Just curious more than anything else as I believe the logging of the number of take offs and landings is not a requirement but the Jeppesen logbook I use has a column for it, so I have done ever since I started flying and is useful when I'm instructing to see how many circuits I had done with a student at PPL level.
A captain I flew with mentioned that I shouldn't log the T/O or landing if it's not my sector and should only record this when I'm acting as PICUS.
I think he's correct thinking about it logically but can't find any reference to this anywhere?
Location: In some hotel downroute or in some hotel doing union negotiations.
Landing currency can be a problem, not only on pure long-haul operation. For example we have a fleet that does MFF on both A320 and A330, they have to maintain currency on both types, not only in general. So having to visit the simulator just to do an A320 landing is kinda stupid, therefore it has to be tracked.
JAA logbooks usually do have a column for landings and take off. One can only log those on his PF sectors, if one switches roles on flights take care to only log the relevant part (either take off or landing). It is usually a non-issue for shorthaul pilots except if working part time. PF shouldn't be confused with PICUS, although the brits tend to do that due to their extremely lax CAA view on that thing.
If your license is issued by theUK CAA you are governed by CAP393.
PArt 8 section 79 gives you what to record and T/O and landings isn't one of the requirements.
Thats not to say you can't log them if you feel like it.
There is a requirement to record landings for certain ratings and tests eg night ratings and base checks. But thats about it for a Brit license holder.
And this PICUS nonsense don't go near it with Captains unless its brought up by them and then just agree with them. I have just had to set up 3 different processes for PICUS logging for different NAA's license holders.
I have 1 NAA that requires them to be on a command upgrade course flying in the LHS.
1 That requires it to be done only with a TRI/TRE.
1 That it can be done with a line trainer.
And of course the easy Brit option which we never know what the FO logs and a letter from OPS saying the hours are correct is good enough.
BTW I have never logged PICUS I got my PIC hours in a spam can VFR instructing which taught me sweet FA about operating a commercial airliner. So I really can't get my knickers in a twist about FO's logging PICUS when handling.
Decades past it was a regulatory requirement to log instrument flight time as actual or simulated. By simulated it meant under a hood so you cannot see outside. We all cheated occasionally by tilting the hood if the instructor didn't see you. Instrument flight time was only logged if you were in IMC (in cloud or pitch black night). It was considered extremely bad form if you logged instrument flying while on automatic pilot. What is the point in doing that, anyway. Logging of automatic pilot time in IMC has no meaning as instrument flying skill is not involved in any way.
In later years the tail started wagging the dog and it became legal to log automatic flight in IMC and this degraded the original principle of logging of instrument flight time which was meant to be a reliable measure of instrument flying ability. Not anymore of course. Going a step further some regulatory authorities I am told approve logging of all IFR flight plan flights as instrument flying.
As with all instrument flight time, it is left to the integrity of the pilot to log instrument flight time honestly. Frequently that does not occur and wholesale forging of instrument flight time is quite common especially as only the pilot knows if he is cheating. There is no audit trail which means the whole idea behind logging of instrument flight time is shot to pieces. It is meaningless in reality but regulatory authorities still insist on it. But logging of a take off and a landing? Seems a bit of a leg-pull?
mad_jock: from your posts I asume that you are still quite involved with light aviation? As an examiner did you never have to ensure that a PPL SE rated pilot who wished to revalidate his rating by way of hours flown had also met the requirements with respect to the 12 landings required in the final 12 months of the two year period?
With regard to the matter of "co-pilot" handling on larger aircraft - in the days of the "Atlantic Barons" it was quite possible to log thousands of hours as P2 without ever being allowed to touch the flying controls. Thus P1ucs was established as one means of getting at least some idea of how much "polling" time a tyro co-jo was getting.
The youngsters these days...................
Have you never heard of BOAC's infamous Landing Card for F/Os?
You have to be a martyr to light aviation to become a PPL examinor these days the cost is stupid and most are lucky to see any return on getting it so I never bothered.
I was only JAR never knew the old system.
Thankfully those days are gone now with Pilots and flap operators. I am happy to say that my PNF sectors are more than my PF sectors. The only thing PICUS is any use with is for the zero to heros gaining an ATPL.
If there was a requirement for ever pilot upgrading to do a number of hours of it I could see the point of getting wound up about it. But there are many like myself who got the PIC requirement by banging out 4-8 hours a day vfr instructional flights. Which teach you nothing about instrument flying or for that matter how to operate and manage a commercial flight.
The students using log books without the TO and landings columns when doing circuits just put the number in the remarks bit and every other flight is just counted as 1 of each.
Best thing for a FO is to keep there log book away from Captains eyes its theirs and they can log what they like it and its got sod all to do with the Captain. What they put in it is between them and there National Authority. A FO could be loging all their flights as PIC while flying with me. I will mention that its wrong and refuse to sign the hours off if requested but it is really none of my buisness what they put in there own log book.
Nope i am at spelling and grammar but do ok throwing a lump of metal at some sort of surface which you can land on.
I have also an engineering degree and survived 10 years without anything breaking when I didn't predict it would including stuff which included a precise number of neutrons keeping the heat up. And quite a few of my co workers had issues with spelling and grammar as well.
Some of the guys in this industry had to slum it in education battling with the poor and underfunded state education system and a bunch of classmates that actively tried to disrupt the school day making any type of learning very difficult.
The fact that guys with this poor start in life have got onto the flight deck of a commercial aircraft tells a lot about their determination and basic intelligence, just as your post shows the petty negative and insulting attitude that you have.
Mad Jock: I suspect you are of a much younger generation than a lot of the posters on here. In order to do my engineering degree in Scotland in the 60,s one had to first matriculate. This required a pass at higher level in English. This ensured that graduates could at least express themselves clearly and correctly in their mother tongue!
By the way, I have never found this ability to be a hindrance during my engineering and 47 year flying career!
I was in the thickies class at english and failed O grade first time got it the second and that was required for Uni. I was of the generation when they put your Left hand in a sling to make you write with your right hand if you showed any tendency's in that direction.
My other subjects maths sciences etc I was more than fine with.
As for the numerical side of things I definately don't have any problems with load sheets performance etc. Its usually me picking up the stupid mistakes which are as glaring to me as my mistakes in English are to you.
Actually one of the reasons for leaving professional engineering was to get away from report writing. I only have problems with rereading what I have written just after I have wrtten it, not reading what is written by others.
And actually one of the career choices for dislexics who have reasonable numerical skills is actually being a pilot or airtraffic controller. Apparently we have very good 3D visulisation.
And actually the current pilot training system although not by design is about perfect for dislexics.
Its funny being rubbish at maths and clueless in science is socially acceptable in fact some seem proud of the fact.