28 day check - logged as P1 or PUT?

[DFC]

Not is in our group, remember the hirer is logging the P1

If they are permitted to be the pilot in command then you have in effect told them that they do not require a check, training or anything else. If you had check requriements then they would have to be complied with before the pilot could be in command of the aircraft.

Having authorised them to be pilot in command of your aircraft then even if you insist on having one of your friends in the right seat, they as pilot in command have total control of how the flight proceeds. Your friend can not in any way prevent them from flying as they please, to where they please because your friend is not pilot in command and have absolutelty no authority to prevent anything on the flight.

Having agreed that they are suitable to operate as pilot in command of the "check flight" then you can not prevent them from being pilot in command on subsequent flights unless their standard has reduced below the level that you accepted as being acceptable - a standard that you did not check!

The "checks" you describe are not checks as nothing is being checked it is simply free flying for a group member.

Comments regarding professional pilots in airlines are not relevant because while a line trainer may not hold an instructor rating, they will be an authorised person under the requirements of the Ops Manual and the AOC and thus approved by the CAA to perform the function.

Pilots in command being required to carry persons on flights is not the same as a professional pilot on a public transport flight.............or is it??????

If there is a correct and credible checking system in place then it will serve a useful purpose. If not then it is simply a waste of time and money.

As for the spitfire, you should remind yourself of the requirements to be met by an instructor before being qualified to train on a different type within a class.

Regards,

DFC

[Julian]

DFC,

What planet are you on? I think it must be one with a very thin atmosphere as you arguments sound like you are drastically lacking oxygen!

And as for

The "checks" you describe are not checks as nothing is being checked it is simply free flying for a group member.

Which bit of the hirer logs the P1 didnt you understand?

J.

[BackPacker]

If they are permitted to be the pilot in command then you have in effect told them that they do not require a check, training or anything else. If you had check requriements then they would have to be complied with before the pilot could be in command of the aircraft.

Having authorised them to be pilot in command of your aircraft then even if you insist on having one of your friends in the right seat, they as pilot in command have total control of how the flight proceeds. Your friend can not in any way prevent them from flying as they please, to where they please because your friend is not pilot in command and have absolutelty no authority to prevent anything on the flight.

Oh man, that's the best circular argument I've seen in a while.

But where it breaks down is here:

As the owner of an aircraft I can definitely set limits as to when and what the hirer is allowed to do with it. I can for instance, require the hirer to be back by noon, because I want to go flying myself in the afternoon. Or I can prescribe certain operational standards such as RPMs and MPs to use. Or ask the hirer to wear pink shorts. I can also forbid them to do a cross channel flight even though the hirer has an internationally recognised license. Maybe because I'm too cheap to take out insurance covering international flights, maybe because there's a 50 hour check coming up in a few hours and I have a great deal with a local engineer. Who knows. It's my aircraft and I set limits on what others can do with it. If you don't agree to those rules, well, you're very welcome to go elsewhere. A club check is just one of those rules. You break 'em, you go elsewhere.

But as long as you stay within the rules you can be Pilot in Command. Even on a clubcheck.

[DFC]

Which bit of the hirer logs the P1 didnt you understand?

The bit after you said you required a check.

To require a check you must have a reason for such a requirement. If you say it is to check the pilot's ability to be pilot in command then how before you have completed such a check can you permit them to be pilot in command.

You are not checking anything because you have determined the outcome in advance by permitting the person you are checking to act in the capicity you are checking them for.

The only time you can get away with such a situation is where you require pilots who are current according to your rules to perform a check flight. An example is that which many groups and clubs have of requiring all members to perform an annual check flight regardless of how much flying they have done. In that case if the pilot is current according to the club or group rules eg they have flown in the past 28 days etc etc, then in that case they could be pilot in command because under your rules they are entitled to be. If they are outside your currency rule or are new then by your own rules they can not be pilot in command.

I can not believe that people say that we need to check people (for whatever reason) before permitting them to be pilot in command of our aircraft and then without having performed that check permit them to be pilot in command.

Do you need a check or don't you?

Or is it simply an excuse for free flying?

I would not recomend to any passenger that unless there is an emergency they ever interfere with the conduct of a flight. I would point out that in fact regardless of how you as a passenger think a flight is progressing you can not interfere with the flight because that is unlawfull.

Passengers are not entitled to do anything other than obey the pilot in command. So we have people who will not trust a pilot to be pilot in command of their aircraft solo in case they break it but are willing to risk their lives as well as the aircraft by being a passenger in the aircraft with that person. Now that is plain stupid.

