Tedious question about PICUS

[EGCC Wannabe]

This may have been covered before, but I couldn't find it on search.

I work as a PPL FI at two flying schools, there is a variation in the methods of logging time for PPL checkflights (in the customers logbook).

One logs as PICUS, the other PUT.

I've checked LASORS (in general info) and JAR FCL 1.080. Neither are particuarly clear on the issue. Checkflights are not specifically mentioned so by it's absence I assume it's PUT.

Any thoughts?

Ok, I'm off to think about something more interesting... paint drying etc..

[S-Works]

As an FI you really should know this stuff. So to refresh your memory.

Outside of an integrated training environment the only time that you can use PICUS is on the successful completion of a flight test with an Examiner. The flight goes in the P1 column as PICUS.

Now a check flight is a bone of contention in many quarters. If the person you are checking holds a valid class rating for the aircraft is, legally current on type and you are not accompanying them for the purpose of Instruction then technically you are a passenger and they are P1. (There will now follow 20 pages of debate on that one)

The general view is that if you are there in the capacity of representing the owner/operator and checking that the pilot is still safe then it is generally accepted that the person being checked is PUT.

As I have said there will be great debate amongst the Instructor camp that says when they are onboard acting on behalf of the owner/operator then they are always PIC and the person being checked is PUT. This is generally the footing of the hours builders. The other camp is if they are there just to carry out a check rather than Instruction as the pilot is legal then they are an observer and the person being checked is PIC. I am in the latter camp, I log PIC when I am TEACHING not watching.

[BillieBob]

There are two, and only two, options - Either the candidate is PIC and the checker is a passenger or the checker is PIC and the candidate is PUT (assuming that the checker is an FI). It doesn't matter which option you use and there is nothing wrong with using different options at different schools. However, the use of PICUS is not an option - in a single-pilot aeroplane, this may be used only for a successful flight test with a CAA or JAA authorised examiner.

Incidentally, Bose, PICUS has no relevance to the integrated training environment; you're thinking of SPIC.

[EGCC Wannabe]

Bose-X, Billiebob,
Thanks for your prompt replies.
I was of the opinion that it was either PIC or PUT and that PICUS was only for exams. However, when I came across the order book with PICUS in it, I thought I would check.

Bose-X. As an FI, I should know this stuff. That's why I checked the source documents and tried to run it past guy with experience on here. Hope I haven't let myself down!

Many thanks for your help and time guys. I think I have all I need now.

May Happy landings and good weather be upon you.

Mike.

[DFC]

If the pilot can legally fly the aircraft as PIC in the following terms;

Licensing / Medical

90 day Rule

Insurance

Owner / Operator requirements

Then there is no requirment for another pilot on a normal flight.

If any of the above list cause them to be unable to fly as PIC then some other pilot must be PIC. Unsually this other pilot is an instructor.

---------

If a fully qualified pilot who is current and has the owners permission to fly as PIC in the aircraft requests some instruction then they have agreed to be PUT and the Instructor PIC.

-------

If they don't require a checkout and don't want instruction then why are they flying with an instructor who expected to do anything other than be a passenger?

[Talkdownman]

If the requirement for the 'check' is not for licensing purposes then it is quite feasible for the 'person doing the checking' not to be a licensed pilot, even, let alone an FI......

If the 'person doing the checking' just happens to be an FI then it is important to establish BEFOREHAND who is to be PIC (and thus take responsibility for the flight) ie. whether or not the FI is acting as a 'crew member'.

If the FI is deemed PIC on a 'single pilot aeroplane' then the 'checked pilot' can only be PUT (here we go again, DFC....!). The 'checked pilot' cannot be PICUS except in the case of a flight TEST in which case the check would be for licensing purposes.

Neither the 'checked pilot' nor the 'person doing the checking' cannot be P2 on a 'single pilot aeroplane'.

PIC, PUT, sort it out first, not difficult.

[DFC]

If the requirement for the 'check' is not for licensing purposes then it is quite feasible for the 'person doing the checking' not to be a licensed pilot, even, let alone an FI......



Please explain how a pilot who is not authorised to be PIC can legally fly as PIC with a passenger.

[S-Works]

Ha! See, told you it would run to pages and pages discussing semantics!!!
:ok::ok::ok:

[BillieBob]

DFC - Nobody suggested that he could! If it is decided that the 'checkee' is to fly as PIC, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, then the 'checker' can only be a passenger, which does not require him to hold a licence.

[Talkdownman]

Please explain how a pilot who is not authorised to be PIC can legally fly as PIC with a passenger

Not relevant.

The 'Owner/Operator/Insurer check flight' conditions may not necessarily negate the authority of the 'person being checked' to fly as PIC. Indeed, it may even be a requirement of such a 'check' that the 'checked pilot' operates as PIC. The conditions are purely down to the inconsistent vagaries of the requirements of the Owner/Operator/Insurer. They are free to impose whatever conditions they like. Only the requirements of the licensing authorities are legally binding.

[DFC]

DFC - Nobody suggested that he could! If it is decided that the 'checkee' is to fly as PIC, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, then the 'checker' can only be a passenger, which does not require him to hold a licence.


If they can be PIC then there is no checking being done because the whole reason for having a check - to confirm their ability to be PIC - has been ignored by permitting them to be PIC.

It is saying - "Hey, here are the keys, take a passenger on a flight and if you don't kill yourself or break the aircraft then I am happy to hire you the aircraft again".

Having made such a decision, the outcome of any check has been determined in advance and that decision is made without any evidence so it better be correct because the passenger is going to have a great case for negligence if you send them up with an idiot as PIC who causes them an injury.

