Type Check Out Question....
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just interested to know how it works out in practice.
You have option
a) owner PIC fills tech log out as such doesn't pay anything
b) PIC signature left empty until after the flight.
c) Checkie PIC fills tech log out and technically isn't insured becuase they are not checked out yet.
d) Checkie is outside 90days but still signs as PIC and owner goes along anyway.
As a FI you stay as far away as possible when one these flights is going on. Don't offer an opinion as its none of your business. Some airfields it is very common practise others the School CFI see's it as someone stealing his revenue and its a cloak and dagger operation.
Its why there is an ever increasing number of groups with members who are CRI's. Its a nice enjoyable thought provoking course for experienced PPL's, easy to keep current and keeps everything easy legal.
Finals19:
If someone has a valid SEPL class rating and has completed any required differences training they are technically able to fly any SEPL aircraft; any check-out is therefore either for insurance, assurance, or for common-sense reasons. For aircraft in the SEPL class the concept of a co-pilot does not exist, and P1/s can only be used after a successful test with an examiner.
The problem, as others have said, is how should the non-captain react when the routine "common sense" check reveals that the P1 is not up to the task. Clearly, if they feel that an accident is imminent they should intervene, but if there is then an accident the situation is very messy.
IMHO the only sure check-out route is to use an FI/CRI as the check pilot who must logically be the Captain throughout the flight. It is the responsibility of the FI/CRI to ensure that they are suitably skilled and experienced to accept the task.
HFD
If someone has a valid SEPL class rating and has completed any required differences training they are technically able to fly any SEPL aircraft; any check-out is therefore either for insurance, assurance, or for common-sense reasons. For aircraft in the SEPL class the concept of a co-pilot does not exist, and P1/s can only be used after a successful test with an examiner.
The problem, as others have said, is how should the non-captain react when the routine "common sense" check reveals that the P1 is not up to the task. Clearly, if they feel that an accident is imminent they should intervene, but if there is then an accident the situation is very messy.
IMHO the only sure check-out route is to use an FI/CRI as the check pilot who must logically be the Captain throughout the flight. It is the responsibility of the FI/CRI to ensure that they are suitably skilled and experienced to accept the task.
HFD
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HFD while I agree in the principle of who does the check....
Its really the flight training industry's fault that this situation has occurred. Inexperienced FI's who change every 6months to a year, bitter and twisted CFI knob jockeys. Its no surprise that the majority of owners and groups actively avoid any flying school and the associated politics.
If there was a financial risk to none FI/CRI's doing the checks the insurance industry would have stopped the practise years ago. They haven't and there is no legislation to stop the practise. In fact I seen quite a few insurance policy's with named PPL's as the group check pilots.
Its really the flight training industry's fault that this situation has occurred. Inexperienced FI's who change every 6months to a year, bitter and twisted CFI knob jockeys. Its no surprise that the majority of owners and groups actively avoid any flying school and the associated politics.
If there was a financial risk to none FI/CRI's doing the checks the insurance industry would have stopped the practise years ago. They haven't and there is no legislation to stop the practise. In fact I seen quite a few insurance policy's with named PPL's as the group check pilots.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that I am retired from the gong show that aviation has turned into I look forward to reading these discussions and watch the new age gang attempt to pick fly sh.t out of pepper.
Sometimes though I do get a cold chill in the pit of my stomach when I realize some of these people really do think that flying a simple single engine airplane becomes " complex " if the thing has flaps or a constant speed prop on it.
Is that why the " authorities " insist that pilots wear hi vis vests so the rest of society can recognize them and thus cut them some slack because of their phobias?
Sometimes though I do get a cold chill in the pit of my stomach when I realize some of these people really do think that flying a simple single engine airplane becomes " complex " if the thing has flaps or a constant speed prop on it.
Is that why the " authorities " insist that pilots wear hi vis vests so the rest of society can recognize them and thus cut them some slack because of their phobias?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For aircraft in the SEPL class the concept of a co-pilot does not exist,
Incorrect.
JAR–FCL 1.080 Recording of flight time
(2) Co-pilot flight time
The holder of a pilot licence occupying a
pilot seat as co-pilot may log all flight time as
co-pilot flight time on an aeroplane on which
more than one pilot is required under the type
certification of the aeroplane, or the
regulations under which the flight is
conducted.
