PDA

View Full Version : Type Check Out Question....


Finals19
22nd Nov 2009, 12:13
Hi, quick question...

Scenario: I fly a particular type of SEP light aircraft and wish to check somebody out on that type. The pilot to be checked already has a valid SEP class rating with differences sign off (i.e. VP prop) Am I correct in assuming that at this point it is merely an insurance sign off process? - in other words anyone qualified on type can sign somebody else off as long as they fulfill recency / hours on type requirements mandated by the insurance company?

Or (and this is what I need to confirm) is it the case that it would need to be done by a CRI or FI?

Thanks :ok:

mad_jock
22nd Nov 2009, 13:14
Yep you are right but check with the insurance company first just in case. Its there call not a regulatory one.

Talkdownman
22nd Nov 2009, 14:46
If the pilot to be 'checked out' is already licensed to fly the type in command then 'instruction' should not be necessary therefore there is no regulatory requirement for an instructor.

Ask the the aircraft owner/operator to verify his, and any insurance company, requirements. It might be that the 'checking pilot' does not even need to be a current licensed pilot at all. It might be a condition that he or she should preferably be an instructor. It might be that a so-called 'check-out' is not required at all.

Whatever such non-regulatory requirement, when a pilot who is qualified to fly the type in question in command is being 'checked' by another pilot it is very important to agree beforehand who is pilot in command and thus prepared to take responsibility for the flight. Only one pilot can be in command (and log PIC) at any one time.

foxmoth
22nd Nov 2009, 15:49
in other words anyone qualified on type can sign somebody else off

If the person converting has all the necessary sign offs for VP prop etc., then there is no actual "sign off", in fact, if the insurance does not require a check out he can just climb in and go flying without ANY check out, how wise this is depends on a number of factors, including how complex the type and how experienced the pilot.

Talkdownman
22nd Nov 2009, 18:11
If the person converting has all the necessary sign offs for VP prop etc., then there is no actual "sign off"
If the person 'converting' already has all the necessary 'sign-offs' then presumably he/she is already converted!
So-called check-rides/check-outs are neither regulatory training nor regulatory examination.
I suspect that in many cases 'the checker' and 'the checked' both claim PIC for the same flight.......
A 'check-out' in an aircraft which not fitted with dual controls must be interesting! I can't see an hour-hungry FI getting away with PIC for that!

Finals19
22nd Nov 2009, 18:52
Thanks for the feedback.

The "checker" is experienced on type (>100hrs) and the person being checked out already has VP sign offs. So as pretty much confirmed here, its merely an insurance check, if the insurance actually dictates as such.

The type is dual control fitted and very conventional to fly. :)

As for logging the time, I am going to read up on logging P1S and P1 concurrently. Its not something I am very familiar with but I am assuming its not possible to log P1 and dual, as the check pilot is not FI qualified? (and its a single pilot aircraft obviously)

Talkdownman
22nd Nov 2009, 19:51
As for logging the time, I am going to read up on logging P1S and P1 concurrently. Its not something I am very familiar with but I am assuming its not possible to log P1 and dual, as the check pilot is not FI qualified?
See LASORS Section A Appendix B (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Section%20A%20-%20GENERAL%20INFORMATION%20(LASORS).pdf).

If by P1S you mean PIC U/S or P1 U/S that is only applicable in the case of a pilot undergoing any form of flight test with a JAA or CAA Authorised Examiner, or Co-pilot (on a multi-crew aeroplane.....) performing the duties of PIC under supervision of pilot-in-command.

If by 'dual' you mean P/UT then that is only applicable in the case of a pilot under instruction (by an FI) for the purpose of gaining a licence or rating, or for conversion to an aircraft type within an aircraft rating group or class.

You state that The pilot to be checked already has a valid SEP class rating with differences sign offtherefore it would seem that the 'conversion' has already been completed.

If you are not an FI or FE maybe you could try Case N: Pilot acting as Safety Pilot = SNY

Whatever, there is only one PIC at any given time and that is for 'the checker' and 'the checked' to agree, and I would recommend that it be agreed beforehand..... ;)

Big Pistons Forever
22nd Nov 2009, 21:52
Sometimes I have seen a tendancy to treat type checks in a rather casual manner because it is not percieved as "real" training like that given for a higher license or rating. I think it is reiterate the importance of

1) making clear who the PIC is

2) a preflight brief on what the flight profile will look like including where and how all manoevers/exercises will be carried out

3)Describe exactly how simulated emergencies will be carried out

4) In the event of a real emergency, define the duties and responsibilties of each pilot.

In my case if I am doing type conversion training it will go as follows.

