed. He no longer meets the flying currency/recency rules imposed by the club. He wasn't too happy when I told him so I suspect he'll be busy with the tippex tonight.

[FlyingForFun]

Oh dear. Here we go again.

LASORS (although not a definitive document) lists a number of scenarios, and how to log time in each of those scenarios.

However, it does not list the case where a qualified pilot flies with an instructor, when not receiving any additional instruction.

That doesn't mean in can't be logged. It just means that LASORS doesn't tell you how to log it. So it's up to you to use your common sense.

Common sense suggests that PICUS sounds like the most logical way of logging the time, but PUT also sounds like it might be correct. However, there is sufficient debate on the subject that, for such a small number of hours, it seems sensible to be conservative. PICUS mightbe acceptable, but there is nothing in writing to say that it is, so why risk being accused of over-logging? So, unless Nuclear Weapon has it in writing from the CAA that PICUS is ok, I would recommend he logs it as PUT - since no one can argue that he is trying to over-claim hours if he logs it this way.

As for whether a x-channel checkout is required, I know that when, as a low-houred pilot, I did my x-channel checkout with my club (as the club required), I gained a huge amount of benefit from it. If you don't like the rules, find another club to fly with - after all, it's their aircraft, so it's their rules you follow when you fly their aircraft. End of story.

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

[Julian]

However, it does not list the case where a qualified pilot flies with an instructor, when not receiving any additional instruction.

That doesn't mean in can't be logged. It just means that LASORS doesn't tell you how to log it. So it's up to you to use your common sense.

Common sense suggests that PICUS sounds like the most logical way of logging the time, but PUT also sounds like it might be correct.

If he is a qualifed pilot not receiving any instruction then common sense would say P1, not PUS, not PUT. There is NO instruction taking place.

[Mercenary Pilot]

If he is a qualifed pilot not receiving any instruction then common sense would say P1, not PUS, not PUT. There is NO instruction taking place.

But I can almost guarantee the instructor logged it as P1 so the other pilot can't.

However, I would say it is instruction because the instructor is technically doing a refresher course and is being paid for his time. What the school is saying is the student has already got the licence but doesn’t know how to exercise the privileges properly so needs extra training before they will allow him/her to cross the channel in their aircraft.

:ugh: Only in the UK!

[Julian]

But I can almost guarantee the instructor logged it as P1 so the other pilot can't.


I suspect you are right on this one MP.

If no instruction is taking place and they are there as a requirement for the 1st XC of a qualified pilot hiring from a club then the FI is in effect filling the capacity of a safety pilot and therefore SNY.

As you said, only in the UK! :)

[LFS]

As I said if the school specifically require you to do this then it should be detailed in their flying order book/operations manual. In which case the only sensible thing for them to do is to make it a requirement that a pilot completes a dual channel crossing therefore making it PU/T. Unfortunately unless the CAA issue some new specific guidleines this argument is going to go on ad infinitum (check the search there are countless threads like this). As far as i can see it is simply a case of who was P1, if the instructor was then you log it dual, if the instructor wasn't you log it P1 and they cannot log it.

[Mercenary Pilot]

If it is a "club" and not a school, they should act like a "club".

A decent club would arrange a fly out to someplace like Le Touquet and place experienced members with new members who have never crossed the channel. One member fly’s there, one fly’s back. The new member gets the experience while the other pilot gets to share costs. This promotes both a cost reduction, a chance to meet and fly with new people, utilisation of aircraft and most importantly FUN!!! (It would also do away with this daft "Can I log the hours for a none existent flight check" thread). Isn’t that the whole point of a club?

I have seen it done like this but sadly it seems not to be the norm in the UK....and people wonder why GA is dying over here.


:( :rolleyes:

[GusHoneybun]

If no instruction is taking place

I would like to meet an instructor who can keep their gob shut in an aircraft long enough to not give any instruction :uhoh:. You could argue that as you have paid to cart an instructor along with you, then you are receiving instruction, irrespective of whether they do.

It simply comes down to who signs for the aircraft. If you sign it out, then you are P1 and the instructor is SNY. If the instructor signs is out, you are PUT and the instructor logs it as P1. There is no such thing as P1S outside of a multi crew or skills test.

[FlyingForFun]

If he is a qualifed pilot not receiving any instruction then common sense would say P1, not PUS, not PUT. There is NO instruction taking place.
And if the club's/school's Flying Order Book, or insurance company, states that the pilot can not be Captain because he has not had the required checkout???

Personally, I make sure that any time I am hired through my employer to fly with someone, I log P1, whatever the circumstances. If I am at work, then I am acting as an instructor. If you don't want an instructor as Captain, then you don't have to fly with me - but don't be offended if my employer doesn't let you hire our aircraft. This is quite aside from the legal aspect, which I have repeated on these forums many times - it is important to me that I am Captain, because if I am not Captain I have no legal right to take over the controls from you if you screw up.

On the other hand, if a friend phones me and asks if I want to go flying on my day off, then he is probably going to be logging P1, and I am a passenger.

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

[Tuned In]

Julian

Did you read my post?

I didn't say the PPL limited the navigation. The point I was making is that DR backed by visual navigation is the only type examined on the PPL skills test. My x-channel check develops that, using DR backed by radio nav one way, radio tracking the other.

I was not saying that gliding range is the reason.

I also never said that it was written down anywhere that a x-channel check is required by any CAA rule. In fact if it was you would be able to log it P1S!

You cannot just invert the question, it makes no sense to answer my point! The point I was making was that clubs I have worked at would require a cross-water check before a flight well away from land, and the Isle of Man would probably count as Ireland certainly would (Fouga was suggesting that Isle of Man trips might not need a check). A previous cross channel check would be sufficient. It is only known as a "cross-channel check" because this is by far the most common situation, not because it is the only situation.

However it is written down somewhere. It is in many clubs' flying orders, which you must read and should comply with, or you risk a hefty bill from the insurance company if anything goes wrong. You are hiring something that belongs to someone else. If you don't like the conditions of hire then buy your own!

I also said that if it is flown with an instructor (the club might accept an experienced member or club official/director instead) and the instructor logs it then you can't log it P1! I agree that there is nothing to say that the instructor must log it, but that will depend on the agreement between the pilot wanting to fly and the club or the instructor. The fact remains that any time cannot be logged as P1 by both pilots.

These discussions would be an awful lot shorter if you read the post you wanted to reply to!

I hope you make sure there is instruction taking place any time you fly with an instructor. Or do you know everything there is to know about flying light aircraft already, and are you current with practicing all of it? I'm with Gus on this one.

FFF

LASORs might not say it, but it says elsewhere that P1S (PICUS as you put it) can only be used for flying in multicrew aircraft or on a CAA skills test. There might be an exception if the aircraft is used on an AOC in a situation where the Ops Manual requires multi-crew (such as operating without autopilot under IFR) but I'm not sure and that isn't the case here. You cannot have two people log P1 on a single-crew aircraft for the same hours except a flight test.

