What to log club checkouts as?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Who was the commander? (You did agree that with the club pilot, didn't you?)
If you were the commander, then you were p1.
If a pilot from the club was commander and was not an insructor/examiner, then you were passenger.
If an instructor was commander, then you were p.u/t.
You are only p1/s at the (successful) conclusion of a test for a licence or rating.
That's as I understand it, but others will add their views and correct me if necessary.
If you were the commander, then you were p1.
If a pilot from the club was commander and was not an insructor/examiner, then you were passenger.
If an instructor was commander, then you were p.u/t.
You are only p1/s at the (successful) conclusion of a test for a licence or rating.
That's as I understand it, but others will add their views and correct me if necessary.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it is just a club checkout then it should be P1 U/S just like your skills test.
I assume this is on an aircraft that you have flown before? If not then you are being trained and it would be P U/T.
I guess this changes if the person checking you out is not an instructor as Final 3 greens says.
Cheers
Foz
I assume this is on an aircraft that you have flown before? If not then you are being trained and it would be P U/T.
I guess this changes if the person checking you out is not an instructor as Final 3 greens says.
Cheers
Foz
Carbonfibre-based lifeform
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
InTheAir,
If you use the search facility you will find much past discussion of this.
A reasonably succinct thread on the subject is here.
The conclusion was essentially as per F3G's posting above - P1/S is specifically for successfully passed licence tests; it's not meant to be a way for two people to log P1 time for the same flight.
If you use the search facility you will find much past discussion of this.
A reasonably succinct thread on the subject is here.
The conclusion was essentially as per F3G's posting above - P1/S is specifically for successfully passed licence tests; it's not meant to be a way for two people to log P1 time for the same flight.
Log it as you please - unless you try to log it as PiC which, as someone being 'checked out' by someone else you cannot reasonably have been.
I would log it as P1u/s - that's what you were. But it's only PiC time which matters for 'hours building', so it doesn't affect the price of fish at the end of the day! It will, of course, count towards your SEP experinece total for revalidation, but not if you were just a passenger with someone not qualified to instruct in the other seat.
I would log it as P1u/s - that's what you were. But it's only PiC time which matters for 'hours building', so it doesn't affect the price of fish at the end of the day! It will, of course, count towards your SEP experinece total for revalidation, but not if you were just a passenger with someone not qualified to instruct in the other seat.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This all depends on the person doing the check and if you are outside your 90day.
Instructor doing the check.
Outside 90day rule.
Instructor logs PIC and student logs Dual
Inside 90day rule
If the Instructor has high hours and can't be arsed logging another 30 min flight. Student PIC and Instructor dosn't log anything. But its the instructors call, it can be given but not demanded.
Other than that Instuctor PIC student Dual.
None Instructor Club Member doing check.
Outside 90 days.
The checking pilot must log PIC or its an illegal flight Student logs nothing. After check the student must then go and complet 3 circuits before taking any PAX on board. But as below you get into all sorts problems with who pays for the flight. In this situation it gets really dodgy and into some very grey areas. Who ever logs PIC is opening themselves up for all sorts of hassels if anything goes wrong.
Inside 90 days.
If a none commercial pilots logs it and student pays for it. It breaks the regulations regarding PPL's and cost sharing of flights. So whoever pays for the flight must log it. The other pilot logs nothing.
PICUS (or P1 U/S) is defined in Lasors in one of the appendix.
There are ONLY 3 times a pilot can log PICUS.
1. Succesfull Completion of a skills test.
2. When doing an Intergrated commercial pilots course.
3. Subject to the approval of the CAA co-pilots on flying sectors multi crew.
You can't use it at ANY other time.
It is quiet a common mith that you can log PICUS (P1 U/S) for club checkouts. But really nobody gives a toss. Instructor will put down PIC and Instructing hours so they are bullet proof . What a PPL puts down isn't really here nor there in the grand scope of things. I suppose if you only did 12hours in your 2nd year and 3 hours of you 6hours PIC time was actually logged as PICUS on check outs the examiner who revalidated you SEP might get a bollocking from the CAA if they found out. But thats their problem not the ppl's. If you did log PICUS and the examiner refuses to sign you off for another 2 years there is not alot you can really do about it.
The only time this does become an issue is if you are a wannabie and have to meet the 100hrs pic time for issue. They can and do refuse to issue. Its pretty easy for them to check as well because you should only have 1 max 5 PICUS entrys when applying for your CPL.
