Type Check Out Question....

[Finals19]

Hi, quick question...

Scenario: I fly a particular type of SEP light aircraft and wish to check somebody out on that type. The pilot to be checked already has a valid SEP class rating with differences sign off (i.e. VP prop) Am I correct in assuming that at this point it is merely an insurance sign off process? - in other words anyone qualified on type can sign somebody else off as long as they fulfill recency / hours on type requirements mandated by the insurance company?

Or (and this is what I need to confirm) is it the case that it would need to be done by a CRI or FI?

Thanks

[mad_jock]

Yep you are right but check with the insurance company first just in case. Its there call not a regulatory one.

[Talkdownman]

If the pilot to be 'checked out' is already licensed to fly the type in command then 'instruction' should not be necessary therefore there is no regulatory requirement for an instructor.

Ask the the aircraft owner/operator to verify his, and any insurance company, requirements. It might be that the 'checking pilot' does not even need to be a current licensed pilot at all. It might be a condition that he or she should preferably be an instructor. It might be that a so-called 'check-out' is not required at all.

Whatever such non-regulatory requirement, when a pilot who is qualified to fly the type in question in command is being 'checked' by another pilot it is very important to agree beforehand who is pilot in command and thus prepared to take responsibility for the flight. Only one pilot can be in command (and log PIC) at any one time.

[foxmoth]

in other words anyone qualified on type can sign somebody else off

If the person converting has all the necessary sign offs for VP prop etc., then there is no actual "sign off", in fact, if the insurance does not require a check out he can just climb in and go flying without ANY check out, how wise this is depends on a number of factors, including how complex the type and how experienced the pilot.

[Talkdownman]

If the person converting has all the necessary sign offs for VP prop etc., then there is no actual "sign off"

If the person 'converting' already has all the necessary 'sign-offs' then presumably he/she is already converted!
So-called check-rides/check-outs are neither regulatory training nor regulatory examination.
I suspect that in many cases 'the checker' and 'the checked' both claim PIC for the same flight.......
A 'check-out' in an aircraft which not fitted with dual controls must be interesting! I can't see an hour-hungry FI getting away with PIC for that!

[Finals19]

Thanks for the feedback.

The "checker" is experienced on type (>100hrs) and the person being checked out already has VP sign offs. So as pretty much confirmed here, its merely an insurance check, if the insurance actually dictates as such.

The type is dual control fitted and very conventional to fly.

As for logging the time, I am going to read up on logging P1S and P1 concurrently. Its not something I am very familiar with but I am assuming its not possible to log P1 and dual, as the check pilot is not FI qualified? (and its a single pilot aircraft obviously)

[Talkdownman]

As for logging the time, I am going to read up on logging P1S and P1 concurrently. Its not something I am very familiar with but I am assuming its not possible to log P1 and dual, as the check pilot is not FI qualified?

See LASORS Section A Appendix B.

If by P1S you mean PIC U/S or P1 U/S that is only applicable in the case of a pilot undergoing any form of flight test with a JAA or CAA Authorised Examiner, or Co-pilot (on a multi-crew aeroplane.....) performing the duties of PIC under supervision of pilot-in-command.

If by 'dual' you mean P/UT then that is only applicable in the case of a pilot under instruction (by an FI) for the purpose of gaining a licence or rating, or for conversion to an aircraft type within an aircraft rating group or class.

You state that

The pilot to be checked already has a valid SEP class rating with differences sign off

therefore it would seem that the 'conversion' has already been completed.

If you are not an FI or FE maybe you could try Case N: Pilot acting as Safety Pilot = SNY

Whatever, there is only one PIC at any given time and that is for 'the checker' and 'the checked' to agree, and I would recommend that it be agreed beforehand.....

[Big Pistons Forever]

Sometimes I have seen a tendancy to treat type checks in a rather casual manner because it is not percieved as "real" training like that given for a higher license or rating. I think it is reiterate the importance of

1) making clear who the PIC is

2) a preflight brief on what the flight profile will look like including where and how all manoevers/exercises will be carried out

3)Describe exactly how simulated emergencies will be carried out

4) In the event of a real emergency, define the duties and responsibilties of each pilot.

In my case if I am doing type conversion training it will go as follows.

1) I am the PIC

2) A briefing appropriate to the flight which could be quite short (a quick circuit check) to quite detailed (the first flight on an unusual aircraft like a YAK).

3) I will detail how I will simulate the emergency (eg retard the throttle for an engine failure) and note all emergency will be verbalized by me with the word "simulated" followed by the emergency type so there is no confusion on what is happening.

4) In the event of a real emergency I will assume control and the student will be responsible for handling the radio (under my direction) and reading checklists called for by me.

[foxmoth]

If the person 'converting' already has all the necessary 'sign-offs' then presumably he/she is already converted!

