28 day check - logged as P1 or PUT?

[Whirlybird]

An instructor is not a passenger in the circumstances given!

Oh, really? What is he/she then? AFAIK, he is either an instructor, in which case he is PIC, or he is a passenger. What other alternative is there?

[bookworm]

Is it really too much to expect two qualified flight crew members to decide who is to be the commander (yes, Chuck, think 'gold braid') in advance? Or for the operator to designate one of them as such?

If you have the conversation in advance then Beagle's comment

1. The FI will invariably be the Commander and will log PIC.

won't be too far from the truth, though there may be som circumstances in which an FI would agree from the outset to be a passenger.

[S-Works]

bose-x said:
Quote:
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.

Please provide evidence of this. As an Instructor and an examiner and a WG member I am dealing with these people on a regular basis and that is not what I and others have been told.

[llanfairpg]

This is the way we see it and ask students/pilots to log time.

First of all you can log what you like in your log book its what you claim for the grant/renewal of a licence or rating that is defined in law. You can log P2 in a C172 if you want to but you can never claim it for the grant/.renewal etc..

The commander has to be decided before you fly, with a check out the supervising pilot is the commander and thus P1, the other pilot then can only be P1 U/S or PIC U/S--There has never been P1S, that log entry does not exist. around 35 years ago a well known log book manufacturer put P1/S inside a logbook cover and it has been around ever since but its not shown in any CAA document that I know of.

Even if the pilot fails his check ride( a test not required by the ANO) he still gets to log P1 U/S or P1C U/S .

We would not ask the handling pilot to log Pu/t because we see training in the log book context as being training for the grant or renewal of a licence or rating, or the failure of a flight test with an authorised examiner. A check ride does not fall into any of those categories.

[BackPacker]

The commander has to be decided before you fly, with a check out the supervising pilot is the commander and thus P1, the other pilot then can only be P1 U/S or PIC U/S.

Just to make things clear: I assume that this is a club/school rule, and not something directly derived from ANO regulations, right? And at your club/school, those checks are only done by current FIs?

[llanfairpg]

Just to make things clear: I assume that this is a club/school rule, and not something directly derived from ANO regulations, right? And at your club/school, those checks are only done by current FIs?

For check out with us a designated approved FI or trainee FI,

Yes BP, as I an sure you know, most clubs have their own rules as to check flight recency and conversions and these are based on internal rulesas opposed to the ANO.

With us nominated experienced pilots who have been checked out in the right hand seat and have more than 10 hours on type and more than 100 hours P1 total and have passed our written type exam may at the discretion of the CFI check someone out.

I am not sure if the ANO states anywhere if the commander HAS to be decided before flight but by implication it does. Pre flight action by commander of aircraft for instance.

To be able to operate the aircraft properly there has to be a designated commander before flight otherwise who is going to fly the aircraft in the event of an emergency. This is especially important in an emergency say on take off. Think about the situation where a pilot being checked out has an EFATO on his first take off, not the time to have a conference about who is in command!!!!

Someone has to take responsiblity for the loading of the aircraft and the fuel required BEFORE flight, the pilot being checked out may well decide this but it remains the commanders responsiblity and he/she is the one who may have to stand up in court and explain his/her reasoning.

[Whirlybird]

Three pages down, I predict about 5 to go, but no conclusion. Who's taking the bets?

[llanfairpg]

Law is never conclusive all you have to do is hope you and the judge share the same opinion!

[BEagle]

The only safe solution is to ensure that the pilot conducting the check is either a FI(A) or CRI(SPA) and the other person is a pilot under supervision.

llanfairpg, using unqualified 'trainees' or 'experienced pilots' for conducting any such checks sounds like a disaster waiting to happen..... Not just for the pilots concerned, but also for whoever dreamed up such a daft idea.

[BillieBob]

bose-x said:

Please provide evidence of this.

Why on earth should I? You may believe what you wish about what I say, as may I about what you say - I don't have to prove myself to you or anyone else!

