P1 or P1/s for check flights
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P1 or P1/s for check flights
Can anyone enlighten me as to what I should put in my log book for a club check out in a new a/c?
One instructor say its P1 as I was in command and he was just seeing if I was OK, another say he's captain and I'm P1/s.
Also, for P1/s, it the time logged in command or Dual.
I'm sure I should know...but I don't.
Thanks.
One instructor say its P1 as I was in command and he was just seeing if I was OK, another say he's captain and I'm P1/s.
Also, for P1/s, it the time logged in command or Dual.
I'm sure I should know...but I don't.
Thanks.
I say there boy
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Definitely not P1/S - in single crew ops that is reserved for succesful flight tests with a flight examiner only.
I would say it depends on whether any training took place and whether the instructor doing the checking out was logging it P1.
If it is differences training and/or the instructor is logging P1, you must log PUT.
If however the instructor is not logging, or it is a group check done by someone who is not an FI, you log P1.
P1S can go in the Command column, however it cannot be used for certain licence applications (CPL I think) - it's worth checking the appropriate GIDs and JARs regarding this.
Very muddy waters these, there are lots of myths floating around and often the CAA are not sure and give contradictory advice - so don't take my info as verbatim ('cos I'm not 100% sure if it is!), back youself up with the JARs/GIDs
cheers!
foggy.
[ 29 October 2001: Message edited by: foghorn ]
I would say it depends on whether any training took place and whether the instructor doing the checking out was logging it P1.
If it is differences training and/or the instructor is logging P1, you must log PUT.
If however the instructor is not logging, or it is a group check done by someone who is not an FI, you log P1.
P1S can go in the Command column, however it cannot be used for certain licence applications (CPL I think) - it's worth checking the appropriate GIDs and JARs regarding this.
Very muddy waters these, there are lots of myths floating around and often the CAA are not sure and give contradictory advice - so don't take my info as verbatim ('cos I'm not 100% sure if it is!), back youself up with the JARs/GIDs
cheers!
foggy.
[ 29 October 2001: Message edited by: foghorn ]
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Dorchester, Dorset
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This water is only made muddy by people who should know better flailing and thrashing around....
Foghorn has it exactly right (for single crew ops) and it's not exactly rocket science fer crissakes.
How is that we've all got to grips with the complex ideas that thin air can keep us up, that twiddling a transponder makes us show up on a screen somewhere, that there's a significant difference between best rate of climb and best climb rate - but our instructors still can't work out what we should write in our/their logbooks?
Steve R
Foghorn has it exactly right (for single crew ops) and it's not exactly rocket science fer crissakes.
How is that we've all got to grips with the complex ideas that thin air can keep us up, that twiddling a transponder makes us show up on a screen somewhere, that there's a significant difference between best rate of climb and best climb rate - but our instructors still can't work out what we should write in our/their logbooks?
Steve R
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At my instructor seminar this came up in another way - the 100 hours I was claiming as an instructor in the past 3 years were 'inspected' to see if any of it was obvious gained as rental checkout supervision, as it could not be counted to the instructor renewal as it is NOT instruction. The instructor and "victim" must just agree who is Pi/c and only one logs, and it doesn't count as training. The only way it could count was if the rental checkout was designated as the instructor flight for JAR in which case it is p1 to the instructor and p u/t to the victim.
Can you believe some SYNDICATES think they can double log time (p1 and p1/s) between two PPLs just for syndicate checks! Hope their examiners spot it at JAR revalidation time!
Can you believe some SYNDICATES think they can double log time (p1 and p1/s) between two PPLs just for syndicate checks! Hope their examiners spot it at JAR revalidation time!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What utter nonsense. If you are an instructor flying with another pilot in any form of check out it is countable as Instruction. JAR-FCL 1080 (c) (iii)
If the checkout is acceptable you can sign their log as PIC U/S for: Any form of flight test other than for the grant, renewal or extension of ann aircraft rating Ref: CAP 53 Part 1 App G Case J. JAR-FCL 1080(c)(ii) uses the term SPIC.
If the checkout is acceptable you can sign their log as PIC U/S for: Any form of flight test other than for the grant, renewal or extension of ann aircraft rating Ref: CAP 53 Part 1 App G Case J. JAR-FCL 1080(c)(ii) uses the term SPIC.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noggin - what has sitting watching another pilot show his or her skills on a rental checkout anything to do with having an instructor rating and instructing? - you don't even have to have a pilot's licence to do that! The potential renter with a valid rating can be pic and all the other guy is there for is to approve it all on behalf of an owner.
