28 day check - logged as P1 or PUT?

[DFC]

I think that people have forgotten where the 28 day (or whatever) checkout requirements comes from. It comes from the owner or operator of the aircraft's ability to decide what people using the aircraft must comply with. As someone else pointed out earlier it is a contract between the person who owns the aircraft and the person using thew aircraft.

If as BOSE said the owner only permuts pilots with pink shorts to fly the aircraft then that is it you don the pink ones or you do not fly. Very Very simple. How on earth could people have a problem understanding that.

Now if the oener of the aircraft decides that if you fall foul of their 28 day rule, you are not entitled to be pilot in command of their aircraft then there is noting more simple than that - you can not be pilot in command of their aircraft. Want to be pilot in command all the time without having 28 day checkouts then get yourself an aircraft or find someone who does not insist on 28 day checkouts.

However, if you stay with the club that requires 28 day checkouts you can either fly often enough to not require such a check or you can fly in accordance with the club rules i.e. in most cases with instructor as pilot in command.

Remember that this can be more than a simple dual flight with the instructor. The instructor is entitled to require further training and a further checkout based on the performance. Instructors are trained to determine the ability of a pilot to meet the PPL safe operating requirements.

If the owner of an aircraft has a rule requiring a 28 day checkout but despite that allows you to be pilot in command on the 29th day since you last operated as pilot in command then they should not bother with a 28 day requirement because they are not following it.

Before flight the decision must be made as to who is pilot in command ( the ANO requires it)........i.e. where two pilot fly together one must be designated as the commander.

Having done so, it is illegal for the pilot who is not the commander to claim that they were so. It is also illegal for the aircraft commander to claim that they were not so.

If the aircraft runs off the runway and kills someone, who is going to be held responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft. That person is the pilot in command.

Anyone who flies with another pilot without first determining who is pilot in command deserves what they get when the CAA come calling for some illegal part of the flight and the other pilot (wrongly) calims they were simply a passenger.

Instructors would save on liability insurance if they could simply blame it all on the other pilot!

--------------------

Simply put;

I have a shelve of logbooks. Even a few JAR-FCL ones that comply with AMC-JAR-FCL which BOSE was unaware of. I do not need any hours and am not trying to "pinch someones hours"

If you approach me and ask me to complete a checkout with you then it will be a dual flight and I will be pilot in command and you will log it as dual. I will sign off the flight with appropriate comments if necessary.

If after landing you insist on writing pilot in command in your logbook then I will point to the fact that I am not happy with the attitude displayed and that such an attitude is deterimental to flight safty, Therefore, the checkout is not complete and further "education" is required before I state that you are suitable to fly the aircraft as pilot in command.

If prior to the flight with someone like BOSE they indicate that they would like a checkout but they will be pilot in command, I will simply point out that if they are happy to be pilot in command then how can they not be happy to be pilot in command at the same time? In other words - If you are happy that you can be pilot in command you do not need me to hold your hand.

If on the other hand you want to be pilot in command but have some sucker sitting next to you to blame if you prang the aircraft then find some other sucker.

The point about a passenger not being able to take control is very valid and must be remembered by instructors who agree to fly with a pilot but only as a passenger.

Regards,

DFC

[S-Works]

f prior to the flight with someone like BOSE they indicate that they would like a checkout but they will be pilot in command, I will simply point out that if they are happy to be pilot in command then how can they not be happy to be pilot in command at the same time? In other words - If you are happy that you can be pilot in command you do not need me to hold your hand.

Ok I don't give a toss about your view on things but do me a favour and don't misquote me. I have never had to have a 28 checkout as I fly rather to often and so have not expressed my view on my position in that case as it's irrelevant. I have expressed the fact that as an Instructor if someone does a 28 day check with me they are welcome to be P1 if the circumstances permit. I am not an hours builder and have enough hours to have at least got out of the basic killing zone.

Personally I think YOUR view is jaded old school but thats nothing less than I have come to expect from you.

[DFC]

Bose,

You said;

I have expressed the fact that as an Instructor if someone does a 28 day check with me they are welcome to be P1 if the circumstances permit

and I said;

If on the other hand you want to be pilot in command but have some sucker sitting next to you to blame if you prang the aircraft then find some other sucker.

Please provide your contact details so that if I find pilots seeking such a sucker they can contact you.

