Logging flt time with a flying instructor.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day what you log is very much down to the individuals concerned. The CAA is concerned that the stated minima are achieved for licence/rating issue or revalidation.
The Law, Art 28, requires that you log particulars of each flight required "for licence issue or revalidation," to include: the capacity in which you acted.
If two pilots fly together with both acting as pilots i.e. with one checking the other, regardless of whether they hold an examiner authority or a FI rating, provided both are rated to fly the aeroplane, and exercise pilot skill and judgement throughout the flight, P1 and P1U/S describe accurately the situation required in Art 28. Insurance companies may set conditions but they are not in a position to dictate any logging requirements not required in law.
The guidance issued by the CAA is just that, Guidance; it is aimed at ensuring that hours logged towards licence/rating issue and revalidation are acceptable, and therefore meet a minimum safety standard.
The Law, Art 28, requires that you log particulars of each flight required "for licence issue or revalidation," to include: the capacity in which you acted.
If two pilots fly together with both acting as pilots i.e. with one checking the other, regardless of whether they hold an examiner authority or a FI rating, provided both are rated to fly the aeroplane, and exercise pilot skill and judgement throughout the flight, P1 and P1U/S describe accurately the situation required in Art 28. Insurance companies may set conditions but they are not in a position to dictate any logging requirements not required in law.
The guidance issued by the CAA is just that, Guidance; it is aimed at ensuring that hours logged towards licence/rating issue and revalidation are acceptable, and therefore meet a minimum safety standard.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The General Information Document I referred to yesterday is here: GID44
As Noggin says, it is guidance but as the law doesn't specify how we record time I tend to accept official guidance
P1U/S can be used by a co-pilot performing the duties of PIC under supervision of pilot in command. Clearly that doesn't apply to many on this forum as we operate single crew aircraft.
The only other circumstance mentioned is that you should log PIC U/S for a successful flight test.
PU/T
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 I suppose that could cover differences training etc which does NOT lead to issue of a licence or rating.
Flameproof jacket on
As Noggin says, it is guidance but as the law doesn't specify how we record time I tend to accept official guidance
P1U/S can be used by a co-pilot performing the duties of PIC under supervision of pilot in command. Clearly that doesn't apply to many on this forum as we operate single crew aircraft.
The only other circumstance mentioned is that you should log PIC U/S for a successful flight test.
PU/T
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 I suppose that could cover differences training etc which does NOT lead to issue of a licence or rating.
Flameproof jacket on
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Dorchester, Dorset
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Cahliban, I wonder if that will be the end of it for another 6 months? I wonder if Noggin, Beagle and M14P will bother to read it?
(Got room in the flameproof for me? Peeps can get quite het up about these things).
Steve R
(Got room in the flameproof for me? Peeps can get quite het up about these things).
Steve R
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London UK
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Likes of BEagle and myself attend numerous symposiums and talks and all sorts of other stuff telling us how we should be administering students. Therefore, we've heard all this before.
Out of interest, the CAA asks that the 'Dual Flight With An Instructor' is logged as P1/us (see AIC127/1999). Need I go on?
Out of interest, the CAA asks that the 'Dual Flight With An Instructor' is logged as P1/us (see AIC127/1999). Need I go on?
And AIC 127/1999 which you quote says:
"Where the standard was sound and there was no need for instruction or where instruction took place during the course of the flight and the final standard reached was satisfactory, then the instructor should sign the log book and record the flight as dual training."
If you listen at these seminars with the same attention to detail with which you read AICs, no wonder you're giving information here that flatly contradicts the contents of the CAA's own GID!
PIC U/S can only be logged (in a single pilot aircraft) when undergoing a flight test with a successful outcome.
"Where the standard was sound and there was no need for instruction or where instruction took place during the course of the flight and the final standard reached was satisfactory, then the instructor should sign the log book and record the flight as dual training."
If you listen at these seminars with the same attention to detail with which you read AICs, no wonder you're giving information here that flatly contradicts the contents of the CAA's own GID!
PIC U/S can only be logged (in a single pilot aircraft) when undergoing a flight test with a successful outcome.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: At home
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holy Smoke!
This thread reads like a script from that famous American sitcom 'Soap' . Confused? You will be!
I am a low hours PPL holder and already have enough problems trying to fill in my logbook correctly after a 45 minute sortie in the local area - there seems to be more crossing out and tippexing in it than in my old school exercise books.
