THE Eric Brown List
Moderator
Thread Starter
On a more positive note - here's an idea I've expressed in a few places before, and I'll just put it up here for anybody to think about.
There are some truly amazing pilots who have had their last flight: Jeffrey Quill, Neil Armstrong, Douglas Bader - to name three of many.
Wouldn't it be great if somebody somewhere - ideally for a suitable charity - could obtain permission to publish facsimiles of some of these great pilots' logbooks.
Who wouldn't pay good money for the privilege of being able to curl up of an evening and browse through Eric Brown's logbook?
G
There are some truly amazing pilots who have had their last flight: Jeffrey Quill, Neil Armstrong, Douglas Bader - to name three of many.
Wouldn't it be great if somebody somewhere - ideally for a suitable charity - could obtain permission to publish facsimiles of some of these great pilots' logbooks.
Who wouldn't pay good money for the privilege of being able to curl up of an evening and browse through Eric Brown's logbook?
G
Exactly Centaurus. But what I find fascinating is that if two young hours-builders in a PA28 both logged the same flight as P1 there'd be (rightly) howls of outrage, yet for others this frankly fraudulent behaviour was officially sanctioned, or at least condoned. Curious, don't you think?
Last edited by DaveUnwin; 5th Mar 2016 at 13:23. Reason: The usual - dodgy grammar!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of 'My List' includes aircraft he never flew ... 
The only other pilot I have known who had an impressive 'List' is George Ellis, former test and Shuttleworth Collection pilot.
KR
SITW
The only other pilot I have known who had an impressive 'List' is George Ellis, former test and Shuttleworth Collection pilot.
KR
SITW
Genghis, I did a search for JSP318 without any luck, so got to surmising "why would it be so?"
The only seemingly logical explanation I could think of was one P1 had done the full conversion to type, while the other P1 (TP) was there to carry out a particular test, and not full bottle on systems, emergencies etc. Each was bringing a set of skills to the task that the other didn't have in effect.
Plausible?
The only seemingly logical explanation I could think of was one P1 had done the full conversion to type, while the other P1 (TP) was there to carry out a particular test, and not full bottle on systems, emergencies etc. Each was bringing a set of skills to the task that the other didn't have in effect.
Plausible?
Moderator
Thread Starter
I don't actually know the history of the rule, nor do I have access to a copy of service flying regulations at present.
But, I think that there's various interpretations - truckie TPs being grumpy at only logging PiC half their flights as qualified TPs when the FJ TPs do on every flight, as you say it's quite likely that often one TP is i/c the aeroplane, whilst the other is i/c the testing (although when I was an FTE i/c the testing, I just logged FTO!). Or it may just be some historical view that TPs are skygods who are effectively PiC on every flight, so important is their role. Another possibility is that it's a deliberate compensation for the usually very low hours that most full-time TPs actually get to fly, compared to the hours they work. A colleague of mine recently estimated that he flies around 15% of the hours he's at work - compared to, say, an airline pilot where it's probably nearer 40-50% - although a fighter pilot is probably also down around the 15% figure.
My recollection of the rule (from nearly 20 years ago when I was last subject to a military Flying Order Book) is that it was worded along the lines of "when two qualified Test Pilots fly together for the purposes of assessing an aircraft, whilst the constituted captain will be entered as such in both pilots' logbooks, both shall log P1".
It's consistent(ish) with some other environments - the Space Shuttle never had pilot and co-pilot, it had commander and pilot, and for that matter the Army Air Corps operates the Lynx that way - both commander and pilot are qualified pilots, but their roles are different to what we might understand as PiC and FO in, say, the airline world. Another peculiarity might be the Nimrod, where sometimes the Captain was an AEO or Navigator, because of the mission role - but I'll bet that the chap sat front left still put the duty as P1 in his logbook.
I can't honestly say it troubles me - I solve it in my logbook by just having relabelled a column "test pilot", and keeping a separate tally of that. I can see why it troubles Dave - but equally I wonder when aviation journalists say fly for magazine write-ups, what column they put that flying in?, when there's usually a safety pilot who isn't an instructor - so an argument could be made that the journalist shouldn't be logging it at-all: but I'll bet they do. And, given that said aviation journalist is actively doing a job of work in that cockpit, using their particular skills, the moral argument that they should be logging it as something is strong, even if the legal argument isn't.