I agree with your logic, but the CAA does not.

[FlyingForFun]

Tuned In,
LASORs might not say it, but it says elsewhere that P1S (PICUS as you put it) can only be used for flying in multicrew aircraft or on a CAA skills testDo you know where this is written?

It won't make any difference to me, since I've always logged time when I've flown with instructors as PUT. I've also always recommended to other people when they fly with me in my instructional capacity (or any other instructor) that they log PUT, but if I knew where it was written, I could back up my argument far better. As it is, though, I haven't been able to find it written down anywhere official.

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

[Tuned In]

Can't give you the reference at the moment, I'm afraid - my reminder is in the instructions printed in the front of my logbook. Don't have easy access to the official references. I did think it was in LASORs, but I haven't even used that for a while.

[Julian]

Tuned,

I didn't say the PPL limited the navigation. The point I was making is that DR backed by visual navigation is the only type examined on the PPL skills test.

Interesting. I was examined on VOR tracking as part of my PPL skills test. Radio nav was covered as part of the course syllabus. We have also already said the you can see France anway and not out of sight of ground features. Previous XC checks do not seem to count, in my experience at least, in that another club I have used wanted you to do with their instructor never mind having already done one recently with another school.

I think you also missed my point re 'inverting' your question. It is not a requirement to go XC channel to have a checkout - apart from a schools flying order book - a point which we have already acknowledged and stated that it would be different in as group scenario where only a group member would be required. As you say, not stipulated by the CAA. So you as you say yourself:

These discussions would be an awful lot shorter if you read the post you wanted to reply to!:}

If you don't like the conditions of hire then buy your own!

Thanks for your advice but have already done this. Not for this reason but got fed up for paying high sums of money for quite frankly delapidated aircraft with half the bits missing out of the panel.

I hope you make sure there is instruction taking place any time you fly with an instructor. Or do you know everything there is to know about flying light aircraft already, and are you current with practicing all of it? I'm with Gus on this one.


No I dont and there is no reason to do so just because an instructor is sat next to you. No i dont know everything and in fact put myself through a full IPC every year even when, legally, I dont need one. You should always know your personal limitations. I wont execute a priveledge of my licence if I dont feel confident never mind current and at that point I will use either an instructor or a safety pilot dependant on the situation.

[High Wing Drifter]

Do you know where this is written?
JAR-FCL 1.001 and 1.080(c) - as I mentioned earlier in this thread!

[nuclear weapon]

Just got my licence from the caa it apperas they accepted my cross channel check as P1 as they've just sent me my shinning blue licence. Sorry for all the argument this caused. Good luck to those of you currently training.

[Dude~]

FougaMagister wrote:

As has been mentioned, in VMC, one can see the French coast long before reaching mid-Channel, so dead-reckoning isn't too difficult -

Since the VMC minima for a PPL is 3 km viz it is in fact poosible to be out of sight of 'land' for some 25km. I beleive a low hour PPL would find it tricky to fly cross chanel with no land features and possible no visible horizon, yet still be legal VMC.

Personally, as an instructor, if I am flying with a person who is paying me, I am P1, otherwise I may as well not be there.

[Tuned In]

Julian

Radio navigation is required in training but it is not necessarily examined skills test. It is possible to test in an aircraft with no functioning navigation aids!

How can you see France from the UK? You clearly haven't been to the Channel Islands from the Bembridge VFR - at 3000 feet to remain clear of the airway. Or to Deauville from Shoreham. Or to Cherbourg in the VFR recommended route through the danger area. Or been refused clearance through said route, so had to navigate around it. Or to Brest from Plymouth.

I think it is you that failed to make any relevant point trying to invert my question. No-one has said that it is written anywhere other than local flying orders that a x-channel check is required. That is not the point at issue. Nor does it mean it is not a sensible requirement, which is the point at issue. It also doesn't mean that a qualified pilot shouldn't learn something useful from the trip.

I personally would have signed you off x-channel if you had checked out with another club, with one or two exceptions. On the other hand one of the clubs I worked at wouldn't let me fly x-channel without a checkout, even though I was checking out members of another club. When I'd done about 5 they then allowed me.

nuclear

They don't check very carefully. Technically you have logged it incorrectly, but even if they noticed they would only tell you to correct the small error, you wouldn't get into trouble. However major "errors" have got pilots into trouble, so I would always recommend you fill out the logbook carefully and correctly in future.

[Julian]

How can you see France from the UK? You clearly haven't been to the Channel Islands from the Bembridge VFR - at 3000 feet to remain clear of the airway. Or to Deauville from Shoreham. Or to Cherbourg in the VFR recommended route through the danger area. Or been refused clearance through said route, so had to navigate around it. Or to Brest from Plymouth.


Thanks for your concern but I have done several xings. Dont forget Sleaford - L2K? :)

No-one has said that it is written anywhere other than local flying orders that a x-channel check is required.

Exactly! Not limited by licence, its a flying club remit which we are going round in circles saying!!!!

[BillieBob]

I'd be very surprised if you could see Le Touquet from Sleaford!! Grantham, maybe, on a clear day.

[Julian]

I need to be able to spell :}

Thanks for correction BB, I meant Seaford!

[Tuned In]

But you have done nothing to try and say it is not justified! No-one ever said it was more than a club (or duty-of-care, or insurance) requirement. The argument was whether it was a justified requirement.

[Julian]

The argument was wether it would be P1, PU/s, P-Whatever!

Whats next - north of Watford Gap checkout???

[S-Works]

At the end of the day if a club wants you to have a checkout for crossing the briney then it is up to them. However we moan and winge about it the final say on who rents a clubs aircraft is the club and if they have rules you have to follow them or find a new club.

I do however think the enforced club checkout is the biggest con on earth, totally reprehensible and should be banned. If a pilot lacks confidence to do what has to be the simplest thing around then they should ask for support not have it foisted on them.

As for the Instructor logging it as P1, that is also disgusting and people like FFF can come up with as many excuses as the want on why they should be P1 but it still stinks.

I went to LFAT on my own a week after getting my licence. It's not rocket science.

[stiknruda]

I'm very much with Bose on this one!

My first trip after getting my licence was through the low level corridor into Grand Central from Swaziland. Had not done it before, asked for advice, planned the route, asked an experienced mate to check it was okay. Climbed into the aeroplane and 3 hours later had a cold Castle in Jo'burg.

If you lack the confidence then your training is amiss. Knowledge dispels fear.