1. PPL test
2. IMC test
3. CPL test
4. IR test
5. MEP test
So if you have more than those entrys, unless the flight tallys with your ratings page your stuffed.
MJ
Instructor doing the check.
Outside 90day rule.
Instructor logs PIC and student logs Dual
Inside 90day rule
If the Instructor has high hours and can't be arsed logging another 30 min flight. Student PIC and Instructor dosn't log anything. But its the instructors call, it can be given but not demanded.
Other than that Instuctor PIC student Dual.
None Instructor Club Member doing check.
Outside 90 days.
The checking pilot must log PIC or its an illegal flight Student logs nothing. After check the student must then go and complet 3 circuits before taking any PAX on board. But as below you get into all sorts problems with who pays for the flight. In this situation it gets really dodgy and into some very grey areas. Who ever logs PIC is opening themselves up for all sorts of hassels if anything goes wrong.
Inside 90 days.
If a none commercial pilots logs it and student pays for it. It breaks the regulations regarding PPL's and cost sharing of flights. So whoever pays for the flight must log it. The other pilot logs nothing.
PICUS (or P1 U/S) is defined in Lasors in one of the appendix.
There are ONLY 3 times a pilot can log PICUS.
1. Succesfull Completion of a skills test.
2. When doing an Intergrated commercial pilots course.
3. Subject to the approval of the CAA co-pilots on flying sectors multi crew.
You can't use it at ANY other time.
It is quiet a common mith that you can log PICUS (P1 U/S) for club checkouts. But really nobody gives a toss. Instructor will put down PIC and Instructing hours so they are bullet proof . What a PPL puts down isn't really here nor there in the grand scope of things. I suppose if you only did 12hours in your 2nd year and 3 hours of you 6hours PIC time was actually logged as PICUS on check outs the examiner who revalidated you SEP might get a bollocking from the CAA if they found out. But thats their problem not the ppl's. If you did log PICUS and the examiner refuses to sign you off for another 2 years there is not alot you can really do about it.
The only time this does become an issue is if you are a wannabie and have to meet the 100hrs pic time for issue. They can and do refuse to issue. Its pretty easy for them to check as well because you should only have 1 max 5 PICUS entrys when applying for your CPL.
1. PPL test
2. IMC test
3. CPL test
4. IR test
5. MEP test
So if you have more than those entrys, unless the flight tallys with your ratings page your stuffed.
MJ
If a none commercial pilots logs it and student pays for it. It breaks the regulations regarding PPL's and cost sharing of flights. So whoever pays for the flight must log it.
It's a different matter if the pilot-in-command is paid for acting as such.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always thought that if you got to log the time its was benifit in kind. So therefore deemed as a payment for the service of a check ride. Also the cost sharing rule comes in as well
The quoted i think refers to a ppl pilot doing a maint run as a favour. As such no money has changed hands.
But as its a very long time since I had to worry about if the flight was legal or not if someone else pays. I am sure your proberly correct bookworm.
MJ
The quoted i think refers to a ppl pilot doing a maint run as a favour. As such no money has changed hands.
But as its a very long time since I had to worry about if the flight was legal or not if someone else pays. I am sure your proberly correct bookworm.
MJ
Valuable consideration is a difficult concept and it's often a question of reasonableness.
"Benefit in kind" (as you use it) presumably means that you give someone something that they would otherwise have to pay for. That can't be a complete definition. If I take friends flying, I'm giving them something that they would otherwise have had to pay for. Does that make the flight aerial work? I don't think so.
As part of a bigger scheme of things, some club-checkout set-ups might be construed differently. "PPLs: if you're current, check out a friend whose currency has lapsed and we'll give you 30 minutes flying absolutely free!". Now we're talking valuable consideration beyond simply the privilege of being pilot-in-command.
"Benefit in kind" (as you use it) presumably means that you give someone something that they would otherwise have to pay for. That can't be a complete definition. If I take friends flying, I'm giving them something that they would otherwise have had to pay for. Does that make the flight aerial work? I don't think so.
As part of a bigger scheme of things, some club-checkout set-ups might be construed differently. "PPLs: if you're current, check out a friend whose currency has lapsed and we'll give you 30 minutes flying absolutely free!". Now we're talking valuable consideration beyond simply the privilege of being pilot-in-command.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you take your friends flying presumably they either cost share as per the guidlines or you are logging all the PIC and are paying for the lot. Not a problem.
ie
(bb) the proportion which such contribution bears to the total direct costs of the flight shall not exceed the proportion which the number of persons carried on the flight (excluding the pilot) bears to the number of persons carried on the flight (including the pilot);
But you do have a point that you do get PPL FI's.