>>an instructor flying with another pilot in any form of check out it is countable as Instruction. JAR-FCL 1080 (c) (iii)
All your reference says is that the instructor can log as P1 when acting as an instructor. I don't argue with that (who would?), but for just rental approval checkouts, an instructor isn't instructing. If the instructor IS instructing on this flight for some reason, then of course it is p1 and pu/t, but nothing to do with p1/s.
(I do notice that instructors are always 'he' in that regulation you quote - is there a general JAR statement that 'he' can be 'she', and if not, what are the consequences?)
>>If the checkout is acceptable you can sign their log as PIC U/S for: Any form of flight test other than for the grant, renewal or extension of ann aircraft rating Ref: CAP 53 Part 1 App G Case J. JAR-FCL 1080(c)(ii) uses the term SPIC.
This CAP 53 reference you quote is specifically talking about TESTS - I think the only point we disagree is that I can't accept a rental checkout is a TEST! This regulation is used for tests like an IMC rating test, which is a personal rating not an aircraft rating which is why it talks about p1/s for passes, pu/t for failures.
I didn't understand the reference to 'SPIC' -isn't that just shorthand for student solo time (Student p/ic)?
>>an instructor flying with another pilot in any form of check out it is countable as Instruction. JAR-FCL 1080 (c) (iii)
All your reference says is that the instructor can log as P1 when acting as an instructor. I don't argue with that (who would?), but for just rental approval checkouts, an instructor isn't instructing. If the instructor IS instructing on this flight for some reason, then of course it is p1 and pu/t, but nothing to do with p1/s.
(I do notice that instructors are always 'he' in that regulation you quote - is there a general JAR statement that 'he' can be 'she', and if not, what are the consequences?)
>>If the checkout is acceptable you can sign their log as PIC U/S for: Any form of flight test other than for the grant, renewal or extension of ann aircraft rating Ref: CAP 53 Part 1 App G Case J. JAR-FCL 1080(c)(ii) uses the term SPIC.
This CAP 53 reference you quote is specifically talking about TESTS - I think the only point we disagree is that I can't accept a rental checkout is a TEST! This regulation is used for tests like an IMC rating test, which is a personal rating not an aircraft rating which is why it talks about p1/s for passes, pu/t for failures.
I didn't understand the reference to 'SPIC' -isn't that just shorthand for student solo time (Student p/ic)?
Some complete nonsense here - Noggin is the only one with the correct answer. All in-flight flying supervision carried out by a FI is considered to be 'flight instruction'!
A 'rental checkout' is flying supervision carried out by an instructor who logs it, quite rightly, as P1C. The hirer is an unknown person being cleared for a solo flight - so should log the flight as P1 under supervision with the instructor's name as Commander - BUT the instructor shall also sign the 'remarks' column for the hirer to claim it as P1 under supervision - otherwise it is dual flying.
I am getting a bit suspicious of the motives of some FIEs in assessing the 'experience' achieved in 3 years as I suspect some are keen for applicants to take the expensive FI revalidation skill test in which they have a considerable financial interest.
[ 01 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
A 'rental checkout' is flying supervision carried out by an instructor who logs it, quite rightly, as P1C. The hirer is an unknown person being cleared for a solo flight - so should log the flight as P1 under supervision with the instructor's name as Commander - BUT the instructor shall also sign the 'remarks' column for the hirer to claim it as P1 under supervision - otherwise it is dual flying.
I am getting a bit suspicious of the motives of some FIEs in assessing the 'experience' achieved in 3 years as I suspect some are keen for applicants to take the expensive FI revalidation skill test in which they have a considerable financial interest.
[ 01 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle - but there is so much nonesense that we have to comply with (where to start??). I'm just saying my hours were checked to make sure they instruction for a rating, JAR revalidation, renewal, etc, with the stated intention of NOT counting rental supervision. There was no question that I could not be p1 on a rental checkout, just that if it was just a rental checkout it was not instructing. If it was more than a rental checkout, it was instructing.
I don't think the FAA have the problem do they - what do they do on rental checkouts? (I've no idea).
I'm also reading and replying to the specific regs Noggin quoted as I do not see what he/she is seeing in them.
>>Noggin is the only one with the correct answer. All in-flight flying supervision carried out by a FI is considered to be 'flight instruction'!
