P1/P1S/PICUS/PUT etc

[Eurotraveller]

Hi,

Like many people I recently found myself totally confused by the old question of club or flying school checkouts and whether to log these hours as P1, P1S, PUT, PICUS etc etc. I was building hours towards the start of my ME rating and needed 70 hours P1, which I thought I had, until I dug into the issue a little deeper.

Working full time and flying relatively infrequently led to me having about 9 hours of flight time 'with an instructor' whilst they checked me out on the company's aircraft to check I was OK for solo hire. To be clear this is a checkout by the holder of a valid SEP rating, within the 90 day rule and legal to carry passengers - merely to check that you are competent before you solo hire. I have had these checkouts over a few years with 2 different flying schools/clubs, with 4 different instructors, and each time I have been instructed to log the checkout as P1S, which I did. The instructor, presumably, logged P1 since he was "supervising".

When I came to count my hours up, it occurred to me that the instructor must have logged these hours as P1, and counted the hours as his "in command" time, as I had. Obviously this can't possibly be right in a single crew aircraft, as we have both taken credit for the command hours. Digging further into LASORS and searching message boards like these we can deduce that P1S is purely for use in the event of a successful skills test, and cannot be used in any other capacity, or for any other company check. PICUS can't be used either. In fact, you can only log either P1 or PUT in this situation.

The result was that I found myself with 9 dubious hours - I could have scrubbed out the "S" and logged them as P1, but then I am 99% sure that my instructor would have logged P1, making my hours 'illegal'. In the event I frantically crammed 9 more hours in solo so that I could sleep at night with a clear conscience! This caused considerable inconvenience and, obviously, expense and worry as I was due to start my MEP a couple of weeks later.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the instructor logging P1, since he signed the aircraft out for the check and ultimately took responsibility for the flight, but my point is that there are several flying schools/clubs out there who clearly have absolutely no idea about what the rules are, and as a result are, possibly inadvertently, misleading students. I must have asked at least 5 instructors at two seperate unaffiliated schools and each were adament that I could log the hours as P1S, and the instructor could log P1.

In my opinion the CAA need to issue guidance on this subject, to the effect that it must be decided prior to the flight whether the instructor or the student logs P1, and the other must log either PUT (if a student) or SNY (if an instructor). Of course everyone is responsible for what they log, and I should have wisened up quicker, but it is confusing and it's easy to be misled or misinterpret the rules.

I'm surprised more people don't get to the end of, say, a multi-engine course, only to find that the CAA reject the application because the hours are logged incorrectly.

I know this is a thorny subject but I nearly came a cropper and I wouldn't like it to happen to anyone else.

[VFR Transit]

I am sure the CAA add this in LASORS!!!!!

VFR

[VFR Transit]

If it is any help i use "P U/T" in my logbook

VFR

[VFR Transit]

Try http://www.anglianflightcentres.co.uk/documents/LASORS%202007.pdf

Page 53 of 2007 Lasors states to use P U/T

Thanks
VFR

[Flying Farmer]

Whoever signed for the aircraft will be P1/PIC.

[hugh flung_dung]

The rules are pretty clear: for aircraft which are certificated for single pilot operation the only time that P1/S can be used is after a successful flight TEST with an EXAMINER. A check-out is not a test and most FIs are not examiners.
Many people seem not to like the rule but in that case they need to start discussions with the CAA about getting it changed.

Logically, if an FI is checking a qualified pilot the FI will be P1 because they are responsible for the conduct of the flight; the person being checked therefore logs Pu/t. Once again, if you don't like this you should take it up with the CAA.

HFD

[Eurotraveller]

Thanks VFR and FF, I have logged the hours as PUT and did 9 more solo as P1. My point is that there is still obviously misconception out there as flying schools/clubs are telling students to log something different.

HFD - It's not that I don't like the rule, it's just that I don't think everyone appreciates that P1S is only for use in the circumstances you specify, despite what is implied in LASORs, which is not the clearest of documents to say the least!

I'm not having a go at the CAA, rules are rules, I just feel that there is obviously confusion amongst the flying club/training community. Run a search on this topic on PPrune and you'll find a dozen different interpretations of what you can and cannot log.

[flybymike]

I have had many check outs where the instructor has specifically told me that it will be quite in order for me to log the flight as P1 for myself and that he or she will be quite happy, and indeed intend to, just sit there for all intents and purposes, as just passengers. (unless they feel have to intervene) Under these circumstances I have naturally logged the flight as P1, since this is what the pilots agreed to be the case at the outset of the flight. Whether the instructors concerned then also logged the time as P1 for themselves I have absolutely no idea, but it has certainly occurred to me that they may well have done so, either deliberately or unconsciously.
I do not wish to cock a snook at authorty or undermine regulations with a purpose, but in the scenario under discussion where two qualified pilots are flying in an aircraft, and in the event that for whatever reason they both logged P1 time ...then ...does it really matter? does any one actually care...will any one ever find out ?

