does cross channel check count as PIUS?

[theresalwaysone]

Crossing Water

Interesting post on

http://www.madeinbirmingham.org/kiss/askcaptainjon.htm

crossing water

seems like Fouga Magister has been refered to as the airfield idiot!

[englishal]

Me and my mate had to do a cross channel checkout (one each way).......despite both of us holding JAA PPL/IMC, FAA SE and ME CPL IR.....club rules.....

The weather was a bit dodgey at L2K (overcast to about 700' if I remember rightly) so we shot the ILS in as we weren't going all that way for nothing..... It was only afterwards.....honest.....that we found out that the FI only had a "partial pass" in his JAA IR

[englishal]

Ah but you will normally require a Catalina checkout......club rules (unless you own your own aeroplane that is).....

[nuclear weapon]

I'll like to clarify again. I already had my ppl licence when I decided to do the checkout just before i started my hour building. We took a 172 a fellow ppl holder and one of the fto's instructor. I did the flying outbound and the other guy flew it back.
He never once touched the controls all he did was showed us directions when we got there and walked to town.I guess it wasn't his fault as he was following the club rules.He built up his hours rapidly and Lucky for him as he now flies citations for a corporate outfit.
The main reason I asked initially was that I was about to send my log book to the caa for my cpl licence issue with 102.5 hrs p1 and I put the cross channel check as p1 and wanted to confirm with them and you guys(ppruners) if it was ok. I did not want them coming back to me to tell me that I needed to do some more hours.I was told that as long as the check was satisfactory and I was in control throughout and also allowed to go by myself afterwards it was P1. Well now I have my frozen atpl and now a different sort of problem.

[DFC]

nuclear weapon,

Did you explain to the CAA that you had paid the "Passenger" to fly in the aircraft with you?

Either this was a training flight or it was public transport.

Illegal public transport is not a good start to a career as a commercial pilot.

Please let us know when you get your instructor rating and tell me then that you will do club checkouts for free!

----------

I love these guys on their way to a commercial job who claim that provided the pilot has the licence and the ratings then they are P1 and the instructor is simply a passenger.

Please explain that one to the training Captain during your line training.

--------

Instructors/ schools need to take note. For club checkouts, include exactly who is P1 in the briefing. If the student does not like the idea then they are not the type of person you want flying your aircraft.

---------

I will always check and sign the logbook entry of the pilot doing a check for any reason. They will be PUT unless it is a Skill test or LPC when it is P1/S provided they pass and PUT if not (even if they have a valid licence at the time!).

Should I sign a PUT entry in a logbook and then it is subsequently changed to P1 or even P1/S then that is clearly falsifying a logbook. Currently about £2000 per line according to the CAA legal dept.

-----------

Perhaps the unfortunate person at the CAA who told you that incorrect piece of information also checked with the instructor that they did not claim P1 also. After all one can not have two P1s at the same time in a SEP or the average light MEP.

Regards,

DFC

[High Wing Drifter]

DFC,

Illegal public transport is not a good start to a career as a commercial pilot.

Is it public transport flight if the pilot paying the passenger? The ANO says it is public transport if the cash is flowing in the other direction...unless I've missed something.

I will always check and sign the logbook entry of the pilot doing a check for any reason. They will be PUT unless it is a Skill test or LPC when it is P1/S provided they pass and PUT if not (even if they have a valid licence at the time!).

Surely PU/T is only relevant if you are actually being trained, as there is no recognised rating or qualification (neither a revalidation or type checkout) for flying to le-took then there can be no instruction recognised by the CAA and thus no PU/T. If that is the case, then the flight was either unloggable (P1 for the instructor) or P1 for Nuclear Weapon.

If the student does not like the idea then they are not the type of person you want flying your aircraft.

What's this got to do with a chap's character?

[TractorBoy]

I seem to recall there being a box on the Flight Plan that you have to submit that requires you to fill in the name of the Pilot In Command. Surely this is the person who is P1 and nobody else is entitled to log it ?

