Log Book entries

[bobdee]

Awfully sorry if this seems a dumb question..having a newish PPL that is due to be renewed in a few months time, I am confused as to what constititutes a P2 entry. I have looked at LASORS and searched this forum but cant seem to find a clear definition. Example, the renewal requirement is that 12 hours must be flown in the previous 12 months, 6 as PIC. What constitutes the other 6? Does it have to be PUT, i.e. conversion training, or if you and a friend hire a plane for an hour with the righthand seat PPL navigating and maybe flying some of the time, is the right hand seat P2 and can it be logged as such.
Regs BobDee

[VH AMF]

Pilot in Command is you noting it in your log book, as "Pilot in Command", so in this case it would be six hours. I think the rest of the hours are flying with an Instructor, but not as Pilot in Command, although you still may be flying the aircraft, the Instructor has the power over you, so than you would place the name of the Instructor in the Pilot In Command section, and the name of yourself in the other section next to PIC. In overall they want you to have flown in a total as 12 hours, in the past 12 months, so it just has to add up to that. But you "Must" have been a PIC for at "Least" 6 hours.

[Whirlybird]

As a PPL, just forget about P2!!! It only applies to two-pilot aircraft - the big ones that take you on holiday. You (we) log PIC (same as P1) or P/UT if with an instructor. Or occasionally P1S (Pilot in command under supervision) but I don't want to get into the rules for that right now.

So for revalidation, you need at least 6 hours PIC. The others can be P/UT. The rest of the requirements are in LASORS, as you know.

[bobdee]

Thanks to WB & VHAMF
So to sum up, you need at least 6 hours PIC and the only way the other 6 can count towards revalidation are if they are PUT. Is that correct? Of course PIC is the best way but if funds are limited, its good to know how the legal minimum can be made up. I have seen some folk add every flight they make (back row in PA28) and I suppose thats all part of the flying experience but wouldnt mean diidlysquash in hours counting terms.

[dmjw01]

So to sum up ..... the only way the other 6 can count towards revalidation are if they are PUT. Is that correct?
No.
You need at least 6 hours PIC. The other six can be PUT, but they don't need to be. You only need one hour with an instructor.
See Irv Lee's FAQ here (http://www.higherplane.flyer.co.uk/faq.htm), and refer to point 9 which answers all your questions.

[dublinpilot]

So to sum up, you need at least 6 hours PIC and the only way the other 6 can count towards revalidation are if they are PUT.

No that is not correct.

You need 12 hours in the second 12 months of your licence. 6 of those hours must be PIC. You must also have a 1 hour flight with an instructor, therefore 1 of the remaining 6 hours must be Pu/t. The remaining 5 can be any combination of PIC, Pu/t (or the unlikely P1/s).

To put it another way, you do not need 6 hours pu/t, only 1. However more is acceptable, so long as you still have 6 at leasthours PIC (more is acceptable), and a total of 12 hours.

Hope that helps.

dp

[Hour Builder]

Dp and dmjw01 are both 100% correct. It makes me laugh at the amount of people that think that as they hold a PPL and sit in the right hand seat of a "Single Pilot" aircraft being flown as PIC by someone in the left hand seat, can log time as P2.

[IO540]

Careful making blanket statements, as they may apply only to a G-reg ;)

[Hour Builder]

yes but he's talking about renewing a SEP on a UK licence. There is no such thing as P2 (unless he means "dual")or co-pilot in UK terminology when referring to single pilot aircraft operations.

[Whirlybird]

I have seen some folk add every flight they make (back row in PA28) and I suppose thats all part of the flying experience but wouldnt mean diidlysquash in hours counting terms.

Exactly! I do this if going on long trips on the continent, for instance - it makes a nice record of the trip, and tells me who flew what leg etc. It's nice to look back at on cold, non-flying winter days. Your logbook is your own record, and this is quite legal. BUT if you're doing this, you leave the PIC/Put column blank, and also leave the hours column blank. You cannot count the hours, as anything!

[FlyingForFun]

In fact, if your logbook has a column for you to note your capacity on the flight (i.e. where you would normally write "P1" or "PUT") and you were just a passenger, you can write "SNY" in that column, meaning "supernumary". But, as Whirly says, make sure you don't add the hours into any of your totals - the entry would purely be for your own nostalgia.

