Time logging p1, p1s, PUT etc etc

[jackparlabane]

I'm sure this question has already been answered elsewhere, but im trying to find a definitive answer.....also first time post so go easy on me.
After finishing my ppl I was told by my instructor that if I needed a check ride (my club has a 28 day rule), providing the check was successful I could log the ride as p1/s.........can anyone give me a 100% yes or 100% no on this please?

[flybymike]

P1s is normally reserved for a successful flight test.

A periodic checkout of the type you describe could be logged as either Put or, with the instructors agreement, P1.

[9 lives]

If the instructor is not eager for you to log checkout time as P1, find a new instructor. Does your license entitle you to fly the plane as PIC? Are you flying from the seat customarily occupied by PIC? Are you flying the plane? Why would you not be P1?

[worrab]

Are you flying from the seat customarily occupied by PIC?

I think you missed the tongue-in-cheek smiley.

P1 or Pu/t

Not sure whether this is anyone else's experience, but our insurer is only interested in total hours. Other than revalidation (and obviously during formal training), do P1 hours matter?

[Whopity]

The terms P1S and PICUS are not defined in the EASA regulation for single pilot operation however; in the UK see CAP804 Section 1 Part E Page 14 para 9 Table Item J

Pilot undergoing any form of
flight test with a EASA or CAA
Authorised Examiner (other than
case K.

PICUS for
successful
Test P/UT for
unsuccessful
test (including
partial pass)

In all probability the check ride was flown with a FI not an authorised Examiner so the case above does not apply and there is no definitive answer.

Art 79 States:

(3) The information recorded in accordance with paragraph (2) must include:
(c) the capacity in which the holder acted in flight;

You are legally entitled to act as PIC and a club checkout is not a licensing test however; if flown in the 12 months prior to expiry, it it could form part of the dual flight with an instructor, in which case it would be logged as PUT.

An old chestnut that is no clearer now than 20 years ago. A little imagination is required.

[ChickenHouse]

When legally "current" and "actual" on a (biannual or other) checkride with FI you log time as PIC resp. P1, because that is what you are - in command.

If on a renewal flight, because something expired, or you add items to your license and fly with an FE in her/his role as an examiner, then you are PuT - under training and the FE is responsible pilot.

Example: if you fly your renewal checkride within 90 days before expiry, you only need an FI to sign you off and you will keep the old date for renewal plus two years. If you are outside 90-days-rule, either b4 or later, you will have to have a ride with an FE and will get a new time line day of checkride plus two years.

[9 lives]

To build on Chickenhouse's correct thought, the flying club/rental check ride is their (perhaps their insurer's) requirement, but not a licensing requirement. If your license is valid (from the point of view of the issuing authority) for the flight you are flying, and you are the pilot who signed out the aircraft as the intended PIC, then you log the time as the pilot. Anyone who tries to make you think otherwise is misleading you.

If your license is not valid for the flight, then you're not PIC, and cannot log the time as such, unless it is entitled under formal instruction you are receiving.

[Maoraigh1]

If OP logs as P1 on a Club/FBO required checkride, presumably the Instructor can not log anything?. And he may be hours-building, with an fATPL. Club/FBO may have difficulty keeping instructors.

[9 lives]

the Instructor can not log anything?. And he may be hours-building,

Why should an instructor get to log flying time, as well as being paid, while flying with a fully qualified pilot for the purpose of a 30 day check flight? It is not the duty of pilots at large to pay for a check flight and fund the "hours building" of a candidate ATPL pilot, who probably sat there and never touched the controls.

We concluded on another thread that there is no "P2" in a GA SEP private flight, so what does the "instructor" to a qualified pilot during such a flight log anyway? When I fly as a mentor pilot to a qualified pilot in an SEP, ('cause I'm not an instructor), I do not log any flight time during that flight - why would anyone else?

I accept that a qualified instructor to a non pilot student in an SEP flight is "flying" the aircraft, and is PIC, so should take credit for that flying time. Once they are doing "checkouts" to qualified pilots - I no longer accept that idea.

[Heston]

Step Turn is right, sort of, and not right, sort of. If I'm there because I have an instructor rating, then I'm instructing and I get paid and I'm P1. Otherwise I'm just a passenger who happens to have a ppl, and don't log anything.

If the instructor rating is required for the flight, then you've got an instructor who is P1. Otherwise you haven't.

[9 lives]

If the instructor rating is required for the flight, then you've got an instructor who is P1. Otherwise you haven't.

That sounds fair.

Presuming that a fully licensed pilot is flying an aircraft within the privileges of their license, as issued by the authority, an instructor is not required to accompany them. If a pilot, authorized by the aircraft owner's insurer, is requested to go for a check flight - but it's not "instruction" because the customer pilot is duly licensed, that [second] pilot would not be logging the flying time, as they are not instructing as required by the license issuing authority.

[Talkdownman]

Originally Posted by Step Turn

Why should an instructor get to log flying time, as well as being paid, while flying with a fully qualified pilot for the purpose of a 30 day check flight? It is not the duty of pilots at large to pay for a check flight and fund the "hours building" of a candidate ATPL pilot, who probably sat there and never touched the controls.

Totally with Step's line on this with regard to those 'check rides' which are not a licensing requirement.

