Time logging p1, p1s, PUT etc etc

[jackparlabane]

I'm sure this question has already been answered elsewhere, but im trying to find a definitive answer.....also first time post so go easy on me.
After finishing my ppl I was told by my instructor that if I needed a check ride (my club has a 28 day rule), providing the check was successful I could log the ride as p1/s.........can anyone give me a 100% yes or 100% no on this please?

[flybymike]

P1s is normally reserved for a successful flight test.

A periodic checkout of the type you describe could be logged as either Put or, with the instructors agreement, P1.

[9 lives]

If the instructor is not eager for you to log checkout time as P1, find a new instructor. Does your license entitle you to fly the plane as PIC? Are you flying from the seat customarily occupied by PIC? Are you flying the plane? Why would you not be P1?

[worrab]

Are you flying from the seat customarily occupied by PIC? I think you missed the tongue-in-cheek smiley.

P1 or Pu/t

Not sure whether this is anyone else's experience, but our insurer is only interested in total hours. Other than revalidation (and obviously during formal training), do P1 hours matter?

[Whopity]

The terms P1S and PICUS are not defined in the EASA regulation for single pilot operation however; in the UK see CAP804 Section 1 Part E Page 14 para 9 Table Item JPilot 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)
In all probability the check ride was flown with a FI not an authorised Examiner so the case above does not apply and there is no definitive answer.

Art 79 States:(3) The information recorded in accordance with paragraph (2) must include:
(c) the capacity in which the holder acted in flight;You are legally entitled to act as PIC and a club checkout is not a licensing test however; if flown in the 12 months prior to expiry, it it could form part of the dual flight with an instructor, in which case it would be logged as PUT.

An old chestnut that is no clearer now than 20 years ago. A little imagination is required.

[ChickenHouse]

When legally "current" and "actual" on a (biannual or other) checkride with FI you log time as PIC resp. P1, because that is what you are - in command.

If on a renewal flight, because something expired, or you add items to your license and fly with an FE in her/his role as an examiner, then you are PuT - under training and the FE is responsible pilot.

Example: if you fly your renewal checkride within 90 days before expiry, you only need an FI to sign you off and you will keep the old date for renewal plus two years. If you are outside 90-days-rule, either b4 or later, you will have to have a ride with an FE and will get a new time line day of checkride plus two years.

[9 lives]

To build on Chickenhouse's correct thought, the flying club/rental check ride is their (perhaps their insurer's) requirement, but not a licensing requirement. If your license is valid (from the point of view of the issuing authority) for the flight you are flying, and you are the pilot who signed out the aircraft as the intended PIC, then you log the time as the pilot. Anyone who tries to make you think otherwise is misleading you.

If your license is not valid for the flight, then you're not PIC, and cannot log the time as such, unless it is entitled under formal instruction you are receiving.

[Maoraigh1]

If OP logs as P1 on a Club/FBO required checkride, presumably the Instructor can not log anything?. And he may be hours-building, with an fATPL. Club/FBO may have difficulty keeping instructors.

[9 lives]

the Instructor can not log anything?. And he may be hours-building,

Why should an instructor get to log flying time, as well as being paid, while flying with a fully qualified pilot for the purpose of a 30 day check flight? It is not the duty of pilots at large to pay for a check flight and fund the "hours building" of a candidate ATPL pilot, who probably sat there and never touched the controls.

We concluded on another thread that there is no "P2" in a GA SEP private flight, so what does the "instructor" to a qualified pilot during such a flight log anyway? When I fly as a mentor pilot to a qualified pilot in an SEP, ('cause I'm not an instructor), I do not log any flight time during that flight - why would anyone else?

I accept that a qualified instructor to a non pilot student in an SEP flight is "flying" the aircraft, and is PIC, so should take credit for that flying time. Once they are doing "checkouts" to qualified pilots - I no longer accept that idea.

[Heston]

Step Turn is right, sort of, and not right, sort of. If I'm there because I have an instructor rating, then I'm instructing and I get paid and I'm P1. Otherwise I'm just a passenger who happens to have a ppl, and don't log anything.

If the instructor rating is required for the flight, then you've got an instructor who is P1. Otherwise you haven't.

[9 lives]

If the instructor rating is required for the flight, then you've got an instructor who is P1. Otherwise you haven't.

That sounds fair.

Presuming that a fully licensed pilot is flying an aircraft within the privileges of their license, as issued by the authority, an instructor is not required to accompany them. If a pilot, authorized by the aircraft owner's insurer, is requested to go for a check flight - but it's not "instruction" because the customer pilot is duly licensed, that [second] pilot would not be logging the flying time, as they are not instructing as required by the license issuing authority.

[Talkdownman]

Why should an instructor get to log flying time, as well as being paid, while flying with a fully qualified pilot for the purpose of a 30 day check flight? It is not the duty of pilots at large to pay for a check flight and fund the "hours building" of a candidate ATPL pilot, who probably sat there and never touched the controls.
Totally with Step's line on this with regard to those 'check rides' which are not a licensing requirement.

I don't see why an FI who just happens to be conducting a non-licensing so-called 'check flight' for owner, operator, insurer, airport manager, cleaner, jobsworth etc cannot 'bite the bullet' for once and simply log SNY.

Clubs and rental agencies have been taking the P over this for far too long...

[Genghis the Engineer]

Would that person be there if they weren't an instructor? It's their skill and qualification, they're there in order to at the very least take control if the chap in the left seat fouls things up. They are essential to the conduct of the flight.

They're also probably paid so badly already that the flying hours genuinely are part of their remuneration - whatever it says on the contract.

So I'm afraid that I look at it differently. If there's a reason for the instructor's skills to be in the right seat, and that person has the legal and moral right to take over or direct the conduct of the flight - they're captain, and should be logging it as such.

The person in the left hand seat is there because they need that experience, under supervision. So they should be logging it as dual.

That said, the flight should be genuinely needed, not just to build hours for the instructor or on some whim - of course.

G

[rightbank]

Some interesting points raised here but possibly a legal minefield.

The captain must be the one who signs the tech log. If its the instructor then he is the captain and the pilot under check must put it in his logbook as something other than P1. Notwithstanding flybymikes comment in post #2, P1/s is possibly the most appropriate.