As it happens, I asked the question as a result of this PM, received a little while ago -

Hi there
its **** here, you helped me out with advice early this summer re regulations as far as jar and lasors are concerned and i was hoping you could do it again!
i have just had a reply regarding my application for cpl/me/ir saying that my hours are short for 2 reasons....
1) P1 should be 100 and mine are 4hrs short as club checks and school checkout rides are not able to be logged under P1s or Pus (different to what many opinions say on pprune
2) Cpl total has to be 200hrs and they are saying that only 5 of my 40hrs fnpt2 hrs can be included so i need another 17hrs!!!! (again opinions on pprune seem to vary between no sim hours allowed - all allowed - 20hrs allowed but i have never seen 5hrs mentioned
I know this is a big ask as i dont know you but your advice was so good and accurate last time that i was hoping that you could help a very panic stricken fellow out with some more advice
thanks ****

The CAA gentleman concerned, a personal friend, confirmed that it was the case that club checks and school checkout rides would not be counted towards the PIC requirement for the issue of a licence or rating.

You may believe this or not as you wish - I don't give a toss either way.

[llanfairpg]

llanfairpg, using unqualified 'trainees' or 'experienced pilots' for conducting any such checks sounds like a disaster waiting to happen..... Not just for the pilots concerned, but also for whoever dreamed up such a daft idea.

You are right it is a daft idea and I dreamt it up. I like encouraging people to become flying instructors and to take part. Most importanly it allows some of the training captains who fly with us with over 10,000 hours to check people out rather than use an instructor with a few 100 hours P1.

Remember what I said--at the discretion of the CFI, thats me!

Billy--I think BOSE was just asking if you have written confirmation from the CAA--verbal comment is not worth much. I do not believe there is a definitive answer to this and everything is subject to interpretation.

[BackPacker]

With us nominated experienced pilots who have been checked out in the right hand seat and have more than 10 hours on type and more than 100 hours P1 total and have passed our written type exam may at the discretion of the CFI check someone out.

Apart from the RHS checkout, the written type exam, the CFI discretion (and the general quality of my landings), that could be me, and I only hold a PPL. So if I were to check somebody out, I would log P1, by your club rules. But in that case the person being checked out cannot log anything, because I'm not an FI and thus they cannot log P/UT or PIC/S. Am I right?

Ilanfairpg, using unqualified 'trainees' or 'experienced pilots' for conducting any such checks sounds like a disaster waiting to happen..... Not just for the pilots concerned, but also for whoever dreamed up such a daft idea.

We're only talking 28-day checks here. Nothing more. If somebody who hasn't flown in the last 28 days is, in your opinion, a "disaster waiting to happen", and that disaster can be fully averted by a checkride of, what, 30-60 minutes with three landings, then there's something wrong with the initial training of that person in the first place, or the FI's you know are actual skygods with biblical teaching powers.

[S-Works]

I suggest you read the message and the part that covers P1s and PUS to disciver why you are wrong........ But here is a hint..... the only time P1s is able to be logged is on the successful completion of a flight test.....

But actually I don't give a toss either, but if you want to be a CPL, it is a piss poor approach if you cant be bothered to understand the rules.......

bose-x said:
Quote:
Please provide evidence of this.
Why on earth should I? You may believe what you wish about what I say, as may I about what you say - I don't have to prove myself to you or anyone else!

As it happens, I asked the question as a result of this PM, received a little while ago -
Quote:
Hi there
its **** here, you helped me out with advice early this summer re regulations as far as jar and lasors are concerned and i was hoping you could do it again!
i have just had a reply regarding my application for cpl/me/ir saying that my hours are short for 2 reasons....
1) P1 should be 100 and mine are 4hrs short as club checks and school checkout rides are not able to be logged under P1s or Pus (different to what many opinions say on pprune
2) Cpl total has to be 200hrs and they are saying that only 5 of my 40hrs fnpt2 hrs can be included so i need another 17hrs!!!! (again opinions on pprune seem to vary between no sim hours allowed - all allowed - 20hrs allowed but i have never seen 5hrs mentioned
I know this is a big ask as i dont know you but your advice was so good and accurate last time that i was hoping that you could help a very panic stricken fellow out with some more advice
thanks ****
The CAA gentleman concerned, a personal friend, confirmed that it was the case that club checks and school checkout rides would not be counted towards the PIC requirement for the issue of a licence or rating.

You may believe this or not as you wish - I don't give a toss either way

.

