Logging a club currency check flight

[Dude~]

A student came in for a club check the other day as he hadn't flown within the period specified in the club Flying Order Book and so as far as the club are concerned he wasn't current. We did a short check flight in which everything went ok, but I did make one or two comments during the flight.

Afterwards we had a slight disagreement as he has been logging all check flights as P1 which I maintain is incorrect since I, the instructor am in command and since two people cannot log P1 and it wasn't an exam it can't be P1.s so he has to log P.u/t.

But I couldn't prove it to him with a written reference so can anyone think where it might be written down?

Thanks

[Say again s l o w l y]

You are absolutely correct, if you want a reference, check LASORS.

Only a successful flight test with an examiner can be logged as P1/S, otherwise all flights where the FI is in command is P/UT, unless you decide not to log it.

[GusHoneybun]

<starts rummaging around in draws for the tin opener for this particular can of worms>

this argument will rumble on and on about whether it's PICU/S or Pu/t until the CAA finally issue a pink on this.
If this person is planning to go commercial, you may like to point out that the CAA have been known to reject these flights as P1 time and his application maybe delayed.

If they are a ppl holder and are planning nothing more than a gentle bimble each sunday, then does it really matter what they have in their logbook. Maybe when it comes to revalidating by experience, but then it's the examiners call as to whether to sign the ticket or not.

Maybe someone should set up a poll and see what the consensus of opinion is on this subject.

Something along the lines of
Is a club instructor checkout
a) PIC U/S
b) P1S
c) Pu/t
d) Couldn't give a gnats chuff

[Say again s l o w l y]

It is actually laid down very clearly, so for me this is always a non-discussion really!

Personally I couldn't give a monkeys as long as I get paid! Though why your average PPL should give two hoots I'm unsure, since the break down of hours isn't that important. (Yes, I'm aware of some group requirements for P1 time but this is about 20 mins here or there, so not really relevant.)

I work on the principle of if I'm checking them out and I have don't have to say or do anything, then I won't log it, but if I'm actually having to work a bit or I'm unhappy with their standard, then it goes down as P/UT and I'll log the P1 time.

[BEagle]

Personally I think it should logically be P1/S (qualified pilot under supervision) - but that doesn't fit with current Eurocracy, so it has to be Pu/t as it certainly isn't PIC......

I agree with your assessment, Dude~ !

[bogbeagle]

Since the guy has valid ratings, there is no legal need for him to fly with an instructor...it is purely a club requirement, perhaps to satisfy the terms of their hull insurance, I don't know.

If the aeroplane belonged to the punter, he could just get into it and fly.

With this in mind, I always tell them to log the flights as P1

[Rivet gun]

Originally Posted by bogbeagle

If the aeroplane belonged to the punter, he could just get into it and fly.
With this in mind, I always tell them to log the flights as P1

Sure, provided he is within 90 day recency he can fly as P1 and you are a passenger. But as a passenger you have no right to take control if you don't like what he is doing. Are you happy to conduct a check flight on that basis?

If he is out of 90 day recency he cannot fly with a passenger, so the instructor must be P1 and the pilot under check is P u/t

And remember you have to agree BEFORE the flight who is to be PIC. You can't decide in retrospect how to log it depending on how the flight goes.

[Dude~]

And remember you have to agree BEFORE the flight who is to be PIC. You can't decide in retrospect how to log it depending on how the flight goes.

Good point Rivet Gun. I'm fairly new to instructing and still settling in. As an instructing I automatically assumed that if someone is paying me to fly with them then it is as an instructor and not a passenger.

I will always endevour to settle this before each flight.

As a matter of interest, I recently flew 'as a passenger' with a new PPL holder. I told him to ignore me, take command and that I'd only do/say something if he was unsafe. Consequently I was enjoying the ride, and probably not paying attention quite as much as usual. When he lost control and panicked during a touch and go I was slightly out of the loop and had to recover from a fairly serious situation.

I certainly learnt from that. Never let your guard down, and always mentally fly the plane along with the student/PPL.

Since the guy has valid ratings, there is no legal need for him to fly with an instructor...it is purely a club requirement, perhaps to satisfy the terms of their hull insurance, I don't know.

Bobbeagle: I think there was a legal requirement for him to fly, as without the check he would be breaking the club rules, and flying uninsured.

[unfazed]

Why not get a competent club PPL to fly with the PPL who is out of "club" currency

Perfectly legal and provides a cost effective flight for both pilots

[BEagle]

And precisely what function is the so-called 'experienced PPL' supposed to fulfil?

Not an instructor and most certainly cannot be paid. If he shares the flight with the other pilot, both may only count the section of the flight they actually handled as P1 (shared) - for the rest of the time they're eachothers' passengers.

The concept of non-instructors (whether FI or CRI/SPA) fulfilling any role for 'checking' fellow licence holders is fraught with legal danger..... It should be banned forthwith.

[Whopity]

And remember you have to agree BEFORE the flight who is to be PIC. You can't decide in retrospect how to log it depending on how the flight goes.

So where in the ANO is this written? It is good practice not Law.

What the ANO does say is:

Particulars of each flight during which the holder of the log book acted either as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft or for the purpose of qualifying for the grant or renewal of a licence under this Order, as the case may be, shall be recorded in the log book at the end of each flight or as soon thereafter as is reasonably practicable, including:

(c) the capacity in which the holder acted in flight;

The FI is PIC by virtue of JAR-FCL1.080(c)(iii) and has the right to intervene.