FFF
---------------

[Hour Builder]

with regards to everyone's comments about logging time where they are a passenger etc, is fine and no one is arguing that. The question at the beginning asked about P2 time, and the point a few of us are trying to make is that dont expect to use this to count towards renewal hours required. Go ahead and log whatever you want, as long as the original poster of this thread knows that this doesnt count towards total flight time, and/or revalidation experience.

HB

[bobdee]

Many thanks to all the contributors to this thread. I get the message , P2 is a no no. It is clear that there is some confusion regarding dual pilots in SEP craft. If two qualified pilots take a one hour trip and half way into that trip The left says to the right, "You have Control" and it stays that way till the end of the flight, then both can book 30 mins PIC. Presumably if a friend has just purchased a brand new 172 and he lets you fly it on an hours trip providing he is in the right hand seat, You book PIC and he books nothing.
Coming back to the original posting then, Assuming I have six hours PIC solo, three hours conversion training, then all I need is another 3 hours PIC in the last 12 months to make everyone happy. I assume here that the conversion training would count as check time with an instructor.
BD

[FlyingForFun]

I assume here that the conversion training would count as check as time with an instructorThe requirement is for a 1-hour flight. So if your 3 hours' conversion consists of 4 flights of 45 mins each, then no. If just one flight lasted an hour or more, then yes, but the instructor must sign your logbook to confirm that you did do that flight.

Then, all you need is another 3 hours, and make sure you get an examiner to sign all the necessary paperwork before the date the renewal is due, because it can't be done afterwards even if you had the hours.

FFF
--------------

[englishal]

i love JAR rules.....They make it so hard for everyone to understand :)

By the way, does it specifically say "JAA Instructor" anywhere? (i.e. thinking along the lines of the FARs "authorized" instructor).....Because it seems a waste of money to me that anyone who may possibly have more than enough PIC time, may also have several or more hours with a Non-JAA instructor and so forking out for the 1 hours flight is a complete waste of money......

[Andy_R]

If two qualified pilots take a one hour trip and half way into that trip The left says to the right, "You have Control" and it stays that way till the end of the flight, then both can book 30 mins PIC. Presumably if a friend has just purchased a brand new 172 and he lets you fly it on an hours trip providing he is in the right hand seat, You book PIC and he books nothing.
BD

Not neccessarily. I handed over control for part of a flight today, but that was all it was, him having control. If he was desperate to log P1 time I would have discussed it with him, as he isn't I hadn't even thought about it until now. You can "have control" but unless you have agreed with the Captain (which is what P1 is) that you will log P1, he will log it as his P1 as he is still in command, regardless of who us flying.

[Whirlybird]

Presumably if a friend has just purchased a brand new 172 and he lets you fly it on an hours trip providing he is in the right hand seat, You book PIC and he books nothing.


Nowhere, to my knowledge, do the regulations say that the captain has to be in any particular seat. So if your friend says that you can be PIC for a flight, and you want to fly from the right seat and log the time, that is perfectly legal. At least, I believe so. Anyone know anything different?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Nowhere, to my knowledge, do the regulations say that the captain has to be in any particular seat.
Club flying order books do sometimes. So if you're a pair of PPLs renting from such a club the pilot in the left hand seat logs all the time, the pilot in the right hand seat logs none, it doesn't matter who was flying.

[Dimensional]

unless you have agreed with the Captain (which is what P1 is) that you will log P1
Not necessarily -- a large-ish chunk of my flying these days is logged as P1 Non Captain (albeit under a fairly esoteric and non-JAR system). :bored:

[Yorks.ppl]

I recently did my 1 hour with an instructor for revalidation purposes, he told me to put P1S in my log book, whats the diference between that and PUT.

[S-Works]

the difference is that the instructor is wrong. unless you were doing a flight test it is either PUT or P1.....

