Logging flt time with a flying instructor.

[Sliding member]

I appreciate this topic may have been visited before but its something I came across recently. As a PPL doing a check ride for the flying club I'm hiring the A/C off, should the time be logged as PUT or P1/S. At different clubs I've been told different things. Just wondered which is strictly correct. Many thanks in anticipation of your replys.;)

[Jepp]

I know that this may not be the correct answer you were looking for, BUT,

When I am being ' checked out ' by an instructor, on an aircraft and flight that I am LEGALLY allowed to make, I log it as P1......end of.

I dont care wether he or she is an ATPL Concorde captain or the King of Siam, I am not on test, nor am I being given instruction, the person in the other seat is mearly a passenger, albeit a knowledgeable one.

Regards

Jepp

[BEagle]

For whatever reason you're being 'checked out' by a Flight Instructor, the fact is that the FI is Commander and you are P1U/S - 'First Pilot under supervision'.

The FI is most certainly NOT a 'knowledgeable passenger'!

[Noggin]

And the hours count as P1 provided the log book is signed by the cammander with his/her licence number.

[BEagle]

So, Jepp, if you put yourself down as Commander for 'check out' flights (as you call them) with a FI, then you are knowingly making false entries in your personal log book. The flights are P1U/S, the FI is Commander and you can only 'claim' the time as P1 if he/she also countersigns your log book entry at the time......

[Jepp]

Beagle

Are you sure about logging it as P1u/s, ?

I am almost certain that P1u/s can only be logged on the successful outcome of a flight test, say an IMC renewal,

A checkout is NOT an official flight test, it is done to sattisfy club rules for insurance etc and not the CAA.

Jepp

[BEagle]

It is a flight being conducted under the supervision of a Flight Instructor. He/she - not you - is ipso facto the Commander and you may log the time as P1U/S if your logbook is countersigned as Noggin states - and he certainly does know the rules, I can assure you!

P1U/S is P1 flying under supervision, not 'under training'.

[M14P]

Lots of people seem to get very flustered about P1/us. I feel that it is important to go back to basics:

Are you receiving training for the grant or extension of a license or rating? (i.e. PPL, IMC, IR, CPL etc etc)

If yes then you can log P/ut

If no then it can't be P/ut

P1/us fills in a gap. You can log it if you are undergoing differences training with an instructor or a group or flying club check out. It also applies to successful examination flights and actin commander of a two crew aircraft which the holder has on Part 1 of his or her license - i.e. a rated co-pilot handling the controls. IT MUST BE COUNTERSIGNED BY P1.

There is no limit on the logging of P1/us but I fear that if you flew with another PPL the whole time and logged P1/us to bolster ones' log book the CAA might raise its collective eyebrows.

Hope this helps

[SteveR]

Beagle, you are so wrong.

P1s is for successful flights made for the purpose of achieving or renewing a rating of licence. ie, it can only be logged if the guy/gal next to you is an EXAMINER (not an FI), and if you pass.

If you're already qualified to fly the a/c in question, and the purpose of the checkride is to allow you to rent, then you need to decide before the flight how it's going to be logged. If the FI is desperate for the hours, then let him/her log P1 and you log Pu/t, if not then you log P1 and s/he's a passenger.

A vanilla PPL, with no IMC or other rating, should have AT MOST 2 flights logged as P1s (ie, you can take your skills test in two flights), no matter how many checkrides s/he has taken to rent or join groups. If you revalidate by experience, then the hour with the instructor is logged as P u/t, if you let it lapse and need to revalidate by test, then that's P1s

That said, the CAA don't seem to give a flying something-or-other about what you log, unless they have particular need to examine your flying record.

Steve R

(Edited to also accuse M14P of being wrong. Differences training (tailwheel, complex types, night rating) are all P.u/t - these are INSTRUCTORS, not EXAMINERS)

[BEagle]

No SteveR - you are the one who is utterly wrong! My statements reflect those made by a CAA inspector regarding this matter.



Whenever you fly under the supervision of a FI, he/she is the Commander.

[M14P]

I'm afraid you are very wrong SteveR.

Like BEagle I have sought extensive information on this subject.

Ask yourself this:

During differences training or a check out are you "receiving instruction for the grant or extension of a license or rating"

The answer is NO! Therefore, since the above is the definition of P/ut it CANNOT be logged as such.

Sorry Boss!

