LFAT ILS approach plates?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a bit confused about the X-channel check. This isn't a licensing requirement is it? Isn't it simply a club requirement before they let you take their precious plane abroad?
When I did my cross channel check I logged it all as P1, as I already had my PPL and was therfore legal to make the flight on my own.
Is that not correct?
When I did my cross channel check I logged it all as P1, as I already had my PPL and was therfore legal to make the flight on my own.
Is that not correct?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly what I think you should do, vancouv 
Clubs insist on the check, instructor goes along for the ride but then wants to log the time as well - not really "training" per se...
Maybe they could charge for the groundschool if they have to teach FPL filling or some-such, but X-channel checks I wouldn't have thought come under the remit of "training for the grant or renewal of a licence or rating"
When you go to a new club/school and they want a check flight before letting you rent the aircraft how is that check flight logged? (Assuming you weren't doing any diff. training)
I suspect some schools/instructors will expect to claim the time for themselves as P1, but that ain't right shirley?
Clubs insist on the check, instructor goes along for the ride but then wants to log the time as well - not really "training" per se...
Maybe they could charge for the groundschool if they have to teach FPL filling or some-such, but X-channel checks I wouldn't have thought come under the remit of "training for the grant or renewal of a licence or rating"
When you go to a new club/school and they want a check flight before letting you rent the aircraft how is that check flight logged? (Assuming you weren't doing any diff. training)
I suspect some schools/instructors will expect to claim the time for themselves as P1, but that ain't right shirley?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2Donkeys - absolutely no offence taken - a good discussion.
I still am uncertain where the legislation comes from. Are we saying that in France to file IFR requires an instrument rating because thats what the French ANO says and is that true throughout Europe. To me it again begs the question that we all operate in theory under JAR (and I except with certain national exceptions like the UK IMC rating) and yet presumably there are other differences between our ANO and the French. It begs the question as to precisely what JAR unified and what it did not.
Edit added because having thought about the issue presumably it is us that departs from the international norm by permitting pilots to file IFR without an IR subject to the mc whereas in Europe filing IFR is not mc dependant, so IFR becomes impossible in VMC without an IR. Anyone know for sure?
I still am uncertain where the legislation comes from. Are we saying that in France to file IFR requires an instrument rating because thats what the French ANO says and is that true throughout Europe. To me it again begs the question that we all operate in theory under JAR (and I except with certain national exceptions like the UK IMC rating) and yet presumably there are other differences between our ANO and the French. It begs the question as to precisely what JAR unified and what it did not.
Edit added because having thought about the issue presumably it is us that departs from the international norm by permitting pilots to file IFR without an IR subject to the mc whereas in Europe filing IFR is not mc dependant, so IFR becomes impossible in VMC without an IR. Anyone know for sure?
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 9th May 2003 at 03:38.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the UK that are different by allowing IFR without an IR.
Everyone else (mostly) is the same - no IR, no IFR.
I'm not sure, but suspect, that we (UK) filed a difference with ICAO for allowing IFR on vanilla and "IMC" licences.
Everyone else (mostly) is the same - no IR, no IFR.
I'm not sure, but suspect, that we (UK) filed a difference with ICAO for allowing IFR on vanilla and "IMC" licences.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Cheese-eating Surrender Monkey land
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a great discussion!
If this IFR/IMC message is spread more widely amongst British pilots, I am sure that it would help to eliminate some of the confusions that we see everyday when you come to visit us in France.
You are very different in the UK, with your IMC rating and your liberal approach to IMC. I sometimes smile when I hear some people complaining on Pprune about how rigid the CAA are with the IR. You should try living in France, where our DGAC have elevated rigidity to an artform.
TvR
If this IFR/IMC message is spread more widely amongst British pilots, I am sure that it would help to eliminate some of the confusions that we see everyday when you come to visit us in France.
You are very different in the UK, with your IMC rating and your liberal approach to IMC. I sometimes smile when I hear some people complaining on Pprune about how rigid the CAA are with the IR. You should try living in France, where our DGAC have elevated rigidity to an artform.
TvR
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are very different in the UK, with your IMC rating and your liberal approach to IMC.
Not strictly true, TvR, when you have VFR on top with no additional rating(s) and we do not
Or did you mean our liberal approach to IFR 
Not strictly true, TvR, when you have VFR on top with no additional rating(s) and we do not
Or did you mean our liberal approach to IFR
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Cheese-eating Surrender Monkey land
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check your facts Rustle. 
We in France adhere to the ICAO VFR defintion, which permits VFR over the top of a covered layer.
Your UK definition of VFR permits it too, but it is you who have chosen to place an artificial restriction in your PPL privileges.
None of this has anything to do with IMC and IFR though I find your approach to IMC and IFR to be rather flexible, but this is not always a bad thing
TvR
We in France adhere to the ICAO VFR defintion, which permits VFR over the top of a covered layer.
