When you do a 28 day check can you log it as P1 - I've always logged it as PUT.

depends on your instructor. I let my students log P1 others don't.

This question will start a 28 page debate, with the hours builders given a million reasons why they are pilot in command and others of us who don't care so we let people log P1 as they are perfectly entitled to.
:p

Trouble is I will completely ruin my log book if I go back and put it as P1. Also do you do your hours from the Datcon or from when you start the aircraft?

I would put it as P1. You are qualified on type and not being taught to fly.

Can I change my log book then? Its going to look very messy. I always write "28 day check" in the comments section but I guess I could log about another three hours as P1.

Iinnnnnccccooommmmmiiinnnngggg :)

Julian??????

does 3 hours of P1 really make that much difference to you?
:rolleyes:

At £400 an hour - yes.

please tell me why? I have nearly a hundred hours of PUT in my logbook spread across close on 3,000hrs. I don't see your logic that having the hours as P1 gives you any greater value than having PUT hours. Or is it just an ego thing?

Personally I view every moment in an aircraft as a learning experience and flight time is flight time.

You have 3000 hours - I have about 100 ............do the maths..

sorry mate I am doing the math and I am still struggling. Flying experience is spoken off in total time not time as P1 and PU2. It makes absolutely no difference.

You can enter it as whatever you like in your logbook but the CAA will not count it as PIC towards the experience requirement for the issue of a licence or rating.

Bose-X I guess you are right, I'm going for my CPL and need all the P1 hours I can get, but ultimatlely flying is flying.

You can enter it as whatever you like in your logbook but the CAA will not count it as PIC towards the experience requirement for the issue of a licence or rating.

wow that came from the outfield and is completely wrong........

P1 or PUT all count in various forms towards licence issue or revalidation.

Also do you do your hours from the Datcon or from when you start the aircraft


I thought loggable flying hours commenced from when the a/c starts moving until it later comes to a stop. (i.e. brakes off to brakes on)

Mind you,when taxying an a/c from one club to another club,I have never logged this time (maybe I should?)

MM

I love this subject. Do you think we can make a 2nd page on this thread?

The best thing to do is to sort it out with the intructor before you fly. if he wants the P1 hours then you don't have a choice unless you want the club currency to lap.

Some clubs will allow select memebers to perform currency checks, again sort it out with them before you fly.

As Bose says it does the odd hour here or there make a difference? I would suggest log it as PUT and make use of the time by asking the instructor to go though things you are not comfortable with or would not feel safe doing when solo.

gcolyer
I love this subject. Do you think we can make a 2nd page on this thread?


We'll have a go! We could just cut and paste from all times it's popped up before...

There's a load of stuff in LASORS about logging time etc. Unfortunately it doesn't offer advice on this particular. Don't JAA think we need checkouts every now and again?

If I'm just doing an unpaid 28-day circuit check for a friend then I'll let them book P1 and I'll not bother my logbook. If it's at my paid place of work and the customer is paying for a dual check, then they'll be Pu/t and I'll be P1. Hopefully the quality of the advice will be the same.

One thing's for sure; you can't have 2 people booking P1 for the same flight!!!!

Our Group use brakes off - brakes on for total time.

The big school uses airborne + 6 mins each side ( the tech log is in decimal time). This allows me to spend 20 mins with a new student carefully going through the checks without them paying for undue time on the ground, a pretty good deal, I reckon and a good selling point for our school. Of course I only get paid for the time they pay for...

TheOddOne

In an attempt to prevent this running to zillions of pages....

1) You can log it as either P1 or P UT, as already stated.

2) There aren't many instances in which you need P1 hours as opposed to total hours.

3) If you think you do need P1 hours, and want to change them, go through your logbook with tippex (the tape is neatest) and do so. You can do it neatly, and the CAA have never minded loads of tippex and changes in my log book, so I see no rreason why they should in yours.

4) The CAA don't usually get too upset on what you count, whether it's brakes off to on, datcom time, or whatever. Yes, it may make a slight difference, but I've never heard of it being an issue.

Your choice really. And although the question was fine, I suspect the answers will run and run to the point where some of us lose the will to live :(

Go on then - prove me wrong! :)

If it was purely a club required check flight and you remained in control throughout the flight then you LOG P1. The instructor carrying out their duty as a Flight Instructor observing you may also logs P1. Your flight as you describe it was not such to qualify for a licence or rating. This very old issue was clarified ages ago!

homeguard

If it was purely a club required check flight and you remained in control throughout the flight then you LOG P1. The instructor carrying out their duty as a Flight Instructor observing you may also logs P1.

I'm sorry, but there's only ONE commander per flight and only ONE person can book P1.

You're going to have to quote chapter & verse to persuade me otherwise.

Cheers,
TheOddOne

See, 28 pages worth to come......

Although this topic has been raised on many on occasion - and personally I think that 28 day currency is unreasonable (we use 42), my opinion is:

1. The FI will invariably be the Commander and will log PIC.
2. The other pilot will log Pu/t.

Also, I would expect the pilot requiring the check to be charged at the 'dual rate'. Don't like it? Then maintain your currency!

If there was any real commonsense in the JAA, such flights would be PICU/S for the pilot requiring the check and PIC for the FI. But sadly there isn't......

28 days is very common with helicopters and the original poster is a helicopter pilot wishing to gain a CPL. P1/Put hours is important for that reason.

My instructor tells me to log P1. Only once did he say I was Put but that was after a flying break of several months.

Cheers

Whirls



PS - I think I've doubled the weight of my logbook in Tippex

Whirlygig, yes indeed, 28 days seems entirely reasonable for the skill set needed to maintain acceptable flying skill on helicopters.

Some of us need a check flight after a long lunch.... ;)

I'm sorry, but there's only ONE commander per flight and only ONE person can book P1.


In the US and under JAR-FCL there are often times when both can log PIC, however I have always logged with the assumption that there can only be one P1 (except after a successful flight test)...it was how I was told originally to do it and it's the way that seems most right to me.

This one always splits down the middle, been brought up several times before (Hence the "Incoming" Al :) ).

FTR, I am in the unless you are being instructed the FI is just a passenger camp.

J.

On two occasions, I've been told to log it as P1/S. The FI checking me was also an examiner.

With other FIs, I've logged it as Pu/t.

I'm not hour building, so don't really care either way.

Can I chuck a spanner in the works & suggest P1S? Isn't it a "supervised" check ride? Unless instruction has been asked for or advised?

Nope!
See Lasors P56. Pilot-in-Command Para. 1(c).
You may, in a single pilot aeroplane, log P1(s) only when the flight is a licensing test and the examiner is acting as such.
Club check rides are not a licensing requirement. It is an occasion when the hirer is protecting their own interest. Most clubs will nominate an instructor to supervise a check ride. You are, are you not, checking that the pilot has current satisfactory skill which includes their PIC skills.
The PPL holder may if no intervention is required log the flight P1 but so may the instructor in accordance with the above section from LASORS 2007

My instructor tells me to log P1. Only once did he say I was Put but that was after a flying break of several months.

Do helicopters have a 90-day rule as well (3 landings in last 90 days)? Cause in that case you were simply P/UT because you weren't legally allowed to act as P1 on that flight, until you made 3 solo or supervised landings with you being the sole manipulator of the controls.

With regard to fixed wing, the 90 days rule does not prevent acting as PIC. The 90 days rule is with regard to the carriage of passengers.

Personally I think that instructor time, when not manipulating controls, going round and round the pattern, should get a column of its own and not go in to P1. :}

Tin hat and body armour, on....

But really the concept of hours is quite abstract as the experience gained in a flying hour is something quite different dpending on the circumstances.

Absolutely. So if Whirls would log P1, then the FI would be a passenger along for the ride. But Whirls was out of currency, so would not legally be allowed to take passengers.

Hence the FI logging P1, and Whirls P/UT. Problems solved.

Nope again!

An instructor is not a passenger in the circumstances given!

An instructor is not a passenger in the circumstances given!

Except where his or her presence is not required legally by the ANO.

There is an anomally here.

If I checked someone out for an hour or so and then said at the end of the flight. "I am sorry but you handling of the aircraft was not good enough to me to allow you to fly the aircraft solo How would they then log that flight, P1 or Pu/t?

bose-x said:wow that came from the outfield and is completely wrong........You say it's wrong and the Head of Licensing at the CAA says it's right - guess who I'm going to believe.

The simplist advice I can give you is to agree who is in command before the flight. If you can't agree that, then don't go flying together.

Looking at your log book a year later, and wondering were you actually the commander of a flight that you though you weren't commander of at the time, is a bit silly really.

Except where his or her presence is not required legally by the ANO.

As are the circumstances here. A 28-day check flight is not required by the ANO, so the instructors presence is not required. Either the instructor logs P1, making it a lesson, or the instructor does not log P1, making him a passenger.

If I checked someone out for an hour or so and then said at the end of the flight. "I am sorry but you handling of the aircraft was not good enough to me to allow you to fly the aircraft solo How would they then log that flight, P1 or Pu/t?

Tricky one. If his license is valid, if his class rating is valid, if his medical is valid and if he is within his 90-day currency, then as far as the law is concerned, he is legal to fly the aircraft as P1. So he can log P1. Doesn't matter if the club requires a checkout above and beyond what the law requires. However, club rules will still prevent him from taking the clubs airplane solo after a failed checkout.

With regards to club checks, I think the situation is actually very simple: A club checkout is not a thing described within the law. It doesn't require an instructor, as far as the law is concerned. There are clubs/groups who allow certain designated experienced PPLs to check out other pilots, for example. So as far as the law is concerned, a club checkout is simply a flight which is undertaken by two people who both happen to have a current and valid PPL (or higher), in a single-crew aircraft. Just as with two PPLs on board, you've got to decide who gets to be PIC for the flight, but only one of the pilots on board can log P1 time. If both of the people on board are hour-builders (one for CPL, the other for ATPL, for instance), I guess it comes down to who can argue the best to resolve the conflict. (Me personally, as the poor PPL who pays for the plane and the instructor, would insist on logging it as P1 and otherwise find another person to check me out, FI or not, within the club rules.)

The only exception is when you make it into a flight lesson. In that case the "extra" person on board has to be a current FI who then logs P1, and the pilot getting a lesson and simultaneously getting a checkout is logging P/UT. At that point in time, this lesson can also count towards CPL license issue requirements, or towards your SEP revalidation requirements. This is the obvious way out for a PPL who is out of 90-day currency. You book a lesson with an FI, do the three landings as sole manipulator, log it as P/UT while the instructor logs P1, and you're good to go flying with passengers as far as the law is concerned. If the club wants to let such a lesson coincide with a club checkout, I can only say that it makes sense.

An instructor is not a passenger in the circumstances given!

Oh, really? What is he/she then? AFAIK, he is either an instructor, in which case he is PIC, or he is a passenger. What other alternative is there?

Is it really too much to expect two qualified flight crew members to decide who is to be the commander (yes, Chuck, think 'gold braid') in advance? Or for the operator to designate one of them as such?

If you have the conversation in advance then Beagle's comment

1. The FI will invariably be the Commander and will log PIC.

won't be too far from the truth, though there may be som circumstances in which an FI would agree from the outset to be a passenger.

bose-x said:
Quote:
wow that came from the outfield and is completely wrong........
You say it's wrong and the Head of Licensing at the CAA says it's right - guess who I'm going to believe.

Please provide evidence of this. As an Instructor and an examiner and a WG member I am dealing with these people on a regular basis and that is not what I and others have been told.

This is the way we see it and ask students/pilots to log time.

First of all you can log what you like in your log book its what you claim for the grant/renewal of a licence or rating that is defined in law. You can log P2 in a C172 if you want to but you can never claim it for the grant/.renewal etc..

The commander has to be decided before you fly, with a check out the supervising pilot is the commander and thus P1, the other pilot then can only be P1 U/S or PIC U/S--There has never been P1S, that log entry does not exist. around 35 years ago a well known log book manufacturer put P1/S inside a logbook cover and it has been around ever since but its not shown in any CAA document that I know of.

Even if the pilot fails his check ride( a test not required by the ANO) he still gets to log P1 U/S or P1C U/S .

We would not ask the handling pilot to log Pu/t because we see training in the log book context as being training for the grant or renewal of a licence or rating, or the failure of a flight test with an authorised examiner. A check ride does not fall into any of those categories.

The commander has to be decided before you fly, with a check out the supervising pilot is the commander and thus P1, the other pilot then can only be P1 U/S or PIC U/S.

Just to make things clear: I assume that this is a club/school rule, and not something directly derived from ANO regulations, right? And at your club/school, those checks are only done by current FIs?

Just to make things clear: I assume that this is a club/school rule, and not something directly derived from ANO regulations, right? And at your club/school, those checks are only done by current FIs?For check out with us a designated approved FI or trainee FI,

Yes BP, as I an sure you know, most clubs have their own rules as to check flight recency and conversions and these are based on internal rulesas opposed to the ANO.

With us nominated experienced pilots who have been checked out in the right hand seat and have more than 10 hours on type and more than 100 hours P1 total and have passed our written type exam may at the discretion of the CFI check someone out.

I am not sure if the ANO states anywhere if the commander HAS to be decided before flight but by implication it does. Pre flight action by commander of aircraft for instance.

To be able to operate the aircraft properly there has to be a designated commander before flight otherwise who is going to fly the aircraft in the event of an emergency. This is especially important in an emergency say on take off. Think about the situation where a pilot being checked out has an EFATO on his first take off, not the time to have a conference about who is in command!!!!

Someone has to take responsiblity for the loading of the aircraft and the fuel required BEFORE flight, the pilot being checked out may well decide this but it remains the commanders responsiblity and he/she is the one who may have to stand up in court and explain his/her reasoning.

Three pages down, I predict about 5 to go, but no conclusion. Who's taking the bets?

Law is never conclusive all you have to do is hope you and the judge share the same opinion!

The only safe solution is to ensure that the pilot conducting the check is either a FI(A) or CRI(SPA) and the other person is a pilot under supervision.

llanfairpg, using unqualified 'trainees' or 'experienced pilots' for conducting any such checks sounds like a disaster waiting to happen..... Not just for the pilots concerned, but also for whoever dreamed up such a daft idea.

bose-x said:Please provide evidence of this.Why on earth should I? You may believe what you wish about what I say, as may I about what you say - I don't have to prove myself to you or anyone else!

As it happens, I asked the question as a result of this PM, received a little while ago -Hi there
its **** here, you helped me out with advice early this summer re regulations as far as jar and lasors are concerned and i was hoping you could do it again!
i have just had a reply regarding my application for cpl/me/ir saying that my hours are short for 2 reasons....
1) P1 should be 100 and mine are 4hrs short as club checks and school checkout rides are not able to be logged under P1s or Pus (different to what many opinions say on pprune
2) Cpl total has to be 200hrs and they are saying that only 5 of my 40hrs fnpt2 hrs can be included so i need another 17hrs!!!! (again opinions on pprune seem to vary between no sim hours allowed - all allowed - 20hrs allowed but i have never seen 5hrs mentioned
I know this is a big ask as i dont know you but your advice was so good and accurate last time that i was hoping that you could help a very panic stricken fellow out with some more advice
thanks ****The CAA gentleman concerned, a personal friend, confirmed that it was the case that club checks and school checkout rides would not be counted towards the PIC requirement for the issue of a licence or rating.