I wish! If only we could turn to one person for 'the corect answer' when the regs are nonesense - it wouldn't matter what the answer was, just one answer would do. In the CAP 53 reg he/she quotes, the case J is specifically reserved as the ONLY case of p1/s or p/us loggable for PPLs (without CAA prior authority) - so it all comes down to: do you think a checkout is a 'test' for the purposes of that regulation? That's the only thing that needs to be discussed, as once that is sorted out, you have the answer. (There's not argument about training - that is logged as p/ut, the question is about p1/s p/us).
I don't think the FAA have the problem do they - what do they do on rental checkouts? (I've no idea).
I'm also reading and replying to the specific regs Noggin quoted as I do not see what he/she is seeing in them.
>>Noggin is the only one with the correct answer. All in-flight flying supervision carried out by a FI is considered to be 'flight instruction'!
I wish! If only we could turn to one person for 'the corect answer' when the regs are nonesense - it wouldn't matter what the answer was, just one answer would do. In the CAP 53 reg he/she quotes, the case J is specifically reserved as the ONLY case of p1/s or p/us loggable for PPLs (without CAA prior authority) - so it all comes down to: do you think a checkout is a 'test' for the purposes of that regulation? That's the only thing that needs to be discussed, as once that is sorted out, you have the answer. (There's not argument about training - that is logged as p/ut, the question is about p1/s p/us).
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Flying Log Book is a Personal Record, you can put in it whatever you want and call it whatever you like so long as you log those itemns required in Art 28.
The CAA is only concerned with ensuring that applicants for licences and ratings have the minimum hours considered necessary for issue, renewal or revalidation purposes. All guidance material is to assist in the identification of hours for those purposes.
Any form of checkout where you may or may not hire an aeroplane to the customer constitutes a "test". If you are there as an instructor with a FI rating you may claim it as instruction. There is no regulation that says you can't. An examiner logs his time as instruction without giving any instruction.
The FIEs at the seminar have no right to be selective and you have the right of appeal under regulation 6 of the Civil Aviation Act.
The CAA is only concerned with ensuring that applicants for licences and ratings have the minimum hours considered necessary for issue, renewal or revalidation purposes. All guidance material is to assist in the identification of hours for those purposes.
Any form of checkout where you may or may not hire an aeroplane to the customer constitutes a "test". If you are there as an instructor with a FI rating you may claim it as instruction. There is no regulation that says you can't. An examiner logs his time as instruction without giving any instruction.
The FIEs at the seminar have no right to be selective and you have the right of appeal under regulation 6 of the Civil Aviation Act.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I am glad this came up as I had exactly the same situation as bcfc about a year ago, I was getting conflicting advice from different instructors at different clubs when I checked out on different or similar aeroplanes. I later called the CAA and was told the following:
1. Your Logbook is your own personal record.
2. P1/s is ONLY for a flight test with an Examiner, Eg for your PPL, IR, Twin Rating etc. You total these hours as SOLO.
3. If, when you have a PPL, you fly with an Instructor on a check-out, if he is TRAINING you on a new aeroplane type, ie he demonstrates something to you and touches the controls etc. Then you are PUT and the hours are DUAL.
4. If, when you have a PPL, you have flown this aeroplane type before and YOU are demonstrating to the instructor you can fly the aeroplane OK, ie he does NOT touch the controls during the flight, then you log the flight as P1 for yourself.
The guy I spoke to at the CAA said himself that this is a grey area and summed up by saying only one person can log the flight as P1, but alot of pilots are cheating themselves out of P1 hours.
I would be interested in what you all have to say about this advice, especially considering the conflicting posts above.
Regards SD
1. Your Logbook is your own personal record.
2. P1/s is ONLY for a flight test with an Examiner, Eg for your PPL, IR, Twin Rating etc. You total these hours as SOLO.
3. If, when you have a PPL, you fly with an Instructor on a check-out, if he is TRAINING you on a new aeroplane type, ie he demonstrates something to you and touches the controls etc. Then you are PUT and the hours are DUAL.
4. If, when you have a PPL, you have flown this aeroplane type before and YOU are demonstrating to the instructor you can fly the aeroplane OK, ie he does NOT touch the controls during the flight, then you log the flight as P1 for yourself.
The guy I spoke to at the CAA said himself that this is a grey area and summed up by saying only one person can log the flight as P1, but alot of pilots are cheating themselves out of P1 hours.
I would be interested in what you all have to say about this advice, especially considering the conflicting posts above.
Regards SD
SD - whoever that was must have been an idiot! He/she clearly has no idea about flying instruction and supervision and is totally wrong!
