JAA 'Training Flight' seems to becoming an exam!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whirly,
I agree with you and that is the interpretation that many years has prevailed in many quarters.
SASlowly you say that all the instructors you have spoken to agree with that, but on this forum only BEagle has.
FYI Whirly is an instructor too.
FD
I agree with you and that is the interpretation that many years has prevailed in many quarters.
SASlowly you say that all the instructors you have spoken to agree with that, but on this forum only BEagle has.
FYI Whirly is an instructor too.
FD
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can actually be a co-pilot as a PPL, but it must be logged as P2. (Ref. Guide to Log book annotation LASOR's P.40)
"Flight time as PIC US, apart from as specifically provided for
under Case J above, will only be allowable for the holder of a
PPL subject to the terms of a prior agreement with the CAA."
Case J being on a test with an authorised examiner where a pass means P1/S and a fail goes down as P/UT.
Right that's it settled. I'm fed up with looking in books instead of flying!
"Flight time as PIC US, apart from as specifically provided for
under Case J above, will only be allowable for the holder of a
PPL subject to the terms of a prior agreement with the CAA."
Case J being on a test with an authorised examiner where a pass means P1/S and a fail goes down as P/UT.
Right that's it settled. I'm fed up with looking in books instead of flying!
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASlowly, I agree. But only on a multi-pilot aircraft. (So I wasn't technically correct in saying that it's not relevant to GA - but I don't think it's relevant to the type of GA we're generally discussing.)
FFF
-----------
FFF
-----------
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FD,
In response to your repeated requests regarding whre in the regulations it says that Instructors log the time as P1, I once again refer you to JAR-FCL 1.080 (c) Logging of time.
Whirlybird,
Your London Heli routes example was perfectly legal and very good for the pocket. After all having an instructor friendly enough to accompany you as a passenger and thus permit you to hire the aircraft at the cheaper rate while still being in a position to benifit from his advice is great.
You are the Pilot in command and the instructor is a passenger.
If for any reason, the passenger suddenly takes control, you must make a report because;
a) It is a case of hijack; or
b) Something so dangerous was about to happen that the passenger (who happens to be an instructor) had to hijack the aircraft in order to ensure the safety of the aircraft.
Both clear cases for an MOR.
Passengers are not entitled to say "I have control" and grab the controls. !! Thankfully.
Extreme I know but, the pilot in command it quite entitled to hit any hijacker over the head with the fire extinguisher!!
Oh, and if the instructor got paid for being a passenger then someone paid for a passenger to be carried....you!!
FFF,
Co-pilots are required if the aircraft or the rules under which the flight is operated require one.
Single Pilot IFR is limited to minimum 800m RVR. Get yourself a co-pilot and then you can use the appropriate procedure minima (550m for many CAT 1 ILSs). Even if it is a PA34. However, you will never come across P1/S in this situation.
Getting back to the crux of the argument, the flight is a dual flight. If the PPL is P1 then the instructor is a passenger.
To think of it another way, as a passenger, the instructor will not log the flight. However, JAR-FCL and the CAA regulations require instructors to log such flights so guess who will want to be P1 from the start?
Regards,
DFC
In response to your repeated requests regarding whre in the regulations it says that Instructors log the time as P1, I once again refer you to JAR-FCL 1.080 (c) Logging of time.
Whirlybird,
Your London Heli routes example was perfectly legal and very good for the pocket. After all having an instructor friendly enough to accompany you as a passenger and thus permit you to hire the aircraft at the cheaper rate while still being in a position to benifit from his advice is great.
You are the Pilot in command and the instructor is a passenger.
If for any reason, the passenger suddenly takes control, you must make a report because;
a) It is a case of hijack; or
b) Something so dangerous was about to happen that the passenger (who happens to be an instructor) had to hijack the aircraft in order to ensure the safety of the aircraft.
Both clear cases for an MOR.
Passengers are not entitled to say "I have control" and grab the controls. !! Thankfully.
Extreme I know but, the pilot in command it quite entitled to hit any hijacker over the head with the fire extinguisher!!
Oh, and if the instructor got paid for being a passenger then someone paid for a passenger to be carried....you!!