The type of aircraft has nothing to do with having a co-pilot. An aircraft certified for 2 crew requires a co-pilot - there is no option.
When a pilot wants to simulate instrument flight (fly under the hood) and they are not under instruction then the regulations require another pilot - in the english language termed a co-pilot.
Have a senneca with no autopilot and want to use an RVR of less than 800m when flying an ILS - two pilots are required unless certain other requirements are met, want to fly commercially at night and again two pilots required unless certain other requirements are met.
There are a host of reasons why aircraft certified for single pilot operations are required to have two pilots. When two pilots are required one has the PIC and their co-pilot. The roles are clear as is how the flight can be logged.
Why make something simple difficult?
If I want, I can operate a C172 with 4 crew members - PIC, co-pilot, navigator and radio operator. They can all record having performed their respective roles.
The important thing is to have exactly how such things are done clearly defined. i.e. who can be PIC, who can confirm the capabilities of prospective PIC's.
There are hundreds of aircraft flying round every day carrying hundreds of passengers on which training and checking is completed with no instructors on board. In the airlines they are called line training captains but they very often hold no instructor qualifications on their licence and simply instruct / check on the basis of operator approval - similar to being named by the group as the person who can do checkouts.
--------------
Chuck,
The term "complex" came from your side of the pond!!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But you have missed the vital point that the CAA has to approve the logging of Co-pilot time. It is not a right it has to be applied for and hoops jumped through.
The fishery's F406's are a perfect example. One contractor was authorised to allow multi crew time to be logged the previous one wasn't.
Same in the Channel islands on the Tri-lander yes the none auto-pilot machines have 2 crew on board but only the PIC gets to log anything.
The fishery's F406's are a perfect example. One contractor was authorised to allow multi crew time to be logged the previous one wasn't.
Same in the Channel islands on the Tri-lander yes the none auto-pilot machines have 2 crew on board but only the PIC gets to log anything.
DFC:
Your reply is accurate, but irrelevant to what's being discussed.
For a PPL being checked in an SEPL class aircraft in the real world the concept of a co-pilot does not exist.
The situation where PPLs are checking each other is not comparable to professional training captains acting within a managed company structure.
... but you knew that.
HFD
Your reply is accurate, but irrelevant to what's being discussed.
For a PPL being checked in an SEPL class aircraft in the real world the concept of a co-pilot does not exist.
The situation where PPLs are checking each other is not comparable to professional training captains acting within a managed company structure.
... but you knew that.
HFD
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HFD,
The reference to training captains was in response to someone saying that instruction was not allowed unless there was an instructor on board.
------
Mad jock,
The CAA has to approve applications for flights during which there is no rule which requires a co-pilot. If there is already provision in the licensing requirements / ANO for two pilots then the minimum crew for that flight is 2.
Example - simulated instrument flight - 2 crew minimum.
Commercial flight in Senneca to destination with ILS and RVR of 600m but no autopilot - 2 crew minimum.
Do the same flight with a PIC that meets certain experience requirements and it can be single crew.
Flight in same aircraft to aerodrome short distance away VFR - single crew.
Some operations require 2 crew some don't. Companies apply to the CAA to operate 2 crew all the time rather than chop and change from day to day.
If the insurance requirments require what is in effect a line check of new group members then it has to be a 2 crew operation. There is no other way to do it. Passengers are not crewmembers.
The reference to training captains was in response to someone saying that instruction was not allowed unless there was an instructor on board.
------
Mad jock,
But you have missed the vital point that the CAA has to approve the logging of Co-pilot time.
Example - simulated instrument flight - 2 crew minimum.
Commercial flight in Senneca to destination with ILS and RVR of 600m but no autopilot - 2 crew minimum.
Do the same flight with a PIC that meets certain experience requirements and it can be single crew.
Flight in same aircraft to aerodrome short distance away VFR - single crew.
Some operations require 2 crew some don't. Companies apply to the CAA to operate 2 crew all the time rather than chop and change from day to day.
If the insurance requirments require what is in effect a line check of new group members then it has to be a 2 crew operation. There is no other way to do it. Passengers are not crewmembers.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC you are talking bollocks.