If the pilot under check is the captain then the instructor is merely a passenger and has no legal right to interfere with the controls. Now imagine the scenario where the pilot under check has made a complete pigs ear of the flight so far and the instructor, sorry passenger, has severe doubts about the rest of the flight being made safely. I would suggest that instinct of self preservation would bring the passenger to utter the words " I have control". I'm no lawyer but I would suspect that at this point technically an offence would have been committed. Which one I'm not sure (piracy? hi-jacking?). If this leads to a disagreement between who has control and subsequently leads to an accident then I would suggest that the "no win no fee" parasites would have a field day. Possibly the insurance would be invalidated.

If you are an instructor would you want to be put into this position. Probably not so either you are the captain or you refuse to do the flight. The latter may not go down too well with some employers.

[Talkdownman]

The person in the left hand seat is there because they need that experience, under supervision. So they should be logging it as dual
This is not the case when it is merely at whim, hence the contention.

[ChickenHouse]

Possibly the insurance would be invalidated.
From talks to insurance I pulled part of my naive view on the thing.

Story: when a couple of friends of mine where due to biennual of their national PPL and wanted to convert to EASA PPL in one go, they had to do the missing CVFR part. When the FE arrived and checked insurance coverage of the aircraft we intended to do that on, he found that insurance would not cover training. We called the insurance up for clarification and had a lengthy discussion.

Result: if it would be a sole biennual checkride, the normal insurance would cover the flight (pilot is PIC), due to the CFVR training added it is a training flight and FE is responsible for the flight (Pilot as PuT, FE is PIC) = no insurance coverage for the aircraft, but personal liability of FE. This FE had no personal insurance as a trainer to do these kind of things on non-training enrolled aircraft (or similar called by the insurance, can not remember the correct term). We where able to order a temporary extension of the insurance for one day on the phone and had to wait until the confirming fax was sent to the airfield.

I found this to be a plausible explanation and FE was happy to get some clear view as well.

[flybymike]

Biennial checks are bad enough, never mind biannual ones.

[9 lives]

In the case where an appropriately licensed pilot is required by the provider of the aircraft (we'll presume an insured rental) to fly the aircraft at least as frequently as every 30 days, or having exceeded 30 days, have a check flight with an instructor, if that pilot does not log that check flight as PIC, how would they ever get out of the endless loop of "not flying PIC"? If the instructor logs the PIC time instead of the renter pilot, and the pilot comes back the next week to rent, they still have not flown as PIC in the last 30 days, despite having flown the previous week, as the instructor logged the PIC for that flight!

If it turns out that the renter pilot is so poor that the instructor had to completely take over, return the aircraft themselves, will not sign the renter for the checkflight. perhaps the renter pilot does not get to log the PIC, but then it sounds like that pilot is headed for some more dual flying anyway.

I feel that it is the responsibility of our industry to inspire and "grow" new pilots, to sustain our pastime. We are certainly not doing that if a loop hole is used to deny them logging flying that they actually flew under their privileges! A flying club or insurance 30 day rule is not an element of the licensing privileges.

If they arranged for the use of the aircraft, were duly licensed for it, signed for it, flew it unassisted, and paid for it, they were PIC, and should log the time as such. Whether an instructor sitting beside them, or an air traffic controller on the radio, could have helped with that flight does not take away from the fact that they fulfilled the licensing requirement for flying the plane, so as to log the flight as PIC.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

If the instructor logs the PIC time instead of the renter pilot, and the pilot comes back the next week to rent, they still have not flown as PIC in the last 30 days
Sane clubs/schools get round this by not requiring flight as PIC within the last 30 days, but simply requiring flight within the last 30 days.

[Meikleour]

I think some of the posters here are being a bit "precious" about this!

If a flight with an instructor is required by club rules or recency then he is responsible for the flight and therfore P1. The other person logs Dual time which counts equally for licence revalidation purposes.
You cannot expect someone to be responsible yet not accountable.
A recent incident on the AAIB reports discusses just such a case where, after an accident, the two pilots disagreed as to who was responsible!
The insurance underwriters would have a field day.
Why is it such a big issue as to who "manipulates the controls" versus a clearcut legal arrangement?

[9 lives]

The other person logs Dual time which counts equally for licence revalidation purposes.

Ah, not in Canada:

“dual instruction flight time” means the flight time during which a person is receiving flight instruction from a person qualified in accordance with....

If it's just a check flight, what's the instruction?

My insurer wants a record of my PIC time for their purposes. They're happy to see "dual" time too, if I was receiving training, but it's the PIC time which interests them most for my PIC flying!

the two pilots disagreed as to who was responsible!

Which licensed and qualified pilot signed for the plane, and made the entry in the aircraft log as the PIC? That should answer that....

[Genghis the Engineer]

Do you sign for the aircraft when you go flying Step? I usually don't.

Tech log is a fair point - but retrospective, and actually as an instructor it's not unusual to have the student fill out the tech log for practice. Signature, yes, IF that's required.

But, to be frank, any flight where it's not absolutely clear who the captain is, before the aeroplane moves under its own power, is doomed at the very least to suffer confusion, and very much at risk of accident, before it starts.

G

[9 lives]

But, to be frank, any flight where it's not absolutely clear who the captain is, before the aeroplane moves under its own power, is doomed at the very least to suffer confusion, and very much at risk of accident, before it starts.

Very true. When I "check fly" I state that the "other" pilot is PIC, and I will brief, then intercede, only as required, and that won't relieve them of PIC duties. I'm trying to push the duty to them, not retain it for myself. I have flown more than 50 hours of "check" or mentor flying this year, and there's not a minute of it in a log book anywhere, the "candidate pilot" logged it. I want them to have the experience, that's why I'm flying with them! ;)

I rarely "sign for" an aircraft, though when I took helicopter training I did. 'Signed that I took it (and responsibility if it, and how it was flown) and that I returned it X.X hours later.

[Meikleour]

Step Turn:I am having difficulty understanding how you can "push the P1 responsibility onto the other pilot" yet still retain the RIGHT to intercede in the control of the aircraft. To follow your logic let us say, for example, you intercede incorrectly and there is an accident. Do you think that the "P1" and his lawyers would be happy for him to shoulder all of the blame and for you to walk away scott free?!!!!

This is not an attack on you - its just extrapolating the arguement to show its flaws.

[flybymike]

I wonder if its just remotely possible that for the large majority of these flights, both of the pilots log P1 time and that nobody actually cares, nobody actually checks, and that for an uneventful flight it doesn't even actually matter.

[rightbank]

Do you sign for the aircraft when you go flying Step? I usually don't.