[englishal]

The way I understood it is: If flying a flight test with an examiner and you pass, P1/US is the norm. Anything else with an instructor is PUT. Ironic really, I did my JAR bienniel with an examiner, who was acting as FI (reval by experience, needed 1 hr with FI) and had to log PUS. However, had I opted for the "flight test" which I didn't need but could have done, and most of the elements would have been the same as the flight I did anyway, I could have logged P1/US.

I agree that P1/US should be the norm for a qualified PPL who is expanding their knowledge by renting an instructor - as long as they are legally entitled to fly on their own.

[DFC]

Originally Posted by High Wing Drifter

DFC,

Is it public transport flight if the pilot paying the passenger? The ANO says it is public transport if the cash is flowing in the other direction...unless I've missed something.

Surely PU/T is only relevant if you are actually being trained, as there is no recognised rating or qualification (neither a revalidation or type checkout) for flying to le-took then there can be no instruction recognised by the CAA and thus no PU/T. If that is the case, then the flight was either unloggable (P1 for the instructor) or P1 for Nuclear Weapon.

What's this got to do with a chap's character?

It is public Transport if payment is given or promissed for the carriage of a passenger or cargo. Who does the paying and to whom makes little difference.

Forget PUT. The flight is either logged as "Pilot in Command" or "Dual". The flight can be dual when any training is given. It does not have to be a recognised CAA sylabus or even training towards a CAA or other recognised qualification.

The fact is that the student contracted with the school to be trained in an aircraft by an instructor and paid for that training. To turn round later and say that there was no training provided would be not just a logging issue, but it would also mean that the student paid for a service that they did not receive and then there is the possible refund of money, false advertising and so on.

Not only that but if it is a club requirement (flying orders) and/or and insurnace requirement then by the student saying that they did not receive the required instruction they have not completed the check and thus can not make subsequent cross channel flights until checked in the laid down manner.

Owners or operators of aircraft are entitled to decide the requirements which are to be met by individuals wishing to fly such aircraft. If an owner decides that everyone will receive groundschool of two hours in how to do a head stand then that is what will be done. People who don't like the idea are entitled to go ensewhere.

What has it got to do with the Guy's character? - Basically, not much other than if a person who during a discussion with you mentions that they drive reguluarly after 4 or 5 pints, you are not going to let them have your car for a weekend's driving now are you?

Regards,

DFC

[S-Works]

How very typical DFC. Now we have someone who wants to log the P1 they are entitled to being bundled in the same boat as a habitual drink driver. I fail to see the connection of that one at all. But hey DFC is always right.......

[Fuji Abound]

I think this thread has departed on all sorts of tangents with plently of useful comment.

However for me I come back to the point I made earlier (and aslo made again by DFC) surely you must agree who is P1 at the start of the flight or what other relationships exists between the two in the front seat. Yep, it is only a little puddle jumper, but I think if nothing else this is fundamental to the flight. If that is done the relationship is immediately clear between the parties. So far as I am concerned (and whilst I might not agree) if the school wants to insist on a check ride that is entirely a matter for them - after all it is their aircraft, their insurance, their risk! If they tell you the relationship between the "crew" and you dont like it, go else where.

[slim_slag]

Originally Posted by ca_flyer

Thank heavens we don't have such outlandish ideas in the US where it is very clear as to who is PIC.

So who is PIC on a Catalina checkout?

[dublinpilot]

Even when training for an Instrument Rating under the hood you are PIC with the Instructur sat in the right seat.

Are you saying that in the case above, that in the FAA's eyes

1) you are not a pilot under training

and

2) a) there is either two pilots in command of the aircraft or
b) the instructor is not pilot in command?



dp

[DFC]

To a large extent this whole argument comes down to;

A cross-channel check takes place. Pick any of those above who demand that they are P1.

Some time later the CAA legal department make a claim that some illegal act occured during the flight - low flying, incorrect paperwork or whatever.