You may believe this or not as you wish - I don't give a toss either way.

llanfairpg, using unqualified 'trainees' or 'experienced pilots' for conducting any such checks sounds like a disaster waiting to happen..... Not just for the pilots concerned, but also for whoever dreamed up such a daft idea.You are right it is a daft idea and I dreamt it up. I like encouraging people to become flying instructors and to take part. Most importanly it allows some of the training captains who fly with us with over 10,000 hours to check people out rather than use an instructor with a few 100 hours P1.

Remember what I said--at the discretion of the CFI, thats me!

Billy--I think BOSE was just asking if you have written confirmation from the CAA--verbal comment is not worth much. I do not believe there is a definitive answer to this and everything is subject to interpretation.

With us nominated experienced pilots who have been checked out in the right hand seat and have more than 10 hours on type and more than 100 hours P1 total and have passed our written type exam may at the discretion of the CFI check someone out.

Apart from the RHS checkout, the written type exam, the CFI discretion (and the general quality of my landings), that could be me, and I only hold a PPL. So if I were to check somebody out, I would log P1, by your club rules. But in that case the person being checked out cannot log anything, because I'm not an FI and thus they cannot log P/UT or PIC/S. Am I right?

Ilanfairpg, using unqualified 'trainees' or 'experienced pilots' for conducting any such checks sounds like a disaster waiting to happen..... Not just for the pilots concerned, but also for whoever dreamed up such a daft idea.

We're only talking 28-day checks here. Nothing more. If somebody who hasn't flown in the last 28 days is, in your opinion, a "disaster waiting to happen", and that disaster can be fully averted by a checkride of, what, 30-60 minutes with three landings, then there's something wrong with the initial training of that person in the first place, or the FI's you know are actual skygods with biblical teaching powers.

I suggest you read the message and the part that covers P1s and PUS to disciver why you are wrong........ But here is a hint..... the only time P1s is able to be logged is on the successful completion of a flight test.....

But actually I don't give a toss either, but if you want to be a CPL, it is a piss poor approach if you cant be bothered to understand the rules.......



bose-x said:
Quote:
Please provide evidence of this.
Why on earth should I? You may believe what you wish about what I say, as may I about what you say - I don't have to prove myself to you or anyone else!

As it happens, I asked the question as a result of this PM, received a little while ago -
Quote:
Hi there
its **** here, you helped me out with advice early this summer re regulations as far as jar and lasors are concerned and i was hoping you could do it again!
i have just had a reply regarding my application for cpl/me/ir saying that my hours are short for 2 reasons....
1) P1 should be 100 and mine are 4hrs short as club checks and school checkout rides are not able to be logged under P1s or Pus (different to what many opinions say on pprune
2) Cpl total has to be 200hrs and they are saying that only 5 of my 40hrs fnpt2 hrs can be included so i need another 17hrs!!!! (again opinions on pprune seem to vary between no sim hours allowed - all allowed - 20hrs allowed but i have never seen 5hrs mentioned
I know this is a big ask as i dont know you but your advice was so good and accurate last time that i was hoping that you could help a very panic stricken fellow out with some more advice
thanks ****
The CAA gentleman concerned, a personal friend, confirmed that it was the case that club checks and school checkout rides would not be counted towards the PIC requirement for the issue of a licence or rating.

You may believe this or not as you wish - I don't give a toss either way.

Three pages down, I predict about 5 to go, but no conclusion. Who's taking the bets?

Whirly,
Not me!

The reason this thread keeps popping up is because there is lack of clarity and proper rule-making from FCL. The only cases they are prepared to consider are either people undertaking actual official training or multi-crew operation, nothing in LASORS or the ANO about club checkouts.

Perhaps EASA will do a better job than the CAA and JAA have done in making sense of all this.

Cheers,
TheOddOne

Yes but it is all interesting stuff, you have been only listening to it perhaps for a few years but I have heard this argument for around 30 years and for me it underlines human factors possibly more than any other argument amongst pilots.

Notice how many experienced pilots above are convinced they are right because they are experienced, this is the sort of stuff accidents are made of!

the only time P1s is able to be logged is on the successful completion of a flight test.....Now my take on it is and I am not convinced I am right I just know how I approach the problem, is that the above quote is most certainly wrong.

You can log anything you like in your log book I have seen passenger flying in Concorde logged in a log book. A log book is yours, it dosnt belong to the CAA its yours and what you put in it is your business.

And Bose you may have read the rules but with respect you did not understand them because there is no mention in the ANO of P1s.

Here we go again......

P1s or PICUS or P1US or any VARIATION of the same theme is semantics. They all mean the same thing the variation comes from the different log book suppliers.

For a single pilot aircraft the only time that entry can be made is on the completion of a flight test. It can't be used for the a club check or a type conversation or anyone of the myriad of other uses it seems to get put to. So Billiebobs application would have been bounced if the CAA had seen those as entries. However if he had logged them correctly they would have counted towards his licence issue either as P1 or PU2 depending on which column is the correct column for them. They would not be discarded as he wrongly claims.

The question around who logs P1 during a 28 day check is indeed an old one and open to discussion. Whatever it is it is not a PICUS, P1s, P1US etc.

Personally as an Instructor I am happy for the pilot to log P1 and I will log nothing if they are that desperate for the P1 hours. Other Instructors I know do not take this approach claiming if they are in the aircraft and 'working' they are P1 so the other is PUT even if getting no Instruction. I am not going to enter into the debate on this one....

Apart from the RHS checkout, the written type exam, the CFI discretion (and the general quality of my landings), that could be me, and I only hold a PPL. So if I were to check somebody out, I would log P1, by your club rules. But in that case the person being checked out cannot log anything, because I'm not an FI and thus they cannot log P/UT or PIC/S. Am I right?First of all BP I must say that I think I would be very lucky to have somebody like yourself checking people out and I am basing this on the effort you put into your posts and you having previously told me off. (Sorry I know its bad form on here to compliment anyone).

The way I see it is that you would be the supervising pilot you are there in a supervisory capacity so you must be P1. The other pilot therefore is operating under your supervision, as you say you are not an instructor and you are not training him so I see his entry as pilot in command under supervision. I am not saying I am right and I am not referring to the ANO, that is just the way we do it.

Contary to popular folk lore you do not have to have a FI rating to give instruction unless it is for the grant or renewal of a licence or rating, for instance with my airline hat on most of out training captains have not got or ever held instructor ratings but regularly convert people onto big multi jet aircraft from Senecas etc

P1s or PICUS or P1US or any VARIATION of the same theme is semantics. They all mean the same thing the variation comes from the different log book suppliers.I know what you mean Bose but again with respect for my money making a comment like that to a student, and I am referring to P1/S indicates you are not familiar with the regulations and as such detracts from your authority as a professional instructor.

Teaching to high standards start by instructors adhering to high standards.

I am sorry the above sounds like I am being very pedantic but to me the above is as important as being able to fly accuately. (and yes I am still working at both of the aforementioned)

Thanks for the assessment on my professionalism as an Instructor.......:rolleyes:

I am perfectly aware of the regulations, looking at your recent posts on this subject it would be your knowledge of them that I would question.

I will however bow to your superior knowledge on this subject and look forward to your detail in the ANO that states which term is legally correct.

Actually Bose I would think you are a very professional instructor.

Actually Bose I would think you are a very professional instructor.

Doh! Now where is the fighting talk in a comment like that......... :p

First of all BP I must say that I think I would be very lucky to have somebody like yourself checking people out and I am basing this on the effort you put into your posts and you having previously told me off. (Sorry I know its bad form on here to compliment anyone).

If you ever saw the quality of my landings you would think differently...! But thanks for the compliment anyway.

(Those who can, do. Those who can't, write about it.:})

The answer to the questions are;

1. No.

If you were pilot in command then you can log Pilot in command time. If you were pilot in command then you did not need a check beause you were not getting one.

If you were pilot in command then anyone else in the aircraft with you was a passenger and you must have been entitled legally and under your club rules and insurance to be pilot in command of an aircraft carring passengers...........so no checkout was required........so you did not do a checkout.

If you were not so entitled then you were operating either illegally, in breach of the club rules or in breach of the insurance requirement (thus illegal) or any combination of all three.

2. No

You can not change the entries in your logbook ans that would be falsifying the entry. If you think that there is an error then before changing the entry from dual to Pilot in command, you need to contact the person who is named as pilot in command and ensure that they agree that there was an error and that they have not also logged the time as pilot in command.

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

It has nothing to do with who wants to log the hours, it is a legal requirement for the pilot in command to log the time as such and for the other pilot not to log pilot in command time.

The CAA can and do check logbooks and can check entries are correct. The fine for false entries i.e. one such as claiming to be pilot in command when one was not and the aircraft / club / instructor records say you were not is about £2500 per line.

Even at £400 per hour there is a few hours in that money.

Regards,

DFC

If you were pilot in command then you can log Pilot in command time. If you were pilot in command then you did not need a check beause you were not getting one.

If you were pilot in command then anyone else in the aircraft with you was a passenger and you must have been entitled legally and under your club rules and insurance to be pilot in command of an aircraft carring passengers...........so no checkout was required........so you did not do a checkout.

If you were not so entitled then you were operating either illegally, in breach of the club rules or in breach of the insurance requirement (thus illegal) or any combination of all three.



I have to say DFC, that's the best expression of the rules I've seen so far in this thread. BTW, it is illegal to fly without insurance isn't it?

it is illegal to fly without insurance isn't it?

Yes.

Regards,

DFC

But suppose the insurance company isn't involved, ie it's not a requirrment? And suppose the club rules simply state that you can't fly solo after 28 days, but need a competent pilot in the other seat. In other words, they're not saying you can't be PIC, just that you need a safety pilot. What then?

Oooo, isn't this fun? A perfectly simple piece of flying activity that goes on every day of the week, and we can argue about it for ever and ever. ;)

I did say 28 pages.....

Oh, really? What is he/she then? AFAIK, he is either an instructor, in which case he is PIC, or he is a passenger. What other alternative is there?

He/She is a passenger who goes by the title of Instructor as far as he is concerned.

28 day rule is usually a club thing or insurance, it is NOT a requirement of someones licence. As previously stated and we have had this 'discussion' several times on here, unless you agree beforehand its an instructional flight then you are P1 the 'Instructor' can enjoy the view.

I did a 'check flight' yesterday in our group aircraft guess what - it was P1 for me. Unless the club states that his to be an FI does the 'safety pilot' or whatever term you wish to use, have to be an FI? Insurance requirement? Certainly not on our aircraft.

Like I said, this one splits the camp.

J.

And it's still rambling on:ugh:

But what about a co-pilot in a light aircraft not required by the order to operate with two pilots?

But suppose the insurance company isn't involved, ie it's not a requirrment? And suppose the club rules simply state that you can't fly solo after 28 days, but need a competent pilot in the other seat. In other words, they're not saying you can't be PIC, just that you need a safety pilot

In that case then you can be PIC because nothing says that you can not. Unfortunately, that is not how most clubs operate.

Clubs (and anyone who owns an aircraft) can decide the club rules to suit themselves. If the club rules do not require a checkout with an instructor when no longer current eg more than 28 days since last flight the that is up to them.

However, the safety pilot system can lead to two friends simply saying that each was being a safety pilot to the other and thus removing the safety element that the 28 day rule was trying to acheive.

Regardless of the system, the person who is designated the pilot in command pre-flight is the pilot in command and they log the flight as such and just as important, no one else in the aircraft can log it as pilot in command.

Regards,

DFC

Regardless of the system, the person who is designated the pilot in command pre-flight is the pilot in command and they log the flight as such and just as important, no one else in the aircraft can log it as pilot in command.
Rubbish.

I have flown many flight where PIC has changed during the flight.

I also did a BFR in my aeroplane, and I was PIC......

Personally I think that instructor time, when not manipulating controls, going round and round the pattern, should get a column of its own and not go in to P1.
Which is what the ever-so-sensible FAA system does - "As flight instructor". I suppose so the airline interviewer can look at the logbook and say "yea, you have 3000 hours total time, but you haven't really flown any of the last 2500 have you";)

And probably very few of the next 2500 if you end up flying people-tubes in an airline!

The interesting fact is that if you're a good instructor you rarely touch the controls. :{

Subject for another thread?

I also did a BFR in my aeroplane, and I was PIC......


But the US rules are different, most people in this country still log with the assumption that there can only be one P1 (at one time) in the cockpit except after a successful flight test. JAR-FCL brought us the concept of more than one pilot logging P1 at a time but it seems most in the UK don't use it.

JAR-FCL brought us the concept of more than one pilot logging P1 at a time but it seems most in the UK don't use it.

Where? Excepting PICUS for a flight test.

I don't know the ins and outs of this but I happen to have a JAR-FCL compliant logbook at home (which I use as a sort of backup logbook) and in the 'instructions for use' it says this:

Column 11: Pilot function time: enter flight time as pilot in command (PIC), student pilot in command (SPIC) and pilot in command under supervision (PICUS) as PIC. All time recorded as SPIC or PICUS must be countersigned by the aircraft commander/flight instructor in the Remarks column. Instructor time should be recorded as appropriate and also entered as PIC.

So if I understand correctly a dual instructional flight is logged by the student as SPIC time (with dual time going in the adjacent column) which goes in the PIC column of the logbook. The instructor then also logs 'instruction' time as well as PIC time.

The reason this thread keeps popping up is because there is lack of clarity and proper rule-making from FCL.Agreed. The PICUS debate is an example. JAR FCL and LASORS just say that under such a such circumstance use P1/S. It does not seem to infer when you may not. LASORS only provides some guidance on successful skills tests and PICUS but there is no mention of this in the rules (which only talk about co-pilots) so it seems clear that it is a matter of what is sensible, not what is written.

I asked the CFI this question. Their practice is as llanfairpg states. The 'posh' school at Blackbushe treat PICUS as BoseX describes.

In fairness, the rules have not be designed around insurance/club requirements for 4/6 week recency checkouts. They have been designed around formal flight training and that is what they describe. But JAR FCL does state the an instructor may log P1 when acting as an instructor which read likes a catch all.

On that basis, I would say that a student logging as PICUS if an instructor has not had to intervene is justified and legal. Certainly the CAA have not questioned this in my logbook.

Erm no.

It just tells you to put whatever is relevant in the column. PICUS is only logged on successful completion of a test.

So if you pass a skills test you log as PICUS, if you fail you log as PUT. If you are in command in a single pilot aircraft you log as P1. If you are getting training in a single pilot aircraft you log PUT and the Instructor Logs P1.

Nothing else counts for a single pilot aircraft.

Now back to the argument of who is actually in command on a 28 day check.......

Now back to the argument of who is actually in command on a 28 day check.......