G
But, I think that there's various interpretations - truckie TPs being grumpy at only logging PiC half their flights as qualified TPs when the FJ TPs do on every flight, as you say it's quite likely that often one TP is i/c the aeroplane, whilst the other is i/c the testing (although when I was an FTE i/c the testing, I just logged FTO!). Or it may just be some historical view that TPs are skygods who are effectively PiC on every flight, so important is their role. Another possibility is that it's a deliberate compensation for the usually very low hours that most full-time TPs actually get to fly, compared to the hours they work. A colleague of mine recently estimated that he flies around 15% of the hours he's at work - compared to, say, an airline pilot where it's probably nearer 40-50% - although a fighter pilot is probably also down around the 15% figure.
My recollection of the rule (from nearly 20 years ago when I was last subject to a military Flying Order Book) is that it was worded along the lines of "when two qualified Test Pilots fly together for the purposes of assessing an aircraft, whilst the constituted captain will be entered as such in both pilots' logbooks, both shall log P1".
It's consistent(ish) with some other environments - the Space Shuttle never had pilot and co-pilot, it had commander and pilot, and for that matter the Army Air Corps operates the Lynx that way - both commander and pilot are qualified pilots, but their roles are different to what we might understand as PiC and FO in, say, the airline world. Another peculiarity might be the Nimrod, where sometimes the Captain was an AEO or Navigator, because of the mission role - but I'll bet that the chap sat front left still put the duty as P1 in his logbook.
I can't honestly say it troubles me - I solve it in my logbook by just having relabelled a column "test pilot", and keeping a separate tally of that. I can see why it troubles Dave - but equally I wonder when aviation journalists say fly for magazine write-ups, what column they put that flying in?, when there's usually a safety pilot who isn't an instructor - so an argument could be made that the journalist shouldn't be logging it at-all: but I'll bet they do. And, given that said aviation journalist is actively doing a job of work in that cockpit, using their particular skills, the moral argument that they should be logging it as something is strong, even if the legal argument isn't.
G
As with many things in aviation - it depends. Looking in my most recent logbook at some of the flight tests I've done over the last couple of years, the G-120TP, PC-21, P-51C, TBM900 and B-24 were all flown with instructors, so were logged as P2 . If its an SEP or LSA and the owner is just along for the ride and doesn't touch the controls I log it as P1.
DU+GtE,just to clarify a bit or muddy de waters, RAF logbooks are different from the CAA one as we have P1,P2,Dual,Day and Night(same) ,total time and Captain time,columns,.Then there is the Authorisation Form,which will spell out the crew Composition,ie Captain/crew/pax,or manifest depending on aircraft,then the `signature block `signed by the Captain,and the Authorising Officer,unless the Captain can `self-authorise`(authority for that rests with `a higher Authority`....).
If one is `coverting to a new aircraft`(as a TP),there may not be a QHI/QFI available/current on type,so one flew with the `Project` current pilot,and logged time as P1(day or night) .One then flew maybe a sortie or two with another project Pilot,and then if that was satisfactory,`,became `Captain`. As a newly qualified TP at B-D,I flew with the late Peter Harper,who was one of the Sea-King project pilots; there was no availble Sim,ground-school was done at DSqdn,and in the hangar,with 2 new aircraft and a test programme to clear the aircraft for `initial release` to the RN at Culdrose. 4 sorties,all test work,1 test sortie with the other project pilot,and then Authorised as `Captain`,non self authorising for a couple of months.
The Captain was allowed to claim P1 and Captain time,I could claim P1 time ,for 4 sorties and `dual` for the`check` sortie with the other pilot ,even though he was not a QHI.All perfectly legal under MOD(PE) rules.
Also worth remembering is that every mil. pilot has his logbook checked monthly,and an annual/posting summary as well,and verified...by `a higher authority..!
If one is `coverting to a new aircraft`(as a TP),there may not be a QHI/QFI available/current on type,so one flew with the `Project` current pilot,and logged time as P1(day or night) .One then flew maybe a sortie or two with another project Pilot,and then if that was satisfactory,`,became `Captain`. As a newly qualified TP at B-D,I flew with the late Peter Harper,who was one of the Sea-King project pilots; there was no availble Sim,ground-school was done at DSqdn,and in the hangar,with 2 new aircraft and a test programme to clear the aircraft for `initial release` to the RN at Culdrose. 4 sorties,all test work,1 test sortie with the other project pilot,and then Authorised as `Captain`,non self authorising for a couple of months.
The Captain was allowed to claim P1 and Captain time,I could claim P1 time ,for 4 sorties and `dual` for the`check` sortie with the other pilot ,even though he was not a QHI.All perfectly legal under MOD(PE) rules.
Also worth remembering is that every mil. pilot has his logbook checked monthly,and an annual/posting summary as well,and verified...by `a higher authority..!
Last edited by sycamore; 8th Mar 2016 at 19:14. Reason: brain fade..