With no auto pilot you could have 20000 hours and you still wouldn't be doing that flight single crew or 2 up. Commercially or private in the UK.
IFR with no AP your need 2 up for commercial ops. And IFR or VFR the person in the RHS gets to log sod all. edited to add because you will try and save some face. Yes they can log something if it is a line training flight. What they log who knows or cares as it will be an AOC holder and completely irrelevant to this discussion.
This is quite amusing you dig yourself some holes.
And any wannbies reading this and thinking yippee I can log co-pilot time and do it. Your log book will bounce so fast out of the CAA that it might just go supersonic if they spot co-pilot time in any light twin. And you might actually get taken to court for damages when the admin pisses themselves laughing if you try and claim it in a Cessna 182.
Commercial flight in Senneca to destination with ILS and RVR of 600m but no autopilot - 2 crew minimum.
Do the same flight with a PIC that meets certain experience requirements and it can be single crew.
Do the same flight with a PIC that meets certain experience requirements and it can be single crew.
IFR with no AP your need 2 up for commercial ops. And IFR or VFR the person in the RHS gets to log sod all. edited to add because you will try and save some face. Yes they can log something if it is a line training flight. What they log who knows or cares as it will be an AOC holder and completely irrelevant to this discussion.
This is quite amusing you dig yourself some holes.
And any wannbies reading this and thinking yippee I can log co-pilot time and do it. Your log book will bounce so fast out of the CAA that it might just go supersonic if they spot co-pilot time in any light twin. And you might actually get taken to court for damages when the admin pisses themselves laughing if you try and claim it in a Cessna 182.
Last edited by mad_jock; 27th Nov 2009 at 07:50.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Chuck nailed this with
This has worked perfectly OK for many years with a PPL doing a checkout and the person being checked logging the time, the CAA and the insurance companies are happy with it (or have SPECIFIED an instructor), so why complicate things further
watch the new age gang attempt to pick fly sh.t out of pepper.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With no auto pilot you could have 20000 hours and you still wouldn't be doing that flight single crew or 2 up. Commercially or private in the UK.
IFR with no AP your need 2 up for commercial ops. And IFR or VFR the person in the RHS gets to log sod all. edited to add because you will try and save some face. Yes they can log something if it is a line training flight. What they log who knows or cares as it will be an AOC holder and completely irrelevant to this discussion.
IFR with no AP your need 2 up for commercial ops. And IFR or VFR the person in the RHS gets to log sod all. edited to add because you will try and save some face. Yes they can log something if it is a line training flight. What they log who knows or cares as it will be an AOC holder and completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Glad to see you are awake.
The holding of an AOC does not change the law with regard to the recording of pilot function time.
IFR with no AP your need 2 up for commercial ops. And IFR or VFR the person in the RHS gets to log sod all.
There are certain cases where the law requires 2 pilots. In those cases, not only can both pilots record the functions they carried out on the flight but the law requires them to do so.
You seem to think that a pilot could operate as a required co-pilot on a commercial operation flying some 1000 block hours per year (100 in excess of the legal maximum) just because they follow your advice and never log it?
The Authorities have no problem with a qualified and legally required co-pilot complying with the law in respect of recording the flight in the prescribed manner in their logbook.
Like I said, it is only when operating multi-crew on flights which legally do not need a co-pilot that the CAA has to approve multi crew logging. There are also aspects relevant to ATPL issue which come into the whole process but are not relevant here.
Both pilots in a C182 can log the time - if the PIC is under the hood during simulated instrument flight and their co-pilot is keeping the required lookout etc. There is no authority who has a problem with that.
You seem to think that there is some link between logging flight time and flying the aircraft / having hands-on experience or even gaining some experience at all. There is absolutely no link. The keeping of a logbook is merely a legally required bit of admin.
A person can (legally and correctly) log thousands of hours as PIC but only have a few hours actually handling the aircraft (3 take-offs and landings every 90 days). That can go-on for years and the CAA will be 100% happy.
In gaining experience terms there is absolutely no difference between a PPL/FI sitting in the right seat watching me fly under the hood and logging it as PIC (legal) compared to my friend a PPL sitting there and logging it as Co-Pilot (also legal).
In most cases SIC time is only credited at 50% towards employer's requirements so logging SIC only gets you 50% of the time you would get as an FI sitting there on your hands.
