Checkrides - PU/T or P1? [Archive]

vancouv

20th Jan 2007, 11:54

You'll probably get 10 different answers to this, which is normally what happens when people ask questions about logging time, but what I've been told in the past is this:

It depends what the instructor is logging. If you haven't done your 3 take off and landings in 90 days, you can't take a passenger, so he has to log it as P1 meaning you have to log it as PUT - your flight would be illegal otherwise.

If you are within the 90 day rule, then you could log it as P1, as a checkride is for club rules and nothing to do with your license validity. That would mean the instructor would be just a passenger and could not log it at all. Depending on what your instructor is doing, ie is he desparate for the hours, he might be happy with this.

If he isn't, and logs it as P1, then the only option is to log it as PUT, although even that is dubious as you're not actually under instruction, as the flight you're doing is within the scope of your license.

So it's PUT or nothing if the instructor is logging P1. And don't let anyone tell you can log it as P2.......that doesn't exist in a single pilot aircraft.

Waits for the contradictions........

dublinpilot

20th Jan 2007, 12:24

It's very simple really.....
...if you're pilot in command, then you log it as P1.

...if you're receiving some training, then you log it as p u/t.

...if you're simply a passenger handling the control, then you don't log it at all.

The complicated part is that most people don't discuss this with their instructor before the flight, and don't agree who is actually pilot in command of the flight. Not a good situation in my opinion.....you should always know who is in command before the flight starts.

hollywood285

20th Jan 2007, 14:16

do a seach on any aviation forum and you will get about 100 thrreads come up!!!

If its a club check out and the instructor is not hour building agree BEFORE the whos P1.

If he is hour building and wants the hours let him have them!! :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

IO540

20th Jan 2007, 16:07

I think that:

N-reg (FAA training) the student is PIC. The examiner logs as he wishes; probably PIC but who cares?

G-reg (JAA or CAA training): student is always PUT and instructor/examiner is always PIC - except on a successful PPL checkride which the student logs as P1S. The instructor/examiner logs as PIC but frankly again who cares? You don't care if his name is Gary Glitter so long as he signs you off.

Whopity

20th Jan 2007, 19:46

That would mean the instructor would be just a passenger and could not log it at all.
Then he would not be an Instructor!!!! So why is he there?

JAR-FCL1.080 (c)(iii) The holder of an instructor rating may log as PIC all flight time during which he acts as an instructor.

Mike Cross

20th Jan 2007, 21:36

Where pray does it say a checkride has to be supervised by an instructor?

gcolyer

20th Jan 2007, 22:02

JUST-local

20th Jan 2007, 22:35

"except on a successful PPL checkride which the student logs as P1S. The instructor/examiner logs as PIC"

JAA/CAA.
P1s can only be used for the successful pass of a test with a JAA/CAA examiner for the purposes of renewal/initial issue of a class rating or CPL skills test, IMC test etc.

P1 or PUT,
As mentioned already (several times) this should always be made clear before the flight. If you meet the recency requirements and your instructor is happy to sit in as a passenger as a club check ride you can log the flight as P1.

If you don't meet the recency requirements (3 take off, 3 land on class) you cannot carry passengers so your instructor must be P1 and yes you log PUT.

tiggermoth

21st Jan 2007, 07:07

Thank you for all your replies - it's a bit clearer now!

Whopity

21st Jan 2007, 08:37

Where pray does it say a checkride has to be supervised by an instructor?Nowhere! provided both pilots are rated on the type or class. Therefore, a checkride may be conducted by a pilot who is not an insructor. Perfectly legal. But that is surely the basis of the debate, what does each log? The debate continues because it is a case for which there is no legislation so you can log whatever you like! The CAA only provide guidance to stop licence applicants from submitting applications with hour upon hour of PIS.

Article 25 25 (1) An aircraft shall not fly unless it carries a flight crew of the number and description required by the law of the country in which it is registered.
(2) An aircraft registered in the United Kingdom:
(b) which has a flight manual, shall carry a flight crew of at least the number and
description specified in that flight manual;
Nowhere does it say that a single pilot aeroplane can only have one pilot! The law establishes a minimum not a maximum.
Article 35 Personal flying log book
35 (1) Every member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom and every person who engages in flying for the purpose of qualifying for the grant or renewal of a licence under this Order shall keep a personal flying log book in which the following particulars shall be recorded:
(2) Particulars of each flight during which the holder of the log book acted either as a
member of the flight crew of an aircraft or for the purpose of qualifying for the grant
or renewal of a licence under this Order, as the case may be, shall be recorded in the
log book at the end of each flight or as soon thereafter as is reasonably practicable,
including:
(c) the capacity in which the holder acted in flight;
(d) particulars of any special conditions under which the flight was conducted,
A pilot who is not an instructor may check out a rated pilot on an aeroplane in which they both exercise piloting skills and which are required to be logged. The pilot in command logs PIC, he is responsible for the aircraft. The pilot being checked can quite legally log PIS and the PIC signs it as an acknowledgment and the log is annotated as a checkride.
If you don't log it you are not complying with Art 35! How does anyone know you have been checked out? Surely the checkout is safety related therefore it needs to be visible.