FFF,
Co-pilots are required if the aircraft or the rules under which the flight is operated require one.
Single Pilot IFR is limited to minimum 800m RVR. Get yourself a co-pilot and then you can use the appropriate procedure minima (550m for many CAT 1 ILSs). Even if it is a PA34. However, you will never come across P1/S in this situation.
Getting back to the crux of the argument, the flight is a dual flight. If the PPL is P1 then the instructor is a passenger.
To think of it another way, as a passenger, the instructor will not log the flight. However, JAR-FCL and the CAA regulations require instructors to log such flights so guess who will want to be P1 from the start?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC,
I have to ask repeatedly as you don't seem to understand that the bit you quote is applicable to two crew operations.
You then explain to Whirly et al., that a pilot can indeed log a flight with an instructor (for training as per this discussion or checkout) as P1.
This is contrary to what you, SASlowly and BEagle were stating before.
And as you say the answers to all the questions can be found in the LASORS but you have to refrain from selective quoting:
It is a shame I can not cut and paste it but for completeness I will take the trouble to type it verbatim:
Section A Appendix B Logging of flight time:
1. Pilot in command time:
a. The holder of a licence may log as pilot-in-command timeall of the flight time during which he is the pilot in command.
c The holder of an instructor ratin may log as pilot-in-command all flight time during which he acts as an instructor in an aeroplane or supervises SPIC flying.
4. Instruction time: A summary of all time logged by an applicant for a licence or rating as flight instruction, instrument flight instruction, instrument ground time, etc shall be certified by the appropriately rated and/or authorised instructor from whom it was received.
So the flights we are talking about are not instruction as per these rules.
Therefore if you fly with an instructor for your biannual flight, type check or club checkout there is no reason why you can not log that as P1.
FD
I have to ask repeatedly as you don't seem to understand that the bit you quote is applicable to two crew operations.
You then explain to Whirly et al., that a pilot can indeed log a flight with an instructor (for training as per this discussion or checkout) as P1.
This is contrary to what you, SASlowly and BEagle were stating before.
And as you say the answers to all the questions can be found in the LASORS but you have to refrain from selective quoting:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Lasors_Section_A.pdf
Section A Appendix B Logging of flight time:
1. Pilot in command time:
a. The holder of a licence may log as pilot-in-command timeall of the flight time during which he is the pilot in command.
c The holder of an instructor ratin may log as pilot-in-command all flight time during which he acts as an instructor in an aeroplane or supervises SPIC flying.
4. Instruction time: A summary of all time logged by an applicant for a licence or rating as flight instruction, instrument flight instruction, instrument ground time, etc shall be certified by the appropriately rated and/or authorised instructor from whom it was received.
So the flights we are talking about are not instruction as per these rules.
Therefore if you fly with an instructor for your biannual flight, type check or club checkout there is no reason why you can not log that as P1.
FD
Last edited by Flyin'Dutch'; 10th Oct 2003 at 07:02.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can log as P1 only if the instructor doesn't log the flight.
Only a 'club checkout' would really fit this scenario.
In the case of the Biennial check, this has to be P/UT as it is a training flight. If any sort of training occurs, then it must be P/UT.
P1/S as stated before doesn't exist for PPL's unless on a successful test with an examiner.
Only a 'club checkout' would really fit this scenario.
In the case of the Biennial check, this has to be P/UT as it is a training flight. If any sort of training occurs, then it must be P/UT.
P1/S as stated before doesn't exist for PPL's unless on a successful test with an examiner.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASlowly wrote:
Agree with that, there can only be one P1 at any one time.
Is not how I read it. A training flight is not an instructional flight as per the regulations. Therefore if you do that as P1 you can log it as such.
I think that we probably have to agree to disagree on this one as there is no point in a circular argument.
FD
You can log as P1 only if the instructor doesn't log the flight.
In the case of the Biennial check, this has to be P/UT as it is a training flight
I think that we probably have to agree to disagree on this one as there is no point in a circular argument.
