Logging of flight time

[chitty1989]

Hi,

I have started the process or renewing my PPL that expired nine years ago and how to log the flight times under EASA seem a little different from JAR when I last flew.

Basically, when flying with an instructor to renew my SEP rating is this time logged as DUAL, PICus or SPIC? Also, when I do the LPC with an examiner do I still log as PIC if successful.

Thanks.

[Genghis the Engineer]

All flying with an instructor or examiner is PuT, unless it is a test which you passed in which case still list them as PiC, but also put the flying hours in your PiC column.

G

[MrAverage]

Training is Pu/t (dual). (This cannot be PICu/s)
Successful LPC is PICu/s, but must be signed by your examiner in the log book to count in PIC totals.
There is no SPIC in PPL training.

[MrAverage]

You must have got up a minute earlier than me today G!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Some blighter sprung a morning meeting on me! Normally I would still be in bed!

G

[alexbrett]

So my understanding is in line with what's been put above, however this is an opportunity to ask a question that someone put to me and I couldn't immediately counter...

Part-FCL says in AMC1 FCL.050 "Recording of flight time":

the applicant for or the holder of a pilot licence may log as PIC time all solo flight time, flight time as SPIC and flight time under supervision provided that such SPIC time and flight time under supervision are countersigned by the instructor;

SPIC is defined as:

"Student pilot-in-command" (SPIC) means a student pilot acting as pilot-in-command on a flight with an instructor where the latter will only observe the student pilot and shall not influence or control the flight of the aircraft

It also says in the AMC:

the holder of an instructor certificate may log as PIC all flight time during which he or she acts as an instructor in an aircraft;

The suggestion was therefore that on a 'checkout' flight, as long as the instructor does not have to provide any guidance or intervene, both parties can log it as PIC time, which seemed wrong to me, but I couldn't counter it in regulation directly - anybody know better?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Originally Posted by alexbrett

The suggestion was therefore that on a 'checkout' flight, as long as the instructor does not have to provide any guidance or intervene, both parties can log it as PIC time, which seemed wrong to me, but I couldn't counter it in regulation directly - anybody know better?

If I were paying an instructor to sit next to me and they did "not provide any guidance" I would think I was wasting my money, no?

[BillieBob]

In this context, SPIC is a red herring since it can be claimed only as part of an integrated course. In the case of a 'checkout' flight conducted by other than the holder of an instructor certificate, only one person may claim PIC and all other occupants are passengers. If the 'checkout' flight is conducted by the holder of an instructor certificate, then either the instructor or the person being checked out may log the flight as PIC, but not both. If the instructor acts as such (i.e. gives instruction) during the flight, he/she may log PIC and the 'checkee' must record the flight as P/ut.

[alexbrett]

Originally Posted by BillieBob

In this context, SPIC is a red herring since it can be claimed only as part of an integrated course

​​​​​​I'm not disagreeing, but to counter the claim I need to know where in the regulations does this get stated (I know it is in the syllabus for the integrated courses etc, and clearly not the PPL SEP one, but where does it say it can't be used elsewhere)?

[OpenCirrus619]

I have never understood the reluctance to log PU/T, except in a very few cases where people NEED P1 hours to progress (personally I have almost 200 hours PU/T).

SPIC appears to be a grey area - it was definitely limited to students on an integrated course, though this seems to have disappeared from the regulations.

What is the problem, when flying with an instructor, if the Instructor is logging the flight:

• Instructor will be P1
• Student will be PU/T

and if flying with an Examiner, for a test, and the result is a pass:

• Examiner will be P1​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
• Student will be PICUS

(if the result is a fail then the student is PU/T).

That way it if DEFINTELY legal.

Putting anything questionable in your log book just gives the Insurance company more wriggle room - should (God forbid) anything go wrong.

Just my POV

OC619

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm fairly well over 200hrs PuT now, and agree totally.

Hours are hours. Fly with an instructor, you log PuT, they log PiC, they teach or supervise, you learn - everybody's being honest, everybody gets hours.

G

[BillieBob]

@alexbrett: SPIC stands for Student Pilot in Command. FCL.020 makes it clear that a student pilot is one who does not hold a licence, not least since he cannot fly solo without being authorised and supervised by an instructor. Consequently, student pilots may be found only on PPL or integrated CPL/ATPL courses as all other training courses require the trainee to hold a licence. Since there is no SPIC included in the PPL course, use of this function is restricted to integrated CPL or ATPL courses in accordance with Appendix 3 to Part-FCL.

[Whopity]

SPIC was introduced as part of JAR-FCL and was to allow students training for the IR to obtain PIC time when they had not yet aquired an IR. In the old UK days we used to permit two IR students on Integrated courses to fly together under IFR, but this became illegal under Euro rules, so an instructor had to sit in the right hand seat whilst the student acts as PIC.

[P2006flyer]

How can anybody log PICUS on a single pilot airplane? As I scan through the FCL it looks like that PICUS is only for airplane wich required more than one pilot. What do you think? The other problem is that an examiner logs all the flights as instructor time as well and therefore PIC time, so an examinee can be only dual I think. Any comments with reference from FCL would be appreciated.

[BillieBob]

@P2006flyer: Your reading of the Regulation is precisely in accordance with EASA's intentions. However, it didn't fit in with the UK's preconceptions and so that part of the Regulation was simply ignored in favour of the system published in (the now cancelled) CAP804.