28 day check - logged as P1 or PUT?

[TheOddOne]

homeguard

If it was purely a club required check flight and you remained in control throughout the flight then you LOG P1. The instructor carrying out their duty as a Flight Instructor observing you may also logs P1.

I'm sorry, but there's only ONE commander per flight and only ONE person can book P1.

You're going to have to quote chapter & verse to persuade me otherwise.

Cheers,
TheOddOne

[S-Works]

See, 28 pages worth to come......

[BEagle]

Although this topic has been raised on many on occasion - and personally I think that 28 day currency is unreasonable (we use 42), my opinion is:

1. The FI will invariably be the Commander and will log PIC.
2. The other pilot will log Pu/t.

Also, I would expect the pilot requiring the check to be charged at the 'dual rate'. Don't like it? Then maintain your currency!

If there was any real commonsense in the JAA, such flights would be PICU/S for the pilot requiring the check and PIC for the FI. But sadly there isn't......

[Whirlygig]

28 days is very common with helicopters and the original poster is a helicopter pilot wishing to gain a CPL. P1/Put hours is important for that reason.

My instructor tells me to log P1. Only once did he say I was Put but that was after a flying break of several months.

Cheers

Whirls



PS - I think I've doubled the weight of my logbook in Tippex

[BEagle]

Whirlygig, yes indeed, 28 days seems entirely reasonable for the skill set needed to maintain acceptable flying skill on helicopters.

[ShyTorque]

Some of us need a check flight after a long lunch....

[Contacttower]

I'm sorry, but there's only ONE commander per flight and only ONE person can book P1.

In the US and under JAR-FCL there are often times when both can log PIC, however I have always logged with the assumption that there can only be one P1 (except after a successful flight test)...it was how I was told originally to do it and it's the way that seems most right to me.

[Julian]

This one always splits down the middle, been brought up several times before (Hence the "Incoming" Al ).

FTR, I am in the unless you are being instructed the FI is just a passenger camp.

J.

[jollyrog]

On two occasions, I've been told to log it as P1/S. The FI checking me was also an examiner.

With other FIs, I've logged it as Pu/t.

I'm not hour building, so don't really care either way.

[Crash one]

Can I chuck a spanner in the works & suggest P1S? Isn't it a "supervised" check ride? Unless instruction has been asked for or advised?

[homeguard]

Logger Heads

Nope!
See Lasors P56. Pilot-in-Command Para. 1(c).
You may, in a single pilot aeroplane, log P1(s) only when the flight is a licensing test and the examiner is acting as such.
Club check rides are not a licensing requirement. It is an occasion when the hirer is protecting their own interest. Most clubs will nominate an instructor to supervise a check ride. You are, are you not, checking that the pilot has current satisfactory skill which includes their PIC skills.
The PPL holder may if no intervention is required log the flight P1 but so may the instructor in accordance with the above section from LASORS 2007

[BackPacker]

My instructor tells me to log P1. Only once did he say I was Put but that was after a flying break of several months.

Do helicopters have a 90-day rule as well (3 landings in last 90 days)? Cause in that case you were simply P/UT because you weren't legally allowed to act as P1 on that flight, until you made 3 solo or supervised landings with you being the sole manipulator of the controls.

[homeguard]

Logger Heads

With regard to fixed wing, the 90 days rule does not prevent acting as PIC. The 90 days rule is with regard to the carriage of passengers.

[rmac]

Personally I think that instructor time, when not manipulating controls, going round and round the pattern, should get a column of its own and not go in to P1.

Tin hat and body armour, on....

But really the concept of hours is quite abstract as the experience gained in a flying hour is something quite different dpending on the circumstances.

[BackPacker]

Absolutely. So if Whirls would log P1, then the FI would be a passenger along for the ride. But Whirls was out of currency, so would not legally be allowed to take passengers.

Hence the FI logging P1, and Whirls P/UT. Problems solved.

[homeguard]

Logger Heads

Nope again!

An instructor is not a passenger in the circumstances given!

[llanfairpg]

An instructor is not a passenger in the circumstances given!

Except where his or her presence is not required legally by the ANO.

There is an anomally here.

If I checked someone out for an hour or so and then said at the end of the flight. "I am sorry but you handling of the aircraft was not good enough to me to allow you to fly the aircraft solo How would they then log that flight, P1 or Pu/t?

[BillieBob]

bose-x said:

wow that came from the outfield and is completely wrong........

You say it's wrong and the Head of Licensing at the CAA says it's right - guess who I'm going to believe.

[dublinpilot]

The simplist advice I can give you is to agree who is in command before the flight. If you can't agree that, then don't go flying together.

Looking at your log book a year later, and wondering were you actually the commander of a flight that you though you weren't commander of at the time, is a bit silly really.

[BackPacker]

Except where his or her presence is not required legally by the ANO.

As are the circumstances here. A 28-day check flight is not required by the ANO, so the instructors presence is not required. Either the instructor logs P1, making it a lesson, or the instructor does not log P1, making him a passenger.

If I checked someone out for an hour or so and then said at the end of the flight. "I am sorry but you handling of the aircraft was not good enough to me to allow you to fly the aircraft solo How would they then log that flight, P1 or Pu/t?

Tricky one. If his license is valid, if his class rating is valid, if his medical is valid and if he is within his 90-day currency, then as far as the law is concerned, he is legal to fly the aircraft as P1. So he can log P1. Doesn't matter if the club requires a checkout above and beyond what the law requires. However, club rules will still prevent him from taking the clubs airplane solo after a failed checkout.

With regards to club checks, I think the situation is actually very simple: A club checkout is not a thing described within the law. It doesn't require an instructor, as far as the law is concerned. There are clubs/groups who allow certain designated experienced PPLs to check out other pilots, for example. So as far as the law is concerned, a club checkout is simply a flight which is undertaken by two people who both happen to have a current and valid PPL (or higher), in a single-crew aircraft. Just as with two PPLs on board, you've got to decide who gets to be PIC for the flight, but only one of the pilots on board can log P1 time. If both of the people on board are hour-builders (one for CPL, the other for ATPL, for instance), I guess it comes down to who can argue the best to resolve the conflict. (Me personally, as the poor PPL who pays for the plane and the instructor, would insist on logging it as P1 and otherwise find another person to check me out, FI or not, within the club rules.)

The only exception is when you make it into a flight lesson. In that case the "extra" person on board has to be a current FI who then logs P1, and the pilot getting a lesson and simultaneously getting a checkout is logging P/UT. At that point in time, this lesson can also count towards CPL license issue requirements, or towards your SEP revalidation requirements. This is the obvious way out for a PPL who is out of 90-day currency. You book a lesson with an FI, do the three landings as sole manipulator, log it as P/UT while the instructor logs P1, and you're good to go flying with passengers as far as the law is concerned. If the club wants to let such a lesson coincide with a club checkout, I can only say that it makes sense.