Regards,

DFC

[S-Works]

Perhaps thats the difference between me and you DFC. I am prepared to give credit where credit is due and accept that most pilots are adults and able to make decisions for themselves rather than have it thrust upon them.

So you stick to your dogma and I will stick with the more enlightened approach. Look on the bright side if I get it wrong you can gloat.

[llanfairpg]

No need to be rude Bose, DFC is entitled to his opinion. All of this is a matter of interpretation, why get rude just because people do not agree with you.

Anyway getting back to the thread.

All of our club aircraft are Tipsy Nippers, lets say, how does that affect the argument.

Lets say we have two Cessna 172s one has full dual controls the other one has the 2nd pilot CC removed.

How are you now going to log the checkout with the one with only one CC.

Lets say we have a Dragon Rapide and every one has twin ratings, how is the check out going to be logged.

[S-Works]

There was nothing rude in my reply. It is my opinion and I stand by it.

[llanfairpg]

Ok I don't give a toss about your view on things

Personally I think YOUR view is jaded old school but thats nothing less than I have come to expect from you.

and thats not rude, well well, I must be 'jaded old school' too.

[DFC]

All of our club aircraft are Tipsy Nippers, lets say, how does that affect the argument.

Lets say we have two Cessna 172s one has full dual controls the other one has the 2nd pilot CC removed.

How are you now going to log the checkout with the one with only one CC.

Lets say we have a Dragon Rapide and every one has twin ratings, how is the check out going to be logged.

Tipsy Nippers - single pilot, no debate required.

Similar almost for the C172, however, a club could still require a checkout and require it to be done on the aircraft with dual controls.

As for the Rapide, I remember years ago a CFI doing initial multiengine training on one!!!!! Had to have lots of balls, and very quick reactions. He basically said that if the student did not get it correct ie put the wrong boot in, he would close the other throttle and then open both of them or else force land. Not something that would get past the FTO inspector these days.

------------

Again the point is that if it is your aircraft you can do what you like, you can even do no flying for a few hours short of 2 years, then do 3 circuits on your own before taking your nearest and dearest flying.

If it another person's aircraft or a club aircraft then they can say what you must do and you can do it or not fly the aircraft.

-----------

So you stick to your dogma and I will stick with the more enlightened approach. Look on the bright side if I get it wrong you can gloat.

If I was one prone to gloating, I would not have time to post much else. SPIC being a recent example.

Regards,

DFC

[llanfairpg]

Tipsy Nippers - single pilot, no debate required.

Where would the examiner be for a type test?

[bookworm]

Before flight the decision must be made as to who is pilot in command ( the ANO requires it)........i.e. where two pilot fly together one must be designated as the commander.

That's only the case for a public transport flight. While I would be the first to suggest that the ANO would be better for requiring a commander to be designated for all flights, it offers only:

'Commander' in relation to an aircraft means the member of the flight crew
designated as commander of that aircraft by the operator, or, failing such a person,
the person who is for the time being the pilot in command of the aircraft;

[llanfairpg]

If it another person's aircraft or a club aircraft then they can say what you must do and you can do it or not fly the aircraft.

Yes to a degree, and I agree but if they said I want you to fly around Tower Bridge at 100 feet you may want to decline which brings us back to the law again.

My examples all point to another pilot on board having access to the controls Eg Supervision. If a check out requires supervision and an accompanying pilot is on board as as supervisor a record of that supervison (which is part of that pilots personal experience) should be contained in that pilots log book.

So we have a supervisor and a commander!

[llanfairpg]

That's only the case for a public transport flight. While I would be the first to suggest that the ANO would be better for requiring a commander to be designated for all flights, it offers only:

Pre flight action of commander of aircraft appliys to all flying machines, it would be difficult to interpret otherwise. Certain actions must be carried out before flight unless you have access to air to air fuellling.

Oh and of course 'booking out'

reading that back i havnt made that clear.

If the law requires a commander to take certain actions before flight it is common sense to interpret there must be a designated commander before these actions can be taken!

[DFC]

I think that it is even simpler than that. The commander is simply the responsible person, the person who gets into trouble if it all goes wrong.

It is simply a responsibility issue. Nothing to do with who chenges switch selections or moves the controls or talks on the radio.

People should refer to a recent accident report where one of those involved claimed to not be the pilot in command but the AAIB found that they were the pilot in command becuase of what they did on the flight.

