28 day check - logged as P1 or PUT?
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you can find that statement in LASORS I will agree with you.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
...and NONE of the above in LASORS is of any use whatsoever for those of us carrying out 'club' checkouts. Note 3 is all about a/c requiring 2 or more crew. I feel the CAA have badly let us down here. We need proper rules from our Regulator. The purpose of a club checkout is to maintain and enhance safety, so surely SRG want us to conduct these in a sensible way with a consistent manner of recording the fact? They've even encouraged people to obtain the CRI to enable this to take place (well certain individuals at SRG have, anyway...)
I think they should say the following:
Day/VFR SEP flights.
A pilot in an a/c who is within the 90-day rule but is required by the owner/operator of the aircraft to undertake a more stringent flight check can either:
a) conduct the flight as P1. The other front seat occupant of the aircraft for ANO purposes is a passenger; despite any advice that may be offered during the course of the light. The other front seat occupant cannot make any logbook entry that suggests they had anything to do with manipulating the controls.
b) conduct the flight as Pu/t. The other front seat occupant must be a suitably, currently rated CRI or FI (or FIE etc) and must log the flight as P1.
c)any pilot who is outside the 90-day rule MUST either fly solo as P1 or with a suitably qualified CRI, FI etc and log the flight as Pu/t.
Will the CAA ever come out and lay the above down (or any variation/deviation that they might think fit?) No, of course not! They will claim that it's outside their terms of reference. Personally, I disagree, I think it's inside and they ought to do something.
Re insurance. ALL our policy says is that our a/c is covered for 'Club' use and then goes on to define what 'Club' means. There's nothing about restrictions requiring checks. We manage that amougst ourselves, very well.
At the school where I work, a hirer won't get access to the aircraft keys unless they meet the local requirements anyway, so no possibility of flying without the owner's consent so insurance remains valid.
Now, as I've said above, sometimes I'll sit in with a friend so that they can comply with our local club rules and let them log P1 and I won't trouble my logbook. A scenario here might be that they need their 6 hours P1 in their
2nd year and this might save them from having to do a test with an Examiner. OR, they might ring me up and say 'I haven't flown our a/c for 6 weeks 'cos the wx has been lousy' and I'll say 'fill yer boots, just fly' without a check as they've got several thousand hours SEP and 10,000 hours on passenger jets!
TheOddOne
I think they should say the following:
Day/VFR SEP flights.
A pilot in an a/c who is within the 90-day rule but is required by the owner/operator of the aircraft to undertake a more stringent flight check can either:
a) conduct the flight as P1. The other front seat occupant of the aircraft for ANO purposes is a passenger; despite any advice that may be offered during the course of the light. The other front seat occupant cannot make any logbook entry that suggests they had anything to do with manipulating the controls.
b) conduct the flight as Pu/t. The other front seat occupant must be a suitably, currently rated CRI or FI (or FIE etc) and must log the flight as P1.
c)any pilot who is outside the 90-day rule MUST either fly solo as P1 or with a suitably qualified CRI, FI etc and log the flight as Pu/t.
Will the CAA ever come out and lay the above down (or any variation/deviation that they might think fit?) No, of course not! They will claim that it's outside their terms of reference. Personally, I disagree, I think it's inside and they ought to do something.
Re insurance. ALL our policy says is that our a/c is covered for 'Club' use and then goes on to define what 'Club' means. There's nothing about restrictions requiring checks. We manage that amougst ourselves, very well.
At the school where I work, a hirer won't get access to the aircraft keys unless they meet the local requirements anyway, so no possibility of flying without the owner's consent so insurance remains valid.
Now, as I've said above, sometimes I'll sit in with a friend so that they can comply with our local club rules and let them log P1 and I won't trouble my logbook. A scenario here might be that they need their 6 hours P1 in their
2nd year and this might save them from having to do a test with an Examiner. OR, they might ring me up and say 'I haven't flown our a/c for 6 weeks 'cos the wx has been lousy' and I'll say 'fill yer boots, just fly' without a check as they've got several thousand hours SEP and 10,000 hours on passenger jets!
TheOddOne
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think they should say the following:
Day/VFR SEP flights.
[snip]
Will the CAA ever come out and lay the above down (or any variation/deviation that they might think fit?) No, of course not! They will claim that it's outside their terms of reference. Personally, I disagree, I think it's inside and they ought to do something.
Day/VFR SEP flights.
[snip]
Will the CAA ever come out and lay the above down (or any variation/deviation that they might think fit?) No, of course not! They will claim that it's outside their terms of reference. Personally, I disagree, I think it's inside and they ought to do something.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Since the CAA doesn't recognise the "club checkout" concept in any official document, but just consider it a private flight, why would they need to provide clarification as to the rules?
Well, precisely because so many people seem to be doing things which are contrary to this position. If everyone was doing what they're supposed to in the first place, we wouldn't have this thread running...
I REALLY wasn't going to add any more to this thread, honest, I just got sucked in again.
TheOddOne
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been reading this thread with intrest having just completed a CRI with the aim of using it in a club environment.
