Run-ups during a flight
https://www.casa.gov.au/flight-crew-...flight-reviews.
12 Logging of flight time
12.1.1 The person conducting a flight review is pilot-in-command. In the majority of cases, a
private pilot will receive some flight instruction and should log the flight time as dual.
CAR 5.40 precludes private pilots from logging any flight time as pilot-in-command
under supervision (PICUS). However, a commercial or air transport pilot licence holder,
undergoing a proficiency check could log PICUS time as long as all the applicable
conditions in CAR 5.40 are satisfied.
Last edited by Cloudee; 16th Feb 2024 at 07:31.
Whilst the 'bottom line' opinions expressed in mere guidance about the now-defunct licensing regulations might have been correct, what is the regulatory basis for those opinions today?
Regulations aside, logically if you are conducting a flight review of someone, then you need to give them directions to achieve that mission. That means you need command authority over the flight.
https://www.casa.gov.au/licences-and...heflightreview
Its literally there under "Logging Flight Time"
Id recommend when asking CASA or someone from CASA for an interpretation of the regs you ask for it in writing.
Thread Starter
If you do not receive training during the flight review, log the flight time as 'pilot-in-command under supervision' as per Part 61.095(3) of CASR.
If the flight review requires you to complete flight training, record the flight time as dual flight time.
If the flight review requires you to complete flight training, record the flight time as dual flight time.
Does that mean you are the PIC during the flight?
OK. So let's assume that CASA's guidance on filling out logbooks is authoritative of who's PIC. That's a (dangerously) invalid assumption, but let's ignore that for now. The guidance at the link Bog Down posted says:
The quoted text assumes - correctly - that a flight review does not necessarily involve any training.
Question: How does a private pilot who was not required to 'complete flight training' during the 'review' 'log' the review flight time?
Postulation: Merely being 'directed' as to what the reviewing person - FE, PE, ATO or whatever - wants the pilot to do, and what the reviewing person says s/he wants to see along the way, is not "training". Discuss.
PS: Just saw yours, mustafagander. Does the reviewee log ICUS or Dual? What does the guidance linked by Bog Down mean?
Logging flight time
If you do not receive training during the flight review, log the flight time as 'pilot-in-command under supervision' as per Part 61.095(3) of CASR.
If the flight review requires you to complete flight training, record the flight time as dual flight time.
If you do not receive training during the flight review, log the flight time as 'pilot-in-command under supervision' as per Part 61.095(3) of CASR.
If the flight review requires you to complete flight training, record the flight time as dual flight time.
Question: How does a private pilot who was not required to 'complete flight training' during the 'review' 'log' the review flight time?
Postulation: Merely being 'directed' as to what the reviewing person - FE, PE, ATO or whatever - wants the pilot to do, and what the reviewing person says s/he wants to see along the way, is not "training". Discuss.
PS: Just saw yours, mustafagander. Does the reviewee log ICUS or Dual? What does the guidance linked by Bog Down mean?
Last edited by Clinton McKenzie; 16th Feb 2024 at 09:15.
Has this high up person read his own guidance material regarding flight reviews. Again, do not accept advice from CASA without a reference to regulations. It would be very helpful to all confused instructors here to have that reference, me included.
https://www.casa.gov.au/flight-crew-...flight-reviews.
12 Logging of flight time
12.1.1 The person conducting a flight review is pilot-in-command. In the majority of cases, a
private pilot will receive some flight instruction and should log the flight time as dual.
CAR 5.40 precludes private pilots from logging any flight time as pilot-in-command
under supervision (PICUS). However, a commercial or air transport pilot licence holder,
undergoing a proficiency check could log PICUS time as long as all the applicable
conditions in CAR 5.40 are satisfied.
https://www.casa.gov.au/flight-crew-...flight-reviews.
12 Logging of flight time
12.1.1 The person conducting a flight review is pilot-in-command. In the majority of cases, a
private pilot will receive some flight instruction and should log the flight time as dual.