1) I am the PIC

2) A briefing appropriate to the flight which could be quite short (a quick circuit check) to quite detailed (the first flight on an unusual aircraft like a YAK).

3) I will detail how I will simulate the emergency (eg retard the throttle for an engine failure) and note all emergency will be verbalized by me with the word "simulated" followed by the emergency type so there is no confusion on what is happening.

4) In the event of a real emergency I will assume control and the student will be responsible for handling the radio (under my direction) and reading checklists called for by me.

foxmoth
23rd Nov 2009, 03:42
If the person 'converting' already has all the necessary 'sign-offs' then presumably he/she is already converted!

I think there is a difference between qualified and converted, I know if I were to fly say a Spitfire I would be qualified to fly it, but would still want a conversion onto it, even if this were only a thorough ground briefing and sitting in the cockpit with the pilots notes.

mad_jock
23rd Nov 2009, 07:14
Again its a check the insurance job.

It may be that the person being checked out cannot be PIC without being checked out.

Also as well don't underestimate the problems of recovering stuff in the RHS if you are not used to it. You won't be the first or last to grab the nearest engine level to you and instead of full power all you will get is mixture rich. High hour'd instructors get the same problem sitting in the LHS. It used to be weird doing the pilot companion courses teaching in the LHS.

I am not saying don't do it just be aware.

Whopity
23rd Nov 2009, 12:15
Am I correct in assuming that at this point it is merely an insurance sign off process? - in other words anyone qualified on type can sign somebody else off as long as they fulfill recency / hours on type requirements mandated by the insurance company? NO! As one or two have already pointed out there is no sign off required. As a non FI you are not qualified to sign off anything in a log book however; as a a pilot who is familiar with the type there is nothing to stop you familiarising another qualified pilot as part of an insurance requirement.

How you log it is another matter however; the requirements for logging are contained in Article 35 which states:Particulars of each flight during which the holder of the log book acted either as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft or for the purpose of qualifying for the grantor renewal of a licence under this OrderMany will quote LASORS at you but that does not take into account all cases, and is primarily designed to ensure people have the correct hours for licence issue and revalidation. Beyond that, it doesn't matter what you log the flight as so long as you comply with Art 35. Many will state that you can only have one pilot in a single pilot aircraft; that in itself is not true. The law specifies the minimum number of pilots and the "operator" can decide how many are needed for a specific function. If you are checking someone out, you are clearly both acting as members of the flight crew and should log it as required in Art 35(2).

DFC
23rd Nov 2009, 13:33
If you are checking someone out, you are clearly both acting as members of the flight crew and should log it as required in Art 35(2).


1. Check Insurance / club / group / operator rules to see who can be the person providing the required "check". Be careful with regard to insurance requirements because in the event of you saying "this pilot was competent" and they do something that results in a claim, the insurance company may ask "what qualified you to make such an assessment?".

2. Both members can log the flight.

Insurance is now a regulatory requirement. Unless the insurance requirements are followed then the flight is uninsured and therefore illegal.

Following from that it is clear that two pilots are required under the regulations and the person providing the check is PIC and loggs that while the other pilot is a co-pilot and should log that time as co-pilot.


NO! As one or two have already pointed out there is no sign off required. As a non FI you are not qualified to sign off anything in a log book however; as a a pilot who is familiar with the type there is nothing to stop you familiarising another qualified pilot as part of an insurance requirement.



There must be a defined record of having given and received the checkout. Unless a certificate is going to be produced then the only alternative and the method I would recomend is that the person providing the checkout makes an appropriate note and signs in the logbook of the pilot receiving the checkout. That keeps the required information in a place where it can be found easily should it be required. It also enables the PIC to ensure that his/her co-pilot recorded the flight correctly.

Recording the flight (which could be more than 1 hour duration) as co-pilot not only meets the legal requirements but also ensures that there is no posibility of later confusion when the pilot presents their logbook to an examiner who will look for 1 hour of dual training prior to extending the validity fo their SEP classs rating.

The important things to remember is that;

The person being checked can not be PIC and no dual time can be logged.

homeguard
23rd Nov 2009, 20:00
DFC, I understand your argument but is it all that simple.

As said the pilot is not required specifically to undertake training on a new type (differences training aside) however the PIC is required to satisfy himself that he is fit to undertake the flight. Flying a type outside of his experience without satisfying himself that he is fit could put him on the wrong side of the line.

If the non-instructor but experienced person on type is acting as 'safety pilot' and is there to only share knowlege or take command if required that will satisfy the requirement in my view. I'm not convinced that the safety pilot can act as crew and log anything. If I'm right then the pilot new to type logs PIC. The safety pilot will only log PIC only if they are required to take over.