FD
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hello everyone,
no body answered my question from 2 pages back so I'll repeat it here:
is it possible to "split" the hour? after all, landing and taking off again is also training.... I personally see no problem with it, but I'd like your opinion about it.
I agree with most of what has been said here about PIC times.... just the past days this has been discussed here again without a definite decision. I think that in the end it's a decision for the insurance companies if something happens during the training flight...
Westy
no body answered my question from 2 pages back so I'll repeat it here:
question: can the hour be "interrupted" by a landing at another field? I say, why not! I did one flight where we flew to another field... the first leg was 52 minutes, return was about 45 min... the authority wasn't going to accept it because it wasn't 60 min. on one stretch!!
I agree with most of what has been said here about PIC times.... just the past days this has been discussed here again without a definite decision. I think that in the end it's a decision for the insurance companies if something happens during the training flight...
Westy
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Westy,
To answer your question, I'd say No - it has to be one flight. I don't have any evidence for this other than an anecdotal conversation from the flying club - but that's more than anyone else has had to offer on the subject so far!
To extend the question slightly, in the UK where it's common to have to pay landing fees and book in, a landing almost always includes a shutdown followed by a restart, and so must be logged as two flights. In the US, however, I've done training flights where I've landed at another airfield, and either done a touch+go or a full stop and taxy back, without stopping the engine, and I've logged these as a single flight. In this case, I'd argue that you could use this as your one hour instructional flight. Again, I don't know of any rules to back this up, it's an addition of my own interpretation to the anecdotal evidence, and therefore completely unreliable!
FFF
-------------
To answer your question, I'd say No - it has to be one flight. I don't have any evidence for this other than an anecdotal conversation from the flying club - but that's more than anyone else has had to offer on the subject so far!
To extend the question slightly, in the UK where it's common to have to pay landing fees and book in, a landing almost always includes a shutdown followed by a restart, and so must be logged as two flights. In the US, however, I've done training flights where I've landed at another airfield, and either done a touch+go or a full stop and taxy back, without stopping the engine, and I've logged these as a single flight. In this case, I'd argue that you could use this as your one hour instructional flight. Again, I don't know of any rules to back this up, it's an addition of my own interpretation to the anecdotal evidence, and therefore completely unreliable!
FFF
-------------
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FD,
JAR-FCL 1.080 delas with the logging of flight time. That's all.
In the case of the heli flight Whirly refered to, the two people in the aircraft were a pilot and a passenger. Does that explain it?
SAS,
If the club checkout did not require the instructor to be P1 then why is there a need for a checkout in the first place? Can't be for insurance. legal or club rules purposes.
To summarise;
Under JAR-FCL 1.080, an instructor logs P1 when giving instruction.
In order to renew a SEP class rating, 1 hour instruction is required.
Westwind,
Overall, the UK CAA are sticking to the single flight rule because the requirement does indeed state "flight" (singular).
IMHO, anything less than 1 hour block time would not be very usefull especially if the flight was divided into say 2 flights......10 minutes before 5 minutes after each, air time would be 30 minutes....a few quick circuits!
The original topic was a question if the flight with an instructor was being turned into a test?
Well if some people are so against placing flight time in the dual column then perhaps that is the answer......after all, a proficiency check could work out cheaper than 11 hours flying plus 1 hour with an instructor!!
Yup, lets make the requirements for Multi-engine aircraft apply to SEPs but with a 2 year period.
Regards,
Splash1
JAR-FCL 1.080 delas with the logging of flight time. That's all.
In the case of the heli flight Whirly refered to, the two people in the aircraft were a pilot and a passenger. Does that explain it?
SAS,
If the club checkout did not require the instructor to be P1 then why is there a need for a checkout in the first place? Can't be for insurance. legal or club rules purposes.
To summarise;
Under JAR-FCL 1.080, an instructor logs P1 when giving instruction.
In order to renew a SEP class rating, 1 hour instruction is required.
Westwind,
Overall, the UK CAA are sticking to the single flight rule because the requirement does indeed state "flight" (singular).
IMHO, anything less than 1 hour block time would not be very usefull especially if the flight was divided into say 2 flights......10 minutes before 5 minutes after each, air time would be 30 minutes....a few quick circuits!