CAR 5.40 precludes private pilots from logging any flight time as pilot-in-command
under supervision (PICUS). However, a commercial or air transport pilot licence holder,
undergoing a proficiency check could log PICUS time as long as all the applicable
conditions in CAR 5.40 are satisfied.
CAR 61.095 that I posted earlier applies to other aircraft.
OK. So let's assume that CASA's guidance on filling out logbooks is authoritative of who's PIC. That's a (dangerously) invalid assumption, but let's ignore that for now. The guidance at the link Bog Down posted says:The quoted text assumes - correctly - that a flight review does not necessarily involve any training.
Question: How does a private pilot who was not required to 'complete flight training' during the 'review' 'log' the review flight time?
Postulation: Merely being 'directed' as to what the reviewing person - FE, PE, ATO or whatever - wants the pilot to do, and what the reviewing person says s/he wants to see along the way, is not "training". Discuss.
PS: Just saw yours, mustafagander. Does the reviewee log ICUS or Dual? What does the guidance linked by Bog Down mean?
Question: How does a private pilot who was not required to 'complete flight training' during the 'review' 'log' the review flight time?
Postulation: Merely being 'directed' as to what the reviewing person - FE, PE, ATO or whatever - wants the pilot to do, and what the reviewing person says s/he wants to see along the way, is not "training". Discuss.
PS: Just saw yours, mustafagander. Does the reviewee log ICUS or Dual? What does the guidance linked by Bog Down mean?
If the instructor only directs the pilot to do the required sequences (Stalls, Steep Turns, BIF, Circuits etc etc) the candidate can do them to the required standard first try without the need for the instructor to intervene. then Candidate may log the Flight Review as ICUS, however the Instrucor is still the PIC.
If the instructor directs the pilot to do the required sequences (Stalls, Steep Turns, BIF, Circuits etc etc) and the candidate has trouble completing the sequences within the required tolerances or even just needs some instruction and help to get to the required standard the candiare has to log the flight as Dual flight, again with the instructor as PIC.
The following users liked this post:
Indeed. What is SO hard to understand?. The instructor is PIC…yes even in that RV with the EFIS that the instructor may never have flown.
Whether the pilot being reviewed logs it as ICUS or dual is something to be agreed between the pilot and the instructor to sign off. That should be made clear at de-briefing.
CASA or a future employer would probably only be interested if the candidate falsely entered the flight as PIC. It’s only 2 hours every 2 years FFS.
Whether the pilot being reviewed logs it as ICUS or dual is something to be agreed between the pilot and the instructor to sign off. That should be made clear at de-briefing.
CASA or a future employer would probably only be interested if the candidate falsely entered the flight as PIC. It’s only 2 hours every 2 years FFS.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 16th Feb 2024 at 19:38.
Thread Starter
It becomes mentally grey when the aircraft owner is being reviewed.
Or does the instructor not have the power to pull back on the stick when the pilot under review gets it wrong enough to set up an incident.? Good luck finding an instructor prepared to accept those terms from any pilot under review - aircraft owner or not.
The safety issue is clarity as to who’s pilot in command on a particular flight. We know that two people sitting side by side, quietly comfortable that their opinions as to who’s in command are correct, based on the kinds of stuff published in this thread, is not safe.
The majority view is that the reviewer is the PIC during an AFR. Fullstop.
If anyone can provide an authoritative reference to show otherwise, have at it. Guidance doesn’t count. “My really senior mate in CASA said so” doesn’t count.
The logbook column that should be used to record the reviewee’s hours is trivia that I reckon will continue to fill PPRuNe pages adinfinitum nauseum. I’ve always logged my time as dual, because my understanding is that a private pilot has no basis on which to log ICUS (and I couldn’t give a toss if I could, anyway, for the reasons so eloquently stated by Mach).