It seems to me that the guidance contained in GID44 is fairly clear - as far as it goes - but various people both within the CAA and elsewhere have then applied their own interpretations on how to record flight time that does not easily fit within those guidelines, such as club 'check rides'.
The question must be, does the term 'check ride' mean "pilot under instruction for conversion to an aircraft type within an aircraft rating group or class"? If it does then according to GID44 it shall be recorded as P/UT and entered in the dual column. If it is not defined as such then surely in an aircraft intended for single pilot operation the person being 'checked-out' should be able to record it as P1. The P1 U/S description is only to be used where the pilot has successfully passed a flight test for a licence or rating.
I would quite like to know what precisely it should be recorded as, since I have just done a 1 hour check ride onto a new aircraft and do not want a load more tippex in my logbook!
This thread reads like a script from that famous American sitcom 'Soap' . Confused? You will be!
I am a low hours PPL holder and already have enough problems trying to fill in my logbook correctly after a 45 minute sortie in the local area - there seems to be more crossing out and tippexing in it than in my old school exercise books.
It seems to me that the guidance contained in GID44 is fairly clear - as far as it goes - but various people both within the CAA and elsewhere have then applied their own interpretations on how to record flight time that does not easily fit within those guidelines, such as club 'check rides'.
The question must be, does the term 'check ride' mean "pilot under instruction for conversion to an aircraft type within an aircraft rating group or class"? If it does then according to GID44 it shall be recorded as P/UT and entered in the dual column. If it is not defined as such then surely in an aircraft intended for single pilot operation the person being 'checked-out' should be able to record it as P1. The P1 U/S description is only to be used where the pilot has successfully passed a flight test for a licence or rating.
I would quite like to know what precisely it should be recorded as, since I have just done a 1 hour check ride onto a new aircraft and do not want a load more tippex in my logbook!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London UK
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, now I admit that I've screwed up. In fact, I have scrawled on the bottom of that AIC a whole bunch of notes from a seminar which was discussing the ambiguity of the AIC. My notes say "record as P1/us".
Bad excuse, I know but, I even queried this at my last Instructor Reval.
The point is that P1/us is - in my mind - a more legal way of recording such flying since P/ut would be dodgy to log on aircraft not on public cat C of A's but not wholly owned by the pilot (e.g. group a/c) or indeed on foreign registered aircraft.
I can't see a problem with P1/us when used in this way; it delineates Training As Part Of A Recognised Course from just flying with an instructor.
If you read AIC127/1999 para. 2.3.1 (the section to which the irrascible Booky refers) it is terribly ambigous as to whether the logbook is signed (no need to sign P/ut normally remember!) and the 'STUDENT' records instruction or whether the 'INSTRUCTOR' then records that flight as Instruction Given so that it count towards the thre-yearly instructor totals!
Have fun
Bad excuse, I know but, I even queried this at my last Instructor Reval.
The point is that P1/us is - in my mind - a more legal way of recording such flying since P/ut would be dodgy to log on aircraft not on public cat C of A's but not wholly owned by the pilot (e.g. group a/c) or indeed on foreign registered aircraft.
I can't see a problem with P1/us when used in this way; it delineates Training As Part Of A Recognised Course from just flying with an instructor.
If you read AIC127/1999 para. 2.3.1 (the section to which the irrascible Booky refers) it is terribly ambigous as to whether the logbook is signed (no need to sign P/ut normally remember!) and the 'STUDENT' records instruction or whether the 'INSTRUCTOR' then records that flight as Instruction Given so that it count towards the thre-yearly instructor totals!
Have fun
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't the fact that a number of FIs and examiners are getting hot under the collar about this subject indicate that the Authourity should issue some better guidance? I read GID 44 last night and it certainly confused me.
Then again, I'm only a mere 60hr PPL!!
Then again, I'm only a mere 60hr PPL!!
M14P
I think you've raised an interesting issue here. GID44 doesn't seem to cover "refresher training" conducted by an instructor that isn't an explicit part of the training for the grant (as opposed to revalidation) of a licence or rating.
I've always logged such flights as P U/T (unless for some reason I was acting as commander). I think that's FCL's intention. What counts for future licences and ratings, and what FCL are probably interested in controlling carefully, is P1 time. I'm not sure that P U/T counts for much, unless it's explicitly part of training for a new licence or rating, in which case it will be explicitly identified as such in the logbook.
I think you've raised an interesting issue here. GID44 doesn't seem to cover "refresher training" conducted by an instructor that isn't an explicit part of the training for the grant (as opposed to revalidation) of a licence or rating.