The instructor should be is the obvious answer but that isn't the practice of a lot of flying clubs.:=

Really? If I am sat with a pilot who has a current SEP rating in accordance with JAR FCL and I am sat with them for the purposes of meeting club/syndicate rules and providing no input to the flight how can I be providing instruction?

The purpose of the flight is to ensure that the person is safe to command for club 'insurance' purposes not to give any instruction.

Personally as an Instructor I log nothing and allow the pilot to be clearly in command of the flight.

I await responses from the floor.......:E

The CAA gentleman concerned, a personal friend, confirmed that it was the case that club checks and school checkout rides would not be counted towards the PIC requirement for the issue of a licence or rating.



I am only going on what was said earlier, if the CAA doesn't count 'check out' time then it isn't real PIC time is it.


The purpose of the flight is to ensure that the person is safe to command for club 'insurance' purposes not to give any instruction.


But if under insurance requirements he needs to be in currency then he can't be PIC, you have to be. Otherwise he would be flying without insurance which is illegal.

The CAA do count check out time if it is logged in the correct manner. Logging as PICUS or P1s or a derivative of such is incorrect logging. So it will get logged as PUT.

Show me an Insurance policy that REQUIRES a 28 day currency.

bose it was you that mentioned insurance,


ensure that the person is safe to command for club 'insurance' purposes not to give any instruction.


Obviously if insurance has nothing to do with it then:


But if under insurance requirements he needs to be in currency then he can't be PIC, you have to be. Otherwise he would be flying without insurance which is illegal.


is irrelevant to this discussion.

I agree if the instructor is logging nothing then it's fine for the pilot to log PIC.

Yeah I put insurance in quotes for a reason.....

I have yet to see an Insurance policy that requires 28 day checkouts. I have however seen lots of flying schools who require a club checkout every 28 days and hide behind insurance as the reason. I have asked ALL of the insurance syndicates (off which there are less than 5) for a status on this and they all said the same thing, they just expect the pilot to be legal in accordance with the terms of his licence.

As far as who logs what, I was not debating that with you, I quite clearly stated what I do and threw it open to the floor.

Back to you......

Really? If I am sat with a pilot who has a current SEP rating in accordance with JAR FCL and I am sat with them for the purposes of meeting club/syndicate rules and providing no input to the flight how can I be providing instruction?

Why does having a current rating have anyhting to do with the amount of instruction you need to give.

You could be flying with a person who completes everything from start to shutdown without any instruction, assistance or intervention from you.

Will you not log that time as PIC..........even if they are a student that you then send on their first solo?

The reason why you have to be pilot in command is that the other pilot (for whatever reason) is not entitled to be pilot in command.

If for that reason, you are pilot in command then in single pilot aircraft the only posibility for the other person to log the time is dual

Note that since JAR-FCL, the time is dual it is not student time, it is not pilot under tuition time it is dual time.

They can of course if they choose not log time as pilot in command or as dual but simply record the take-off and landings they completed as sole manipulator of the controls.

However, your being an instructor enables them to add to their total flight time experience even if it is dual.

Where this falls down legally is that instructors are legally required to record all dual flights that they command and make a return of them when they seek to renew their rating.

One could argue that leaving time out is just as much a falsification as putting extra time in. Especially if the person who is wrongly permitted to claim the pilot in command time uses that time todards renewal, revalidation or other licensing requirements.

Regards,

DFC

See..... So many polarised views......:E

While I am not giving Instruction I do not see the need to log P1.

Please show me where a pilot who has a current according to FCL, SEP rating is not able to be pilot in command. Club rules do not make for a LEGAL basis to deny them the right to be pilot in command.

I own my aircraft, after 28 days please show me where legally I can no longer be P1.

There is a difference between LEGALITY and club rules.

You are an odd bloke DFC, I really would like to understand how I can be falsifying my logbook by not recording flights as P1 when there is no need for me to do so. :rolleyes:

In fact I am now going to instigate a new rule, whenever I get in an aircraft with someone I am going to insist I am P1 just in case I have to give any comment on the conduct of the flight. I wonder how many invites to go flying I will get.........

Yeah I put insurance in quotes for a reason.....



Sorry your subtlety was lost on me...:ugh:

As it happens I'm on agreement with you as far as the pilot logging PIC and the instructor logging nothing- that is quite straight forward and I can't see what the CAA has against that.

Just looking back through my logbook I seem to have several 'Satisfactory LPC' comments complete with signature and instructor's licence number and has been logged (instructor filling in my logbook) as P1(s). Not actually sure what that means.

LPC - Licence Proficiency Check - The successful completion of a flight test - PICUS, P1s etc?

Please show me where a pilot who has a current according to FCL, SEP rating is not able to be pilot in command. Club rules do not make for a LEGAL basis to deny them the right to be pilot in command.

Just to prove Islander2 wrong I am going to disagree with you ;)

If the pilot order book states you need to be "current" according to club/school rules or you need to be checked-out by a club/school pilot, and you are not "current" by that strict definition, then you cannot lawfully be in command of that aircraft.

If you try it you are effectively twoc :O

Come on rustle thats a stretch. Since when has a club rule suddenly become law?

I know some club CFI's think they are the law......... :p

Well it isn't "law" per se, but you cannot be lawfully "in command" of an unlawful flight: TWOC makes it unlawful, ergo...

Ok you have me I will bite show me the ANO (or other legal) reference that supports that one!

I have a new rule: If you have not worn pink shorts in the last 28 days you are required to have a check flight with me before you fly my aircraft. I shall use the same reference you are going to provide me with to enforce it. :O

LPC - Licence Proficiency Check - The successful completion of a flight test - PICUS, P1s etc?


Yeah I thought it was something like that- just shows how much I really know about this flying thing :rolleyes:. I wish instructors would tell me what the hell is going on sometimes :ugh:.

I'd have thought club rules are enforceable by law, if you have signed the flying order book and then do something that isn't alllowed then you have invalidated the club's insurance (have you not?) and therefore are breaking the law. Someone care to comment?

Lets not confuse the law with the flying order book. I have just added the requirement for pink short wearing in 28 days to mine. I am not sure the law lords will support it though......

Ok you have me I will bite show me the ANO (or other legal) reference that supports that one!

Not sure I have time to search the ANO/LASORS or anything else for a particular reference, but I will counter by asking a simple test question:

If I steal your aircraft can I log the time I'm flying it or not? ;)

Supplementary:

Will the CAA allow me to use that time in my totals column? :p

As long as you have a current SEP rating I don't see why not....... :):)

However will you have worn the required pink shorts in the previous 28 day period?

I have a new rule: If you have not worn pink shorts in the last 28 days you are required to have a check flight with me before you fly my aircraft.

Obviously if you are convinced that wearing pink shorts has a safety benefit in your aircraft, you do apply the same rule to yourself too, don't you?

Pictures please, every 28 days. You can post them right here!:D

(For the record, I'm with you on this topic. If the law says that you can legally fly an aircraft you're entitled to log it as P1, even if the club rules say that an instructor has to be on board.)

I'd have thought club rules are enforceable by law, if you have signed the flying order book and then do something that isn't alllowed then you have invalidated the club's insurance (have you not?) and therefore are breaking the law. Someone care to comment?

I guess that if you do something that's against the club rules, and the club has a loss from that, then the club can start a civil action against you. And rightly so, since what you did was a "breach of contract" (note: not directly "breaking the law"). But the CAA will stay out. However, if you break the law, it's the CAA who may come after you. In this thread, we're talking about what's *legally* allowed in your logbook.

And Bose already submitted that there are no insurance providers that he knows of (and he seems to have done his homework) that require proficiency above and beyond the law. So a club hiding behind "insurance requirements" to enforce a 28-day checkout is not really being honest to its members.

Note that I have no problems with clubs making and enforcing rules that do not directly stem from insurance requirements, as long as they don't announce them as "insurance requirements". But I do see a lot of organizations, aviation and non-aviation, use "insurance requirement" as a phrase to end all discussion about a certain rule, instead of being honest about things.

Lets not confuse the law with the flying order book. I have just added the requirement for pink short wearing in 28 days to mine. I am not sure the law lords will support it though......

If the pilots order book was required by a statutory instrument it would be law in terms that not complying with it would be contravention of the statutory instrument that requires it (The ANO).For instance an Operations Manual is required by statutory instrument for public transport

The main reason for a pilots order book is not to make unenforcable law but to cover yourself, and your company/club in the event of a negligence claim.

When I write in our POB that no one will enter or vacate an aircraft with the engine running its not just because I think that to do so is the hallmark of a poorly run and discilpined school, it is to cover my arse if ever anyone does get injured by a propellor. I cannot turn around and say its the law but I can produce the signature of the pilot who is now missing a limb in court saying that he understood that it was against our rules to try to get out of the aircraft with the engine running and that he was in fact negligent not me--something for all you self employed instructors out there without liability insurance to think about!

llanfairpg writes:

something for all you self employed instructors out there without liability insurance to think about!

I've started a new thread on this subject in the Instructor's forum. I think it's worthy of separate debate.

Cheers,
TheOddOne

The main reason for a pilots order book is not to make unenforcable law but to cover yourself, and your company/club in the event of a negligence claim.

Exactly. I am just making the point of separating LAW and arse covering.

There is not a legal requirement for a pilots order book, it is not a legal document and any rules in it are not legal requirements. This include the 28 day rule.

So when a club insists on a 28 day checkout out it is not for legal reasons it is for club reasons and if the pilot is already LEGALLY entitled to fly having met the FCL/ANO requirements then one could argue they are perfectly entitled to be P1.........:E

I still believe that if hiring an aircraft you have to comply with the rules of the hirer else you are [effectively] taking it without consent.

I further believe that if you are acting unlawfully (TWOC) you cannot obtain a benefit from that action.

PiC/P1 hours must be a "benefit", else why would there be so many threads about claiming them? ;)

Well you have certainly brightened up my day. It takes a very flexible mind to arrive at that conclusion!!!
:):):)

I agree with homegaurd, if you have a licence and are rated on the a/c and its just a matter of a currency check then P1/S is what my students use. P1 under supervision. It denotes that you were P1 but had and instructor with you. Shouldn't be hard to change in the logbook either.

Accept P1/S is not allowed to be used in that context as it is not a flight test.

What are you putting in your logbook? P1? So we have two people logging P1......
;)

One can put P1 and the other P1 u/s or Pu/t--but what is in question is what can be claimed towards the grant/renewal of a licence or rating.

Accept P1/S is not allowed to be used in that context as it is not a flight test.



As I mentioned earlier my logbook differentiates between P1/S (or SPIC actually) and PIC U/S which is something different.

SPIC= student pilot in command (which can be logged simultaneously with 'dual').

PIC U/S= pilot in command under supervision (only possible after a successful flight test).

My JAR compliant logbook only carries entries for:

PIC or P1
PIC U/S
P2
P/UT
SNY

There is no such thing as SPIC in JAA Land.

PIC U/S= pilot in command under supervision (only possible after a successful flight test).
Or at any time the handling pilot is operating under the supervision of the commander but carrying all the duties of the commander.

Think of the case were a training captain is converting say someone with a BAC 1-11 on his licence to the Airbus.

If you want to talk about this in the context of airline logging then fine. I look forward to my club getting their first airbus....

The question is around logging club check rides in club aircraft and sprang from an original question about the time being allowable towards a CPL application.

Why don't we discuss the use of P2 next?

Or at any time the handling pilot is operating under the supervision of the commander but carrying all the duties of the commander.



Surely that is only valid in a multicrew aircraft?

There is no such thing as SPIC in JAA Land.

Clearly Jeppesen don't know what they are talking about then? :E

Clearly Jeppesen don't know what they are talking about then?

Its printed in your logbook by Jeppesen (who have a reputaion for mistakes) so it must be right.....:ugh:

Or maybe as an American company trying to make a one size fits all logbook they may have got it wrong and confused things? My FAA logbook has the SPIC entry, but then in FAA land you can have 2 P1's in a single pilot aircraft......

My AFE logbook claims to be JAR FCL compliant and contains only the headings listed above. I have both the PPL and CPL varieties.

So which is right?

Discuss......

Surely that is only valid in a multicrew aircraft?If you can find that statement in LASORS I will agree with you.


Same as P2, you can log P2 in a Cessna 172 but unless it is part of a pre- agreement with the CAA it cannot be counted towards the grant or renewal of a licence or rating.

A lot of people posting on this thread are trying to make the answer what they would like it to be rather than actually reading LASORS.

My AFE logbook claims to be JAR FCL compliant and contains only the headings listed above. I have both the PPL and CPL varieties.

Your log book is not a statutory instrument so therefore has no place in law.

Or maybe as an American company trying to make a one size fits all logbook they may have got it wrong and confused things? My FAA logbook has the SPIC entry, but then in FAA land you can have 2 P1's in a single pilot aircraft......



That is what a thought at first when I saw it (I remember having long argument with a FAA instructor on why the concept of having two P1s was silly) but it just seems a far too basic mistake to make when you consider that Jeppesen sell a completely different logbook which is 'FAA compliant'.

It doesn't really matter because I've never used the SPIC entry and have just continued to log as I was told originally: P1, P U/T and P1 U/S (for completion of a flight test).

Your log book is not a statutory instrument so therefore has no place in law.

Exactly, the point I was making........ Just like a club checkout......
:ok:

SPIC features in JAA integrated training.

SPIC features in JAA integrated training.

So not in a club checkout context then......... :ugh:

Although I would be interested to see where, please provide a reference.

Although I would be interested to see where, please provide a reference.


You beat me too it Arfur Feck-Sake, I was just putting down LASORS when the internet stopped working :ugh:.

I hope I'm not breaking the rules doing this but it just seemed easiest:

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd195/edbellamy/Loggingoftime.jpg

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd195/edbellamy/loggingtime2.jpg

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd195/edbellamy/loggingtime3.jpg

Nice one CT.

References also in JAR-FCL1. But LASORS is more specific.

If you can find that statement in LASORS I will agree with you.



It would appear that as a PPL you cannot log time 'carrying out the duties of the PIC under the supervision of the pilot in command' as PIC U/S and in order for PIC U/S to be counted towards grant/renewal of a licence (in the case of a pilot holding a higher licence than PPL) in that scenario the aircraft must be a muticrew aircraft.

Which is what I have been saying all along.....

...and NONE of the above in LASORS is of any use whatsoever for those of us carrying out 'club' checkouts. Note 3 is all about a/c requiring 2 or more crew. I feel the CAA have badly let us down here. We need proper rules from our Regulator. The purpose of a club checkout is to maintain and enhance safety, so surely SRG want us to conduct these in a sensible way with a consistent manner of recording the fact? They've even encouraged people to obtain the CRI to enable this to take place (well certain individuals at SRG have, anyway...)

I think they should say the following:

Day/VFR SEP flights.