[SteveR]

M14P:Ask yourself this: During differences training or a check out are you "receiving instruction for the grant or extension of a license or rating"

During differences training - yes, so I log Pu/t. During a checkride, not necessarily, so it's Pu/t or P1.

Beagle: Whenever you fly under the supervision of a FI, he/she is the Commander.

Yep - if the FI is instructing, or the pair of them have agree that the FI is the commander. If the prospective renter is the comander, then the FI is educated PAX.

Steve R

[BEagle]

You clearly do not understand the meaning of the word 'supervision', SteveR. Undergoing a 'check ride' prior to the hire of an aeroplane means that the person conducting the check ride is required to be there in order to assess that your performance is satisfactory for whatever requirements the organisation offering the ac for hire has deemed appropriate. Otherwise there would be no need for a 'check ride' in the first place.

If you are under any FI supervision, you are not the Commander and may only log your flying time for that flight as P1U/S if the FI also countersigns your personal logbook including his/her licence number.

What exactly is the problem with that? Apart from delusions of grandeur on behalf of the pilot under supervision.

[CAHLIBAHN_MK2]

Interesting views on a subject that gets aired every six months or so. Last time I saw this discussed a difference between multi-crew and single crew aircraft was pointed out.

(Unfortunately the CAA website is down so I can't quote the relevent GID verbatim).

I seem to remember that the consensus then was that P1u/s could only be used by single-crew aircraft pilots when logging a successful flight test. There were many instances where logging P1u/s as a multi-crew member was appropriate.

[M14P]

SteveR

When you do differences training what rating or license do you receive from the CAA? Answer: Nothing. That's because differences are not ratings. A rating is SEP or MEP that sort of thing.

Your last post shows that you are a little confused over this issue.
During a checkride, not necessarily, so it's Pu/t or P1
You don't seem very clear over this issue. If you don't believe me at least believe BEagle - he's an examiner!

Cool down a little before even more people are confused.

[SteveR]

Undergoing a 'check ride' prior to the hire of an aeroplane means that the person conducting the check ride is required to be there in order to assess that your performance is satisfactory for whatever requirements the organisation offering the ac for hire has deemed appropriate. Otherwise there would be no need for a 'check ride' in the first place.

The key words are 'for whatever requirements the organisation .... has deemed appropriate.'

Normally these requirements are insurance driven, or simply the club rules, or just plain commonsense - nothing to do with ANO or other legal, licencing requirements. Our group requires that prospective new members are accompanied by an existing member who's current - either of them could log P1, neither of them could log P1s (because it's not an exam and neither is an examiner) or Pu/t (because neither is an instructor).

I don't have a huge problem with it. P1s is logged wrongly all over the place and I don't know any pilot who has had any P1s time queried by the CAA - they are after all 'personal logbooks'.

I like my personal logbook to be done properly, so I don't log P1s unless I've successfully flown with an examiner for the purpose of granting or renewing a rating or licence.

Steve R

[BEagle]

Ah - that's slightly different. If you're in a private owner group, any new group member isn't 'hiring' an aeroplane from you, they are effectively becoming part owners. So in your case, if they've flown that particular breed of aeroplane before and are just familiarising themselves with your particular one, then indeed no 'training' is taking place. Thus one pilot will be the Commander and will log the whole flight time as such, the other may log P1 time (not in this case P1U/S) only for the actual time he/she is at the controls but must annotate 'Shared' in the Remarks column and the actual Commander (who does not need to be a FI or FE) must countersign the entry.

For example, say a fellow pilot invited me to fly with him in his aeroplane of a type with which I was familiar and offered me the take-off and half of the flying on a 2hr trip. He would log 2hr as Commander (P1C), I would log 1hr P1 with his name as Pilot in Command, he would countersign my logbook entry.

[SteveR]

He would log 2hr as Commander (P1C), I would log 1hr P1 with his name as Pilot in Command, he would countersign my logbook entry.

Cor!! So, if, after you'd landed, filled in your personal logbooks and gone home, and the CAA got onto you about the air prox that you'd been involved in, both of you could say "Not me guv, he was in charge". I like it.

Steve R

[SimJock]

Am I still right in thinking that if you get the chance to share P1 in a plane for which you have NOT had the required differences training (RT/VP) you cannot log it AT ALL, until the training has been done ?

At present I just log this shared P1 at the 'back of the book' and will hopefully use it to reduce required differences training time, when I get round to it.