I think that any instructor on a check flight who claimed not to be pilot in command could easily find the AAIB making the same points.

Regards,

DFC

[llanfairpg]

I think you are probably correct but we often fly two captains but only one is the commander, the signature in the technical log is the proof and may be the only proof if it goes tits up.

PS are your refering to Blackpool

[bookworm]

If the law requires a commander to take certain actions before flight it is common sense to interpret there must be a designated commander before these actions can be taken!

On the contrary, I think "the person who is for the time being the pilot in command of the aircraft" means that the ANO clearly anticipates a situation where the commander is not designated before flight and, moreover, may change during the course of the flight. If two pilots, both qualified to be in command of the aircraft, split the pre-flight actions between them, who is commander? On a private flight, a tech log is not required and even a formal tech log does not necessarily require a pre-flight signature.

I think that any instructor on a check flight who claimed not to be pilot in command could easily find the AAIB making the same points.

I couldn't agree more. All I'm doing is pointing out the weakness in the current drafting of the law.

[DFC]

llanfairpg,

No it is not the Blackpool one. I can't remember now but I think that it was one where a pilot completed a trip they were not qualified to do and brought along a flight instructor who I think has less experience and claimed that the FI was pilot in command. Perhps you may remember the case but the outcome is that since the unqualified pilot completed everything and did everything on the flight and the instructor took no part in the pre-flight planning or authorisation then the instructor was not pilot in command.

As for the Tipsy, have not given it much tought however, my first idea would be that a type rating is not required for the tipsy and so an SEP rating would have to be obtained in the normal way using and aircraft with dual controls.

I think that it is only microlight training and testing for the NPPL with Microlight Rating that can still be done in single seat aircraft. In that case, the instructor briefs, observes and de-briefs the very small slow steps through the course. The test is again observed as far as I am aware but I have not come across anyone who does that form of training.

--------

Bookworm,

The law also mentions the person who for time being is the owner of the aircraft. I don't think that you can change owner in mid-flight!

In order for the pilot in command to change mid-flight then both pilots would have to have completed all the pre-flight planning and checking and both would have the option to say that the flight will not go ahead. After all, if you are going to be responsible will you let some other person make the safety decisions?

The other question arrises at the change over time. Two things can happen - the current pilot in command refuses to hand over command as is their right. or the first pilot hands over command 30 seconds before the breach of the low flying regulations.

The Hamiltons may have been unable to remember exactly which was driving as the broke the law while passing a speed camera but do you think that the CAA would permit such a get-out from a pilot who departed on a flight as pilot in command and where the aircraft subsequently breached the low flying rules?

Honnest, I handed over command while at 3000ft AGL...........No he never handed over command.........Yes I did .........No he didn't.........

Regards,

DFC

[bookworm]

The law also mentions the person who for time being is the owner of the aircraft. I don't think that you can change owner in mid-flight!

Why on earth not? It's standard practice to do so in many cases -- ISTR a certain company not a million miles from Seattle flying its aircraft over the Atlantic and selling them while airborne to avoid taxes that would be levied if they were in the state of WA at the time of sale!

Don't get me wrong, like you and llanfairpg, I wouldn't fly with another qualified pilot without having the who's-in-command conversation before getting to the aircraft. But the reason there are these awkward cases after the accident is that the law doesn't require designation of a commander pre-flight.

[llanfairpg]

And notice BOSE, no mention of P1s

[llanfairpg]

As for the Tipsy, have not given it much tought however, my first idea would be that a type rating is not required for the tipsy and so an SEP rating would have to be obtained in the normal way using and aircraft with dual controls.

A colleague of mind is the only Tipsy Nipper rated pilot in the world. The CAA gave the owner of the aircraft a one off permission to conduct the 1179 test from the side of the runway at Ipswich as an 'observed test'. dont forget you need a specific type rating in your licence to do public transport or aerial work, well you used to anyway.

law doesn't require designation of a commander pre-flight.

It does by implication, otherwise the pre flight action of a commander cannot be carried out, plus the commander has to 'book out'

You are mis-understanding 'law'

The law dosnt state it is illegal to drive across a dual carriagway at 100 mph, roll over 6 time and burst into flame but it does state that it is an offence to drive without due care and attention or dangerously on the public highway.

[S-Works]

And notice BOSE, no mention of P1s

Thats because you are at such a tangent now that you might as well be discussing the price of fish.....