If you have a SEP Class Rating (not a Type Rating), you can theoretically fly any SEP aeroplane. But if you are being supervised in such an aeroplane by a FI, your flight must be P1 under supervision. Obviously!! He/she is Commander, you are Pilot under Supervision.
However, if you were learning to fly a different Type (as defined) or a different Class of aeroplane, that would obviously be P u/t - you would be learning a new skill. As you would be if you were undergoing VP, SP, RG or TW difference training in aeroplanes of the same SEP Class .
Please remember these basic concepts - and DON'T assume that every pen-pusher at the Belgrano has the faintest idea about flying.
If you have a SEP Class Rating (not a Type Rating), you can theoretically fly any SEP aeroplane. But if you are being supervised in such an aeroplane by a FI, your flight must be P1 under supervision. Obviously!! He/she is Commander, you are Pilot under Supervision.
However, if you were learning to fly a different Type (as defined) or a different Class of aeroplane, that would obviously be P u/t - you would be learning a new skill. As you would be if you were undergoing VP, SP, RG or TW difference training in aeroplanes of the same SEP Class .
Please remember these basic concepts - and DON'T assume that every pen-pusher at the Belgrano has the faintest idea about flying.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confused...yup I am now. My understanding was that P1/S was only to be used after a (passed) test with an examiner, not a rental checkout. Unless I have misunderstood the postings both Noggin and Beagle appear to be saying that it is also fine for a club checkout too.GID 44 seems to support my initial view, unless you are a co-pilot which I take to be applicable only to multi-crew aeroplanes (As defined by JAR-OPS).
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
There are a number of definite references quoted above to support the view that P1/S is ONLY to be used for flight tests with an examiner, yet you are countering by merely saying that this is not true because it's "obvious" or a "basic concept".
It does seem that this 'basic concept' - that you can log any supervised flight as P1/S - is basically WRONG. The references quoted are pretty clear and unambiguous - P1/S is for flight tests, PICUS is for two pilot aircraft, the only other possibilities for normal flights are P1 and PU/T. The rules are there to stop people wrongly claiming P1 time;; you do seem to be suggesting flaunting these rules!
Please do correct me if you have a reference that says otherwise, but I'm afraid I just cannot trust a bland statement of "it's obvious".
As for the matter of whether someone undergoing a club rental check should log P1 or PU/T.. I too would love a definitive reference on that! though the answer from the CAA bod above does seem pretty sensible.
There are a number of definite references quoted above to support the view that P1/S is ONLY to be used for flight tests with an examiner, yet you are countering by merely saying that this is not true because it's "obvious" or a "basic concept".
It does seem that this 'basic concept' - that you can log any supervised flight as P1/S - is basically WRONG. The references quoted are pretty clear and unambiguous - P1/S is for flight tests, PICUS is for two pilot aircraft, the only other possibilities for normal flights are P1 and PU/T. The rules are there to stop people wrongly claiming P1 time;; you do seem to be suggesting flaunting these rules!
Please do correct me if you have a reference that says otherwise, but I'm afraid I just cannot trust a bland statement of "it's obvious".
As for the matter of whether someone undergoing a club rental check should log P1 or PU/T.. I too would love a definitive reference on that! though the answer from the CAA bod above does seem pretty sensible.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies and I guess this is an area of confusion the CAA could clear up.
Having looked at GID 44, I'm of the opinion that I should log the time in the checkout as Pu/t and dual. The wording in the document is...
"Pilot under instruction for the purpose of gaining a licence or rating, or for conversion to an aircraft type within an aircraft rating group or class.
P/UT
Enter time in ‘Dual’ column."
I can sympathise with those advocating P1 though. During this check out, I received ****** all instruction! P1/s would seem more sensible.
Having looked at GID 44, I'm of the opinion that I should log the time in the checkout as Pu/t and dual. The wording in the document is...
"Pilot under instruction for the purpose of gaining a licence or rating, or for conversion to an aircraft type within an aircraft rating group or class.
P/UT
Enter time in ‘Dual’ column."
I can sympathise with those advocating P1 though. During this check out, I received ****** all instruction! P1/s would seem more sensible.
I think the problem here is that the "rules" as specified in CAP53 and CAP54 are illogical.
As aviators we are taught to follow the rules except when necessary to maintain safety. Unfortunately this is difficult when the rules are petty, illogical and plainly need changing.