[BackPacker]

(unless they feel have to intervene)

This is the catch, isn't it? If you, either implicitly or explicitly, agreed from the outset that the "passenger" sitting next to you could intervene if he saw fit at some time, then he's not really a passenger and you're not really "in command", are you?

does any one actually care...will any one ever find out ?

Usually not, no. Usually the instructor will not intervene, the flight completes successfully, nobody ever looks at all three logbooks (2 persons + plane) together.

But if something goes wrong, regardless of whose fault it is (the pilot, the instructor, the aircraft/engine or the bird) the FIRST THING the authorities do is ask for all paperwork regarding the legality of the flight. And if you've logged PIC but at the same time you've agreed that the instructor could take over if and when he saw fit, well, there will be a lot of frowning.

[kylev]

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/LASORS2008%20(Bookmarked).pdf

See pages 78-79. As far as I'm aware P/UT can only be logged when undergoing training for a licence issue, i.e. when training for a PPL/CPL with a valid instructor. P1/S can be used under differences training for a new type under the same type rating (e.g. for SEP, doing a checkout on a PA28 after having flown a C152)

However, the issue of check flights - usually carried out for insurance purposes is still a bit ambiguous. I log the hours as P1/S. However I've also logged hours on a new a/c as P1/S, which apparently shouldnt have been done. I'm not going to change it though.

[flybymike]

Speaking entirely hypothetically of course, "If something goes wong" then I am sure that despite any prior agreements, all the paperwork aspects of the flight will have been agreed and recorded in the various log books before any investigation of paperwork takes place. :)

[Hamish 123]

How about this then; I joined a flying group with a PA28-181. I had previously flown PA28-140s and PA28-161s. The group wanted an instructor to check me out, so we did a pretty straightforward local flight, few stalls, steep turns, PFL, then 3 circuits. She signed my logbook, but told me to enter the time as P1S. My SEP rating is due next January. Will this 1.5 hours count towards my 6 hour "in command" qualifier?

[Eurotraveller]

Hi Hamish,

I'm sorry but I don't think it will. P1S is only for the successful completion of a skills test and not club checkouts. Your instructor can't log P1 and instruct you to log P1S. Unless she logged SNY, in which case you can log P1, you have to log PUT. Although you perhaps weren't strictly "under training" there is no other legal option.

Unfortunately like me you have been told to log these hours under a classification which isn't legal. Again I understand that we are all ultimately responsible for what we log but in my opinion this is more evidence that the classification of P1S isn't widely understood by some flying clubs and instructors who may be misleading students.

[russellmounce]

Hamish, I had exactly the same sort of check, moving from a PA-28 to a PA-38, the instructor checked me out and told me to log it as P/UT.

The club insurance policy states that if a pilot has not flown with the club for more than 6 weeks, a check with an instructor is required. On this check, the instructor told me he was just a passenger and to log it as P1/S. I looked into this, and told him this was only for exams. He hadn't realised, and told me to log it as P1 instead.

The use of P1/S can be confusing, and I do not think that all instructors know exactly what it means. I think it could be made clearer.

[GusHoneybun]

The definitve answer was given by Flying farmer,

Whoever signed for the aircraft will be P1.

Unless you sign for an aircraft, and not under a skills test, it's Pu/t. It's really that simple.

[Julian]

This has been done to death numerous times, do a search and read the previous threads, also...


Whoever signed for the aircraft will be P1.

...is not correct as, again as has previously been discussed, PIC can change DURING the flight.

J.

[BackPacker]

Plus, "signing for an aircraft" is not a legal requirement in the GA world, AFAIK. In any case, within our club, we don't.

[Justiciar]

Page 53 of 2007 Lasors states to use P U/T

That is not what it says. Pu/t relates to a pilot undergoing training for a licence or rating. The applicable provisions are in JAR.FCL, which defines exactly what you should record in your log book. A check flight is not training. On such a flight you are either P1 or nothing.

[Hamish 123]

In my case, no one "signed" for the aircraft as such. It's my plane (well, a proportion of it), I filled in the plane's flying record book, naming myself as captain. And to complicate matters, when I was checked out on a PA28-140, the plane's owner sat beside me, wasn't a QFI, and was happy simply to see I was reasonably proficient. I logged this time as P1.

So, being checked out on two different variants of type, means that, due to the presence of an instructor in one, different hours are logged . . . .