How many people have built up PIC time while watching other people operate the flight? How many people have built up IFR time while flying in VMC. The list is long.
If the law requires two pilots then when checked, there better be two pilots who have correctly recorded their relevant positions. Otherwise, one or other of them are either denying that they participated in the flight as a flight crew member or they are saying they did act as pilot but have not logged the flight. either way, there is a legal gap in the records. Something to be avoided when insurance companies are involved.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has worked perfectly OK for many years with a PPL doing a checkout and the person being checked logging the time
These days there is no legal option of flying uninsured - intentionaly or not.
If the insurance policy (through the group rules?) has a requirement that only pilots who meet certain requirements can be PIC then until they meet those requirements they can not be PIC.
If a requirement was that they were "checked out" by another group member then until that checkout was completed they are not complying with the policy if they are PIC.
Just because one can't remember an insurance company refusing a payout because of this situation does not mean that a) it has not happened and b) it will not happen in the future.
In this case, it is very simple to ensure that the insurance company has less of a chance to back out of any payout.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your still talking bollocks.
Unlike you I have worked for a company which has been required to carry 2 up for none AP operations. And I have been that spare prick at a wedding. Now the real debate was if you had to be qualified to sit in the LHS to be in the RHS.
Flight ops inspector reckoned you were there as a glorified wing leveller with the ability to produce nasty smells that's it. Single pilot ops minimums still apply. In fact its a pain in the backside doing anything apart from S&L when asked because it totally screws with the flow of the flight.
And of course you do know that you don't need 2 up for a private flight without an AP. And your minimums are related to your SPA IR rating nothing else. And to get MPA minimums on a SPA guess what you have to do an additional LPC multicrew. And you even get 2 separate records on your ratings page.
Unlike you I have worked for a company which has been required to carry 2 up for none AP operations. And I have been that spare prick at a wedding. Now the real debate was if you had to be qualified to sit in the LHS to be in the RHS.
Flight ops inspector reckoned you were there as a glorified wing leveller with the ability to produce nasty smells that's it. Single pilot ops minimums still apply. In fact its a pain in the backside doing anything apart from S&L when asked because it totally screws with the flow of the flight.
And of course you do know that you don't need 2 up for a private flight without an AP. And your minimums are related to your SPA IR rating nothing else. And to get MPA minimums on a SPA guess what you have to do an additional LPC multicrew. And you even get 2 separate records on your ratings page.
Last edited by mad_jock; 27th Nov 2009 at 12:12.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As long as we are still picking fly sh.t out of pepper lets examine what we find so we don't eat the wrong stuff.
Quote::
" How many people have built up IFR time while flying in VMC. "
Most every pilot who flies IFR would be the correct answer for the simple reason that when flying an airplane under the IFR rules and following a clearance you are flying IFR period and being in VFR conditions has no bearing on your being under the IFR rules.
It is becoming depressing reading all this arguing about the fine points of the rules, if we want to really get into all the rules in society we would never leave our computers because before we finished going over all the rules there would be a hundred more churned out.
Maybe the answer is have the government put cameras and voice recorders in every airplane so the government can make sure their victims are punished for any violation of any obscure rule......
......yeh, that is the answer because there seems to be surveillance cameras most everywhere else these days.
Quote::
" How many people have built up IFR time while flying in VMC. "
Most every pilot who flies IFR would be the correct answer for the simple reason that when flying an airplane under the IFR rules and following a clearance you are flying IFR period and being in VFR conditions has no bearing on your being under the IFR rules.
It is becoming depressing reading all this arguing about the fine points of the rules, if we want to really get into all the rules in society we would never leave our computers because before we finished going over all the rules there would be a hundred more churned out.
Maybe the answer is have the government put cameras and voice recorders in every airplane so the government can make sure their victims are punished for any violation of any obscure rule......
......yeh, that is the answer because there seems to be surveillance cameras most everywhere else these days.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right Chuck a real pilot would just eat the fly sh!t and not bother trying to pick it out. And if accused of eating fly sh!t would deny it unless there was radar or RT tapes to prove it.
Unfortunately Chuck we have to iron out some of DFC's theory's or some poor sod will waste quite a bit of money thinking they are getting a service towards a license issue when they arn't.