The added complexity that others have touched upon is something I can understand. When I’m the subject of a review to be conducted in my aircraft, when I’m current to carry passengers because of recent take offs and landings and within the AFR period, I need to know that the reviewer knows at least as much as I do about my aircraft and committing safe aviation in it. I’ll be managing my engine on the basis of science rather than superstition, despite any ‘instructions’ from the PIC to the contrary. If the PIC doesn't like that, that's fine. The review will be terminated. I need the reviewer to make crystal clear, in words of one syllable, the circumstances in which the reviewer will consider it necessary to take over physical control of my aircraft, and how, while I’m being reviewed, before we kick the tyres and light the fires.
There’s a recent tragedy in the US involving an ‘internet influencer’ called ‘TNFlygirl’ who used to video all her flights, including training flights. In one of the videos not long before the fatal flight, there’s an instructor in the cockpit explaining how to use the autopilot fitted to TNFlygirl’s aircraft. The instructor evidently didn’t understand how it worked.
The instructor told TNFlygirl to press and hold down the ‘UP Trim’ button on the autopilot controller to get the aircraft trimmed to maintain a climb, but the aircraft wasn’t fitted with electric trim. TNFlyGirl literally held her finger on that button for 10/20/30+ seconds, as advised by the instructor, waiting in vein for the nose to trim up while the instructor is talking and pushing other buttons on comms and nav controllers. Meanwhile, TNFlygirl didn’t set climb power. In a number of videos she’s despairing at the fact that her speed is washing off after the nose comes up - presumably having used manual pitch trim - literally staring at the IAS wind down but not touching the throttle or mixture. My personal view is that TNFlygirl was the victim of incompetent instruction.
I recall an exercise during a review - now a few decades ago - in which the instructor said do X which I started doing but then stopped. The instructor said you’re not setting up the climb properly. I said: “We’re at the base of controlled airspace and we don’t have an airways clearance to enter!” It wasn’t a test by the instructor. The instructor had lost a bit of situational awareness. A friend of mine recently terminated an AFR because he wasn’t satisfied with the safety of what the PIC was doing. And that was his prerogative. Even instructors/FEs/ATOs etc are human and make mistakes.
That may be the 'grey', Mach. I reckon it's sensible (and lawful) for me to say to the reviewer/PIC that "the review is over, you're no longer the PIC, I am now the PIC", when I have concerns about the safety of the flight. Remember: I'm still 'inside' the previous AFR period and I'm 'legal' to carry PAX, so there's no legal reason why I can't be PIC. We're on board my aircraft.
The majority view is that the reviewer is the PIC during an AFR. Fullstop.
If anyone can provide an authoritative reference to show otherwise, have at it. Guidance doesn’t count. “My really senior mate in CASA said so” doesn’t count.
The logbook column that should be used to record the reviewee’s hours is trivia that I reckon will continue to fill PPRuNe pages ad
The added complexity that others have touched upon is something I can understand. When I’m the subject of a review to be conducted in my aircraft, when I’m current to carry passengers because of recent take offs and landings and within the AFR period, I need to know that the reviewer knows at least as much as I do about my aircraft and committing safe aviation in it. I’ll be managing my engine on the basis of science rather than superstition, despite any ‘instructions’ from the PIC to the contrary. If the PIC doesn't like that, that's fine. The review will be terminated. I need the reviewer to make crystal clear, in words of one syllable, the circumstances in which the reviewer will consider it necessary to take over physical control of my aircraft, and how, while I’m being reviewed, before we kick the tyres and light the fires.
There’s a recent tragedy in the US involving an ‘internet influencer’ called ‘TNFlygirl’ who used to video all her flights, including training flights. In one of the videos not long before the fatal flight, there’s an instructor in the cockpit explaining how to use the autopilot fitted to TNFlygirl’s aircraft. The instructor evidently didn’t understand how it worked.
