Damn silly yes, illogical yes, stupid yes and on top of those I think there are other factors, amongst them - one or more of:
1- wishful thinking (I WANT to log it as p1/s),
2- historical ignorance of the rules (I have always logged p1 -p1/s but never read CAP53 and don't have an opinion on the paragraph J)
3- I have read CAP53 and I don't like it so I will go with the flow and ignore it
4- one word or phrase missing from CAP53 clause J ('test with an examiner' instead of
just 'test') which gives some people hope with a liberal interpretation.
Even if you think it's totally stupid you cannot get away from the fact
that the 'Noggin quoted' clause J in CAP53 is desginated in CAP53 as the
ONLY way a PPL can log P1/s, so it is then just a case of how you can twist
the word 'test' to mean what you want it to mean. I personally cannot see
any SAFE way of interpretting it other than to mean 'test with an examiner'
only. HOWEVER, as I believe an instructor could always find SOME reason to
designate the flight p1 and Pu/t if that's what they want to do, then I
think any argument about p1 and P1/s for checkouts with an instructor is
totally wasted energy and almost irrelevant. Can we move on to whether these people
who believe in the liberal interpretation of 'test' in CAP 53 also believe that two
(non-instructor) PPL holders can fly together and log p1 and P1/s alongside each other? Obviously (that word again) I do not!