Log Book entries
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Log Book entries
A discussion of P1S and when it can or can't be used can run to several pages on PPRuNe - I hope this one won't. The last definition I read was that it could only be used for a flight test which was passed, as bose-x said. But a lot of people, including instructors, never knew that. And maybe the rules have changed, as they do now and then. (BEagle??). Either way, P1S is a nightmare!!!! In practice, I mean. I have a simple rule; if an instructor tells me to log P1S, I do, rightly or wrongly. Otherwise you get into an argument. And why bother? Ultimately, it just means that many PPLs have an extra hour or two in their total P1 hours that they probably shouldn't have. Who cares? I suspect not even the CAA.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Outlawed
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Log Book entries
I wonder why there is such a divergence of opinion? Can anyone disagree with the following? (disregarding Instructor & Multi-crew logging):
P2 - Not for the likes of us
P1 - Anytime YOU are flying the aircraft, with the exception of:
a) P1/S - A successfull flight test, duly signed by the examiner.
b) PU/T - Any flight training, revalidation of ratings, unsuccessfull flight tests or aircraft checkouts.
P2 - Not for the likes of us
P1 - Anytime YOU are flying the aircraft, with the exception of:
a) P1/S - A successfull flight test, duly signed by the examiner.
b) PU/T - Any flight training, revalidation of ratings, unsuccessfull flight tests or aircraft checkouts.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Log Book entries
yes aircraft checkouts are not PUT unless a new type that you require instruction on. If I have to do a club checkout for an aircraft I am current on then I insist on P1, not because I need any hours just as a matter of principle.
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
Re: Log Book entries
And, as I explained on another thread, if I, as an instructor, do a club checkout, I insist that I am P1, and the person being checked out is PUT - contrary to what Bose-x says.
My reason is that, if I log P1, I am legally in charge of the aircraft, and that means I can legally take control if I want to. If the person being checked out is P1 then I am nothing more than a passenger, and therefore I have no legal right to take control without permission of the captain - which is not acceptable to me.
So, sorry Bose-x, but you will not be getting checked out by me!
Strafer, do you see why these discussions can run for page after page???
FFF
-------------
My reason is that, if I log P1, I am legally in charge of the aircraft, and that means I can legally take control if I want to. If the person being checked out is P1 then I am nothing more than a passenger, and therefore I have no legal right to take control without permission of the captain - which is not acceptable to me.
So, sorry Bose-x, but you will not be getting checked out by me!
Strafer, do you see why these discussions can run for page after page???
FFF
-------------
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Log Book entries
I fully understand that P1u/s is only for a successful outcome of a skills test.
However wouldn't it make much more sense if the CAA were to change that, and allow it for club checkouts?
After all that is what you really are. Pilot in command, but under surpervision of someone else. It would recognise Bose-x's point that he is actually in command, while also recognising FFF's point that he must be in a position to legally take over if he's not satisfied with the commanders performance.
dp
However wouldn't it make much more sense if the CAA were to change that, and allow it for club checkouts?
After all that is what you really are. Pilot in command, but under surpervision of someone else. It would recognise Bose-x's point that he is actually in command, while also recognising FFF's point that he must be in a position to legally take over if he's not satisfied with the commanders performance.
dp
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
Re: Log Book entries
I fully understand that P1u/s is only for a successful outcome of a skills test.
However wouldn't it make much more sense if the CAA were to change that, and allow it for club checkouts?
However wouldn't it make much more sense if the CAA were to change that, and allow it for club checkouts?
FFF
--------------
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Log Book entries
Flying For Fun,
You can add insurance and good old safety to the reasons why you and I will be P1 when operating as an instructor doing any checkout.
Yes the pilot's licence may entitle them to fly any SEP. Yes they may have tons of experience over many years but;
They need a checkout before they can be pilot in command. The reason for the checkout does not matter. If they were entitled to fly as pilot in command then they would not need the training flight.
My solution recently to this problem is that I take the log book before the flight and then after flying I make the entry in the pilot's log book and sign it before handing it back. This means that I make them PUT and there has never been a discussion since.
Makes sure that one does not end up with principled people like BOSE recording the flight in error and causing me to draw a line through their entry before making a correct record of the flight.
Regards,
DFC
You can add insurance and good old safety to the reasons why you and I will be P1 when operating as an instructor doing any checkout.
Yes the pilot's licence may entitle them to fly any SEP. Yes they may have tons of experience over many years but;
They need a checkout before they can be pilot in command. The reason for the checkout does not matter. If they were entitled to fly as pilot in command then they would not need the training flight.