A pilot in an a/c who is within the 90-day rule but is required by the owner/operator of the aircraft to undertake a more stringent flight check can either:

a) conduct the flight as P1. The other front seat occupant of the aircraft for ANO purposes is a passenger; despite any advice that may be offered during the course of the light. The other front seat occupant cannot make any logbook entry that suggests they had anything to do with manipulating the controls.

b) conduct the flight as Pu/t. The other front seat occupant must be a suitably, currently rated CRI or FI (or FIE etc) and must log the flight as P1.

c)any pilot who is outside the 90-day rule MUST either fly solo as P1 or with a suitably qualified CRI, FI etc and log the flight as Pu/t.

Will the CAA ever come out and lay the above down (or any variation/deviation that they might think fit?) No, of course not! They will claim that it's outside their terms of reference. Personally, I disagree, I think it's inside and they ought to do something.

Re insurance. ALL our policy says is that our a/c is covered for 'Club' use and then goes on to define what 'Club' means. There's nothing about restrictions requiring checks. We manage that amougst ourselves, very well.

At the school where I work, a hirer won't get access to the aircraft keys unless they meet the local requirements anyway, so no possibility of flying without the owner's consent so insurance remains valid.

Now, as I've said above, sometimes I'll sit in with a friend so that they can comply with our local club rules and let them log P1 and I won't trouble my logbook. A scenario here might be that they need their 6 hours P1 in their
2nd year and this might save them from having to do a test with an Examiner. OR, they might ring me up and say 'I haven't flown our a/c for 6 weeks 'cos the wx has been lousy' and I'll say 'fill yer boots, just fly' without a check as they've got several thousand hours SEP and 10,000 hours on passenger jets!

TheOddOne

I think they should say the following:

Day/VFR SEP flights.

[snip]

Will the CAA ever come out and lay the above down (or any variation/deviation that they might think fit?) No, of course not! They will claim that it's outside their terms of reference. Personally, I disagree, I think it's inside and they ought to do something.

TOO, isn't the situation you describe *exactly* the same as for any other private flight? You are PIC thus log P1, or you take an instructor and log it as Pu/t and the instructor P1. Since the CAA doesn't recognise the "club checkout" concept in any official document, but just consider it a private flight, why would they need to provide clarification as to the rules?

Since the CAA doesn't recognise the "club checkout" concept in any official document, but just consider it a private flight, why would they need to provide clarification as to the rules?

Backpacker,

Well, precisely because so many people seem to be doing things which are contrary to this position. If everyone was doing what they're supposed to in the first place, we wouldn't have this thread running...

I REALLY wasn't going to add any more to this thread, honest, I just got sucked in again.

TheOddOne

I've been reading this thread with intrest having just completed a CRI with the aim of using it in a club environment.

As I understand it...it is simple, the CAA/JAA do not recognise the "club checkout" as a type of flight test/check.

So the ANO and JAR-FCL 1 become applicable (as in LASORS above), which means it is treated as a private flight:

1)If the pilot can carry PAX then he logs P1 and the FI/CRI logs nothing.
2)If the pilot can't carry PAX then he logs Put (dual) and the FI/CRI logs P1.
3)If the FI/CRI ends up teaching or taking control then it becomes a training flight as in 2 above.
4)SPIC can't be used unless on an approved integrated training course.
5)P1/us or any variation only used when doing a flight test with a FIE.

Simple really
smithgd

Smithgd,

That's about perfect, which one slight addition. In senario 1. "If the pilot can carry PAX", then it doesn't automatically mean that the pilot being checked out logs P1 and the instructor nothing; it simply means that that is an option open to them.

It could also be that the instructor logs P1 and the pilot being checked out logs either Pu/t (if they get some training) or nothing (if they don't get any training). It's really about what they agree to before they go flying ;)

But other than that, I agree 100% with your summary.

dp

I think smithgd that's the best we are going to do for now and I believe most clubs are doing 1) on your list.

Just don't believe an instructor who tells you to log PIC U/S after a 'twice round the circuit' and make sure if you are going to log it as P1 that the instructor isn't logging anything.

This problem has generally been perpetuated by the hours builders desperate for every minute they can grab.

Hopefully with the proliferation of the CRI rating and and changes to the FI coming up we will get dedicated PPL Instructors who are interested in putting something in instead of constantly taking out.

This problem has generally been perpetuated by the hours builders desperate for every minute they can grab.



Indeed...I'm happy that the two 'combos' of P1 & nothing or P U/T & P1 for club check outs are both correct, however what made me wonder was this (posted a few pages back):


Hi there
its **** here, you helped me out with advice early this summer re regulations as far as jar and lasors are concerned and i was hoping you could do it again!
i have just had a reply regarding my application for cpl/me/ir saying that my hours are short for 2 reasons....
1) P1 should be 100 and mine are 4hrs short as club checks and school checkout rides are not able to be logged under P1s or Pus (different to what many opinions say on pprune
2) Cpl total has to be 200hrs and they are saying that only 5 of my 40hrs fnpt2 hrs can be included so i need another 17hrs!!!! (again opinions on pprune seem to vary between no sim hours allowed - all allowed - 20hrs allowed but i have never seen 5hrs mentioned
I know this is a big ask as i dont know you but your advice was so good and accurate last time that i was hoping that you could help a very panic stricken fellow out with some more advice
thanks ****


One can only assume that the CAA took issue with it because of the use of P1 U/S and had it been logged as P1 with the instructor logging nothing it would have been fine.

But it was then followed by this:


The CAA gentleman concerned, a personal friend, confirmed that it was the case that club checks and school checkout rides would not be counted towards the PIC requirement for the issue of a licence or rating.



How can the CAA comment on something which according the regulatory structure doesn't exist? :ugh:

Which was why I asked for the evidence. The original poster then got very hot under the collar but did not produce the evidence.

And yes you are right the CAA would have taken issue with the P1S entries as they are incorrect.

So we have gone full circle....... :ok:

I think Bose has put some very sensible (if you excuse the pink shirts :) ) points forward and got every one to think a bit more about the subject rather than blindly following what an instructor tells them. Well done mate.

Whilst you maybe considered TWOC if you took a club aircraft on day 29 and suitablly followed up by what ever action the club wants to take, heres another scenario for you...

Several people have brought up about falsifying logbooks and the @<hidden> and fines associated with it, so I will throw this one into the pot.

Lets say that a hirer takes a 'Club Check Flight', he is fully within the legal requirements to command the specific type of aircraft (i.e. C172), its a 28 day check purely for club purposes and nothing else so the FI can just enjoy the view. The hirer has told the FI as such before they enter the aircraft that he is legal, etc and unless the FI intervenes because he considers the hirer flying dangerous, he can sit there enjoy the view and ask for the maneourves to perform.

I would also point out that the FI must intervene because he feels that the hirer is unsafe/damaging aircraft/etc and not because he wants to take over to show him another way of doing something in contravention of what was agreed on the ground unless as said earlier, the hirer is unsafe, a muppet, etc. Otherwise its a convinient way for any hour buliding FIs to say they took control and hence claim the flight.

Flight successful. Now on the ground the FI says he is logging P1, you state you are logging P1 as no instruction took place. If the CAA ever called landed on the logbooks and found them both logging the same hours, would the FI feel confident enough to argue that the hours are his when there appears to be no legal basis for claiming them, only a club flying order?

J.

Further to my previous post:

I guess it boils down to...

Agree with the CRI/FI who does what and who logs what before the flight.


Julian

If the CAA don't recognise the "club checkout" type of flight then where do they stand on the "Club Rules/order book" from a legal point of view, in the eyes of the law which one wins? I would be tempted to obay the ANO unless someone knows otherwise. I guess it depends on the type of club, whether it's a commercial club or private club/group???

cheers
smithgd

would the FI feel confident enough to argue that the hours are his when there appears to be no legal basis for claiming them, only a club flying order?



He shouldn't be able to feel confident arguing that the hours are his if they both logged P1, only if the other pilot logged P U/T could he claim P1 time.

I wonder: what would the pilot do if (having agreed he is P1) the instructor tried to take control, he could just turn round and say: 'I'm P1, so get off the controls!' Instructors agreeing to be a passenger on a check flight do so at their peril ;).

Otherwise its a convinient way for any hour buliding FIs to say they took control and hence claim the flight.
I seem to remember doing a "cross channel check" many moons ago with a fellow pilot ;), where certain persons ;) were more qualified than the FI....:}

Flight successful. Now on the ground the FI says he is logging P1, you state you are logging P1 as no instruction took place. If the CAA ever called landed on the logbooks and found them both logging the same hours, would the FI feel confident enough to argue that the hours are his when there appears to be no legal basis for claiming them, only a club flying order?

Isn't it so that any Pu/t hours need to be countersigned by the FI? So wouldn't the fact that the "student" logs P1 and then does not offer his logbook for a countersignature gives a hint to the FI that he's not P1 for the flight?

Oh, and if the instructor claims to be P1 for the flight, isn't it his responsibility to make sure that all paperwork, including the "students" logbook, is properly filled in and duly countersigned?

So I doubt this would go as far as the CAA. Nevertheless, better to get this out of the way before the flight starts.

(The word "student" used here in the sense that it's the pilot being checked out, but not necessarily receiving instruction.)

Isn't it so that any Pu/t hours need to be countersigned by the FI? So wouldn't the fact that the "student" logs P1 and then does not offer his logbook for a countersignature gives a hint to the FI that he's not P1 for the flight?

Oh, and if the instructor claims to be P1 for the flight, isn't it his responsibility to make sure that all paperwork, including the "students" logbook, is properly filled in and duly countersigned?

Backpacker, have a look at my posts again - I am talking about someone who is NOT a student, a hirer who is licenced for the aircraft being hired and only doing a 28 day check as required by a club.

I wonder: what would the pilot do if (having agreed he is P1) the instructor tried to take control, he could just turn round and say: 'I'm P1, so get off the controls!' Instructors agreeing to be a passenger on a check flight do so at their peril .

CT, hence why I put in their about Instructor being able to take control if hirer was incapable, not because the instructor feels like it.

J.

I wonder: what would the pilot do if (having agreed he is P1) the instructor tried to take control, he could just turn round and say: 'I'm P1, so get off the controls!' Instructors agreeing to be a passenger on a check flight do so at their peril

Sounds like attempted hijacking to me, if a passenger tries to takeover.

Dial in XXXX to the transponder and call for fighter escort and then encourage the CPS to put the guy away for a long time :}

I've been reading this thread with intrest having just completed a CRI with the aim of using it in a club environment.


smithgd,

Well done, I did it a couple of years ago as a 'taster' to see if I'd like to do instructing; since done the FI(R).

TheOddOne

ps I STILL say the CAA should come out with a proper code of conduct for club/hirer checkouts.

Your choice really. And although the question was fine, I suspect the answers will run and run to the point where some of us lose the will to live

Go on then - prove me wrong!

Nope, you're right! 140 posts and we're only just getting warmed up!

TOO

I think that people have forgotten where the 28 day (or whatever) checkout requirements comes from. It comes from the owner or operator of the aircraft's ability to decide what people using the aircraft must comply with. As someone else pointed out earlier it is a contract between the person who owns the aircraft and the person using thew aircraft.

If as BOSE said the owner only permuts pilots with pink shorts to fly the aircraft then that is it you don the pink ones or you do not fly. Very Very simple. How on earth could people have a problem understanding that.

Now if the oener of the aircraft decides that if you fall foul of their 28 day rule, you are not entitled to be pilot in command of their aircraft then there is noting more simple than that - you can not be pilot in command of their aircraft. Want to be pilot in command all the time without having 28 day checkouts then get yourself an aircraft or find someone who does not insist on 28 day checkouts.

However, if you stay with the club that requires 28 day checkouts you can either fly often enough to not require such a check or you can fly in accordance with the club rules i.e. in most cases with instructor as pilot in command.

Remember that this can be more than a simple dual flight with the instructor. The instructor is entitled to require further training and a further checkout based on the performance. Instructors are trained to determine the ability of a pilot to meet the PPL safe operating requirements.

If the owner of an aircraft has a rule requiring a 28 day checkout but despite that allows you to be pilot in command on the 29th day since you last operated as pilot in command then they should not bother with a 28 day requirement because they are not following it.

Before flight the decision must be made as to who is pilot in command ( the ANO requires it)........i.e. where two pilot fly together one must be designated as the commander.

Having done so, it is illegal for the pilot who is not the commander to claim that they were so. It is also illegal for the aircraft commander to claim that they were not so.

If the aircraft runs off the runway and kills someone, who is going to be held responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft. That person is the pilot in command.

Anyone who flies with another pilot without first determining who is pilot in command deserves what they get when the CAA come calling for some illegal part of the flight and the other pilot (wrongly) calims they were simply a passenger.

Instructors would save on liability insurance if they could simply blame it all on the other pilot!

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

Simply put;

I have a shelve of logbooks. Even a few JAR-FCL ones that comply with AMC-JAR-FCL which BOSE was unaware of. I do not need any hours and am not trying to "pinch someones hours"

If you approach me and ask me to complete a checkout with you then it will be a dual flight and I will be pilot in command and you will log it as dual. I will sign off the flight with appropriate comments if necessary.

If after landing you insist on writing pilot in command in your logbook then I will point to the fact that I am not happy with the attitude displayed and that such an attitude is deterimental to flight safty, Therefore, the checkout is not complete and further "education" is required before I state that you are suitable to fly the aircraft as pilot in command.

If prior to the flight with someone like BOSE they indicate that they would like a checkout but they will be pilot in command, I will simply point out that if they are happy to be pilot in command then how can they not be happy to be pilot in command at the same time? In other words - If you are happy that you can be pilot in command you do not need me to hold your hand.

If on the other hand you want to be pilot in command but have some sucker sitting next to you to blame if you prang the aircraft then find some other sucker.

The point about a passenger not being able to take control is very valid and must be remembered by instructors who agree to fly with a pilot but only as a passenger.

Regards,

DFC

f prior to the flight with someone like BOSE they indicate that they would like a checkout but they will be pilot in command, I will simply point out that if they are happy to be pilot in command then how can they not be happy to be pilot in command at the same time? In other words - If you are happy that you can be pilot in command you do not need me to hold your hand.

Ok I don't give a toss about your view on things but do me a favour and don't misquote me. I have never had to have a 28 checkout as I fly rather to often and so have not expressed my view on my position in that case as it's irrelevant. I have expressed the fact that as an Instructor if someone does a 28 day check with me they are welcome to be P1 if the circumstances permit. I am not an hours builder and have enough hours to have at least got out of the basic killing zone.

Personally I think YOUR view is jaded old school but thats nothing less than I have come to expect from you.

Bose,

You said;

I have expressed the fact that as an Instructor if someone does a 28 day check with me they are welcome to be P1 if the circumstances permit

and I said;

If on the other hand you want to be pilot in command but have some sucker sitting next to you to blame if you prang the aircraft then find some other sucker.

Please provide your contact details so that if I find pilots seeking such a sucker they can contact you. :D

Regards,

DFC

Perhaps thats the difference between me and you DFC. I am prepared to give credit where credit is due and accept that most pilots are adults and able to make decisions for themselves rather than have it thrust upon them.