[Whirlybird]

A discussion of P1S and when it can or can't be used can run to several pages on PPRuNe - I hope this one won't. The last definition I read was that it could only be used for a flight test which was passed, as bose-x said. But a lot of people, including instructors, never knew that. And maybe the rules have changed, as they do now and then. (BEagle??). Either way, P1S is a nightmare!!!! In practice, I mean. I have a simple rule; if an instructor tells me to log P1S, I do, rightly or wrongly. Otherwise you get into an argument. And why bother? Ultimately, it just means that many PPLs have an extra hour or two in their total P1 hours that they probably shouldn't have. Who cares? I suspect not even the CAA.

[strafer]

I wonder why there is such a divergence of opinion? Can anyone disagree with the following? (disregarding Instructor & Multi-crew logging):

P2 - Not for the likes of us

P1 - Anytime YOU are flying the aircraft, with the exception of:

a) P1/S - A successfull flight test, duly signed by the examiner.

b) PU/T - Any flight training, revalidation of ratings, unsuccessfull flight tests or aircraft checkouts.

[S-Works]

yes aircraft checkouts are not PUT unless a new type that you require instruction on. If I have to do a club checkout for an aircraft I am current on then I insist on P1, not because I need any hours just as a matter of principle.

[FlyingForFun]

And, as I explained on another thread, if I, as an instructor, do a club checkout, I insist that I am P1, and the person being checked out is PUT - contrary to what Bose-x says.

My reason is that, if I log P1, I am legally in charge of the aircraft, and that means I can legally take control if I want to. If the person being checked out is P1 then I am nothing more than a passenger, and therefore I have no legal right to take control without permission of the captain - which is not acceptable to me.

So, sorry Bose-x, but you will not be getting checked out by me! ;)

Strafer, do you see why these discussions can run for page after page??? :)

FFF
-------------

[dublinpilot]

I fully understand that P1u/s is only for a successful outcome of a skills test.

However wouldn't it make much more sense if the CAA were to change that, and allow it for club checkouts?

After all that is what you really are. Pilot in command, but under surpervision of someone else. It would recognise Bose-x's point that he is actually in command, while also recognising FFF's point that he must be in a position to legally take over if he's not satisfied with the commanders performance.


dp

[FlyingForFun]

I fully understand that P1u/s is only for a successful outcome of a skills test.

However wouldn't it make much more sense if the CAA were to change that, and allow it for club checkouts?Ah, if only you and I (or anyone else with some sense) had the power to change these things, DP!

FFF
--------------

[DFC]

Flying For Fun,

You can add insurance and good old safety to the reasons why you and I will be P1 when operating as an instructor doing any checkout.

Yes the pilot's licence may entitle them to fly any SEP. Yes they may have tons of experience over many years but;

They need a checkout before they can be pilot in command. The reason for the checkout does not matter. If they were entitled to fly as pilot in command then they would not need the training flight.

My solution recently to this problem is that I take the log book before the flight and then after flying I make the entry in the pilot's log book and sign it before handing it back. This means that I make them PUT and there has never been a discussion since.

Makes sure that one does not end up with principled people like BOSE recording the flight in error and causing me to draw a line through their entry before making a correct record of the flight.

Regards,

DFC

[S-Works]

FFF I can live with not being checked out by you or DFC!

As I pointed out before if learning a new type and the instructor has something to teach then PUT is acceptable a club checkout on a type that you are current on "for insurance purposes" then its P1.

As for allowing someone else to fill in my logbook, over my dead body! Renewing an MEP rating each year gives me my 1hr with an Instructor so I dont even need the instructor signature on club "checkout" flights.

Fortunatly the clubs I have chosen to fly with are not staffed by hours hungry instructors with no principals.

[FlyingForFun]

Bose-x,

First of all, let me stress that I do not want to turn this thread into a slanging match. We both know that the rules about this situation are incredibly vague, and the only way it will really ever be resolved is for someone in the CAA to clarify the matter. (And DP's suggestion is undoubtedly the best compromise, which would keep both you and I happy.)

However, I am, so far, at a loss to understand your argument as to why you must log P1. You say that you are legally entitled to log P1, which might be the case (notwithstanding any insurance issues), but then so is your instructor.

On the other hand, DFC and I have given you a couple of very good reasons why we should be P1.