With every club I have either flown at or instructed at then what SHOULD happen is that the captain signs for the aircraft before flight then completes the times AFTER the flight. I know that sometimes this doesn't happen.

I state that the "other" pilot is PIC, and I will brief, then intercede, only as required, and that won't relieve them of PIC duties

Except that as a "passenger" you are not legally entitled to relieve them of their PIC (or any other) duties.

I wonder if its just remotely possible that for the large majority of these flights, both of the pilots log P1 time and that nobody actually cares, nobody actually checks, and that for an uneventful flight it doesn't even actually matter.

But in the event of an eventful flight it will definitely matter.

Tech log is a fair point - but retrospective

With this retrospective filling in of the tech log lets see who rushes to fill it in after an incident. The instructor who says that you were PIC or the pilot under check who says that you were the instructor therefore you were responsible. I bet I wouldn't get killed in the rush!

This may be all pedantic but when the sh*t hits the fan then it will most definitely matter. Ambulance chasing lawyers will get involved.

[9 lives]

Let's review this in the whole sense: PPL shows up to rent a plane. PPL is licensed to fly the aircraft, the licensing authority has no further interest in the PPL demonstrating their skill - they have the PPL. The PPL is confident about their skill, and prepared to take the plane solo - they do not request a check flight. If they did, they would be requesting training, and thus flying PuT with an instructor - but that's not this from the PPL's perspective.

But, the aircraft owner would like the PPL to demonstrate their recency under their commercial 28 day rule. They require an instructor to ride through a check flight with PPL. The PPL has no intention of being interceded by the instructor during that flight.

The PPL has no intention of sharing the flying duties with the instructor, as they came to the dispatch counter prepared to sign for sole responsibility of the aircraft, and to fly it unassisted. Therefore, they did not come to the flight seeking "help" with flying the plane, but they are willing to follow the rules, and allow an passenger instructor to evaluate their skills for currency.

So;

yet still retain the RIGHT to intercede in the control of the aircraft. To follow your logic let us say, for example, you intercede incorrectly and there is an accident. Do you think that the "P1" and his lawyers would be happy for him to shoulder all of the blame and for you to walk away scott free?!!!!

Yes. The PPL came prepared to fly the plane solo, not to request training. So there would be no "right" for the other person to intercede in flying the plane. If they do, they are not interceding, they are interfering. Acting in the employ of the aircraft owner, they should really do know better. If they interfere, and make things worse, they will have to take the responsibility for that - the PPL renter did not accept the responsibility for the aircraft with the intent of assessing the ability of the passenger instructor to interfere, without creating a further hazard. They're just prepared to manage their own skills.

There have certainly been cases where an instructor wanted to "show" a PPL something during a check flight - I've been to a few of the accidents. The maneuver was beyond the required skill set, and beyond the PPL's skills. The instructor took control, and responsibility.

The role of the check pilot during the check flight is to assess the PPL, not to train, or "help" to fly the plane. If they have any need to touch any control, the check flight was a fail, and it's time to go home to reassess.

So if the instructor is along to assess, and not to fly, they're not flying if they're doing their job right. If they are not flying an SEP, then someone else is, so that someone else - the PPL - must be the PIC!

No disrespect taken, nor intended at instructors - who I know are just doing the job they were assigned. I opine that the job may have been poorly defined form the outset..... The renter PPL is PIC during a check flight, because they are flying - that's the purpose of the flight!

[this is my username]

No wonder people are confused .... don't forget that the legal situation in the UK is different to Canada / US / Kenya ......

[Genghis the Engineer]

I don't think, Step, that I'd be willing to strap into the right hand seat under the circumstances you describe.

The instructor you are talking about is there because the flying standards of the chap in the left seat are not 100% certain, and because the instructor is a known higher ability pilot who is making a decision about the outcome of the flight. So for them to have the ability - legally - to take control seems essential. And if they have that, they are Captain.

The person in the left hand seat may in some regulatory regimes be P1/S, but the person in the right hand seat is the "S".

G

[Talkdownman]

the aircraft owner would like the PPL to demonstrate their recency under their commercial 28 day rule. They require an instructor to ride through a check flight with PPL.
Some owners do not require an instructor, they simply do it themselves. Some owners who do it themselves do not have valid licences or medicals, let alone instructor ratings. Some owners delegate it to others who may well be experienced aviators but might no longer be an FI or never have been an FI, or might not have a current licence or medical. How do those 'checkers' log it? As passenger in their Junior Jet Club log books?

they are willing to follow the rules, and allow an passenger instructor to evaluate their skills for currency
There is, of course, no licensing requirement for a licensed instructor. The owner is entitled makes up his/her own rules, and they often do.

If the checkee is required to be checked as PIC then the checker should permit the checkee to operate as PIC. Regardless, the PIC MUST be determined before the flight.

And perhaps the person mandating the 'check flight' should pick up the tab for it…for a change...

[Gertrude the Wombat]

So if the instructor is along to assess, and not to fly
They may nonetheless intervene in other ways which you wouldn't expect of a passenger.

On a recent check ride the instructor said, when I was a couple of feet above the runway, "go around". Not something any club instructor had said to me for years, and in my view it was reasonable for the club to check whether I had actually remembered how to go around.

Clearly in those circumstances the instructor was ready to intervene if, in fact, I hadn't remembered how to go around.

Similarly, a club check instructor might tell you which runway to land on, or tell you to stop by a certain point, or tell you to fly a low level bad weather circuit, or whatever.

I'm quite happy to log such flights as Pu/t: I don't get what all the fuss is about. I always have the option of flying more often and not running out of currency: their train set, their rules, I pays my money and takes my choice.

[9 lives]

Similarly, a club check instructor might tell you which runway to land on, or tell you to stop by a certain point, or tell you to fly a low level bad weather circuit, or whatever.

Indeed, and as the purpose of the flight is a skills assessment, those expectations should be briefed, prior to the flight. If not, the instructor/check pilot would be interfering with PIC duties. Yes, a go around could be a rather sudden change of plans, but there's no reason not to brief prior to the flight that it will be called - just to keep the PPL mind alert, as it should be anyway.

I always have the option of flying more often and not running out of currency: their train set, their rules, I pays my money and takes my choice.

Very true. But it is not the "club" rules as to how you log flying time, if you are flying in the capacity of PIC, it's the authority's rules, and the club does not serve the renter pilot by muddying them.