So you stick to your dogma and I will stick with the more enlightened approach. Look on the bright side if I get it wrong you can gloat.

No need to be rude Bose, DFC is entitled to his opinion. All of this is a matter of interpretation, why get rude just because people do not agree with you.

Anyway getting back to the thread.

All of our club aircraft are Tipsy Nippers, lets say, how does that affect the argument.

Lets say we have two Cessna 172s one has full dual controls the other one has the 2nd pilot CC removed.

How are you now going to log the checkout with the one with only one CC.

Lets say we have a Dragon Rapide and every one has twin ratings, how is the check out going to be logged.

There was nothing rude in my reply. It is my opinion and I stand by it.

Ok I don't give a toss about your view on things

Personally I think YOUR view is jaded old school but thats nothing less than I have come to expect from you.

and thats not rude, well well, I must be 'jaded old school' too.

All of our club aircraft are Tipsy Nippers, lets say, how does that affect the argument.

Lets say we have two Cessna 172s one has full dual controls the other one has the 2nd pilot CC removed.

How are you now going to log the checkout with the one with only one CC.

Lets say we have a Dragon Rapide and every one has twin ratings, how is the check out going to be logged.

Tipsy Nippers - single pilot, no debate required.

Similar almost for the C172, however, a club could still require a checkout and require it to be done on the aircraft with dual controls.

As for the Rapide, I remember years ago a CFI doing initial multiengine training on one!!!!! Had to have lots of balls, and very quick reactions. He basically said that if the student did not get it correct ie put the wrong boot in, he would close the other throttle and then open both of them or else force land. Not something that would get past the FTO inspector these days.

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

Again the point is that if it is your aircraft you can do what you like, you can even do no flying for a few hours short of 2 years, then do 3 circuits on your own before taking your nearest and dearest flying.

If it another person's aircraft or a club aircraft then they can say what you must do and you can do it or not fly the aircraft.

-----------

So you stick to your dogma and I will stick with the more enlightened approach. Look on the bright side if I get it wrong you can gloat.

If I was one prone to gloating, I would not have time to post much else. SPIC being a recent example. :D :D :D

Regards,

DFC

Tipsy Nippers - single pilot, no debate required.

Where would the examiner be for a type test?

Before flight the decision must be made as to who is pilot in command ( the ANO requires it)........i.e. where two pilot fly together one must be designated as the commander.

That's only the case for a public transport flight. While I would be the first to suggest that the ANO would be better for requiring a commander to be designated for all flights, it offers only:

'Commander' in relation to an aircraft means the member of the flight crew
designated as commander of that aircraft by the operator, or, failing such a person,
the person who is for the time being the pilot in command of the aircraft;

If it another person's aircraft or a club aircraft then they can say what you must do and you can do it or not fly the aircraft.

Yes to a degree, and I agree but if they said I want you to fly around Tower Bridge at 100 feet you may want to decline which brings us back to the law again.

My examples all point to another pilot on board having access to the controls Eg Supervision. If a check out requires supervision and an accompanying pilot is on board as as supervisor a record of that supervison (which is part of that pilots personal experience) should be contained in that pilots log book.

So we have a supervisor and a commander!

That's only the case for a public transport flight. While I would be the first to suggest that the ANO would be better for requiring a commander to be designated for all flights, it offers only:Pre flight action of commander of aircraft appliys to all flying machines, it would be difficult to interpret otherwise. Certain actions must be carried out before flight unless you have access to air to air fuellling.

Oh and of course 'booking out'

reading that back i havnt made that clear.

If the law requires a commander to take certain actions before flight it is common sense to interpret there must be a designated commander before these actions can be taken!

I think that it is even simpler than that. The commander is simply the responsible person, the person who gets into trouble if it all goes wrong.

It is simply a responsibility issue. Nothing to do with who chenges switch selections or moves the controls or talks on the radio.

People should refer to a recent accident report where one of those involved claimed to not be the pilot in command but the AAIB found that they were the pilot in command becuase of what they did on the flight.

I think that any instructor on a check flight who claimed not to be pilot in command could easily find the AAIB making the same points.

Regards,

DFC

I think you are probably correct but we often fly two captains but only one is the commander, the signature in the technical log is the proof and may be the only proof if it goes tits up.

PS are your refering to Blackpool

If the law requires a commander to take certain actions before flight it is common sense to interpret there must be a designated commander before these actions can be taken!

On the contrary, I think "the person who is for the time being the pilot in command of the aircraft" means that the ANO clearly anticipates a situation where the commander is not designated before flight and, moreover, may change during the course of the flight. If two pilots, both qualified to be in command of the aircraft, split the pre-flight actions between them, who is commander? On a private flight, a tech log is not required and even a formal tech log does not necessarily require a pre-flight signature.

I think that any instructor on a check flight who claimed not to be pilot in command could easily find the AAIB making the same points.

I couldn't agree more. All I'm doing is pointing out the weakness in the current drafting of the law.

llanfairpg,

No it is not the Blackpool one. I can't remember now but I think that it was one where a pilot completed a trip they were not qualified to do and brought along a flight instructor who I think has less experience and claimed that the FI was pilot in command. Perhps you may remember the case but the outcome is that since the unqualified pilot completed everything and did everything on the flight and the instructor took no part in the pre-flight planning or authorisation then the instructor was not pilot in command.

As for the Tipsy, have not given it much tought however, my first idea would be that a type rating is not required for the tipsy and so an SEP rating would have to be obtained in the normal way using and aircraft with dual controls.

I think that it is only microlight training and testing for the NPPL with Microlight Rating that can still be done in single seat aircraft. In that case, the instructor briefs, observes and de-briefs the very small slow steps through the course. The test is again observed as far as I am aware but I have not come across anyone who does that form of training.

--------

Bookworm,

The law also mentions the person who for time being is the owner of the aircraft. I don't think that you can change owner in mid-flight! :D

In order for the pilot in command to change mid-flight then both pilots would have to have completed all the pre-flight planning and checking and both would have the option to say that the flight will not go ahead. After all, if you are going to be responsible will you let some other person make the safety decisions?

The other question arrises at the change over time. Two things can happen - the current pilot in command refuses to hand over command as is their right. or the first pilot hands over command 30 seconds before the breach of the low flying regulations.

The Hamiltons may have been unable to remember exactly which was driving as the broke the law while passing a speed camera but do you think that the CAA would permit such a get-out from a pilot who departed on a flight as pilot in command and where the aircraft subsequently breached the low flying rules?

Honnest, I handed over command while at 3000ft AGL...........No he never handed over command.........Yes I did .........No he didn't.........:rolleyes:

Regards,

DFC

The law also mentions the person who for time being is the owner of the aircraft. I don't think that you can change owner in mid-flight!

Why on earth not? It's standard practice to do so in many cases -- ISTR a certain company not a million miles from Seattle flying its aircraft over the Atlantic and selling them while airborne to avoid taxes that would be levied if they were in the state of WA at the time of sale!

Don't get me wrong, like you and llanfairpg, I wouldn't fly with another qualified pilot without having the who's-in-command conversation before getting to the aircraft. But the reason there are these awkward cases after the accident is that the law doesn't require designation of a commander pre-flight.

And notice BOSE, no mention of P1s

As for the Tipsy, have not given it much tought however, my first idea would be that a type rating is not required for the tipsy and so an SEP rating would have to be obtained in the normal way using and aircraft with dual controls.A colleague of mind is the only Tipsy Nipper rated pilot in the world. The CAA gave the owner of the aircraft a one off permission to conduct the 1179 test from the side of the runway at Ipswich as an 'observed test'. dont forget you need a specific type rating in your licence to do public transport or aerial work, well you used to anyway.

law doesn't require designation of a commander pre-flight.It does by implication, otherwise the pre flight action of a commander cannot be carried out, plus the commander has to 'book out'

You are mis-understanding 'law'

The law dosnt state it is illegal to drive across a dual carriagway at 100 mph, roll over 6 time and burst into flame but it does state that it is an offence to drive without due care and attention or dangerously on the public highway.

And notice BOSE, no mention of P1s

Thats because you are at such a tangent now that you might as well be discussing the price of fish..... :p

No Bose its actually because it dosnt state it and you are wrong.

Uh? What doesn't state what?

See the price of fish. IF nothing else we will get the 28 pages.

http://www.frozenfishdirect.co.uk/?gclid=CLjZ6Y2r6ZACFQbdlAodvTyZrA

enjoy

It does by implication, otherwise the pre flight action of a commander cannot be carried out, plus the commander has to 'book out'

Nonsense. Art 52 merely says:

The commander of an aircraft shall take all reasonable steps to satisfy himself before
the aircraft takes off:...

There's nothing to prevent two people from both reasonably satisfying themselves that those checks have been made, nor is there a requirement to identify the commander in 'booking out'. And of course very often, the actions themselves are delegated. No single action required by law uniquely identifies the commander.

In its guidance on logging, LASORS specifically accounts for the case of duties being shared:

Whenever two members of flight crew acting in
the same capacity share a particular operating
duty, each performing such duty for particular
periods only and neither acting under the
supervision of the other, only the time during
which the duty was performed is to be recorded
in the appropriate column of the personal flying
log book.

which suggests to me that the case of sharing duties during a flight is well known and accepted. It is not the case that a single person must be the pilot in command for the entire flight, and it's certainly not the case that a single person must be so designated in advance.

Nonsense. Art 52 merely says:

The commander of an aircraft shall take all reasonable steps to satisfy himself before
the aircraft takes off:...

There's nothing to prevent two people from both reasonably satisfying themselves that those checks have been made, nor is there a requirement to identify the commander in 'booking out'. And of course very often, the actions themselves are delegated. No single action required by law uniquely identifies the commander.The nonsense is yours,it says commander not commanders.

Or perhaps you interpret 'himself' as two people!?

There's nothing to prevent two people from both reasonably satisfying themselves that those checks have been made, nor is there a requirement to identify the commander in 'booking out'. And of course very often, the actions themselves are delegated. No single action required by law uniquely identifies the commander.



The nonsense is yours,it says commander not commanders.



I think all bookworm was saying (and I agree) is that it is possible for more than one person can be eligible (in terms of the ANO) to be commander and therefore while obviously there is only one at a time there is nothing to prevent a change in the air.

I am not disputing that there can be a change in the air, I sit by people who have been trained to take command if I am incapacitated, even the cabin crew are trained to deal with such an event.

But at the end of the day, this is all interpretation subject to opinion and you can never win the argument because it is not in black and white in the ANO.

Even if the CAA came up with an answer in a letter and prosecuted a pilot he would have the right of appeal in a higher court and if he won the CAA ruling would be invalid.

If its not black and white in the ANO its subject to interpretaion and thats a job for qualified aviation lawyers.

We have been discussing the pilots order book at the school with a solicitor who is learning to fly, he commented.

If you hire an aircraft out you are entering a contact with the school (company), if part of that contract is a requirement to sign and abide by the pilots order book and you subsequently failed to abide by the pilots order book the company could bring a civil action for breach of contract providing that what the pilots order book said is fair and reasonable and does not violate any law.

Our POB states that the commander must be decided before flight and that the commander is the hirer unless receiving instruction for the grant or renewal of a licence or rating with a qualifield school instructor. It also states that the commander must book out etc and sign the tech log etc..

Our POB states that the commander must be decided before flight and that the commander is the hirer unless receiving instruction for the grant or renewal of a licence or rating with a qualifield school instructor. It also states that the commander must book out etc and sign the tech log etc..

and that is, IMHO, admirable.

and that the commander is the hirer unless receiving instruction for the grant or renewal of a licence or rating with a qualifield school instructor.

So at your club is the hirer is the commander on a club check as it does not fall into any of the categories listed above?

J.

So at your club is the hirer is the commander on a club check as it does not fall into any of the categories listed above?

Thats the general idea but after all these posting on here I am beginning to doubt it myself (is the commander P1 u/s or P1.)

Have to say i do not really mind how they log it, as long as a commander is decided before flight.

#What is worrying me now that didnt some say many posts ago that CAA wouldnt accept P1 u/s hours towards licence renewal hours?

some say many posts ago that CAA wouldnt accept P1 u/s hours towards licence renewal hours?

In all fairness, I don't think it's just "some" saying that. I think pretty much everyone is agreed that the CAA will count P1 u/s hours as actually being dual training time, (P u/t) and not the equivalent of P1 hours.

do

So at your club is the hirer is the commander on a club check as it does not fall into any of the categories listed above?
Thats the general idea but after all these posting on here I am beginning to doubt it myself (is the commander P1 u/s or P1.)

In your particular case, you don't have much of a choice. In your POB it says that a club check can be performed both by an FI and by a designated PPL (with a bit of additional, informal training, including RHS). As you see both of these checks as equivalent, safety-wise, it would be unfair to the hirer to be able to log P1 in one case, and Pu/t in another, just because the person in the RHS happens to have an FI ticket or not.

You can't have it both ways, unless you want to have this discussion all over again each time a club check is being performed. So if the POB specifies that a designated PPL can perform club checks, then in all cases the hirer should be P1, even if the guy in the RHS happens to be an FI. And if the POB specifies that clubchecks can only be performed by FIs (as my club does), you can (but do not have to) specify that the FI is P1, and the hirer Pu/t.

What you want to avoid, obviously, is the situation where the hirer thinks he is Pu/t, behaves as such, logs it as such and later found out that the person in the RHS is just a PPL and not legally capable of supervising/training someone in the LHS. Particularly if something happens and people start inquiring as to who was PIC.

Designating the hirer as PIC in a clubcheck has the added psychological advantage of making the hirer aware that he is responsible for all actions, including pre- and post flight, and cannot cut corners because another PIC is on-board.

Ah Voila.......... At last.

This thread seems to be following the finest tradition of PPRuNe inasmuch as a flat statement is followed by a flat contradiction which is then followed by personal abuse.

To my mind, the essential points are that only one person can log P1 in a single-pilot aircraft and the commander has to be designated before the flight - in a club/school environment it is he/she who signs for the aircraft.

The latter point is an absolute essential (and I'm speaking with my ex-CAA hat on now) since, in the event of a fatal crash, this is where the investigators will decide who was the commander. I can't speak for the ways of the FAA, they do things differently over there (not better, or worse, just differently) but in the UK there is no capacity to switch commander mid-flight. Thus, in the case at issue, the checking pilot has to be in command because he may have to override the pilot being checked.

but in the UK there is no capacity to switch commander mid-flight.

Well at least that bit I know is definately incorrect, remeber the BAC 1-11 incident out of Birmingham--The Captain was hanging half way out of the DV window for 50% of the flight!

I think you should all fly to a deserted beach somewhere and belt 7 shades of **** out of each other.:bored: All make sure you fly yourself so there iwll be no arguing over P1!

I think that is a good idea but only if I can be P1

You can't have it both ways, unless you want to have this discussion all over again each time a club check is being performed. So if the POB specifies that a designated PPL can perform club checks, then in all cases the hirer should be P1, even if the guy in the RHS happens to be an FI. And if the POB specifies that clubchecks can only be performed by FIs (as my club does), you can (but do not have to) specify that the FI is P1, and the hirer Pu/t.Experience widens the mind though you see BP.