I do not dispute that it is possible, and legal (so long as the insurance allows you to be P1), for you to be P1 and the instructor to be a passenger, if that is agreed between the two of you before the flight. But it's something which I choose not to do, because legally it changes the dynamics of what goes on in the aircraft. If other instructors feel different, then that's fine, and in most cases legal.

But do you have a good reason why it is wrong for the instructor to be P1 and the person being checked out to be PUT? I would be surprised.

FFF
--------------

PS - Incidentally, not directly related, there is another completely different scenario, which is where a PPL friend of mine phones me up and says that he is going flying somewhere for a bacon butty on my day off, would I like to come with and keep him company. In that case, I am there as a passenger, not an instructor, so I will quite happily go along and not log it. As the more experienced pilot on the aircraft, I would be quite happy to offer the captain any advice he wanted about the flight, but I would have no legal say in the conduct of the flight.

[englishal]

You could look at it another way.

I am licenced, legal and competent to be PIC. The CAA or the club REQUIRE me to do a flight with an instructor, who sits there enjoying the view.

Who is PIC then?

I did a France checkout some years ago (club rules), my friend and I were instrument rated, and were very current as we'd been flying 50 or so hours in the states and just returned. The instructor had a nice day out, he reminded us how to file flight plans, and reminded himself by asking the guy in the tower, we bought him lunch and flew home.

In this case as the instructor was not "required" as such, is he really entitled to log PIC?

This is where the FARs make sense, the PPL can log PIC, the FI can log "as flight instructor", which is what he was, there to give a few pointers on procedures, not to remind us how to fly an aeroplane.......

[S-Works]

I never said it was wrong for the instructor to claim P1 - They have to get the RHS of a chav transporter somehow.....

The rules are as you say "vague" i.e there is nothing saying the instructor must be P1 other than there desire for the hours. If I was to fly so badly that the instructor felt compelled to take over as P1 on a club checkout on an aircraft that I am current on then I think I would have to evaluate my flying.

Example, I own a 152 more than 1400hrs on type, it goes in for maintanance and I need to fly to a meeting, I pitch up to rent and the school insist on a checkout, fair enough its there plane. I jump through the hoops and do the checkout. I am not learning anything by demonstrating I can handle the aircraft therefore I am P1. My "dime" my hours.

Fortunatly the clubs I fly with have instructors that accept this and in fact it is the norm for them.

Second scenario, I turn up to fly an aircraft I have never flown before, either MEP or SEP my licence allows me to fly it but being a new type there is something I can learn from someone more experianced on type. We explore the handling with hints and tips being given that improve my management of that aircraft. I have recieved training PU/TRAINING and so the flight is PUT.

I am not adverse to PUT, I have many hundreds of hours of PUT in my logbook from various conversions, IR training etc but what I don't like is being taken advantage off and I feel that a number of hours building instructors take the mick by insisting that they are P1.

A further example is a friend of mine who took an instructor as a passenger on a club flyout, the instructor tried to make him log PU/T just because he was onboard!

We can argue for ever over the logging of hours and we will each have there own opinion. You are entitled to yours as I am to mine and neither opinion is against the rules!

[strafer]

That's the problem Bose - like you, I'll log P1 for a group checkout (the guy next to me is in any case not a qualified instructor, just a more experienced member of the group). However, if he's booking P1 too, that is illegal.

[Yorks.ppl]

With regard to instructors loging P1, if it is a club check and you haven't done 3 take offs and landings in the last 90 days they would have to log p1 because you would not be able to carry them as a passenger.

[slim_slag]

The UK systems is really designed for airlines, so hardly surprising if the rules favour those who want to become airline pilots.

The instructor is being paid to teach, not log hours, and even if you have 1400 hours on type you can still learn. In the UK system as it stands the person who owns the plane should log P1. If the plane is being rented the instructor acts on behalf of the flying school owner so the instructor should log P1. If the plane is part of a group and the pilot owns a share, he should log P1. Of course you need to be rated on the plane to log it. Another example of where the CAA could learn from the FAA.

[S-Works]

slim, always willing to learn but I am pretty sure that a "club checkout" on the type I own and fly almost every single day is not a learning experiance.

Ownership has nothing to do with who logs P1 thats a load of tosh. Good try though!