[Justiciar]

So, being checked out on two different variants of type, means that, due to the presence of an instructor in one, different hours are logged . . .


You have highlighted the very point, namely that a "check ride" has no legal status at all. It is usually required either for insurance or the rules of a flying group. You do not need an instructor to be checked out on an aircraft (there may be different requirements when you have an aircraft which requires a type rating but I am talking about SEP).

[Final 3 Greens]

This is the catch, isn't it? If you, either implicitly or explicitly, agreed from the outset that the "passenger" sitting next to you could intervene if he saw fit at some time, then he's not really a passenger and you're not really "in command", are you?

(a) Change of PIC mid flight?

(b) Safety pilot?

[BackPacker]

(a) Change of PIC mid flight?

A change of PIC in flight would mean that the first pilot volunteers to relinquish command, and the second pilot volunteers to take command. I don't think you can claim to be pilot "in command" if you consent to a situation where somebody can take control away from you as and when he/she sees fit. After all, that means you're not in command but the other person is. Or, in other words, the ultimate responsibility for the safe execution of the flight lies in his hands, not in yours.

(b) Safety pilot?

As far as I know the only time where "safety pilot" is defined in legal terms is the situation where somebody has a license but lost his medical. In that case he/she can exercise the privileges of the license only with a safety pilot on board, who needs to be qualified and current on type, and there's a whole CAA leaflet out there on how and when the safety pilot is supposed to take over command.

[flybymike]

A "safety pilot" is more commonly referred to when accompanying another pilot flying under the hood in VFR conditions.

[Final 3 Greens]

Backpacker

You wish to fly my aircraft.

I agree to accompany you on your first flight.

Part of the agreement is that I takeover if either party believes it necessary for flight safety.

You book out and accept the aircraft by signing the tech log.

I have only a PPL, no FI rating.

I don't touch the controls all flight and you do all the flying, as well as making the command decisions.

Now tell me why you are not P1?

[BackPacker]

Now tell me why you are not P1?

Because I have to defer to your decision as to whether you will take command away from me as and when you see fit? Thus, I am ultimately not in command but you are?

Anyway, don't drag me into the discussion like this. I'm all for private pilots getting checked out by other private pilots and being+logging P1. I'm just pointing out some of the legal and practical problems with this.

But to be honest, the other way around has legal and practical issues too. Supposed I'm being checked out on an aircraft by another PPL (the owner, say). If I'm not P1, then the owner is, and that means that he has to pay at least an equal share of the costs. I don't think there are that many owner-pilots willing to pay for checking out other pilots...

As others have said, this has been done to death here and I've seen all the arguments from both sides to defend both positions. And the only solution I've seen is to explicitly agree beforehand who will be PIC and what the other persons role will be and what he will log, if anything.

[Final 3 Greens]

Backpacker

I don't agree with you, but shall we just agree to differ?

On the cost sharing side, it is quite clear to me that both pilots should pay half.

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect the owner to stump up half for a flight to see how another pilot flies, but that's just my opinion.

Safe flying to you.

[tyro]

I used to go along with booking check ride time as PuT. This was always at the direction of a club instructor, who needed the P1 time towards his ATPL.

These days we agree when I book a flight that, since (a) I'm legally current (b) want the P1 time and (c) paying, that I will log it. I've not yet been refused.

[S-Works]

I have lost the will to live. This one has come up again quicker than usual......

God knows why we keep on debating this subject.

There are 2 main camps on this. The camp that says you are always PUT, usually the Instructors who want the P1 time (despite many protestations otherwise) and the renters who are current and legal and entitled to P1.

Until the CAA actually make a clear cut statement it will never be settled and I don't see one coming anytime soon!!

[bookworm]

Supposed I'm being checked out on an aircraft by another PPL (the owner, say). If I'm not P1, then the owner is, and that means that he has to pay at least an equal share of the costs. I don't think there are that many owner-pilots willing to pay for checking out other pilots...

Not, IMO, under UK legislation. If it's a shared aircraft operated on a private C of A, any of the co-owners can give the valuable consideration to the group funds. If it's hired to you by the owner on a PT C of A, provided the owner does not charge for his services as pilot (and proving that may require care) you are still paying "for the primary purpose of conferring on a particular person [you] the right to fly the aircraft on that flight". The person who pays does not have to be the commander.

[dublinpilot]

That is not what it says. Pu/t relates to a pilot undergoing training for a licence or rating. The applicable provisions are in JAR.FCL, which defines exactly what you should record in your log book. A check flight is not training. On such a flight you are either P1 or nothing.

Justiciar,

That would depend on your defination of "for a licence or rating". If it meant only for the inital issue of a licence or rating (which is what you seem to suggest) then no one could ever log their (minimum) one hour training flight with an instructor, which is required for SEP class revalidation.