DFC
24th Nov 2009, 13:09
If the non-instructor but experienced person on type is acting as 'safety pilot' and is there to only share knowlege or take command if required that will satisfy the requirement in my view. I'm not convinced that the safety pilot can act as crew and log anything. If I'm right then the pilot new to type logs PIC. The safety pilot will only log PIC only if they are required to take over.


Remember, the pilot being checked holds the requried licence and rating(s). However, for a reason other than licensing they are not entitled to be PIC.

The best example being that the insurance requires that all pilots are checked out. Until that requirement is complied with then they can not fly as PIC. Therefore the person you call "safety pilot" must be PIC - an insurance requirement.

Having established who has to be PIC, the only question is what the person manipulating the controls will log.

The situation is a clear example of a situation where the regulations (Insurance in this case) governing the flight require two pilots. Therefore, one will be the PIC and the other will be a co-pilot.

To say that either one was "a passenger" is to say that they took no active part in the safety of the flight operation. Or are you saying that passengers are also crew members???????

The only way round this situation would be for the rule to be changed from one requiring a checkout to one which requires new pilots to "only fly when accompanied by a single passenger who is a designated current pilot and member".

That makes things clear - one is PIC and the other is a passenger.

Remember to check you'r insurance requirements and policy very carefully. Often passengers receive more compensation than crew in the event of an accident. Therefore insurance companies who recognise the increased risk in checkouts can ensure that at least two seats are occupied by "crew" and thus limit their liability during the "checkout".

If you are the person who does the checkout - check your liability insurance also. It may be covered by the club / group insurance but if not then the last thing you want is to be in court countering a lawyer who is highlighting the fact that the (now deceased / seriously incapacitated) pilot was clearly not competent and should not have been released, and you had no qualifications or proven training in assesing pilots.

homeguard
24th Nov 2009, 21:24
It cannot be that an insurance company sets the law, only the CAA in th UK can set the rules. Insurance companies do not in my experience attempt to do that. Of course, the law requires that insurance is in place.

It is reasonable for an insurance company to protect itself and so may require for certain types, that have proved the need, a demand that training is first given on the type usually for a set number of hours before they will provide full cover. It's my experience when this requirement is put in place that the training must be with an instructor. How otherwise can the Insurance Co be sure that the training is to the mark unless a person who is qualified to give it gives the instruction.

We also need to consider the law: ANO Schedule 8

Private Pilots Licence

(i) he may fly such an aeroplane for the purpose of aerial work which consists
of:
(aa) the giving of instruction in flying, if his licence includes a flying
instructor’s rating, class rating instructor rating, flight instructor rating
or an assistant flying instructor’s rating; or

Now is the fellow group owner or another with experience on type allowed to give 'instruction', if they are not an FI or CRI? When an insurance company requires instruction to take place then that is what they mean - instruction. I have never seen the word 'checkout' used by an insurance company but I'm here to learn. Unless with certain types such as the turbocharged Lance and others the insurance will only require the pilot to comply with the law.

Is a checkout 'instruction in flying'? The purpose of insurance is to protect oneself and others. I wouldn't be too keen to risk the argument over symantics.

Talkdownman
24th Nov 2009, 22:09
New pilots in my non-equity C182 'group' are checked out by the aircraft owner who holds a PPL and is not an FI therefore no loggable instruction can take place.

Chuck Ellsworth
24th Nov 2009, 22:58
Am I to understand that a pilot with hundreds of hours on say a Piper Pacer who holds a commercial license or higher can not give a check out on a Pacer, but a flight instructor with a few hundred hours flying time period can give instruction on it even if he/she can barely figure out how to keep it going down the runway without losing control?

Talkdownman
25th Nov 2009, 10:01
So-called 'check-out's are not covered in UK LASORS. It is all down to the owners/operators and/or the insurance companies. It is possible that a highly experienced pilot may not have flown a particular aircraft for a short 'recency' period (eg 28 days) therefore requiring a 'check-out' by an instructor who could easily be low-hours and not familiar with the type. Such a situation is clearly undesirable, but not at all infrequent. I think it should be down to the owners, operators and the insurance companies to ensure that a fit and proper experienced person is selected regardless of any paper qualifications. As there is apparently nothing laid down which specifies who is to be commander of the aircraft under such circumstances then it remains important to establish that prior to the flight.

sjeh
25th Nov 2009, 10:17
Talkdownman - presumably in the situation you outline where the (PPL, not FI) owner of the 182 checks out new group members, either the new member is PIC and the owner is an (interested) passenger, or if the owner is PIC he must pay for (at least his share of) the flight...? Or have I missed something? Just interested to know how it works out in practice.

