28 day check - logged as P1 or PUT?

[BackPacker]

Before I got to the school they had employed an instructor who they noticed was very reluctant to fly with students who had not gone first solo, making excuses about the weather etc. After two weeks of this they found out that not only did their new instructor not have an instructors rating, he did not have a pilots licence either, he was however a licensed engineer.

This is a problem that is actually much much broader. My work is in ICT, partly in security, and "authentication" and "authorization" are incredibly hard concepts, first to understand and second to implement.

In the case above, what according to the theory should have happened is that the student checks the credentials of the instructor before flight. Immediate problem comes to mind: how does a student recognise and validate a pilots certificate, an FI ticket, a correct logbook entry (recency!), class rating etc. without having dealt with all that stuff before, and without knowing what even the requirements are for an FI. If you go to a flight school you place your trust in that schools management to make sure you have an adequate plane, adequate instructor and even adequate weather for the flight you're going to undertake.

But this problem is not limited to flight schools. My favourite pet subject is a police officer, stopping you for a spot check or something. They show you their ID, they may wear a uniform, but I know I can fake an ID with some Photoshop (GIMP in my case) work and a laminating machine. Police uniforms are not that hard to acquire too. And since I do not know the hidden safety features of a proper police ID, I can't authenticate him. So what I want to do, someday, is the following: Take his ID, get back in my car, close windows and doors and then call the telephone number for the police. Tell them I'm being stopped by somebody who claims to be a police officer, but I don't trust his claim and can't authenticate his ID. Then read aloud whatever is on the ID and ask the police officer to authenticate that person. See how they react.

With some luck, the police officer on the phone (which I trust because I dialed the number from memory, knowing that that would connect me to the police) verifies the authenticity of the ID. That doesn't automatically authenticate the police officer though: somebody could have taken a copy of a genuine ID, inserted a fake picture and used that. So I should probably also ask him for another ID (a passport or drivers license perhaps) which I do know the security features of, and use that to verify the picture, name and person indeed matches.

Then comes authorization. Authorization basically means: is this person authorized to do what he attempts to do. So I should probably question him why he stopped me, and on what article of law he thinks he has the right to do so. I should then call my lawyer to verify that claim.

By now I have probably wasted at least half an hour of my time and surely pissed off the police officer. So if it's just a spot check, I might just show him my drivers license and get on with life. The same happened to your student: Somebody came up to him claiming he was a flight instructor, and the student without going through the hassle of verifying that claim, just hopped in and went flying.

I couldn't find it, but there's a joke about a student running late for a gliding lesson. He arrives at the field, sees the aircraft all ready for him with the instructor waiting. Instructor says "Good Morning, do you want to do the take-off or shall I" (or something similar). Student says he'll do the take-off. Works like a treat, he flies the circuit and lands. After opening the canopy, the "instructor" says "That was great. Can I fly some the next time?" "Why?" "Well, I'm here to learn how to fly, not to watch you flying!"

(It's a far better joke in its original form, but I honestly can't find it.)

[TheOddOne]

My favourite pet subject is a police officer, stopping you for a spot check or something. They show you their ID, they may wear a uniform, but I know I can fake an ID with some Photoshop (GIMP in my case) work and a laminating machine. Police uniforms are not that hard to acquire too.

Many years ago I worked for Securicor and sometimes did Cash In Transit (you know, those armoured vans full of money).

We had a standard procedure to follow if stopped by a 'Police Officer'. Printed on the back of our receipt books was ' I will follow you to the nearest Police Station'. This was offered up to the armour plated windows of the vehicle by the crew securely locked inside. I've considered having a laminated sign with the same legend written on it to keep in the car, but it's years and years since I was stopped by the fuzz - ever since I sold my red MG, in fact!

TheOddOne

[S-Works]

You know strangely enough I have a brand new GT3 and when I wear a 'hoody' I get stopped all the time!!

[PompeyPaul]

You forgot

This thread seems to be following the finest tradition of PPRuNe inasmuch as a flat statement is followed by a flat contradiction which is then followed by personal abuse.

You forgot the willy measuring part where people quote the number of hours \ types \ license \ age \ seniority in the vain hope it confirms that they are correct. I've always thought it was a bit like revealing your cards in texas hold 'em having placed your bets and you get to see what the other person has. Unfortunately nobody accepts the other person's experience and wikipedia doesn't have a page on which types \ hours \ licenses beat which other hands. Maybe I'll stick a page together. Does a 500 hour PPL beat a 250 hour CPL ? I'm guessing an active ATPL 747 captain is a royal flush ?

[llanfairpg]

But You Forgot

Great idea Paul but dont forget to also include those who hate to think someone has more experience than they have.

The great advantage by the way of having lots of hours and lots of experience is that you have had lots of first hand experience of others with less hours and experience knowing more than you do and sometimes being better pilots.