TheOddOne

21st Jan 2007, 09:22

I think that a lot of the confusion here is in the misuse of terminology and lack of proper definition for various words and phrases used.

For instance 'checkride'.

What on earth does this mean (in the UK)?

My understanding is that in the US is CAN mean a formal test undertaken for the grant or renewal of a licence or rating. It appears to crop up however in various guises, almost as if people don't like to use the words 'test' or 'examination' - a part of the culture of 'no-one can fail, just call it a check to satisfy the law, I'm sure your flying is just fine' etc etc. Anyhow, how do you 'ride' an aeroplane? Fly it, maybe, or pilot it.

Our Group, like most clubs and schools, requires everyone to carry out a 6-month test (or check!) which isn't a legal requirement. Now, with a CRI, when I am conducting this test (or check!) I sign for the aircraft before departure and assume responsibility for navigation, compliance with Rule 5 (during PFLs etc) and so on. As far as I'm concerned, that makes me P1. That means that the pilot in the left seat is Pu/t. no ifs or buts. I'm not desperate to hours-build. The other pilot is either in their 1st year of the re-validation cycle in which case it doesn't matter at all for that purpose if they have any hours logged at all, or they're in the 2nd year, in which case up to 6 hours of their 12 required can be Pu/t. If they want to hours-build for thier own purposes then they can jolly well come and hire the aircraft some more and fly with friends or on their own.
On the other hand, some of the right-seat time I do is with people who are assuming responsibility for the flight, are compliant with the recency laws but just want a little comfort zone should things go awry. In that case, they are P1 and I'm a passenger, nothing goes in my logbook.

Also, what's correct as an annotation, P1 or PIC? Whare did this PIC come from?

Cheers,
TheOddOne

neilia

21st Jan 2007, 10:44

Also, what's correct as an annotation, P1 or PIC? Whare did this PIC come

Regional variation, I think. In my Aussie logbook I'm either "Pilot in Command" or "Other Pilot" and time is logged as Command or Dual. Having done my PPL in Oz, I always refer to "P1" time as "Command" time, and I'm only just starting to realise that this possibly sounds a bit odd (and even pretentious) to flying folks over here!

Whopity

21st Jan 2007, 13:50

The formal tests are defined:

Skill Test = demonstration of skill for licence or rating issue or renewal.

Proficiency Check = demonstration of skill to revalidate or renew ratings.

Checkrides, Club checks etc, are what the originator wants them to be; they have no significance in licensing terms. They can be a club annual requirement or, you want to fly my aeroplane so I check you out. Common sense says what they are without the need for any grandiose definitions.

The Pilot in Command is in charge, i.e. legally responsible; does it really matter what you call him? P1 PIC or the BOSS it doesn't affect the price of eggs, he still carries the can!

EastMids

22nd Jan 2007, 14:42

Where pray does it say a checkride has to be supervised by an instructor?
But if a checkride can be done NOT with an instructor (as in a group checkout with another group member), can the person being checked still log the flight as P/Ut - under "training" from whom, and what quality of training if the checker is not an instructor?

If a checkout can be done with a non-instructor, it would seem like an opportunity for both to log time, albeit one as P1 and the other as P/Ut... I know, next time I fly with a friend who is also a licence holder, he can "check me out" so he logs P1 and I log P/Ut, then on the way back I'll check him out and I log P1 and he logs P/Ut. We both get hours! I don't believe it works like that!

Andy

S-Works

22nd Jan 2007, 14:55

But if a checkride can be done NOT with an instructor (as in a group checkout with another group member), can the person being checked still log the flight as P/Ut - under "training" from whom, and what quality of training if the checker is not an instructor?
If a checkout can be done with a non-instructor, it would seem like an opportunity for both to log time, albeit one as P1 and the other as P/Ut... I know, next time I fly with a friend who is also a licence holder, he can "check me out" so he logs P1 and I log P/Ut, then on the way back I'll check him out and I log P1 and he logs P/Ut. We both get hours! I don't believe it works like that!
Andy

PUT is only for time logged with an Instructor. If you check each other out as happens with many syndicates only the P1 logs time. The other logs NOTHING. In advance you just agree who is P1. I would suggest if anyone is that desperate that the best way is the 1st half an hour the checker is P1 and then second half hour the checkee is P1. I really do not understand what the issue is with this subject. When I get checked out on a current type I am P1 unless the Instructor really has some need to be the P1 to meet local club flying order rules or whatever. When on a new type I learning about the type so have no issue with a bit of Instruction.

The subject of hours long checkflights on types you are current on is where we side track!!

gcolyer

22nd Jan 2007, 16:22

I really do not understand what the issue is with this subject.

I don't want to seem rude Bose, but I would imagine this is because you are in a position where you can afford to do plenty of flying and indeed do get to do plenty of flying.