Regards,

DFC

[Julian]

DFC,

I think you need to go back and read the previous posts as you quite obviously dont have a grasp, or you are just skim reading and drawing your own conclusions.

Backpacker explained it very well, go read it again.

Again, I also where do you get the 'free flying' bit? I have even said that there have been occasions where the group has absorbed the cost of the check flight - or is that one of the bits you chose to ignore?

J.

[DFC]

Julian,

I was not getting into specifics but if a group requires a pilot to pay the full costs of a checkout then unless the other person is a flight instriuctor the they are simply a passenger who is flying for free.

--------

To use the car analogy posted previously, if you decide that before you allow me to drive your car you will check me out first then you are indeed entitled to do so. However, if your checkout is a drive on the public highway then by permitting such an act you have effectively decided that I am safe to drive the car and also that you will be safe as a passenger..........if you do not think I am safe or if your do not think that you will be safe as a passenger then your would be rather stupid to sit as a passenger in the car with me.

Thus you are not checking anything. You have already decided that it will be safe. You are simply going for a ride as a passenger in the car.

At the end of the ride, you may not think very much of my driving and declare that you will never let me near your car again or that you will never sit in a car with me again.................but you could do that at the end of any drive......even after I have been driving the car for some time............thus the trip round the block is not a check unless you say that every time you are in the car you are checking and thus every drive is a check-drive.

Do you see the point now?

Regards,

DFC

[Julian]

I was not getting into specifics but if a group requires a pilot to pay the full costs of a checkout then unless the other person is a flight instriuctor the they are simply a passenger who is flying for free.

Where did I say requires? Did I not say that we paid the cost of checkouts? So now you decide they are a passenger flying for free, maybe you can enlighten me has flying as a passenger is free flying hours?

Thus you are not checking anything. You have already decided that it will be safe. You are simply going for a ride as a passenger in the car.

We have determined that you have a licence that entitles you to fly our type of aircraft P1 but we are making sure that you fly within our requirements - that is what we are checking.

J.

[homeguard]

Logger Heads

The very tone of this debate in itself explains the problem. Common sense cannot be recognised for there MUST be law or a rule or nothing at all. Sometimes this approach is practised as 'micro management'.

DFC

You come to argument therefore expressing the symptoms of the malady of our time. There appears in your reasoning a need to consider a simple but extreme idea of all things only. That is to only consider diametrically opposed positions.

When a PPL holder comes to me for a routine checkout (club check) I recognise that they are qualified to take the aeroplane and act as PIC. The routine check however is one of responsibilty. The club is acting responsibly by having such a rule. The pilot is acting responsibly by subjecting themself to the check. As is agreed, the law doesn't demand this. The check is voluntary. Before the flight however, I make it clear beyond doubt that should I consider it necessary to take command I will do so and they must agree to this.

For this reason the pilot should be PIC unless it is decided that they are to have instruction and that being the purpose of the flight. In such a case it isn't then a checkout at all but an instructional flight.

It is without doubt recognised, just the same, by authorities throughout the world that the most obvious person to undertake a checkout is a qualified Flight Instructor for that is what they are trained to do. They are trained to observe flying skills and in the processes of taking over and handing over control.

I refer again to LASORS section A, appendix B RECORDING OF FLIGHT TIME, Recording of Pilot Function para.1c. 'The holder of an instructor rating may log as pilot-in-command all flight time during which he acts as an instructor in an aeroplane ..........'

[BackPacker]

To use the car analogy posted previously,

[snip]

...........thus the trip round the block is not a check unless you say that every time you are in the car you are checking and thus every drive is a check-drive.

I agree that a check flight, where a prospective hirer is being checked out by a (presumably experienced) PPL has a bit of a dubious status. Indeed, on the one hand you designate the prospective hirer as PIC, on the other hand he's being checked by someone who doesn't have had formal training to train or check somebody, but who does limit what the PIC can do (particularly he limits the ability of the PIC to refuse to take the check pilot as passenger).

Nevertheless, there are owners who feel that they need to keep an eye on the flying ability, rustiness etc. of the dudes that fly in their aircraft. I guess it's sort of the same situation where my parents drove with me in their car when I just had my drivers license, every once in a while (usually instead of driving themselves, with me as passenger, to a venue where we needed to go anyway). If they thought I was completely unsafe, they simply would not allow that. But they thought I was safe, and just corrected driving habits which might lead to an unsafe situation in the future. And gave me tips on efficient driving etc.