The published rules (for SPA) plainly state that only a successful test (skill, reval or renewal) can be claimed as P1/S. However, for a very long time the general practise has been that a successful type or currency check is recorded as P1/S because the bod already has a license to fly the aeroplane and they just need someone there in case the skills are not what they should be (and the instructor is always shown as Captain in the tech log!)
Since the advent of JAR I've been getting people to record PU/T for a type conversion and P1 for a successful currency check as I think this fits within the spirit of the rules, helps the bod with their P1 time and is logically defensible.
In both of these cases I log it as instructional time because if the bod screws up and I fail to prevent the accident it is my license that's on the line and my name on the accident report. This means that 2 people are claiming P1 time but if the CAA wish me to do otherwise they can state that an accident during a currency check with an instructor will not be the instructors responsibility - or preferably change the damn silly P1/S rule.
As aviators we are taught to follow the rules except when necessary to maintain safety. Unfortunately this is difficult when the rules are petty, illogical and plainly need changing.
The published rules (for SPA) plainly state that only a successful test (skill, reval or renewal) can be claimed as P1/S. However, for a very long time the general practise has been that a successful type or currency check is recorded as P1/S because the bod already has a license to fly the aeroplane and they just need someone there in case the skills are not what they should be (and the instructor is always shown as Captain in the tech log!)
Since the advent of JAR I've been getting people to record PU/T for a type conversion and P1 for a successful currency check as I think this fits within the spirit of the rules, helps the bod with their P1 time and is logically defensible.
In both of these cases I log it as instructional time because if the bod screws up and I fail to prevent the accident it is my license that's on the line and my name on the accident report. This means that 2 people are claiming P1 time but if the CAA wish me to do otherwise they can state that an accident during a currency check with an instructor will not be the instructors responsibility - or preferably change the damn silly P1/S rule.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damn silly yes, illogical yes, stupid yes and on top of those I think there are other factors, amongst them - one or more of:
1- wishful thinking (I WANT to log it as p1/s),
2- historical ignorance of the rules (I have always logged p1 -p1/s but never read CAP53 and don't have an opinion on the paragraph J)
3- I have read CAP53 and I don't like it so I will go with the flow and ignore it
4- one word or phrase missing from CAP53 clause J ('test with an examiner' instead of
just 'test') which gives some people hope with a liberal interpretation.
Even if you think it's totally stupid you cannot get away from the fact
that the 'Noggin quoted' clause J in CAP53 is desginated in CAP53 as the
ONLY way a PPL can log P1/s, so it is then just a case of how you can twist
the word 'test' to mean what you want it to mean. I personally cannot see
any SAFE way of interpretting it other than to mean 'test with an examiner'
only. HOWEVER, as I believe an instructor could always find SOME reason to
designate the flight p1 and Pu/t if that's what they want to do, then I
think any argument about p1 and P1/s for checkouts with an instructor is
totally wasted energy and almost irrelevant. Can we move on to whether these people
who believe in the liberal interpretation of 'test' in CAP 53 also believe that two
(non-instructor) PPL holders can fly together and log p1 and P1/s alongside each other? Obviously (that word again) I do not!
1- wishful thinking (I WANT to log it as p1/s),
2- historical ignorance of the rules (I have always logged p1 -p1/s but never read CAP53 and don't have an opinion on the paragraph J)
3- I have read CAP53 and I don't like it so I will go with the flow and ignore it
4- one word or phrase missing from CAP53 clause J ('test with an examiner' instead of
just 'test') which gives some people hope with a liberal interpretation.
Even if you think it's totally stupid you cannot get away from the fact
that the 'Noggin quoted' clause J in CAP53 is desginated in CAP53 as the
ONLY way a PPL can log P1/s, so it is then just a case of how you can twist
the word 'test' to mean what you want it to mean. I personally cannot see
any SAFE way of interpretting it other than to mean 'test with an examiner'
only. HOWEVER, as I believe an instructor could always find SOME reason to
designate the flight p1 and Pu/t if that's what they want to do, then I
think any argument about p1 and P1/s for checkouts with an instructor is
totally wasted energy and almost irrelevant. Can we move on to whether these people
who believe in the liberal interpretation of 'test' in CAP 53 also believe that two
(non-instructor) PPL holders can fly together and log p1 and P1/s alongside each other? Obviously (that word again) I do not!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP 53 Pt1 AppG Case J states "any form of flight test other than" and then discounts "tests for the grant renewal or extension of an aircraft rating" so what does that leave? Checkouts, which do not need to be flown with an examiner as an examiner is only required for the grant renewal or extension of a rating.