:(

[BEagle]

Slight cock-up in my previous post - the pilot offering me the flight would be Commander for the whole flight but as neither of us would be operating under the supervision of the other, in the 2 hr flight we would only be entitled to log P1 time for the actual time each of us was controlling the ac - and it would add up to 2hr between us. But he would be the one your CAA man would speak to as Commander if during the period of his command the other pilot had the airprox you describe.

[Noggin]

At the end of the day what you log is very much down to the individuals concerned. The CAA is concerned that the stated minima are achieved for licence/rating issue or revalidation.

The Law, Art 28, requires that you log particulars of each flight required "for licence issue or revalidation," to include: the capacity in which you acted.

If two pilots fly together with both acting as pilots i.e. with one checking the other, regardless of whether they hold an examiner authority or a FI rating, provided both are rated to fly the aeroplane, and exercise pilot skill and judgement throughout the flight, P1 and P1U/S describe accurately the situation required in Art 28. Insurance companies may set conditions but they are not in a position to dictate any logging requirements not required in law.

The guidance issued by the CAA is just that, Guidance; it is aimed at ensuring that hours logged towards licence/rating issue and revalidation are acceptable, and therefore meet a minimum safety standard.

[CAHLIBAHN_MK2]

The General Information Document I referred to yesterday is here: GID44 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/srg_fcl_gid44.pdf)

As Noggin says, it is guidance but as the law doesn't specify how we record time I tend to accept official guidance

P1U/S can be used by a co-pilot performing the duties of PIC under supervision of pilot in command. Clearly that doesn't apply to many on this forum as we operate single crew aircraft.

The only other circumstance mentioned is that you should log PIC U/S for a successful flight test.

PU/T
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 I suppose that could cover differences training etc which does NOT lead to issue of a licence or rating.

Flameproof jacket on ;)

[SteveR]

Oh Cahliban, I wonder if that will be the end of it for another 6 months? I wonder if Noggin, Beagle and M14P will bother to read it?

(Got room in the flameproof for me? Peeps can get quite het up about these things).

Steve R

[M14P]

The Likes of BEagle and myself attend numerous symposiums and talks and all sorts of other stuff telling us how we should be administering students. Therefore, we've heard all this before.

Out of interest, the CAA asks that the 'Dual Flight With An Instructor' is logged as P1/us (see AIC127/1999). Need I go on?

[bookworm]

And AIC 127/1999 which you quote says:

"Where the standard was sound and there was no need for instruction or where instruction took place during the course of the flight and the final standard reached was satisfactory, then the instructor should sign the log book and record the flight as dual training."

If you listen at these seminars with the same attention to detail with which you read AICs, no wonder you're giving information here that flatly contradicts the contents of the CAA's own GID!

PIC U/S can only be logged (in a single pilot aircraft) when undergoing a flight test with a successful outcome.

[phd]

Holy Smoke!

This thread reads like a script from that famous American sitcom 'Soap' . Confused? You will be!

I am a low hours PPL holder and already have enough problems trying to fill in my logbook correctly after a 45 minute sortie in the local area - there seems to be more crossing out and tippexing in it than in my old school exercise books.

It seems to me that the guidance contained in GID44 is fairly clear - as far as it goes - but various people both within the CAA and elsewhere have then applied their own interpretations on how to record flight time that does not easily fit within those guidelines, such as club 'check rides'.

The question must be, does the term 'check ride' mean "pilot under instruction for conversion to an aircraft type within an aircraft rating group or class"? If it does then according to GID44 it shall be recorded as P/UT and entered in the dual column. If it is not defined as such then surely in an aircraft intended for single pilot operation the person being 'checked-out' should be able to record it as P1. The P1 U/S description is only to be used where the pilot has successfully passed a flight test for a licence or rating.

I would quite like to know what precisely it should be recorded as, since I have just done a 1 hour check ride onto a new aircraft and do not want a load more tippex in my logbook!

[M14P]

OK, now I admit that I've screwed up. In fact, I have scrawled on the bottom of that AIC a whole bunch of notes from a seminar which was discussing the ambiguity of the AIC. My notes say "record as P1/us".

Bad excuse, I know but, I even queried this at my last Instructor Reval.

The point is that P1/us is - in my mind - a more legal way of recording such flying since P/ut would be dodgy to log on aircraft not on public cat C of A's but not wholly owned by the pilot (e.g. group a/c) or indeed on foreign registered aircraft.

I can't see a problem with P1/us when used in this way; it delineates Training As Part Of A Recognised Course from just flying with an instructor.