So if you allow a mere PPL to check somebody else out on behalf of the owner, you have to make really clear what the legal status and the limits on the responsibility of the check pilot are. Plus, you've got to make clear what criteria you want the check pilot to apply.

But bringing us back to the question that started it all... If you have done so, is the prospective hirer allowed to log P1, or not?

[S-Works]

When a PPL holder comes to me for a routine checkout (club check) I recognise that they are qualified to take the aeroplane and act as PIC. The routine check however is one of responsibilty. The club is acting responsibly by having such a rule. The pilot is acting responsibly by subjecting themself to the check. As is agreed, the law doesn't demand this. The check is voluntary. Before the flight however, I make it clear beyond doubt that should I consider it necessary to take command I will do so and they must agree to this.

For this reason the pilot should be PIC unless it is decided that they are to have instruction and that being the purpose of the flight. In such a case it isn't then a checkout at all but an instructional flight.

Agreed, exactly what I do.

[llanfairpg]

I make it clear beyond doubt that should I consider it necessary to take command I will do so and they must agree to this.

That statement makes you the commander and means quite clearly that the other pilot is operating under your supervison.

[homeguard]

Logger Heads

No it doesn't!

It means that we have an agreement on how PIC is handed over during a flight.

[llanfairpg]

I make it clear beyond doubt that should I consider it necessary to take command I will do so .

Ok lets say there was an accident and the other pilot said that you were in command and it was your fault. You disagree and say you were not the commander and it goes to court.

The other pilot will tell the court that you said two things before take off before take off

1.should I consider it necessary to take command I will do so

2. and I must agree to this

I think at this stage you would have a hard time arguing that by the authority that you demonstrated before flight you left the other pilot in no doubt that you were indeed in command of the aircraft at all stages of that flight.

We very often fly with two captains and if the other pilot said what you have said I would have no alternative than to recognise that he was the commander of that flight.

At the end of the day its your interpretation against mine and a courts may be entirely different but If I were you I would check my liabiliity insurance, I think you might need it.

Good luck!

[homeguard]

Logger Heads

LLanfairpg

I don't need luck but leave the law to the lawyers! Common sense is as valid as any law can be. While the law can be an ass it is more often based on simple common sense.

Two crew ops requires its own sops and should not to be confused with single pilot operations. With two pilot ops are you saying that should a rooky first officer screw up at approach minima that you would just sit there and do nothing unless invited or more likely would you as the captain take over? As captain you are always P1 and the P2 first officer when handling only becomes P1u/s, not the same scenario at all.

It is common sense that in general an instructor in the role should undertake routine checks as required. There is no such thing as P1 u/s in single pilot ops and in the case being discussed. There will always be the potential that the instructor may need to take the control. It should be agreed before flight when and how the takeover of control may be done.

[llanfairpg]

There is no such thing as P1 u/s in single pilot ops

In your experience and thats why you are wrong.

Two crew ops requires its own sops

also wrong

While the law can be an ass it is more often based on simple common sense.

Ever wondered why solicitors and barristers drive Porches and instructors drive Honda Civics?

[S-Works]

Did I mention I drive a 997 Carerra GT3?

We do have to concede the P1 under supervision on an integrated course is loggable, but not really a regular occurrence in general club flying.

Out of curiosity llanfairpg are you or have you ever been an Instructor? No doubt this will illicit a line of abuse from you as usual but it is a genuine question to try and ascertain the experience you are basing this theory on.

[llanfairpg]

Well as I have said before the first type on my CPL from which the licence was issued is shown, and was accepted by the CAA, has an entry of P1 u/s (which means P1/s to you.)

[S-Works]

So because you have a P1u/s in your logbook that went unnoticed by the CAA in the days of the wright brothers it makes it right?

So are you going to answer my question? What are the Instructional qualifications that you are drawing your expertise on GA flight training from?

[llanfairpg]

So because you have a P1u/s in your logbook that went unnoticed by the CAA in the days of the wright brothers it makes it right?

I dont think it went unoticed because it was the subject of a 6 month debate and brought about a change in the requirements for the initial issue of a British professional licence.

Dont worry about my experience Bose, you just worry about yours. If you need to know anything my experience can help you with just ask.

Love your pun about the Wright brothers--your so funny but I remain stable and seated..

[Contacttower]

While DFC has yet to convince me completely I don't think the 'you are the commander until I think fit to make myself the commander' is a good idea when we are talking about non-instructors checking each other out. What's the point of having a commander if he isn't really the commander? We reach a divergence between what is logged and what is real...