DFC
25th Nov 2009, 11:06
As there is apparently nothing laid down which specifies who is to be commander of the aircraft under such circumstances then it remains important to establish that prior to the flight.


If there is nothing preventing the new member flying the aircraft as PIC with passenger(s) why are you calling the flight a "checkout".

To be PIC, the pilot must be qualified in every respect to be so. That means being licensed, rated and (what we are talking about here) complying with the club/group rules as well as being properly insured.

I would recomend that your group rules very clearly specifies who can be (who is insured to be) PIC of the aircraft. Then there can be no doubt as to who can be PIC.

Giving someone instruction in an aircraft during flight does not automatically make the flight Aerial Work. There is no requirment for all instruction to be completed by a licensed instructor. If the pilot is qualified to fly the aircraft, there is nothing preventing a non-pilot teaching them how to use a GPS unit during flight.

It is true to say that insurance companies do not make the law. However, since insurance is now mandatory, the law says you have to comply with what the insurance company decides.

I would be very surprised if an insurance company permitted flight training on type by a non-qualified instructor - FI / CRI. Therefore unless the new member was already qualified and able to fly the aircraft concerned, i.e. the checkout is merely a confirmation of the pilot's claimed ability I would recomend that a suitable FI / CRI be tasked with the flight training required.

That is why if you read my previous comments, the flights were operated as an recorded as a flight by two qualified pilots - a PIC and a co-pilot. If the PIC does not like what they see at any stage, they can legally take control of the aircraft. The co-pilot can fly the aircraft but the PIC is responsible.

mad_jock
25th Nov 2009, 11:09
Just interested to know how it works out in practice.

From what I have seen its a hodge podge of methods most of which are technically illegal. The person being checked always ends up paying the full cost.

You have option

a) owner PIC fills tech log out as such doesn't pay anything

b) PIC signature left empty until after the flight.

c) Checkie PIC fills tech log out and technically isn't insured becuase they are not checked out yet.

d) Checkie is outside 90days but still signs as PIC and owner goes along anyway.

As a FI you stay as far away as possible when one these flights is going on. Don't offer an opinion as its none of your business. Some airfields it is very common practise others the School CFI see's it as someone stealing his revenue and its a cloak and dagger operation.

Its why there is an ever increasing number of groups with members who are CRI's. Its a nice enjoyable thought provoking course for experienced PPL's, easy to keep current and keeps everything easy legal.

hugh flung_dung
25th Nov 2009, 12:12
Finals19:
If someone has a valid SEPL class rating and has completed any required differences training they are technically able to fly any SEPL aircraft; any check-out is therefore either for insurance, assurance, or for common-sense reasons. For aircraft in the SEPL class the concept of a co-pilot does not exist, and P1/s can only be used after a successful test with an examiner.
The problem, as others have said, is how should the non-captain react when the routine "common sense" check reveals that the P1 is not up to the task. Clearly, if they feel that an accident is imminent they should intervene, but if there is then an accident the situation is very messy.
IMHO the only sure check-out route is to use an FI/CRI as the check pilot who must logically be the Captain throughout the flight. It is the responsibility of the FI/CRI to ensure that they are suitably skilled and experienced to accept the task.

HFD

mad_jock
25th Nov 2009, 13:28
HFD while I agree in the principle of who does the check....

Its really the flight training industry's fault that this situation has occurred. Inexperienced FI's who change every 6months to a year, bitter and twisted CFI knob jockeys. Its no surprise that the majority of owners and groups actively avoid any flying school and the associated politics.

If there was a financial risk to none FI/CRI's doing the checks the insurance industry would have stopped the practise years ago. They haven't and there is no legislation to stop the practise. In fact I seen quite a few insurance policy's with named PPL's as the group check pilots.

Chuck Ellsworth
25th Nov 2009, 14:09
Now that I am retired from the gong show that aviation has turned into I look forward to reading these discussions and watch the new age gang attempt to pick fly sh.t out of pepper.

Sometimes though I do get a cold chill in the pit of my stomach when I realize some of these people really do think that flying a simple single engine airplane becomes " complex " if the thing has flaps or a constant speed prop on it.

Is that why the " authorities " insist that pilots wear hi vis vests so the rest of society can recognize them and thus cut them some slack because of their phobias? :ugh:

DFC
25th Nov 2009, 16:44
For aircraft in the SEPL class the concept of a co-pilot does not exist,


Incorrect.