Around 30 years ago I worked at a flying school that had a very poor reputation, I arrived one morning for instance to see a F27 mainwheel being loaded into a Grummnan AA5 to be ferried to another airfield. I could write a book about all the incidents that took place in the short 6 months I was there. The CAA had a major interest in the school and visited on a regular basis, in fact I saw more CAA inspectors in that 6 months than I have seen in the rest of my flying career.

Before I got to the school they had employed an instructor who they noticed was very reluctant to fly with students who had not gone first solo, making excuses about the weather etc. After two weeks of this they found out that not only did their new instructor not have an instructors rating, he did not have a pilots licence either, he was however a licensed engineer.

Now you tell me who was pilot in command on those flights and how were they logged?

I arrived one morning for instance to see a F27 mainwheel being loaded into a Grummnan AA5 to be ferried to another airfield.


How much does a Fokker F27's mainwheel weigh? :eek:

How much does a Fokker F27's mainwheel weigh?

You got me there and I am type rated on it!

They got airbourne with it anyway!!!

Before I got to the school they had employed an instructor who they noticed was very reluctant to fly with students who had not gone first solo, making excuses about the weather etc. After two weeks of this they found out that not only did their new instructor not have an instructors rating, he did not have a pilots licence either, he was however a licensed engineer.

This is a problem that is actually much much broader. My work is in ICT, partly in security, and "authentication" and "authorization" are incredibly hard concepts, first to understand and second to implement.

In the case above, what according to the theory should have happened is that the student checks the credentials of the instructor before flight. Immediate problem comes to mind: how does a student recognise and validate a pilots certificate, an FI ticket, a correct logbook entry (recency!), class rating etc. without having dealt with all that stuff before, and without knowing what even the requirements are for an FI. If you go to a flight school you place your trust in that schools management to make sure you have an adequate plane, adequate instructor and even adequate weather for the flight you're going to undertake.

But this problem is not limited to flight schools. My favourite pet subject is a police officer, stopping you for a spot check or something. They show you their ID, they may wear a uniform, but I know I can fake an ID with some Photoshop (GIMP in my case) work and a laminating machine. Police uniforms are not that hard to acquire too. And since I do not know the hidden safety features of a proper police ID, I can't authenticate him. So what I want to do, someday, is the following: Take his ID, get back in my car, close windows and doors and then call the telephone number for the police. Tell them I'm being stopped by somebody who claims to be a police officer, but I don't trust his claim and can't authenticate his ID. Then read aloud whatever is on the ID and ask the police officer to authenticate that person. See how they react.

With some luck, the police officer on the phone (which I trust because I dialed the number from memory, knowing that that would connect me to the police) verifies the authenticity of the ID. That doesn't automatically authenticate the police officer though: somebody could have taken a copy of a genuine ID, inserted a fake picture and used that. So I should probably also ask him for another ID (a passport or drivers license perhaps) which I do know the security features of, and use that to verify the picture, name and person indeed matches.

Then comes authorization. Authorization basically means: is this person authorized to do what he attempts to do. So I should probably question him why he stopped me, and on what article of law he thinks he has the right to do so. I should then call my lawyer to verify that claim.

By now I have probably wasted at least half an hour of my time and surely pissed off the police officer. So if it's just a spot check, I might just show him my drivers license and get on with life. The same happened to your student: Somebody came up to him claiming he was a flight instructor, and the student without going through the hassle of verifying that claim, just hopped in and went flying.

I couldn't find it, but there's a joke about a student running late for a gliding lesson. He arrives at the field, sees the aircraft all ready for him with the instructor waiting. Instructor says "Good Morning, do you want to do the take-off or shall I" (or something similar). Student says he'll do the take-off. Works like a treat, he flies the circuit and lands. After opening the canopy, the "instructor" says "That was great. Can I fly some the next time?" "Why?" "Well, I'm here to learn how to fly, not to watch you flying!"

(It's a far better joke in its original form, but I honestly can't find it.)

My favourite pet subject is a police officer, stopping you for a spot check or something. They show you their ID, they may wear a uniform, but I know I can fake an ID with some Photoshop (GIMP in my case) work and a laminating machine. Police uniforms are not that hard to acquire too.

Many years ago I worked for Securicor and sometimes did Cash In Transit (you know, those armoured vans full of money).

We had a standard procedure to follow if stopped by a 'Police Officer'. Printed on the back of our receipt books was ' I will follow you to the nearest Police Station'. This was offered up to the armour plated windows of the vehicle by the crew securely locked inside. I've considered having a laminated sign with the same legend written on it to keep in the car, but it's years and years since I was stopped by the fuzz - ever since I sold my red MG, in fact!

TheOddOne

You know strangely enough I have a brand new GT3 and when I wear a 'hoody' I get stopped all the time!!

This thread seems to be following the finest tradition of PPRuNe inasmuch as a flat statement is followed by a flat contradiction which is then followed by personal abuse.You forgot the willy measuring part where people quote the number of hours \ types \ license \ age \ seniority in the vain hope it confirms that they are correct. I've always thought it was a bit like revealing your cards in texas hold 'em having placed your bets and you get to see what the other person has. Unfortunately nobody accepts the other person's experience and wikipedia doesn't have a page on which types \ hours \ licenses beat which other hands. Maybe I'll stick a page together. Does a 500 hour PPL beat a 250 hour CPL ? I'm guessing an active ATPL 747 captain is a royal flush ?

Great idea Paul but dont forget to also include those who hate to think someone has more experience than they have.

The great advantage by the way of having lots of hours and lots of experience is that you have had lots of first hand experience of others with less hours and experience knowing more than you do and sometimes being better pilots.

You can't have it both ways, unless you want to have this discussion all over again each time a club check is being performed. So if the POB specifies that a designated PPL can perform club checks, then in all cases the hirer should be P1, even if the guy in the RHS happens to be an FI. And if the POB specifies that clubchecks can only be performed by FIs (as my club does), you can (but do not have to) specify that the FI is P1, and the hirer Pu/t.

I think that you will find that in the cases where the check is done by a pilot who does not hold a valid instructor rating then the pilot who is being checked can not log any time but can only record the take-off and landings they completed as sole manipulator of the controls.

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

I am surprised to see that there is no general objection to having to complete a 28 day check the only objection being to having to log dual time for the 10 to 40 minutes is takes to complete such a check.

Regards,

DFC

Plenty of time for that DFC, the ground rules are just being established before the argument moves on........:p

I think that you will find that in the cases where the check is done by a pilot who does not hold a valid instructor rating then the pilot who is being checked can not log any time but can only record the take-off and landings they completed as sole manipulator of the controls.

If the person being checked out can't log the hours, and the person who checks the other guy out only holds a PPL and never touches the controls or makes any decision, just observes, who gets to log P1 then?

Oh, and if the designated check pilot only holds a PPL, and has to be PIC for the flight (by your rules), this also means he's got to pay at least an equal share of the costs of that flight. I doubt somehow that you get many PPLs volunteering then as check pilot.

I am surprised to see that there is no general objection to having to complete a 28 day check the only objection being to having to log dual time for the 10 to 40 minutes is takes to complete such a check.

Well, it's not exactly the subject of the thread, but just for the record, I object. I would rather see a more flexible approach where you need a 28 day check if you hold less than 100 hours P1 or so, a 60-day check if you have less than 200 hours or so, and no additional checks above and beyond what the law requires above 200 hours P1. Or something along those lines. You may even throw in an "hours on type"/"landings on type" criteria for all I care. But I somehow trust the more experienced pilots to be able to make a fair assessment about their own proficiency, their mission and the circumstances, and not to take unnecessary risks.

A slightly late response to one of Llanfair's comments of yesterday. Yes, I do recall the 1-11 incident very well - I was flying the things at the time. It doesn't make your surmise correct though, since the ANO cunningly provides for pilot incapacitation in the definition of pilot in command in Article 155. I agree that if, for the sake of argument, the captain dies in flight then the other pilot becomes the commander de facto. This doesn't alter the fact that if two pilots take up an aircraft and return safely, the one who signed for it is the commander.

OK so what happens in the situation where the aircraft is not signed for?

The bottom line is that the complexity of the issue makes it open to debate and interpretation.


here we have a situation were a captain of an aircraft has been seriously injured in flight, injured to the point that he has to subsequently spend two weeks in hospital. Now all you aviation lawyers will know that at the point of injury his licence was suspended so he is hardly the commander anymore and thats even before considering half of his body is hanging out of the DV window? If ever you wanted a test case to prove that a pilot who set off as a first officer without signing the tech log but landed as the commander this is it.

Perhaps if it happens again the FO will say, well i cant be the commander because I didnt start out before flight as the commader so i will just pop down the back while the cabin crew hang on to him.

I would say the wise would view this one as a 'test case' all though of course I suppose if it disproves your argument you would prefer
It doesn't make your surmise correct though,

This is a really good site to discover the price of fish

http://www.frozenfishdirect.co.uk/traditional.html

Backpacker,

You need to differentiate between the person who manipllates the controls, and completes various tasks associated with the flight and the person who is responsible for the safe execution of that flight.

I will say it again - The pilot in command is the person who is responsible for the safe conduct of the flight. Note means flight from start to finish.

The person who does the flying may not be the pilot in command because while they do the actions, they are not responsible for the outcome of the flight.........i.e. if something illegal is done then it is the pilot in command that will be held responsible.

The simplest way to determine the pilot in command is to ask yourself.....if there was a flight plan form filed for the flight who would place their name in the pilot in command box.

Note that like everything else, the flight plan does not provide for a change in pilot in command.

You are correct to say that if two PPLs depart then the pilot in command must pay all or an appropriate portion of the costs.

-----------

Bose,

Refer to the above in the case where the aircraft is not signed for.

---------

Of course the real problem with a non-instructor completing a 28 day check is what happens if the pilot being checked is not up to standard. The PPL is not qualifiued to decide that and also they are not qualified to provide instruction to bring the pilot up to the required standard. Taking that into consideration, it is hard to see where such a check completed by a PPL would ever stand up in court..........hence one would have to say that unless one uses an instructor it is pointless having such a check.

Regards,

DFC

The PPL is not qualifiued to decide that and also they are not qualified to provide instruction to bring the pilot up to the required standard. Taking that into consideration, it is hard to see where such a check completed by a PPL would ever stand up in court..........hence one would have to say that unless one uses an instructor it is pointless having such a check.

Where does it say that a pilot without an instructors rating cannot give instruction that is not required for the grant or renewal of a licence or rating.

If it does there will be a few training captains and airlines in trouble!

Now all you aviation lawyers will know that at the point of injury his licence was suspended

Somehow I don't think that thought would be the first on my mind in that situation.

But thinking about this now: In an emergency you can ignore any rule as safety is paramount. This was clearly an emergency so even if the commander, under normal circumstances, would have it's medical suspended due to his alleged injuries (mind you, at that point in time nobody knew the extent of his injuries) he could still be the commander in this emergency situation.

In fact, he could be sued for "flight crew not being on their assigned station at all times". And hanging out the DV window could hardly be called "taking care of physiological duties" or "duties associated with his command". Or does the story tell us that he did s*** his pants while hanging out there? (I know I would.)

Reminds me of that FedEx cargo plane with the madman intent on committing suicide on the jump seat. At some point in time everyone was sufficiently wounded to have their medicals suspended. I think one of the flight crew, because of the sustained injuries, actually lost his medical for good, poor guy. Who could be legally in charge there?

Anyway, I somehow doubt that the flight crew involved in these two incidents spent a week (or how long has this thread been going on) discussing on who would log P1, and for which duration of the flight.

Anyway, I somehow doubt that the flight crew involved in these two incidents spent a week (or how long has this thread been going on) discussing on who would log P1, and for which duration of the flight.

Of course they did not they were professional pilots.

>>>Of course the real problem with a non-instructor completing a 28 day check is what happens if the pilot being checked is not up to standard. The PPL is not qualifiued to decide that and also they are not qualified to provide instruction to bring the pilot up to the required standard. Taking that into consideration, it is hard to see where such a check completed by a PPL would ever stand up in court..........hence one would have to say that unless one uses an instructor it is pointless having such a check.<<<<

I wouldn't use the term 'check' as it could be loaded.

But in my group, a member could be current under the 90-day rule, but be out of group currency (42-days). So under the rules, they fly with me, an non-instructor well-experienced on type.

Although not a test, if they do not display the necessary skill under our group rules I am entitled to stop them from further solo flight. Not pointless at all.

My aircraft, my rules........

Of course the real problem with a non-instructor completing a 28 day check is what happens if the pilot being checked is not up to standard.

Simple. The designated check pilot simply informs the hirer, on behalf of the owner of the plane, that he/she is not allowed to rent/borrow said plane from the owner. And please contact the owner to see what further steps are required. No licenses are revoked, the CAA is not informed, no legal action taken. Simply a statement that the owner does not want the hirer to fly his aircraft. That's it.

Note - I'm assuming here that the owner has told the designated check pilot the criteria by which he wants prospective or recurrent hirers to be judged. I imagine instructors will, by default, use the Practical Test Standards as criteria, and so should check pilots who only hold a PPL. But if the designated check pilot (FI or not) doesn't know the criteria the owner wants to apply, then the club check doesn't make sense at all and becomes simply a money-making exercise.

The PPL is not qualifiued to decide that and also they are not qualified to provide instruction to bring the pilot up to the required standard.

No qualification is required to teach somebody something, as long as this is not for the initial issue or renewal of a formal rating or license. I've been taught aerobatics by somebody who formally only holds a PPL, but is an excellent aerobatics pilot, licensed aerobatics display pilot etc.

Note that like everything else, the flight plan does not provide for a change in pilot in command.

A flight plan also does not allow a change in the POB number. Does that mean that no babies are allowed to be born on board, or people are not allowed to die on board? Come on, you and I know that a flightplan can be amended in flight if necessary. Within this thread, this is the worst argument I've heard. And in any case, if the hirer is PIC for the whole flight, no flight plan amendment is necessary.

Where does it say that a pilot without an instructors rating cannot give instruction that is not required for the grant or renewal of a licence or rating.

If it does there will be a few training captains and airlines in trouble!

I think you are struggling to separate the rules that apply to airline training and the rules that apply to flight instruction in the classic sense.

In commercial diving all training is done as peer training, in recreational diving all training has to be carried out by an Instructor.

I think you are struggling to separate the rules that apply to airline training and the rules that apply to flight instruction in the classic sense.

I am not struggling with anything thank you, the ANO and LASORS are very clear and apply to all types of flying, they do not show P1/s:) nor do they say or imply that instruction cannot be given by a pilot who does not have an instructors rating.

An instructors rating is only required when instruction is given for the purpose of the grant/renewal of a licence or rating.

You need to understand the regulations and comment on the regulations not what you would like them to say to agree with your argument, (God help the IMC rating)

So is a training Captain giving Instruction for the pupose of the issue of a licence or rating a you suggest?