If you accept that the training for a SEP class revalidation is towards a licence or rating, then there is nothing to stop a currency check with an instructor being counted as "for a licence or rating" as this flight should qualify for the SEP class revalidation.

dp

[Awyren]

I have only recently passed my PPL, hence the reply to this long forgotten thread.

I have been reading up on the rules regarding the recording of flight time, according to the rather cryptically named Part-FCL / AMC / GM (https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/AMC%20and%20GM%20to%20Part-FCL.pdf) from the EASA regulations, section "AMC1 FCL.050 Recording of flight time" explains that "the applicant for or the holder of a pilot licence may log as PIC time all solo flight time, flight time as SPIC and flight time under supervision provided that such SPIC time and flight time under supervision are countersigned by the instructor" (b) (1) (ii)

It goes on to say "PICUS flight time: provided that the method of supervision is acceptable to the competent authority, a co-pilot may log as PIC flight time flown as PICUS when all the duties and functions of PIC on that flight were carried out in such a way that the intervention of the PIC in the interest of safety was not required." (b) (5)

I read this to mean that on a checkout flight, as long as the instructor does not need to intervene for safety reasons and he countersigns the remarks column, you can log the time as PICUS (or P.1/S) and it counts towards your PIC time.

[stevelup]

Except there's no such thing as a 'co-pilot' on a single pilot aircraft.

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Awyren - as Stevelup states there is no such thing as a 'co-pilot' in a SEP certified for single pilot operations.

I think the confusion in your mind may have arisen regarding the term 'check out' and a 'flight test' for the grant, revalidation or renewal of a rating forming a part of your licence.

If the flight test is carried out by an examiner for the grant, revalidation or renewal of a licence or rating then the examiner is P1/PIC. As the candidate on test you book P1 Under Supervision (P1CUS) for a successful test and Pilot Under Training (PU/T) for an unsuccessful test.

However, if you have a valid SEP rating and you are being 'checked out' to fly another type of SEP, then there is no need for an instructor at all - the flight could be carried out by another member of the Group, for example. This is because, technically, your rating covers the aircraft type. In that case you could indeed book P1 and the other pilot, whether instructor and/or Group member is just along for the ride so to speak (although naturally passing on useful information and checking that you are, in their opinion, safe to operate the aeroplane).

Nevertheless, if you are covering 'differences' training with an instructor on a more complex type, then the instructor will be P1 and you PU/T. The grey area in your mind may be that 'differences' training is defined (tail wheel, for example) and not 'different' type (where an instructor may be the other pilot, but not required to 'instruct').

The bottom line is: are you licensed and rated to carry out the flight unaided (that is, solo)? If you are then you can be P1, if not then by definition it must be some form of training or test and you can only book PU/T or P1CUS depending on the result of that training or test.

Separately, in the commercial world where there are co-pilots (first officers) then a sector where it is the FOs 'leg' (handling pilot) it is booked as P1CUS and where the Captain is the handling pilot (FOs non-handling) then the FO books P2. The FO can never book P1C and the Captain is usually P1. Awyren your third paragraph describes this arrangement, which is meant to apply to airline flying and not the realm of the PPL.

Bose-X makes a good point in that irrespective of the rights and wrongs instructors do tend to want to claim P1 hours for their own purposes. This may or may not be required. If you go to a flying school (ATO) you will probably be told to book 'PU/T' (there can't be two booking 'P1'), whereas with Group flying you will most likely be able to book 'P1' for the reasons described above. That has always been my experience.

[hugh flung_dung]

The acid test for me is: who signed for the aircraft, who would fill-out an accident report, who would pay the insurance excess, who would be hauled over the coals for an airspace infringement, etcetera ... that's the person who is P1.

HFD

[India Four Two]

It's a lot simpler across the pond - P1 or Dual.

[Whopity]

I read this to mean that on a checkout flight, as long as the instructor does not need to intervene for safety reasons and he countersigns the remarks column, you can log the time as PICUS (or P.1/S) and it counts towards your PIC time. No!
Your quote appears to refer to "SPIC" which is only for IFR flight on Integrated Courses.
PICUS is not covered in EASA Regulation for SP aircraft however; CAP 804 Section 1 Part E Para 9 Item J makes a provision for UK licence holders:
Pilot undergoing any form of
flight test with a EASA or CAA
Authorised Examiner (other than
case K.PICUS for
successful
Test P/UT for
unsuccessful
test (including
partial pass)Enter time in ‘P1’ column
and have it certified by
aircraft commander.
Enter time in ‘Dual’
column
Flight Tests are only conducted by Examiners.