Stik

[High Wing Drifter]

If you lack the confidence then your training is amiss. Knowledge dispels fear.
Not sure I agree. My training was comprehensive, but I was nervous as f**** during my first solo flights after my PPL, especially to busy commercial airports. I just happen to be able to get on with, other people quite understandably and reasonably might shy away choose less 'challenging' flights in their early hours. At the other extreme are those who are virtually Baderesque in their approach!

Knowledge is theory, doing it is experience. Experience dispells inappropriate fear (and reinforces justified fear!).

[stiknruda]

HWD - I never said I wasn't sh!tting myself! They said, you can do it, we believe that you can do it, if we didn't we'd not be LENDING you our aeroplane. Now get and go before we change our minds!

Oh I was nervous and both Swazi radar and RSA radar (Lowveld) asked me for estimates to positions that weren't on my chart and I probably made a Horlicks of the RT, but at the end of the day I got myself and the 172 to a different country and swapped my sister for a puppy, all without GPS. An exchange I'll never regret!

It all boils down to good decision making skills, being instilled early in training, I guess.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Just before applying for my license I want to make sure I have the correct P1 hours. I did a cross channel check to Le touquet with an instructor on a 172. I was already checked out on the aircraft and also had my ppl license.

Nuclear,

Did you have your licence in your sticky mits or did you mean that you had past the flight tests and had the stuff ready to apply for the licence?

Unless you have your licence issued you can not log P1.

If you have your licence and you take an instructor then either the instructor or you can log P1, depending on the inclination of the instructor.

Since it was a club checkout I reckon that your instructor would have logged that as P1, most would.

That leaves PUT for you.

I doubt that the CAA would have advised that you could log this as P1S, as that is only applicable to successful flight tests, that is unless you spoke to the tea lady.

:}

[Fuji Abound]

I think the arguments are far too polarized in favour and against cross channel checks.

In good conditions the vast majority of new PPLs will cope well. In poor conditions many will struggle. In spite of the training flying on instruments for 30 minutes or more can be disconcerting. Moreover, it is not just the cross channel aspect but how many pilots are actually shown how to file a flight plan or what to expect when dealing with French air traffic. This means that the more confident new PPL will cope albeit find the experience a new challenge. The less confident will find the experience disconcerting, and would have been happy to have had along an instructor or more experienced pilot the first time. Of course this is where a good club and good instructors will know their students and will suggest with some x students they might benefit from being accompanied. In short there is no right or wrong answer.

A point that hasn’t been made is that when accompanied whatever the debate about how to log the flight what should have been clear before the flight even started is the relationship between the crew. Who is in command? Is the pilot under training? At the very least the instructor should make this absolutely clear.

An earlier post passed comment that it is not rocket science and all will be well so long as you have life jackets. I have to disagree. Do not kid yourself life jackets are of very little value. For most of the year in the very unlikely event you come down on the sea in the channel with only a life jacket there is a very good chance you will die of hypothermia before you are rescued. The risk assessment is yours of the likelihood of an engine failure but if you don’t like the answer life jackets are not the solution - invest in a life raft!

[stiknruda]

Fuji,

Thread creep warning!

You make many valid points, perhaps sending someone off with a more experienced PPL might sort out the x-channel thing.

The liferaft is of course excellent advice but many of us do that risk assessment and skoosh over sometime at low level to remain VMC as our aircraft have no capacity for the dinghy!

The Irish Sea , I always find more daunting than the Channel.





Stik

[S-Works]

:} Er FD, read his post....... He has a little folder the same colour as the one I got recently and I did a lot of P1 logging before I got it.

:ok:

Nuclear,
Did you have your licence in your sticky mits or did you mean that you had past the flight tests and had the stuff ready to apply for the licence?
Unless you have your licence issued you can not log P1.
If you have your licence and you take an instructor then either the instructor or you can log P1, depending on the inclination of the instructor.
Since it was a club checkout I reckon that your instructor would have logged that as P1, most would.
That leaves PUT for you.
I doubt that the CAA would have advised that you could log this as P1S, as that is only applicable to successful flight tests, that is unless you spoke to the tea lady.
:}

[Flyin'Dutch']

Just before applying formy license I want to make sure I have the correct P1 hours. I did a cross channel check to Le touquet with an instructor on a 172. I was already checked out on the aircraft and also had my ppl license.

Sorry bose, darling, but he either had a licence or he was applying for one.

Unless you intimate that this chap already had a PPL and was checking P1 before applying for his CPL issue.

I take it that he was talking about PPL all the way through as I doubt that anyone applying for a CPL will need hand holding on a X-channel checkout.

Or do you think that newly minted CPLs require that sort of assistance?

Only asking.......

[S-Works]

Just before applying for my license I want to make sure I have the correct P1 hours. I did a cross channel check to Le touquet with an instructor on a 172. I was already checked out on the aircraft and also had my ppl license. He only came along as it was the policy of my school if you are going for the first time. I want to know if this counts as Pilot in command under supervision as I flew the aircraft and planned it and I was not beign taught how to fly.
Also do the caa go through every single trip you log to add it up or they just go with the school stamps on your log book as I did 90% of my hour building and training at a uk school and have a couple of stamps verifying my hours.


Want to play that game eh Frank? Read before you open your gob.......

[S-Works]

Just got my licence from the caa it apperas they accepted my cross channel check as P1 as they've just sent me my shinning blue licence. Sorry for all the argument this caused. Good luck to those of you currently training.


Oh and Frank how about this one.....

[Flyin'Dutch']

Read before you open your gob.......

How crude.......

What is a bit of a surprise though is that a CPL needs a cross channel check out.

[S-Works]

You know me uncouth.........:p But it's fine darling, appology accepted....... :P

Agreed why does a CPL candidate need a cross channel checkout, just goes back to my point about it being criminal!

If a pilot is nervous about making the crossing then it is first class airmanship to seek assistance in the planning and execution of the flight. To have it forced on you is criminal and to have it forced on you as a "training" flight is just immoral.

If the school are that concerned that the pilot will damage the aircraft or themself crossing the channel that an Instructor has to be there then I would suggest the pilot is not ready for solo.

As for the excuses about the Instructor being P1 so he can legally take over in a problem - what a load of complete and utter tosh. P1 is handed over in flight all the time. If the instructor is that concerned that he will have to do that then comment above applies.

[theresalwaysone]

As long as you have a life jacket on board and can swim, you should be OK :E

:cool:[/quote]

This is the sort of advice that makes this forum dangerous at times

[S-Works]

Not sure why you take exception to it. At the end of the day it is a fact!

I realise that most instructors are mega beings but I am pretty certain that even they cant keep a Cessna in the air after the donkey dies......

As far as the paperwork stuff is concered if you could fill in your PPL application form then you can fill in a gen dec and a flight plan....