If you read AIC127/1999 para. 2.3.1 (the section to which the irrascible Booky refers) it is terribly ambigous as to whether the logbook is signed (no need to sign P/ut normally remember!) and the 'STUDENT' records instruction or whether the 'INSTRUCTOR' then records that flight as Instruction Given so that it count towards the thre-yearly instructor totals!

Have fun

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Doesn't the fact that a number of FIs and examiners are getting hot under the collar about this subject indicate that the Authourity should issue some better guidance? I read GID 44 last night and it certainly confused me.

Then again, I'm only a mere 60hr PPL!!:confused: :confused: :confused:

[bookworm]

M14P

I think you've raised an interesting issue here. GID44 doesn't seem to cover "refresher training" conducted by an instructor that isn't an explicit part of the training for the grant (as opposed to revalidation) of a licence or rating.

I've always logged such flights as P U/T (unless for some reason I was acting as commander). I think that's FCL's intention. What counts for future licences and ratings, and what FCL are probably interested in controlling carefully, is P1 time. I'm not sure that P U/T counts for much, unless it's explicitly part of training for a new licence or rating, in which case it will be explicitly identified as such in the logbook.

[andrewc]

Is it me or does this thread encapsulate the worst aspects
of the CAA's approach to GA flying - simultaneously bureaucratic,
pedantic and imprecise.

'Angels dancing on pinheads' have nothing on this,

-- Andrew

[SteveR]

andrewc :

It's not just you....

Mind you, this debate is rehearsed sooo often, and I hadn't seen that allusion before - thank you.

Angels on pinheads indeed.

Steve R

[M14P]

Bookworm.

I agree: I feel that the Authority wish to regulate formal training and as far as I know all P/ut must be made under the auspices of an FTO in order for it to be accountable and auditable inkeeping with the spirit of most organisations these days.

I think that 'Grant or Extension' is all important in this case and I would urge instructors and owner/operators to look into the legalities of being 'Under Training' in the aircraft that they fly.

With P/ut flight the emphasis would presumably be on the 'Student' learning something new. That would burden the Instructor with a different duty of care and responsibility than during recurrent training.

With P1/us the burden of command lays firmly with the Instructor whereas the instructor/student relationship differs from that of P/ut. During a checkout the person occupying the pilots seat may well be properly licensed for the flight (SEP, remember) but would still be subject to guidance from the qualified instructor or check pilot.

I can't see how P/ut can be logged whenever doubt exists; that is simply not legal under it's definition. If the Dual Flight or differences were 'training' it would also have to take place at a licensed aerodrome.

Any more thoughts?

[FlyingForFun]

Wow!

I've come across this debate several times on this forum before, and I thought I knew where it was going - but it seems to have taken a turn haven't seen before! I'd never come across the argument that dual time can't count as flight training unless it's part of a recognised course.

When M14P pointed this out, I took a close look at the GID, and it seems you're correct in saying the only time you can log P/UT is if you're "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." Therefore you can't log P/UT. This is exaclyt the same argument as people are using to explain why you can't log P/US! So, according to the GID, neither P/UT nor P/US is correct. :eek:

Ok, so here's my take on it. First of all, we're not getting any guidance from the GID. If anyone can find any definitive document which says what we should do (rather than what we shouldn't do) I'd like to hear about it, but it seems there isn't any.

Next point: your log-book is your personal record of your flying. Essentially, you can write whatever you want in there, so long as you have some way of providing evidence of your flight times in certain categories of flight. So, if it's your personal log-book, and you've got no guidance from the CAA, the best thing to do is whatever will best enable you to provide evidence of flight times.

The three types of flight times that you're likely to be asked for (which are relevant to this discusion) are:


Total time
P1 time
Instructional time for the purpose of gaining a license, rating, etc...


There is no issue with total time - whether you log your dual as P/UT or P/US, your total time will still be the same.

There is also no issue, as far as I can see, with instructional time. No one is interested in the total instructional time, only in the time for this particular rating. Let's give an example: say I was to do an IMC rating. One of the requirements of the rating is to do at least a minimum amount of dual time, with an instructor, for this rating.