JAR–FCL 1.080 Recording of flight time

(2) Co-pilot flight time
The holder of a pilot licence occupying a
pilot seat as co-pilot may log all flight time as
co-pilot flight time on an aeroplane on which
more than one pilot is required under the type
certification of the aeroplane, or the
regulations under which the flight is
conducted.

The type of aircraft has nothing to do with having a co-pilot. An aircraft certified for 2 crew requires a co-pilot - there is no option.

When a pilot wants to simulate instrument flight (fly under the hood) and they are not under instruction then the regulations require another pilot - in the english language termed a co-pilot.

Have a senneca with no autopilot and want to use an RVR of less than 800m when flying an ILS - two pilots are required unless certain other requirements are met, want to fly commercially at night and again two pilots required unless certain other requirements are met.

There are a host of reasons why aircraft certified for single pilot operations are required to have two pilots. When two pilots are required one has the PIC and their co-pilot. The roles are clear as is how the flight can be logged.

Why make something simple difficult?

If I want, I can operate a C172 with 4 crew members - PIC, co-pilot, navigator and radio operator. They can all record having performed their respective roles.

The important thing is to have exactly how such things are done clearly defined. i.e. who can be PIC, who can confirm the capabilities of prospective PIC's.

There are hundreds of aircraft flying round every day carrying hundreds of passengers on which training and checking is completed with no instructors on board. In the airlines they are called line training captains but they very often hold no instructor qualifications on their licence and simply instruct / check on the basis of operator approval - similar to being named by the group as the person who can do checkouts.

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

Chuck,

The term "complex" came from your side of the pond!! :=

mad_jock
25th Nov 2009, 17:06
But you have missed the vital point that the CAA has to approve the logging of Co-pilot time. It is not a right it has to be applied for and hoops jumped through.

The fishery's F406's are a perfect example. One contractor was authorised to allow multi crew time to be logged the previous one wasn't.

Same in the Channel islands on the Tri-lander yes the none auto-pilot machines have 2 crew on board but only the PIC gets to log anything.

hugh flung_dung
26th Nov 2009, 16:25
DFC:
Your reply is accurate, but irrelevant to what's being discussed.
For a PPL being checked in an SEPL class aircraft in the real world the concept of a co-pilot does not exist.
The situation where PPLs are checking each other is not comparable to professional training captains acting within a managed company structure.
... but you knew that.


HFD

DFC
26th Nov 2009, 20:38
HFD,

The reference to training captains was in response to someone saying that instruction was not allowed unless there was an instructor on board.

------

Mad jock,


But you have missed the vital point that the CAA has to approve the logging of Co-pilot time.


The CAA has to approve applications for flights during which there is no rule which requires a co-pilot. If there is already provision in the licensing requirements / ANO for two pilots then the minimum crew for that flight is 2.

Example - simulated instrument flight - 2 crew minimum.

Commercial flight in Senneca to destination with ILS and RVR of 600m but no autopilot - 2 crew minimum.

Do the same flight with a PIC that meets certain experience requirements and it can be single crew.

Flight in same aircraft to aerodrome short distance away VFR - single crew.

Some operations require 2 crew some don't. Companies apply to the CAA to operate 2 crew all the time rather than chop and change from day to day.

If the insurance requirments require what is in effect a line check of new group members then it has to be a 2 crew operation. There is no other way to do it. Passengers are not crewmembers.

mad_jock
27th Nov 2009, 07:17
DFC you are talking bollocks.

Commercial flight in Senneca to destination with ILS and RVR of 600m but no autopilot - 2 crew minimum.

Do the same flight with a PIC that meets certain experience requirements and it can be single crew.

With no auto pilot you could have 20000 hours and you still wouldn't be doing that flight single crew or 2 up. Commercially or private in the UK.

IFR with no AP your need 2 up for commercial ops. And IFR or VFR the person in the RHS gets to log sod all. edited to add because you will try and save some face. Yes they can log something if it is a line training flight. What they log who knows or cares as it will be an AOC holder and completely irrelevant to this discussion.

This is quite amusing you dig yourself some holes.

And any wannbies reading this and thinking yippee I can log co-pilot time and do it. Your log book will bounce so fast out of the CAA that it might just go supersonic if they spot co-pilot time in any light twin. And you might actually get taken to court for damages when the admin pisses themselves laughing if you try and claim it in a Cessna 182.

foxmoth
27th Nov 2009, 09:18
I think Chuck nailed this with watch the new age gang attempt to pick fly sh.t out of pepper.