The co-pilot thing for JAR wannabies has cost people thousands of pounds in these pay to fly as a safety pilot schemes. Perfectly legal under the FAA system completely useless under JAR rules.
Unfortunately Chuck we have to iron out some of DFC's theory's or some poor sod will waste quite a bit of money thinking they are getting a service towards a license issue when they arn't.
The co-pilot thing for JAR wannabies has cost people thousands of pounds in these pay to fly as a safety pilot schemes. Perfectly legal under the FAA system completely useless under JAR rules.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mornin Jock, yeh I know these discussions are can iron out the problems people have trying to understand a given set of rules in a given country.
Wouldn't it be nice if aviation were to have only one set of rules for the whole planet?
But that would make to much sense and would add to much to aviation safety wherein everyone understands the rules for today's flight.
Hey I got a call from A.B. in Wick a few days ago and it seems the sun still rises in the east and sets in the west there and smoke still rises up the chimney.
Wouldn't it be nice if aviation were to have only one set of rules for the whole planet?
But that would make to much sense and would add to much to aviation safety wherein everyone understands the rules for today's flight.
Hey I got a call from A.B. in Wick a few days ago and it seems the sun still rises in the east and sets in the west there and smoke still rises up the chimney.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I trust he still is a moaning old bugger haven't been in years.
Don't start about all the international differences the more country's I fly in the more difference's clutter up my head.
Do is say "FL one-hundred" here or "level one-zero-zero" bugger it I will just copy everyone else.
And mate just wait until you do a ferry over and have to deal with new bollocks in the UK with fick'all,tell me about it,steer me away from it, atc service.
Don't start about all the international differences the more country's I fly in the more difference's clutter up my head.
Do is say "FL one-hundred" here or "level one-zero-zero" bugger it I will just copy everyone else.
And mate just wait until you do a ferry over and have to deal with new bollocks in the UK with fick'all,tell me about it,steer me away from it, atc service.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad jock,
You flight ops inspector never read EU-OPS and JAR-FCL!!
True.
In the UK - not true!!
UK private operations with IR holders are required to use the minima specified in the UK-AIP 3.??? Unfortunately included in those minima is the requirement that 800m is the minimum RVR single pilot unless a suitable coupled autopilot etc etc is used.
Perhaps your FOI was operating pre-EU-ops / jar-fcl however, from your closing comments I suspect that the company you worked for only provided for single pilot ops and saved the money on putting the required checking etc in place and because of that you were not part of the flight crew and thus could not log anything. That is not what we are talking about here.
I know several pilots who have been granted CPL's and ATPL's with some co-pilot time on SEP included in the grand total hours. The reason why the flight required 2 crew was clearly recorded.
You seem to have lost sight of just what is requierd to get for example a CPL;
If I remember correctly, the applicant needs 200 hours total time of which 100 has to be PIC.
They may have completed 100 hours dual with the majority of it spent sitting there while the instructor flew the aircraft. They could also have acted as PIC for 100 hours while their grandad flew the aircraft but logged nothing.
If after that they pass the tests then good luck to them but they have fulfilled the requirements for obtaining a CPL.
And you are worried that a few legaly required co-pilot hours are going to cause chaos at CAA HQ?
Have a look at the ATPL requirements. Where does it say that the 500 hour multicrew has to involve anything other than sitting on their hands watching the PIC fly the aircraft?
Logbooks are an admin record of what function has been carried out. They are not a record of when the controls of the aircraft were manipulated or by whom.
Lets end the debate about what a co-pilot is by referring to the JAR-FCL definition;
receiving flight instruction for a licence or rating.
Very clear. So when my PPL friend flies with me in a C172 and I decide to fly under the hood, they are a pilot operating other than as pilot in command. The operational regulations require two pilots and they are not receiving any instruction. Ergo they are a co-pilot and can log the time as such.
On the basis that the operational regulations require the flight to be insured, then in the original case, the PIC must be a pilot who is insured to be so and the other pilot (not being trained but handling the aircraft) is a co-pilot.
---------
People have been burnt by some of the schemes on Chuck's side of the pond but they involve two pilots in a C150 and both logging PIC!!!!! - a US permitted anomaly but not accepted in Europe. That is not what we are talking about here at all.
You flight ops inspector never read EU-OPS and JAR-FCL!!
