Logging time as FO [Archive]

Intruder

23rd Feb 2007, 22:56

No, you're the third answer and the third and fourth opinions.

You're logging complete PIC and SIC for each flight when copilot. We don't do that in Europe. It's all either command time or copilot time.

Not my fault someone else typed faster than me when I was responding! :)

I don't do that in the US, either. Some pilots might do it, but I don't think it really reflects what a pilot is doing...

I recognize that FAR Part 91 allows logging of PIC when manipulating the controls, but it doesn't make sense for Part 121 operations. I suppose it's just another of those old rules that the lawyers are too busy to fix, clarify, and simplify...

TheGorrilla

24th Feb 2007, 00:58

Should point out I fly under JARs too. To throw a small spanner in the works, notice the UK CAA logbook uses the same column for P1 and P1s time. Hence the only way to diffrenciate is in the "holders operating capacity" column. Pain if you want to split the two....

Notso Fantastic

24th Feb 2007, 10:53

I believe there's no need to split the two. If you are the Handling pilot, you should log P1u/s in the P1 column.

AFIS

24th Feb 2007, 13:24

As co-pilot you log your flight time as co-pilot. That is why European logbooks have such a column. The Captain is Pilot in Command.Simple. Pilot Flying (PF) and Pilot not Flying (PNF) is a completely different thing and can be recorded in the remarks column if needed. Just because you are Pilot Flying does NOT make you Pilot in Command!!!!

When upgrading to Captain you may undertake training as Pilot in Command under supervision (PICUS or P1U/S). During this time you may log the time in the Pilot in Command column but the Captain's name is still entered and he must sign such entries. As far as the authorites are concerned he is responsible.

It's quite simple really. The problem seems to be people confusing Pilot Flying with being in Command. Trust me, a 250hr pilot flying is NOT in command. The Captain is responsible for the flight.

Think of it this way... as the holder of a CPL/IR you are not legally allowed to be in Command of such aircraft and have not undertaken the company training required either.

mbcxharm

24th Feb 2007, 14:12

AFIS:
That may be your interpretation of the rules, but if this was the case then a typical 250 hr integrated or modular graduate would not be able to unfreeze their ATPL.

To unfreeze, you require 250 hours PIC. For CPL issue you require 100 hours PIC. Where do you get the additional 150 hours from? The answer is from PICUS time logged from your PF sectors. This is how it works.

Noone is disputing the fact that the pilot-in-command of the aircraft is the person sitting in the left hand seat. That's why PICUS is defined in LASORS as:

PICUS (Pilot-in-command under supervision):
Provided that the method of supervision is
acceptable to the Authority, a co-pilot may log
as PIC flight time flown as PICUS, when all of
the duties and functions of PIC on that flight
were carried out, such that the intervention of
the PIC in the interest of safety was not required.

Clearly this method of logging co-pilot PF time as PICUS IS acceptable to the Authority since I have done so and have had my ATPL unfrozen on the back of it, as has every other single pilot I know that has had their ATPL unfrozen.

Notso Fantastic

24th Feb 2007, 14:27

I agree with that, PICUS applies to command upgrades. I don't ever recall P1u/s only applying when upgrading to command. It's always been understood that as long as that definition is followed and no intervention takes place and all decisions come from the P2, then it is legal to log as P1u/s (under operating capacity), and hours in the P1 column, the Captain's name still being entered under 'Captain'.

Miserlou

24th Feb 2007, 18:49

I always go by who signs the book.
Whilst a first officer may have been the handling pilot and apparently made all the decisions, this is only true in as much as that the captain the captain has made the same decisions and has not over-ridden or seen fit to intervene.
It is, after all, at all times the captains responsibilty and all decisions are authorized by him.

As I understand it, you can only use P1u/s when you are qualified to be P1.

Dude~

24th Feb 2007, 19:47

Hmmm... I am confused now.

In my logbook the options for multi engined aircraft are as follows:

Dual
P.in C.
Co-Pilot
P1(US)

:confused:

parabellum

24th Feb 2007, 22:32

Try this Dude:

Dual = Also known as P3. Under training/receiving instruction from a
qualified instructor.