My solution recently to this problem is that I take the log book before the flight and then after flying I make the entry in the pilot's log book and sign it before handing it back. This means that I make them PUT and there has never been a discussion since.
Makes sure that one does not end up with principled people like BOSE recording the flight in error and causing me to draw a line through their entry before making a correct record of the flight.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Log Book entries
FFF I can live with not being checked out by you or DFC!
As I pointed out before if learning a new type and the instructor has something to teach then PUT is acceptable a club checkout on a type that you are current on "for insurance purposes" then its P1.
As for allowing someone else to fill in my logbook, over my dead body! Renewing an MEP rating each year gives me my 1hr with an Instructor so I dont even need the instructor signature on club "checkout" flights.
Fortunatly the clubs I have chosen to fly with are not staffed by hours hungry instructors with no principals.
As I pointed out before if learning a new type and the instructor has something to teach then PUT is acceptable a club checkout on a type that you are current on "for insurance purposes" then its P1.
As for allowing someone else to fill in my logbook, over my dead body! Renewing an MEP rating each year gives me my 1hr with an Instructor so I dont even need the instructor signature on club "checkout" flights.
Fortunatly the clubs I have chosen to fly with are not staffed by hours hungry instructors with no principals.
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
Re: Log Book entries
Bose-x,
First of all, let me stress that I do not want to turn this thread into a slanging match. We both know that the rules about this situation are incredibly vague, and the only way it will really ever be resolved is for someone in the CAA to clarify the matter. (And DP's suggestion is undoubtedly the best compromise, which would keep both you and I happy.)
However, I am, so far, at a loss to understand your argument as to why you must log P1. You say that you are legally entitled to log P1, which might be the case (notwithstanding any insurance issues), but then so is your instructor.
On the other hand, DFC and I have given you a couple of very good reasons why we should be P1.
I do not dispute that it is possible, and legal (so long as the insurance allows you to be P1), for you to be P1 and the instructor to be a passenger, if that is agreed between the two of you before the flight. But it's something which I choose not to do, because legally it changes the dynamics of what goes on in the aircraft. If other instructors feel different, then that's fine, and in most cases legal.
But do you have a good reason why it is wrong for the instructor to be P1 and the person being checked out to be PUT? I would be surprised.
FFF
--------------
PS - Incidentally, not directly related, there is another completely different scenario, which is where a PPL friend of mine phones me up and says that he is going flying somewhere for a bacon butty on my day off, would I like to come with and keep him company. In that case, I am there as a passenger, not an instructor, so I will quite happily go along and not log it. As the more experienced pilot on the aircraft, I would be quite happy to offer the captain any advice he wanted about the flight, but I would have no legal say in the conduct of the flight.
First of all, let me stress that I do not want to turn this thread into a slanging match. We both know that the rules about this situation are incredibly vague, and the only way it will really ever be resolved is for someone in the CAA to clarify the matter. (And DP's suggestion is undoubtedly the best compromise, which would keep both you and I happy.)
However, I am, so far, at a loss to understand your argument as to why you must log P1. You say that you are legally entitled to log P1, which might be the case (notwithstanding any insurance issues), but then so is your instructor.
On the other hand, DFC and I have given you a couple of very good reasons why we should be P1.
I do not dispute that it is possible, and legal (so long as the insurance allows you to be P1), for you to be P1 and the instructor to be a passenger, if that is agreed between the two of you before the flight. But it's something which I choose not to do, because legally it changes the dynamics of what goes on in the aircraft. If other instructors feel different, then that's fine, and in most cases legal.
But do you have a good reason why it is wrong for the instructor to be P1 and the person being checked out to be PUT? I would be surprised.
FFF
--------------
PS - Incidentally, not directly related, there is another completely different scenario, which is where a PPL friend of mine phones me up and says that he is going flying somewhere for a bacon butty on my day off, would I like to come with and keep him company. In that case, I am there as a passenger, not an instructor, so I will quite happily go along and not log it. As the more experienced pilot on the aircraft, I would be quite happy to offer the captain any advice he wanted about the flight, but I would have no legal say in the conduct of the flight.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Log Book entries
You could look at it another way.
I am licenced, legal and competent to be PIC. The CAA or the club REQUIRE me to do a flight with an instructor, who sits there enjoying the view.
Who is PIC then?
I did a France checkout some years ago (club rules), my friend and I were instrument rated, and were very current as we'd been flying 50 or so hours in the states and just returned. The instructor had a nice day out, he reminded us how to file flight plans, and reminded himself by asking the guy in the tower, we bought him lunch and flew home.