[Stoney X]

I don't see the problem here with deciding how to log the time. Regardless of the morality of a flying club/school insisting on these 'check out' flights, you can be guaranteed that unless it's agreed up front the instructor will log P1 for his time. We are not talking about multi-crew aircraft, or flight test, or some strange integrated course, so that leaves only two possibilities. You log the time as P/UT or you don't log it. Why do so many people seem offended by the idea of logging P/UT? :confused:

[IO540]

There is something very odd about a PPL holder, whose legal privileges are down to 3000m vis, but who cannot actually navigate under those conditions and is supposed to have an instructor present to go over the water. What is that instructor supposed to be showing him? How to track a VOR and, better still, how to switch on the GPS?

When I did that flight we used a GPS. Neither myself nor the instructor was interested in dead reckoning for about 70 miles in haze.

The instructor will likely be an ATPL hour builder and he will most definitely want to log the flight with himself as PIC, regardless of how the "student" logs it. Somebody will sure as hell be adding up the instructor's logbook entries to see if it adds up to 500 (or whatever) but the "student" will be long forgotten.

I could be wrong on this but I think that in the case of a G-reg plane and a JAA instructor the "non-instructing person" is always PU/T - the successful PPL skills test being the only exception (P1/S).

If the plane was N-reg, then the instructor could be an FAA CFI and the "student" would log it as PIC. The logbook entry would be the same as in the G-reg case.

[TractorBoy]

I intend to do my cross channel check at the end of this month (hopefully).
I'm going to combine it with a check out on a new aircraft type (either a Warrior or a Skyhawk) having only flown a C152 up till now. That way, it has to be PU/T but I get to kill two birds with one stone !!!

[nuclear weapon]

When I started this forum I didn't expect it to continue this long however I will just like to clarify. The caa said it is P1 if you were in control throughout. In my own case I was already checked out on the aircraft and the instructor simply showed me how to fill the custom forms. And yes you can see the coast of France on a clear summer day.
My advice to anyone who wants to do it shoyuld clarify with the school that you intend to log it as P1 and see what they say. In the mean time I am ging to look for a job.

[Final 3 Greens]

Nuclear weapon

What license ave you just applied for? Shiny blue - in my day PPL covers were dog efflux :} brown

If you had not received a PPL, then IMHO you would log the time as P/ut, with the FI as P1.

If you were PPL qualified, then a cross channel trip is neither a formal test nor a lesson from the CAA syllabus, so logic suggests that you would be P1, unless a specific training activity was briefed, agreed and executed.

Otherwise, I would suggest that any intructor input was from a highly qualified passenger, unless he took over the controls.

[theresalwaysone]

Interesting post on

http://www.madeinbirmingham.org/kiss/askcaptainjon.htm

crossing water

seems like Fouga Magister has been refered to as the airfield idiot!

[englishal]

Me and my mate had to do a cross channel checkout (one each way).......despite both of us holding JAA PPL/IMC, FAA SE and ME CPL IR.....club rules.....:)

The weather was a bit dodgey at L2K (overcast to about 700' if I remember rightly) so we shot the ILS in as we weren't going all that way for nothing..... It was only afterwards.....honest.....that we found out that the FI only had a "partial pass" in his JAA IR ;)

[englishal]

Ah but you will normally require a Catalina checkout......club rules ;) (unless you own your own aeroplane that is).....

[nuclear weapon]

I'll like to clarify again. I already had my ppl licence when I decided to do the checkout just before i started my hour building. We took a 172 a fellow ppl holder and one of the fto's instructor. I did the flying outbound and the other guy flew it back.
He never once touched the controls all he did was showed us directions when we got there and walked to town.I guess it wasn't his fault as he was following the club rules.He built up his hours rapidly and Lucky for him as he now flies citations for a corporate outfit.
The main reason I asked initially was that I was about to send my log book to the caa for my cpl licence issue with 102.5 hrs p1 and I put the cross channel check as p1 and wanted to confirm with them and you guys(ppruners) if it was ok. I did not want them coming back to me to tell me that I needed to do some more hours.I was told that as long as the check was satisfactory and I was in control throughout and also allowed to go by myself afterwards it was P1. Well now I have my frozen atpl and now a different sort of problem.

[DFC]

nuclear weapon,

Did you explain to the CAA that you had paid the "Passenger" to fly in the aircraft with you?

Either this was a training flight or it was public transport.

Illegal public transport is not a good start to a career as a commercial pilot.

Please let us know when you get your instructor rating and tell me then that you will do club checkouts for free!

----------

I love these guys on their way to a commercial job who claim that provided the pilot has the licence and the ratings then they are P1 and the instructor is simply a passenger.

Please explain that one to the training Captain during your line training. :D

--------

Instructors/ schools need to take note. For club checkouts, include exactly who is P1 in the briefing. If the student does not like the idea then they are not the type of person you want flying your aircraft.

---------

I will always check and sign the logbook entry of the pilot doing a check for any reason. They will be PUT unless it is a Skill test or LPC when it is P1/S provided they pass and PUT if not (even if they have a valid licence at the time!).

Should I sign a PUT entry in a logbook and then it is subsequently changed to P1 or even P1/S then that is clearly falsifying a logbook. Currently about £2000 per line according to the CAA legal dept.

-----------

Perhaps the unfortunate person at the CAA who told you that incorrect piece of information also checked with the instructor that they did not claim P1 also. After all one can not have two P1s at the same time in a SEP or the average light MEP.

Regards,

DFC

[High Wing Drifter]

DFC,
Illegal public transport is not a good start to a career as a commercial pilot.
Is it public transport flight if the pilot paying the passenger? The ANO says it is public transport if the cash is flowing in the other direction...unless I've missed something.
I will always check and sign the logbook entry of the pilot doing a check for any reason. They will be PUT unless it is a Skill test or LPC when it is P1/S provided they pass and PUT if not (even if they have a valid licence at the time!).
Surely PU/T is only relevant if you are actually being trained, as there is no recognised rating or qualification (neither a revalidation or type checkout) for flying to le-took then there can be no instruction recognised by the CAA and thus no PU/T. If that is the case, then the flight was either unloggable (P1 for the instructor) or P1 for Nuclear Weapon.
If the student does not like the idea then they are not the type of person you want flying your aircraft.
What's this got to do with a chap's character?

[TractorBoy]

I seem to recall there being a box on the Flight Plan that you have to submit that requires you to fill in the name of the Pilot In Command. Surely this is the person who is P1 and nobody else is entitled to log it ?

[englishal]

The way I understood it is: If flying a flight test with an examiner and you pass, P1/US is the norm. Anything else with an instructor is PUT. Ironic really, I did my JAR bienniel with an examiner, who was acting as FI (reval by experience, needed 1 hr with FI) and had to log PUS. However, had I opted for the "flight test" which I didn't need but could have done, and most of the elements would have been the same as the flight I did anyway, I could have logged P1/US.