P in C. = When you are a qualified and appointed captain flying in the LHS
on a normal commercial flight, not a check ride.

Co-Pilot= Also known as P2, when carrying out the PNF duties from the RHS
as the appointed co-pilot or First Officer.

P1(us) = When the captain gives you the leg to fly and you do the take-
off and landing. (Excluding the BA style monitored approach).

mbcxharm

25th Feb 2007, 00:01

Dude,

So in your logbook it's easy. Put your PF sectors in the PI/s column and ask the commander to countersign it if he's happy (the CAA will need to see these signatures when you come to claim the hours to unfreeze your ATPL*) and your PNF sectors in the co-pilot column. Obviously, according to the definition of PICUS, if the commander had to intervene in the interests of safety during your sector, then you should not log the time as PICUS, but then revert to P2.

Personally, I am of the opinion that logging your sectors as PICUS simply because you are PF is stretching it slightly, but it is simply the case that this is how the system operates.

* reportedly, the CAA are often accepting of a letter from your company confirming the hours claimed in lieu of the signatures.

Miserlou

25th Feb 2007, 07:54

P1u/s only counts as P2 anyway so there is no advantage in terms of hours.

DB6

25th Feb 2007, 08:53

The definitive answer is in LASORS, appendix A, section B; Recording of Flight Time. If you don't know about LASORS it's worth getting familiar with, you can download it free from http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/LASORS_07.pdf . It's quite big but you can also buy it in book form for about £14. One of the CAA's better efforts and it really does have (almost) all the answers.
By the way for those who are wondering (as you will at some point) if you can log the hours as a covering FO - you can't.

Notso Fantastic

25th Feb 2007, 09:14

parabellum- I think you have the pragmatic answer there, and that is the solution I have used over the years, and everybody else I know too. As far as I am aware you log your PF sector time as P1u/s, remember under 'Commander', the Captain's name is still in the column. In post #2, I referred obliquely to the BA handover of control*. It makes no difference, the PF is still in overall control of the flight even though he is now PNF, and will take over again for the landing.

* I was frightened to mention the words 'monitored approach' in case this thread went off at a tangent as those words always cause! Please let's not thread drift on that! We've made a dozen answers into 14 different opinions now over something very simple!

DB6, so you've got the definitive answer? So how come it doesn't mean anything?

Human Factor

25th Feb 2007, 10:09

P1(us) = When the captain gives you the leg to fly and you do the take-off and landing. (Excluding the BA style monitored approach).

It applies equally well to the BA style monitored approach on the basis that the overall P1(u/s) and P2 time will balance out. The CAA have no problem with it.

parabellum

25th Feb 2007, 10:42

Notson & Human Factor - Thanks for that, not having been BA I simply didn't know how it worked! Thought if I didn't put something in it would have drawn howls of protest!;)

skysoarer

17th Sep 2009, 11:41

I'm glad to have found this guide. I'd been doing my logbook on an Excel spreadsheet and recently found I've been doing it wrong. Thank heavens it's on Excel and not in my log book, so I can move columns around.

The current Lasors guide is at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/LASORS2008%20(Bookmarked).pdf ... current 2008 edition.

I've been flying commercially for 2 1/2 years, initially using monitored approach and then non-monitored after a takeover by a major regional airline.

I'm in the process of moving my whole log book over to Pilotlog, so I've got no excuse to get behind again. It's a long and painful process, but it's better at working out night hours.

So in summary... for a Uk commercial FO ...
When PF ... use the P1 U/s column, and the commander is the captain.
When PNF ... use the Co-pilot column, and the commander is the captain.

To check... when I tick the appropriate flight condition, it's always IFR. I do all my times in Zulu.

If this is wrong for a Uk pilot, please reply as I'm using this method right now. Also any experiences of using Pilotlog to do the same thing appreciated!

Thanks!

Sky

binzer

17th Sep 2009, 12:47

hello

hope this helps. when i got my first job i was about 50 hours short of P1 hours to unfreeze my atpl. i logged all PF legs as Pic/us under the holders operating capacity column and claimed the hours under Pic.