The original topic was a question if the flight with an instructor was being turned into a test?
Well if some people are so against placing flight time in the dual column then perhaps that is the answer......after all, a proficiency check could work out cheaper than 11 hours flying plus 1 hour with an instructor!!
Yup, lets make the requirements for Multi-engine aircraft apply to SEPs but with a 2 year period.
Regards,
Splash1
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was the original JAA proposal and of course is an option so its already there. The "alternative option" of experience was at the UKs insistance, because thats what we did in the past. The JAA then added the dual flight to align with "FARS"
The only reason the FI signs, is so that the examiner can identify that a dual training flight was actually conducted by an instructor. If the examiner is in doubt he can check with the CAA; if the signature were forged, there are allready heavy penalties in place to deter such activity.
Why does this have to be such an issue? its nothing more than a legal requirement for a routine club or group check! IT IS NOT A TEST!
The only reason the FI signs, is so that the examiner can identify that a dual training flight was actually conducted by an instructor. If the examiner is in doubt he can check with the CAA; if the signature were forged, there are allready heavy penalties in place to deter such activity.
Why does this have to be such an issue? its nothing more than a legal requirement for a routine club or group check! IT IS NOT A TEST!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the interval between flights is less than 30 mins, it can all be put on one line of your logbook. Again from LASOR's.
I'm actually finding it difficult to understand what we are all coming to terms with here, so I shall summarise everything so far.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Lasors_Section_A.pdf is the main doc with all answers Q's on it.
1: ALL training flights, be they Bi-ennial checks or what ever are to be logged by the student/PPL as P/UT. A check ride for club purposes can be P1 IF the instructor does not need to touch the controls and does not log it. Most clubs have recency requirements, 4 weeks between flights etc. FD the biennial check IS an instructional flight in the same way doing your IMC or training for an add on rating would be, you are P/UT.
2: PPL's cannot log P1/S unless on a successful test with an examiner. Unless specifically set out with the CAA first.
3: No person unless they have an instructors rating should allow an unqualified person to 'have a go' as this is the definition of instruction.
Hopefully this clears up any lingering doubt.
I'm actually finding it difficult to understand what we are all coming to terms with here, so I shall summarise everything so far.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Lasors_Section_A.pdf is the main doc with all answers Q's on it.
1: ALL training flights, be they Bi-ennial checks or what ever are to be logged by the student/PPL as P/UT. A check ride for club purposes can be P1 IF the instructor does not need to touch the controls and does not log it. Most clubs have recency requirements, 4 weeks between flights etc. FD the biennial check IS an instructional flight in the same way doing your IMC or training for an add on rating would be, you are P/UT.
2: PPL's cannot log P1/S unless on a successful test with an examiner. Unless specifically set out with the CAA first.
3: No person unless they have an instructors rating should allow an unqualified person to 'have a go' as this is the definition of instruction.
Hopefully this clears up any lingering doubt.
Last edited by Say again s l o w l y; 11th Oct 2003 at 08:06.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC,
You are obviously keen to continue your misinterpretation of the regulations so that it fits in with your opinion. That is of course your prerogative and in this matter of no consequence.
It makes having a mature debate impossible and you will furthermore find that in other matters an attitude like that can make you get unstuck.
SASlowly,
How can you put the LASORS link up here and then immediately misquote from it?
The biennial requires a training flight. Not an instructional flight.
Ciao.
FD
You are obviously keen to continue your misinterpretation of the regulations so that it fits in with your opinion. That is of course your prerogative and in this matter of no consequence.
It makes having a mature debate impossible and you will furthermore find that in other matters an attitude like that can make you get unstuck.
SASlowly,
How can you put the LASORS link up here and then immediately misquote from it?
The biennial requires a training flight. Not an instructional flight.
Ciao.
FD
Last edited by Flyin'Dutch'; 11th Oct 2003 at 02:32.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry FD, but I fail to see the distinction between the two. I am an instructor not a trainer. Any training flight is by definition an instructional flight, the fact somebody already has a licence is irrelevant. When I did my FI course, that was all P/UT. I'd like to know where you get your definition of the difference between a training flight and an instructional one as I feel that they are one and the same thing.