Your UK definition of VFR permits it too, but it is you who have chosen to place an artificial restriction in your PPL privileges.
None of this has anything to do with IMC and IFR though
I find your approach to IMC and IFR to be rather flexible, but this is not always a bad thingTvR
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back to logging flight time....I have always applied a simple rule: If I am legally allowed to fly the plane as P1 then I log as P1.
If it's a club or rental checkout I am legally allowed to fly the plane, so I log P1. If it's a cross-channel checkout (for which there is no legal requirement in the ANO or the rules of the air or anywhere else) I log P1. If it's training for (e.g.) a complex endorsement or a night rating I am not allowed to fly the plane without it, so I log PuT and need an instructor in the plane who logs P1.
I have always applied this rule and never had a problem, although clearly others have, and I think rustle is right that it is more a matter of FIs trying to get more time in their logbooks than a consistent application of the rules.
If it's a club or rental checkout I am legally allowed to fly the plane, so I log P1. If it's a cross-channel checkout (for which there is no legal requirement in the ANO or the rules of the air or anywhere else) I log P1. If it's training for (e.g.) a complex endorsement or a night rating I am not allowed to fly the plane without it, so I log PuT and need an instructor in the plane who logs P1.
I have always applied this rule and never had a problem, although clearly others have, and I think rustle is right that it is more a matter of FIs trying to get more time in their logbooks than a consistent application of the rules.
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
Summary
Wow - this is great. How many un-related questions can we ask in one thread? Ok, let me try to summarise - based on a combination of my prior understanding, and the previous posts on this thread:
To fly IFR in most of the world requires an IR. In the UK it doesn't, but you do need an IR or an IMC rating to fly in IMC.
To fly an ILS doesn't require anything special - it's just an approach. You can fly it IFR as long as someone on board has an IR (or an IMC rating if in the UK), or you can fly it VFR. ATC may treat you differently depending on your choice of rules.
A safety pilot is required when under the hood in VMC, whether VFR or IFR. (Except in Portugal, apparently, as discussed on another thread.)
Flying VFR on top is allowed anywhere in the world. However, a UK license without an IR or IMC rating prevents it. (Haven't seen anyone say this on this thread, but it is my understanding.)
Logging P1 with an instructor on board is entirely legal if you are legal to fly the aircraft yourself. But only if the instructor doesn't log the time at all. This needs to be agreed in advance. It would have implications on, for example, whether you choose to ignore your instructor's advice on how to manage the flight.
Instructing in France on a UK license in a G-registered aircraft. The suggestion has been made that this is illegal, but no one has been able to back this up with reference to legislation. 2Donks has found legislation which "appears" (his word) to suggest that it is legal.
Have I missed anything?
FFF
-------------
To fly IFR in most of the world requires an IR. In the UK it doesn't, but you do need an IR or an IMC rating to fly in IMC.
To fly an ILS doesn't require anything special - it's just an approach. You can fly it IFR as long as someone on board has an IR (or an IMC rating if in the UK), or you can fly it VFR. ATC may treat you differently depending on your choice of rules.
A safety pilot is required when under the hood in VMC, whether VFR or IFR. (Except in Portugal, apparently, as discussed on another thread.)
Flying VFR on top is allowed anywhere in the world. However, a UK license without an IR or IMC rating prevents it. (Haven't seen anyone say this on this thread, but it is my understanding.)
Logging P1 with an instructor on board is entirely legal if you are legal to fly the aircraft yourself. But only if the instructor doesn't log the time at all. This needs to be agreed in advance. It would have implications on, for example, whether you choose to ignore your instructor's advice on how to manage the flight.
Instructing in France on a UK license in a G-registered aircraft. The suggestion has been made that this is illegal, but no one has been able to back this up with reference to legislation. 2Donks has found legislation which "appears" (his word) to suggest that it is legal.
Have I missed anything?
FFF
-------------
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Sandwich, Kent, UK
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting discussion. This is now the longest thread I've ever started, although it did go off-topic after about three posts!
The whole area of logging time seems to be a confused nightmare: there seems to be a need for some sort of webpage or other publication to set out all the different possibilities... (maybe I should volunteer to do that?? )
The 'cross-channel check' struck a chord with me... I did mine last year, and the conversation on our return to the club went like this:
Me to instructor: How do I log that time then?
Instructor to CFI: CBLong can log that P1, can't he?
CFI to instructor: Yes, but only if you don't log it at all.
Instructor to me: Log it as PUT.
cbl.
The whole area of logging time seems to be a confused nightmare: there seems to be a need for some sort of webpage or other publication to set out all the different possibilities... (maybe I should volunteer to do that??
)The 'cross-channel check' struck a chord with me... I did mine last year, and the conversation on our return to the club went like this:
Me to instructor: How do I log that time then?