I would imagine a lot of us financialy struggle to meet our wanting lust to fly, so every penny we do spend on hours we want to make sure we get to log them in the most valuable way.

tiggermoth

22nd Jan 2007, 18:42

I would imagine a lot of us financialy struggle to meet our wanting lust to fly, so every penny we do spend on hours we want to make sure we get to log them in the most valuable way.

Yes, I agree, also it's a matter of remaining current within the 90 day rule to take up a passenger.

At this time of year it's difficult to find the time to go and fly, and there to be weather to fly, and for the grass runway to be fit for anything but mud wrestling.

Kit d'Rection KG

22nd Jan 2007, 19:42

Personaly I will only do a checkride if the the instructor agrees that I log P1. After all I have a valid license that is curent and I am only doing the check ride because it is a club rule, and considering I am paying extra to have an instructor sit next to me I think I should get the full entitilement that I am paying for.

Blah blah blah. Exactly. Not with me, you wouldn't, mate. You're there to demonstrate your proficiency before being allowed to play with the nice toys, and you'll be doing that on my licence (I would be there to prevent the ****-up). You would be surprised how many are not proficient (or maybe you wouldn't).

It's attitudes like yours that get private pilots killed, from time to time....and if you want to understand the potential pitfalls of being checked out by non-instructors, take a look at this...http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Bolkow_BO_208C_Junior,_G-ATXZ.pdf

baraka

22nd Jan 2007, 20:09

Islander2

22nd Jan 2007, 23:33

Okay, Kit d'Rection KG, I'm perplexed at your comments to gcolyer.

you'll be doing that on my licence In most cases, I presume you would be doing that on your licence only if you or your club were to insist ... almost every pilot would otherwise be perfectly happy and legal to do it on their licence!

It's attitudes like yours that get private pilots killed, from time to timeSo, designating a flying instructor as P1 makes a typical club check flight inherently safer? I'd be fascinated to see the data that supports that assertion!

shortstripper

23rd Jan 2007, 05:11

Kit d'Rection KG Hmmmm! :hmm: Instructor/God eh?

Whilst I agree that an instructor will usually make a safer check pilot, it's a bit harse and very inaccurate to suggest that is always the case. Your post comes across as very arrogant, and if I could be bothered to trawl through the AAIB reports I'm sure I could also find cases where instuctor checkouts have ended in mishaps. It is quite often the case that a mere PPL is the most qualified person to do the checkout, sometimes the ONLY person qualified .... even if the pilot being checked out is an instructor!

On the original question, rightly or wrongly,I've always logged any checkouts with an instructor as P/ut, and just not logged them if with a PPL. On the same kind of subject what about logging start up to shut down as opposed to take off to landing??? I've always logged the latter and would easily have another 50 hours if I'd logged the former ... which is correct???

SS

Mike Cross

23rd Jan 2007, 05:52

On the same kind of subject what about logging start up to shut down as opposed to take off to landing??? I've always logged the latter and would easily have another 50 hours if I'd logged the former ... which is correct???
Back to the Air Law papers for you SS!
As any fule kno - JAR-FCL 1.001 saysFlight time:
The total time from the moment an aircraft first moves for the purpose of taking off until the moment it finally comes to rest at the end of the flight.
JAR–FCL 1.080 says(c) Logging of time
(1) Pilot-in-command flight time
(i) The holder of a licence may log as pilot-in-command time all of the flight time during which he is the pilotin-command.
(ii) The applicant for or the holder of a pilot licence may log as pilot-in-command time all solo flight time and flight time as student pilot-incommand
provided that such SPIC time is countersigned by the instructor.
(iii) The holder of an instructor rating may log as pilot-in-command all flight time during which he acts as an instructor in an aeroplane.
(iv) The holder of an examiner’s authorisation may log as pilot-incommand
all flight time during which he occupies a pilot’s seat and acts as an examiner in an aeroplane.
(v) A co-pilot acting as pilot-incommand
under the supervision of the pilot-in-command on an aeroplane on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aeroplane or as required by JAR–OPS provided such pilot-in-command time under supervision (see (c)(5)) is countersigned by the pilot-in-command.
and....
(5) 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.
Student pilot-in-command (SPIC):
Flight time during which the flight instructor will only observe the student acting as pilot-incommand and shall not influence or control the flight of the aircraft.
If in doubt, look it up here. (http://www.jaa.nl/publications/jars/607069.pdf)
It's also covered in a little less detail in Art 35 of the ANO. (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.PDF)
Mike

shortstripper

23rd Jan 2007, 06:00

Doh! :ugh: I wonder how the CAA would feel about me adding 10 minutes to all my flights then on the basis that I've always logged it incorrectly? :E

SS

BEagle

23rd Jan 2007, 06:23

Odd that a CAA Standards Inspector should write:

"A pilot who is not an instructor may check out a rated pilot on an aeroplane in which they both exercise piloting skills and which are required to be logged."

yet a CAA Accident Report concludes:

"The passenger was familiar with the aircraft but was not qualified or experienced as a flying instructor and had never carried out a takeoff or landing from the right hand seat. Flying Instructors are trained to fly from the right hand seat of an aircraft and to take control of aircraft when their students make errors in circumstances where rapid and effective action is necessary to ensure safety. Had a Flying Instructor been present on board, it is likely that a timely intervention could have prevented the accident."

