28 day check - logged as P1 or PUT?

[S-Works]

Really? If I am sat with a pilot who has a current SEP rating in accordance with JAR FCL and I am sat with them for the purposes of meeting club/syndicate rules and providing no input to the flight how can I be providing instruction?

The purpose of the flight is to ensure that the person is safe to command for club 'insurance' purposes not to give any instruction.

Personally as an Instructor I log nothing and allow the pilot to be clearly in command of the flight.

I await responses from the floor.......

[Contacttower]

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.

I am only going on what was said earlier, if the CAA doesn't count 'check out' time then it isn't real PIC time is it.

The purpose of the flight is to ensure that the person is safe to command for club 'insurance' purposes not to give any instruction.

But if under insurance requirements he needs to be in currency then he can't be PIC, you have to be. Otherwise he would be flying without insurance which is illegal.

[S-Works]

The CAA do count check out time if it is logged in the correct manner. Logging as PICUS or P1s or a derivative of such is incorrect logging. So it will get logged as PUT.

Show me an Insurance policy that REQUIRES a 28 day currency.

[Contacttower]

bose it was you that mentioned insurance,

ensure that the person is safe to command for club 'insurance' purposes not to give any instruction.

Obviously if insurance has nothing to do with it then:

But if under insurance requirements he needs to be in currency then he can't be PIC, you have to be. Otherwise he would be flying without insurance which is illegal.

is irrelevant to this discussion.

I agree if the instructor is logging nothing then it's fine for the pilot to log PIC.

[S-Works]

Yeah I put insurance in quotes for a reason.....

I have yet to see an Insurance policy that requires 28 day checkouts. I have however seen lots of flying schools who require a club checkout every 28 days and hide behind insurance as the reason. I have asked ALL of the insurance syndicates (off which there are less than 5) for a status on this and they all said the same thing, they just expect the pilot to be legal in accordance with the terms of his licence.

As far as who logs what, I was not debating that with you, I quite clearly stated what I do and threw it open to the floor.

Back to you......

[DFC]

Really? If I am sat with a pilot who has a current SEP rating in accordance with JAR FCL and I am sat with them for the purposes of meeting club/syndicate rules and providing no input to the flight how can I be providing instruction?

Why does having a current rating have anyhting to do with the amount of instruction you need to give.

You could be flying with a person who completes everything from start to shutdown without any instruction, assistance or intervention from you.

Will you not log that time as PIC..........even if they are a student that you then send on their first solo?

The reason why you have to be pilot in command is that the other pilot (for whatever reason) is not entitled to be pilot in command.

If for that reason, you are pilot in command then in single pilot aircraft the only posibility for the other person to log the time is dual

Note that since JAR-FCL, the time is dual it is not student time, it is not pilot under tuition time it is dual time.

They can of course if they choose not log time as pilot in command or as dual but simply record the take-off and landings they completed as sole manipulator of the controls.

However, your being an instructor enables them to add to their total flight time experience even if it is dual.

Where this falls down legally is that instructors are legally required to record all dual flights that they command and make a return of them when they seek to renew their rating.

One could argue that leaving time out is just as much a falsification as putting extra time in. Especially if the person who is wrongly permitted to claim the pilot in command time uses that time todards renewal, revalidation or other licensing requirements.

Regards,

DFC

[S-Works]

See..... So many polarised views......

While I am not giving Instruction I do not see the need to log P1.

Please show me where a pilot who has a current according to FCL, SEP rating is not able to be pilot in command. Club rules do not make for a LEGAL basis to deny them the right to be pilot in command.

I own my aircraft, after 28 days please show me where legally I can no longer be P1.

There is a difference between LEGALITY and club rules.

You are an odd bloke DFC, I really would like to understand how I can be falsifying my logbook by not recording flights as P1 when there is no need for me to do so.

In fact I am now going to instigate a new rule, whenever I get in an aircraft with someone I am going to insist I am P1 just in case I have to give any comment on the conduct of the flight. I wonder how many invites to go flying I will get.........

[Contacttower]

Yeah I put insurance in quotes for a reason.....

Sorry your subtlety was lost on me...

As it happens I'm on agreement with you as far as the pilot logging PIC and the instructor logging nothing- that is quite straight forward and I can't see what the CAA has against that.

Just looking back through my logbook I seem to have several 'Satisfactory LPC' comments complete with signature and instructor's licence number and has been logged (instructor filling in my logbook) as P1(s). Not actually sure what that means.

[S-Works]

LPC - Licence Proficiency Check - The successful completion of a flight test - PICUS, P1s etc?