I'm quite happy to log such flights as Pu/t: I don't get what all the fuss is about.

If you're happy, we're all happy, but for another pilot, the PuT time might not have the same value in their pilot log as PIC time that they have legitimately flown, and they are the ones paying for it.

Honest question, 'cause I don't know, if an airline Captain is flying a route check left seat with a check pilot to their right, who is PIC?

[dobbin1]

When I do club check rides, I am PIC and the other pilot logs it as dual. I have had cause to take control on such checkouts and I do not want any confusion as to who is in command. The alternative is to be a passenger with no responsibility for the safety of the flight. No thanks!

[Pilot DAR]

The following is pasted from a newspaper article, which I cannot link. It's a long read, but rather relevant to this topic...

I have made bold the passages I think to be relevant.


Guelph Mercury - Searching For Answers - Published May 10 , 2013
PUSLINCH — Elvira Hawkins circles the wreckage of her late husband’s small airplane. She pulls back a tarp to peer into the cabin where he died. It’s a dark mess of seats and wires.
Russ Hawkins, 47, was killed when his Cessna 172 crashed into the hilly shoreline of Puslinch Lake last October. He was practising to land and take off from water. A second man on board survived.
The wreckage is in pieces, stored in the corner of a Brantford hangar. The fuselage is dented. The nose cone is disfigured. Wings and tail are propped up against a wall. Damaged floats sit nearby, peeled back by the impact.
Elvira dabs her eyes, red and wet. It’s the first time she has seen the wreckage. The twisted metal seems small and hardly capable of flight.
The federal Transportation Safety Board, which investigates aviation crashes, closed its probe by saying Hawkins misjudged his takeoff and chose not to wear the shoulder harness that might have saved him.
But the Waterloo Region Record discovered there’s far more to the fatal crash than investigators have revealed in 87 words. Transport Canada initiated a review after the newspaper questioned the safety board investigation.
The safety investigation is silent on mechanical concerns raised before the crash. It does not reveal that the survivor is a flight instructor who was unable to prevent the crash. It does not reveal that the flight may have violated aviation regulations. It says nothing about a cockpit struggle alleged to have occurred in the final seconds in a failed bid to abort the takeoff.
“The investigation was so short and in my opinion brief,” Elvira complains. “A person died here. That’s somebody’s life.”
Simon Kuijer is polite but firm. He will not discuss the crash that killed Russ Hawkins.
Kuijer is the last person to see Hawkins alive. They were seated beside each other when the Cessna crashed. Kuijer suffered minor injuries.
“That was his dream all his life,” his widow Elvira says. “He always wanted to fly.”
“He would study things and examine things. He would consume himself with it,” business partner Robert Sigal explains.
Hawkins stored his 1979 Cessna at the regional airport east of Kitchener. Over nine months he spent more than $140,000 to refurbish it inside and out.
“He did fine,” Mavor recalls. “I was in control. Of course he was learning. He wasn’t ready to go solo.”
Hawkins quickly departed Orillia after the lesson ended.
Courtesy Hawkins family Russ Hawkins stands next to his plane, which he was in when it crashed near Puslinch Lake last October. Hawkins was killed and another man survived.
1 of 5
“It’s almost like ‘Oh my God, we had six deaths in a year, so let’s brush off the last one. We don’t need more trouble,’ ” Elvira says. It pains her even more to be so suspicious.
“It’s a bit of a hard topic to talk about,” he says on the porch of a Georgetown townhouse. “He was a good friend of mine. And that’s about all I’d really like to say.”
The pair flew together a lot. Kuijer, an instructor with the Waterloo Wellington Flight Centre, gave Hawkins his first flying lesson on Feb. 2, 2012. After that they flew together 23 more times according to a pilot logbook kept by Hawkins. For all 24 flights, Hawkins named Kuijer as the pilot in command, while he recorded himself as the student co-pilot.
Kuijer is rated in Canada to pilot single and multi-engine aircraft on land and sea, according to aviation records held by the U.S. government. A website for the proposed Sea Pilot Academy, a business investment that Hawkins was considering, states: “Simon Kuijer is a top level flight instructor with thousands of hours experience in small aircrafts.”
Hawkins was a successful Guelph entrepreneur whose wealth provided him the means to achieve a childhood dream. In January 2012, he bought a used, single-engine airplane for $79,950 with co-owner Tracey Slater, who declined to be interviewed.
To become a pilot, Hawkins applied the same drive and focus that made him a fortune in online marketing ventures. He wrote and passed tests. He purchased a membership in a national aviation association. He flew 70 times between Feb. 2 and Oct. 22, gaining almost 100 hours of experience according to a copy of his logbook.
Transport Canada rewarded him with a pilot’s licence on June 21, 2012. His enthusiasm for flight rubbed off on son Justin, 23, who flew with Russ and who also took flight lessons from Kuijer.
Last September he installed amphibious floats to land the airplane on ground or water. He planned to fly to his business partner’s home on the water in Quebec. To earn a seaplane licence Hawkins needed seven hours of float training, including five hours of dual instruction with an instructor on board acting as the pilot in command.
According to a copy of his logbook, Hawkins recorded his first float training Oct. 13 with Kuijer. It lasted almost two hours out of the regional airport. Hawkins recorded Kuijer as the pilot in command, but never signed the logbook page to certify it as correct.
On Oct. 22 Hawkins recorded just over two more hours of float training. He flew to Orillia to train with instructor Jeff Mavor of Orillia Aviation, the firm that installed his floats. They practised takeoffs and landings (called circuits) on Lake St. John. Hawkins recorded Mavor as the pilot in command.
Elvira and the couple’s son Justin are demanding the government investigate the crash more fully, while they ponder legal options and deal with insurance issues the family will not discuss.
It feels to the Hawkins family as if the aviation community, rocked by six deaths in 11 months out of the Region of Waterloo International Airport, doesn’t want the whole story told.
“Normally you would debrief somebody and talk about the circuits and talk about what he did right, what he did wrong, where he could improve,” Mavor recalls. “He didn’t even give us a chance to do that. He was very quick at things. He was a very nice guy but just very quick, a busy guy.”
At the airport Hawkins chatted with Vito Perino, an aircraft maintenance engineer who works out of a nearby hangar. Perino recalls that Hawkins still had minor work to be done on his Cessna, including aligning the new floats.
“He seemed to be pretty happy with the airplane,” Perino recalls.
Around noon Hawkins met with Dale Bragdon, who owned the hangar that Hawkins leased.
“He was interested in building a group of hangars to lease out for an investment,” Bragdon recalls. “He was a very entrepreneurial guy, always shopping for new ideas.” They talked business for 30 minutes.
The Cessna had dual controls. Kuijer sat in the passenger seat from which he previously instructed Hawkins. They flew to Puslinch Lake east of Cambridge.
Ken Elligson watched them from inside a restaurant overlooking the lake.
“He’d land and then he’d taxi around the lake and then turn around into the wind and take off again,” Elligson recalls.
The final takeoff caught his attention. “We’re watching him taxi along and he didn’t seem to be slowing down. And I thought if he doesn’t slow down soon he’s going to hit the shore. And then at the last minute he took off again.
“Everybody said ‘Oh, I think that plane just crashed.’ ”
Kuijer spoke later to Ron Harper about the crash.
“There was a struggle,” Harper recalls being told. “Simon called it. He said, ‘You need to abort.’ Russ said, ‘No, I can make it.’
“Then (Russ) yanks on the yoke. So it’s flying, but just barely. Now he’s got trees to deal with. He pulls back more … Now it spirals down on its back into the hill.”
The Transportation Safety Board dispatched two investigators who reached the crash later in the day. They examined wreckage and interviewed the survivor and other witnesses to quickly conclude what went wrong.
“There was nothing wrong with the aircraft,” explains Peter Rowntree, regional senior investigator. “They didn’t get off the lake in time to clear the trees.”
“It’s human error,” Rowntree says. “We don’t get into blaming the pilot or anybody else. It’s a fact. They tried to take off from a point where success wasn’t guaranteed.”
Did Kuijer struggle with Hawkins to abort the doomed takeoff?
“I can’t confirm or deny that,” Rowntree says, saying Kuijer’s statement to investigators is confidential.
The safety board concluded its crash investigation with a published summary five sentences long:
C-GBLG, a Cessna 172 on amphibious floats, departed Kitchener (CYKF) on a local flight with the pilot and a passenger on board. At 13:56 EDT the aircraft proceeded to Puslinch Lake to conduct circuits on the lake.
After several successful circuits, at approximately 14:30 EDT while attempting another takeoff the aircraft struck trees and a power line on the southeast side of the lake and crashed into rising terrain. The pilot sustained fatal injuries and the passenger sustained minor injuries. Neither were wearing the optional shoulder harness.
A pending safety notice will urge aviators to wear their shoulder harnesses. Hawkins had a harness, but fastened only his lap belt. He smashed his head as the Cessna crashed upside-down.
“I don’t believe it would have been a fatal accident had he been wearing a shoulder harness,” says Don Enns, Ontario manager for the safety board.
. . .
The Hawkins family raises three key issues in demanding a full investigation:
• Why is the Transportation Safety Board not probing deeper as it did in examining two other fatal crashes out of the regional airport?
• Did the misaligned rudders that concerned Russ Hawkins contribute to the crash? Have mechanical causes been properly explored?
• Why do safety investigators call Simon Kuijer a passenger rather than instructor? Why was he unable to prevent the crash? Could he have taken control in the final seconds?
The safety board acknowledges that its crash summary does not reveal the qualifications of the survivor, is silent on any actions to avert the failed takeoff, and says nothing about regulatory issues raised by the flight. It denies this missing information makes the summary misleading.
“Because we didn’t proceed with a full investigation, therefore we have not written a full and comprehensive report as to what actually went on,” Rowntree says. “The details, although they’re brief, they essentially say what happened.”
Hawkins was not yet licensed to pilot on water by himself or with a passenger on board. He still needed an instructor with him to act as pilot in command. The safety board’s conclusion that Kuijer was not an instructor puts the fatal flight on the wrong side of regulations. Lawyers are now sorting through insurance implications.
The safety board acknowledges that 30 years ago it would have fully investigated to bring out all these details. Today it can’t justify a full investigation for a crash it readily explains as pilot error.
“With budget cutbacks we focus more on anything that’s got a safety issue,” Enns says. “This one here was pretty straightforward as to what happened. He misjudged his takeoff.
“We made the conscious decision that there was nothing that was systemic to the aviation industry that had to be looked at. It was explainable right there without going any deeper into it.”