The pilot being checked is acting as a crew member because he is flying the aeroplane, if he acts solely as the PIC and no instruction is given, i.e. he makes all the decisions and acts as PIC there is nothing legally to prevent him logging it as P1S provided the FI endorses the log book. It is after all a fair discription of his operatig capacity required under Art 35.

This case is not documented anywhere, LASORS is nothing more than guidance and the CAA are not likely to produce a Pink because it has no safety implications and, they have no interest in what you put in your log so long as it meets the requirements of Art 35.

[Rivet gun]

Originally Posted by Whopity

The pilot being checked is acting as a crew member because he is flying the aeroplane, if he acts solely as the PIC and no instruction is given, i.e. he makes all the decisions and acts as PIC there is nothing legally to prevent him logging it as P1S provided the FI endorses the log book. It is after all a fair discription of his operatig capacity required under Art 35.
.

Under JAR FCL 1.080 (c) 5 the category of PICUS (or P1S) is applicable only to co pilots. Co pilots exist only on multi pilot aeroplanes.

On single pilot aeroplanes the CAA also permit PICUS to be used for a sucessful flight test with an examiner. A pilot cannot log PICUS in single pilot aeroplanes under any other circumstances.

I suspect that falsly recording the operating capacity in a log book might well be deemed a breach of article 35.

[aztec25]

Out of curiosity, I've just been through my log book and checked my P1(s) flights with 8 different instructors at 5 different FTOs over the last 9 years. (I have an older UK PPL Licence).

All of the P1(s) entries have been countersigned by an instructor and each time (after specifically asking the instructor) I have logged the time in the command column with their agreement.

All my flight tests have been logged as Dual (Previously GFT & NFT, (now the combined Skills Test) plus IMC flight test and subsequent IMC renewals, again all logged dual, and again with instructor guidance.

From what's been said here it would appear that ALL of my instructors over this period seem to have been giving me dodgy guidance on logging flight time.

If the instructors I've come across are typical in their application of these rules the CAA must employ someone full time to identify and dis-allow the non-qualifying PIC time - or are they really that concerned provided the hours are there or thereabouts?

[hugh flung_dung]

This is a fairly regular topic ...

I think it can be approached from a number of different directions:
1. THE RULES. For SPA, P1/S can only be used for a successful flight test with an examiner. Therefore the person being checked is either P1 or Pu/t.
2. THE OWNER OF THE ACCIDENT. If an FI is checking someone when an accident occurred I have no doubt that the FI would "own" the accident. The FI is also being paid to perform a function. Therefore, for both of these reasons, the FI must be P1.
3. LOGIC. From the above, the person being checked must be Pu/t.

However, a far more reasonable situation would be for the FI to remain P1 but for the bod to be able to book P1/S for a successful checkout where no/little FI input was needed and Pu/t if unsuccessful or significant FI input was needed. But this would need a change in the rules!

(BTW Aztec25 - successful flight tests are logged in P1 column and P1/S)

HFD

[unfazed]

The concept of non-instructors (whether FI or CRI/SPA) fulfilling any role for 'checking' fellow licence holders is fraught with legal danger..... It should be banned forthwith


Steps back in amazement ! Is this the same Beagle who proposes that PPL instructors are needed to save our financially desperate flying clubs ?

There is nothing to stop a PPL accompanying a fellow club member on a circuit check to fulfill club currency requirements - In fact it is a simple common sense approach to a sensible requirement.

Beagle dear chap - If you are unhappy with this concept then how will you employ the same guy's (Brit's only of course) when they gain PPL Instructor status ?

[Dr Eckener]

Once a PPL is also an FI they will be qualified to determine the outcome of a check flight. Solely as a PPL they do not have the right or qualifications to determine if someone is safe or not. I would imagine an insurance company and the legal bods might find it interesting in the aftermath of an accident.

Not that I necessarily agree with PPL/FI's anyway....(even if they are all members of beagle's boys brigade!)

P1/PUT, who cares really as long as they have bona fide hours to revalidate without counting checkouts as P1. Personally I always tell people to log PUT, but what they actually do I often don't see.

[Whopity]

Rivet Gun JAR-FCL 1.080 is not Law in the UK. Art 35 is.

[Dude~]

Whopity, what is 'Art 35'?


(... prepares to be shot down...)

[BillieBob]

Whopity -

So where in the ANO is this written? It is good practice not Law.

Whilst the ANO does not specifically state a requirement to nominate before flight the Commander of a non-public transport aircraft, it is somewhat difficult to see how Article 52 of the Order can be complied with unless this is done.

[onedaymaybe?]

I always was told by CAA guys that

If it is a club check then it is no different to if you owned a group aircraft and you were the nominated check pilot.

You may be a flight Instructor but that is irrelevant. It is not PICUS and it is not PUT (Unless the person in mention is actually using this flight as his PUT flight for the 24 month renewall). The pilot is not under training as he is already qualified as a Pilot and you are not doing any additional training.

When I instructed I already had the hours needed so I just accepted the money and let the pilot put it as P1.

LASORs does give a sort of statement but nothing specific to cover this situation. But it does say there should be 1 nominated PIC. And as the customer is paying then surely it is his choice..