As I understand it...it is simple, the CAA/JAA do not recognise the "club checkout" as a type of flight test/check.
So the ANO and JAR-FCL 1 become applicable (as in LASORS above), which means it is treated as a private flight:
1)If the pilot can carry PAX then he logs P1 and the FI/CRI logs nothing.
2)If the pilot can't carry PAX then he logs Put (dual) and the FI/CRI logs P1.
3)If the FI/CRI ends up teaching or taking control then it becomes a training flight as in 2 above.
4)SPIC can't be used unless on an approved integrated training course.
5)P1/us or any variation only used when doing a flight test with a FIE.
Simple really
smithgd
As I understand it...it is simple, the CAA/JAA do not recognise the "club checkout" as a type of flight test/check.
So the ANO and JAR-FCL 1 become applicable (as in LASORS above), which means it is treated as a private flight:
1)If the pilot can carry PAX then he logs P1 and the FI/CRI logs nothing.
2)If the pilot can't carry PAX then he logs Put (dual) and the FI/CRI logs P1.
3)If the FI/CRI ends up teaching or taking control then it becomes a training flight as in 2 above.
4)SPIC can't be used unless on an approved integrated training course.
5)P1/us or any variation only used when doing a flight test with a FIE.
Simple really
smithgd
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smithgd,
That's about perfect, which one slight addition. In senario 1. "If the pilot can carry PAX", then it doesn't automatically mean that the pilot being checked out logs P1 and the instructor nothing; it simply means that that is an option open to them.
It could also be that the instructor logs P1 and the pilot being checked out logs either Pu/t (if they get some training) or nothing (if they don't get any training). It's really about what they agree to before they go flying
But other than that, I agree 100% with your summary.
dp
That's about perfect, which one slight addition. In senario 1. "If the pilot can carry PAX", then it doesn't automatically mean that the pilot being checked out logs P1 and the instructor nothing; it simply means that that is an option open to them.
It could also be that the instructor logs P1 and the pilot being checked out logs either Pu/t (if they get some training) or nothing (if they don't get any training). It's really about what they agree to before they go flying
But other than that, I agree 100% with your summary.
dp
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think smithgd that's the best we are going to do for now and I believe most clubs are doing 1) on your list.
Just don't believe an instructor who tells you to log PIC U/S after a 'twice round the circuit' and make sure if you are going to log it as P1 that the instructor isn't logging anything.
Just don't believe an instructor who tells you to log PIC U/S after a 'twice round the circuit' and make sure if you are going to log it as P1 that the instructor isn't logging anything.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This problem has generally been perpetuated by the hours builders desperate for every minute they can grab.
Hopefully with the proliferation of the CRI rating and and changes to the FI coming up we will get dedicated PPL Instructors who are interested in putting something in instead of constantly taking out.
Hopefully with the proliferation of the CRI rating and and changes to the FI coming up we will get dedicated PPL Instructors who are interested in putting something in instead of constantly taking out.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This problem has generally been perpetuated by the hours builders desperate for every minute they can grab.
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 ****
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 ****
But it was then followed by this:
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.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which was why I asked for the evidence. The original poster then got very hot under the collar but did not produce the evidence.
And yes you are right the CAA would have taken issue with the P1S entries as they are incorrect.
So we have gone full circle.......
And yes you are right the CAA would have taken issue with the P1S entries as they are incorrect.
So we have gone full circle.......
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Bose has put some very sensible (if you excuse the pink shirts 
) points forward and got every one to think a bit more about the subject rather than blindly following what an instructor tells them. Well done mate.
Whilst you maybe considered TWOC if you took a club aircraft on day 29 and suitablly followed up by what ever action the club wants to take, heres another scenario for you...
Several people have brought up about falsifying logbooks and the @rsekicking and fines associated with it, so I will throw this one into the pot.
Lets say that a hirer takes a 'Club Check Flight', he is fully within the legal requirements to command the specific type of aircraft (i.e. C172), its a 28 day check purely for club purposes and nothing else so the FI can just enjoy the view. The hirer has told the FI as such before they enter the aircraft that he is legal, etc and unless the FI intervenes because he considers the hirer flying dangerous, he can sit there enjoy the view and ask for the maneourves to perform.
I would also point out that the FI must intervene because he feels that the hirer is unsafe/damaging aircraft/etc and not because he wants to take over to show him another way of doing something in contravention of what was agreed on the ground unless as said earlier, the hirer is unsafe, a muppet, etc. Otherwise its a convinient way for any hour buliding FIs to say they took control and hence claim the flight.
Flight successful. Now on the ground the FI says he is logging P1, you state you are logging P1 as no instruction took place. If the CAA ever called landed on the logbooks and found them both logging the same hours, would the FI feel confident enough to argue that the hours are his when there appears to be no legal basis for claiming them, only a club flying order?
J.
) points forward and got every one to think a bit more about the subject rather than blindly following what an instructor tells them. Well done mate.Whilst you maybe considered TWOC if you took a club aircraft on day 29 and suitablly followed up by what ever action the club wants to take, heres another scenario for you...