The usual Belgrano disconnect at work again?

Commonsense would require any check-out to be conducted with either a CRI (such as a PFA coach) or FI - and the pilot being checked to log the flight as P1S (qualified pilot under supervision).

But commonsense and the JAA are not easy bedfellows.

Incidentally, the CRI course is straightforward and relatively low cost; no CPL exams are needed (unless you want payment in which case you'll need a CPL), no Class 1 medical is needed and the Rating is easy to maintain. It is a useful qualification and CRIs are ideal for teaching the vagaries of certain PFA aircraft, for teaching 'differences training', conducting 2-yearly 'training flights' etc etc.

gcolyer

23rd Jan 2007, 07:17

Blah blah blah. Exactly. Not with me, you wouldn't, mate. You're there to demonstrate your proficiency before being allowed to play with the nice toys, and you'll be doing that on my licence (I would be there to prevent the ****-up). You would be surprised how many are not proficient (or maybe you wouldn't).

It's attitudes like yours that get private pilots killed, from time to time....and if you want to understand the potential pitfalls of being checked out by non-instructors, take a look at this...http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Bolkow_BO_208C_Junior,_G-ATXZ.pdf

Thanks. I will make a note to stay away from your club then :rolleyes:

Like i said in my post. I have a valid license AND i am current (and i dont mean the odd hour here and there). If i was to do a check ride it would because i have joined a new club.

And i have to say it is attitudes like yours that contributes to current attitude of GA and the external views it recieves. There will be plenty of PPL's out there that will probably knock the spots off of you in ability and knowledge, so befoe you generalise in the future have a quiet moment before you type.

Mike Cross

23rd Jan 2007, 07:49

BEagle

Since when did the CAA write accident reports? Any fule kno they are written by the AAIB, part of the DfT and sweet FA to do with the CAA.
Commonsense would require any check-out to be conducted with either a CRI (such as a PFA coach) or FI - and the pilot being checked to log the flight as P1S (qualified pilot under supervision).

I'd be wary of any UK instructor who didn't know the demarcation between the AAIB and the CAA or the basics of logging flight time. What is P1S? Look again at JAR-FCL. The nearest they have to it is PICUS, which is only applicable to co-pilots in multi-crew aircraft.

Given that a check-out is not legally defined it's a nonsense to attempt to lay down who can do it. If someone wants to let me fly their PFA aircraft (as someone did recently), who is best placed to show me its idiosyncrasies - the owner or the holder of a FI rating who's never set foot in it?

Mike

IO540

23rd Jan 2007, 09:10

Kit d'Rection KG

We won't need patronising attitude like that here. Take it to another forum - there are a few to choose from ;)

doubledolphins

23rd Jan 2007, 10:36

On a check ride you are P1/S. That is, "Pilot in command, under supervision".

Guess what that is abreviated to!

Hope this helps.

S-Works

23rd Jan 2007, 10:39

Blah blah blah. Exactly. Not with me, you wouldn't, mate. You're there to demonstrate your proficiency before being allowed to play with the nice toys, and you'll be doing that on my licence (I would be there to prevent the ****-up). You would be surprised how many are not proficient (or maybe you wouldn't).
It's attitudes like yours that get private pilots killed, from time to time....and if you want to understand the potential pitfalls of being checked out by non-instructors, take a look at this...http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Bolkow_BO_208C_Junior,_G-ATXZ.pdf

Ah, spoken like a true instructor. No wonder we get such a bad reputation.

Personally if I am doing a checkout I don't care if the pilot wants to log P1.

And don't think that having an Instructor ticket makes you a sky god. It seems in your case just to make you an arrogant ass...... :p There are plenty of experianced PPL holders out there who make for more proficient checkout pilots than your average Instructor.

gcolyer

23rd Jan 2007, 10:46

On a check ride you are P1/S. That is, "Pilot in command, under supervision".

Guess what that is abreviated to!

Hope this helps.

P1/S does not exist.

However the reference to Pilot in command under supervision does exist. According to lasors Section A, Appendix B, Page 42 it is logged in either of the following ways:

PIC U/S or P1 U/S

Or a Co Pilot of a multi crew aircraft (for mwhich you need MCC) can log as PICUS

Mike Cross

23rd Jan 2007, 11:40

You must be using an old version of LASORS. In LASORS 2007 its on page 60. The table "Guide to logbook annotation" gives details of the abbreviations. PIC U/S or P1 U/S is for "Co-pilot performing the duties of PIC under supervision of pilot-in-command." and for "Pilot undergoing any form of
flight test with a JAA or CAA Authorised Examiner ("PIC U/S for successful test P/UT for unsuccessful test")

doubledolphins is WRONG

If you are doing a checkride with an instructor he is entitled, under JAR to log it as PIC, and you are entitled to log it as SPIC as far as I can see (providing he doesn't take control).
I'll take issue with the editor of LASORS who, as is often the case, has added his own wording that appears neither in legislation or JAR. (the bit about "Student Pilot-in-Command. (Pilot acting as pilot-in-command during an approved integrated course of training, under the supervision of a flight instructor."
Alternatively the Instructor could log it PIC and the checkee P/UT in the Dual column if "Pilot under instruction for the purpose of gaining a licence or rating, or for conversion to an aircraft type within an aircraft rating group or class."
Either way it counts as time for both the instructor and the checkee.
Mike

gcolyer

23rd Jan 2007, 11:48

Julian

23rd Jan 2007, 11:49

If you are qualified on the aircraft then you are legal to fly it.