I don't mean to be rude, but I feel like I'm hitting my head against a brick wall.
Oh, where have I mis-quoted??
I don't mean to be rude, but I feel like I'm hitting my head against a brick wall.
Oh, where have I mis-quoted??
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doh!
The biennial flight is a training flight. If the powers that are would have wanted that to be an instructional flight they would have called it that.
As quoted from LASORs:
So that is the answer to your question where the definition of the difference is.
So if I go and do some post PPL solo circuit training; is that an instructional flight?
If you are unable to understand that the rules distinguish between an instructional and training flight you can indeed not understand the PUT/P1 issue.
Best of luck.
FD
The biennial flight is a training flight. If the powers that are would have wanted that to be an instructional flight they would have called it that.
As quoted from LASORs:
4. Instruction time: A summary of all time logged by an applicant for a licence or rating as flight instruction, instrument flight instruction, instrument ground time, etc shall be certified by the appropriately rated and/or authorised instructor from whom it was received.
Any training flight is by definition an instructional flight
If you are unable to understand that the rules distinguish between an instructional and training flight you can indeed not understand the PUT/P1 issue.
Best of luck.
FD
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way I understand it is that if you flew with an instructor he/she is legally obligated to sign your logbook to show the flight took place. If they refuse to sign, then I guess you have the right to refuse to pay as the flight didn't take place 
If the instructor is so scared of your flying skills then the flight should be terminated before the hour is up so that the hour doesn't count. They should still sign your logbook.
I also fail to see how having an instructor ask me to show him I can do a 180 deg turn on instruments is an instructional flight, especially when I am probably more "qualified" than him/her anyway?
I mostly operate under the FARs which have a far more sensible view on logging time. If you are qualified / current on the class of aircraft then you log PIC whether with an instructor or not. If with an instructor you also log Dual received, and the instructor logs As Flight Instructor. Makes sense really, you have proved that you are at a standard to act as PIC and the training you are doing is simply to further you skills.
I would prefer to see a proper BFR in JAA land, whereby you receive an hours ground school (we all forget bits and pieces) followed by a 1 hour instructional flight, then you get an endorsement and you are legal for another two years. If you are not at the required standard, you may have to do a bit of extra training before you get the endorsement. No examiners involved and no "time" requirements,just a simple BFR ever two years, which can also satisfy the flying club requirements at the same time.
EA
If the instructor is so scared of your flying skills then the flight should be terminated before the hour is up so that the hour doesn't count. They should still sign your logbook.I also fail to see how having an instructor ask me to show him I can do a 180 deg turn on instruments is an instructional flight, especially when I am probably more "qualified" than him/her anyway?
I mostly operate under the FARs which have a far more sensible view on logging time. If you are qualified / current on the class of aircraft then you log PIC whether with an instructor or not. If with an instructor you also log Dual received, and the instructor logs As Flight Instructor. Makes sense really, you have proved that you are at a standard to act as PIC and the training you are doing is simply to further you skills.
I would prefer to see a proper BFR in JAA land, whereby you receive an hours ground school (we all forget bits and pieces) followed by a 1 hour instructional flight, then you get an endorsement and you are legal for another two years. If you are not at the required standard, you may have to do a bit of extra training before you get the endorsement. No examiners involved and no "time" requirements,just a simple BFR ever two years, which can also satisfy the flying club requirements at the same time.
EA
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, no and thrice NO!
If you went and did some solo cct's then you are not under the auspices of an instructor are you? If however they went with you and helped you brush up on them, then that is an instructional flight. It isn't called it because it isn't getting you towards a licence or rating, but keeping your licence valid. That is a distinction. But fundamentally they are the same thing.
I don't see an issue about P/UT or P1, you are either in command or not. If I log P1, then you can't. P/UT Pilot Under Training. You can be either (a) training to become a pilot OR (b) a pilot who is doing some training. Where's the issue? This is getting Kafkaesque......