If it does there will be a few training captains and airlines in trouble!

Or are they merely acting in a mentoring role after the issue of a type rating which was carried out by a type rating instructor?

Just curious as to who is not understanding the rules.

Whats P1/s, PICUS or any other flavour of the same thing have to do with it?

I understand the regulations just fine thank you and I see nothing in my post that attempts to make them say anything, I merely asked a question, it was you who came out with the insults.

Duplicate post

So is a training Captain giving Instruction for the pupose of the issue of a licence or rating a you suggest?

He would need a multi instructors rating to give instruction on the candidates first multi engine aircraft.

The requirement for training on subsequent types is a matter for the CAA and the operator to decide and agree and publish in the operations manual.

The operations manual could be considered to be the law but only for operations within that airline, they could in fact write any requirement in that they like but of course it has to be approved by the CAA before the AOC is issued.

If a PPL wanted to put a 747 on his licence he would have to have a pilot with an instructors rating and a type rating on the 747.

But subsequently any pilot could give that PPL instruction on a 747, he would need a 747 rating of course

So what you are saying is that a pilot requires a Type Rating Instructor to train them for a type rating and after that they go onto the line for line training which is with a training captain who is not an Instructor? But they are not actually receiving Instruction they are just having line training as they can already fly the type having received a type rating?

My friend has multiple type ratings on his license and is a training captain. He tells me that training captains do not instruct on type they just do line training on airline ops in that particular type. He tells me that a type rating instructor is required to teach for a type rating.

A ppl requires an instructor to train them for a class rating after which they could fly and be checked out by another PPL. On the line so to speak?

You have chosen to argue with me on this subject yet at no time have I suggested that a club checkout requires an Instructor and in fact if you read back through this thread you will see that in fact I was one of the people that pointed out that as an Instructor I generally don't log P1 for a checkout.

Just seems another example of you looking to have a fight with me rather than debate........

So are we going to discuss the P1/s, PICUS semantics again?

He tells me that training captains do not instruct on type they just do line training on airline ops in that particular type.

Isnt that what I said but you cannot train people without giving instruction

You have chosen to argue with me on this subject yet at no time have I suggested that a club checkout requires an Instructor and in fact if you read back through this thread you will see that in fact I was one of the people that pointed out that as an Instructor I generally don't log P1 for a checkout.

Sorry I thought that whas what the forum was for, argument, debate?

I think you are struggling to separate the rules that apply to airline training and the rules that apply to flight instruction in the classic sense.


I am responding to that comment, thats all

I have to say the 1179 type thing is a bit of a mis nomer I did my Aztec rating training 27 years ago but I cannot ever remember doing a twin rating as such and the 1179 examiner who was my instructor did not hold an instructors rating. I seem to remember there was a query at the time but it was certainly not resolved by further flying training.

Oh yes should add

line training and base training are different, you need to get familiar with the type a first by base trainings, circuits etc.. can be done in the sim, if sim has JAR approval.

Line training is learning to operate the aircraft within the companies operations on line. If you were just doing a type rating you would not do line training

Simple. The designated check pilot simply informs the hirer, on behalf of the owner of the plane, that he/she is not allowed to rent/borrow said plane from the owner. And please contact the owner to see what further steps are required. No licenses are revoked, the CAA is not informed, no legal action taken. Simply a statement that the owner does not want the hirer to fly his aircraft. That's it.

Indeed and that is what happens in our group. We all own an equal share of the aircraft however we have a group 'Chairman', he has designated members of the group as able to carry out check flights with interseted parties. So if, say, I flew with someone and they were fine, I would inform the Chairman that they were ok on the flight, likewise if they made a hash of it I would just tell him as such as well.

It works very well, we have one interested person who never even made it off the ground!

J.

Perhaps the answer is to do what around 14 Bagladeshi's said on the motorway when stopped in a vehicle that should have held around six by the Police, Gathered on the hard shoulder the policeman asked who was the driver the reply was.

"We all are sir!"

Indeed and that is what happens in our group. We all own an equal share of the aircraft however we have a group 'Chairman', he has designated members of the group as able to carry out check flights with interseted parties. So if, say, I flew with someone and they were fine, I would inform the Chairman that they were ok on the flight, likewise if they made a hash of it I would just tell him as such as well.

You are very lucky that no one has challenged the situation. A problem could arise if your check pilot stops someone before they even get off the ground and that person asks for the authority that they have to comment on another qualified pilots ability, what training they completed and to what standard they are certified.

It is also only works in group situations where the checking pilot is willing to pay part of the costs of the flight that they have been asked to check a pilot on.

----------

llanfairpg,

You need to read your part D (as well as parts of the part A).

Remember that you do not need to have an FTO if you have an AOC.

Regards,

DFC

Regards,

DFC

You are very lucky that no one has challenged the situation. A problem could arise if your check pilot stops someone before they even get off the ground and that person asks for the authority that they have to comment on another qualified pilots ability, what training they completed and to what standard they are certified.

DFC, I assume you have a drivers license. And still I do not allow you to drive in my car until you abide by my rules. Which may include you driving me around the block to demonstrate your driving skills and your ability to stick to my rules (no revs higher than 2500 rpm until the engine is thoroughly warm for instance). What's the (legal) problem with that? (And note that I'm not a licensed driving instructor or examiner. I therefore am not able to revoke your drivers license, but I can deny you the privilege of driving in my car.)

Now translate this to the aviation world. Why can the owner not specify his own rules, above and beyond what's legally required, for the hirer to follow?

The only "authority" a check pilot needs (even if he just holds a PPL) is a notice from the owner saying that he is authorized to conduct check flights, on behalf of the owner, for the purpose of determining whether a prospective or recurrent hirer meets the qualifications and flying ability/technique that the owner demands.

It is also only works in group situations where the checking pilot is willing to pay part of the costs of the flight that they have been asked to check a pilot on.

Only if the designated check pilot is listed as PIC. But we're trying to convince you that it's perfectly legal, and practical, for the prospective hirer to be PIC and as such pay for all the costs of the flight.

The operations manual could be considered to be the law but only for operations within that airline, they could in fact write any requirement in that they like but of course it has to be approved by the CAA before the AOC is issued.Thats what I said DFC, you cannot get an AOC without a published and approved operations manual.

You are very lucky that no one has challenged the situation. A problem could arise if your check pilot stops someone before they even get off the ground and that person asks for the authority that they have to comment on another qualified pilots ability, what training they completed and to what standard they are certified.

DFC you are obviously very knowledgable but where have you got that from or how do you come to that conclusion?

After reading 11 pages, boy am I glad I don't fly club aicraft!

Look forward to the next 11.:hmm:

We're working on it, C-dog. Just keep visiting. We're slowly getting to the issue of who's legally allowed or required to pay for the checkride.

After reading 11 pages, boy am I glad I don't fly club aicraft!

After reading the first 8 pages and internittently since then (I lost the will to live for a while when this thread just got too involved, then I had computer problems) I'm now marvelling at the fact that I flew club aircraft and/or group-owned aircraft for years and yers, with no problems whatsoever. :ok:

Was it 28 pages someone predicted?

Was it 28 pages someone predicted?

I did indeed........ :O

The only "authority" a check pilot needs (even if he just holds a PPL) is a notice from the owner saying that he is authorized to conduct check flights, on behalf of the owner, for the purpose of determining whether a prospective or recurrent hirer meets the qualifications and flying ability/technique that the owner demands.

The problem with such simple thinking is that the checker lacks credibility and if the person being checked disagrees then it is a 50/50 argument.

You could never let anyone else know that you did not think the pilot was up to scratch as such a statement could be defamatory and as a private pilot with no credibility in checking or training you would not be off to a good start.

Then of course you are in a catch 22 situation - if that person goes and hires your neighbour's aircraft and wrecks it, your neighbour may reasonably ask you why you failed to let them know or why you failed to record the poor performance in the pilot's logbook.

----------

The simple situation is that unless a proper system of credible checking is in place then there is no point in having a 28 day checkout requirement as it is meaningless.

Getting one PPL to check another lacks credibility and performs no function. Having an instructor check a pilot against the required standards has the advantage of credibility.

----------

Only if the designated check pilot is listed as PIC. But we're trying to convince you that it's perfectly legal, and practical, for the prospective hirer to be PIC and as such pay for all the costs of the flight.

If you say that the prospective hirer can be pilot in command then you can not say who the passenger that they carried in the front seat must be. The loading and everything else with regard to the flight is the responsibility of the pilot in command and they can quite rightly decide not to carry anyone............after all you have permitted them to be pilot in command and the decision after that is their's and their's alone.

Of course it is silly at the least to say that you can not be pilot in command of the aircraft you have not flown for the past 28 days and then say that on the 29th day not only will you be pilot in command but you must also take this other person with you without the option of cost sharing..........One might ask if the 28 day rule in that case was simply a free flying excuse for the other member of the group.

Regards,

DFC

You could never let anyone else know that you did not think the pilot was up to scratch as such a statement could be defamatory and as a private pilot with no credibility in checking or training you would not be off to a good start.A statement can only be considered defamatory if it is made to a third party and it is not 'fair comment'

Getting one PPL to check another lacks credibility and performs no function. Having an instructor check a pilot against the required standards has the advantage of credibility.Sorry but i strongy disagree on this one I have a training captain that flys with us and has around 15,000 hours but has never held an instructors rating, I have an instructor with less than a 1000 hours, who is better placed to check out a PPL? Its not the rating or licence you hold its your competence and experince which are important--remember the Invicta Vanguard accident at Basle--The captain had failed his intial IR 9 times and the FR shewed he banked the a/c in cloud at angles of upto 60 degrees and thats even before you consider he did a NDB let down at the wrong beacon and end of the airfield and flew into the mountains.

If you say that the prospective hirer can be pilot in command then you can not say who the passenger that they carried in the front seat must be. The loading and everything else with regard to the flight is the responsibility of the pilot in command and they can quite rightly decide not to carry anyone............after all you have permitted them to be pilot in command and the decision after that is their's and their's alone.


The problem with such simple thinking is that the checker lacks credibility and if the person being checked disagrees then it is a 50/50 argument.

Sorry DFC, it is simple and you are confusing it with various barrack-room lawyery sounding nonsense.

An owner or operator has some discretion over the conditions under which they allow an otherwise legal,current,insured pilot capable of acting as PIC on their airplane to fly their airplane.
One of those discretions is to require a flight in which a 3rd party accompanies the pilot.

If the pilot thinks the 3rd party "lacks credibility" then he should find another operator with a credible 3rd party and fly their aeroplane instead.
If there's an "argument", it's not "50/50" - it's down to the operator's delegation of the decision to permit the pilot to fly the airplane unaccompanied to the 3rd party. It's the 3rd party's decision, which I guess could be disputed by the pilot with the operator.

Yes the pilot is acting as PIC, but the operator can impose a condition underwhich he is permitted to take the airplane only with the 3rd party accompanying him and under prescribed operating limits - eg. within the circuit. (you think all those airline PICs could "quite rightly decide not to carry anyone" and fly the 737 off to Ibiza without the pax?). If the prospective PIC disputes this condition then he has to find another airplane to fly.

I am not saying that it isn't better for a 28 day check pilot to be an instructor - I think it probably is. But I can also think of scenarios where it might be fine for them not to be. I just don't think the "is it a good idea or not" debate needs to be obfuscated with the PIC stuff you posted.

rgds
421C

Just to add to that I have know owners of 'unusual or rare' aircraft who are far more experienced than any instructor who may be asked to do a check ride. I mean who would be more qualified to give somone a check ride in a two seat Spitfire, an Instructor with 5, 000 hours on Warriors or the aircraft owner who has probaly 100s of hours on type.

I can remember being asked as a young inexperienced instructor to check a guy out in a Cessna 182 which I had never flown. When I said I have never flown a Cessna 182 the CFI said, " well you are an instructor arnt you?"

You are very lucky that no one has challenged the situation. A problem could arise if your check pilot stops someone before they even get off the ground and that person asks for the authority that they have to comment on another qualified pilots ability, what training they completed and to what standard they are certified.


Absolute rubbish DFC! As someone has already pointed out, just because you hold a licence does not mean someone is going to let you use their aircraft. And as for your instructor argument, I do not see how an instructor carrying out the check lends any more credibility it is the choice of our group to lend the aircraft to outside parties based on their demonstration of their ability and competence. I bet you arent a driving test examiner but I bet you have got out a car before now and thought 'he/she isnt a very good driver/nutter/etc'?


It is also only works in group situations where the checking pilot is willing to pay part of the costs of the flight that they have been asked to check a pilot on.


Not is in our group, remember the hirer is logging the P1. In fact, there have been cases where, dependant upon the hirer, we have completely absorbed the cost of the check flight.

You could never let anyone else know that you did not think the pilot was up to scratch as such a statement could be defamatory and as a private pilot with no credibility in checking or training you would not be off to a good start.

Again rubbish! Anyone carrying out a checkflight with someone always informs the rest of the groupof the outcome. 'Not upto scratch' could be anything from a bad day and try again another time to no thanks! Being a PPL has absolutely no bearing on it at all, the PPL could have hundreds/thousands of hours on the particular aircraft. The interested party could be a CPL or FI and have no idea what he is doing as he hasnt flown one before. I think you are clutching at straws.

if that person goes and hires your neighbour's aircraft and wrecks it, your neighbour may reasonably ask you why you failed to let them know or why you failed to record the poor performance in the pilot's logbook.


I didnt realise that it was a requirement of basing our aircraft at the airport that we got to know all out neighbours and keep them abreast of any decisons made within our group :confused:

J.

Not is in our group, remember the hirer is logging the P1

If they are permitted to be the pilot in command then you have in effect told them that they do not require a check, training or anything else. If you had check requriements then they would have to be complied with before the pilot could be in command of the aircraft.

Having authorised them to be pilot in command of your aircraft then even if you insist on having one of your friends in the right seat, they as pilot in command have total control of how the flight proceeds. Your friend can not in any way prevent them from flying as they please, to where they please because your friend is not pilot in command and have absolutelty no authority to prevent anything on the flight.

Having agreed that they are suitable to operate as pilot in command of the "check flight" then you can not prevent them from being pilot in command on subsequent flights unless their standard has reduced below the level that you accepted as being acceptable - a standard that you did not check!

The "checks" you describe are not checks as nothing is being checked it is simply free flying for a group member.

Comments regarding professional pilots in airlines are not relevant because while a line trainer may not hold an instructor rating, they will be an authorised person under the requirements of the Ops Manual and the AOC and thus approved by the CAA to perform the function.

Pilots in command being required to carry persons on flights is not the same as a professional pilot on a public transport flight.............or is it??????

If there is a correct and credible checking system in place then it will serve a useful purpose. If not then it is simply a waste of time and money.

As for the spitfire, you should remind yourself of the requirements to be met by an instructor before being qualified to train on a different type within a class.

Regards,

DFC

DFC,

What planet are you on? I think it must be one with a very thin atmosphere as you arguments sound like you are drastically lacking oxygen!