Still think its against the spirit of the legislation and they would take a dim view of it.
MJ
ie
(bb) the proportion which such contribution bears to the total direct costs of the flight shall not exceed the proportion which the number of persons carried on the flight (excluding the pilot) bears to the number of persons carried on the flight (including the pilot);
But you do have a point that you do get PPL FI's.
Still think its against the spirit of the legislation and they would take a dim view of it.
MJ
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not just stick to Art 28. A pilot must log their operating capacity. That is whatever you deam it to be. If you are checking someone out, you are not a passenger!
If the CAA subsequently don't want to count something you log then they will simply disregard it. Its a personal log book so who cares what you put in it so long as you meet the requirement of Art 28.
If the CAA subsequently don't want to count something you log then they will simply disregard it. Its a personal log book so who cares what you put in it so long as you meet the requirement of Art 28.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Finding Out on 121.50
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is interesting and relevant, especially if you are trying to hit the 100hrs mark.
I am of the school of though that it is as I deem it. If the instructor is in the RH seat and gives no input to the flight then s/he is merely there as an observer from the hirer of the Aircraft so I am in effect P1 carrying a safety pilot to satisfy the clubs insurance.
If the instructor "instructs" in any useful manner the it is P/ut.
I throw in the any useful manner bit as some instructors seem to try to imprint their SOPS on the world!
I guess this kind of goes along StrateandLevel school of thought.
I would be interested to know how many people have done shared multi time in the USA and both logged P1. Not expecting any one to own up to that one though
I am of the school of though that it is as I deem it. If the instructor is in the RH seat and gives no input to the flight then s/he is merely there as an observer from the hirer of the Aircraft so I am in effect P1 carrying a safety pilot to satisfy the clubs insurance.
If the instructor "instructs" in any useful manner the it is P/ut.
I throw in the any useful manner bit as some instructors seem to try to imprint their SOPS on the world!
I guess this kind of goes along StrateandLevel school of thought.
I would be interested to know how many people have done shared multi time in the USA and both logged P1. Not expecting any one to own up to that one though
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's go back to the original one-liner question, which was concerning a CLUB checkout.
There is no legal requirement for a CLUB checkout. It is a CLUB rule only. One could equally have a club rule stating that all pilots must wear nylon underpants.
Unless the pilot has an expired license or a rating (in which case he cannot be P1 and he has to fly with an instructor), he can legally act as P1.
Therefore he can log it as P1.
More practically, if I can legally act as P1, and I am paying for it, I jolly well WANT to log it
A club checkout doesn't need to be done with an instructor; it can be done with anybody in the P2 seat who reckons himself to be the judge for the day. With a limited company owned aircraft, a Director of the company is a pretty good start.
What have I missed?
There is no legal requirement for a CLUB checkout. It is a CLUB rule only. One could equally have a club rule stating that all pilots must wear nylon underpants.
Unless the pilot has an expired license or a rating (in which case he cannot be P1 and he has to fly with an instructor), he can legally act as P1.
Therefore he can log it as P1.
More practically, if I can legally act as P1, and I am paying for it, I jolly well WANT to log it
A club checkout doesn't need to be done with an instructor; it can be done with anybody in the P2 seat who reckons himself to be the judge for the day. With a limited company owned aircraft, a Director of the company is a pretty good start.
What have I missed?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540,
Although that's a good break down of the facts and I can't wrong you on any of the points you make, I am almost 100% sure that the chief pilot at the club I fly from will make an issue of that when it comes to signing my paperwork after two years.
Maybe we should link this post to the instructors forum, to get a view....
Although that's a good break down of the facts and I can't wrong you on any of the points you make, I am almost 100% sure that the chief pilot at the club I fly from will make an issue of that when it comes to signing my paperwork after two years.
Maybe we should link this post to the instructors forum, to get a view....
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahh, back to this old chestnut.
As has been put by many others, the sensible thing is that if the FI doesn't actually have to say or do anything it should go down as P1/S.
Unfortunately according to LASOR's and stated by M_J, the only time P1/S can be used is for successful completion of a flight test. Since a check out is not a test for licence or rating issue, then the flight should really go down as P/UT. Crazy I know.........