If the clubs flying order books states that check flight must be done with an instructor then so be it, as stated previously determine wether you are actually undertaking any instruction with him. If not then its not an instructional flight and he is merely an observer - SNY.

Our group undertakes check flights for members/prospective members.

Do you we use an instructor? - no because there is no legal requirement to do so.

Who logs P1? - the person being checked out.

dublinpilot

23rd Jan 2007, 12:41

Who logs P1? - the person being checked out.

No.....it's the pilot in command who logs P1. Whether this is the person doing the checking out, or the person being checked is a matter of agreement....before the flight.

...Just imagine it......engine fails while over a built up area......pilot being checked out turns into wind as that is the shortest route to a free field. Pilot doing the checking shouts "I have control" and attempts to turn the opposite direction, to take advantage of the tail wind to to clear the built up area.....pilot being checkout out says "No!! I'm the pilot in command.....I have control"........person doing the checkout says "No!! I'm the pilot in command....you're not checked out yet!!"

PLEASE agree the pilot in command BEFORE the flight.....there is a lot more at stake here than who gets P1 time......your life could depend on it.

dp

Julian

23rd Jan 2007, 20:21

DP,

Indeed and that is what I said, the person being checked out is PIC / P1.

All this agreed before the aircraft leaves the tarmac, including calls such as 'I have control' should the group member wish to take control.

J.

doubledolphins

23rd Jan 2007, 21:45

Not wrong, just old fashoned and can not be bothered to change my old log books. All my check rides are in sims any way these days.

tescoapp

23rd Jan 2007, 22:16

I would like to now about this special training I was meant to get in the RHS seat to to take control of aircraft when their students make errors in circumstances where rapid and effective action is necessary to ensure safety

And the CRI's can't get alot of it in the 2 hours they have to learn the trade. PFL's, stalling, steep turns. There can only really be room for 3-4 landings in the RHS.

It was left to my personal survival instinct to know when to chicken out.

And kit thats just the attitude which makes PPL's avoid instructors like the plague.

I always used to allow the pilots to log the PIC when they went with me on check rides and any other flight they payed me to tag along with as a safety pilot. In fact I made a reasonable amount of money being a safety pilot and got to visit some interesting places. I presume if I had been a prat and insisted that I was PIC all the time I wouldn't have got so many jolly's. The punters never seemed to mind paying 10 quid an hour to take me along. There was a bit of instructing going on but it was more like friendly comments.

Only warning is don't be tempted to be the only Instrument person onbroad sitting in the RHS with no instruments in front of you when there is a chance you might have to go IMC to get home. It isn't very pleasant and you only do it once.

doubledolphins

24th Jan 2007, 08:22

Was going to leave this thread after Mike Cross exhibited the CRM of a road accident but would like to just add a little piece in support of
the prievious contribution.
On no account should you try instrument flying from the RHS unless you have been trained to do so. I did an IMC instructors course in my instructing days. This consisted of a lot of flying under the hood looking across at the instruments. Difficult but posible with practice. As with any form of flying, if you are not properly trained for it, don't do it.

DFC

24th Jan 2007, 10:43

This old argument again!

Firstly to all this "he is flying on my licence" rubbish that we hear these days.

There is no such thing.

If it is a solo student then they are exercising the privileges given to them by the ANO...provided that they were at the start authorised by an instructor and do what exercise the instructor told them to do. If they break the law eg low flying, this has absolutely no impact on the inctructor's licence unless they told the student to do it.

If it is a dual flight then the student (qualified or not) is doing what the pilot in command - the instructor tells them to do. Unless they ignore instructions to the contrary from the pilot in command then any illegal action on that flight is the responsibility of the pilot in command.

There is now mandatory insurance requirements for all flights.

Every insurance policy will have certain requirements regarding experience of pilots and the cost of the policy will reflect the requirements put in place for the pilot in command to fly the aircraft. i.e. require a checkout by an instructor, minimum 100 p1 time must hae valid IMC etc all drive down the insurance costs.

When one's PPL is issued with a SEP rating, after some 45 hours experience total one is legally entitled for the next 2 years (or close to it depending on how long the paperwork took) to fly any single engine non-complex aircraft.

One can purchase such an aircraft and then after paying for the insurance, hop in and fly.

All totally legal.

Now in the real world, most sensible pilots will do a checkout and most clubs or groups will require one as part of the rules they operate under.

