Check Outs'

[BabyBear]

Following on from something I read in a thread elsewhere could someone please clarify exactly what entries are required in the log book when getting checked out on a new type (eh from c150 to PA28, C172 etc)? Assuming an entry is required is it illegal to fly that type if the instructor, as an oversight, does not mark the log book accordingly?

BB

[Whopity]

The rules in Timbuktoo may be different, the name has clearly changed since I was last there when it was Tombouctou. Under the JAA system a SEP rating legally entitles you to fly any SEP class of aeroplane; differences training sign offs are only required for VP prop; Super/Turbocharger; Retractable Gear; Tailwheel and Pressurisation. No sign off is required for familiarisation training between different "makes and models" within the SEP class.

[BabyBear]

Thanks Whopity - Timbuktoo does indeed come under the JAA System and should not be confused with Timbuktu, or indeed Tombouctou, neither of which I could confirm comes under JAA.

Thanks again,

BB

[FlyingForFun]

To add to what Whopity says (which is 100% correct), although there is no legal requirement for a checkout, most clubs/schools will require one.

In this case, you must be sure to understand, before the flight, whether you are the captain (in which case the "instructor" is technically a passenger, you must obey the 90-day rule, he can not log the flight, and you log the flight as P1), or - more common - he is the captain (in which case you log PUT). In neither case is a signature required.

FFF
----------

[BabyBear]

Thanks guys, I was reading another thread in which the OP was being advised on the actions after his log book was stolen. I had never really considered it until now however it got me to thinking that when I had differences training for the PA38 and C172 there was never any entry in my log book to say I had been successful.


BB

[Nibbler]

Is it correct to say that a PPL holder (who is not an FI or CRI) can conduct familiarisation training with other PPL holders between different "makes and models" within the SEP class.

[Dave Gittins]

I would certainly assume that provided that both of you are qualified and current, then it is perfectly acceptable.

Interested in any other views.

[nick14]

I would be very careful as if you class it as Training then im sure they would have to be at least a CRI.

If you class it as two mates off for a jolly then possibly but its probably best for one to be a CRI

Ready to be corrected

[FatFlyer]

This is a common question which causes some confusion.
Although qualified to fly a type, the group or lessor wants some kind of "check" before letting you loose in their plane. Rather than pay for an instructor, they get a pilot experienced on type to carry out the training/checking.
If they were simply demonstrating systems and procedures to the new pilot, that might be ok, the problem I think is when they are supervising the new pilot flying.
If you, are PIC, but not an instructor, are you permitted to let someone else manipulate the controls? even if they are qualified, without passing "command" to them?
Are you trained to take control should the landing go wrong?
If there was a landing incident, there could be questions asked as to who was in command and responsible for the damage.
I believe that this type of "checking" of a qualified pilot (when a condition of hire etc) needs to be carried out by an instructor to be legal?

[BillieBob]

There is no requirement to hold an instructor rating in order to give flight instruction unless it is for "the grant of a pilot's licence; or the inclusion or variation of any rating or qualification in a pilot's licence". Since a club check-out is none of these things, an instructor rating is not required. The same would apply to, for example, aerobatic training, formation flying or anything else that did not result in licensing action.

This all relies, of course, on it being a private flight. If valuable consideration is given, it becomes public transport - a whole different can of worms.

[FatFlyer]

Again, different opinions on this subject.
You say that no instructor rating is required to teach aerobatics etc, yet an instructor requires the no aerobatics restriction removed before teaching.
You could demonstrate eg a loop or roll to me which I could watch as a passenger, the problem is if you let me " have a go" and i enter eg a tailslide and break the rudder.
Though it might be common to let friends have a go at flying the plane, somewhere in the ANO ( sorry I dont have it at hand to find ref) it forbids the captain from allowing anyone else to manipulate the controls (single crew plane) unless they hold an instructor rating or agree to relinquish command to another qualified pilot. This I see as the legal problem with " check outs" carried out by PPLs?

[FlyingForFun]

Sorry, FatFlyer, you are wrong. There is nothing in the ANO to ban passengers from handling the controls. I believe there may be (probably is, in fact) something like this in EU-OPS... but that doesn't apply to private flights.

I will quite gladly admit to being wrong if you can provide me with a reference.