[rustle]

Originally Posted by bose-x

Please show me where a pilot who has a current according to FCL, SEP rating is not able to be pilot in command. Club rules do not make for a LEGAL basis to deny them the right to be pilot in command.

Just to prove Islander2 wrong I am going to disagree with you

If the pilot order book states you need to be "current" according to club/school rules or you need to be checked-out by a club/school pilot, and you are not "current" by that strict definition, then you cannot lawfully be in command of that aircraft.

If you try it you are effectively twoc

[S-Works]

Come on rustle thats a stretch. Since when has a club rule suddenly become law?

I know some club CFI's think they are the law.........

[rustle]

Well it isn't "law" per se, but you cannot be lawfully "in command" of an unlawful flight: TWOC makes it unlawful, ergo...

[S-Works]

Ok you have me I will bite show me the ANO (or other legal) reference that supports that one!

I have a new rule: If you have not worn pink shorts in the last 28 days you are required to have a check flight with me before you fly my aircraft. I shall use the same reference you are going to provide me with to enforce it.

[Contacttower]

LPC - Licence Proficiency Check - The successful completion of a flight test - PICUS, P1s etc?

Yeah I thought it was something like that- just shows how much I really know about this flying thing . I wish instructors would tell me what the hell is going on sometimes .

I'd have thought club rules are enforceable by law, if you have signed the flying order book and then do something that isn't alllowed then you have invalidated the club's insurance (have you not?) and therefore are breaking the law. Someone care to comment?

[S-Works]

Lets not confuse the law with the flying order book. I have just added the requirement for pink short wearing in 28 days to mine. I am not sure the law lords will support it though......

[rustle]

Originally Posted by bose-x

Ok you have me I will bite show me the ANO (or other legal) reference that supports that one!

Not sure I have time to search the ANO/LASORS or anything else for a particular reference, but I will counter by asking a simple test question:

If I steal your aircraft can I log the time I'm flying it or not?

Supplementary:

Will the CAA allow me to use that time in my totals column?

[S-Works]

As long as you have a current SEP rating I don't see why not.......

However will you have worn the required pink shorts in the previous 28 day period?

[BackPacker]

I have a new rule: If you have not worn pink shorts in the last 28 days you are required to have a check flight with me before you fly my aircraft.

Obviously if you are convinced that wearing pink shorts has a safety benefit in your aircraft, you do apply the same rule to yourself too, don't you?

Pictures please, every 28 days. You can post them right here!

(For the record, I'm with you on this topic. If the law says that you can legally fly an aircraft you're entitled to log it as P1, even if the club rules say that an instructor has to be on board.)

[BackPacker]

I'd have thought club rules are enforceable by law, if you have signed the flying order book and then do something that isn't alllowed then you have invalidated the club's insurance (have you not?) and therefore are breaking the law. Someone care to comment?

I guess that if you do something that's against the club rules, and the club has a loss from that, then the club can start a civil action against you. And rightly so, since what you did was a "breach of contract" (note: not directly "breaking the law"). But the CAA will stay out. However, if you break the law, it's the CAA who may come after you. In this thread, we're talking about what's *legally* allowed in your logbook.

And Bose already submitted that there are no insurance providers that he knows of (and he seems to have done his homework) that require proficiency above and beyond the law. So a club hiding behind "insurance requirements" to enforce a 28-day checkout is not really being honest to its members.

Note that I have no problems with clubs making and enforcing rules that do not directly stem from insurance requirements, as long as they don't announce them as "insurance requirements". But I do see a lot of organizations, aviation and non-aviation, use "insurance requirement" as a phrase to end all discussion about a certain rule, instead of being honest about things.

[llanfairpg]

Lets not confuse the law with the flying order book. I have just added the requirement for pink short wearing in 28 days to mine. I am not sure the law lords will support it though......

If the pilots order book was required by a statutory instrument it would be law in terms that not complying with it would be contravention of the statutory instrument that requires it (The ANO).For instance an Operations Manual is required by statutory instrument for public transport

The main reason for a pilots order book is not to make unenforcable law but to cover yourself, and your company/club in the event of a negligence claim.

When I write in our POB that no one will enter or vacate an aircraft with the engine running its not just because I think that to do so is the hallmark of a poorly run and discilpined school, it is to cover my arse if ever anyone does get injured by a propellor. I cannot turn around and say its the law but I can produce the signature of the pilot who is now missing a limb in court saying that he understood that it was against our rules to try to get out of the aircraft with the engine running and that he was in fact negligent not me--something for all you self employed instructors out there without liability insurance to think about!