I agree that P1/US should be the norm for a qualified PPL who is expanding their knowledge by renting an instructor - as long as they are legally entitled to fly on their own.

[DFC]

DFC,

Is it public transport flight if the pilot paying the passenger? The ANO says it is public transport if the cash is flowing in the other direction...unless I've missed something.

Surely PU/T is only relevant if you are actually being trained, as there is no recognised rating or qualification (neither a revalidation or type checkout) for flying to le-took then there can be no instruction recognised by the CAA and thus no PU/T. If that is the case, then the flight was either unloggable (P1 for the instructor) or P1 for Nuclear Weapon.

What's this got to do with a chap's character?

It is public Transport if payment is given or promissed for the carriage of a passenger or cargo. Who does the paying and to whom makes little difference.

Forget PUT. The flight is either logged as "Pilot in Command" or "Dual". The flight can be dual when any training is given. It does not have to be a recognised CAA sylabus or even training towards a CAA or other recognised qualification.

The fact is that the student contracted with the school to be trained in an aircraft by an instructor and paid for that training. To turn round later and say that there was no training provided would be not just a logging issue, but it would also mean that the student paid for a service that they did not receive and then there is the possible refund of money, false advertising and so on.

Not only that but if it is a club requirement (flying orders) and/or and insurnace requirement then by the student saying that they did not receive the required instruction they have not completed the check and thus can not make subsequent cross channel flights until checked in the laid down manner.

Owners or operators of aircraft are entitled to decide the requirements which are to be met by individuals wishing to fly such aircraft. If an owner decides that everyone will receive groundschool of two hours in how to do a head stand then that is what will be done. People who don't like the idea are entitled to go ensewhere.

What has it got to do with the Guy's character? - Basically, not much other than if a person who during a discussion with you mentions that they drive reguluarly after 4 or 5 pints, you are not going to let them have your car for a weekend's driving now are you?

Regards,

DFC

[S-Works]

How very typical DFC. Now we have someone who wants to log the P1 they are entitled to being bundled in the same boat as a habitual drink driver. I fail to see the connection of that one at all. But hey DFC is always right.......

[Fuji Abound]

I think this thread has departed on all sorts of tangents with plently of useful comment.

However for me I come back to the point I made earlier (and aslo made again by DFC) surely you must agree who is P1 at the start of the flight or what other relationships exists between the two in the front seat. Yep, it is only a little puddle jumper, but I think if nothing else this is fundamental to the flight. If that is done the relationship is immediately clear between the parties. So far as I am concerned (and whilst I might not agree) if the school wants to insist on a check ride that is entirely a matter for them - after all it is their aircraft, their insurance, their risk! If they tell you the relationship between the "crew" and you dont like it, go else where.

[slim_slag]

Thank heavens we don't have such outlandish ideas in the US where it is very clear as to who is PIC.So who is PIC on a Catalina checkout?

[dublinpilot]

Even when training for an Instrument Rating under the hood you are PIC with the Instructur sat in the right seat.

Are you saying that in the case above, that in the FAA's eyes

1) you are not a pilot under training

and

2) a) there is either two pilots in command of the aircraft or
b) the instructor is not pilot in command?

:confused:

dp

[DFC]

To a large extent this whole argument comes down to;

A cross-channel check takes place. Pick any of those above who demand that they are P1.

Some time later the CAA legal department make a claim that some illegal act occured during the flight - low flying, incorrect paperwork or whatever.

I can guarantee that if legal proceedings were a possibility, those who demand they are P1 would be only too quick to point the finger at the instructor in order to defend themselves.

----------

What this thred highlights more than anything is that instructors are not doing a good job when it comes to crosschannel checkouts. If they were then we would not have people making statements claiming that the instructor was merely a passenger. Of course there is the old you can't teach an old dog new tricks posibility but I get a lot of "I don't need a checkout because I know it already" feeling from many posters.

Regards,

DFC

[slim_slag]

Yes dublinpilot, the FAA allows two pilots to log PIC. One is 'legal' PIC (in the Catalena checkout example I gave this will be the instructor) who can log it because he is

The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. (FAR 91.3)

The student can log PIC because he

Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated or has privileges; (61.51 (e) (1) (i)

So he can log PIC because the FARs say he can. He can also log PIC if in the clouds when sole manipulator of the controls even if he doesn't have an instrument rating. He cannot be legal PIC, but he can log it.

Even if the instructor is not 'legal' PIC, he can log PIC because the FARs say he can. (FAR 61.51 (3)

What the UK is missing in the cross channel example is 61.51 (e) (1) (i) - sole manipulator of the controls.

Hope I've got all my brackets in the right places :)

[S-Works]

Or maybe of someone is deemed capable of holding a CPL they should be deemed capable of crossing 25miles of water..............





To a large extent this whole argument comes down to;
A cross-channel check takes place. Pick any of those above who demand that they are P1.
Some time later the CAA legal department make a claim that some illegal act occured during the flight - low flying, incorrect paperwork or whatever.
I can guarantee that if legal proceedings were a possibility, those who demand they are P1 would be only too quick to point the finger at the instructor in order to defend themselves.
----------
What this thred highlights more than anything is that instructors are not doing a good job when it comes to crosschannel checkouts. If they were then we would not have people making statements claiming that the instructor was merely a passenger. Of course there is the old you can't teach an old dog new tricks posibility but I get a lot of "I don't need a checkout because I know it already" feeling from many posters.
Regards,
DFC

[englishal]

Yes dublinpilot, the FAA allows two pilots to log PIC.
Just to clarify. What ca_flyer and Slim say are correct but the FI must log it as "PIC As Flight Instructor".

[BEagle]

It was all once sooo easy:

P1 for FI, P1/S for other pilot.

Then the daftness fo JAR-FCL confused the heck out of everyone - so nowadays it's PIC for FI, Pu/t for other pilot.

One solution is the "I'll take it there, you bring it back" agreement.

[slim_slag]

ca_flyer made a mistake on the flying in clouds' bit, which I'm only pointing that out so nobody gets misled.

Yes, if it's a 2 hour checkout the instructor will log PIC 2.0, Dual Given 2.0. The instructor is 'legal' PIC as he is in charge.

The 'student' will log all time he is sole manipulator, which in practice means PIC 2.0, Dual received 2.0.

If it was the student's plane and he wanted to be legal 91.3 PIC (as, I think, is his right) he would log the same, as would the instructor. The student would be in charge so 'legal' PIC, but the instructor gets to log PIC because 61.51 (3) says he can. If the instructor doesn't like that arrangement then he doesn't have to go.

Very sensible, and if you want to know the story just add up the columns and subtract the dual received from PIC and you can sort of work out how many hours were solo PIC (which would be pretty close to P1 in the UK).