On the day he died, Hawkins juggled his plans. In the early morning of Oct. 25 he cancelled a plan to fly to Orillia for more float instruction, citing gusty winds. He sent Mavor an email: “I’ll stay in Guelph and do some land circuits this morning.”
In the same email he complained that the water rudders steering his new floats were misaligned, causing a yaw (a side-to-side movement of the airplane nose). Hawkins asked if Orillia Aviation could correct the alignment and also complete cosmetic touch-ups. Mavor replied: “Any time you can leave (the Cessna) with us we will tidy up those snags.”
Hawkins went on to the regional airport. He was in touch with seaplane pilot Ron Harper about flying together. Harper lives on Puslinch Lake and was developing the Sea Pilot Academy (which is not operating) with Hawkins. But Harper couldn’t get to the airport until too late in the afternoon.
Just after 1 p.m., Hawkins departed the airport in his Cessna. By now he had arranged for Kuijer, a qualified float instructor, to join him. The Waterloo Wellington Flight Centre says it did not book the flight as it does not provide float instruction. The school would not comment further.
“He just barely cleared the trees on the shore. And when he got up above the trees, straight ahead of him up on the hill was a new house. He was headed for that house. He banked to the left to avoid the house and as soon as he banked to the left the plane just flipped over upside-down and went straight down into the trees.
The ready explanation helps the safety board distinguish the Hawkins crash from two other local crashes it is fully investigating.
“They were certainly more mysterious,” Rowntree says. The other crashes were also commercial flights, unlike the Hawkins crash which was deemed a private flight.
Investigators defend ruling out mechanical causes, despite never conducting an extended probe. They found flight controls in working order at the scene. Witness accounts, propeller damage, and the airplane’s success in getting airborne point to an engine producing enough power.
The misaligned float rudder that concerned Hawkins is “a minor deficiency” that just needed tweaking. “It’s not going to cause a crash,” Rowntree says.
Orillia Aviation installed the floats. “I flew that airplane,” owner Jeff Mavor recalls. “It was a great performer. It flew straight as a dime.”
Seaplane pilot Ron Harper is not persuaded. He thought the Cessna lumbered, watching it in flight.
“I was concerned with the performance of that plane,” he says.
The safety board says Kuijer told investigators he joined the fatal flight as an unpaid passenger.
“This is a touchy area for everyone,” Rowntree explains. “The person who was on board, yes, was a qualified flight instructor. But for this flight, to the best of our knowledge and the facts that we’ve gathered, he was on board as a passenger only and not a flight instructor.”
Rowntree figures Kuijer has “nothing to hide. Because there’s no implication to him either way whether he’s pilot in command or not. Planes with instructors on them have accidents all the time. These things happen. It’s a training environment.
“In the end, it doesn’t make any difference to the outcome of the flight whether he was pilot in command or not. It does on the legal side of things. We don’t care about the legal side of things. That’s not our jurisdiction.”
Yet the safety board understands a concern it did not address in its 87-word investigation. How did the airplane crash with a flight instructor on board?
Could Kuijer have taken control from Hawkins in the final seconds? Enns sees this as plausible even though it’s not what the safety board reported.
Transport Canada, which oversees flight regulations, responded to Record queries about Kuijer’s role by initiating a review of the crash. This will include fresh interviews.
“Transport Canada has embarked on a review of the information to determine if there were any violations of Canadian aviation regulations,” spokesperson Brooke Williams said. She would not comment further while the review is underway.
“It’s about time,” Elvira says. “I’m glad they’re doing another investigation. That should have been done the first time.”
Kuijer no longer works for the Waterloo Wellington flight school. He has not spoken to the Hawkins family about the crash.
While they grieve, Elvira and Justin remember how they first heard of the crash. As news spread in early confusion, it was not clear anyone died.
Though startled, Justin knew his father as a confident, able man.
“I thought I was just going to go pick him up from the hospital and it was going to be fine,” he recalls.
“My mom was crying on the phone and I was like, ‘Mom, don’t worry. This is Dad. This is Russ Hawkins here. He’s going to be fine. He’s always fine.’ ”
News services