Now, my log-book might contain some dual flights which were not part of this training. It might contain some aerobatic instruction, for example, or a cross-channel check-out as required by my club. If I'd logged this dual time as P/US, it wouldn't affect my P/UT totals, so no problem. If I'd logged it as P/UT, however, would it affect my totals? No! Because the only thing that matters here is the total instruction time given for the IMC rating. There is no way that I could pass my aerobatic training off as IMC training! The aircraft I did it in is very unlikely to have the required instruments for IMC training, apart from which, the Notes column (where I might have written "slow roles and half Cuban-8's) will give the game away! The cross-channel check-out isn't quite as clear-cut, but at the end of my IMC course, the FTO will need to verify that I've completed the required number of hours, and stamp my log-book. If I'm trying to include my cross-channel check-out in these hours, the FTO will quickly realise that my figures don't match theirs, and my logbook won't be stamped. So, for the purpose of gaining licenses, ratings, etc. I don't think it makes any difference whether you log your miscellaneous dual as P/UT or P/US.

Finally, there is the issue of P1 time - certain licenses and ratings require a mimumum amount of P1 time, and your insurance company will also want to know your P1 time. In this case, I'd rather under-log my time than over-log it, for fear of having my insurance invalidated if the insurance company's interpretation of the rules is different to mine. So it's better to log the dual time as P/UT, and risk under-quoting your P1 time, than to log as P/US, and risk over-quoting.

However, as I said earlier, it's your personal logbook, and you can do whatever you're most happy with.

Based on the outcome of previous threads on this subject, I've always logged any dual time with an instructor as P/UT. I was always reasonably sure this was correct, but never 100%. Now, though, I'm much less sure that this is correct - but it's what I'll continue to do, for the reasons I've stated above.

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

[phd]

FFF
Your quote
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the outcome of previous threads on this subject, I've always logged any dual time with an instructor as P/UT. I was always reasonably sure this was correct, but never 100%. Now, though, I'm much less sure that this is correct - but it's what I'll continue to do, for the reasons I've stated above.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am also not 100% sure what is correct, but having read the thread this far and taken guidance from my ATPL/FIC rated spouse, as well as a member of the SRG of the CAA, I am going to record dual time on check rides with an Instructor as P1 U/S.

My understanding is that whatever GID44 says, the CAA do not mind pilot licence holders recording check rides with an Instructor as P1 U/S provided the Instructor endorses your logbook and did not actually give 'instruction for the purposes of awarding a licence or rating', or have to intervene during the flight in the interests of safety.

I you were doing a checkride with someone who is not an Instructor on a group owned aircraft or similar for familiarisation purposes, I presume it would be logged as P1?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confused? You will be!

[FlyingForFun]

phd, I think you're wrong (or maybe I've just misunderstood you) when you say "I you were doing a checkride with someone who is not an Instructor on a group owned aircraft or similar for familiarisation purposes, I presume it would be logged as P1?"

As I understand it, the only time that more than one person can log flight time simultaneously (except on a multi-pilot aircraft) is if one of them is an instructor. So if you're doing a check-ride with someone who is not an instructor, he would be P1, and you would not be able to log the time. (Or you could log, and he couldn't, in which case you're in charge, which would seem a bit strange if he's checking you out.) (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong!)


As for logging P/US when flying with an instructor, as I said, that's your choice, and I can't see any reason why you shouldn't. But I would make sure, when asked for you P1 time, that whoever's asking you doesn't mind you including dual time.

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

[M14P]

See, it's not as cut and dried as you might think.

Why don't we ask FCL?

The commander of a P1/us flight does not have to be a FI. I think of, for example, nominated check pilots or approved pilots operating CAP 632 aircraft.

There you go. That should spark yet more anger.

[Noggin]

GID 44 is not written to cover the question that started this thread. Appendix H in CAP53 which is duplicated in CAP54 has never covered it either; so as guidance/information documents the are all irrelevant. ANO Art 28 is the only relevant reference and sensible interpretation anwswers the question for you.

Any beaurocracy and pedanticism is coming from those who can't do anything without having it written down in triplicate.

"You are a PFA coach carrying out a dual instructional flight for JAA licence revalidation with a licence holder. You are allowed to be paid for this even though are not an FI - strange because a FI with a PPL can't be paid! None of this is covered in law but someone somewhere has agreed to it. Its not covered in CAP53,54 or GID44 or any document I know of. Who logs What?" Is it even legal?

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

My head hurts.

[Airprox]

I haven't seen any thing so silly in ages.

Beagle etc. should know better.

Part 2 of GID 44 has if all laid out in black and white. Nothing much has changed with JAR. OK one more time.