[DFC]

You can't have it both ways, unless you want to have this discussion all over again each time a club check is being performed. So if the POB specifies that a designated PPL can perform club checks, then in all cases the hirer should be P1, even if the guy in the RHS happens to be an FI. And if the POB specifies that clubchecks can only be performed by FIs (as my club does), you can (but do not have to) specify that the FI is P1, and the hirer Pu/t.

I think that you will find that in the cases where the check is done by a pilot who does not hold a valid instructor rating then the pilot who is being checked can not log any time but can only record the take-off and landings they completed as sole manipulator of the controls.

--------------

I am surprised to see that there is no general objection to having to complete a 28 day check the only objection being to having to log dual time for the 10 to 40 minutes is takes to complete such a check.

Regards,

DFC

[S-Works]

Plenty of time for that DFC, the ground rules are just being established before the argument moves on........

[BackPacker]

I think that you will find that in the cases where the check is done by a pilot who does not hold a valid instructor rating then the pilot who is being checked can not log any time but can only record the take-off and landings they completed as sole manipulator of the controls.

If the person being checked out can't log the hours, and the person who checks the other guy out only holds a PPL and never touches the controls or makes any decision, just observes, who gets to log P1 then?

Oh, and if the designated check pilot only holds a PPL, and has to be PIC for the flight (by your rules), this also means he's got to pay at least an equal share of the costs of that flight. I doubt somehow that you get many PPLs volunteering then as check pilot.

I am surprised to see that there is no general objection to having to complete a 28 day check the only objection being to having to log dual time for the 10 to 40 minutes is takes to complete such a check.

Well, it's not exactly the subject of the thread, but just for the record, I object. I would rather see a more flexible approach where you need a 28 day check if you hold less than 100 hours P1 or so, a 60-day check if you have less than 200 hours or so, and no additional checks above and beyond what the law requires above 200 hours P1. Or something along those lines. You may even throw in an "hours on type"/"landings on type" criteria for all I care. But I somehow trust the more experienced pilots to be able to make a fair assessment about their own proficiency, their mission and the circumstances, and not to take unnecessary risks.

[BristolScout]

A slightly late response to one of Llanfair's comments of yesterday. Yes, I do recall the 1-11 incident very well - I was flying the things at the time. It doesn't make your surmise correct though, since the ANO cunningly provides for pilot incapacitation in the definition of pilot in command in Article 155. I agree that if, for the sake of argument, the captain dies in flight then the other pilot becomes the commander de facto. This doesn't alter the fact that if two pilots take up an aircraft and return safely, the one who signed for it is the commander.

[S-Works]

OK so what happens in the situation where the aircraft is not signed for?

[llanfairpg]

The bottom line is that the complexity of the issue makes it open to debate and interpretation.


here we have a situation were a captain of an aircraft has been seriously injured in flight, injured to the point that he has to subsequently spend two weeks in hospital. Now all you aviation lawyers will know that at the point of injury his licence was suspended so he is hardly the commander anymore and thats even before considering half of his body is hanging out of the DV window? If ever you wanted a test case to prove that a pilot who set off as a first officer without signing the tech log but landed as the commander this is it.

Perhaps if it happens again the FO will say, well i cant be the commander because I didnt start out before flight as the commader so i will just pop down the back while the cabin crew hang on to him.

I would say the wise would view this one as a 'test case' all though of course I suppose if it disproves your argument you would prefer

It doesn't make your surmise correct though,

[Final 3 Greens]

This is a really good site to discover the price of fish

http://www.frozenfishdirect.co.uk/traditional.html

[DFC]

Backpacker,

You need to differentiate between the person who manipllates the controls, and completes various tasks associated with the flight and the person who is responsible for the safe execution of that flight.

I will say it again - The pilot in command is the person who is responsible for the safe conduct of the flight. Note means flight from start to finish.

The person who does the flying may not be the pilot in command because while they do the actions, they are not responsible for the outcome of the flight.........i.e. if something illegal is done then it is the pilot in command that will be held responsible.

The simplest way to determine the pilot in command is to ask yourself.....if there was a flight plan form filed for the flight who would place their name in the pilot in command box.

Note that like everything else, the flight plan does not provide for a change in pilot in command.

You are correct to say that if two PPLs depart then the pilot in command must pay all or an appropriate portion of the costs.

-----------

Bose,

Refer to the above in the case where the aircraft is not signed for.

---------

Of course the real problem with a non-instructor completing a 28 day check is what happens if the pilot being checked is not up to standard. The PPL is not qualifiued to decide that and also they are not qualified to provide instruction to bring the pilot up to the required standard. Taking that into consideration, it is hard to see where such a check completed by a PPL would ever stand up in court..........hence one would have to say that unless one uses an instructor it is pointless having such a check.

Regards,

DFC

[llanfairpg]

The PPL is not qualifiued to decide that and also they are not qualified to provide instruction to bring the pilot up to the required standard. Taking that into consideration, it is hard to see where such a check completed by a PPL would ever stand up in court..........hence one would have to say that unless one uses an instructor it is pointless having such a check.

Where does it say that a pilot without an instructors rating cannot give instruction that is not required for the grant or renewal of a licence or rating.

If it does there will be a few training captains and airlines in trouble!

[BackPacker]

Now all you aviation lawyers will know that at the point of injury his licence was suspended

Somehow I don't think that thought would be the first on my mind in that situation.

But thinking about this now: In an emergency you can ignore any rule as safety is paramount. This was clearly an emergency so even if the commander, under normal circumstances, would have it's medical suspended due to his alleged injuries (mind you, at that point in time nobody knew the extent of his injuries) he could still be the commander in this emergency situation.

In fact, he could be sued for "flight crew not being on their assigned station at all times". And hanging out the DV window could hardly be called "taking care of physiological duties" or "duties associated with his command". Or does the story tell us that he did s*** his pants while hanging out there? (I know I would.)

Reminds me of that FedEx cargo plane with the madman intent on committing suicide on the jump seat. At some point in time everyone was sufficiently wounded to have their medicals suspended. I think one of the flight crew, because of the sustained injuries, actually lost his medical for good, poor guy. Who could be legally in charge there?

Anyway, I somehow doubt that the flight crew involved in these two incidents spent a week (or how long has this thread been going on) discussing on who would log P1, and for which duration of the flight.

[llanfairpg]

Anyway, I somehow doubt that the flight crew involved in these two incidents spent a week (or how long has this thread been going on) discussing on who would log P1, and for which duration of the flight.

Of course they did not they were professional pilots.

[robin]

>>>Of course the real problem with a non-instructor completing a 28 day check is what happens if the pilot being checked is not up to standard. The PPL is not qualifiued to decide that and also they are not qualified to provide instruction to bring the pilot up to the required standard. Taking that into consideration, it is hard to see where such a check completed by a PPL would ever stand up in court..........hence one would have to say that unless one uses an instructor it is pointless having such a check.<<<<

I wouldn't use the term 'check' as it could be loaded.

But in my group, a member could be current under the 90-day rule, but be out of group currency (42-days). So under the rules, they fly with me, an non-instructor well-experienced on type.

Although not a test, if they do not display the necessary skill under our group rules I am entitled to stop them from further solo flight. Not pointless at all.

My aircraft, my rules........

[BackPacker]

Of course the real problem with a non-instructor completing a 28 day check is what happens if the pilot being checked is not up to standard.

Simple. The designated check pilot simply informs the hirer, on behalf of the owner of the plane, that he/she is not allowed to rent/borrow said plane from the owner. And please contact the owner to see what further steps are required. No licenses are revoked, the CAA is not informed, no legal action taken. Simply a statement that the owner does not want the hirer to fly his aircraft. That's it.

Note - I'm assuming here that the owner has told the designated check pilot the criteria by which he wants prospective or recurrent hirers to be judged. I imagine instructors will, by default, use the Practical Test Standards as criteria, and so should check pilots who only hold a PPL. But if the designated check pilot (FI or not) doesn't know the criteria the owner wants to apply, then the club check doesn't make sense at all and becomes simply a money-making exercise.

The PPL is not qualifiued to decide that and also they are not qualified to provide instruction to bring the pilot up to the required standard.

No qualification is required to teach somebody something, as long as this is not for the initial issue or renewal of a formal rating or license. I've been taught aerobatics by somebody who formally only holds a PPL, but is an excellent aerobatics pilot, licensed aerobatics display pilot etc.

Note that like everything else, the flight plan does not provide for a change in pilot in command.

A flight plan also does not allow a change in the POB number. Does that mean that no babies are allowed to be born on board, or people are not allowed to die on board? Come on, you and I know that a flightplan can be amended in flight if necessary. Within this thread, this is the worst argument I've heard. And in any case, if the hirer is PIC for the whole flight, no flight plan amendment is necessary.

[S-Works]

Where does it say that a pilot without an instructors rating cannot give instruction that is not required for the grant or renewal of a licence or rating.

If it does there will be a few training captains and airlines in trouble!

I think you are struggling to separate the rules that apply to airline training and the rules that apply to flight instruction in the classic sense.

In commercial diving all training is done as peer training, in recreational diving all training has to be carried out by an Instructor.

[llanfairpg]

I think you are struggling to separate the rules that apply to airline training and the rules that apply to flight instruction in the classic sense.

I am not struggling with anything thank you, the ANO and LASORS are very clear and apply to all types of flying, they do not show P1/s nor do they say or imply that instruction cannot be given by a pilot who does not have an instructors rating.

An instructors rating is only required when instruction is given for the purpose of the grant/renewal of a licence or rating.

You need to understand the regulations and comment on the regulations not what you would like them to say to agree with your argument, (God help the IMC rating)