[slim_slag]

Well, in that case your instructor isn't doing his job. It shouldn't take too long to realise you are competent, so then you can do something different like flying at MCA for a while. I will accept that with 1400 hrs on type it might be hard to find an instructor who knows more than you, but they are out there :)

As for ownership, just trying to throw out something that is fair. I know the UK systems doesn't worth that way, but obviously it's not clear what should happen, mine is one suggestion amongst many.

[DFC]

Bose,

I think that your argument lies with the club rules/owners/operators and not the instructor.

If you are current on C152s (be it with only 1400 hours) and a club still requires a checkout to fly their C152 then the argument is about the club accepting that you are a very experienced pilot and have nothing to learn.

The position of pilot in command and other duties on the flight are decided pre-flight. I am the pilot in command you are operating the aircraft under my instruction - I say to fly it then you fly it, I say stop you stop! I am pilot in command. If that is clear then I am sure you would not spoil it by making a false logbook entry after the flight claiming that you were pilot in command now would you?

The pilot in command is the person responsible for the safety of the aircraft during flight time. It has no direct link to flying the aircraft. It is a responsibility issue. If you are in need of a checkout for any reason then by definition there is a reason (club/insurance/currency/airmanship) why you are not qualified to (or would not want to) take responsibility for thesafety of the aircraft.

If you and I agreed that you were in a position to take responsibility then I would not waste my and your time doing a checkout.

I often do not charge for giving my time to people who need a checkout and I am most definitely not in need of any more hours. However, I have yet to come across a pilot who had nothing to learn.

There is the other argument about what the checkout requires- a few circuits only, some upper air work, a PFL or 2. I can see where people have problems with having to spend over 1 hour "checking out" on a type that they actually flew last week. That is often down to money making (instructor and club), hour building (instructor) and ass covering/ unwilling to use discretion/experience (instructor). Those are the areas where the arguments about checkouts lie. Not in the log book entries.

--------

Englishal,

If the club required you to do a checkout before being pilot in command on a flight to France then how did you carry passengers (one of whom was an instructor) on a flight to France before being signed off?

------

I can see a wording change soon in many club rules.

Replace words like "check out" with "Training Flight".

eg
Old version:
No pilot may act as pilot in command of an aircraft they have not flown in the previous 28 days unless they complete a checkout with a club instructor.

New version:
No pilot may act as pilot in command of an aircraft thay have not flown in the previous 28 days unless they complete a training flight with a club instructor.

After all, training flights are clearly defined. "Checkouts" are not defined at all.

Regards,

DFC

[S-Works]

Slim, now you are starting to see the theme! There are way to many instructors out there only interested in the hours and not the teaching and who will happily sit there for a checkout and not say a word.

I am not arguing that every flight should be cut and dried, as pointed above if someone is out of the 90 day window then I would suggest that they do indeed have something to learn and would benefit from a PU/T flight.

What I object to is being made to checkout out on a type that I have flown 24hrs previously for "insurance purposes" especially when insured through the same company!

The point being that it should be by agreement between instructor and pilot including giving the right to the instructor to take over control of the flight should he feel there is a danger just like they would with an ab initio.

A lot of instructors are driven by there own view that because they have an FI rating they are better than a "simple" PPL. On the other hand there are also some truly stunning career instructors out there who know more about flying in there little finger than I will know in a lifetime of banging trainer into the ground.

Experiance has shown me that the same career instructors who I have so much to learn from are also the same guys who dont care what the flight gets logged as.............:)

DFC, 1400 hours on type not TT and those 1400 in the 3.5 yrs of ownership........... Not to mention ME, etc etc etc. blah blah blah blah....

[slim_slag]

Bose x,

I would say your beef is with the insurance company and not the instructor. If a checkout with an instructor is a requirement for the school policy, and if the school's insurance company says you cannot be PIC without the checkout, then I don't see what else the school/instructor can do. The instructor has his own ticket/job/bank balance to protect and if he let's you log P1 he might not be covered by insurance himself, and if you cause damage then the instructor might be in a nasty position. You might be too if you are not insured on your own policy, and I suspect you will make a more lucrative financial target for a civil claim than your average impoverished instructor.