[englishal]

which I'm only pointing that out so nobody gets misled
I think something must have changed in the FARs then. When I did my IR in 2001 (blimey, 5 years ago!), it was as ca_flyer said, i.e. when entering IMC the PIC stops. Same when carrying an IR'd safety pilot .....For the same reason you cannot log PIC time in a ME aeroplane without haveing a ME rating, you could not log PIC time in IMC as you were not rated to be there (depite being sole manip. and all that as you could also be in a ME aeroplane).

[slim_slag]

61.51 (e) (1) (i) doesn't mention the weather, just the airplane.

So, can you log PIC when receiving instruction when on your qualifying IFR (i.e your instructor has filed IFR) cross country when under the hood in VMC? By your argument you are not rated to be there either, as you need to have an IR to be on an IFR flight plan, so cannot log PIC.

[Hour Builder]

just checked with the caa and they said it could be logged as P1S
thats bull, pardon my french
This flight should be logged as P1S, the instructor would have been the commander of the aircraft during the flight. Correct, but if the flight was handled solely by you i.e the instructor did not take over at any point, then its P1S, otherwise it would be PUT.
Read LASORS.
"if the flight was handled solely by you i.e the instructor did not take over at any point", then its PIC not P1s. Instructor is therefore a passenger, and does not log aything.
P1s on SPA is only for successful skill tests.

[BEagle]

Hour Builder (how apt)

The CAA's reference was clearly to the rules as they pertained in more enlightened pre-JAR-FCL days. Nowadays the 'pilot' would have been Pu/t, the instructor would have been PIC throughout.

Period.

No argument - it's the fact.

Sorry if you don't like it.

[slim_slag]

ca_flyer,

There is a difference between acting as PIC (91.3) and logging PIC (61.51 (e) (1) (i) )

In both the Catalina checkout and the IMC lesson, the instructor is acting as PIC, and in the latter performing the role as required by 61.57 (c).

The student may log PIC purely because there is a FAR which lets him do so. He is not acting as PIC in either case. If the plane runs out of fuel, in both cases the instructor will be the one explaining himself to the Feds, not the student (even if fully rated on the plane, and manipulating the controls, and therefore logging PIC)

Cheers

[Hour Builder]

err beagle thats what i just said. read again

[BEagle]

In which case you need to learn to express yourself more clearly. You''l find that handy if you ever aspire to a job as a professional pilot.

No matter what anyone might think, on any flight where the instructor is required (whether by the Club, ANO or whatever), he/she will be the PIC and the other pilot will be Pu/t.

[Hour Builder]

you are a funny man, perhaps you should learn to read and understand in the first instance, may help if you want to aspire to be a professional pilot.

[S-Works]

You have to remember that Beagle has been around since the Wright Brothers, he is one of the founding fathers of aviation so everything he says is correct 100% of the time and us mere mortals question at our peril.

But don't worry there are no immortals, especially in aviation............. :ok:

[Hour Builder]

indeed the points he made were all correct, for some reason he didnt get the jist of what I was saying though, which happened to be correct too :p

[skydriller]

Ive been watching this thread grow with some mild amusement. The reason being that I believe this was the first subject I ever posted about on PPRuNe. And all the arguements are exactly the same now as in 1999/2000 when I first started posting on here....And they are the same every couple of years this particular chestnut appears.

However I believe the most bizarre thing is that someone at the CAA is STILL giving out dodgy (say incomplete?) information, ie.:The caa said it is P1 if you were in control throughout. Yes, correct up to a point, such that this is true if the instructor logs nothing, otherwise, you are PUT and he is P1 - and this should be established BEFORE the flight. At the time (2000?) I was actually told that I should log P1/s by one guy at the CAA for any checkout like this!! Then, after the PPRuNe discussion, I spoke to someone else who said word for word what is quoted above - talk about confusion!! It must be the same guy, as that whole bit about "you being in control at all times" just sounds SO familiar to me , even 5-6 years on!! There is a small section of my logbook from back then fairly covered with tip-ex!!

The question of payment was brought up by someone. Now surely this is an excellent way to differentiate if you are to log P1 or PUT? If you paid a dual rate for the aircraft the you are PUT, the instructor P1. If you paid a solo hire rate, then you are P1 and the instructor (whether he likes it or not) is merely a pax!

Regards, SD..

PS.. Mods - Is it possible to search back as far as 2000/1999? Then I could link back/quote the thread.

[IO540]

I think a part of the problem is that the instructor is usually an hour builder and he desperately wants the PIC time in his logbook.

If he could not it as PIC, he may as well be stuffing shelves at Tescos; he'd make more money.

Under G-reg regs, that alone prevents the other pilot legally logging it as PIC. He can log it as PIC (legally at that point) but the instructor then breaks the law himself when he enters it in his logbook as PIC. The student has not broken any law IMHO; it is the instructor who has. But in reality nobody is ever likely to find out.

The FAA addresses this intractable situation by making it legal.

[BRL]

PS.. Mods - Is it possible to search back as far as 2000/1999? Then I could link back/quote the thread.

Hi. If you can remember the title of the thread then do a search, that should be ok. As for your username, it only comes up with the last 500 posts. I will look into that for you, :)

[englishal]

Now surely this is an excellent way to differentiate if you are to log P1 or PUT? If you paid a dual rate for the aircraft the you are PUT, the instructor P1
What about if you are with an examiner ;) I think it is a crock of poo myself. I think that at least the Bienniel should be a P1US flight. The last JAA Bienniel was a 30 minute flight west, enjoying the scenery, and a 30 minute flight east, with a stall and steep turn thrown in. I paid solo rates for the aeroplane, and greased the Examiners' (with his FI hat on) palm with cash at the bar after the flight. It doesn't particularly bother me as I don't need the P1 time for anything, but it seems unfair, and someone might need the time.

One trouble with the CAA is that they can never give you a definitive answer first time. Ask someone from FCL in person, and he says one thing (As I recall....."The FAA IR with give you the same pivileges as the IMC rating in a G reg").......Then you ask again, in writing, and the story has changed.

[skydriller]

Ah - Ha!! Found it!!

I posted this in 2001, though not sure if there was an earlier thread where I mentioned the P1/s quote from the CAA or if my memory is playing up!!I am glad this came up as I had exactly the same situation as bcfc about a year ago, I was getting conflicting advice from different instructors at different clubs when I checked out on different or similar aeroplanes. I later called the CAA and was told the following:

1. Your Logbook is your own personal record.
2. P1/s is ONLY for a flight test with an Examiner, Eg for your PPL, IR, Twin Rating etc. You total these hours as SOLO.
3. If, when you have a PPL, you fly with an Instructor on a check-out, if he is TRAINING you on a new aeroplane type, ie he demonstrates something to you and touches the controls etc. Then you are PUT and the hours are DUAL.
4. If, when you have a PPL, you have flown this aeroplane type before and YOU are demonstrating to the instructor you can fly the aeroplane OK, ie he does NOT touch the controls during the flight, then you log the flight as P1 for yourself.