This has worked perfectly OK for many years with a PPL doing a checkout and the person being checked logging the time, the CAA and the insurance companies are happy with it (or have SPECIFIED an instructor), so why complicate things further:rolleyes:

DFC
27th Nov 2009, 09:49
With no auto pilot you could have 20000 hours and you still wouldn't be doing that flight single crew or 2 up. Commercially or private in the UK.

IFR with no AP your need 2 up for commercial ops. And IFR or VFR the person in the RHS gets to log sod all. edited to add because you will try and save some face. Yes they can log something if it is a line training flight. What they log who knows or cares as it will be an AOC holder and completely irrelevant to this discussion.



Glad to see you are awake. :ok:

The holding of an AOC does not change the law with regard to the recording of pilot function time.



IFR with no AP your need 2 up for commercial ops. And IFR or VFR the person in the RHS gets to log sod all.


You can't have it both ways :)

There are certain cases where the law requires 2 pilots. In those cases, not only can both pilots record the functions they carried out on the flight but the law requires them to do so.

You seem to think that a pilot could operate as a required co-pilot on a commercial operation flying some 1000 block hours per year (100 in excess of the legal maximum) just because they follow your advice and never log it?

The Authorities have no problem with a qualified and legally required co-pilot complying with the law in respect of recording the flight in the prescribed manner in their logbook.

Like I said, it is only when operating multi-crew on flights which legally do not need a co-pilot that the CAA has to approve multi crew logging. There are also aspects relevant to ATPL issue which come into the whole process but are not relevant here.

Both pilots in a C182 can log the time - if the PIC is under the hood during simulated instrument flight and their co-pilot is keeping the required lookout etc. There is no authority who has a problem with that.

You seem to think that there is some link between logging flight time and flying the aircraft / having hands-on experience or even gaining some experience at all. There is absolutely no link. The keeping of a logbook is merely a legally required bit of admin.

A person can (legally and correctly) log thousands of hours as PIC but only have a few hours actually handling the aircraft (3 take-offs and landings every 90 days). That can go-on for years and the CAA will be 100% happy.

In gaining experience terms there is absolutely no difference between a PPL/FI sitting in the right seat watching me fly under the hood and logging it as PIC (legal) compared to my friend a PPL sitting there and logging it as Co-Pilot (also legal).

In most cases SIC time is only credited at 50% towards employer's requirements so logging SIC only gets you 50% of the time you would get as an FI sitting there on your hands.

How many people have built up PIC time while watching other people operate the flight? How many people have built up IFR time while flying in VMC. The list is long.

If the law requires two pilots then when checked, there better be two pilots who have correctly recorded their relevant positions. Otherwise, one or other of them are either denying that they participated in the flight as a flight crew member or they are saying they did act as pilot but have not logged the flight. either way, there is a legal gap in the records. Something to be avoided when insurance companies are involved.

DFC
27th Nov 2009, 10:02
This has worked perfectly OK for many years with a PPL doing a checkout and the person being checked logging the time


For many years insurance was not a legal requirement.

These days there is no legal option of flying uninsured - intentionaly or not.

If the insurance policy (through the group rules?) has a requirement that only pilots who meet certain requirements can be PIC then until they meet those requirements they can not be PIC.

If a requirement was that they were "checked out" by another group member then until that checkout was completed they are not complying with the policy if they are PIC.

Just because one can't remember an insurance company refusing a payout because of this situation does not mean that a) it has not happened and b) it will not happen in the future.

In this case, it is very simple to ensure that the insurance company has less of a chance to back out of any payout.

mad_jock
27th Nov 2009, 11:29
Your still talking bollocks.

Unlike you I have worked for a company which has been required to carry 2 up for none AP operations. And I have been that spare prick at a wedding. Now the real debate was if you had to be qualified to sit in the LHS to be in the RHS.

Flight ops inspector reckoned you were there as a glorified wing leveller with the ability to produce nasty smells that's it. Single pilot ops minimums still apply. In fact its a pain in the backside doing anything apart from S&L when asked because it totally screws with the flow of the flight.

And of course you do know that you don't need 2 up for a private flight without an AP. And your minimums are related to your SPA IR rating nothing else. And to get MPA minimums on a SPA guess what you have to do an additional LPC multicrew. And you even get 2 separate records on your ratings page.

Chuck Ellsworth
27th Nov 2009, 14:31
As long as we are still picking fly sh.t out of pepper lets examine what we find so we don't eat the wrong stuff.


Quote::

" How many people have built up IFR time while flying in VMC. "

Most every pilot who flies IFR would be the correct answer for the simple reason that when flying an airplane under the IFR rules and following a clearance you are flying IFR period and being in VFR conditions has no bearing on your being under the IFR rules.