So I'd look at this somewhat unusual example in a pragmatic manner and let the instructor log his P1. Sure it sucks when you are paying all the cash and possibly teach the instructor something in the process, but there are worse things in life.

[ThePirateKing]

Doesn't LASORS say that you can only log PUT when training for a new rating?:uhoh:

TPK:ok:

[dublinpilot]

If that was the case TPK, then no one would be able to log their 1 hour training flight with an instructor in order to revalidate their licence, without training to add a new rating!

[ThePirateKing]

Well, they couldn't log it as PUT, no.

The copy of LASORS that I have in front of me (admittedly, it's 2003) has a table on page 40, Section A, Appendix B, entitled "Guide to logbook annotation". It claims that you can only log PUT for case G ("Pilot under instruction for the purpose of gaining a licence or rating, or for conversion to an aircraft type within an aircraft rating group or class"), or for an unsuccessful test under case J ("Pilot undergoing any form of flight test with a JAA or CAA Authorised Examiner").

So, next time an instructor tells you to log PUT, tell him where to go. Of course, I also fully appreciate the argument about the instructor wanting to be "in command" in order to take command and I, like everybody else, have no idea what it should be logged as. :\

TPK:ok:

[BEagle]

If you go for any 'Club Check' or whatever else the club calls it, the FI will be the Commander and will log the flight as PIC. You can log it however the hell you like, but not as PIC.

Telling a club FI "where to go" will invite you to have a chat with the Head of Training or CFI. Who will very probably tell you to wise up sharpish or take your custom elsewhere.

Logically, you flew as a qualified pilot under supervision. P1/S. But logic, commonsense and the JAA are not always synonymous!

[Yorks.ppl]

This thread raises another question, at what time should a pilot fill in his log book, I always fill mine in after the flight, which is what I was shown to do during my training. I see lots of other pilots doing the same, so when I am doing a club check I have had no discusion with the instructor about how either of us is to log the time. No instructor has ever mentioned being P1 BEFORE the flight.

Is my experience common? and more to the point is it wrong?

[BEagle]

The FI must specify who is Commander (him/her) and what is required of you as the pilot being checked.

I certainly hope that your experience is out of the norm.

Mind you, I've heard tell of some clubs who even attempt to use non-FIs as 'check pilots'....

[Yorks.ppl]

BEagle, I have only flown from 2 clubs but the experience was the same at both, which makes me think that my experience is more normal than it should be. Both clubs are long established and reputable.

[englishal]

Maybe P1/S should be used more frequently for this "club checkout" scenario?

I have never been told by the FI whether he is PIC or I am, under the JARs I just assume they are, and log Dual received (PUT).

[ThePirateKing]

Well, you can't log P1/S either.

The only situations where LASORS mentions P1/S are in case B ("Co-pilot performing the duties of PIC under supervision of pilot-in-command"), and we all know you can only be a co-pilot in an aircraft requiring 2 pilots, and for an unsuccessful test under case J (which I quoted above).

Neither of those fits!

What I find most amazing is the total lack of guidance from the CAA/JAA on this.

[skydriller]

What I find most amazing is the total lack of guidance from the CAA/JAA on this.

..And on the occasion of actually ringing the CAA to ask about this very subject about 4-5 years ago when I first came to France, I was apparently told a complete load of bo:mad:ocks regarding the P1/s issue, or so I was told by the forum when I discussed it on here at the time....:hmm:

(Ill do a search later and see if I can dig up the thread)

Regards, SD..

[DFC]

BEagle,

But logic, commonsense and the JAA are not always synonymous!

No the JAA system is very logical. The JAA logbook format does not have a "holders operating capacity" column.

The columns are "Pilot in Command", "Co-Pilot", "Dual".

Very simple for single pilot aircraft, if you are not pilot in command, then the flight is dual.

I think that everyone would agree that a club checkout flight with an instructor is indeed a dual flight. Very logical and very simple.

Under JAR-FCL, PIC/S can only be logged by the co-pilot.

Perhaps you may find that the JAR system would be very much more logical.

Regards,

DFC

[WestWind1950]

When an instructor is acting as an instructor on board, then HE is PIC! very easy really. If the club insists on you having a flight with an instrutor, well, then the instructor will be the pic, as he is acting in his capacity as an instrutor. If he goes along for the fun of it, then he's not acting as an instructor and doesn't log anything.