[Meikleour]

Step Turn: in answer to your query about airline check rides. If the checker is occupying an OPERATING SEAT ( versus a jump seat) then he will be P1 regardless of relative seniority.
If you think about the possible scenario of a check ride which is failed by the candidate then you still need a qualified crew ( ie. P1 + P2 ) to operate home or subsequent sectors. In other words a "failed" P1 pilot can be legal to operate second pilot.

[Level Attitude]

If the instructor is not eager for you to log checkout time as P1, find a new instructor. Does your license entitle you to fly the plane as PIC? Are you flying from the seat customarily occupied by PIC? Are you flying the plane? Why would you not be P1?
Because.......
But, the aircraft owner would like the PPL to demonstrate their recency under their commercial 28 day rule. They require an instructor to ride through a check flight with PPL.

To perform a crew function during flight the person must be duly qualified but the converse is not true. Just because someone is qualified does not mean they have to be performing any crew function - and it is function time that is recorded in log books.

P1 = PIC = In Command = Person legally responsible for flight and who, therefore, has absolute (dictatorial) authority during the flight to make all, or any, decisions they choose and to take all, any or no actions they choose.

In EASA land it is very simple: Only one person can be in command, and therefore log, PIC. I know there are certain ceircumstances under FAA rules whereby two pilots can log PIC at the same time and this, to me, seems VERY confusing

Honest question, 'cause I don't know, if an airline Captain is flying a route check left seat with a check pilot to their right, who is PIC?
Left seat = PICUS (P1/s) (or Co-Pilot (P2)) if Check Pilot not happy with their performance.)
Right seat = PIC

Note that, under EASA, PICUS can only be recorded during multi crew operations or some integrated flying courses and in the UK (only?) for successful Flight Test or Proficiency Check candidates.

I think the bottom line is:
- If Insurance or Group/Club rules specify a checkout with an Instructor they are expecting someone to exercise the functions of an Instructor during the check flight and, therefore, the checkee has to be PUT.
- If Insurance or Group/Club rules specify a checkout with an experienced pilot then it can be decided before flight who will be PIC however, for all the reasons listed in other posts, I think PIC should be the Checker with the Checkee being a passenger and recording nothing in their logbook.
- If Insurance or Group/Club rules require a minimum number of logged hours in that make/model of aircraft then the pilot would have to fly them as PUT with an Instructor.
- If Insurance or Group/Club rules require a minimum number of logged PIC time in that make/model of aircraft then the pilot cannot fly that Group/Club's aircraft until they have the required PIC hours - and they will need to go somewhere else.

[Mach Jump]

I think we have made this far too complicated.

If it is agreed or implied that one pilot will intervene, or take over, if he deems it necessary, at any time during the flight, then that pilot is PIC.


MJ:ok:

[9 lives]

I think we have made this far too complicated.

Perhaps, but it's reached a thought exercise status in my mind.

If Insurance or Group/Club rules specify a checkout with an experienced pilot then it can be decided before flight who will be PIC however, for all the reasons listed in other posts, I think PIC should be the Checker with the Checkee being a passenger and recording nothing in their logbook.

So I read from that that a properly licensed PPL will exercise the privileges of their license while flying a plane, and paying for the privilege, probably satisfy the expectations of the checker, and record no piloting time in their log book? That sounds wrong to me! Checker pilot records PIC time for a flight when they probably did not touch the controls at all, and there is no written record of the person who did fly the plane? That does not sound to me like accurate "logging" at all, it sounds like false record keeping.

If it is agreed or implied that one pilot will intervene, or take over, if he deems it necessary, at any time during the flight, then that pilot is PIC.

Is this defined in regulation some where? I don't agree at all. Many times I have flown as a passenger, who once airborne, by prior agreement, will take over flying the plane for a specific purpose (like assessing a change to the aircraft, or demonstrating a newly installed feature, or equipment) I hardly think of myself as PIC for the flight, and do not log that time.

For the newer or less certain pilots reading this thread, though not necessarily participating, I would encourage you to understand and if needed, discuss the aircraft provider's policies in this respect, as an element of your business arrangement with them....

[AD Jackson]

There is a big problem here although you will never notice until the excrement hits the fan. This is especially the case where the check pilot has no instructors ticket.