When the briefing is conducted pre-flight, one qualified person in the aircraft will be designated pilot in command (and this person will sign the tech log if applicable). That person has the final responsibility for the safety and legality of the flight.

Provided the pilot in command can safely operate the aircraft fron the other seat, there is nothing wrong with one PPL checking out another.

However, with the checking pilot being pilot in command and not being an instructor, the pilot being checked out can not log P1 time, they can also not log PUT / Dual time, and since they are not being tested and it is not multi crew time so they can not log P1/S. The pilot being checked can log the number on unaided take-off and landings they completed as "sole manipulator of the controls" but they can not log any flight time.

With an instructor, there enters the posibility to log the flight time but it will be dual since the instructor as the only person entitled to be P1 is P1 by virtue of insurance, legal or simply safety reasons.

Safety reasons - I fly many flights with qualified pilots who want to practice x, y or z. They are qualified, I don't charge, I don't (as some people claim regarding instructors) "need the hours" but I am P1 so they are not. They will log PUT because after all they asked me along to provide them with some training and that is what we do.

If anyone does not think that supervision is training, then please reduce all the dual hours they claimed to get their PPL by an appropriate ammount for all the flights where the instructor for periods simply supervised their flying.

On the other hand, there will the those that still needed training instraight and level right up to the flight before the GST. ;)

--------------

One of the mostcommon complaints is along the lines of

"I own a C172 that is in for maintenance and I fly 200 hours per year. Why do I need a checkout PUT in order to borrow your aircraft for a few hours?"

or

"I was checked out with xyz club and am current, why can't you just accept that for my flying here on the same type of aircraft".

Answer -
Every experienced instructor/ examminer will have come across pilots who say they can fly and the logbook has lots of "experience" but actually the are at best ropey. That includes ATPLs and CPLs as well as PPLs. I am not going to be the idiot who looses an aircraft because I failed to properly check a pilot regardless of experience. Even instructors are checked out and they log PUT.

You don't fly with my club cause you don't agree with PUT and checkout and I loose 5000 income per year (50 hours flying) but save the hassle and expenses associated with that income. You prang the aircraft and that is 40000 down the drain becuase the first question the insurer will ask is who checked them out!

Regards,

DFC

PS it is still possible to get a PPL in the UK with all of the time logged as P1!!!

Perhaps some of the pilots who complain about flying with other pilots should confine themselves to such flying!

hugh flung_dung

24th Jan 2007, 20:23

It's surprising how often this topic pops up and how each time people write nonsense about what they think the rules ought to be rather than simply stating what they are.

The PIC is whoever gets to sign their name on the accident report, is prosecuted, gets chased for the insurance excess or sued for damages.

If an instructor is flying with someone to check them out then the instructor is PIC and the other person is Pu/t. If the instructor doesn't comment on anything they were still PIC, as they would have been if they suddenly had to intervene just as the other bod was about to let the aircraft roll forward during shutdown after an otherwise perfect trip. I fully agree that it would be useful if P1/S could be used in this situation but the fact is that it can't.

If a non-instructor is flying with someone to check them out then by definition they have authority and are the PIC, the other person is unable to log any of the time.

PICUS or P1/S is only applicable to a satisfactory test with an examiner (a fail is pu/t) or in an aircraft certificated for multi-crew operation.

DFC has it right.

HFD

Kit d'Rection KG

24th Jan 2007, 20:25

Well first, thanks for such a good chortle...

I'll stand by my earlier remarks, it was attitudes such as gcolyer's that made PPL instructing a real pain from time to time.

I don't do it any more, but when I did, it was plain to those being checked out that they were there to demonstrate some knowledge and learn some new stuff (having said that I don't do it with PPL candidates, I'll mention that I do still do it with professional pilots). I'll need to put them into awkward situations and see them get themselves out in one piece. The experience should be a positive one, but it's astonishing how folk who come up with statements like gcolyer's often discover, to quote a movie which I suspect we all know, 'your mouth's writing cheques your body can't cash'. It's also usually very easy to listen to them in the bar one evening, and then watch them fall apart in a cockpit the next day.

A flying instructor being paid to work, and who is in an aircraft, and who has probably signed some sort of release for the aircraft, is the commander. There are no rules whatsoever about who manipulates the flying controls (provided you're not an AOC operator with statements in your Part A about such things), but the commander is responsible for the safe conduct of the flight. If a pilot is under check and has signed for the aircraft, effectively the instructor is prevented from intervening unless this has been specifically instructed by the student (a similar difficulty applies with insurance in the yachting world when people are trained on their own boats).

Aircraft have owners, and those owners don't want them pranged. That, in essence, is why instructors check people out (though some schools have found a wonderful income stream from this source too).

The point remains, gcolyer comes across as a 'bold' pilot. We all know what happens to those...

tescoapp, you'd have learnt about that on your FI course. If you didn't, you either haven't done the course, or your instructor didn't get things right. You mentioned 'In fact I made a reasonable amount of money being a safety pilot and got to visit some interesting places' and I'd be fascinated to learn how you were paid to be there, and what professional qualifications you had at the time...! (Actually, I don't give two hoots, but the point is made).