When non PF, logged as co-pilot and hours under co-pilots column. Under the PIC's name column was always the Captains name. Sent off log book and paperwork to CAA and there you go get a nice green book back.

So if they're happy i am too.

Agaricus bisporus

17th Sep 2009, 23:34

As usual this subject is staggeringly and inaccuretely misquoted.

I log, pilot flying sectors as P1s (P1u/s if you prefer) and pilot non-flying sectors as P2. Strictly the captain should sign the remarks column of your log book for every P1s sector you fly.

Jesus!!!!! NO! NO ! NO!

P1U/S is signed for TOTALLY at the discretion of the Captain, having briefed and agreed the requirements to achieve this BEFORE the flight, in which ALL operational decisions are made by the FO acting as P1, with no need for the Capt to override any of those decisions. There is NO "requirement" fer chrissakes!!!! the concept of that!!! You DARE to tell the Capt that he "has" to sign? What planet do you come from, you impertinent unprofessional :mad:

Folks, read the ANO, I suggest. This has NOTHING to do with who was handling pilot, nor who made the coffee, ate the cake or farted after dinner. It is ENTIRELY about an FO who was delegeted to make the ALL, that is, ALL the decisions; planning, execution and completion of the ENTIRE flight as if he were the Captain - while under the supervision of today's line Captain.

If people are logging this merely on the basis as handling pilot on normal line ops then this is nothing less than a Professional FRAUD.

Go look up the definition of P One under supervision...

It does NOT, specifically include a cojo doing his normal thum up bum normal job without reference to his Capt and pre decided, carefully defined additional responsibilities.

It is a formally agreed state of the FO acting in all resPects as Captain, as agreed and briefed pre-flight, until the end of the flight. Who flew the machine is irrelevant. Oddly enough, P1 Pilot In Commmand is all about which pilot as "in command" - is which one actually made the decisions.

Not too hard to comprehend, is it?

Actually.

Denti

18th Sep 2009, 12:45

Be aware that the rules for logging P1 are very different in each JAR-country. The uk is actually pretty relaxed about it all, others do require an approved command course as the only way to do it. I'm just lucky that i had enough hours on my national ATPL (we allways got the atpl straight out of school back then) so i got my JAR-ATPL with the next OPC after JAR-FCL came into force over here and do not have to jump through the hoops like you have today. Consequently i log all my FO legs as P2, as it is required over here anyway (need an approved training procedure to be able to log anything else).

Kelly Hopper

18th Sep 2009, 13:28

My co-pilot hours were logged as P2, as that is/was what they were. 2nd pilot. The handling/non-handling was irrelevent.
My understanding is that P1/s is reserved for effectively flight tests or any other time where you are operating as the COMMANDER but being supervised.

low n' slow

21st Sep 2009, 20:07

Agaricus Bisborus is right.

Being the handling pilot does not automatically mandate logging PIC time. To enable that, the company has to have a CAA approved programme for FO's to log PICUS time in the RHS.

PIC time is something holy and is not taken as lightly upon in other countries as it seems in the UK.

/LnS

mad_jock

21st Sep 2009, 23:50

Dude~ I seem to remember that you were an instructor?

If so and I presume you have more than 250hours PIC?

The PICUS is only in place to allow people who have jumped straight from CPL issue into the RHS to obtain enough PIC time to apply for an ATPL.

Just log everything as COPILOT it keeps everyone happy.

After you get into the LHS people are more interested in "true" PIC time if you decide to apply for another job.

Your 100hours night can be done as COPILOT.

BUt as much as Agaricus may not like it, it is the norm from what I have seen for PF to log PICUS and PNF to log co-pilot. I have signed a log book once in 2 years. After ATPL issue its all of a bit of a paper work exercise. I wouldn't mind betting that most of Agaricus's FO's are logging PICUS time on there PF sectors but as Agaricus and the company will never see thier log books so nobody will know.

And for the record I don't have a single hour of PICUS logged in multicrewed aircraft including my command line training.