The instructor told TNFlygirl to press and hold down the ‘UP Trim’ button on the autopilot controller to get the aircraft trimmed to maintain a climb, but the aircraft wasn’t fitted with electric trim. TNFlyGirl literally held her finger on that button for 10/20/30+ seconds, as advised by the instructor, waiting in vein for the nose to trim up while the instructor is talking and pushing other buttons on comms and nav controllers. Meanwhile, TNFlygirl didn’t set climb power. In a number of videos she’s despairing at the fact that her speed is washing off after the nose comes up - presumably having used manual pitch trim - literally staring at the IAS wind down but not touching the throttle or mixture. My personal view is that TNFlygirl was the victim of incompetent instruction.
I recall an exercise during a review - now a few decades ago - in which the instructor said do X which I started doing but then stopped. The instructor said you’re not setting up the climb properly. I said: “We’re at the base of controlled airspace and we don’t have an airways clearance to enter!” It wasn’t a test by the instructor. The instructor had lost a bit of situational awareness. A friend of mine recently terminated an AFR because he wasn’t satisfied with the safety of what the PIC was doing. And that was his prerogative. Even instructors/FEs/ATOs etc are human and make mistakes.
That may be the 'grey', Mach. I reckon it's sensible (and lawful) for me to say to the reviewer/PIC that "the review is over, you're no longer the PIC, I am now the PIC", when I have concerns about the safety of the flight. Remember: I'm still 'inside' the previous AFR period and I'm 'legal' to carry PAX, so there's no legal reason why I can't be PIC. We're on board my aircraft.
Last edited by Clinton McKenzie; 16th Feb 2024 at 22:28.
The following 4 users liked this post by Clinton McKenzie:
A good briefing will include typical weasel words such as “ On this flight I expect you to conduct it as if you are in command on a single pilot operation. That requires you to do everything; to aviate, navigate, communicate. However, I may request certain clearances directly from ATC if necessary for clarity of intent, and will ensure that you understand any instructions received as a result.
Any emergency that is not real will be preceded by the words “simulated…eg simulated engine failure”. If a real emergency should arise, I expect you to deal with it if you are able. If you are not, I will take control with the words “my control”. Etc.
The confusion that some PPL s may have is the expectation that, because they do all the usual PIC stuff, they think that they really are the PIC, rather than under supervision. Perhaps, particularly for those fortunate to own the aircraft, it’s an ego thing?
Any emergency that is not real will be preceded by the words “simulated…eg simulated engine failure”. If a real emergency should arise, I expect you to deal with it if you are able. If you are not, I will take control with the words “my control”. Etc.
The confusion that some PPL s may have is the expectation that, because they do all the usual PIC stuff, they think that they really are the PIC, rather than under supervision. Perhaps, particularly for those fortunate to own the aircraft, it’s an ego thing?
I think it's a bit more nuanced than 'ego', Mach. I think it's more about being very protective of one's own aircraft and usually being very competent in its safe and efficient operation because of the time spent flying it, exclusively. That doesn't rule out the owner having bad habits that haven't killed them yet, of course. But it does not follow that instructors/FEs/ATOs are infallible. I gave a couple of real world examples above.
Let's see if we can agree on one thing: It is open to me, during an AFR, to terminate the review and take over as PIC from that point. I'm inside the previous AFR period and I've done at least 3 take offs and landing within the previous 90 days. There's no reg that I'm aware of that says I'm not allowed to fly as PIC with PAX in those circumstances. Are you? Nor am I aware of any reg that says the instructor/FE/ATO 'outranks' me in some way, such as to 'order' me not to be PIC. Are you? We're civvies in a civvy aircraft.
If I think there's a substantial risk that the person in the right hand seat is going to bend my aircraft or me, I'll be taking over.
Let's see if we can agree on one thing: It is open to me, during an AFR, to terminate the review and take over as PIC from that point. I'm inside the previous AFR period and I've done at least 3 take offs and landing within the previous 90 days. There's no reg that I'm aware of that says I'm not allowed to fly as PIC with PAX in those circumstances. Are you? Nor am I aware of any reg that says the instructor/FE/ATO 'outranks' me in some way, such as to 'order' me not to be PIC. Are you? We're civvies in a civvy aircraft.