I've always logged such flights as P U/T (unless for some reason I was acting as commander). I think that's FCL's intention. What counts for future licences and ratings, and what FCL are probably interested in controlling carefully, is P1 time. I'm not sure that P U/T counts for much, unless it's explicitly part of training for a new licence or rating, in which case it will be explicitly identified as such in the logbook.
Player of Games
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Flatland
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it me or does this thread encapsulate the worst aspects
of the CAA's approach to GA flying - simultaneously bureaucratic,
pedantic and imprecise.
'Angels dancing on pinheads' have nothing on this,
-- Andrew
of the CAA's approach to GA flying - simultaneously bureaucratic,
pedantic and imprecise.
'Angels dancing on pinheads' have nothing on this,
-- Andrew
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Dorchester, Dorset
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
andrewc :
It's not just you....
Mind you, this debate is rehearsed sooo often, and I hadn't seen that allusion before - thank you.
Angels on pinheads indeed.
Steve R
It's not just you....
Mind you, this debate is rehearsed sooo often, and I hadn't seen that allusion before - thank you.
Angels on pinheads indeed.
Steve R
Last edited by SteveR; 15th Apr 2002 at 20:34.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London UK
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm.
I agree: I feel that the Authority wish to regulate formal training and as far as I know all P/ut must be made under the auspices of an FTO in order for it to be accountable and auditable inkeeping with the spirit of most organisations these days.
I think that 'Grant or Extension' is all important in this case and I would urge instructors and owner/operators to look into the legalities of being 'Under Training' in the aircraft that they fly.
With P/ut flight the emphasis would presumably be on the 'Student' learning something new. That would burden the Instructor with a different duty of care and responsibility than during recurrent training.
With P1/us the burden of command lays firmly with the Instructor whereas the instructor/student relationship differs from that of P/ut. During a checkout the person occupying the pilots seat may well be properly licensed for the flight (SEP, remember) but would still be subject to guidance from the qualified instructor or check pilot.
I can't see how P/ut can be logged whenever doubt exists; that is simply not legal under it's definition. If the Dual Flight or differences were 'training' it would also have to take place at a licensed aerodrome.
Any more thoughts?
I agree: I feel that the Authority wish to regulate formal training and as far as I know all P/ut must be made under the auspices of an FTO in order for it to be accountable and auditable inkeeping with the spirit of most organisations these days.
I think that 'Grant or Extension' is all important in this case and I would urge instructors and owner/operators to look into the legalities of being 'Under Training' in the aircraft that they fly.
With P/ut flight the emphasis would presumably be on the 'Student' learning something new. That would burden the Instructor with a different duty of care and responsibility than during recurrent training.
With P1/us the burden of command lays firmly with the Instructor whereas the instructor/student relationship differs from that of P/ut. During a checkout the person occupying the pilots seat may well be properly licensed for the flight (SEP, remember) but would still be subject to guidance from the qualified instructor or check pilot.
I can't see how P/ut can be logged whenever doubt exists; that is simply not legal under it's definition. If the Dual Flight or differences were 'training' it would also have to take place at a licensed aerodrome.
Any more thoughts?
Last edited by M14P; 15th Apr 2002 at 22:56.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow!
I've come across this debate several times on this forum before, and I thought I knew where it was going - but it seems to have taken a turn haven't seen before! I'd never come across the argument that dual time can't count as flight training unless it's part of a recognised course.
When M14P pointed this out, I took a close look at the GID, and it seems you're correct in saying the only time you can log P/UT is if you're "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." Therefore you can't log P/UT. This is exaclyt the same argument as people are using to explain why you can't log P/US! So, according to the GID, neither P/UT nor P/US is correct.
Ok, so here's my take on it. First of all, we're not getting any guidance from the GID. If anyone can find any definitive document which says what we should do (rather than what we shouldn't do) I'd like to hear about it, but it seems there isn't any.
Next point: your log-book is your personal record of your flying. Essentially, you can write whatever you want in there, so long as you have some way of providing evidence of your flight times in certain categories of flight. So, if it's your personal log-book, and you've got no guidance from the CAA, the best thing to do is whatever will best enable you to provide evidence of flight times.
The three types of flight times that you're likely to be asked for (which are relevant to this discusion) are:
There is no issue with total time - whether you log your dual as P/UT or P/US, your total time will still be the same.