I really can't get wound up by it as 250hours PICUS is 500 hours multicrew ruffly and they will have learned far more about commercial multicrew ops than I did flying VFR for a 1000hours around the North of scotland.

BitMoreRightRudder

22nd Sep 2009, 09:31

Agaricus bisporus

Someone logging P1 u/s really undermines your position as "god" don't they? Rather than calling someone who is running their logbook as thousands of other F/Os do (including myself; logbook checked by my airline, letter of approval sent to CAA, ATPL issued - CAA are perfectly happy) an "impertinent unprofessional :mad:", how about you just try controlling that overbearing ego you have? No one is claiming your sacred PIC time, it is just a function of logging hours that the CAA approve when applying for licence upgrades. No one is claiming to have command time from the RHS. That, quite clearly, would be absurd.

cojo doing his normal thum up bum normal job

You went solo as a foetus obviously!

For god's sake man have a drink and calm down.

mad_jock

22nd Sep 2009, 14:02

Bitmore technically he is right.

You shouldn't be logging it unless there is a company/CAA approved scheme. It should be pre-briefed, it shouldn't be a presumed right. I would doud't you could count on one hand the number of companys in the UK who have approval off thier OPS inspector.

There are 1 or 2 companys out there who have a real "thing" about it and its stated in thier ops manual the various restrictions you have to comply with such as only with a line trainer etc. They are usually the ones who have pay scale upgrades on obtaining an ATPL and in the past had a predominately intergrated FO intake. Apperently side stepping the whole PICUS issue by gaining PIC time on SEP was not a good idea.

Apart from ATPL issue PICUS is as much use as tits on a bull when it comes to applying for jobs. And if you do jazz up your PIC time using it I doud't you will get past 5 mins of the interview without being shown the door.

Agaricus bisporus

22nd Sep 2009, 15:08

Bitmore, sorry you feel so strongly that doing it right is so wrong...and rather a lot of non-sequiturs and baseless assumptions in your post too. Accuracy is clearly not high on your list of priorities.

This P1s business is hopelessly misunderstood and it is a pity that people do not go to the manuals and read what the good book says first-hand instead of perpetuating idiotic myths such as PF = P1s.

No one is "claiming" "my"P1 time - how could that do that? Who says I even claim P1 time? You seem very sure of your wild assumptions.

If a cojo does do a thumb up bum job - the point of the illustration, and then claims P1s - it is clearly not correct, professionally or morally. How many times do we have to say here that unless the cojo makes ALL significant decisions from brief to debrief then he has not qualified for P1s. And how can he do that without a specific discussion of this before the briefing process even starts? Clearly, he can't.

The suggestion the one might claim 5 minutes P1s during a monitored approach illustrates the absurdity of your confusing the utterly different (and actually very, very basic) concepts of PF/PNF and P1/P2. Does he claim 2 minutes every time he takes control for the Capt to take a leak, make a PA or eat his dinner?

P1s may seem largely pointless to some, we all know full well that lots of people just write it in anyway, but to my mind masssaging logbook figures is a pretty seerious misrepresentation of the facts.
If our cojo applies for his ATPL on the basis of pencilled in P1s and becomes "captain" of a small commuter turboprop or night-freighter he hasn't exactly covered all the bases , has he? Are you really happy about that?

There seems to be an extraordinary reluctance for FOs to be expected to actually learn anything on the line - P1s was designed to develop their day-to day on-the-line decision making skills prior to command upgrade, which might be made somewhat easier if this process was actually used.

Justifying an incorrect procedure because "everyone else does it" demonstrates something else entirely, and leads the way to all sorts of random slippage. Try working for a company that thinks that way re tech defects or MDAs/DHs, or min rest, or bottle to throttle time. Or just doubling all your flying hours. Where do you stop?

mad_jock

22nd Sep 2009, 16:46

I don't think it was for that Agaricus.

It was created purely so Intergrated or cap509 pilots could get enough PIC hours for not only the application for ATPL but also for CPL as well.

If it had anything to do with pre command training on a multicrewed aircraft everone would have to have 250 PICUS.