DFC, this is nothing to do with solo students (but if that train of thought is your thing, you may wish to ponder that it's possible to fly a glider, IFR, in IMC, with no minimum equipment, no training, no qualifications, and no oversight whatsoever...).

bose-x, bless you for your sweetness, I'm very happy where I am and doing what I'm doing. If you're fool enough to fly in those circumstances, then hang on until something goes wrong and you'll have plenty of time to ponder the error of your ways. A properly trained instructor knows what he's doing when he checks someone out, another private pilot is just along for the ride. I mean, really!

IO540, you'd like to carry on in your little PPL world without anyone pointing out some of the stuff you're getting wrong, eh? Sorry, but I just can't resist the temptation to pull a few tiger cubs' tails from time to time!

Hugh, you're not far off the money. Well done.

shortstripper

25th Jan 2007, 07:03

As mentioned in an earlier post ... you come across as very arrogant! If you're just as arrogant in real life, then I'm glad you're no longer a teacher of us amateur PPL's. No great loss for sure!

SS

gcolyer

25th Jan 2007, 09:29

it was attitudes such as gcolyer's that made PPL instructing a real pain from time to time.

Point me to the rule/law that states a during a club check out the Instructor/Checker has to be PIC. And I will retract my statement.

Until then if I have to pay extra for someone to sit next to me to decide if I can fly dispite my 100's of hours and valid licesne then I will fly as PIC.

The point remains, gcolyer comes across as a 'bold' pilot. We all know what happens to those...

Your damn right I am a "bold" pilot, but then again stunt pilots and military pilots are also bold.

I'll need to put them into awkward situations and see them get themselves out in one piece.

I quiet happily do this to myself, and I am still here to harp on about it. Is it wise to only spin or stall your aircraft or recover from unusual attitudes only with and instructor on board???? I personaly don't think so. I like to think I can fly or crash a plane without the help or comfort blanket of an instructor.

That said and done I have nothing against instructors or better/more qualified/more hour pilots than me. And now and again I will fly with an instructor and me as PUT, so I can get my knuckles whacked for bad habits (not that I have any of course :bored:).

hugh flung_dung

25th Jan 2007, 11:12

gcolyer:
Somebody signs for the aircraft before a checkout at every club I am aware of; this person is the one taking responsibility for the aircraft and for the conduct of the flight. This person is the one who will intervene, if required. This person is patently the Pilot in Command and, at every club I know of, this person is also the Instructor.
An attitude adjustment may be in order. Happy (and safe) Landings.
Over and Out.

HFD

tiggermoth

25th Jan 2007, 11:44

I'd imagine the situation becomes a little less clear when one is being checked out (by an instructor) when joining a new share in a group!

From what I've read then, the person being 'checked' gets nothing in his logbook, or PU/T if it's a flying instructor in the right hand seat. Or another view given is "agree it before the flight".

tescoapp

25th Jan 2007, 13:13

quals were CPL/IR FI unrestricted. Good enough?

And the punter signed the tech log and not me in all cases.

eharding

25th Jan 2007, 19:56

Your damn right I am a "bold" pilot, but then again stunt pilots and military pilots are also bold.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/icons/rofl.gif

No, seriously, I think I've just wet myself.

gcolyer

25th Jan 2007, 20:23

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/icons/rofl.gif

No, seriously, I think I've just wet myself.

And why would that be??

Do you not have confidence in your pilot ability?
Are you afraid to say you have confidence in your own pilot ability?

Aviation has become what it is today from "bold" pilots, that push themselves and technology. And if you think I am cocky so be it.

Mike Cross

25th Jan 2007, 21:05

dd

Apologies if I offended you by saying you were wrong but this started out as a genuine enquiry from someone who wanted to know. We do them no favours by telling them what the situation was when we got our licenses rather than what the rules are now.

Mike

eharding

25th Jan 2007, 21:07

And why would that be??
Mostly because I assumed it was a quote from the mythical Special Director's Cut of Top Gun...the one with the extra shower scenes, apparently.

Do you not have confidence in your pilot ability?
Are you afraid to say you have confidence in your own pilot ability?

What I think or say doesn't really matter - the only measure that I place any value on is the confidence, or otherwise, that everyone else I fly with have in my abilities, such as they are. I am very fortunate to have been coached in aerobatics & close formation with some of the most professional and able in the business - none of whom I can ever imagine describing themselves as 'bold...'bald' maybe...but never 'bold' - and hope that eventually some of that expertise might rub off on me - but every time I get in a PA28 for a club checkout I take it as an opportunity to learn, and hence there is no question that I am anything other than P U/T.

Aviation has become what it is today from "bold" pilots, that push themselves and technology.

You list your current types as "PA28, PA32, AA-5B, C172, DR400, C150". As far as I'm aware, the test flying programmes on all of those types were completed in a comprehensive and satisfactory fashion a long time ago - so please feel free to push (or I suspect, more likely, pull) yourself as much as you like, but kindly refrain from pushing the technology anywhere near the already defined limits.