There is also no issue, as far as I can see, with instructional time. No one is interested in the total instructional time, only in the time for this particular rating. Let's give an example: say I was to do an IMC rating. One of the requirements of the rating is to do at least a minimum amount of dual time, with an instructor, for this rating.
Now, my log-book might contain some dual flights which were not part of this training. It might contain some aerobatic instruction, for example, or a cross-channel check-out as required by my club. If I'd logged this dual time as P/US, it wouldn't affect my P/UT totals, so no problem. If I'd logged it as P/UT, however, would it affect my totals? No! Because the only thing that matters here is the total instruction time given for the IMC rating. There is no way that I could pass my aerobatic training off as IMC training! The aircraft I did it in is very unlikely to have the required instruments for IMC training, apart from which, the Notes column (where I might have written "slow roles and half Cuban-8's) will give the game away! The cross-channel check-out isn't quite as clear-cut, but at the end of my IMC course, the FTO will need to verify that I've completed the required number of hours, and stamp my log-book. If I'm trying to include my cross-channel check-out in these hours, the FTO will quickly realise that my figures don't match theirs, and my logbook won't be stamped. So, for the purpose of gaining licenses, ratings, etc. I don't think it makes any difference whether you log your miscellaneous dual as P/UT or P/US.
Finally, there is the issue of P1 time - certain licenses and ratings require a mimumum amount of P1 time, and your insurance company will also want to know your P1 time. In this case, I'd rather under-log my time than over-log it, for fear of having my insurance invalidated if the insurance company's interpretation of the rules is different to mine. So it's better to log the dual time as P/UT, and risk under-quoting your P1 time, than to log as P/US, and risk over-quoting.
However, as I said earlier, it's your personal logbook, and you can do whatever you're most happy with.
Based on the outcome of previous threads on this subject, I've always logged any dual time with an instructor as P/UT. I was always reasonably sure this was correct, but never 100%. Now, though, I'm much less sure that this is correct - but it's what I'll continue to do, for the reasons I've stated above.
FFF
-------------
I've come across this debate several times on this forum before, and I thought I knew where it was going - but it seems to have taken a turn haven't seen before! I'd never come across the argument that dual time can't count as flight training unless it's part of a recognised course.
When M14P pointed this out, I took a close look at the GID, and it seems you're correct in saying the only time you can log P/UT is if you're "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." Therefore you can't log P/UT. This is exaclyt the same argument as people are using to explain why you can't log P/US! So, according to the GID, neither P/UT nor P/US is correct.
Ok, so here's my take on it. First of all, we're not getting any guidance from the GID. If anyone can find any definitive document which says what we should do (rather than what we shouldn't do) I'd like to hear about it, but it seems there isn't any.
Next point: your log-book is your personal record of your flying. Essentially, you can write whatever you want in there, so long as you have some way of providing evidence of your flight times in certain categories of flight. So, if it's your personal log-book, and you've got no guidance from the CAA, the best thing to do is whatever will best enable you to provide evidence of flight times.
The three types of flight times that you're likely to be asked for (which are relevant to this discusion) are:
- Total time
- P1 time
- Instructional time for the purpose of gaining a license, rating, etc...
There is no issue with total time - whether you log your dual as P/UT or P/US, your total time will still be the same.
There is also no issue, as far as I can see, with instructional time. No one is interested in the total instructional time, only in the time for this particular rating. Let's give an example: say I was to do an IMC rating. One of the requirements of the rating is to do at least a minimum amount of dual time, with an instructor, for this rating.
Now, my log-book might contain some dual flights which were not part of this training. It might contain some aerobatic instruction, for example, or a cross-channel check-out as required by my club. If I'd logged this dual time as P/US, it wouldn't affect my P/UT totals, so no problem. If I'd logged it as P/UT, however, would it affect my totals? No! Because the only thing that matters here is the total instruction time given for the IMC rating. There is no way that I could pass my aerobatic training off as IMC training! The aircraft I did it in is very unlikely to have the required instruments for IMC training, apart from which, the Notes column (where I might have written "slow roles and half Cuban-8's) will give the game away! The cross-channel check-out isn't quite as clear-cut, but at the end of my IMC course, the FTO will need to verify that I've completed the required number of hours, and stamp my log-book. If I'm trying to include my cross-channel check-out in these hours, the FTO will quickly realise that my figures don't match theirs, and my logbook won't be stamped. So, for the purpose of gaining licenses, ratings, etc. I don't think it makes any difference whether you log your miscellaneous dual as P/UT or P/US.