In this case as the instructor was not "required" as such, is he really entitled to log PIC?
This is where the FARs make sense, the PPL can log PIC, the FI can log "as flight instructor", which is what he was, there to give a few pointers on procedures, not to remind us how to fly an aeroplane.......
I am licenced, legal and competent to be PIC. The CAA or the club REQUIRE me to do a flight with an instructor, who sits there enjoying the view.
Who is PIC then?
I did a France checkout some years ago (club rules), my friend and I were instrument rated, and were very current as we'd been flying 50 or so hours in the states and just returned. The instructor had a nice day out, he reminded us how to file flight plans, and reminded himself by asking the guy in the tower, we bought him lunch and flew home.
In this case as the instructor was not "required" as such, is he really entitled to log PIC?
This is where the FARs make sense, the PPL can log PIC, the FI can log "as flight instructor", which is what he was, there to give a few pointers on procedures, not to remind us how to fly an aeroplane.......
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Log Book entries
I never said it was wrong for the instructor to claim P1 - They have to get the RHS of a chav transporter somehow.....
The rules are as you say "vague" i.e there is nothing saying the instructor must be P1 other than there desire for the hours. If I was to fly so badly that the instructor felt compelled to take over as P1 on a club checkout on an aircraft that I am current on then I think I would have to evaluate my flying.
Example, I own a 152 more than 1400hrs on type, it goes in for maintanance and I need to fly to a meeting, I pitch up to rent and the school insist on a checkout, fair enough its there plane. I jump through the hoops and do the checkout. I am not learning anything by demonstrating I can handle the aircraft therefore I am P1. My "dime" my hours.
Fortunatly the clubs I fly with have instructors that accept this and in fact it is the norm for them.
Second scenario, I turn up to fly an aircraft I have never flown before, either MEP or SEP my licence allows me to fly it but being a new type there is something I can learn from someone more experianced on type. We explore the handling with hints and tips being given that improve my management of that aircraft. I have recieved training PU/TRAINING and so the flight is PUT.
I am not adverse to PUT, I have many hundreds of hours of PUT in my logbook from various conversions, IR training etc but what I don't like is being taken advantage off and I feel that a number of hours building instructors take the mick by insisting that they are P1.
A further example is a friend of mine who took an instructor as a passenger on a club flyout, the instructor tried to make him log PU/T just because he was onboard!
We can argue for ever over the logging of hours and we will each have there own opinion. You are entitled to yours as I am to mine and neither opinion is against the rules!
The rules are as you say "vague" i.e there is nothing saying the instructor must be P1 other than there desire for the hours. If I was to fly so badly that the instructor felt compelled to take over as P1 on a club checkout on an aircraft that I am current on then I think I would have to evaluate my flying.
Example, I own a 152 more than 1400hrs on type, it goes in for maintanance and I need to fly to a meeting, I pitch up to rent and the school insist on a checkout, fair enough its there plane. I jump through the hoops and do the checkout. I am not learning anything by demonstrating I can handle the aircraft therefore I am P1. My "dime" my hours.
Fortunatly the clubs I fly with have instructors that accept this and in fact it is the norm for them.
Second scenario, I turn up to fly an aircraft I have never flown before, either MEP or SEP my licence allows me to fly it but being a new type there is something I can learn from someone more experianced on type. We explore the handling with hints and tips being given that improve my management of that aircraft. I have recieved training PU/TRAINING and so the flight is PUT.
I am not adverse to PUT, I have many hundreds of hours of PUT in my logbook from various conversions, IR training etc but what I don't like is being taken advantage off and I feel that a number of hours building instructors take the mick by insisting that they are P1.
A further example is a friend of mine who took an instructor as a passenger on a club flyout, the instructor tried to make him log PU/T just because he was onboard!
We can argue for ever over the logging of hours and we will each have there own opinion. You are entitled to yours as I am to mine and neither opinion is against the rules!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Outlawed
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Log Book entries
That's the problem Bose - like you, I'll log P1 for a group checkout (the guy next to me is in any case not a qualified instructor, just a more experienced member of the group). However, if he's booking P1 too, that is illegal.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: wakefield
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Log Book entries
With regard to instructors loging P1, if it is a club check and you haven't done 3 take offs and landings in the last 90 days they would have to log p1 because you would not be able to carry them as a passenger.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Log Book entries
The UK systems is really designed for airlines, so hardly surprising if the rules favour those who want to become airline pilots.