As for your scenario of passenger screwing up a manoevre and damaging the aircraft, the captain is responsible for the safety of the aircraft. As captain, you have to decide if you can guarantee the safety of the aircraft. If you can't, then don't do it. Most PPLs are quite capable of figuring out when a passenger is messing up most manoevres (I'm not talking about aeros here) and taking back control while it's still well within their capabilities to do so, especially if that passenger is also a PPL and especially at a safe height. But at the end of the day, it's up to the P1 to decide what he's happy to do, based on what he's sure he is capable of doing safely.

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

[FatFlyer]

In which case I stand corrected, I do recall reading something similar though.
I am not a lawyer and don't understand the jargon but rule 28(2)c would seem to preclude passengers "having a go"?(sorry for poor copy/pasting)

28(2)c. not act as pilot of an aircraft in respect of which the flight crew required to be carried by or under this Order does not exceed one pilot if—

(i)the aircraft is not flying for the purpose of public transport or aerial work other than aerial work which consists of the giving of instruction in flying or the conducting of flying tests;

(ii)he so acts in accordance with instructions given by a person holding a pilot’s licence granted under this Order or a JAA licence, being a licence which includes a flight instructor rating, a flying instructor’s rating or an assistant flying instructor’s rating entitling him to give instruction in flying the type of aircraft being flown; and

(iii)the aircraft is fitted with dual controls and he is accompanied in the aircraft by the said instructor who is seated at the other set of controls or the aircraft is fitted with controls designed for and capable of use by two persons and he is accompanied in the aircraft by the said instructor who is seated so as to be able to use the controls;

[FlyingForFun]

FatFlyer,

Where does that quote come from? I've searched CAP 393 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.pdf) for your quote, but can't find it. You've said that it is "Rule 28". Rule 28 relates to VFR flight outside controlled airspace, and is not relevant. Wondering if you perhaps meant Article 28, I checked that too, and found that Article 28 is the requirement for a Certicate of Release to Service for non-EASA aircraft, also not relevant.

The closest I can find to "relevant" legislation is actually Article 50:50 (1) Subject to the exceptions set out in articles 51 to 60, a person must not act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom without holding an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under this OrderSo you need a license to act as flight crew.... but a passenger would not be acting as flight crew, they would be acting as a passenger. There is nothing to prevent a person who is not a member of the flight crew from handling the controls so far as I know.

Since I can't find your references in UK legislation, I wonder if we are talking about laws in different countries? For the avoidance of doubt, everything I've said relates to UK law.

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

[FatFlyer]

you are probably right, i found it on Legislation.gov.uk (http://www.legislation.gov.uk) article 25 (sorry)
I may have been browsing expired legislation (2005) ANO. maybe the bit i thought i remembered was FAA?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

differences training sign offs are only required for VP prop; Super/Turbocharger; Retractable Gear; Tailwheel and Pressurisation
EFIS?

(padded to > 10 characters)

[max_continuous]

Although I can't recall the wording of any specific policy, I think it's important to consider the issue of insurance in this scenario in addition to the legalities regarding licensing.

I would bet, perhaps someone can confirm, that an insurance policy granted to a flying club / aircraft owner who allows their aircraft to be flown by others will include a clause requiring the insured party satisfy themselves of the competency in operating the aircraft of the person to whom the aircraft is hired/loaned.

Almost certainly the insurance company will insist upon some form of "check" being carried out (or in legalese "appropriate means of testing or so satisfying") and will most likely require the insured party to have in place a minimum qualification/experience level for the person doing the testing, and probably to notify the insurance company as to who these people are.

I suspect that this has much more impact on check-out requirements than strictly licensing issues.

As an aside, how many flying club members actually ask to see and read the insurance documents under which they should be covered?

[BillieBob]

FatFlyer - The article to which you refer is entirely irrelevant. You have selectively quoted sub-paragraph (c) and, when read in full, the article states:

(2) A person may within the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man without being the holder of such a licence—
....
(c) act as pilot of an aircraft in respect of which the flight crew required to be carried by or under this Order does not exceed one pilot for the purpose of becoming qualified for the grant or renewal of a pilot’s licence or the inclusion or variation of any rating in a pilot’s licence if -
Since, in the case of a club check-out, or other training that does not lead to licensing action, it is assumed that the pilot under check/instruction does hold a valid licence and is not flying for the purpose described, the provisions of the Article do not apply.

The equivalent provision in the ANO 2009 is Article 53, which says much the same thing.

[madlandrover]

EFIS?

(padded to > 10 characters)

Yep, and SLPC (Single Lever Power Control, ie the current Thielert/Centurion and Austro engines). Actually worthwhile differences training, since although they're easy to fly it's good to know what a) the various failure modes are b) the normal modes are, since sometimes they seem like failures!