Logging P1

[monacam44]

Good evening,

A scenario; There are two pilots flying along together in a two seat aeroplane. The pilot in the left hand seat is insured to fly the aircraft. The pilot in the right hand seat is current on type but not insured to fly the aircraft. The pilot in the right hand seat is flying the aircraft. Can that pilot log the flying time as P1?

Thanks,

Mona

[Crash one]

I would suggest yes, up to the point of the crash, at which point the responsibility devolves around the insured.:confused:

[BabyBear]

So, the question seems to be; is it legal to log a flight that was illegally flown?

Let me just think about that.......................Nope, I would guess not.

BB

[Level Attitude]

So, the question seems to be; is it legal to log a flight that was illegally flown?
Aircraft insurance did not use to be mandatory (although many airfields required that aircraft
using them did hold a certain level of cover).

I believe all aircraft (at least in the UK) are now required to hold a minimum level of insurance.

Is a flight in an uninsured aircraft actually illegal, or just a very bad idea?
Anyone able to provide CAA / EASA chapter and verse on this?

Irrespective of the insurance issue was the RH seat pilot ever actually PIC in the scenario given?

Sounds a lot like someone going up with a friend in their own aircraft, or one hired from a club
by LH seat pilot. With RH seat pilot just "having a go".

When, and how, did LH seat pilot give up being PIC?

[flybymike]

Nothing to prevent P1 being logged from the right seat per se.

How about this though?

An uninsured pilot flying solo in either seat.

Can he/she log P1, and if not who is P1? or did the flight never take place because no one was flying the aircraft?

[RTN11]

Is a flight in an uninsured aircraft actually illegal, or just a very bad idea?
Anyone able to provide CAA / EASA chapter and verse on this?

Only thing I seem to be able to find is on the CAA website, but it's quite difficult to navigate

Mandatory Insurance Requirements | Aircraft Register | Operations and Safety (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=122&pagetype=90&pageid=4510)

either way, if he's not insured there's no way he can log P1. Fine for him to physically fly the thing, but when it comes to an investigation after the flight, I'd not want to be the one who'd flown illegally and having to explain why. Nothing illegal about letting a friend have a go while you maintain P1 status, definitely illegal to log P1 for licencing purposes when you have no right to do so.

[Cows getting bigger]

I look at it another way.

Lets say an uninsured pilot takes an aircraft for a solo flight - he is undoubtedly P1 and there is nothing stopping him from logging such a flight. Of course, the insurance company may not be happy, the CAA may pursue him for a breach of the ANO etc but there is no escaping the fact that he was the pilot in command and was P1.

Taking our intrepid pair of aviators, at any time they must have identified an individual who is P1; only one pilot can log the time. However, if they choose to be stupid and allow the uninsured to be P1 then he is still pilot in command but he has broken the rules by not ensuring that the aircraft is insured.

[BabyBear]

I look at it another way.

Lets say an uninsured pilot takes an aircraft for a solo flight - he is undoubtedly P1 and there is nothing stopping him from logging such a flight. Of course, the insurance company may not be happy, the CAA may pursue him for a breach of the ANO etc but there is no escaping the fact that he was the pilot in command and was P1.

Fair point CGB, so if you extend your sceanrio to one in which the uninsured 'pilot' is not actually licenced can he log PIC?

I guess the truth is anyone can log whatever they wish with the issue being when counting the time towards currency, etc. So if no licence then it wouldn't count.

BB

[Pace]

I am not sure on this one! There is a difference being qualified and licensed to fly a particular aircraft and hence logging the hours and flying it illegally.
If an illegal flight has taken place then the CAA will prosecute the Captain or P1 of the aircraft. So there has to be a legal P1.
Take an overweight takeoff! insurance void. Who will the CAA prosecute even though the insurance is void ?
I am sure they would regard one of the pilots as being legally in command or P1 of the aircraft.
yes that Captain/PI would log the Hours and yes he would be charged with illegal operation of the aircraft if he did something which invalidated the insurance.
There is a big difference in being legally qualified to fly an aircraft and hence log hours in that aircraft AND while acting as P1 or Captain breaking laws which lead you to being charged and convicted as P1 for an offence you commit in the aircraft!.