The instructor is being paid to teach, not log hours, and even if you have 1400 hours on type you can still learn. In the UK system as it stands the person who owns the plane should log P1. If the plane is being rented the instructor acts on behalf of the flying school owner so the instructor should log P1. If the plane is part of a group and the pilot owns a share, he should log P1. Of course you need to be rated on the plane to log it. Another example of where the CAA could learn from the FAA.
The instructor is being paid to teach, not log hours, and even if you have 1400 hours on type you can still learn. In the UK system as it stands the person who owns the plane should log P1. If the plane is being rented the instructor acts on behalf of the flying school owner so the instructor should log P1. If the plane is part of a group and the pilot owns a share, he should log P1. Of course you need to be rated on the plane to log it. Another example of where the CAA could learn from the FAA.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Log Book entries
slim, always willing to learn but I am pretty sure that a "club checkout" on the type I own and fly almost every single day is not a learning experiance.
Ownership has nothing to do with who logs P1 thats a load of tosh. Good try though!
Ownership has nothing to do with who logs P1 thats a load of tosh. Good try though!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Log Book entries
Well, in that case your instructor isn't doing his job. It shouldn't take too long to realise you are competent, so then you can do something different like flying at MCA for a while. I will accept that with 1400 hrs on type it might be hard to find an instructor who knows more than you, but they are out there
As for ownership, just trying to throw out something that is fair. I know the UK systems doesn't worth that way, but obviously it's not clear what should happen, mine is one suggestion amongst many.
As for ownership, just trying to throw out something that is fair. I know the UK systems doesn't worth that way, but obviously it's not clear what should happen, mine is one suggestion amongst many.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Log Book entries
Bose,
I think that your argument lies with the club rules/owners/operators and not the instructor.
If you are current on C152s (be it with only 1400 hours) and a club still requires a checkout to fly their C152 then the argument is about the club accepting that you are a very experienced pilot and have nothing to learn.
The position of pilot in command and other duties on the flight are decided pre-flight. I am the pilot in command you are operating the aircraft under my instruction - I say to fly it then you fly it, I say stop you stop! I am pilot in command. If that is clear then I am sure you would not spoil it by making a false logbook entry after the flight claiming that you were pilot in command now would you?
The pilot in command is the person responsible for the safety of the aircraft during flight time. It has no direct link to flying the aircraft. It is a responsibility issue. If you are in need of a checkout for any reason then by definition there is a reason (club/insurance/currency/airmanship) why you are not qualified to (or would not want to) take responsibility for thesafety of the aircraft.
If you and I agreed that you were in a position to take responsibility then I would not waste my and your time doing a checkout.
I often do not charge for giving my time to people who need a checkout and I am most definitely not in need of any more hours. However, I have yet to come across a pilot who had nothing to learn.
There is the other argument about what the checkout requires- a few circuits only, some upper air work, a PFL or 2. I can see where people have problems with having to spend over 1 hour "checking out" on a type that they actually flew last week. That is often down to money making (instructor and club), hour building (instructor) and ass covering/ unwilling to use discretion/experience (instructor). Those are the areas where the arguments about checkouts lie. Not in the log book entries.
--------
Englishal,
If the club required you to do a checkout before being pilot in command on a flight to France then how did you carry passengers (one of whom was an instructor) on a flight to France before being signed off?
------
I can see a wording change soon in many club rules.
Replace words like "check out" with "Training Flight".
eg
Old version:
No pilot may act as pilot in command of an aircraft they have not flown in the previous 28 days unless they complete a checkout with a club instructor.
New version:
No pilot may act as pilot in command of an aircraft thay have not flown in the previous 28 days unless they complete a training flight with a club instructor.
After all, training flights are clearly defined. "Checkouts" are not defined at all.
Regards,
DFC
I think that your argument lies with the club rules/owners/operators and not the instructor.
If you are current on C152s (be it with only 1400 hours) and a club still requires a checkout to fly their C152 then the argument is about the club accepting that you are a very experienced pilot and have nothing to learn.
The position of pilot in command and other duties on the flight are decided pre-flight. I am the pilot in command you are operating the aircraft under my instruction - I say to fly it then you fly it, I say stop you stop! I am pilot in command. If that is clear then I am sure you would not spoil it by making a false logbook entry after the flight claiming that you were pilot in command now would you?
The pilot in command is the person responsible for the safety of the aircraft during flight time. It has no direct link to flying the aircraft. It is a responsibility issue. If you are in need of a checkout for any reason then by definition there is a reason (club/insurance/currency/airmanship) why you are not qualified to (or would not want to) take responsibility for thesafety of the aircraft.