And if you think I am cocky so be it.

Actually, the term was almost exactly like "cocky", except lacking a "y"
:E
(Edited for spelling, clarity & general style)

stray10level

26th Jan 2007, 01:43

ANYONE Who gets to 100 meters of the end of the runway without touching down or going around should be sold a boat and told go and play with it. Can you imagine the conversation in the cockpit?
Experienced person:- "er- - dont you think we are getting a bit short of runway?"
Pilot/share purchaser:- "Well how much do we need in this thing?"
Experienced person:-" A bit more than you might well think!"
Piolt/share purchase:-"the nose attitude seems a bit low now!!!!!"
My belief has never been more beggard!

englishal

26th Jan 2007, 08:07

I can understand the instructors point of view. "I am responsible for the flight, so I am logging the PIC time". Fair enough, but I can also understand the "students" POV. "I am current and valid, and I'm safe. I just have to do this check out because the club or JAA says so". Also fair enough. This is where the FAA is sensible, it allows current and valid pilots to log PIC time with an instructor onboard.

My last JAA checkout was a joke really. It was with an examiner but acting as FI (so not a TEST). We took off, headed west for 30 minutes, turned around and headed east for 30 minutes and landed. I did a couple of stalls on the way which were not a problem at all. I felt that I should have logged PIC for the flight, I did all the work, he was enjoying the view, and he had no need to take control.........we just had an hour long chat really.

Anyway, what I have decided to do from now on is to really make use of these check outs. For example, brush up on flying from the RHS, explore the envelope (accellerated stalls, turning stalls etc...), aero's, unusual attitudes etc..........At least this way I am learning or revising skills that I probably haven't used for a while.....

shortstripper

26th Jan 2007, 08:24

Sensible post englishal.

That way there's no confusion over logging, as you're Pu/t without doubt, and an otherwise bothersome checkride becomes a valuble flight where something is learned or brushed up on.

SS

gcolyer

26th Jan 2007, 12:46

Actually, the term was almost exactly like "cocky", except lacking a "y"

Now that is not very grown up is it:=

tiggermoth

26th Jan 2007, 15:38

My last JAA checkout was a joke really. It was with an examiner but acting as FI (so not a TEST). We took off, headed west for 30 minutes, turned around and headed east for 30 minutes and landed. I did a couple of stalls on the way which were not a problem at all. I felt that I should have logged PIC for the flight, I did all the work, he was enjoying the view, and he had no need to take control.........we just had an hour long chat really

That's a real credit to you for your flying ability - the flying instructor was comfortable with your flying, so naturally he'd be relaxed and enjoying the flight as much as you. Excellent!

Dysonsphere

27th Jan 2007, 21:35

eharding

27th Jan 2007, 23:50

Well check flights can be a pain as a group member flying a PA28 140 (with the quadrant throttles) so very like a 161 apart from the wing, brakes, and evevator trimI am really put of using a club plane despite having learnt on a club 161 as i rarely use them due to having Group plane but the club still insist on a check ride if I havnt used a club plane within 28 days not very usefull.

Strength 5, readability 2...maybe 3. No...definately 2.:ok:

tiggermoth

28th Jan 2007, 06:41

Well check flights can be a pain as a group member flying a PA28 140 (with the quadrant throttles) so very like a 161 apart from the wing, brakes, and evevator trimI am really put of using a club plane despite having learnt on a club 161 as i rarely use them due to having Group plane but the club still insist on a check ride if I havnt used a club plane within 28 days not very usefull.

I think the club policy of our club is 6 weeks as far as I know between flights. If your group plane was (say) a PA28-161 and you wanted to hire the club PA28-161 (for some reason) would they still need to check ride you?

gcolyer

28th Jan 2007, 09:32

The club I have just joined have a 161 and 180. With them one check out fits both. Plus it is only £81 per hour (wet) to hire. If i want the plane for a weekend trip I only have to garuntee a minimum of 2 hours flying.

Bargain.

Slopey

28th Jan 2007, 10:44

Im kind of at a loss to what all the bickering is about in this thread.

If you're a low hours PPL then there is a certain attraction to having another hour in the book P1 - especially if you're persuing your hobby with limited funds, so I can see the desire to log P1, but at the end of the day, you've just got the "licence to learn" so why not learn something, use it as a lesson as well as a checkout and log P/ut - there'll be plenty of P1 to log once you've demonstrated that you're a safe and compentent pilot.

If you're high hours, then what's the problem? One more P1 hour isn't going to tip you over a magical point where you get a certificate or anything, and you're probably going to do a load of P1 hours more subsequent to this - why not use it as a refresher and maybe get the instructor to help you brush up a few things you maybe haven't done for ages despite all the P1 hours.

We're all supposed to be mature, safe and considerate pilots who take responsibility for our aircraft/pax and the conditions that we find both of them in - preferrably within our own limits and the legal limits.

So at the end of the day, have the good grace to log P/ut if need be, and enjoy the flying! It's only an hour - insignficiant in the big picture of your aviation career/hobby. :)