And as for

The "checks" you describe are not checks as nothing is being checked it is simply free flying for a group member.


Which bit of the hirer logs the P1 didnt you understand?

J.

If they are permitted to be the pilot in command then you have in effect told them that they do not require a check, training or anything else. If you had check requriements then they would have to be complied with before the pilot could be in command of the aircraft.

Having authorised them to be pilot in command of your aircraft then even if you insist on having one of your friends in the right seat, they as pilot in command have total control of how the flight proceeds. Your friend can not in any way prevent them from flying as they please, to where they please because your friend is not pilot in command and have absolutelty no authority to prevent anything on the flight.

Oh man, that's the best circular argument I've seen in a while.

But where it breaks down is here:

As the owner of an aircraft I can definitely set limits as to when and what the hirer is allowed to do with it. I can for instance, require the hirer to be back by noon, because I want to go flying myself in the afternoon. Or I can prescribe certain operational standards such as RPMs and MPs to use. Or ask the hirer to wear pink shorts. I can also forbid them to do a cross channel flight even though the hirer has an internationally recognised license. Maybe because I'm too cheap to take out insurance covering international flights, maybe because there's a 50 hour check coming up in a few hours and I have a great deal with a local engineer. Who knows. It's my aircraft and I set limits on what others can do with it. If you don't agree to those rules, well, you're very welcome to go elsewhere. A club check is just one of those rules. You break 'em, you go elsewhere.

But as long as you stay within the rules you can be Pilot in Command. Even on a clubcheck.

Which bit of the hirer logs the P1 didnt you understand?

The bit after you said you required a check.

To require a check you must have a reason for such a requirement. If you say it is to check the pilot's ability to be pilot in command then how before you have completed such a check can you permit them to be pilot in command.

You are not checking anything because you have determined the outcome in advance by permitting the person you are checking to act in the capicity you are checking them for.

The only time you can get away with such a situation is where you require pilots who are current according to your rules to perform a check flight. An example is that which many groups and clubs have of requiring all members to perform an annual check flight regardless of how much flying they have done. In that case if the pilot is current according to the club or group rules eg they have flown in the past 28 days etc etc, then in that case they could be pilot in command because under your rules they are entitled to be. If they are outside your currency rule or are new then by your own rules they can not be pilot in command.

I can not believe that people say that we need to check people (for whatever reason) before permitting them to be pilot in command of our aircraft and then without having performed that check permit them to be pilot in command.

Do you need a check or don't you?

Or is it simply an excuse for free flying?

I would not recomend to any passenger that unless there is an emergency they ever interfere with the conduct of a flight. I would point out that in fact regardless of how you as a passenger think a flight is progressing you can not interfere with the flight because that is unlawfull.

Passengers are not entitled to do anything other than obey the pilot in command. So we have people who will not trust a pilot to be pilot in command of their aircraft solo in case they break it but are willing to risk their lives as well as the aircraft by being a passenger in the aircraft with that person. Now that is plain stupid.

Regards,

DFC

DFC,

I think you need to go back and read the previous posts as you quite obviously dont have a grasp, or you are just skim reading and drawing your own conclusions.

Backpacker explained it very well, go read it again.

Again, I also where do you get the 'free flying' bit? I have even said that there have been occasions where the group has absorbed the cost of the check flight - or is that one of the bits you chose to ignore?

J.

Julian,

I was not getting into specifics but if a group requires a pilot to pay the full costs of a checkout then unless the other person is a flight instriuctor the they are simply a passenger who is flying for free.

--------

To use the car analogy posted previously, if you decide that before you allow me to drive your car you will check me out first then you are indeed entitled to do so. However, if your checkout is a drive on the public highway then by permitting such an act you have effectively decided that I am safe to drive the car and also that you will be safe as a passenger..........if you do not think I am safe or if your do not think that you will be safe as a passenger then your would be rather stupid to sit as a passenger in the car with me.

Thus you are not checking anything. You have already decided that it will be safe. You are simply going for a ride as a passenger in the car.

At the end of the ride, you may not think very much of my driving and declare that you will never let me near your car again or that you will never sit in a car with me again.................but you could do that at the end of any drive......even after I have been driving the car for some time............thus the trip round the block is not a check unless you say that every time you are in the car you are checking and thus every drive is a check-drive. :rolleyes:

Do you see the point now?

Regards,

DFC

I was not getting into specifics but if a group requires a pilot to pay the full costs of a checkout then unless the other person is a flight instriuctor the they are simply a passenger who is flying for free.

Where did I say requires? Did I not say that we paid the cost of checkouts? So now you decide they are a passenger flying for free, maybe you can enlighten me has flying as a passenger is free flying hours?

Thus you are not checking anything. You have already decided that it will be safe. You are simply going for a ride as a passenger in the car.


We have determined that you have a licence that entitles you to fly our type of aircraft P1 but we are making sure that you fly within our requirements - that is what we are checking.

J.

The very tone of this debate in itself explains the problem. Common sense cannot be recognised for there MUST be law or a rule or nothing at all. Sometimes this approach is practised as 'micro management'.

DFC

You come to argument therefore expressing the symptoms of the malady of our time. There appears in your reasoning a need to consider a simple but extreme idea of all things only. That is to only consider diametrically opposed positions.

When a PPL holder comes to me for a routine checkout (club check) I recognise that they are qualified to take the aeroplane and act as PIC. The routine check however is one of responsibilty. The club is acting responsibly by having such a rule. The pilot is acting responsibly by subjecting themself to the check. As is agreed, the law doesn't demand this. The check is voluntary. Before the flight however, I make it clear beyond doubt that should I consider it necessary to take command I will do so and they must agree to this.

For this reason the pilot should be PIC unless it is decided that they are to have instruction and that being the purpose of the flight. In such a case it isn't then a checkout at all but an instructional flight.

It is without doubt recognised, just the same, by authorities throughout the world that the most obvious person to undertake a checkout is a qualified Flight Instructor for that is what they are trained to do. They are trained to observe flying skills and in the processes of taking over and handing over control.

I refer again to LASORS section A, appendix B RECORDING OF FLIGHT TIME, Recording of Pilot Function para.1c. '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 ..........'

To use the car analogy posted previously,

[snip]

...........thus the trip round the block is not a check unless you say that every time you are in the car you are checking and thus every drive is a check-drive.

I agree that a check flight, where a prospective hirer is being checked out by a (presumably experienced) PPL has a bit of a dubious status. Indeed, on the one hand you designate the prospective hirer as PIC, on the other hand he's being checked by someone who doesn't have had formal training to train or check somebody, but who does limit what the PIC can do (particularly he limits the ability of the PIC to refuse to take the check pilot as passenger).

Nevertheless, there are owners who feel that they need to keep an eye on the flying ability, rustiness etc. of the dudes that fly in their aircraft. I guess it's sort of the same situation where my parents drove with me in their car when I just had my drivers license, every once in a while (usually instead of driving themselves, with me as passenger, to a venue where we needed to go anyway). If they thought I was completely unsafe, they simply would not allow that. But they thought I was safe, and just corrected driving habits which might lead to an unsafe situation in the future. And gave me tips on efficient driving etc.

So if you allow a mere PPL to check somebody else out on behalf of the owner, you have to make really clear what the legal status and the limits on the responsibility of the check pilot are. Plus, you've got to make clear what criteria you want the check pilot to apply.

But bringing us back to the question that started it all... If you have done so, is the prospective hirer allowed to log P1, or not?

When a PPL holder comes to me for a routine checkout (club check) I recognise that they are qualified to take the aeroplane and act as PIC. The routine check however is one of responsibilty. The club is acting responsibly by having such a rule. The pilot is acting responsibly by subjecting themself to the check. As is agreed, the law doesn't demand this. The check is voluntary. Before the flight however, I make it clear beyond doubt that should I consider it necessary to take command I will do so and they must agree to this.

For this reason the pilot should be PIC unless it is decided that they are to have instruction and that being the purpose of the flight. In such a case it isn't then a checkout at all but an instructional flight.

Agreed, exactly what I do.

I make it clear beyond doubt that should I consider it necessary to take command I will do so and they must agree to this.

That statement makes you the commander and means quite clearly that the other pilot is operating under your supervison.

No it doesn't!

It means that we have an agreement on how PIC is handed over during a flight.

I make it clear beyond doubt that should I consider it necessary to take command I will do so .Ok lets say there was an accident and the other pilot said that you were in command and it was your fault. You disagree and say you were not the commander and it goes to court.

The other pilot will tell the court that you said two things before take off before take off

1.should I consider it necessary to take command I will do so

2. and I must agree to this

I think at this stage you would have a hard time arguing that by the authority that you demonstrated before flight you left the other pilot in no doubt that you were indeed in command of the aircraft at all stages of that flight.

We very often fly with two captains and if the other pilot said what you have said I would have no alternative than to recognise that he was the commander of that flight.

At the end of the day its your interpretation against mine and a courts may be entirely different but If I were you I would check my liabiliity insurance, I think you might need it.

Good luck!

LLanfairpg

I don't need luck but leave the law to the lawyers! Common sense is as valid as any law can be. While the law can be an ass it is more often based on simple common sense.

Two crew ops requires its own sops and should not to be confused with single pilot operations. With two pilot ops are you saying that should a rooky first officer screw up at approach minima that you would just sit there and do nothing unless invited or more likely would you as the captain take over? As captain you are always P1 and the P2 first officer when handling only becomes P1u/s, not the same scenario at all.

It is common sense that in general an instructor in the role should undertake routine checks as required. There is no such thing as P1 u/s in single pilot ops and in the case being discussed. There will always be the potential that the instructor may need to take the control. It should be agreed before flight when and how the takeover of control may be done.

There is no such thing as P1 u/s in single pilot opsIn your experience and thats why you are wrong.

Two crew ops requires its own sops also wrong


While the law can be an ass it is more often based on simple common sense.

Ever wondered why solicitors and barristers drive Porches and instructors drive Honda Civics?

Did I mention I drive a 997 Carerra GT3?

We do have to concede the P1 under supervision on an integrated course is loggable, but not really a regular occurrence in general club flying.

Out of curiosity llanfairpg are you or have you ever been an Instructor? No doubt this will illicit a line of abuse from you as usual but it is a genuine question to try and ascertain the experience you are basing this theory on.

Well as I have said before the first type on my CPL from which the licence was issued is shown, and was accepted by the CAA, has an entry of P1 u/s (which means P1/s to you.)

So because you have a P1u/s in your logbook that went unnoticed by the CAA in the days of the wright brothers it makes it right?

So are you going to answer my question? What are the Instructional qualifications that you are drawing your expertise on GA flight training from?

So because you have a P1u/s in your logbook that went unnoticed by the CAA in the days of the wright brothers it makes it right?I dont think it went unoticed because it was the subject of a 6 month debate and brought about a change in the requirements for the initial issue of a British professional licence.

Dont worry about my experience Bose, you just worry about yours. If you need to know anything my experience can help you with just ask.

Love your pun about the Wright brothers--your so funny but I remain stable and seated..

While DFC has yet to convince me completely I don't think the 'you are the commander until I think fit to make myself the commander' is a good idea when we are talking about non-instructors checking each other out. What's the point of having a commander if he isn't really the commander? We reach a divergence between what is logged and what is real...

Love your pun about the Wright brothers--your so funny but I remain stable and seated..

Good job at your age, I suppose the colostomy bag helps keep the movement down to a minimum or at least regular.

So can we assume that you actually have no Instructional qualifications that are applicable to GA and you are in fact just pontificating on a subject you know very little about with the hope that repetition starts to sound like authority?

I am sure I am not the only one who is curious.

However if it turns out you are a truly a sky god and we can actually learn from you I will be the first to prostrate myself in the ground in front of you in the manner of the unworthy.

So pray tell enlighten us about your significant GA teaching experience. I am sure someone as old and as wise as you must have great teaching stories indeed to share with us.

So can we assume that you actually have no Instructional qualificationsYou can assume what you like and you know every time I look at that colostomy bag I cant help thinking of you.

Why not concentrate your effort on the IMC rating, the campaign and I use the term advisedly, is already a disorganised shambles, part in fact to the attiude you are displaying.

Nah, winding you up is proving to be far to much fun instead. :p

You can assume what you like and you know every time I look at that colostomy bag I cant help thinking of you.

What not feeling uncomfortable about me pointing out that you may be talking the contents of it?
;)

not feeling uncomfortable about me pointing out that you may be talking the contents of it

Hey you got something right, we are making progress already

Here is an ad from a group

>>>>New members adapt quickly to our aircraft which are exceptionally pilot-friendly and a joy to fly after most other aircraft. After a thorough briefing, most start as P1 with an experienced member in support for the first hour or two until they feel comfortable to “go it alone”.<<<<

What a wonderful thread this has turned out to be - better than any soap opera.:ok:

I seemed to have had it easy when I joined my group all those years ago. Sat in the LH seat with two other group members aboard, flew around for a bit, landed. Logged P1, can't remember who payed, probably on my first monthly bill after joining the group.

Keep it up, we'll reach page 28 soon.

Keep it up, we'll reach page 28 soon.

To be fair I should have chosen a lower number is the effort of getting there is quite tiring...... :p;)

But bose-x, so entertaining. Surely you can manage a few more pages of similar for the benefit of we non-sky-gods, who long ago gave up trying to understand what all this was about, who just go flying, take someone along if we or someone else feels it's a good idea, and log whatever seems reasonable at the time. Go on, I know you can! :ok:

Whirly, who am I to deny a lady...... :)

To be fair though I lost the will to live on page one after I gave my original view that I let them log P1. The remaining 13 pages came from a mix of abuse and people desperate to be P1 on a club check justifying there actions!!

I agree that a check flight, where a prospective hirer is being checked out by a (presumably experienced) PPL has a bit of a dubious status. Indeed, on the one hand you designate the prospective hirer as PIC, on the other hand he's being checked by someone who doesn't have had formal training to train or check somebody, but who does limit what the PIC can do (particularly he limits the ability of the PIC to refuse to take the check pilot as passenger).

That is what I am trying to get across. You can not say that a pilot needs to be checked out and then let them be pilot in command before they have completed the checkout you require.

This is single pilot ops.

The only way that two crew members can log the flight time on a checkout is for one of them to be an instructor.

As llanfairpg said previously, if two pilots are flying together and one has the ability (by agreement) to override the other pilot by taking control then the person with the ability to override the other is the pilot in command. Passengers do not have any authority to override a pilot in flight. In fact it is clearly defined as being illegal.

Saying that if you see something dangerous or that you do not like will cause you to take control is saying very clearly that you are taking responsibility for the safety of the flight and that you will through whatever actions are necessary ensure the safety fo the flight. In other words you are saying that you are the pilot in command. There is no other way to look at such a statement.

Having decided who is pilot in command then the other person is either dual or a passenger.

If the pilot who needs a checkout is pilot in command then the rule requiring a checkout has been broken because they are pilot in command without complying with the requirement to be checked out.

There is no system for and it is not possible to change the pilot in command during normal flight time.

Regards,

DFC