Logging time on a single-pilot aircraft as second pilot
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Munich/DE
Age: 44
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Logging time on a single-pilot aircraft as second pilot
Sorry if this question has been already asked here lots of times.
Let's assume, my friend and me are both certified pilots, and we fly a C152. My friend is PIC and flying, I help him with navigation, doing radio calls. In such case, am I allowed to log this flight as co-pilot (P2)?
I've heard different opinions. One is saying yes, it's not a problem. Second one is saying no, C152 does not assume 'co-pilot' as such, only a PIC since this is single-pilot aeroplane. Logically, it seems to be 'OK' to log something in case second pilot indeed actively participated in flight conduction. Where is the truth?
Thanks
Let's assume, my friend and me are both certified pilots, and we fly a C152. My friend is PIC and flying, I help him with navigation, doing radio calls. In such case, am I allowed to log this flight as co-pilot (P2)?
I've heard different opinions. One is saying yes, it's not a problem. Second one is saying no, C152 does not assume 'co-pilot' as such, only a PIC since this is single-pilot aeroplane. Logically, it seems to be 'OK' to log something in case second pilot indeed actively participated in flight conduction. Where is the truth?
Thanks
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Somerset England
Age: 62
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its(the 152) a single pilot aircraft, only one person can log the time at any one time! Unless you mutually agree to share the flying and you both are licenced and the club/ group/owner allow it.
To log P2 time you must be operating a multi crew aircraft recognised by your authority, in my case a Dash 8. My time goes down as either PIC/us or P2 when either PF(pilot flying) or PNF(pilot not flying ie:radio n flap operator)
To log P2 time you must be operating a multi crew aircraft recognised by your authority, in my case a Dash 8. My time goes down as either PIC/us or P2 when either PF(pilot flying) or PNF(pilot not flying ie:radio n flap operator)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh for gods sake..... Use the search facility or even better read the documents that relate to the legislation that you fly under. Something that you have a LEGAL responsibility to do. You could start with LASORS or whatever the authority you fly under(germany?) has as an equivalent.
No you cant log anything for twiddling the knobs on the radio or looking out of window on a single pilot aircraft. The pilot is commander of a single pilot aircraft should be able to operate the aircraft without any assistance from you. If he can't then perhaps he should hand his license in......
If you want to split the time then agree at what point the PIC role is handed over. If you are doing this in the air then get some training on flying from the RHS. Is it a little different, as Instructors we are trained for it, as a low hours pilot (which your question seems to indicate) you need some practice to do this.
No you cant log anything for twiddling the knobs on the radio or looking out of window on a single pilot aircraft. The pilot is commander of a single pilot aircraft should be able to operate the aircraft without any assistance from you. If he can't then perhaps he should hand his license in......
If you want to split the time then agree at what point the PIC role is handed over. If you are doing this in the air then get some training on flying from the RHS. Is it a little different, as Instructors we are trained for it, as a low hours pilot (which your question seems to indicate) you need some practice to do this.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Alexka
One is saying yes, it's not a problem
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And another thing....
If you're busted for doing this, it will most likely be seen as falsifying your logbook, in which case you can kiss goodbye to any hopes of flying professionally in the future. As soon as anyone in authority (instructor, examiner, CAA) see P2 time logged in a single pilot aircraft they're going to call bullsh1t and you'll have some explaining to do. Don't do it!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're busted for doing this, it will most likely be seen as falsifying your logbook, in which case you can kiss goodbye to any hopes of flying professionally in the future
What a lot of nonsense some people write.
Of course you can log the time.
You can write more or less anything in your logbook. A friend of mine logs time as passenger (his PPL has expired due to ill health) and he has hundreds of hours thus logged. You can even take photos of interesting places and paste them in your logbook!
However, the logged time will not count towards anything under the CAA or JAA regime. It will be just "passenger time" and basically you are logging it for your own satisfaction/record/etc.
It will be an illegal entry if you log it as "PIC" or "P1".
What a lot of nonsense some people write.
Of course you can log the time.
You can write more or less anything in your logbook. A friend of mine logs time as passenger (his PPL has expired due to ill health) and he has hundreds of hours thus logged. You can even take photos of interesting places and paste them in your logbook!
However, the logged time will not count towards anything under the CAA or JAA regime. It will be just "passenger time" and basically you are logging it for your own satisfaction/record/etc.
It will be an illegal entry if you log it as "PIC" or "P1".
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a lot of nonsense some people write.
AlexKA
am I allowed to log this flight as co-pilot (P2)?
To log P2 time you must be operating a multi crew aircraft recognised by your authority
It will be an illegal entry if you log it as "PIC" or "P1".
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why all the name calling? We seem to be more or less in agreement.
1) You can't log P2 in a single pilot aircraft like a C152.
2) You CAN write anything you like in your logbook for your own benefit, as a reminder of the flight or whatever. I do it regularly when a friend is P1, plus putting in photos, and writing stuff in the comments column. You just can't write anything in the P1 or P UT column when you do that, or count it towards your flying hours.