Several people have brought up about falsifying logbooks and the @rsekicking and fines associated with it, so I will throw this one into the pot.
Lets say that a hirer takes a 'Club Check Flight', he is fully within the legal requirements to command the specific type of aircraft (i.e. C172), its a 28 day check purely for club purposes and nothing else so the FI can just enjoy the view. The hirer has told the FI as such before they enter the aircraft that he is legal, etc and unless the FI intervenes because he considers the hirer flying dangerous, he can sit there enjoy the view and ask for the maneourves to perform.
I would also point out that the FI must intervene because he feels that the hirer is unsafe/damaging aircraft/etc and not because he wants to take over to show him another way of doing something in contravention of what was agreed on the ground unless as said earlier, the hirer is unsafe, a muppet, etc. Otherwise its a convinient way for any hour buliding FIs to say they took control and hence claim the flight.
Flight successful. Now on the ground the FI says he is logging P1, you state you are logging P1 as no instruction took place. If the CAA ever called landed on the logbooks and found them both logging the same hours, would the FI feel confident enough to argue that the hours are his when there appears to be no legal basis for claiming them, only a club flying order?
J.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to my previous post:
I guess it boils down to...
Agree with the CRI/FI who does what and who logs what before the flight.
Julian
If the CAA don't recognise the "club checkout" type of flight then where do they stand on the "Club Rules/order book" from a legal point of view, in the eyes of the law which one wins? I would be tempted to obay the ANO unless someone knows otherwise. I guess it depends on the type of club, whether it's a commercial club or private club/group???
cheers
smithgd
I guess it boils down to...
Agree with the CRI/FI who does what and who logs what before the flight.
Julian
If the CAA don't recognise the "club checkout" type of flight then where do they stand on the "Club Rules/order book" from a legal point of view, in the eyes of the law which one wins? I would be tempted to obay the ANO unless someone knows otherwise. I guess it depends on the type of club, whether it's a commercial club or private club/group???
cheers
smithgd
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
would the FI feel confident enough to argue that the hours are his when there appears to be no legal basis for claiming them, only a club flying order?
I wonder: what would the pilot do if (having agreed he is P1) the instructor tried to take control, he could just turn round and say: 'I'm P1, so get off the controls!' Instructors agreeing to be a passenger on a check flight do so at their peril
.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Otherwise its a convinient way for any hour buliding FIs to say they took control and hence claim the flight.
, where certain persons were more qualified than the FI....
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight successful. Now on the ground the FI says he is logging P1, you state you are logging P1 as no instruction took place. If the CAA ever called landed on the logbooks and found them both logging the same hours, would the FI feel confident enough to argue that the hours are his when there appears to be no legal basis for claiming them, only a club flying order?
Oh, and if the instructor claims to be P1 for the flight, isn't it his responsibility to make sure that all paperwork, including the "students" logbook, is properly filled in and duly countersigned?
So I doubt this would go as far as the CAA. Nevertheless, better to get this out of the way before the flight starts.
(The word "student" used here in the sense that it's the pilot being checked out, but not necessarily receiving instruction.)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it so that any Pu/t hours need to be countersigned by the FI? So wouldn't the fact that the "student" logs P1 and then does not offer his logbook for a countersignature gives a hint to the FI that he's not P1 for the flight?
Oh, and if the instructor claims to be P1 for the flight, isn't it his responsibility to make sure that all paperwork, including the "students" logbook, is properly filled in and duly countersigned?
Oh, and if the instructor claims to be P1 for the flight, isn't it his responsibility to make sure that all paperwork, including the "students" logbook, is properly filled in and duly countersigned?
I wonder: what would the pilot do if (having agreed he is P1) the instructor tried to take control, he could just turn round and say: 'I'm P1, so get off the controls!' Instructors agreeing to be a passenger on a check flight do so at their peril .
J.
Last edited by Julian; 8th Jan 2008 at 18:07. Reason: Spppeeeellling
Guest
Posts: n/a
I wonder: what would the pilot do if (having agreed he is P1) the instructor tried to take control, he could just turn round and say: 'I'm P1, so get off the controls!' Instructors agreeing to be a passenger on a check flight do so at their peril
Sounds like attempted hijacking to me, if a passenger tries to takeover.
Dial in XXXX to the transponder and call for fighter escort and then encourage the CPS to put the guy away for a long time
Sounds like attempted hijacking to me, if a passenger tries to takeover.
Dial in XXXX to the transponder and call for fighter escort and then encourage the CPS to put the guy away for a long time
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
CRI
I've been reading this thread with intrest having just completed a CRI with the aim of using it in a club environment.
Well done, I did it a couple of years ago as a 'taster' to see if I'd like to do instructing; since done the FI(R).
TheOddOne
ps I STILL say the CAA should come out with a proper code of conduct for club/hirer checkouts.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Whirly's right
Your choice really. And although the question was fine, I suspect the answers will run and run to the point where some of us lose the will to live
Go on then - prove me wrong!
Go on then - prove me wrong!
TOO