If you are happy to say that the pilot can be PIC on a pasenger flight then why do they need a check?

So there are a few simple cases for the single pilot who holds a valid licence rating and medical plus the required take-off and landings in the past 90 days;

1. The owner / operator requires something to be done before they permit flying as PIC. No PIC until requirement is met.

2. The owner / operator permits flight as PIC with no checking. Fly as PIC.

Passengers have no authority during flight and can never legally say "I have control". They can ask the PIC is they can have a go but that requires the PIC to be willing to let a passenger take control on a flight that they have sole responsibility for.

Do you want to be a passenger saying "I don't want to distract you at this critical phase but Do you mind awfuly if I have control for a bit because you are about to smash the aircraft into the runway" :D

PIC response = "NO it looks safe to me" :E

Clubs / Groups / Owners can decide who can be PIC. They in fact have a duty of care to ensure that people they authorise to be PIC are not a danger to themselves or others. It is incumbant on such organisations to clearly specify what the requirements are before a pilot can fly as PIC. They must ensure that they abide by their own requirements and do not permit the PIC to be anyone who does not meet the requirements.

If a pilot at x club is for example unable to meet the club rule of no PIC unless the type has been flown in the last 28 days then if they fly for 30 minutes with a representative of that organisation, they can not log that as PIC because they were not such even if the representative is happy at the end of the flight.

[BillieBob]

DFC - Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's but it remains only an opinion. The fact is that there is nothing in law to prevent the 'checkee' being nominated as PIC and it is clear, both from this and from earlier threads on the same subject, that both options are in common use. You may not like or agree with the concept but then you are not obliged to comply with it.

[DFC]

These days in order for the flight to be legal the flight must be properly insured.

Therefore, for a pilot to be PIC apart from the legal requirement of their own licensing and currency they need to have both the owner / operator's permission to be PIC and the flight must be fully insured.

If the pilot has the owners permission to fly as PIC and is fully insured on a flight - what exactly is being checked?

Nothing - there is no check because the owner has already decided that the pilot is capable to fly as PIC.

This makes the situation of the checkee being PIC just as legal as driving at the national speed limit on a small country road with sharp bends in the dark when it is raining on an ice covered road.............perfectly legal i.e. no exact law is being broken..........until there is an accident. At that point the fact that it was legal does not prevent the driver being convicted of dangerous driving.

People are entitled to do as they wish within the law. However, my opinion is that sending up a pilot that you have decided needs a "checkout" as PIC with a passenger is rather reckless with the safety of the passenger in mind.

[thatscaptaintou]

I've been trying to clarify this question as well, as I am just about to submit my application to the CAA for my CPL and IR.

Following my PPL, CPL and IR skills test, 3 separate CAA examiners advised me to log the time as 'P1S' in the PIC column. I am told this counts towards the total 100 hours PIC required for the purpose of the CPL.

I then contacted the CAA today to verify this, to be told that yes, they do count but must be logged as P1, not P1S, which PLD say (and I quote) "only applies to multi pilot operations". The CAA have now told me to amend the logbook entries to show P1, including any club checkout rides previously undertaken. Yet my flying school today tell me the CAA are talking the proverbial, and it skills test flights which passed, should be logged as P1CUS.

So I now have conflicting advice, though I am inclined to adjust them all to P1 and attach a letter to the CAA explaining that in accordance with their advice to me today, the entries previously P1S are now shown as P1.

[DFC]

The fact is that there is nothing in law to prevent the 'checkee' being nominated as PIC and it is clear


Indeed there is nothing in law to prevent you driving at 60mph (where that is the prescribed speed limit) along a winding country road in the dark while it rains on the sheet of ice that constitutes the road surface.

Should anyone offer an opinion, that would simply be their opinion.

However, should those actions result in an accident / injury, would any right thinking member of the public describe those actions as being that of a reasonable person or a safe and competent driver.

That is the issue - not what people think of the current practice now but what they will think of such a practice in the future after an accident / incident / some injury or loss.

-----------

Having spent some time on this subject, I can think of one situation where the "checkee" could be PIC. That is where that have previously demonstrated the required level of competence and remain current but the operator requires that on regular occasions every pilot will fly with a passenger who places ticks in boxes on a clipboard. i.e. the check is simply an attempt to confirm a previously established standard.

Unfortunately even this has it's downfall in that while the standard may have been previously established, there is no provision for safety should the person with the clipboard discover an unsatisfactory standard mid-flight unless that person has the authority to intervene - i. they are PIC. :D

[Big Pistons Forever]

Ultimately what is important is not what is written in the logbook it is a clear understanding of who is PIC. This must be discussed and clearly determined, before the flight and the PIC should explicitly state what he/she expects the other pilot to do (and more importantly not do) in the event of an actual emergency.

Personally there is only a few pilots I will fly with where I am not the PIC and never where there is a training/examining component to any part of the flight.

[DFC]

Following my PPL, CPL and IR skills test, 3 separate CAA examiners advised me to log the time as 'P1S' in the PIC column.


Quite correct. A successful skill test is logged as PICUS. Look in LASORS for the confirmation of this.

As far as logging the flight tests you have completed this correctly and should not change them. If you wish to please let PLD know of the appropriate section of LASORS which clearly shows that this is how successful skill tests are to be logged.

When it comes to club checkouts then unfortuately they are correct in so far as you can not log the time as PICUS. However they are incorrect to suggest that you alter the logbook record to show that you were pilot in command. Such an act could be a clear example of falsification of a logbook since the instructor was PIC and logged the flight as such - if they were not then how could you have been PICUS?