P1 Only the commander nominated before the flight (Beagle) can log the time as P1

P2 can only be logged on multi crew aircraft by the first Officer

PIC u/s only for a pilot undergoing any form of flight test (FIs cannot do flight tests). Ecemption to that a first officer on a multicrew aircraft may log any complete sector as PIC u/s if s/he is performing the duties of P1)

Pu/t Pilot under instruction for the purose of gaining a licence or rating, or for conversion to an aircraft type within an aircraft rating group or class.

Lets not be silly with this, if you are checking out a club member decide before hand who is PIC, but if the club member is out of club currency it may be illegal (insurance wise) for the member to be PIC.
The member may only log PIC u/s if he has opted to do a proficiency check with an examiner. So the member otherwise must log Pu/t as you are checking the standard of ability the pilot has and if nessesary retraining him/her. If in doubt make it a refresher training flight crosswind landings or something.

Beagle, you cannot split a flight as you meantioned in a earlier posting. That is very wrong. Only the nomiated commander can log the time P1.

[BEagle]

According to the blurb in the front of my CAA logbook, you certainly can log P1 (shared) time but you can only log the time you are actually operating the aeroplane.

I agree that this whole thing is a typical example of the Authority not giving clear guidance; some is obvious, some is open to interpretation, some is totally unclear. Personally I'd be happy for (SEP):

PIC - you are the Commander and anyone else is a passenger.

PU/T - you are being taught a new skill by an FI.

P1U/S - you are doing something under the supervision of someone else who is the Commander.


PS - Aren't PFA coaches now going to become CRIs? In which case they may not be paid unless they hold commercial licenses?

[bookworm]

Part 2 of GID 44 has if all laid out in black and white.

I thought so, and then M14P raised an interesting doubt. You quote:

"Pu/t Pilot under instruction for the purose of gaining a licence or rating, or for conversion to an aircraft type within an aircraft rating group or class."

This does not appear to include refresher training with an instructor, which is training towards the renewal or revalidation of a licence or rating.

[skydriller]

Well, Ive been watching this thread evolve with great amusement and remember the last time it was debated about six months or so ago.

M14P, you asked if someone had asked FCL....funnily enough, as I had been going to lots of different clubs and getting conflicting information I did ask FCL this question. I posted an account of what I was told over the phone then and Ill do it again. So, as posted last time.......

.. I later called the CAA and was told the following:

1. Your Logbook is your own personal record.
2. P1/s is ONLY for a flight test with an Examiner, Eg for your PPL, IR, Twin Rating etc. You total these hours as SOLO.
3. If, when you have a PPL, you fly with an Instructor on a check-out, if he is TRAINING you on a new aeroplane type, ie he demonstrates something to you and touches the controls etc. Then you are PUT and the hours are DUAL.
4. If, when you have a PPL, you have flown this aeroplane type before and YOU are demonstrating to the instructor you can fly the club aeroplane OK, ie he does NOT touch the controls during the flight, then you can log the flight as P1 for yourself.

The guy I spoke to at the CAA said himself that this is a grey area and summed up by saying only one person can log the flight as P1, but alot of pilots are cheating themselves out of P1 hours.


....And I would also like to add that the last time I posted this I was severely flamed, so do FCL personnel still not know what they are talking about, as I was informed by a few of you last time??:confused: :confused:

....SD dons flak jacket in advance this time and goes to hide in his cellar awaiting incoming.....:D

[SteveR]

skydriller : Excellent. Keep 'em coming folks.

[M14P]

So by the admission of the CAA this is a

The guy I spoke to at the CAA said himself that this is a grey area and summed up by saying only one person can log the flight as P1, but alot of pilots are cheating themselves out of P1 hours.

That doesn't sound like an answer to me. 'Grey Area'!? Besides, P1/us counts at full rate up to certain cutoff points depending on whether you are applying for another license. None of the above answers the 'legal' question as to whether training has taken place.

If training has taken place then 'Dual Flights' cannot happen at unlicensed fields.

Also, since the commander should be designated before take-off that would preclude doing a 2 Yearly 'Dual Flight' and then handling the controls as an instructor to demostrate an exercise (which may then be satisfactorily repeated) because the mantle of command will have shifted from one person to the other.

I also note that the man from FCL did not say "ANO, GID or AIC explains this fully"

I am not saying that I am right (especially after the diverse information published here) but I am saying that it is not as simple as some people believe and that there may be serious legal implications to this.