The guy I spoke to at the CAA said himself that this is a grey area and summed up by saying only one person can log the flight as P1, but alot of pilots are cheating themselves out of P1 hours.

I would be interested in what you all have to say about this advice, especially considering the conflicting posts above.

Regards SD

You can check out the whole thread here to see the reaction:http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=42789&highlight=Instructor

Regards, SD..

Note to BRL - thanks for the info! But I still cant find any posts by myself in search earlier than about 2003. I found this thread by searching someone elses name. Interestingly, if you check out my post on the link I gave above, it does not show my details to the left as usual, its like I didnt exist prior to 2003, even though I did for several years earlier!!:confused:

[theresalwaysone]

You have to remember that Beagle has been around since the Wright Brothers, he is one of the founding fathers of aviation so everything he says is correct 100% of the time and us mere mortals question at our peril.

But don't worry there are no immortals, especially in aviation............. :ok:

Being around for a long time dosnt make you right nor does it mean you are good at what you do. I work for an airline, and some of its best pilots are those in their early thirties.

This individuals arrogance is very plain to see and my experience of arrogant individuals is that they are dangerous in a professional enviroment.

Getting back to the post;

When you take advice that could be of future legal significance always get it in writing, phoning the CAA for advice is like asking 10 people on this forum for advice! When people put things in writing it generally has to go through an approved path and is more of a guartantee of accuracy.

In fact the chap that took adice from the CAA and listed it as below is incorrect

1. Your Logbook is your own personal record.
2. P1/s is ONLY for a flight test with an Examiner, Eg for your PPL, IR, Twin Rating etc. You total these hours as SOLO.WRONG

3. If, when you have a PPL, you fly with an Instructor on a check-out, if he is TRAINING you on a new aeroplane type, ie he demonstrates something to you and touches the controls etc. Then you are PUT and the hours are DUAL. WRONG
4. If, when you have a PPL, you have flown this aeroplane type before and YOU are demonstrating to the instructor you can fly the aeroplane OK, ie he does NOT touch the controls during the flight, then you log the flight as P1 for yourself.

For a start LASORS does not mention P1/s its PIC U/S, (Where did P!/s come from)

Before anyone else makes a post can I respectfully suggest they refer to LASORS first

[BEagle]

Withdraw your libellous statement.

Time to get a hard and fast ruling on this, I think.

The proposal I shall be making is that if, as a requirement of the flight (no matter by whom - ANO, Club or whoever), there is an authorised instuctor on board (i.e. FI or CRI/SPA such as a PFA coach), than that person will be PIC. The other pilot will be Pu/t.

The CAA's wishy-washy statements on this help no-one.

[Julian]

The proposal I shall be making is that if, as a requirement of the flight (no matter by whom - ANO, Club or whoever), there is an authorised instuctor on board (i.e. FI or CRI/SPA such as a PFA coach), than that person will be PIC. The other pilot will be Pu/t.


Because its tosh! If the instructor was giving instruction then yes I agree.

If the person taking the flight holds the relevant licence then they are P1, they are there as a safety pilot as a requirement of the clubs flying order book/insurance/will of god/etc then the FI is SNY as regards how logging.

As stated previously, nothing stops P1 swapping in mid flight.

There are occasions also when the FI would also not warrant P1 for the whole flight. I.E. If someone from a club up North is completely a XC check then why should the FI log P1 for the whole flight when most of it is across the UK?

J.

[BEagle]

The question which has to be asked is "Why is there an authorised instructor on board?"

If for any reason other than as a passenger, then the authorised instructor must be providing some element of training or supervision. In which case, he/she must be the aircraft commander.

The fact that the other pilot is legally entitled to fly the aeroplane solo is nihil ad rem. Why, then, did he/she not do so?

[skydriller]

In fact the chap that took adice from the CAA and listed it as below is incorrect

That chap would be me, and I think that if you read my post at the top of the page you will see that I do not believe the advice I was given in 2001from the CAA to be entirely correct, I posted it as an example of The CAA not being clear to everyone about this subject. I think most here will understand that P1 = PIC, and that /us = /s (argue about that without me!). Therefore 1 & 2 are correct, but 3 & 4 are, to say the least, ambiguous. This sums it up very well I think The CAA's wishy-washy statements on this help no-one.

Please follow the link and read the thread from 2001.

Regards, SD..

[theresalwaysone]

SKYDRILLER OK so when i am asked to sign log books for first officers when they fly a leg I must be doing something wrong although the CAA have agreed that some of their hours can be counted as P1 providing they log it PIC u/s and it is signed by the commander, again LASORS explains this.

In fact LASORS dosnt say that the only time PIC u/s can be logged is when a flight test is passed. Thats the whole point this check out can be logged PIC u/s .

My refernece to P1s etc is because ayone who quotes other than PIC u/s isnt looking at the regulations.

Someone also mentioned that the designated commander can be changed in flight, not so because the regulations state that the commander must be designated before flight for aspects like booking out, weight and balance fuel oil etc

[dublinpilot]

Someone also mentioned that the designated commander can be changed in flight, not so because the regulations state that the commander must be designated before flight for aspects like booking out, weight and balance fuel oil etc

Can you provide a reference for this?

[Flyin'Dutch']

Beagle wrote:
The proposal I shall be making is that if, as a requirement of the flight (no matter by whom - ANO, Club or whoever), there is an authorised instuctor on board (i.e. FI or CRI/SPA such as a PFA coach), than that person will be PIC. The other pilot will be Pu/t.

Beagle, no reason to make any changes and trying to tighten up.

For most of us it is crystal clear what the rules say and only those on the scrounge for additional P1 time seem to want to interpret the rules any different from what was intended.

If you create a change as you propose then it will mean that people can not take instructor mates with them other than if they will make those mates P1 AND it also creates the situation that whenever an instructor is flying in any aeroplane they are automatically responsible for the whole of the execution of that flight.

So no more coming along for the ride and looking at the world glide by.

[englishal]

SKYDRILLER OK so when i am asked to sign log books for first officers when they fly a leg I must be doing something wrong although the CAA have agreed that some of their hours can be counted as P1 providing they log it PIC u/s and it is signed by the commander, again LASORS explains this.

We're talking about single pilot aircraft here, not multi pilot a/c.....

[BEagle]

FD - I wrote:

"The question which has to be asked is "Why is there an authorised instructor on board?"

If for any reason other than as a passenger, then the authorised instructor must be providing some element of training or supervision. In which case, he/she must be the aircraft commander."

In your scenario, your 'instructor mate' acting as a passenger wouldn't be P-anything, nor could he/she be paid.