If I think there's a substantial risk that the person in the right hand seat is going to bend my aircraft or me, I'll be taking over.
Clint, I see your point, though can’t see a likely scenario where the instructor would be on the controls in the first place, unless the owner/pilot had already screwed up.
In the rare event where the instructor asks for something which the owner deems hazardous to his pride and joy, one would hope for a discussion first. If that failed, sure the owner would be within his rights to return for a landing. I can’t see any instructor interfering with that process, unless it is clear that the owner is out of his depth.
As an aside, I bought a nice little Sonex that was owner built. It had 10 hours on it. The owner had only flown drifters and the like and found the Sonex too much. He wouldn’t even come with me on a pre buy flight, but left me to do it solo, and until then I had never even seen a Sonex. My first landing in that was probably the best landing I ever did in it.
Some time later I needed a BFR. The RA instructor didn’t want to do it in my Sonex, instead insisting on using his Lightwing. Such an awful aeroplane! The instructor was more scared of it than I, and spent half the flight on the controls himself. I did not argue…his trainset, but indeed he was a poor instructor.
In the rare event where the instructor asks for something which the owner deems hazardous to his pride and joy, one would hope for a discussion first. If that failed, sure the owner would be within his rights to return for a landing. I can’t see any instructor interfering with that process, unless it is clear that the owner is out of his depth.
As an aside, I bought a nice little Sonex that was owner built. It had 10 hours on it. The owner had only flown drifters and the like and found the Sonex too much. He wouldn’t even come with me on a pre buy flight, but left me to do it solo, and until then I had never even seen a Sonex. My first landing in that was probably the best landing I ever did in it.
Some time later I needed a BFR. The RA instructor didn’t want to do it in my Sonex, instead insisting on using his Lightwing. Such an awful aeroplane! The instructor was more scared of it than I, and spent half the flight on the controls himself. I did not argue…his trainset, but indeed he was a poor instructor.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 16th Feb 2024 at 23:32.
The following users liked this post:
I thought that during an AFR the PIC was determined by whether the pilot under observation was current or not. In days gone by the ATO on IFR renewals used to say I was in command if I was current and could log it as such, if he needed to take over it would revert to a dual experience, at which point I had failed the check. In any case the PIC needs to be determined before flight, that is definitely a rule, the instructor/check pilots needs to make it clear who is in command, and what is expected of the candidate. That is, are they expected to be in command, or act in command, or expect to be under instruction/training.
The following users liked this post:
Indeed. What is SO hard to understand?. The instructor is PIC…yes even in that RV with the EFIS that the instructor may never have flown.
Whether the pilot being reviewed logs it as ICUS or dual is something to be agreed between the pilot and the instructor to sign off. That should be made clear at de-briefing.
CASA or a future employer would probably only be interested if the candidate falsely entered the flight as PIC. It’s only 2 hours every 2 years FFS.
Whether the pilot being reviewed logs it as ICUS or dual is something to be agreed between the pilot and the instructor to sign off. That should be made clear at de-briefing.
CASA or a future employer would probably only be interested if the candidate falsely entered the flight as PIC. It’s only 2 hours every 2 years FFS.
However, the definition of "Operator" in the definition of PICUS requires the Operator to have an AOC. So, in our example of going up with an Instructor (competent in the equipment or not), you cannot log PICUS on an AFR unless it's in an aeroplane that's on someone's AOC. So no AOC = no ICUS.
"operator" , in relation to an aeroplane, means a person who holds an AOC that authorises the use of the aeroplane in application operations.
"pilot in command under supervision" means a pilot, other than a student pilot, who performs the duties and functions of the pilot in command of an aircraft under the supervision of a pilot who is authorised by the operator of the aircraft to conduct the supervision.
I can't even remember what I logged my last AFR as, nor do I really care. A couple of hours here and there mean diddly to me since I'm not cranking to prove my hours to QF or JQ.
Let's see if we can agree on one thing: It is open to me, during an AFR, to terminate the review and take over as PIC from that point
The following users liked this post: