does cross channel check count as PIUS?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: london
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
does cross channel check count as PIUS?
Just before applying for my license I want to make sure I have the correct P1 hours. I did a cross channel check to Le touquet with an instructor on a 172. I was already checked out on the aircraft and also had my ppl license. He only came along as it was the policy of my school if you are going for the first time. I want to know if this counts as Pilot in command under supervision as I flew the aircraft and planned it and I was not beign taught how to fly.
Also do the caa go through every single trip you log to add it up or they just go with the school stamps on your log book as I did 90% of my hour building and training at a uk school and have a couple of stamps verifying my hours.
Also do the caa go through every single trip you log to add it up or they just go with the school stamps on your log book as I did 90% of my hour building and training at a uk school and have a couple of stamps verifying my hours.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dry bar
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This flight should be logged as P1S, the instructor would have been the commander of the aircraft during the flight. Correct, but if the flight was handled solely by you i.e the instructor did not take over at any point, then its P1S, otherwise it would be PUT.
Read LASORS.
Read LASORS.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Page 60 of LASORS sets it out all very nicely in an easy enough to follow table. Case H from their table looks like it is the bit you need for future reference since the CAA has come to your aid.
I can't see how it would ever be P/UT as someone said above as you were not "under instruction for the purpose of gaining a licence or rating or gaining lessons in a new aircraft type". Interestingly enough if the instructor had to take over during the check out for safety reasons then I would say he logs P1 and you get nought. Well that is my interpretation of the rules anyway.
I can't see how it would ever be P/UT as someone said above as you were not "under instruction for the purpose of gaining a licence or rating or gaining lessons in a new aircraft type". Interestingly enough if the instructor had to take over during the check out for safety reasons then I would say he logs P1 and you get nought. Well that is my interpretation of the rules anyway.
Moving On
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
potkettleblack not sure about your reference. The table about logging time gives to options for logging PIC U/S: Case J which is only for the successful completion of a flight test with a JAA or CAA examiner; Case B co-pilot performing the duties of PIC under the supervision of the PIC. Case B might look to apply except in the notes it says this is only applicable if the aircraft has a C of A requiring it to be operated two crew.
I don't actually understand how the CAA came to their conclusion as it appears to contradict other written information. However this really is an old chestnut and liable to be debated on here ad infinitum. Personally I think P1/s should be abolished as it just causes confusion for the small amount of it that a pilot gains. This case really should be either P1 or PU/T, and the deciding factor is whether or not the instructor is named as P1 and logs the time themselves (which is most likely what happened).
I don't actually understand how the CAA came to their conclusion as it appears to contradict other written information. However this really is an old chestnut and liable to be debated on here ad infinitum. Personally I think P1/s should be abolished as it just causes confusion for the small amount of it that a pilot gains. This case really should be either P1 or PU/T, and the deciding factor is whether or not the instructor is named as P1 and logs the time themselves (which is most likely what happened).
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with logging it as "Case A" is that you will invariably get into a situation where both yourself and the instructor will want to log P1 which clearly is outside of the rules considering you are in a light aircraft that is not certified for multi crew operations/no AOC etc etc. Therefore H seems to be the only thing left until the CAA come along with a new letter. I is free!
As for P/UT I was always taught (and that table seems to bear it out) you log this when under recognised training. In a checkout where you are acting as the commander and demonstrating your skills mainly for insurance purposes I can't see how this would fit under P/UT.
I agree it would be nice for the CAA to add to their notes and assign a letter for these sorts of things as it is a regular debate. That way we can put it to bed once and for all.
As for P/UT I was always taught (and that table seems to bear it out) you log this when under recognised training. In a checkout where you are acting as the commander and demonstrating your skills mainly for insurance purposes I can't see how this would fit under P/UT.
I agree it would be nice for the CAA to add to their notes and assign a letter for these sorts of things as it is a regular debate. That way we can put it to bed once and for all.
Moving On
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Potkettleblack, Case H SPIC is something specifically reserved for integrated training (see notes at end of table). It is where on an integrated course instead of the 'hour building' element the student does supervised solo where there is an instructor on board but the instructor takes no action during the flight. It cannot be used for anything else.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PUT for a XChannel check is a con.
All they did on mine was brief me on the customs procedures and just sat next to me on my first crossing for insurance purposes.
Prehaps the fact the instructor has to 'intervene' to 'instruct' you on customs at L2K makes it PUT
All they did on mine was brief me on the customs procedures and just sat next to me on my first crossing for insurance purposes.
Prehaps the fact the instructor has to 'intervene' to 'instruct' you on customs at L2K makes it PUT
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: エリア88
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PUT for a XChannel check is a con.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
X-Channel check w/ an instructor IS a con! Or are these clubs/FTOs afraid of their own shadow? All those who have crossed the Channel on a light aircraft will know that it's a non-event. Basically, file VFR, then head South-East until reporting mid-Channel, when ATC will advise to contact Paris Information with your details. That's it! Big deal... 
As long as you have a life jacket on board and can swim, you should be OK
If the school requires an instructor to be present when crossing the Channel, why not also when doing a X-country to North Wales or the Highlands (which have some pretty foreboding terrain), or the Isle of Man, or even the Isle of Wight? Nobody requested me in Florida to take an instructor along when overflying the Everglades (even though it wasn't recommended on a single-engine). Likewise in South Africa, no instructor necessary for navigation flights over the highveld and the bush, or the Kalahari... pretty inhospitable too!
Cheers
As long as you have a life jacket on board and can swim, you should be OK
If the school requires an instructor to be present when crossing the Channel, why not also when doing a X-country to North Wales or the Highlands (which have some pretty foreboding terrain), or the Isle of Man, or even the Isle of Wight? Nobody requested me in Florida to take an instructor along when overflying the Everglades (even though it wasn't recommended on a single-engine). Likewise in South Africa, no instructor necessary for navigation flights over the highveld and the bush, or the Kalahari... pretty inhospitable too!
Cheers
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Airwaves
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So how does the pilot navigate cross-channel? I would say that it is not unreasonable for a trip where the aircraft might be out of sight of recognisable navigation features for a school to ask for a checkout, considering the navigation test in the PPL skills test only allows for use of ground features. Where is it written that trips to the IOM don't need a check? Of course trips to the IOW don't go out of glide range, let alone out of sight of land.
If it is done by an instuctor, and the instructor logs it as P1, instructional time then the other pilot must log it as dual instruction, as my log book would have it, I assume that is P/UT to others. You cannot log P1S in a single-crew a/c unless it is a flight test!
If it is done by an instuctor, and the instructor logs it as P1, instructional time then the other pilot must log it as dual instruction, as my log book would have it, I assume that is P/UT to others. You cannot log P1S in a single-crew a/c unless it is a flight test!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuned In,
Passing the PPL does not limit you to navigating via ground features, however if you are crossing VFR then you can see France anyway so you will be using ground features. If you pick a suitable xing altitude then even the humble 172 can glide for approx. 10 miles from 7k and 20 miles from 12k.
Its not PUT. Or to invert your question - show me where it is written down that xchannel trips require an instructor logging P1 except in the flying schools book.
If it was a group aircraft then you would be P1, even if you took someone with you who had done the trip before and can explain those oh-so-tricky French customs.....
[Edited for splleing
]
Passing the PPL does not limit you to navigating via ground features, however if you are crossing VFR then you can see France anyway so you will be using ground features. If you pick a suitable xing altitude then even the humble 172 can glide for approx. 10 miles from 7k and 20 miles from 12k.
Its not PUT. Or to invert your question - show me where it is written down that xchannel trips require an instructor logging P1 except in the flying schools book.
If it was a group aircraft then you would be P1, even if you took someone with you who had done the trip before and can explain those oh-so-tricky French customs.....
[Edited for splleing
]
Last edited by Julian; 10th Aug 2006 at 08:02.
Moving On
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this circumstance if it is a school aircraft that you are renting then it is really up to them. It should be detailed in either their Flying Order Book or Ops Manual. If one of these states that the school require you to complete a x-channel dual checkout before you can complete it solo then you have to and the flight is PU/T. Whether you agree with their thinking is irrelevant if its their aircraft you are renting its up to them to set the requirements for using it.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been mentioned, in VMC, one can see the French coast long before reaching mid-Channel, so dead-reckoning isn't too difficult - not to say that VOR/DME/ADF/GPS/VDF shouldn't be used. Belt and braces - never let an instrument unused.
The schools in question might require an instructor, but they either want to make a fast buck , or they need to remember that Louis Bleriot first crossed the Channel (with no navaids or ATC to help him) over a hundred years ago...
Cheers
The schools in question might require an instructor, but they either want to make a fast buck
, or they need to remember that Louis Bleriot first crossed the Channel (with no navaids or ATC to help him) over a hundred years ago...Cheers
Guest
Posts: n/a
JAR-FCL 1 seems to be pretty clear (after more than one reading!) that you cannot log a flight such as a cross-channel checkout as PICUS (P1S) because you are not multi-crew and not flying for a rating or type/class checkout, neither can you log PUT as there is no such examiner qualification for channel checkouts. That leaves only two possibilities: P1 or unloggable. Unloggable is untennable so it is probabaly appropriate to insist that you claim the P1 time.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Checkout of difference training logging
Although not strictly related to the original post I thought it relevant to post here (sorry for duplicating anything above).
I have a JAR PPL and recently underwent some difference training on a single engine with a variable pitch prop. I've just phoned the CAA to clarify the "Guide to logbook annotation" table on Page 42 section A of LASORS 2006 and they've made it clear to me that:
- "PIC U/S" or "P1 U/S" is for really for use with multi-pilot aircraft or for flight tests
- I should log my difference training as "P/UT". The instructor would log his time as "P1".
This is also the case for my colleague who recently underwent a check-out flight on a non-complex SE aircraft (Piper Warrior) that he'd flown before. He is also a JAR PPL but his currency on that aircraft had lapsed. His time can only be logged as "P U/T" and not "PIC U/S". Again the instructor will log "P1".
I have a JAR PPL and recently underwent some difference training on a single engine with a variable pitch prop. I've just phoned the CAA to clarify the "Guide to logbook annotation" table on Page 42 section A of LASORS 2006 and they've made it clear to me that:
- "PIC U/S" or "P1 U/S" is for really for use with multi-pilot aircraft or for flight tests
- I should log my difference training as "P/UT". The instructor would log his time as "P1".
This is also the case for my colleague who recently underwent a check-out flight on a non-complex SE aircraft (Piper Warrior) that he'd flown before. He is also a JAR PPL but his currency on that aircraft had lapsed. His time can only be logged as "P U/T" and not "PIC U/S". Again the instructor will log "P1".
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have 2 different situations above:
Yourself - Undergoing comlpex training in an aircraft, agree you are PUT and instructor P1 as you did not (I presume) hold a complex signoff prior to your training with the instructor.
Your mate -
How has his currency lapsed? If you mean that in the flying clubs eyes it has lapsed (i.e. not flown for 28days, etc) then that is their requirement to allow him fly their aircraft - however that is all, his PPL SEP has not lapsed. This is where club/group differ, if he had been in a group and gone up with a group member, as a safety pilot, he would log P1. Likewise if he had taken the local instructor up in his group aircraft to act as safety, with no instruction recieved, then again he would be P1, not the instructor.
Yourself - Undergoing comlpex training in an aircraft, agree you are PUT and instructor P1 as you did not (I presume) hold a complex signoff prior to your training with the instructor.
Your mate -
He is also a JAR PPL but his currency on that aircraft had lapsed. His time can only be logged as "P U/T" and not "PIC U/S". Again the instructor will log "P1".
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Julian - you're correct. My friend's PPL SE rating hasn't lapsed. He no longer meets the flying currency/recency rules imposed by the club. He wasn't too happy when I told him so I suspect he'll be busy with the tippex tonight.
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
Oh dear. Here we go again.
LASORS (although not a definitive document) lists a number of scenarios, and how to log time in each of those scenarios.
However, it does not list the case where a qualified pilot flies with an instructor, when not receiving any additional instruction.
That doesn't mean in can't be logged. It just means that LASORS doesn't tell you how to log it. So it's up to you to use your common sense.
Common sense suggests that PICUS sounds like the most logical way of logging the time, but PUT also sounds like it might be correct. However, there is sufficient debate on the subject that, for such a small number of hours, it seems sensible to be conservative. PICUS mightbe acceptable, but there is nothing in writing to say that it is, so why risk being accused of over-logging? So, unless Nuclear Weapon has it in writing from the CAA that PICUS is ok, I would recommend he logs it as PUT - since no one can argue that he is trying to over-claim hours if he logs it this way.
As for whether a x-channel checkout is required, I know that when, as a low-houred pilot, I did my x-channel checkout with my club (as the club required), I gained a huge amount of benefit from it. If you don't like the rules, find another club to fly with - after all, it's their aircraft, so it's their rules you follow when you fly their aircraft. End of story.
FFF
--------------
LASORS (although not a definitive document) lists a number of scenarios, and how to log time in each of those scenarios.
However, it does not list the case where a qualified pilot flies with an instructor, when not receiving any additional instruction.
That doesn't mean in can't be logged. It just means that LASORS doesn't tell you how to log it. So it's up to you to use your common sense.
Common sense suggests that PICUS sounds like the most logical way of logging the time, but PUT also sounds like it might be correct. However, there is sufficient debate on the subject that, for such a small number of hours, it seems sensible to be conservative. PICUS mightbe acceptable, but there is nothing in writing to say that it is, so why risk being accused of over-logging? So, unless Nuclear Weapon has it in writing from the CAA that PICUS is ok, I would recommend he logs it as PUT - since no one can argue that he is trying to over-claim hours if he logs it this way.
As for whether a x-channel checkout is required, I know that when, as a low-houred pilot, I did my x-channel checkout with my club (as the club required), I gained a huge amount of benefit from it. If you don't like the rules, find another club to fly with - after all, it's their aircraft, so it's their rules you follow when you fly their aircraft. End of story.
FFF
--------------