But if some pilot wanted both to fly as PIC and have some sort of comfort blanket of taking an instructor along to hold his/her hand, then no, the pilot would be acting under the supervision of the instructor and would not be entitled to log the flight as PIC.

[skydriller]

Why is everyone trying to make this so complicated?

I fly GA light singles, not comercial 747s.

If I ever need to fly with an instructor - for my licence renewal, to get checked out on a new aeroplane or because I feel I just need the guy there to brush up on skills when I cant fly for a while, then I log PUT. I am paying for him to be there.

The only time I have logged PIC when an instructor is in the aeroplane, is if he doesnt have responsability for the flight. Examples of this would be if the club has a fly out, and an instructor wants to come too, then he is just like any of the other pax Im flying with at the time, or if I give the instructor a lift to pick up an aeroplane from maintenance, he also just along for the ride. In both instances I am not paying for his services.

What is so hard about this, its not rocket science is it?

For most of us it is crystal clear what the rules say and only those on the scrounge for additional P1 time seem to want to interpret the rules any different from what was intended.

I couldnt agree more, To me, P1, PIC, PIC/s, PIC/us, P1s, P1/us, or PUT.....I fly for fun and the only reason I queried this back in 1999-2001 when I first got my licence was because different INSTRUCTORS were telling me to fill in MY logbook differently, and it annoys me to be told two conflicting things.....

Have fun arguing about this some more, I'm happy with MY logbook, and have been for the last 5 years.

Regards, SD..:ok:

[slim_slag]

Skydriller,

What if you owned the aircraft and needed a bienniel type of review because the regs say you do, and you wanted to do it in your own plane. Let's also assume you had more hours than the instructor.

You need the instructor because you need his signature, and you might also learn something (as might the instructor). Who would you want the PIC to be? Who would be in charge of your plane if you had an engine failure?

[dublinpilot]

SS,

I appreciate that you are probably refering to the FAA BFR, but I believe the JAA one requires a 1 hour training flight with an instructor. In that case I can't see any way to see that being anything other than pilot under training. Otherwise it wouldn't be a training flight.

In the circumstance described, I think I would be agreeing with the instructor before the flight that I would have the authority to end the training flight and take over as pilot in command at any point in the flight, and that he wouldn't object to that. I don't think too many would have a problem with that, but none the less, it would be best to have that sorted out before take off.

dp

[slim_slag]

In the circumstance described, I think I would be agreeing with the instructor before the flight that I would have the authority to end the training flight and take over as pilot in command at any point in the flightIn my eyes that authority you grant yourself would make you the boss all along.

[Final 3 Greens]

BEagle makes a suggestion and I would like to make a counter suggestion.

Flying instructors are P1 when


When delivering a structured lesson in a course of study directly concerned with the obtention of a license or rating
When delivering the 1 hour of training required under JAR
When delivering structured training requested by a pilot and where the syllabus is briefed on the ground and taught in the air


In all other cases, the FI is a passenger.

[slim_slag]

How about

"An authorized instructor may log as pilot-in-command time all flight time while acting as an authorized instructor."

No prizes for guessing where I got that from (hint, "z" )

Who is PIC for legal reasons is a matter for the owner of the plane and is a separate issue completely.

[nuclear weapon]

I still find it hard to believe this debate hasn't ended. I think the instructors and fto's have a share of the blame for the lack of clarity in this situation. I have always understood p1s to be on sucessfull completion of a flight test however when I spoke to a lady at the licencing dept at the caa regarding my case after listening patiently and appearing to go off to check with one of her colleagues. She came back and said in her exact words YOU CAN LOG IT AS P1 AS LONG AS THE CROSS CHANNEL CHECK WAS SATISFACTORY!
This seems to make sense while it is also a con on behalf of some fto's. I personally have friends who have thier own aircraft and have no problems flying to France , Spain and Portugal whithout doing any checkouts.
Several times during my training some instructor told me to log p1s for a 45 day check and some told me to log put. As I did a couple of these while I was doing my atpl ground school and wasn't flying often. It is not uncommon to see instuctors at the fto I attended arguing about the rules amongst themselves. I think it will help if the fto's have a procedure similar to sop's in airline whereby the rules are clearly stated. If you are going to do a cross channel check it will be logged as put for the student and the instuctor p1.
While this sounds daft as all the instuctor did was show us the directions from letouqet airport to the town center which I could have done by myself had he not been there. Or better still the caa should come up with a way of logging something like this. The flight was only one hour and ten minutes and by the way before I sent my log book off to the caa I had 102.5 hours (2.5hrs over the required 100)just in case this particular flight was not accepted as p1.

[slim_slag]

...when I spoke to a lady at the licencing dept at the caa regarding my case after listening patiently and appearing to go off to check with one of her colleagues. She came back and said in her exact words YOU CAN LOG IT AS P1 AS LONG AS THE CROSS CHANNEL CHECK WAS SATISFACTORY!This seems to make sense....With respect, that makes least sense of all. You cannot decide after the fact who was legally responsible for a flight which occurred in the past. If the CAA said that then they really are losing their marbles.

[dublinpilot]

Seems to me, that the biggest problem here is that people leave it until after the flight to agree who was commander during the flight.

Surely this should be agreed before the flight? If it was, this whole area wouldn't be an issue at all. Those who couldn't agree, simply wouldn't fly together.

dp

[skydriller]

With respect, that makes least sense of all. You cannot decide after the fact who was legally responsible for a flight which occurred in the past. If the CAA said that then they really are losing their marbles.
Could not agree more!! ....And this was the point I was TRYING to make with my posts!! :D not try to expand the arguement to P1, P.etc.

Several times during my training some instructor told me to log p1s for a 45 day check and some told me to log put. As I did a couple of these while I was doing my atpl ground school and wasn't flying often. It is not uncommon to see instuctors at the fto I attended arguing about the rules amongst themselves. I think it will help if the fto's have a procedure similar to sop's in airline whereby the rules are clearly stated. If you are going to do a cross channel check it will be logged as put for the student and the instuctor p1.

This is what originally prompted me to ask for clarification too!!

It seems to me that the CAA really do need to get their act together when it comes to giving out advice - especially when it comes to their own flight crew licencing rules. Only then can instructors, and then in turn pilots, get it right also. If they cannot get the simple stuff right, what does it say for the rest of the regulatory process?

Regards, SD..

[Julian]

Someone also mentioned that the designated commander can be changed in flight, not so because the regulations state that the commander must be designated before flight for aspects like booking out, weight and balance fuel oil etc

So to throw another into the pot then....how does LASORS Case P stand where it states that two pilots on an FI Course (therefore not even FIs yet), playing FI and Student can swap roles of PIC and Student in mid air?

According to CAse P, both are able to log PIC for their portion of the flight, SNY when playing Student.