I don't see why an FI who just happens to be conducting a non-licensing so-called 'check flight' for owner, operator, insurer, airport manager, cleaner, jobsworth etc cannot 'bite the bullet' for once and simply log SNY.

Clubs and rental agencies have been taking the P over this for far too long...

[Genghis the Engineer]

Would that person be there if they weren't an instructor? It's their skill and qualification, they're there in order to at the very least take control if the chap in the left seat fouls things up. They are essential to the conduct of the flight.

They're also probably paid so badly already that the flying hours genuinely are part of their remuneration - whatever it says on the contract.

So I'm afraid that I look at it differently. If there's a reason for the instructor's skills to be in the right seat, and that person has the legal and moral right to take over or direct the conduct of the flight - they're captain, and should be logging it as such.

The person in the left hand seat is there because they need that experience, under supervision. So they should be logging it as dual.

That said, the flight should be genuinely needed, not just to build hours for the instructor or on some whim - of course.

G

[rightbank]

Some interesting points raised here but possibly a legal minefield.

The captain must be the one who signs the tech log. If its the instructor then he is the captain and the pilot under check must put it in his logbook as something other than P1. Notwithstanding flybymikes comment in post #2, P1/s is possibly the most appropriate.

If the pilot under check is the captain then the instructor is merely a passenger and has no legal right to interfere with the controls. Now imagine the scenario where the pilot under check has made a complete pigs ear of the flight so far and the instructor, sorry passenger, has severe doubts about the rest of the flight being made safely. I would suggest that instinct of self preservation would bring the passenger to utter the words " I have control". I'm no lawyer but I would suspect that at this point technically an offence would have been committed. Which one I'm not sure (piracy? hi-jacking?). If this leads to a disagreement between who has control and subsequently leads to an accident then I would suggest that the "no win no fee" parasites would have a field day. Possibly the insurance would be invalidated.

If you are an instructor would you want to be put into this position. Probably not so either you are the captain or you refuse to do the flight. The latter may not go down too well with some employers.

[Talkdownman]

Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer

The person in the left hand seat is there because they need that experience, under supervision. So they should be logging it as dual

This is not the case when it is merely at whim, hence the contention.

[ChickenHouse]

Possibly the insurance would be invalidated.

From talks to insurance I pulled part of my naive view on the thing.

Story: when a couple of friends of mine where due to biennual of their national PPL and wanted to convert to EASA PPL in one go, they had to do the missing CVFR part. When the FE arrived and checked insurance coverage of the aircraft we intended to do that on, he found that insurance would not cover training. We called the insurance up for clarification and had a lengthy discussion.

Result: if it would be a sole biennual checkride, the normal insurance would cover the flight (pilot is PIC), due to the CFVR training added it is a training flight and FE is responsible for the flight (Pilot as PuT, FE is PIC) = no insurance coverage for the aircraft, but personal liability of FE. This FE had no personal insurance as a trainer to do these kind of things on non-training enrolled aircraft (or similar called by the insurance, can not remember the correct term). We where able to order a temporary extension of the insurance for one day on the phone and had to wait until the confirming fax was sent to the airfield.

I found this to be a plausible explanation and FE was happy to get some clear view as well.

[flybymike]

Biennial checks are bad enough, never mind biannual ones.

[9 lives]

In the case where an appropriately licensed pilot is required by the provider of the aircraft (we'll presume an insured rental) to fly the aircraft at least as frequently as every 30 days, or having exceeded 30 days, have a check flight with an instructor, if that pilot does not log that check flight as PIC, how would they ever get out of the endless loop of "not flying PIC"? If the instructor logs the PIC time instead of the renter pilot, and the pilot comes back the next week to rent, they still have not flown as PIC in the last 30 days, despite having flown the previous week, as the instructor logged the PIC for that flight!

If it turns out that the renter pilot is so poor that the instructor had to completely take over, return the aircraft themselves, will not sign the renter for the checkflight. perhaps the renter pilot does not get to log the PIC, but then it sounds like that pilot is headed for some more dual flying anyway.

I feel that it is the responsibility of our industry to inspire and "grow" new pilots, to sustain our pastime. We are certainly not doing that if a loop hole is used to deny them logging flying that they actually flew under their privileges! A flying club or insurance 30 day rule is not an element of the licensing privileges.

If they arranged for the use of the aircraft, were duly licensed for it, signed for it, flew it unassisted, and paid for it, they were PIC, and should log the time as such. Whether an instructor sitting beside them, or an air traffic controller on the radio, could have helped with that flight does not take away from the fact that they fulfilled the licensing requirement for flying the plane, so as to log the flight as PIC.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

If the instructor logs the PIC time instead of the renter pilot, and the pilot comes back the next week to rent, they still have not flown as PIC in the last 30 days

Sane clubs/schools get round this by not requiring flight as PIC within the last 30 days, but simply requiring flight within the last 30 days.

[Meikleour]

I think some of the posters here are being a bit "precious" about this!

If a flight with an instructor is required by club rules or recency then he is responsible for the flight and therfore P1. The other person logs Dual time which counts equally for licence revalidation purposes.
You cannot expect someone to be responsible yet not accountable.
A recent incident on the AAIB reports discusses just such a case where, after an accident, the two pilots disagreed as to who was responsible!
The insurance underwriters would have a field day.
Why is it such a big issue as to who "manipulates the controls" versus a clearcut legal arrangement?