I think there is a difference between qualified and converted, I know if I were to fly say a Spitfire I would be qualified to fly it, but would still want a conversion onto it, even if this were only a thorough ground briefing and sitting in the cockpit with the pilots notes.

[mad_jock]

Again its a check the insurance job.

It may be that the person being checked out cannot be PIC without being checked out.

Also as well don't underestimate the problems of recovering stuff in the RHS if you are not used to it. You won't be the first or last to grab the nearest engine level to you and instead of full power all you will get is mixture rich. High hour'd instructors get the same problem sitting in the LHS. It used to be weird doing the pilot companion courses teaching in the LHS.

I am not saying don't do it just be aware.

[Whopity]

Am I correct in assuming that at this point it is merely an insurance sign off process? - in other words anyone qualified on type can sign somebody else off as long as they fulfill recency / hours on type requirements mandated by the insurance company?

NO! As one or two have already pointed out there is no sign off required. As a non FI you are not qualified to sign off anything in a log book however; as a a pilot who is familiar with the type there is nothing to stop you familiarising another qualified pilot as part of an insurance requirement.

How you log it is another matter however; the requirements for logging are contained in Article 35 which states:

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 grantor renewal of a licence under this Order

Many will quote LASORS at you but that does not take into account all cases, and is primarily designed to ensure people have the correct hours for licence issue and revalidation. Beyond that, it doesn't matter what you log the flight as so long as you comply with Art 35. Many will state that you can only have one pilot in a single pilot aircraft; that in itself is not true. The law specifies the minimum number of pilots and the "operator" can decide how many are needed for a specific function. If you are checking someone out, you are clearly both acting as members of the flight crew and should log it as required in Art 35(2).

[DFC]

If you are checking someone out, you are clearly both acting as members of the flight crew and should log it as required in Art 35(2).

1. Check Insurance / club / group / operator rules to see who can be the person providing the required "check". Be careful with regard to insurance requirements because in the event of you saying "this pilot was competent" and they do something that results in a claim, the insurance company may ask "what qualified you to make such an assessment?".

2. Both members can log the flight.

Insurance is now a regulatory requirement. Unless the insurance requirements are followed then the flight is uninsured and therefore illegal.

Following from that it is clear that two pilots are required under the regulations and the person providing the check is PIC and loggs that while the other pilot is a co-pilot and should log that time as co-pilot.

NO! As one or two have already pointed out there is no sign off required. As a non FI you are not qualified to sign off anything in a log book however; as a a pilot who is familiar with the type there is nothing to stop you familiarising another qualified pilot as part of an insurance requirement.

There must be a defined record of having given and received the checkout. Unless a certificate is going to be produced then the only alternative and the method I would recomend is that the person providing the checkout makes an appropriate note and signs in the logbook of the pilot receiving the checkout. That keeps the required information in a place where it can be found easily should it be required. It also enables the PIC to ensure that his/her co-pilot recorded the flight correctly.

Recording the flight (which could be more than 1 hour duration) as co-pilot not only meets the legal requirements but also ensures that there is no posibility of later confusion when the pilot presents their logbook to an examiner who will look for 1 hour of dual training prior to extending the validity fo their SEP classs rating.

The important things to remember is that;

The person being checked can not be PIC and no dual time can be logged.

[homeguard]

Who is who?

DFC, I understand your argument but is it all that simple.

As said the pilot is not required specifically to undertake training on a new type (differences training aside) however the PIC is required to satisfy himself that he is fit to undertake the flight. Flying a type outside of his experience without satisfying himself that he is fit could put him on the wrong side of the line.

If the non-instructor but experienced person on type is acting as 'safety pilot' and is there to only share knowlege or take command if required that will satisfy the requirement in my view. I'm not convinced that the safety pilot can act as crew and log anything. If I'm right then the pilot new to type logs PIC. The safety pilot will only log PIC only if they are required to take over.

[DFC]

If the non-instructor but experienced person on type is acting as 'safety pilot' and is there to only share knowlege or take command if required that will satisfy the requirement in my view. I'm not convinced that the safety pilot can act as crew and log anything. If I'm right then the pilot new to type logs PIC. The safety pilot will only log PIC only if they are required to take over.

Remember, the pilot being checked holds the requried licence and rating(s). However, for a reason other than licensing they are not entitled to be PIC.

The best example being that the insurance requires that all pilots are checked out. Until that requirement is complied with then they can not fly as PIC. Therefore the person you call "safety pilot" must be PIC - an insurance requirement.

Having established who has to be PIC, the only question is what the person manipulating the controls will log.

The situation is a clear example of a situation where the regulations (Insurance in this case) governing the flight require two pilots. Therefore, one will be the PIC and the other will be a co-pilot.

To say that either one was "a passenger" is to say that they took no active part in the safety of the flight operation. Or are you saying that passengers are also crew members???????

The only way round this situation would be for the rule to be changed from one requiring a checkout to one which requires new pilots to "only fly when accompanied by a single passenger who is a designated current pilot and member".