So yes if Joe Bloggs in the right seat is qualified and licensed to fly a PA28 and it can be proved that he was acting as Captain/ P1 he can log the hours.
The CAA then discover the insurance is for a named pilot only and Joe Bloggs is not a named pilot then the CAA COULD prosecute him for flying an aircraft while uninsured but these are separate issues

Pace

[flybymike]

Fair enough;)

[Pace]

F900X

I thought only Wives can act as Captain/P1 from the back seat ? :E

Pace

[Crash one]

It doesn't seem to matter where you look in GA there are upturned cans of worms everywhere.:ok:

[BackPacker]

I'm with Pace on this one. Even if the PIC is flying illegally, he/she can log P1. It could be used in court as an admission of guilt though, so whether it's wise to put it in the logbook is a different matter.

Even in the ultimate case. A non-pilot (no license whatsoever, not even a student pilot) hops in an aircraft, starts it and flies it solo. Of course you can argue whether someone like that is "in command" for practical purposes, but for legal purposes that person is "in command" (otherwise, who else is?), and hence should be entitled to log P1. In fact, that person could actually be legally required to log P1, even though such a person is not very likely to have a logbook.

(And now that I'm thinking about it, is there any explicit provision in the ANO or EASA-FCL that says that the experience hours required for issue or revalidation of a license/rating/whatever, need to be flown legally?)

In case of the OP I'm assuming we're either talking about a check-out scenario, or the scenario where somebody lost a medical or something like that. In that case it's best if the PIC, and thus the person who logs P1, is the person who is in every aspect legal and insured to fly the aircraft. If the other person is doing the actual handling then that's fine, but that person is not the PIC and hence logs nothing.

(Note that in a single pilot aircraft only one person can act as, and log P1, and everybody else on board logs nothing. Except when the PIC is an instructor or examiner.)

[Crash one]

I would suggest yes, up to the point of the crash, at which point the responsibility devolves around the insured.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif


Isn't that what I said in post 2?
Pretty much, Who would know, unless there is an inquiry & why would there be one of those unless there was an incident to warrant such an inquiry?
What about a situation where the owner has insured the a/c but is not qualified to fly it (taildragger frinstance) so gets his mate to ferry the a/c home while he comes too so as to "have a go", but doesn't tell the insurance co cos it is Sunday. They land safely:ok::=?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

And now that I'm thinking about it, is there any explicit provision in the ANO or EASA-FCL that says that the experience hours required for issue or revalidation of a license/rating/whatever, need to be flown legally?
Unenforceable if so ... how many (VFR) flights have you been at 3,001' and not absoulutely certain that that cloud above you doesn't start below 4,001', just to pick a simple example?

Oh, and a possibile interpretation of Mona's OP is that the pilots only discovered after landing that the one doing the flying hadn't been insured! - what then?

[RTN11]

The main question to ask of the OP is why would he want to log it?

Is he planning to use this time for his 12 hours SEP currency to revalidate his licence? In which case, best not to log anything at all as if the CAA were to do a spot check and find no insurance he'd be in trouble.

If it's just for interest from a guy who has plenty of hours, just log it as passenger or P2 or something, making it clear it's not going towards any licencing requirement, and everyone is happy.

[Whopity]

Regulation 1178
‘Pilot-in-command’ (PIC) means the pilot designated as being in command and charged with the safe conduct of the flight.No mention of flying the aircraft! If he cant legally fly it, he can't legally be in command!
To log PIC you must be qualified; and the aircraft must also be qualified, which under EASA requires airworthiness and Insurance. It could be stolen but that doesn't matter

[Pace]

No mention of flying the aircraft! If he cant legally fly it, he can't legally be in command!
To log PIC you must be qualified; and the aircraft must also be qualified, which under EASA requires airworthiness and Insurance. It could be stolen but that doesn't matter

Whopity ;)

OK if both pilot and aircraft have to be legal to log the hours what happens if the aircraft becomes illegal in flight?
Does the Pilot in command only log up to the point that the aircraft became illegal ?

Pace

[Silvaire1]

Is there really a measureable chance of some CAA official accessing a pilot's logbook, auditing the entries, cross-referencing those to a separate audit of an aircraft's insurance, and then pursing a case against the pilot?

If so, there are even more resources being wasted than I think most people would imagine, both in terms of the CAA reviewing at pilot log books (also a waste of resources) and auditing aircraft insurance. Locally we have no aircraft insurance requirement, never had one, probably never will have one, and it makes no difference whatsoever. Aircraft owners typically cover the aircraft for their own reasons, and if they don't they usually are making a sound personal decision based on what they do with the aircraft.

I haven't even mentioned the resources being wasted in discussing whether you can log PIC time in an uninsured aircraft! :)

[Richard Westnot]

Pace.