Finally, there is the issue of P1 time - certain licenses and ratings require a mimumum amount of P1 time, and your insurance company will also want to know your P1 time. In this case, I'd rather under-log my time than over-log it, for fear of having my insurance invalidated if the insurance company's interpretation of the rules is different to mine. So it's better to log the dual time as P/UT, and risk under-quoting your P1 time, than to log as P/US, and risk over-quoting.
However, as I said earlier, it's your personal logbook, and you can do whatever you're most happy with.
Based on the outcome of previous threads on this subject, I've always logged any dual time with an instructor as P/UT. I was always reasonably sure this was correct, but never 100%. Now, though, I'm much less sure that this is correct - but it's what I'll continue to do, for the reasons I've stated above.
FFF
-------------
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: At home
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF
Your quote
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the outcome of previous threads on this subject, I've always logged any dual time with an instructor as P/UT. I was always reasonably sure this was correct, but never 100%. Now, though, I'm much less sure that this is correct - but it's what I'll continue to do, for the reasons I've stated above.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am also not 100% sure what is correct, but having read the thread this far and taken guidance from my ATPL/FIC rated spouse, as well as a member of the SRG of the CAA, I am going to record dual time on check rides with an Instructor as P1 U/S.
My understanding is that whatever GID44 says, the CAA do not mind pilot licence holders recording check rides with an Instructor as P1 U/S provided the Instructor endorses your logbook and did not actually give 'instruction for the purposes of awarding a licence or rating', or have to intervene during the flight in the interests of safety.
I you were doing a checkride with someone who is not an Instructor on a group owned aircraft or similar for familiarisation purposes, I presume it would be logged as P1?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confused? You will be!
Your quote
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the outcome of previous threads on this subject, I've always logged any dual time with an instructor as P/UT. I was always reasonably sure this was correct, but never 100%. Now, though, I'm much less sure that this is correct - but it's what I'll continue to do, for the reasons I've stated above.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am also not 100% sure what is correct, but having read the thread this far and taken guidance from my ATPL/FIC rated spouse, as well as a member of the SRG of the CAA, I am going to record dual time on check rides with an Instructor as P1 U/S.
My understanding is that whatever GID44 says, the CAA do not mind pilot licence holders recording check rides with an Instructor as P1 U/S provided the Instructor endorses your logbook and did not actually give 'instruction for the purposes of awarding a licence or rating', or have to intervene during the flight in the interests of safety.
I you were doing a checkride with someone who is not an Instructor on a group owned aircraft or similar for familiarisation purposes, I presume it would be logged as P1?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confused? You will be!
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
phd, I think you're wrong (or maybe I've just misunderstood you) when you say "I you were doing a checkride with someone who is not an Instructor on a group owned aircraft or similar for familiarisation purposes, I presume it would be logged as P1?"
As I understand it, the only time that more than one person can log flight time simultaneously (except on a multi-pilot aircraft) is if one of them is an instructor. So if you're doing a check-ride with someone who is not an instructor, he would be P1, and you would not be able to log the time. (Or you could log, and he couldn't, in which case you're in charge, which would seem a bit strange if he's checking you out.) (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong!)
As for logging P/US when flying with an instructor, as I said, that's your choice, and I can't see any reason why you shouldn't. But I would make sure, when asked for you P1 time, that whoever's asking you doesn't mind you including dual time.
FFF
-------------
As I understand it, the only time that more than one person can log flight time simultaneously (except on a multi-pilot aircraft) is if one of them is an instructor. So if you're doing a check-ride with someone who is not an instructor, he would be P1, and you would not be able to log the time. (Or you could log, and he couldn't, in which case you're in charge, which would seem a bit strange if he's checking you out.) (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong!)
As for logging P/US when flying with an instructor, as I said, that's your choice, and I can't see any reason why you shouldn't. But I would make sure, when asked for you P1 time, that whoever's asking you doesn't mind you including dual time.
FFF
-------------
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London UK
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See, it's not as cut and dried as you might think.
Why don't we ask FCL?
The commander of a P1/us flight does not have to be a FI. I think of, for example, nominated check pilots or approved pilots operating CAP 632 aircraft.
There you go. That should spark yet more anger.
Why don't we ask FCL?
The commander of a P1/us flight does not have to be a FI. I think of, for example, nominated check pilots or approved pilots operating CAP 632 aircraft.
There you go. That should spark yet more anger.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GID 44 is not written to cover the question that started this thread. Appendix H in CAP53 which is duplicated in CAP54 has never covered it either; so as guidance/information documents the are all irrelevant. ANO Art 28 is the only relevant reference and sensible interpretation anwswers the question for you.
