Time logging p1, p1s, PUT etc etc

[AD Jackson]

Seems to be a sort of 'gray' area with booking out as with logging landings and takoffs.

I regularly 'booked out' at the 'international' airport where I did my initial but I was PuT except for solo flights - so does 'booking out' mean the person doing it is in command?

Can one switch command during a flight and just log an hour of a 2 hour flight with no take off or landing? There would appear to be no legal reason to prevent it.

Secondly, as far as I can tell there is no requirement to log the number of take offs and landings - just the one of each for each line in the logbook as its assumed you have to do one of each.

[dobbin1]

The premise being that the "checkee" pilot is legally entitled to fly the aircraft in terms of their license (they just need the check for "club" rules), so they can legally sign out the aircraft as PIC, and carry a passenger - the "checker". They sign, they fly. If the checker feels a need to actually fly the aircraft, the checkride was pr

What if the checkee doesn't agree with the checker's decision to take over? If a passenger takes control against the wishes of the PIC, aren't they guilty of unlawful interference? The PIC would be entitled to squawk 7500 and be met by men with guns at the end of the flight.

[flybymike]

I regularly 'booked out' at the 'international' airport where I did my initial but I was PuT except for solo flights - so does 'booking out' mean the person doing it is in command?

A booking out either by phone or on a booking sheet would normally include the "pilot's" name, which I suppose might well be used retrospectively to decide who was PIC, (even if not necessarily correct)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

A booking out either by phone or on a booking sheet would normally include the "pilot's" name, which I suppose might well be used retrospectively to decide who was PIC, (even if not necessarily correct)

If I'm Pu/t and the instructor has asked me to do the booking out then I will, obviously, name him/her, and not me, as the captain. Hardly difficult.

[Level Attitude]

Quote:
If it is agreed or implied that one pilot will intervene, or take over, if he deems it necessary, at any time during the flight, then that pilot is PIC. Is this defined in regulation some where?

Yes:
EASA Part-FCL November 2011
‘Pilot-in-command’ (PIC) means the pilot designated as being in command and charged with the safe conduct of the flight.
UK CAP 393 Air Navigation: The Order and Regulations January 2015
‘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;
‘Pilot in command’ means a person who for the time being is in charge of the piloting of an aircraft without being under the direction of any other pilot in the aircraft.
Of course Canadian definitions may differ somewhat.

Generally before renting out an aircraft to a pilot to take away a Group/Club would want to assure themselves that the pilot is both qualified (a paperwork check) and competent (a practical check ie the check flight). The check flight is a club requirement, not a regulatory one, so there is no requirement to even be qualified to fly it - eg medical just ran out but want to get the check done so can rent in a few days once restored.

Since satisfactory completion of a check flight is a requirement before the Group/Club would hand over the aircraft it seems very odd to me that any checkee would even expect to log PIC for the check flight itself.

Many times I have flown as a passenger, who once airborne, by prior agreement, will take over flying the plane for a specific purpose (like assessing a change to the aircraft, or demonstrating a newly installed feature, or equipment) I hardly think of myself as PIC for the flight, and do not log that time.

You were never PIC so you were correct not to log anything. You took over the actual flying of the plane with the permission, and under the supervision, of the PIC. They could take back the controls at anytime they liked and if you put the aircraft in a situation outside of their competence/experience level, but within yours, all you could (legally) do would be to offer advice which the PIC could accept or reject as they saw fit.

[9 lives]

You were never PIC so you were correct not to log anything. You took over the actual flying of the plane with the permission, and under the supervision, of the PIC. They could take back the controls at anytime they liked and if you put the aircraft in a situation outside of their competence/experience level, but within yours, all you could (legally) do would be to offer advice which the PIC could accept or reject as they saw fit.

Totally agreed. So how is that different from a club asking me to go and ride a circuit or two with a new pilot, to make sure they're okay to rent to? I tell new pilot that they are PIC, and I will discuss with them in advance any action I might take to take control of the aircraft. 'Seems the same either way to me....

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by Step Turn

Totally agreed. So how is that different from a club asking me to go and ride a circuit or two with a new pilot, to make sure they're okay to rent to? I tell new pilot that they are PIC, and I will discuss with them in advance any action I might take to take control of the aircraft. 'Seems the same either way to me....

If the flight can't occur without you in the right seat for any reason, legal currency requirement, insurance requirement, even some dubious club rule, whatever; then you are the PIC for the duration of the flight and IMO it needs to be crystal clear to everyone that:

1) If you say "I have control" the guy/gal in the left seat will immediate relinquish control, and

2) "suggestions" you give during the flight are meant to be considered as helpful advice and will be acted upon, not ignored

However if at the end of the flight I was not required to do much more than admire the scenery, I think it is entirely reasonable for me to say "you did not need me" so I am happy to be considered a passenger and you go ahead and log the flight as PIC.