I can guarantee that if legal proceedings were a possibility, those who demand they are P1 would be only too quick to point the finger at the instructor in order to defend themselves.

----------

What this thred highlights more than anything is that instructors are not doing a good job when it comes to crosschannel checkouts. If they were then we would not have people making statements claiming that the instructor was merely a passenger. Of course there is the old you can't teach an old dog new tricks posibility but I get a lot of "I don't need a checkout because I know it already" feeling from many posters.

Regards,

DFC

[slim_slag]

Yes dublinpilot, the FAA allows two pilots to log PIC. One is 'legal' PIC (in the Catalena checkout example I gave this will be the instructor) who can log it because he is

The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. (FAR 91.3)

The student can log PIC because he

Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated or has privileges; (61.51 (e) (1) (i)

So he can log PIC because the FARs say he can. He can also log PIC if in the clouds when sole manipulator of the controls even if he doesn't have an instrument rating. He cannot be legal PIC, but he can log it.

Even if the instructor is not 'legal' PIC, he can log PIC because the FARs say he can. (FAR 61.51 (3)

What the UK is missing in the cross channel example is 61.51 (e) (1) (i) - sole manipulator of the controls.

Hope I've got all my brackets in the right places

[S-Works]

Or maybe of someone is deemed capable of holding a CPL they should be deemed capable of crossing 25miles of water..............

Originally Posted by DFC

To a large extent this whole argument comes down to;
A cross-channel check takes place. Pick any of those above who demand that they are P1.
Some time later the CAA legal department make a claim that some illegal act occured during the flight - low flying, incorrect paperwork or whatever.
I can guarantee that if legal proceedings were a possibility, those who demand they are P1 would be only too quick to point the finger at the instructor in order to defend themselves.
----------
What this thred highlights more than anything is that instructors are not doing a good job when it comes to crosschannel checkouts. If they were then we would not have people making statements claiming that the instructor was merely a passenger. Of course there is the old you can't teach an old dog new tricks posibility but I get a lot of "I don't need a checkout because I know it already" feeling from many posters.
Regards,
DFC

[englishal]

Yes dublinpilot, the FAA allows two pilots to log PIC.

Just to clarify. What ca_flyer and Slim say are correct but the FI must log it as "PIC As Flight Instructor".

[BEagle]

It was all once sooo easy:

P1 for FI, P1/S for other pilot.

Then the daftness fo JAR-FCL confused the heck out of everyone - so nowadays it's PIC for FI, Pu/t for other pilot.

One solution is the "I'll take it there, you bring it back" agreement.

[slim_slag]

ca_flyer made a mistake on the flying in clouds' bit, which I'm only pointing that out so nobody gets misled.

Yes, if it's a 2 hour checkout the instructor will log PIC 2.0, Dual Given 2.0. The instructor is 'legal' PIC as he is in charge.

The 'student' will log all time he is sole manipulator, which in practice means PIC 2.0, Dual received 2.0.

If it was the student's plane and he wanted to be legal 91.3 PIC (as, I think, is his right) he would log the same, as would the instructor. The student would be in charge so 'legal' PIC, but the instructor gets to log PIC because 61.51 (3) says he can. If the instructor doesn't like that arrangement then he doesn't have to go.

Very sensible, and if you want to know the story just add up the columns and subtract the dual received from PIC and you can sort of work out how many hours were solo PIC (which would be pretty close to P1 in the UK).

[englishal]

which I'm only pointing that out so nobody gets misled

I think something must have changed in the FARs then. When I did my IR in 2001 (blimey, 5 years ago!), it was as ca_flyer said, i.e. when entering IMC the PIC stops. Same when carrying an IR'd safety pilot .....For the same reason you cannot log PIC time in a ME aeroplane without haveing a ME rating, you could not log PIC time in IMC as you were not rated to be there (depite being sole manip. and all that as you could also be in a ME aeroplane).