Any beaurocracy and pedanticism is coming from those who can't do anything without having it written down in triplicate.
"You are a PFA coach carrying out a dual instructional flight for JAA licence revalidation with a licence holder. You are allowed to be paid for this even though are not an FI - strange because a FI with a PPL can't be paid! None of this is covered in law but someone somewhere has agreed to it. Its not covered in CAP53,54 or GID44 or any document I know of. Who logs What?" Is it even legal?
Any beaurocracy and pedanticism is coming from those who can't do anything without having it written down in triplicate.
"You are a PFA coach carrying out a dual instructional flight for JAA licence revalidation with a licence holder. You are allowed to be paid for this even though are not an FI - strange because a FI with a PPL can't be paid! None of this is covered in law but someone somewhere has agreed to it. Its not covered in CAP53,54 or GID44 or any document I know of. Who logs What?" Is it even legal?
Last edited by Noggin; 16th Apr 2002 at 13:27.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't seen any thing so silly in ages.
Beagle etc. should know better.
Part 2 of GID 44 has if all laid out in black and white. Nothing much has changed with JAR. OK one more time.
P1 Only the commander nominated before the flight (Beagle) can log the time as P1
P2 can only be logged on multi crew aircraft by the first Officer
PIC u/s only for a pilot undergoing any form of flight test (FIs cannot do flight tests). Ecemption to that a first officer on a multicrew aircraft may log any complete sector as PIC u/s if s/he is performing the duties of P1)
Pu/t Pilot under instruction for the purose of gaining a licence or rating, or for conversion to an aircraft type within an aircraft rating group or class.
Lets not be silly with this, if you are checking out a club member decide before hand who is PIC, but if the club member is out of club currency it may be illegal (insurance wise) for the member to be PIC.
The member may only log PIC u/s if he has opted to do a proficiency check with an examiner. So the member otherwise must log Pu/t as you are checking the standard of ability the pilot has and if nessesary retraining him/her. If in doubt make it a refresher training flight crosswind landings or something.
Beagle, you cannot split a flight as you meantioned in a earlier posting. That is very wrong. Only the nomiated commander can log the time P1.
Beagle etc. should know better.
Part 2 of GID 44 has if all laid out in black and white. Nothing much has changed with JAR. OK one more time.
P1 Only the commander nominated before the flight (Beagle) can log the time as P1
P2 can only be logged on multi crew aircraft by the first Officer
PIC u/s only for a pilot undergoing any form of flight test (FIs cannot do flight tests). Ecemption to that a first officer on a multicrew aircraft may log any complete sector as PIC u/s if s/he is performing the duties of P1)
Pu/t Pilot under instruction for the purose of gaining a licence or rating, or for conversion to an aircraft type within an aircraft rating group or class.
Lets not be silly with this, if you are checking out a club member decide before hand who is PIC, but if the club member is out of club currency it may be illegal (insurance wise) for the member to be PIC.
The member may only log PIC u/s if he has opted to do a proficiency check with an examiner. So the member otherwise must log Pu/t as you are checking the standard of ability the pilot has and if nessesary retraining him/her. If in doubt make it a refresher training flight crosswind landings or something.
Beagle, you cannot split a flight as you meantioned in a earlier posting. That is very wrong. Only the nomiated commander can log the time P1.
According to the blurb in the front of my CAA logbook, you certainly can log P1 (shared) time but you can only log the time you are actually operating the aeroplane.
I agree that this whole thing is a typical example of the Authority not giving clear guidance; some is obvious, some is open to interpretation, some is totally unclear. Personally I'd be happy for (SEP):
PIC - you are the Commander and anyone else is a passenger.
PU/T - you are being taught a new skill by an FI.
P1U/S - you are doing something under the supervision of someone else who is the Commander.
PS - Aren't PFA coaches now going to become CRIs? In which case they may not be paid unless they hold commercial licenses?
I agree that this whole thing is a typical example of the Authority not giving clear guidance; some is obvious, some is open to interpretation, some is totally unclear. Personally I'd be happy for (SEP):
PIC - you are the Commander and anyone else is a passenger.
PU/T - you are being taught a new skill by an FI.
P1U/S - you are doing something under the supervision of someone else who is the Commander.
PS - Aren't PFA coaches now going to become CRIs? In which case they may not be paid unless they hold commercial licenses?