If you and I agreed that you were in a position to take responsibility then I would not waste my and your time doing a checkout.
I often do not charge for giving my time to people who need a checkout and I am most definitely not in need of any more hours. However, I have yet to come across a pilot who had nothing to learn.
There is the other argument about what the checkout requires- a few circuits only, some upper air work, a PFL or 2. I can see where people have problems with having to spend over 1 hour "checking out" on a type that they actually flew last week. That is often down to money making (instructor and club), hour building (instructor) and ass covering/ unwilling to use discretion/experience (instructor). Those are the areas where the arguments about checkouts lie. Not in the log book entries.
--------
Englishal,
If the club required you to do a checkout before being pilot in command on a flight to France then how did you carry passengers (one of whom was an instructor) on a flight to France before being signed off?
------
I can see a wording change soon in many club rules.
Replace words like "check out" with "Training Flight".
eg
Old version:
No pilot may act as pilot in command of an aircraft they have not flown in the previous 28 days unless they complete a checkout with a club instructor.
New version:
No pilot may act as pilot in command of an aircraft thay have not flown in the previous 28 days unless they complete a training flight with a club instructor.
After all, training flights are clearly defined. "Checkouts" are not defined at all.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slim, now you are starting to see the theme! There are way to many instructors out there only interested in the hours and not the teaching and who will happily sit there for a checkout and not say a word.
I am not arguing that every flight should be cut and dried, as pointed above if someone is out of the 90 day window then I would suggest that they do indeed have something to learn and would benefit from a PU/T flight.
What I object to is being made to checkout out on a type that I have flown 24hrs previously for "insurance purposes" especially when insured through the same company!
The point being that it should be by agreement between instructor and pilot including giving the right to the instructor to take over control of the flight should he feel there is a danger just like they would with an ab initio.
A lot of instructors are driven by there own view that because they have an FI rating they are better than a "simple" PPL. On the other hand there are also some truly stunning career instructors out there who know more about flying in there little finger than I will know in a lifetime of banging trainer into the ground.
Experiance has shown me that the same career instructors who I have so much to learn from are also the same guys who dont care what the flight gets logged as.............
DFC, 1400 hours on type not TT and those 1400 in the 3.5 yrs of ownership........... Not to mention ME, etc etc etc. blah blah blah blah....
I am not arguing that every flight should be cut and dried, as pointed above if someone is out of the 90 day window then I would suggest that they do indeed have something to learn and would benefit from a PU/T flight.
What I object to is being made to checkout out on a type that I have flown 24hrs previously for "insurance purposes" especially when insured through the same company!
The point being that it should be by agreement between instructor and pilot including giving the right to the instructor to take over control of the flight should he feel there is a danger just like they would with an ab initio.
A lot of instructors are driven by there own view that because they have an FI rating they are better than a "simple" PPL. On the other hand there are also some truly stunning career instructors out there who know more about flying in there little finger than I will know in a lifetime of banging trainer into the ground.
Experiance has shown me that the same career instructors who I have so much to learn from are also the same guys who dont care what the flight gets logged as.............
DFC, 1400 hours on type not TT and those 1400 in the 3.5 yrs of ownership........... Not to mention ME, etc etc etc. blah blah blah blah....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose x,
I would say your beef is with the insurance company and not the instructor. If a checkout with an instructor is a requirement for the school policy, and if the school's insurance company says you cannot be PIC without the checkout, then I don't see what else the school/instructor can do. The instructor has his own ticket/job/bank balance to protect and if he let's you log P1 he might not be covered by insurance himself, and if you cause damage then the instructor might be in a nasty position. You might be too if you are not insured on your own policy, and I suspect you will make a more lucrative financial target for a civil claim than your average impoverished instructor.
So I'd look at this somewhat unusual example in a pragmatic manner and let the instructor log his P1. Sure it sucks when you are paying all the cash and possibly teach the instructor something in the process, but there are worse things in life.
I would say your beef is with the insurance company and not the instructor. If a checkout with an instructor is a requirement for the school policy, and if the school's insurance company says you cannot be PIC without the checkout, then I don't see what else the school/instructor can do. The instructor has his own ticket/job/bank balance to protect and if he let's you log P1 he might not be covered by insurance himself, and if you cause damage then the instructor might be in a nasty position. You might be too if you are not insured on your own policy, and I suspect you will make a more lucrative financial target for a civil claim than your average impoverished instructor.
So I'd look at this somewhat unusual example in a pragmatic manner and let the instructor log his P1. Sure it sucks when you are paying all the cash and possibly teach the instructor something in the process, but there are worse things in life.