I think the bottom line is:
- If Insurance or Group/Club rules specify a checkout with an Instructor they are expecting someone to exercise the functions of an Instructor during the check flight and, therefore, the checkee has to be PUT.
- If Insurance or Group/Club rules specify a checkout with an experienced pilot then it can be decided before flight who will be PIC however, for all the reasons listed in other posts, I think PIC should be the Checker with the Checkee being a passenger and recording nothing in their logbook."
The above seems totally reasonable to reasonable folks, however, I think its work having a look at the AAIB report on G-ARHNs last accident (yes it was written off twice - the second time only a week after a 2 year rebuild.

Its clear from this report that the more experienced pilot - the check pilot - was supposed to be in command due to a group rule, 'If a member undergoing check has exceeded the 90 day, 3 take off and landing limit, then the check pilot has to be P1.’ After the accident it would appear pilot 2 changed his mind as to who was in command of the aircraft leaving pilot 1, who was out of 90 day currency, with the responsibility for the flight. The change in command here leaves pilot 1 in the position of illegally carrying a passenger and open to damages for injuries to pilot 2.

Aditionally the AAIB point out that,

‘The aircraft was certificated for single pilot operation and therefore the only person who can be a member of the flight crew in addition to the handling pilot is a flying instructor who is instructing or supervising the handling pilot. A person who is not a flying instructor and not the handling pilot would be a passenger'


So who is in command of an aircraft? Is it a case of 'he said she said' (I guess this really only applies to GA aircraft with poor checking procedures and maybe dodgy record keeping.) BUT it shows just what can go wrong and how an innocent check ride can turn into a nightmare.

It would also appear that the CAA arent really interested unless there is a fatality and then run for the hills!

How does the innocent group co-owner protect themselves from this sort of debacle? I guess a written statement before a flight of who has what responsibilities.

[9 lives]

How does the innocent group co-owner protect themselves from this sort of debacle? I guess a written statement before a flight of who has what responsibilities.

... Which I thought was more common than perhaps it is (I have not rented fixed wing in more than 30 years). When I rented helicopters for training and solo flying, I would sign for the aircraft before I took it, and sign that I was returning it, which included the expectation that I would declare any defects.

From another thread, I understood that "booking out" was common in the UK, and I figured that was the same thing. Perhaps a less formal aircraft sharing arrangement would not have a signout system, but it would seem easy in institute, and remove any doubt beforehand.

The premise being that the "checkee" pilot is legally entitled to fly the aircraft in terms of their license (they just need the check for "club" rules), so they can legally sign out the aircraft as PIC, and carry a passenger - the "checker". They sign, they fly. If the checker feels a need to actually fly the aircraft, the checkride was probably a fail anyway.

A part of the checkride is for the checker observe how the checkee handles the role of PIC, which is more difficult to do if the checkee is not flying in that role.

[AD Jackson]

Seems to be a sort of 'gray' area with booking out as with logging landings and takoffs.

I regularly 'booked out' at the 'international' airport where I did my initial but I was PuT except for solo flights - so does 'booking out' mean the person doing it is in command?

Can one switch command during a flight and just log an hour of a 2 hour flight with no take off or landing? There would appear to be no legal reason to prevent it.

Secondly, as far as I can tell there is no requirement to log the number of take offs and landings - just the one of each for each line in the logbook as its assumed you have to do one of each. :ugh:

[dobbin1]

The premise being that the "checkee" pilot is legally entitled to fly the aircraft in terms of their license (they just need the check for "club" rules), so they can legally sign out the aircraft as PIC, and carry a passenger - the "checker". They sign, they fly. If the checker feels a need to actually fly the aircraft, the checkride was pr

What if the checkee doesn't agree with the checker's decision to take over? If a passenger takes control against the wishes of the PIC, aren't they guilty of unlawful interference? The PIC would be entitled to squawk 7500 and be met by men with guns at the end of the flight.

[flybymike]

I regularly 'booked out' at the 'international' airport where I did my initial but I was PuT except for solo flights - so does 'booking out' mean the person doing it is in command?

A booking out either by phone or on a booking sheet would normally include the "pilot's" name, which I suppose might well be used retrospectively to decide who was PIC, (even if not necessarily correct)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

A booking out either by phone or on a booking sheet would normally include the "pilot's" name, which I suppose might well be used retrospectively to decide who was PIC, (even if not necessarily correct)
If I'm Pu/t and the instructor has asked me to do the booking out then I will, obviously, name him/her, and not me, as the captain. Hardly difficult.

[Level Attitude]

Quote:
If it is agreed or implied that one pilot will intervene, or take over, if he deems it necessary, at any time during the flight, then that pilot is PIC. Is this defined in regulation some where?Yes:
EASA Part-FCL November 2011
‘Pilot-in-command’ (PIC) means the pilot designated as being in command and charged with the safe conduct of the flight.
UK CAP 393 Air Navigation: The Order and Regulations January 2015
‘Commander’ in relation to an aircraft means the member of the flight crew designated as commander of that aircraft by the operator, or, failing such a person, the person who is for the time being the pilot in command of the aircraft;
‘Pilot in command’ means a person who for the time being is in charge of the piloting of an aircraft without being under the direction of any other pilot in the aircraft.
Of course Canadian definitions may differ somewhat.

Generally before renting out an aircraft to a pilot to take away a Group/Club would want to assure themselves that the pilot is both qualified (a paperwork check) and competent (a practical check ie the check flight). The check flight is a club requirement, not a regulatory one, so there is no requirement to even be qualified to fly it - eg medical just ran out but want to get the check done so can rent in a few days once restored.

Since satisfactory completion of a check flight is a requirement before the Group/Club would hand over the aircraft it seems very odd to me that any checkee would even expect to log PIC for the check flight itself.

Many times I have flown as a passenger, who once airborne, by prior agreement, will take over flying the plane for a specific purpose (like assessing a change to the aircraft, or demonstrating a newly installed feature, or equipment) I hardly think of myself as PIC for the flight, and do not log that time.You were never PIC so you were correct not to log anything. You took over the actual flying of the plane with the permission, and under the supervision, of the PIC. They could take back the controls at anytime they liked and if you put the aircraft in a situation outside of their competence/experience level, but within yours, all you could (legally) do would be to offer advice which the PIC could accept or reject as they saw fit.

[9 lives]

You were never PIC so you were correct not to log anything. You took over the actual flying of the plane with the permission, and under the supervision, of the PIC. They could take back the controls at anytime they liked and if you put the aircraft in a situation outside of their competence/experience level, but within yours, all you could (legally) do would be to offer advice which the PIC could accept or reject as they saw fit.