An instructor can refuse to sign that the flight was satisfactory after a biennial if it plainly wasn't. Now if you want to get into the argument that 'normal' FI's are not examiners, then I would agree with you, but we have had this extra responsibilty foisted upon us and try to cope with it as best as we can with little or no real direction from the Belgrano. But if examiners got involved then the cost of this 'test' would increase dramatically. I think there would be even more bitching then.
I would love to have a transparent policy on this 'cos I'm fed up having this argument every week. I am all in favour of it however, since the general standard of PPL's has dramatically increased since the biennial was introduced. In my view any way.
BEagle if you are around a little help might be nice........ I'm starting to lose the will to live!!
If you went and did some solo cct's then you are not under the auspices of an instructor are you? If however they went with you and helped you brush up on them, then that is an instructional flight. It isn't called it because it isn't getting you towards a licence or rating, but keeping your licence valid. That is a distinction. But fundamentally they are the same thing.
I don't see an issue about P/UT or P1, you are either in command or not. If I log P1, then you can't. P/UT Pilot Under Training. You can be either (a) training to become a pilot OR (b) a pilot who is doing some training. Where's the issue? This is getting Kafkaesque......
An instructor can refuse to sign that the flight was satisfactory after a biennial if it plainly wasn't. Now if you want to get into the argument that 'normal' FI's are not examiners, then I would agree with you, but we have had this extra responsibilty foisted upon us and try to cope with it as best as we can with little or no real direction from the Belgrano. But if examiners got involved then the cost of this 'test' would increase dramatically. I think there would be even more bitching then.
I would love to have a transparent policy on this 'cos I'm fed up having this argument every week. I am all in favour of it however, since the general standard of PPL's has dramatically increased since the biennial was introduced. In my view any way.
BEagle if you are around a little help might be nice........ I'm starting to lose the will to live!!
Last edited by Say again s l o w l y; 11th Oct 2003 at 09:35.
1. On a JAR-FCL biennial training flight, the FI is Commander. The other pilot is under the direction and supervision of the FI.
2. The FI will be P1C.
3. It doesn't matter a rat's what the other pilot logs the flight as, since only P1C time really counts towards the hours requirements for licence issue. So log it a PU/T or PIS - consider yourself either 'under training' or 'under supervision', it matters not. Either PIS or PU/T also counts towards the 12 hour total in any case.
4. If there is any doubt about the quality of the pilot's flying, either the logbook won't be signed, or if the FI feels so inclined, there's nothing to stop him/her writing UNSATISFACTORY in the remarks column if the pilot under supervision really wants something in the logbook.....
5. The FE who signs up the rating page in the licence needs to see either evidence of a non-specific training hour, any LST/LPC/OPC, flight with a QFI in the course of military duties etc etc. So we need to see a note in the remarks column.
Anyway, has anyone ever NOT had a biennial flight for this purpose signed up? This discussion is getting boring; just accept the fact that you WILL fly under the SUPERVISION of the FI; you will NOT be Commander. Try quoting LASORS, JAR-FCL and the rest like some barrack room lawyer, but that's the basic reality.
2. The FI will be P1C.
3. It doesn't matter a rat's what the other pilot logs the flight as, since only P1C time really counts towards the hours requirements for licence issue. So log it a PU/T or PIS - consider yourself either 'under training' or 'under supervision', it matters not. Either PIS or PU/T also counts towards the 12 hour total in any case.
4. If there is any doubt about the quality of the pilot's flying, either the logbook won't be signed, or if the FI feels so inclined, there's nothing to stop him/her writing UNSATISFACTORY in the remarks column if the pilot under supervision really wants something in the logbook.....
5. The FE who signs up the rating page in the licence needs to see either evidence of a non-specific training hour, any LST/LPC/OPC, flight with a QFI in the course of military duties etc etc. So we need to see a note in the remarks column.
Anyway, has anyone ever NOT had a biennial flight for this purpose signed up? This discussion is getting boring; just accept the fact that you WILL fly under the SUPERVISION of the FI; you will NOT be Commander. Try quoting LASORS, JAR-FCL and the rest like some barrack room lawyer, but that's the basic reality.
Last edited by BEagle; 11th Oct 2003 at 18:13.