It is becoming depressing reading all this arguing about the fine points of the rules, if we want to really get into all the rules in society we would never leave our computers because before we finished going over all the rules there would be a hundred more churned out.

Maybe the answer is have the government put cameras and voice recorders in every airplane so the government can make sure their victims are punished for any violation of any obscure rule......

......yeh, that is the answer because there seems to be surveillance cameras most everywhere else these days.

mad_jock
27th Nov 2009, 15:18
Quite right Chuck a real pilot would just eat the fly sh!t and not bother trying to pick it out. And if accused of eating fly sh!t would deny it unless there was radar or RT tapes to prove it.

Unfortunately Chuck we have to iron out some of DFC's theory's or some poor sod will waste quite a bit of money thinking they are getting a service towards a license issue when they arn't.

The co-pilot thing for JAR wannabies has cost people thousands of pounds in these pay to fly as a safety pilot schemes. Perfectly legal under the FAA system completely useless under JAR rules.

Chuck Ellsworth
27th Nov 2009, 15:41
Mornin Jock, yeh I know these discussions are can iron out the problems people have trying to understand a given set of rules in a given country.

Wouldn't it be nice if aviation were to have only one set of rules for the whole planet?

But that would make to much sense and would add to much to aviation safety wherein everyone understands the rules for today's flight.

Hey I got a call from A.B. in Wick a few days ago and it seems the sun still rises in the east and sets in the west there and smoke still rises up the chimney. :ok:

mad_jock
27th Nov 2009, 15:53
I trust he still is a moaning old bugger haven't been in years.

Don't start about all the international differences the more country's I fly in the more difference's clutter up my head.

Do is say "FL one-hundred" here or "level one-zero-zero" bugger it I will just copy everyone else.

And mate just wait until you do a ferry over and have to deal with new bollocks in the UK with fick'all,tell me about it,steer me away from it, atc service.

DFC
27th Nov 2009, 21:45
Mad jock,

You flight ops inspector never read EU-OPS and JAR-FCL!!


And of course you do know that you don't need 2 up for a private flight without an AP.


True.


And your minimums are related to your SPA IR rating nothing else


In the UK - not true!!
UK private operations with IR holders are required to use the minima specified in the UK-AIP 3.??? Unfortunately included in those minima is the requirement that 800m is the minimum RVR single pilot unless a suitable coupled autopilot etc etc is used.

Perhaps your FOI was operating pre-EU-ops / jar-fcl however, from your closing comments I suspect that the company you worked for only provided for single pilot ops and saved the money on putting the required checking etc in place and because of that you were not part of the flight crew and thus could not log anything. That is not what we are talking about here.


Unfortunately Chuck we have to iron out some of DFC's theory's or some poor sod will waste quite a bit of money thinking they are getting a service towards a license issue when they arn't.



I know several pilots who have been granted CPL's and ATPL's with some co-pilot time on SEP included in the grand total hours. The reason why the flight required 2 crew was clearly recorded.

You seem to have lost sight of just what is requierd to get for example a CPL;

If I remember correctly, the applicant needs 200 hours total time of which 100 has to be PIC.

They may have completed 100 hours dual with the majority of it spent sitting there while the instructor flew the aircraft. They could also have acted as PIC for 100 hours while their grandad flew the aircraft but logged nothing.

If after that they pass the tests then good luck to them but they have fulfilled the requirements for obtaining a CPL.

And you are worried that a few legaly required co-pilot hours are going to cause chaos at CAA HQ?

Have a look at the ATPL requirements. Where does it say that the 500 hour multicrew has to involve anything other than sitting on their hands watching the PIC fly the aircraft?

Logbooks are an admin record of what function has been carried out. They are not a record of when the controls of the aircraft were manipulated or by whom.

Lets end the debate about what a co-pilot is by referring to the JAR-FCL definition;

Co-pilot:
“Co-pilot” means a pilot operating other than
as pilot-in-command, an aircraft for which more
than one pilot is required under the list of types
of aeroplanes (see Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL
1.220) or the type certification of the aircraft, or
the operational regulations under which the flight
is conducted, but excluding a pilot who is on
board the aircraft for the sole purpose of
receiving flight instruction for a licence or rating.

Very clear. So when my PPL friend flies with me in a C172 and I decide to fly under the hood, they are a pilot operating other than as pilot in command. The operational regulations require two pilots and they are not receiving any instruction. Ergo they are a co-pilot and can log the time as such.

On the basis that the operational regulations require the flight to be insured, then in the original case, the PIC must be a pilot who is insured to be so and the other pilot (not being trained but handling the aircraft) is a co-pilot.