Totally agreed. So how is that different from a club asking me to go and ride a circuit or two with a new pilot, to make sure they're okay to rent to? I tell new pilot that they are PIC, and I will discuss with them in advance any action I might take to take control of the aircraft. 'Seems the same either way to me....

[Big Pistons Forever]

Totally agreed. So how is that different from a club asking me to go and ride a circuit or two with a new pilot, to make sure they're okay to rent to? I tell new pilot that they are PIC, and I will discuss with them in advance any action I might take to take control of the aircraft. 'Seems the same either way to me....

If the flight can't occur without you in the right seat for any reason, legal currency requirement, insurance requirement, even some dubious club rule, whatever; then you are the PIC for the duration of the flight and IMO it needs to be crystal clear to everyone that:

1) If you say "I have control" the guy/gal in the left seat will immediate relinquish control, and

2) "suggestions" you give during the flight are meant to be considered as helpful advice and will be acted upon, not ignored

However if at the end of the flight I was not required to do much more than admire the scenery, I think it is entirely reasonable for me to say "you did not need me" so I am happy to be considered a passenger and you go ahead and log the flight as PIC.

I suppose this is not entirely within the letter of the law but it removes all ambiguity about who is in charge during the actual flight and rewards competent performance.

[FullWings]

So, to sum up, as long as you don’t BOTH log it in the same capacity (PIC or P/UT) and the PIC is appropriately qualified for the flight, then you should be OK...

[AD Jackson]

Its really just academic unless there is an accident and the 'checker' who the 'checkee' thought was in command changes his mind and the 'checkee' finds himself as P1. There is an incentive for this kind of thing: most insurers wont cover anyone whose had an accident in the last 5 years.

Clubs and Groups that operate as Ltd companies offer much more protection when things go bad but co-owning groups operating on the 'cheap' co-opting other co-owners to do check rides are open to all manner of abuse and normally this will only surface after an 'event'

[9 lives]

However if at the end of the flight I was not required to do much more than admire the scenery, I think it is entirely reasonable for me to say "you did not need me" so I am happy to be considered a passenger and you go ahead and log the flight as PIC.

And happily, "pushing" the time to the newer pilot, who should be logging it, and who's paying for it anyway!

[flybymike]

most insurers wont cover anyone whose had an accident in the last 5 years.

So anyone who has had an accident is effectively banned from flying for five years then.....?

[sherburn2LA]

In the US it is possible I think for an instructor to instruct for a higher rating and certainly to conduct a BFR without a medical provided the instructee is entitled to be P1 (and obviously they must be P1 in this case).

For myself I would not be overly comfortable with that. Since I am logging my time to renew my EASA rating (with a 61.75 on top) I always record the way I was taught as PU/T and I agree that in advance with my instructor. In the UK I take that as read.

High time / frequent flyer pilots may feel differently but I would always expect to defer to an instructor and subconsciously at least give up some P1 duties in favour of demonstrating competence (which let's face it usually means competence in manipulating the controls).

[Maoraigh1]

Refusal by insurers to cover anyone who had an accident in the last 5 years is news to me. It's 16 years since any of our Group had an accident, but all that happened was a premium increase. Each year our broker gets each members hours, and accident record. I know of pilots who were able to keep on flying after more recent accidents.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Insurance premiums will unsurprisingly go up if there's a pilot who has made an insurance claim in the last 5 years, but they're not uninsurable.

Having been in I think 7 syndicates over 20 years, I've seen several instances of pilots who had had accidents, or a syndicate who had suffered ground damage, continue to be insured.

G

[Capt_Stewart]

People need to be clear.
If a flight test and you pass its P1s, if you fail its PUT
If its a club check and The instructor has any responsibility He/she is P1 and you are Put.
If you don't like it bog off and fly elsewhere.
With responsiblity goes logging of hours.
If a check not needed and But a request to go for the ride then pay and he/she will advise but you are in control.
If The instructor has no responsibility other than as a mate then its a mates flight.
Easy but be clear not woolly

[9 lives]

If you don't like it bog off and fly elsewhere

Indeed, which is a reason that I bought my first plane more than 28 years ago, and my second more than seven years ago - I answer only to the license issuer and the insurer for my currency and recency. I choose to no longer surrender to flying club rules.

Back when I still rented, a dispatcher ran afoul of me by stating (in front of my passenger to be) that I was not qualified to fly a 172. I complained to the manager that the dispatcher had no idea of my qualifications, and had no right to make statements like that in front of my passenger. The Manager replied by making out a different membership card for me, which when presented meant I never need to fly a checkout at the club again, as long as I flew something there on some kind of regular basis.

This gesture retained my business. Being regimented about checkrides would have cost them my business. But that's just my opinion....

[sherburn2LA]

some perverse thinking here not sure if it is an ego thing. If you are short of renewal hours or looking to be a pro fair enough but why would the average Joe want to be P1 if he didn't have to be.

P/UT. You do all the flying - somebody else gets the blame if you bend the plane. What's not to like.

[India Four Two]

P/UT. You do all the flying - somebody else gets the blame if you bend the plane.

I will try to avoid bending the plane, if I can. My standard brief when I am getting checked-out in a new aircraft is to say to the instructor "In the event of an engine failure or other emergency, I will say 'You have control'" ;)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

My standard brief when I am getting checked-out in a new aircraft is to say to the instructor "In the event of an engine failure or other emergency, I will say 'You have control'"
Mine is slightly different. I expect to have first go at handling most emergencies but I will say:

"In the event of fire, I will say 'You have control'"

In fact the only time I've had an emergency, on a joyride with an instructor in foreign parts, he took control before I could get my mouth open.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Mine is significantly different, as I'd never present myself for a checkout without having familiarised myself with the manual, and got the key points of the emergency drills on my kneeboard.

"If there is an emergency, I will handle it, but you of course will take control at any point you are unhappy".

G

[Pilot DAR]

Mine is significantly different, as I'd never present myself for a checkout without having familiarised myself with the manual, and got the key points of the emergency drills on my kneeboard.

"If there is an emergency, I will handle it, but you of course will take control at any point you are unhappy".

Me too. When I flight test an aircraft with another pilot (nearly always for insurance reasons), my briefing will always include my saying: "No matter what, I will continue to fly the aircraft. If you would like to take over control, say so, and you'll have all of the control, but the flight test will be over." With that briefing, I've never had a problem.

If the aircraft was single pilot, within the privileges of my license, and I flew the whole time, I will log the time as PIC.