And of course you do know that you don't need 2 up for a private flight without an AP.
And your minimums are related to your SPA IR rating nothing else
UK private operations with IR holders are required to use the minima specified in the UK-AIP 3.??? Unfortunately included in those minima is the requirement that 800m is the minimum RVR single pilot unless a suitable coupled autopilot etc etc is used.
Perhaps your FOI was operating pre-EU-ops / jar-fcl however, from your closing comments I suspect that the company you worked for only provided for single pilot ops and saved the money on putting the required checking etc in place and because of that you were not part of the flight crew and thus could not log anything. That is not what we are talking about here.
Unfortunately Chuck we have to iron out some of DFC's theory's or some poor sod will waste quite a bit of money thinking they are getting a service towards a license issue when they arn't.
You seem to have lost sight of just what is requierd to get for example a CPL;
If I remember correctly, the applicant needs 200 hours total time of which 100 has to be PIC.
They may have completed 100 hours dual with the majority of it spent sitting there while the instructor flew the aircraft. They could also have acted as PIC for 100 hours while their grandad flew the aircraft but logged nothing.
If after that they pass the tests then good luck to them but they have fulfilled the requirements for obtaining a CPL.
And you are worried that a few legaly required co-pilot hours are going to cause chaos at CAA HQ?
Have a look at the ATPL requirements. Where does it say that the 500 hour multicrew has to involve anything other than sitting on their hands watching the PIC fly the aircraft?
Logbooks are an admin record of what function has been carried out. They are not a record of when the controls of the aircraft were manipulated or by whom.
Lets end the debate about what a co-pilot is by referring to the JAR-FCL definition;
Co-pilot:
“Co-pilot” means a pilot operating other than
as pilot-in-command, an aircraft for which more
than one pilot is required under the list of types
of aeroplanes (see Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL
1.220) or the type certification of the aircraft, or
the operational regulations under which the flight
is conducted, but excluding a pilot who is on
board the aircraft for the sole purpose of
“Co-pilot” means a pilot operating other than
as pilot-in-command, an aircraft for which more
than one pilot is required under the list of types
of aeroplanes (see Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL
1.220) or the type certification of the aircraft, or
the operational regulations under which the flight
is conducted, but excluding a pilot who is on
board the aircraft for the sole purpose of
receiving flight instruction for a licence or rating.
Very clear. So when my PPL friend flies with me in a C172 and I decide to fly under the hood, they are a pilot operating other than as pilot in command. The operational regulations require two pilots and they are not receiving any instruction. Ergo they are a co-pilot and can log the time as such.
On the basis that the operational regulations require the flight to be insured, then in the original case, the PIC must be a pilot who is insured to be so and the other pilot (not being trained but handling the aircraft) is a co-pilot.
---------
People have been burnt by some of the schemes on Chuck's side of the pond but they involve two pilots in a C150 and both logging PIC!!!!! - a US permitted anomaly but not accepted in Europe. That is not what we are talking about here at all.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Differences training is only requied in the cases liste in JAR-FCL and must be given by a person qualified to do so - eg FI or CRI.
From a C150 to C170 with none of the reasons for differences training as per JAR-FCL involved there is no legal licence based reason for needing a checkout. From a licence point of view, if you for example fly an arrow then you can fly a mooney with just familiarisation training (ground based in accordance with JAR-FCL sylabus). The owner and the insurance company may have a different position.
This debate was about a pilot who was licensed to fly the aircraft but club / group / insurance requirements required their ability to safely operate the aircraft to be checked. The rules in the case did not require such a check to be done by an instructor / examiner. That is how the situation ends up with a crew of 2 pilots none of which is receiving instruction.
From a C150 to C170 with none of the reasons for differences training as per JAR-FCL involved there is no legal licence based reason for needing a checkout. From a licence point of view, if you for example fly an arrow then you can fly a mooney with just familiarisation training (ground based in accordance with JAR-FCL sylabus). The owner and the insurance company may have a different position.
This debate was about a pilot who was licensed to fly the aircraft but club / group / insurance requirements required their ability to safely operate the aircraft to be checked. The rules in the case did not require such a check to be done by an instructor / examiner. That is how the situation ends up with a crew of 2 pilots none of which is receiving instruction.