Then it would be loggable as P/UT and signed of by Capt Fu**offiswasnotme. ;)

[Torque Tonight]

You can't have one person as Pilot in Command for logging purposes and simultaneously another person as PIC for insurance purposes. Try to imagine how you would explain it all in a court.

[Silvaire1]

You can't have one person as Pilot in Command for logging purposes and simultaneously another person as PIC for insurance purposes. Try to imagine how you would explain it all in a court.

It would never be necessary to explain it in court, because in the event of an accident the logging would done appropriately.

[RTN11]

Is there really a measureable chance of some CAA official accessing a pilot's logbook, auditing the entries, cross-referencing those to a separate audit of an aircraft's insurance, and then pursing a case against the pilot?

No, there isn't. There is however a good chance that a concerned observer might inform the CAA of their concerns, watching an aircraft fly without insurance, or overhearing someone having a conversation which is clearly going to invalidate insurance and therefore C of A.

Having personally been involved in investigations of this nature, I can tell you it's not fun, there are certainly no tea and biscuits when the investigator thinks you've done something wrong, and having something illegal in your log book is certainly not going to go in your favour.

[Silvaire1]

How on God's earth is a "concerned observer" going to know the insurance limits on somebody elses's aircraft? And why would he care? Honestly, the whole thing just strikes me as silly, self perpetuating nonsense.

[Heston]

Jeez you Guys want to get out more. Anyway the OP has to be a wind-up, surely? (certainly lots of folk getting wound up anyway...)

[RTN11]

Just look at the list of caa prosecutions. Usually there are multiple offences being committed, and usually it's reported by someone on the ground who was concerned.

Logging a flight in an aircraft which you are not insured to fly makes any investigators job rather easy.

[UV]

From the original post...

Good evening,

A scenario;

Just that, yet another highly unlikely scenario, dreamed up by a pilot showing his inexperience, and who has nothing better to do than create such drivel.

[BackPacker]

Or is the OP maybe a "concerned observer" who needed some advice before calling the CAA, but removed some detail to protect the presumed innocent?

Looking at the amount of threads about logging P1/P2 in a single pilot aircraft, and from actual experience, I know there's a lot of confusion and a lot of pilots logging hours they're not entitled to. And some of these improperly logged hours are used to claim experience for the issue or revalidation of a rating. That's where things may get tricky.

Not to mention a concern a group member may have about the consequences if somebody wrecks the aircraft, and the insurance finds out that the person who was handling the plane had a history of claiming P1 time on that aircraft, but was not insured to do so.

[Whopity]

Just that, yet another highly unlikely scenario,Not really, it happened to me last summer, I flew a friends aircraft and was not insured to fly it as a pilot so I flew it as a passenger!

[Pace]

Backpacker

Sadly pilots need hours especially in the early days. hours cost a lot of money so I have some sympathy.
there used to be pilots in the USA who would sell turbine time just taking someone along in the right seat or even selling fictitious time full stop!
So I do not really have that much of a problem with someone flying from the right when qualified to do so and logging the hours whetherv he is on the insurance or not!
If he is not on the insurance log it after the event when all is ok if something happens the insured guy is PIC :ok:

Pace

[monacam44]

UV - actually you couldn't be more wong. 650 hour fixed/rotary pilot presented with exactly this scenario by a party interested in buying a share in HER aircraft. And unclear on the legalities of such a scenario.

[gasax]

I was with UV. But given the 'clarification' I'm staggered!

[RTN11]

By acting as pilot in command when not insured you are breaking the law.

Asking this question is like asking if the guy in the right hand seat is drunk can he log P1? If his medical is invalidated by a medical condition he has not yet disclosed to the CAA can he log P1?

Of course he can, but he should then expect to pay any fines, and have his licence removed if he ever gets found out.

[Pace]

RTN11

There is pilot licensing and aircraft licensing! Holding a medical is part of pilot licensing having insurance is part of aircraft requirements.
Very different.
As stated before what happens if the aircraft becomes ILLEGAL in flight??
Yes technically it does and can happen.
Does that mean the pilot can only log the part up to the point that the aircraft became illegal.
Some time back I was flying near a war zone excluded under the terms of the insurance. Bad thunderstorms forced me further and further towards the edge of that airspace which got the controller very excited.
I did not enter but had I done so ? void insurance.
Equally if something goes wrong with the aircraft? not your fault your stuck with it but technically you now have an illegal aircraft do you stop recording the flight?
Yes if you fly an illegal aircraft from the ground up the chances are you will be charged as the commander and prosecuted but that is different to not being qualified or licensed to fly and record that flight.