There is nothing stopping an FO going away and hourbuilding 150 hours PIC in a light aircraft (they already have 100hours from the CPL) to get the hours for ATPL.

And there are loads of TP skippers without a single hour of PICUS myself included, we were all ex instructors with several hundred PIC hours before getting in the RHS.

Agaricus bisporus

22nd Sep 2009, 23:31

Jock, P1s has been around since long, long before - decades before "integrated" or "CAP509" (wossat?) was ever heard of.

Your logic is sound though, yes, thay could have done it in a C150, but issue of an ATPL required a certain number of P1 or notional P1 hours according to the ANO's schedules. Some had it from instructing as you say, but where to find it if not?

It might be interesting to see when it was introduced. Was Hamble the first time zero hour trainees went straight into transport aircraft via an approved course - they'd be short on the historic requirement for P1 time for ATPL, logically P1s would have been introduced to cover such a situation on the first occasion when direct entry courses appeared?

Presumably it was recognised that neither employers nor the P2s themselves could be expected to go out and pay for lots of not very relevant C150 time, so a means was found for them to achieve something far more useful, entirely relevant and as close to P1 time on their operational type as possible. This relied on the companies and the line Captains allowing those who were judged ready for it - ie not just anyone who merely asked, not by any means, but only people the Captain of the day thought sufficiently experienced and capable of achieving the goals required. Some Capts would allow one a P1s day, another would not. So be it. FOs then acted as Capt in all respects, planning, NOTAMS, fuel, crew brief, ground liason, and every decision in the air - it was a Command Line Training flight, as P1 "under supervision" clearly implies. None would sign it off afterwards if they'd had to override an important decision, none of them. After all, the FO was asking for their Licence No and signature against the logbook entry. How could they do that if the FO had not complied with those requirements?

And some think they can claim this "self certificated" without even the Captain's knowledge? Absurd. Utterly absurd.

Perhaps the time has come for it to be done away with as its use appears to be so discredited, but until then P1 Under Supervision remains a Command Line Training exercise, whatever the CAA choose, apparently against their own statutes, to "permit".

It is a shameful waste of a good training tool too; but then some line Captains might expect to see signs of Airmanship instead of rigid, unthinking adherence to SOPs and that would never do!

mad_jock

23rd Sep 2009, 10:04

I am post JAR so prob have the CAP number wrong for the Pre JAR integrated course.

I agree that if it was run across the board as you describe it would be a usefull bit of training if done in a standard manner as long as every one has to do XXX amount of PICUS.

I agree its run its time for usefullness it really doesn't fit the bill for what is intended. But as its an ICAO requirment for the PIC time for ATPL I think we are stuck with it.

But I really can't get wound up when people do it. It's not as if obtaining an ATPL actually means anything. Yes it allows you the possibility of LHS but they still have to get through selection, training and line check. And many have failed at all three points.

And to add I think "some" is an understatment of the true fact. I would say its the majority of low houred FO's. I am actually quite happy that no one asks me to sign thier log books. It means it is absolutely nothing to do with me what they put in thier log books. If the Flight ops certifies it as correct thats there problem not mine.

And I am guilty as charged with your last line ;) But airmanship is in the individual and thier experence. I have only in the last 2 weeks learned that there is no standard procedure for the missed approach off a visual. This is after 6 years of training with multiple TRE's telling me its the missed approach off the Intial approach.

one post only!

24th Sep 2009, 08:03

I think someone owes someone else an apology............

G-V

26th Sep 2009, 10:18

I agree with Kelly.

If you have a fATPL (CPL) you always log P2 time flying MPA and it does not matter if you are PF or PM. You can log PF or PNF(PM) in remarks section just for your record.

If you have a PIC license for the A/C and you qualify to act as a PIC and you ARE assigned as PIC (means that you are responsible) you log P1 time. And it does NOT matter if you are PF or PM.

If you have a PIC license for the A/C and qualify to fly it as a PIC, but your company assigned you to fly as a SIC on this lag - you log P2 time.

Now if you have a PIC license for the A/C but not qualify to act as a PIC and there is a training Capt who will supervise you, than you log P1u/s time.

Happy landings to all.