That makes things clear - one is PIC and the other is a passenger.

Remember to check you'r insurance requirements and policy very carefully. Often passengers receive more compensation than crew in the event of an accident. Therefore insurance companies who recognise the increased risk in checkouts can ensure that at least two seats are occupied by "crew" and thus limit their liability during the "checkout".

If you are the person who does the checkout - check your liability insurance also. It may be covered by the club / group insurance but if not then the last thing you want is to be in court countering a lawyer who is highlighting the fact that the (now deceased / seriously incapacitated) pilot was clearly not competent and should not have been released, and you had no qualifications or proven training in assesing pilots.

[homeguard]

whose who

It cannot be that an insurance company sets the law, only the CAA in th UK can set the rules. Insurance companies do not in my experience attempt to do that. Of course, the law requires that insurance is in place.

It is reasonable for an insurance company to protect itself and so may require for certain types, that have proved the need, a demand that training is first given on the type usually for a set number of hours before they will provide full cover. It's my experience when this requirement is put in place that the training must be with an instructor. How otherwise can the Insurance Co be sure that the training is to the mark unless a person who is qualified to give it gives the instruction.

We also need to consider the law: ANO Schedule 8

Private Pilots Licence

(i) he may fly such an aeroplane for the purpose of aerial work which consists
of:
(aa) the giving of instruction in flying, if his licence includes a flying
instructor’s rating, class rating instructor rating, flight instructor rating
or an assistant flying instructor’s rating; or

Now is the fellow group owner or another with experience on type allowed to give 'instruction', if they are not an FI or CRI? When an insurance company requires instruction to take place then that is what they mean - instruction. I have never seen the word 'checkout' used by an insurance company but I'm here to learn. Unless with certain types such as the turbocharged Lance and others the insurance will only require the pilot to comply with the law.

Is a checkout 'instruction in flying'? The purpose of insurance is to protect oneself and others. I wouldn't be too keen to risk the argument over symantics.

[Talkdownman]

New pilots in my non-equity C182 'group' are checked out by the aircraft owner who holds a PPL and is not an FI therefore no loggable instruction can take place.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Am I to understand that a pilot with hundreds of hours on say a Piper Pacer who holds a commercial license or higher can not give a check out on a Pacer, but a flight instructor with a few hundred hours flying time period can give instruction on it even if he/she can barely figure out how to keep it going down the runway without losing control?

[Talkdownman]

So-called 'check-out's are not covered in UK LASORS. It is all down to the owners/operators and/or the insurance companies. It is possible that a highly experienced pilot may not have flown a particular aircraft for a short 'recency' period (eg 28 days) therefore requiring a 'check-out' by an instructor who could easily be low-hours and not familiar with the type. Such a situation is clearly undesirable, but not at all infrequent. I think it should be down to the owners, operators and the insurance companies to ensure that a fit and proper experienced person is selected regardless of any paper qualifications. As there is apparently nothing laid down which specifies who is to be commander of the aircraft under such circumstances then it remains important to establish that prior to the flight.

[sjeh]

Talkdownman - presumably in the situation you outline where the (PPL, not FI) owner of the 182 checks out new group members, either the new member is PIC and the owner is an (interested) passenger, or if the owner is PIC he must pay for (at least his share of) the flight...? Or have I missed something? Just interested to know how it works out in practice.

[DFC]

As there is apparently nothing laid down which specifies who is to be commander of the aircraft under such circumstances then it remains important to establish that prior to the flight.

If there is nothing preventing the new member flying the aircraft as PIC with passenger(s) why are you calling the flight a "checkout".

To be PIC, the pilot must be qualified in every respect to be so. That means being licensed, rated and (what we are talking about here) complying with the club/group rules as well as being properly insured.

I would recomend that your group rules very clearly specifies who can be (who is insured to be) PIC of the aircraft. Then there can be no doubt as to who can be PIC.

Giving someone instruction in an aircraft during flight does not automatically make the flight Aerial Work. There is no requirment for all instruction to be completed by a licensed instructor. If the pilot is qualified to fly the aircraft, there is nothing preventing a non-pilot teaching them how to use a GPS unit during flight.

It is true to say that insurance companies do not make the law. However, since insurance is now mandatory, the law says you have to comply with what the insurance company decides.

I would be very surprised if an insurance company permitted flight training on type by a non-qualified instructor - FI / CRI. Therefore unless the new member was already qualified and able to fly the aircraft concerned, i.e. the checkout is merely a confirmation of the pilot's claimed ability I would recomend that a suitable FI / CRI be tasked with the flight training required.

That is why if you read my previous comments, the flights were operated as an recorded as a flight by two qualified pilots - a PIC and a co-pilot. If the PIC does not like what they see at any stage, they can legally take control of the aircraft. The co-pilot can fly the aircraft but the PIC is responsible.