Instructor to CFI: CBLong can log that P1, can't he?
CFI to instructor: Yes, but only if you don't log it at all.
Instructor to me: Log it as PUT.
cbl.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF, were you being true to form your point:
To fly IFR in most of the world requires an IR. In the UK it doesn't, but you do need an IR or an IMC rating to fly in IMC.
Needs the qualification "In the UK outside CAS it doesn't..."
With a further clarification then that a valid IMC rating extends that privilege into Class D within the UK/IOM.
(And before any pedants start, I cannot find any Class "D" in CI)
To fly IFR in most of the world requires an IR. In the UK it doesn't, but you do need an IR or an IMC rating to fly in IMC.
Needs the qualification "In the UK outside CAS it doesn't..."
With a further clarification then that a valid IMC rating extends that privilege into Class D within the UK/IOM.
(And before any pedants start, I cannot find any Class "D" in CI)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I cannot find any Class "D" in CI"
If you mean the Channel Islands, look harder Rustle!
Still waiting to hear from those who alleged that a JAA FI (issued in the UK) cannot instruct in a G-reg aircraft in France...
Any takers?
If you mean the Channel Islands, look harder Rustle!
Still waiting to hear from those who alleged that a JAA FI (issued in the UK) cannot instruct in a G-reg aircraft in France...
Any takers?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm.
According to Jepp I must have meant the Cocos Islands
Hah! I know the aerodrome there isn't in CAS because it is in the middle of a golfcourse (cleared of players when an aircraft lands or takes off)
According to Jepp I must have meant the Cocos Islands
Hah! I know the aerodrome there isn't in CAS because it is in the middle of a golfcourse (cleared of players when an aircraft lands or takes off)
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought Channel Islands instructors regularly took their students into France while training. Doesn't that rather imply a UK FI in a G-reg aircraft can do that?
My FI (back in the dark ages) did some training with me, pre-PPL, to France and back, and he thought it was legal. The CAA inspected my logbook when they were issuing my PPL (even ticked bits of it) and didn't object either.
My FI (back in the dark ages) did some training with me, pre-PPL, to France and back, and he thought it was legal. The CAA inspected my logbook when they were issuing my PPL (even ticked bits of it) and didn't object either.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must confess, I thought I was right about the FI being restricted to UK FIRs, and I've seen it quoted before, but I checked the ANO and couldn't find it - so probably you're right. Sorry if I started an unnecessary controversy...
I quite agree about FI's trying to log time for cross-channel checkouts, though; mine rather neatly side-stepped the problem by including a cross-channel trip in my IMC training (and yes, I think he did log the bit in France) so he could log P1 and I P/UT.
Tim
I quite agree about FI's trying to log time for cross-channel checkouts, though; mine rather neatly side-stepped the problem by including a cross-channel trip in my IMC training (and yes, I think he did log the bit in France) so he could log P1 and I P/UT.
Tim
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was looking for something else in the Private Flying forum and found this observation
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Going back to logging flight time....I have always applied a simple rule: If I am legally allowed to fly the plane as P1 then I log as P1.
If it's a club or rental checkout I am legally allowed to fly the plane, so I log P1. If it's a cross-channel checkout (for which there is no legal requirement in the ANO or the rules of the air or anywhere else) I log P1. If it's training for (e.g.) a complex endorsement or a night rating I am not allowed to fly the plane without it, so I log PuT and need an instructor in the plane who logs P1.
I have always applied this rule and never had a problem, although clearly others have, and I think rustle is right that it is more a matter of FIs trying to get more time in their logbooks than a consistent application of the rules.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I quite agree that this makes sense. However there may be issues of insurance. The Insurers may not grant cover to a pilot wanting to rent without them first having had a check flight with an instructor. In case you could not be in command of the check flight.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Going back to logging flight time....I have always applied a simple rule: If I am legally allowed to fly the plane as P1 then I log as P1.
If it's a club or rental checkout I am legally allowed to fly the plane, so I log P1. If it's a cross-channel checkout (for which there is no legal requirement in the ANO or the rules of the air or anywhere else) I log P1. If it's training for (e.g.) a complex endorsement or a night rating I am not allowed to fly the plane without it, so I log PuT and need an instructor in the plane who logs P1.
I have always applied this rule and never had a problem, although clearly others have, and I think rustle is right that it is more a matter of FIs trying to get more time in their logbooks than a consistent application of the rules.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I quite agree that this makes sense. However there may be issues of insurance. The Insurers may not grant cover to a pilot wanting to rent without them first having had a check flight with an instructor. In case you could not be in command of the check flight.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I quite agree that this makes sense. However there may be issues of insurance. The Insurers may not grant cover to a pilot wanting to rent without them first having had a check flight with an instructor. In case you could not be in command of the check flight
Mike