[TheOddOne]

Three pages down, I predict about 5 to go, but no conclusion. Who's taking the bets?

Whirly,
Not me!

The reason this thread keeps popping up is because there is lack of clarity and proper rule-making from FCL. The only cases they are prepared to consider are either people undertaking actual official training or multi-crew operation, nothing in LASORS or the ANO about club checkouts.

Perhaps EASA will do a better job than the CAA and JAA have done in making sense of all this.

Cheers,
TheOddOne

[llanfairpg]

Yes but it is all interesting stuff, you have been only listening to it perhaps for a few years but I have heard this argument for around 30 years and for me it underlines human factors possibly more than any other argument amongst pilots.

Notice how many experienced pilots above are convinced they are right because they are experienced, this is the sort of stuff accidents are made of!

the only time P1s is able to be logged is on the successful completion of a flight test.....

Now my take on it is and I am not convinced I am right I just know how I approach the problem, is that the above quote is most certainly wrong.

You can log anything you like in your log book I have seen passenger flying in Concorde logged in a log book. A log book is yours, it dosnt belong to the CAA its yours and what you put in it is your business.

And Bose you may have read the rules but with respect you did not understand them because there is no mention in the ANO of P1s.

[S-Works]

Here we go again......

P1s or PICUS or P1US or any VARIATION of the same theme is semantics. They all mean the same thing the variation comes from the different log book suppliers.

For a single pilot aircraft the only time that entry can be made is on the completion of a flight test. It can't be used for the a club check or a type conversation or anyone of the myriad of other uses it seems to get put to. So Billiebobs application would have been bounced if the CAA had seen those as entries. However if he had logged them correctly they would have counted towards his licence issue either as P1 or PU2 depending on which column is the correct column for them. They would not be discarded as he wrongly claims.

The question around who logs P1 during a 28 day check is indeed an old one and open to discussion. Whatever it is it is not a PICUS, P1s, P1US etc.

Personally as an Instructor I am happy for the pilot to log P1 and I will log nothing if they are that desperate for the P1 hours. Other Instructors I know do not take this approach claiming if they are in the aircraft and 'working' they are P1 so the other is PUT even if getting no Instruction. I am not going to enter into the debate on this one....

[llanfairpg]

Apart from the RHS checkout, the written type exam, the CFI discretion (and the general quality of my landings), that could be me, and I only hold a PPL. So if I were to check somebody out, I would log P1, by your club rules. But in that case the person being checked out cannot log anything, because I'm not an FI and thus they cannot log P/UT or PIC/S. Am I right?

First of all BP I must say that I think I would be very lucky to have somebody like yourself checking people out and I am basing this on the effort you put into your posts and you having previously told me off. (Sorry I know its bad form on here to compliment anyone).

The way I see it is that you would be the supervising pilot you are there in a supervisory capacity so you must be P1. The other pilot therefore is operating under your supervision, as you say you are not an instructor and you are not training him so I see his entry as pilot in command under supervision. I am not saying I am right and I am not referring to the ANO, that is just the way we do it.

Contary to popular folk lore you do not have to have a FI rating to give instruction unless it is for the grant or renewal of a licence or rating, for instance with my airline hat on most of out training captains have not got or ever held instructor ratings but regularly convert people onto big multi jet aircraft from Senecas etc

[llanfairpg]

P1s or PICUS or P1US or any VARIATION of the same theme is semantics. They all mean the same thing the variation comes from the different log book suppliers.

I know what you mean Bose but again with respect for my money making a comment like that to a student, and I am referring to P1/S indicates you are not familiar with the regulations and as such detracts from your authority as a professional instructor.

Teaching to high standards start by instructors adhering to high standards.

I am sorry the above sounds like I am being very pedantic but to me the above is as important as being able to fly accuately. (and yes I am still working at both of the aforementioned)

[S-Works]

Thanks for the assessment on my professionalism as an Instructor.......

I am perfectly aware of the regulations, looking at your recent posts on this subject it would be your knowledge of them that I would question.

I will however bow to your superior knowledge on this subject and look forward to your detail in the ANO that states which term is legally correct.

[llanfairpg]

Actually Bose I would think you are a very professional instructor.