3) Mistakes in logbooks are usually seen as just that - mistakes. No-one gets too upset - they just don't count them.
And that, really, is about all I can think of on the subject.
1) You can't log P2 in a single pilot aircraft like a C152.
2) You CAN write anything you like in your logbook for your own benefit, as a reminder of the flight or whatever. I do it regularly when a friend is P1, plus putting in photos, and writing stuff in the comments column. You just can't write anything in the P1 or P UT column when you do that, or count it towards your flying hours.
3) Mistakes in logbooks are usually seen as just that - mistakes. No-one gets too upset - they just don't count them.
And that, really, is about all I can think of on the subject.
There certainly is such a thing as 'P2'.
But not on little single engined puddlejumpers, only on aircraft required by the ANO to have 2 pilots as required members of the crew.
But not on little single engined puddlejumpers, only on aircraft required by the ANO to have 2 pilots as required members of the crew.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Somerset England
Age: 62
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540 please follow this link:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/SECTION%20A.pdf
go to page 39, therein you will find a little box, the CAA recognise co pilot time as P2
Bloody hell I give up
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/SECTION%20A.pdf
go to page 39, therein you will find a little box, the CAA recognise co pilot time as P2
Bloody hell I give up
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Ipswich
Age: 58
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes you can log P2 time in a single pilot aircraft
Hi,
I have seen this argument running many times on pprune, and the consensus has always been the same (viz, single pilot ac => P1, no P2).
However there are certain circumstances where a crew of 2 may be required even on a single pilot ac. The most common of course is flight instruction where the instructor logs it as P1 and the student logs it as PUT (P2).
There are however other circumstances where a crew of 2 may be required on a single pilot ac. For example, if you are making an instrument approach with an RVR less than 800m in a single pilot ac without a 2 axis autopilot with localiser capture then a crew of 2 is required.
Therefore you could log this time as p2. Question is whether you could log the whole flight time as p2, or only the approach time.
Answers on a postcard please,
Carl.
I have seen this argument running many times on pprune, and the consensus has always been the same (viz, single pilot ac => P1, no P2).
However there are certain circumstances where a crew of 2 may be required even on a single pilot ac. The most common of course is flight instruction where the instructor logs it as P1 and the student logs it as PUT (P2).
There are however other circumstances where a crew of 2 may be required on a single pilot ac. For example, if you are making an instrument approach with an RVR less than 800m in a single pilot ac without a 2 axis autopilot with localiser capture then a crew of 2 is required.
Therefore you could log this time as p2. Question is whether you could log the whole flight time as p2, or only the approach time.
Answers on a postcard please,
Carl.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CK.
I look forward to reading your link to the section in the ANO that allows that little wonder.
Personally I think you may be taking something not quite legal if you believe that is the case!
I look forward to reading your link to the section in the ANO that allows that little wonder.
Personally I think you may be taking something not quite legal if you believe that is the case!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However there are certain circumstances where a crew of 2 may be required even on a single pilot ac. The most common of course is flight instruction where the instructor logs it as P1 and the student logs it as PUT (P2).
There are however other circumstances where a crew of 2 may be required on a single pilot ac. For example, if you are making an instrument approach with an RVR less than 800m in a single pilot ac without a 2 axis autopilot with localiser capture then a crew of 2 is required.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Somerset England
Age: 62
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CK
In the first instance that is an instructional flight. It has one aircraft commander, the PIC is the Instructor, the student is under instruction and logs Pu/t time if on a course of instruction.
In the second example, the requirements for single pilot commercial operations require a working autopilot (with some exemptions for a limited few operators) so can we assume you are talking about commercial ops.
If that is the case the aircraft, say a piston twin, has to be certified by the CAA as a two crew operation and there will be an ops manual stating that and laying down each pilots role. To add to that both pilots will then need fire, first aid, dangerous goods, CRM courses completed and be base checked and line trained on the relevant aircraft.
I was lucky to log some P2 time a few years ago in a PA31 which carried out ILS calibration work, but as far as I know it was the only one in the country approved for 2 crew operation and then only whilst on calibration work.
In the first instance that is an instructional flight. It has one aircraft commander, the PIC is the Instructor, the student is under instruction and logs Pu/t time if on a course of instruction.
In the second example, the requirements for single pilot commercial operations require a working autopilot (with some exemptions for a limited few operators) so can we assume you are talking about commercial ops.
If that is the case the aircraft, say a piston twin, has to be certified by the CAA as a two crew operation and there will be an ops manual stating that and laying down each pilots role. To add to that both pilots will then need fire, first aid, dangerous goods, CRM courses completed and be base checked and line trained on the relevant aircraft.
I was lucky to log some P2 time a few years ago in a PA31 which carried out ILS calibration work, but as far as I know it was the only one in the country approved for 2 crew operation and then only whilst on calibration work.