Pace

[RTN11]

The OP was not regarding any of those scenarios though, it was aimed at the pilot in the right seat doing the flying with no insurance, which would be illegal for no reason at all.

Obviously if you're in flight and you lose something which affects the airworthiness, you are technically flying an illegal aircraft, but you would not have become airborne with this defect. Of course in this instance you would log the whole flight, and you would likely be submitting a report to the CAA, the AAIB or your insurance company, so you would want the records to be correct.

This is completely different from simply choosing to invalidate your insurance because it suits your mood.

[darkroomsource]

"On 30th April 2005, EC Regulation EC 785/2004 on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators came into force. The Regulation was subsequently amended on 6th April 2010. The Regulation, as amended, specifies the minimum levels of insurance required by aircraft operators and air carriers in respect of third party cover, passenger cover and cover for risks of war and terrorism."

Does this mean that anyone flying any plane is required to have insurance? Since when are private individuals hiring an hour in a plane considered to be air carriers or aircraft operators?

I could be way off, but that's not what I thought I was when I hired a plane.

[Level Attitude]

Since when are private individuals hiring an hour in a plane considered to be air carriers or aircraft operators?

The individual is not, but the school, club, person who is renting out the
aircraft is.

Problems arise when PIC confirms all paperwork correct but doesn't know
that the (in date) insurance cover note is invalid as the premium has not
been paid. Although the flight was "illegal" I doubt the PIC broke the law,
and was certainly entitled to record PIC (if not required to under EASA).

[Level Attitude]

Just that, yet another highly unlikely scenario, dreamed up by a pilot showing his inexperience, and who has nothing better to do than create such drivel.

Actually I would think a highly likely scenario:

Qualified pilot goes flying (as a passenger) with a friend. Friend lets fellow
pilot have a go on the controls, possibly even control the aircraft for quite
a long time.

On landing Passenger would like to Log this flight - only being put off by
fact they weren't insured - completely forgetting (or ignoring) that they
were NEVER the pilot, let alone PIC, for this flight.

[Silvaire1]

This thread is an absolutely wonderful example of the law of unintended consequences. Once you pass an (unnecessary) law mandating insurance you generate a bunch of complex issues, all of which combined have no effect whatsoever on safety, or anything else in the real world. Compliance becomes time wasting nonsense of the type that has (tragically) resulted in Europe becoming a GA backwater since WW II.

The silly 'IFR as PhD' stuff is just about as bad.

The question then becomes, are you people ever going to be able to free yourself from nonsense like this, or do you actually like it? :) :) :)

It's just an aircraft, get in and fly it, try hard not to crash and life will be good.

[Pace]

Silvaire

The problem with Europe is we have too many Government created artificial jobs. We relied on the financial world and leisure industry to create wealth and created a huge industry in regulating.
You cannot breath without braking a law and we tut tut at anything and everything.

Think it was a very famous fighter pilot Sir Douglas Bader who said something like " The Law is for fools to obey and wise men to question".
We have changed into a nation of fools sadly!

Just look at the chaos that was created here with the volcanic ash :ugh:
Not one life lost to Volcanic ash in the whole history of aviation but it brought Europe to a standstill.

Look at EASA itself and the cost of that regulator but the USA since 9/11 has also become regulation and security obsessed

The above response is a general observation

Pace

[Silvaire1]

Pace, thanks for the response. I know, I have close ties there... But the time will come when it will have to confronted (there and to a lesser extent here)

[Pace]

The other point to consider regarding insurance is insurance itself is a huge industry we are told we need it for everything to cover anything from household appliances to insurance to cover insurance.

It is there to cover a potential loss your own or a third party who suffers a loss and claims against you.

The USA aircraft industry was almost destroyed by claims against it ! I remember Piper being sued by the relatives of the owner of a highly modified 40 year old cub even though the mods were not approved and done by his own hands!

Lawyers will sue where the money is not the person responsible for the loss NO money worth bothering with and you will not get sued!

Government regulate on insurance to protect themselves From your actions costing them money and we have become a point and blame society!
where have the pioneering days gone and most of all our freedoms :{

Pace

[Crash one]

These views are absolutely correct. So what are we going to do about it? I am 73, little to lose. What about a mass disobedience day? Or will that as usual turn into a "Well, I've got the wife & kids to think of, I'm not so sure" bull****.