Enjoy

[skydriller]

Just to clarify, I did not say I had a difinitive answer, just that I had asked someone at FCL......:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Regards, SD

[phd]

Flying For Fun
Quote
=============================================
phd, I think you're wrong (or maybe I've just misunderstood you) when you say "If you were doing a checkride with someone who is not an Instructor on a group owned aircraft or similar for familiarisation purposes, I presume it would be logged as P1?"

As I understand it, the only time that more than one person can log flight time simultaneously (except on a multi-pilot aircraft) is if one of them is an instructor. So if you're doing a check-ride with someone who is not an instructor, he would be P1, and you would not be able to log the time. (Or you could log, and he couldn't, in which case you're in charge, which would seem a bit strange if he's checking you out.) (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong!)
==============================================

In response - I think you are wrong - or maybe I have misunderstood you!

If I do a check ride with another similar licence holder on a group owned aircraft which they are current on but that I have not flown before, but which my licence entitles me to fly as P1, then I would not hesitate to record this in my logbook as P1. After all the other pilot is only there to help familiarise me with the idiosyncrasies of the particular aircraft, and offer advice if there are any aspects of its operation which are significantly different from types I have flown previously. I am doing all the handling and they are not an instructor and so cannot give me any instruction. It cannot be recorded as P U/T nor as P1 U/S and therefore must be P1. The other pilot would not be able to record it at all - since he is a passenger unless I give him control! If I did give him control - he would record the time he was in control and I would record the time I was in control.

Of course if any out there knows better - please join the debate.

[FlyingForFun]

phd,

In that case, I misunderstood you, and I don't think you were wrong - I'm sorry. (I'd interpreted your post to mean that you'd both log P1.)

If I were in that position, I think I would expect the pilot who was familiar with the aircraft to be P1, and I wouldn't log. After all, he's the person who's going to be responsible for getting us out of trouble if I screw up. Just two different ways of looking at it. But I think that, as long as you agree between you, before the flight, who is P1, either method is correct, as long as only one of you is logging P1 at any one time.

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

[Noggin]

Latest book from CAA - LASORS -
Guide to Logbook Annotation Page 52 Item J
Pilot undergoing any form of flight test:
P1 U/S for successful test.
PUT for unsuccesfull test.

[kougar]

I would just like to make one point from the other side of the fence. I you fly with a FI in whatever capacity, he will be the commander. One simple reason being that if the s!&t does hit the fan, and something does go wrong, however innocent, or unaviodable, he is the one who is held accountable, and who's professional flying integrity is at stake. They are not just an educated passenger. Even if just a check out for insurance purposes, log flight time as P1/us, countersigned to this effect. It adds credit to your log book. One last point. Don't believe someone with more expierience and insight, is just an educated passenger. Very few PPL private hirer's have much more than a basic compertance. They mostly all do have a very high opinion of their abilities though. Be happy to listern, take advice, be thorough and thoughtful in your flying, and be glad to take some constructive instruction. If after gaining your PPL, you have 200hrs P1, 0hrs put, you won't be consolidating and won't be improving.

[DFC]

Here is my 2 Euro worth;

JAR-FCL Quotes;

"(5) 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."

PA28s etc do not have co-pilots.

"(iii) The holder of an instructor
rating may log as pilot-in-command all
flight time during which he acts as an
instructor in an aeroplane."

Thus an instructor logs the time spent on the check out as command time.

"(iv) The holder of an examiner’s
authorisation may log as pilot-in-
command all flight time during which
he occupies a pilot’s seat and acts as an
examiner in an aeroplane."

Thus the examminer logs an examination flight as Pilot in Command. There is no mention of the result.



"(ii) The applicant for or the
holder of a pilot licence may log as
pilot-in-command time all solo flight
time and flight time as student pilot-in-
command provided that such SPIC time
is countersigned by the instructor."

Thus the applicant logs the flight time as SPIC - Student Pilot In Command.

If a qualified pilot requires a checkout then this is because they are unable to fly solo due to insurance or club rules. Thus a flight instructor is appointed to be the Pilot in command for the flight - not a licence requirement. If the flight instructor was not the pilot in command then the insurance would not be valid.

In that case, the qualified pilot being checked would log the time as SPIC as per above.

That column in old log books where we placed P/UT etc is redundant.

The reference is JAR-FCL 1.080

DFC

[skygazer]

Just printed off GID No. 44 from the CAA website. Part 2 of the doc. has quite a useful table (IMHO) which breaks it all down quite nicely. P u/t isn't redundant, from what I can see.:)

[skygazer]

Oops. Before anybody else says anything, I've just re-read the previous postings, and it was the column, not the P u/t designation referred to as being redundant. Should read it a bit better next time!!