Not only in your country, but in Germany, too, there are lots of misconceptions of all this. The JAA wording is just dumb (and the German translation even dumber). Many pilots still think the other 6 hours can be as a fellow pilot flying along in the right seat, especially if he helps out with the radios work, etc.

In the Germany law books we also have strict words about which seat is the one for the PIC, usually that seat which the planes manual dictates as for solo flying. This happened after a glider instructor took a non-student up for a joy ride, letting her sit in the front seat... they crashed and I believe the girl died. Being a "joy ride" and not an instrution flight, he should have been sitting in the front seat, which was the seat for solo flying.... so the rules were made more precise.

Complicated? maybe.... I hope EASA will make it more understandable...

Westy

[FormationFlyer]

I echo BEagle's comments, and agree with them.

I would add that if the instructor is a passenger and not P1 then his is not required flight crew - and as such if he touched the controls he does stand the possibility of being the wrong side of ANO 2005 article 78(c) (shall not interfere), additionally he gives up the rights provided to the commander under article 77.

The CAA/JAA provide perfect guidance - its clearly written in LASORS, and additionally AIC 7/2004 (white 94) regarding priv CofA solely owned/grouped owned a/c.

With regard to JAA - this logging of flight time is not just UK - it is embodied in JAR-FCL 1.080 which is effectively what LASORS copies.

Q: Which bit of LASORS is unclear!?

BTW LASORS is FREE to EVERYONE - all you need to do is download it from the CAA website (and so can the ANO) and therefore you can all be experts as well :)

I also hasten to add, that if the club FOB requires you to have a checkflight with an instructor thats that - the FOB is legally binding - comply or fly elsewhere.

WestWind1950 - agreed, I flew only today with another pilot - as a passenger - which was clear to both of us so I log nothing. Suits me fine - I just enjoyed being able to look out and enjoying flying without worrying about what the other person was doing for once!!

DFC - PIC U/S is also logged by a pilot who is successful on a flight test conducted by a JAA or CAA authorised examiner. As mentioned above.

Yorks.ppl - I think you'll find that the instructors may have made an 'oversight' here assuming that it was 'understood' that they were PIC - You will possibly find that that is standard policy at the clubs you were flying at - just ask - Im surely a friendly instructor will clarify matters. Did you notice who was entered as the PIC on the tech log during booking-out? I always watch that in case the other pilot is in any way confused and Ill clear it up at that point if they arent aware that Im P1.

- and no I don't need the hours! Just for the record!

[Yorks.ppl]

"Did you notice who was entered as the PIC on the tech log during booking-out?"

I hadn't thought of that, but at both clubs I have always filled in the tech log with me as P1
Its interesting that no ones ever picked up on that.

[Julian]

DFC - I have had the same situation as English Al describes.

I had previously carried passengers to France. I was required to undertake a France checkout with their instructor though as I had never rented an aircraft from them before for a X-channel trip. The club insisted that I should complete one with one of their instructors on board for a sign off to allow future rental for xc purposes.

So EAs example is very plausible!

Julian.

[ThePirateKing]

Q: Which bit of LASORS is unclear!?
I think the gist of my post has been lost somewhere... if we accept that the PPL can't log P1, what can he log? LASORS is extremely clear on the fact that he can't log P1S or PUT.

TPK:ok:

[FormationFlyer]

And which bit of it precludes the logging of PUT?! I see no comment in this respect in LASORS. I would point out that the section provided here is merely stated as 'Guidance to annotation'. Not 'Rules of annotation'.

Under JAR FCL 1.080 which overrides ALL info in LASORS should there be conflict unless a difference has been notified by the CAA does not classify PUT - They state DUAL. i.e. flight with an instructor.

Henceforth, P1/PIC by the instructor, and DUAL (which PUT is equivilent to) is what is logged by the PPL. I see no case under JAR FCL nor LASORS to contradict this.

Agreed - and I take your point - that this particular area is not explicitly stated - however, as you say if you accept that the PPL cant log P1 they must log something - under JAR FCL DUAL is that option - again though it is not explicitly stated.