Bookworm.
I agree: I feel that the Authority wish to regulate formal training and as far as I know all P/ut must be made under the auspices of an FTO in order for it to be accountable and auditable inkeeping with the spirit of most organisations these days.
I think that 'Grant or Extension' is all important in this case and I would urge instructors and owner/operators to look into the legalities of being 'Under Training' in the aircraft that they fly.
With P/ut flight the emphasis would presumably be on the 'Student' learning something new. That would burden the Instructor with a different duty of care and responsibility than during recurrent training.
With P1/us the burden of command lays firmly with the Instructor whereas the instructor/student relationship differs from that of P/ut. During a checkout the person occupying the pilots seat may well be properly licensed for the flight (SEP, remember) but would still be subject to guidance from the qualified instructor or check pilot.
I can't see how P/ut can be logged whenever doubt exists; that is simply not legal under it's definition. If the Dual Flight or differences were 'training' it would also have to take place at a licensed aerodrome.
Any more thoughts?
Last edited by M14P; 15th April 2002 at 22:56.