Personally, I've never heard of the Belgrano actually complaining about P1/S apart from in an article in GASIL (I think) a while ago.
So I know you might want to put it down as P1, but if the letter of the law is followed, then you can't.
Personally when I fly with people who I know are competent, then I always get them to put down as P1 and I don't bother logging it. (Couldn't care less about 20 mins or so now!!)
However, if the instructor insists that the flight goes down as dual, then there is no real moaning that will make any difference since in theory they are in the right!
As has been put by many others, the sensible thing is that if the FI doesn't actually have to say or do anything it should go down as P1/S.
Unfortunately according to LASOR's and stated by M_J, the only time P1/S can be used is for successful completion of a flight test. Since a check out is not a test for licence or rating issue, then the flight should really go down as P/UT. Crazy I know.........
Personally, I've never heard of the Belgrano actually complaining about P1/S apart from in an article in GASIL (I think) a while ago.
So I know you might want to put it down as P1, but if the letter of the law is followed, then you can't.
Personally when I fly with people who I know are competent, then I always get them to put down as P1 and I don't bother logging it. (Couldn't care less about 20 mins or so now!!)
However, if the instructor insists that the flight goes down as dual, then there is no real moaning that will make any difference since in theory they are in the right!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
InTheAir
I cannot see a legal basis for it, but as a measure to improve both his logged hours and his income, I cannot fault him
We could have the same debate about charging for brakes-off to brakes-on versus airborne time only, or whether a "club" fly-out in a four-seater should be for the benefit of three PPL students who then of course need to have an instructor in the P2 seat, all the way round so the instructor gets paid for all 3 legs.
I know this sounds terribly cynical but this is what my last CFI told me he does and why.
To be fair, it must be difficult to know what to do if the pilots involved have currency so low that they are only just hanging onto their PPLs. Would an examiner sign off someone like that without a flight? I think he can. But that is every 2 years, nothing to do with a club checkout.
I cannot see a legal basis for it, but as a measure to improve both his logged hours and his income, I cannot fault him
We could have the same debate about charging for brakes-off to brakes-on versus airborne time only, or whether a "club" fly-out in a four-seater should be for the benefit of three PPL students who then of course need to have an instructor in the P2 seat, all the way round so the instructor gets paid for all 3 legs.
I know this sounds terribly cynical but this is what my last CFI told me he does and why.
To be fair, it must be difficult to know what to do if the pilots involved have currency so low that they are only just hanging onto their PPLs. Would an examiner sign off someone like that without a flight? I think he can. But that is every 2 years, nothing to do with a club checkout.
Beacon Outbound
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: "Home is were the answer machine is"
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I attended a CAA briefing a few years ago where this issue was discussed with the then Chief Flight Examiner.
When he was asked how to log something like a check out he told us P.1/s was not appropriate, since it is not a test.
Then somebody asked what to do if the 'student' insists on logging P.1, but the instructor (desperate for the time in his logbook) wants to do the same.
Chief Flight Examiner answered: 'We don't care about this. It is not a safety issue'.
Attendee: 'You mean we can both log this flight as P.1?'
CFE: 'We don't care. It is not a safety issue'
Attendee: 'Can we have that in writing please?'
CFE: 'Don't be silly!'
When he was asked how to log something like a check out he told us P.1/s was not appropriate, since it is not a test.
Then somebody asked what to do if the 'student' insists on logging P.1, but the instructor (desperate for the time in his logbook) wants to do the same.
Chief Flight Examiner answered: 'We don't care about this. It is not a safety issue'.
Attendee: 'You mean we can both log this flight as P.1?'
CFE: 'We don't care. It is not a safety issue'
Attendee: 'Can we have that in writing please?'
CFE: 'Don't be silly!'
But you do have a point that you do get PPL FI's.
Still think its against the spirit of the legislation and they would take a dim view of it.
Still think its against the spirit of the legislation and they would take a dim view of it.
If a PPL can legally give flight instruction, provided she is not paid for it, why shouldn't she give a check-out on the same basis?The cost-sharing exemption that you quote is not really relevant, in that it permits a payment from passengers to P1 in particular circumstances. In this case, there is no such payment requiring an exemption.
The law in this area is far from cut and dried and I'm not just trying to be pedantic. It's just that there are so many things that we can't do that it's a pity to add to the list unnecessarily.