---------

People have been burnt by some of the schemes on Chuck's side of the pond but they involve two pilots in a C150 and both logging PIC!!!!! - a US permitted anomaly but not accepted in Europe. That is not what we are talking about here at all.

DFC
28th Nov 2009, 13:16
Differences training is only requied in the cases liste in JAR-FCL and must be given by a person qualified to do so - eg FI or CRI.

From a C150 to C170 with none of the reasons for differences training as per JAR-FCL involved there is no legal licence based reason for needing a checkout. From a licence point of view, if you for example fly an arrow then you can fly a mooney with just familiarisation training (ground based in accordance with JAR-FCL sylabus). The owner and the insurance company may have a different position.

This debate was about a pilot who was licensed to fly the aircraft but club / group / insurance requirements required their ability to safely operate the aircraft to be checked. The rules in the case did not require such a check to be done by an instructor / examiner. That is how the situation ends up with a crew of 2 pilots none of which is receiving instruction.

Talkdownman
28th Nov 2009, 13:16
For Differences Training see LASORS (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=1591) Section F Page 6

mad_jock
28th Nov 2009, 13:48
So DFC does said co-pilot get to log PICUS when they fly the aircraft.

DFC
28th Nov 2009, 15:55
So DFC does said co-pilot get to log PICUS when they fly the aircraft.

Here are the relevant parts of JAR-FCL;

Crediting of Flight Time;

The holder of a pilot licence,
when acting as co-pilot performing
under the supervision of the pilot-incommand
the functions and duties of a
pilot-in-command, shall be entitled to be
credited in full with this flight time
towards the total flight time required for
a higher grade of pilot licence, provided
that the method of supervision is agreed
with the Authority.

Logging of PIC Flight Time

A co-pilot acting as pilot-incommand
under the supervision of the
pilot-in-command on an aeroplane on
which more than one pilot is required
under the type certification of the
aeroplane or as required by JAR–OPS
provided such pilot-in-command time
under supervision (see (c)(5)) is
countersigned by the pilot-in-command.

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

To answer the question in one simple sentence - No unless the operator has received approval for the method of supervision that is being applied.

I won't hold my breath for any SEP operator operating as 2 crew eg Simulated Instrument Flight getting approval for their "supervision system" if for no other reason that in all the cases where SEP's can be required to operate 2 crew there is no real option of providing the required supervision.

mad_jock
28th Nov 2009, 17:25
O well you carry on practising under the hood with folk logging co-pilot next to you.

The sad thing is a don't doud't that the clark's at the CAA have let through people logging co-pilot time in a SPA.

But never mind the CAA does watch these forums I am sure someone has drafted a memo already so it doesn't happen again.

DFC
29th Nov 2009, 12:37
The CAA can issue all the memo's they want. They can not change JAR-FCL and that is what counts.

The CAA issue many "restrictions and memos" but all a pilot has to do is move their licence to a JAA country with no such a restriction and say :p to the CAA.

You may be surprised to find that the CAA find's itself in the position of having to sit back an watch while a very large number of the UK pilot population operate with JAA licenses issues by other countries which makes the CAA restrictions meaningless and at the same time administer JAA licenses issued to many pilots in other countries - especially ex military from various european countries who do their civil training and tests in the UK.

Like I said it is possible to get an ATPL with only having actually flown the aircraft on the few solo hours that form part of the PPL course and during the various tests. i.e. very little hands on experience.

The important thing is to a) operate the flight safely and legally (insured) as well as making a truthfull record of who did what during the flight. So that if someone does come and check you have recorded just what part of the crew you were.

mad_jock
29th Nov 2009, 13:32
Crack on DFC with your theory that Flight ops inspectors don't read JAR-FCL. Multiple company's in the UK also have it wrong.

Your interpretation of of JAR FCL for the logging of co-pilot I suspect is a very small minority (if not one)

Now come on and get your final post out of the way so the thread can drop off the bottom and gullible wannabies won't get fed a lie with another one of your bollocks interpretations of the legislation/procedures.

DFC
30th Nov 2009, 09:09
with another one of your bollocks interpretations of the legislation/procedures.


I open the floor to you to quote the various JAR-FCL paragraphs and explain your interpretation.

I am especially interested in your interpretation of how pilots log their functions when the law requires two pilots for example simulated instrument flight.

Just because some company tricked you into sitting in the right seat for the sole purpose of pouring the pilot's tea does not mean that other companies have not used the appropriate parts of EU-OPS in their approved Ops manual and thus made the operation 2 pilot. :D