[skydriller]

DFC,

Do I understand you correctly in that it is no longer correct to log PUT in a logbook when under instruction? I take it this time is still logged DUAL when SPIC:confused: :confused:


SD.....

[DFC]

Perhaps, I jumped the gun a bit by saying that the column is redundant.

Under the JAR, you log "Pilot-In-Command" or "Co-Pilot" or "Dual"

I suppose that using an old log book format, one would have to use the column to indicate the difference between a dual flight and a co-pilot flight since these are recorded in the same column.

However what I said above about logging Student Pilot In Command is straight out of the rule book and as per the quote from JAR above SIPC time is logged as P1.

Please do not confuse SPIC time with Solo time.

SPIC means that there is an instructor or examiner in the aircraft and they will certify the log book entry.

A student flying SOLO is on their own in the aircraft and are the Pilot in Command.

A person logging P1/S is a co-pilot. (see above JAR quote).

Perhaps the simplest answer of all is to put "SPIC" in the column where in the past you put "P1/S" and in the same way as before, log the time as pilot in command and get the instructor to sign it. That should keep everyone happy since you get to log P1 time, the instructor gets to log P1 time and it is all 100% as per JAR-FCL.

Hope that covers it.

DFC

[skygazer]

CAA Guide in respect of SPIC states:

"Student Pilot In Command. (Pilot acting as pilot in command during a recognised course of training, under the supervision of a flight instructor. The flight instructor shall only observe the student acting as pilot in command and shall not influence or control the flight of the aircraft" Enter time in P1 column



The definition in respect of P/UT is:

"Pilot under instruction for the purpose of gaining a licence or rating, or for conversion to an aircraft type withing an aircraft rating group or class" Enter time in Dual column.


Don't know whether this helps anyone - it may only serve to confuse the issue even more in respect of the original question asked many postings ago!!:D

[john77]

If you are current on type and you are being checked for the clubs purposes ie insurance so you are able to fly their planes, yes you are PIC. but if you are not current or different type then your FI is PIC.

[DFC]

Skegazer,

Do you have a link to the CAA document that you are getting the info from?

Sees to be the same as the JAR definitions of what the terms mean OK with very slight variations. However the definitions and the rules regarding logging of flight time are different.

Very interesting definition of flight time under JAR;

"Flight time: The total time from the moment that an aircraft first moves under its own or external
power for the purpose of taking off until the
moment it comes to rest at the end of the flight."

I must remember the "external power bit" next time I push the aircraft out of the hangar. :) :) :)

Could be the cheapest 8 hours flying yet......push back at 0800, airborne 1545, land 1555, on blocks 1600......airborne for 10 minutes but 8 hours flight time. :D :D :D

Won't take long to get 20,000 hours that way.

DFC

[skygazer]

DFC

Link to the CAA doc as follows:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/srg_fcl_gid44.pdf

If that doesn't work it can be found by searching the site using 'GID 44' or 'guide to logbook annotation' as the search criteria. The CAA definition in GID44 of aeroplane flight time is slightly differently worded to the JAR definition, in that CAA deems that the plane is 'in flight' from the moment it moves under it's own power for the purposes of taking off. Mind you, if you hover taxi a Harrier I suppose it would be 'in flight'!!

[englishal]

Just log it how you feel comfortable logging it !

If I fly with an instructor on a check out, I log PIC and DUAL and get it signed. I don't have a JAA 'standard' logbook but an FAA one, with no P1U/s, P1U/T, Panythingelse etc columns, and the CAA don't give two hoots.

Cheers
EA

[DFC]

Thanks for the info.

It seems to be an exact copy of the JARs until you get to the testing part including the definition of flight time.

The most important part relevant to this discussion is note 4 on the last page.

So I think that with a JAR format, I will make a note "SPIC, aircraft checkout" in the remarks column and the time will go in the P1 column. With the old format, SPIC will go in the function column.

After all if there is no student, how can there be an instructor??

Remember that it is nice to log what you like. However you will eventually come across an instructor or examiner who will not sign the entry if it is not to their liking. A very big problem if it is at your renewal and you miss the deadline because some of the time was disallowed.

DFC

[skygazer]

Also, if you log it in the way CAA says it should be done in their docs, they can't (well, they shouldn't!) dispute it. However, I suppose if you log it in accordance with JAR, they can't dsipute it either (and neither can a FI/Examiner??)