Logbook entries

[Snigs]

Just a quick question, so hopefully a simple answer.

I'm a low hour CAA PPL, qualified from Staverton, Glos on a Robin DR400.

I'm currently working in Sweden and I'm in the middle (because of crappy weather http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif ) of a type rating on a C177 that the local club have here. I'm not sure how I should book my type rating time, should it be P u/t or P1 u/s (I expect it's too much to ask to book it as P1)!?

TIA,

------------------
Cheers,

Snigs



[This message has been edited by Snigs (edited 08 April 1999).]

[New Bloke]

mmmmmmmmm

Unless the rules have changed (quite possible, I did my PPL in the early 80s) you don't get type rated on a PPL, you just have to convince the bloke who owns it that you can fly it. In so doing I would guess you would be P1/S.
Try booking it as that and see, at some stage you will need the "I certify that the log book entries are correct" stamp put in, whoever does that may help.

[Snigs]

New Chap,

Thanks for the reply. I know that in England you just have to convince the owner/operator that you ain't going to crash, however, in Sweden (why the hell did I choose Sweden to work in!?) I have to get a type rating, which is another GFT/oral exam (for each new a/c type flown).

I believe that I'm considered to be training as far as the Swedish authorities are concerned, but in view of the fact that, as you said, there is not such thing as a PPL type rating in the UK (and I have a CAA licence) I wonder P1/S is more appropriate in my logbook?

After all, P1 time is important when you're starting off on the upgrade trail.

[Robbo2Alpha]

The UK CAA tightened the rules on this a few years back, because of exactly the reason you are talking about. The rules here are you may only log P1/s when succesfully completing a flying test, PPL NFT, GFT etc. As you are in Sweden you will have to check with their authorities, our CAA will probably only accept what they say anyway. Hopes this helps! (In the airline world it is a bit different in case anyone is wondering.)

[batwings]

If you are checking out on a type that you have not flown in command before, then it should be logged as dual instruction. There is no shame in logging dual hours. In most cases that I have seen as a flying instructor, the logging of ICUS is a sham because in all cases the instructor has either given hints, actively disagreed with the course of action taken by the ICUS crew member, or quietly prompted during the flight. I am suspicious of any new pilot that I consider hiring, if he has logged loads of ICUS time. Same with Instrument flight time. In my experience most of it is faked. Either the instrument time has been claimed merely because it an IFR flight plan, regardless whether or not the trip was flown in a blue sky. or sometimes you see pilots logging taxy time also as I/F time.
Often you see instructors logging simulated I/F time even though they have not touched the controls because the student is doing the actual handling. I recommend you log flying hours with total honesty. Discerning interview boards can pick fake hours quite easily. In my view, any flight test such as I/R where an instructor or testing officer has direct responsibility for the safe operation of the aircraft, should be logged by the pilot undergoing the check, as dual - not pilot in pilot in command. If the test officer is required to simulate emergencies as part of the test, then he is directly responsible for supervising the actions of the pilot. By definition therefore, the test officer is in full command. Therefore the pilot under test must log dual. States Rules differ of course, but you can have only one pilot in full command, and that must be the examiner.