I checked something similar to this with the CAA a few years back, it was with reference to flying a small twin turboprop executive aircraft, I was operating as a co-pilot (pilot's assistant, call it what you want) and asked them the legality of logging those hours as P2 just for my own experience record and not for licence issue. They said that I could log it as I wished, and that they would even be prepared to allow either 50 or 100 hours to count towards a CPL issue if the Chief Pilot/Captain could confirm that I was contributing to the operation of the aircraft. Sometimes the CAA can actually be human and think beyond the rule books that people on here are so great at memorising and paraphrasing verbatim. your logbook is a record of your own flying experience. (edited to add-the original question was P2 on a light single, not much chance of getting anything for that)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Readers of this thread might find the following of some interest.
The CAA recently prosecuted a microlight pilot for Recklessly Endangering the Safety of an Aircraft. It was dealt with in the Magistrate’s Court and he faced the prospect of up to six months imprisonment or a hefty fine if convicted. In addition the CAA’s costs were over £20,000 and the pilot was having to pay privately for his defence.
The pilot had learnt to fly on flexwings and had a reasonable number of hours experience. He purchased a three axis Rans aircraft.
The terms of his CAA licence entitled him to fly either type without any legal requirement for difference training. (n.b. Difference training is now a requirement of the current NPPL microlight licence).
Before collecting his Rans he flew a different but identical Rans a number of times with at least one experienced pilot who effectively checked him out on type. As the other pilot (pilots) was not an instructor and was the aircraft Captain these flights did not appear in the defendant’s log book.
He collected the Rans and then flew a number of flights all shown in his log book as “circuits”. On each occasion the log book showed the name of one of two other people as pax (these were the experienced Rans pilots but as they were not instructors these could not be logged as P U/T or technically as P1/S). The pilot entered himself as P1.
The pilot was subsequently involved in an accident were the aircraft stalled on a go-around at low level. Subsequent to the accident the CAA called for the pilot’s logbook. As set out above there was no record of any “instructional” flying or difference training.
The prosecution case was that (although there was no legal requirement for difference training) the pilot was reckless in flying the aircraft without a conversion onto three axis types and without undergoing any “difference training” off his own bat. The prosecution used the lack of training entries in his log-book as evidence against him.
Under cross-examination the CAA pilot expert, very fairly, agreed that there was a “grey” area over log book entries. He agreed that it is common aviation practice for an experienced non instructor pilot to give informal instruction/type check etc to a less experienced licenced pilot. Such a flight cannot be logged by the pilot “under instruction” as an instructional flight and, if for example conducted in the experienced pilot’s aircraft ,cannot log it at all unless acting as P1. The CAA expert suggested that it should be logged as passenger flying with an explanation included in the remarks column although agreed that there was no legal basis or requirement for this to be done and this suggestion was not something set out in LASORS.
Fortunately for this pilot there was a happy outcome in that the Magistrates accepted that he had undergone proper “training” and found him not guilty. Further he was awarded a re-imbursement of his costs from central funds.
The CAA recently prosecuted a microlight pilot for Recklessly Endangering the Safety of an Aircraft. It was dealt with in the Magistrate’s Court and he faced the prospect of up to six months imprisonment or a hefty fine if convicted. In addition the CAA’s costs were over £20,000 and the pilot was having to pay privately for his defence.
The pilot had learnt to fly on flexwings and had a reasonable number of hours experience. He purchased a three axis Rans aircraft.
The terms of his CAA licence entitled him to fly either type without any legal requirement for difference training. (n.b. Difference training is now a requirement of the current NPPL microlight licence).
Before collecting his Rans he flew a different but identical Rans a number of times with at least one experienced pilot who effectively checked him out on type. As the other pilot (pilots) was not an instructor and was the aircraft Captain these flights did not appear in the defendant’s log book.
He collected the Rans and then flew a number of flights all shown in his log book as “circuits”. On each occasion the log book showed the name of one of two other people as pax (these were the experienced Rans pilots but as they were not instructors these could not be logged as P U/T or technically as P1/S). The pilot entered himself as P1.
The pilot was subsequently involved in an accident were the aircraft stalled on a go-around at low level. Subsequent to the accident the CAA called for the pilot’s logbook. As set out above there was no record of any “instructional” flying or difference training.
The prosecution case was that (although there was no legal requirement for difference training) the pilot was reckless in flying the aircraft without a conversion onto three axis types and without undergoing any “difference training” off his own bat. The prosecution used the lack of training entries in his log-book as evidence against him.
Under cross-examination the CAA pilot expert, very fairly, agreed that there was a “grey” area over log book entries. He agreed that it is common aviation practice for an experienced non instructor pilot to give informal instruction/type check etc to a less experienced licenced pilot. Such a flight cannot be logged by the pilot “under instruction” as an instructional flight and, if for example conducted in the experienced pilot’s aircraft ,cannot log it at all unless acting as P1. The CAA expert suggested that it should be logged as passenger flying with an explanation included in the remarks column although agreed that there was no legal basis or requirement for this to be done and this suggestion was not something set out in LASORS.
Fortunately for this pilot there was a happy outcome in that the Magistrates accepted that he had undergone proper “training” and found him not guilty. Further he was awarded a re-imbursement of his costs from central funds.