I suppose this is not entirely within the letter of the law but it removes all ambiguity about who is in charge during the actual flight and rewards competent performance.

[FullWings]

So, to sum up, as long as you don’t BOTH log it in the same capacity (PIC or P/UT) and the PIC is appropriately qualified for the flight, then you should be OK...

[AD Jackson]

Its really just academic unless there is an accident and the 'checker' who the 'checkee' thought was in command changes his mind and the 'checkee' finds himself as P1. There is an incentive for this kind of thing: most insurers wont cover anyone whose had an accident in the last 5 years.

Clubs and Groups that operate as Ltd companies offer much more protection when things go bad but co-owning groups operating on the 'cheap' co-opting other co-owners to do check rides are open to all manner of abuse and normally this will only surface after an 'event'

[9 lives]

However if at the end of the flight I was not required to do much more than admire the scenery, I think it is entirely reasonable for me to say "you did not need me" so I am happy to be considered a passenger and you go ahead and log the flight as PIC.

And happily, "pushing" the time to the newer pilot, who should be logging it, and who's paying for it anyway!

[flybymike]

most insurers wont cover anyone whose had an accident in the last 5 years.

So anyone who has had an accident is effectively banned from flying for five years then.....?

[sherburn2LA]

In the US it is possible I think for an instructor to instruct for a higher rating and certainly to conduct a BFR without a medical provided the instructee is entitled to be P1 (and obviously they must be P1 in this case).

For myself I would not be overly comfortable with that. Since I am logging my time to renew my EASA rating (with a 61.75 on top) I always record the way I was taught as PU/T and I agree that in advance with my instructor. In the UK I take that as read.

High time / frequent flyer pilots may feel differently but I would always expect to defer to an instructor and subconsciously at least give up some P1 duties in favour of demonstrating competence (which let's face it usually means competence in manipulating the controls).

[Maoraigh1]

Refusal by insurers to cover anyone who had an accident in the last 5 years is news to me. It's 16 years since any of our Group had an accident, but all that happened was a premium increase. Each year our broker gets each members hours, and accident record. I know of pilots who were able to keep on flying after more recent accidents.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Insurance premiums will unsurprisingly go up if there's a pilot who has made an insurance claim in the last 5 years, but they're not uninsurable.

Having been in I think 7 syndicates over 20 years, I've seen several instances of pilots who had had accidents, or a syndicate who had suffered ground damage, continue to be insured.

G

[Capt_Stewart]

People need to be clear.
If a flight test and you pass its P1s, if you fail its PUT
If its a club check and The instructor has any responsibility He/she is P1 and you are Put.
If you don't like it bog off and fly elsewhere.
With responsiblity goes logging of hours.
If a check not needed and But a request to go for the ride then pay and he/she will advise but you are in control.
If The instructor has no responsibility other than as a mate then its a mates flight.
Easy but be clear not woolly

[9 lives]

If you don't like it bog off and fly elsewhere

Indeed, which is a reason that I bought my first plane more than 28 years ago, and my second more than seven years ago - I answer only to the license issuer and the insurer for my currency and recency. I choose to no longer surrender to flying club rules.

Back when I still rented, a dispatcher ran afoul of me by stating (in front of my passenger to be) that I was not qualified to fly a 172. I complained to the manager that the dispatcher had no idea of my qualifications, and had no right to make statements like that in front of my passenger. The Manager replied by making out a different membership card for me, which when presented meant I never need to fly a checkout at the club again, as long as I flew something there on some kind of regular basis.

This gesture retained my business. Being regimented about checkrides would have cost them my business. But that's just my opinion....

[sherburn2LA]

some perverse thinking here not sure if it is an ego thing. If you are short of renewal hours or looking to be a pro fair enough but why would the average Joe want to be P1 if he didn't have to be.

P/UT. You do all the flying - somebody else gets the blame if you bend the plane. What's not to like.

[India Four Two]

P/UT. You do all the flying - somebody else gets the blame if you bend the plane.

I will try to avoid bending the plane, if I can. My standard brief when I am getting checked-out in a new aircraft is to say to the instructor "In the event of an engine failure or other emergency, I will say 'You have control'"

[Gertrude the Wombat]

My standard brief when I am getting checked-out in a new aircraft is to say to the instructor "In the event of an engine failure or other emergency, I will say 'You have control'"

Mine is slightly different. I expect to have first go at handling most emergencies but I will say:

"In the event of fire, I will say 'You have control'"

In fact the only time I've had an emergency, on a joyride with an instructor in foreign parts, he took control before I could get my mouth open.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Mine is significantly different, as I'd never present myself for a checkout without having familiarised myself with the manual, and got the key points of the emergency drills on my kneeboard.

"If there is an emergency, I will handle it, but you of course will take control at any point you are unhappy".

G