Club Check Out Ride, P1/S or P/UT
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Club Check Out Ride, P1/S or P/UT
I can't seem to get a straight answer from anyone at my club and my former club. Should a club check ride be logged as P1/S and therefore solo time or P/UT?
Please help!
Please help!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P u/t - as a plain vanilla PPL the only time you can log P1s is for your PPL skills test (assuming you pass! a fail is Pu/t). There's a load of stuff in LASORS about it.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason you can't get a straight answer is that in all of the documents this case is not covered so all answers are interpolation.
JAR-FCL 1.080 says
The applicant for or the holder of a pilot licence may log as pilot in command time all solo flight time and flight time as student pilot in command provided that such SPIC time is countersigned by the instructor.
JAR-FCL 1.001 says
SPIC is Flight time during which the flight instructor will only observer the student acting as pilot in command and shall not influence or control the flight of he aircraft.
LASORS says SPIC is part of an organised syllabus of training! This rather disagrees with 1.080 which also refers to the holder of a licence!
As none of these are Law, what does the ANO say?
Art 28 (2) (c) requires that the holder logs "the capacity in which he acted in flight"
Therefore, If the pilot acted in a check out as the pilot in command and the instructor/examiner did not control the aircraft, it is quite leagl for the pilot being checked out to log P1S and for the instructor to sign the log.
I have done it this way for years as it meets the UK legal requirement.
JAR-FCL 1.080 says
The applicant for or the holder of a pilot licence may log as pilot in command time all solo flight time and flight time as student pilot in command provided that such SPIC time is countersigned by the instructor.
JAR-FCL 1.001 says
SPIC is Flight time during which the flight instructor will only observer the student acting as pilot in command and shall not influence or control the flight of he aircraft.
LASORS says SPIC is part of an organised syllabus of training! This rather disagrees with 1.080 which also refers to the holder of a licence!
As none of these are Law, what does the ANO say?
Art 28 (2) (c) requires that the holder logs "the capacity in which he acted in flight"
Therefore, If the pilot acted in a check out as the pilot in command and the instructor/examiner did not control the aircraft, it is quite leagl for the pilot being checked out to log P1S and for the instructor to sign the log.
I have done it this way for years as it meets the UK legal requirement.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question was referring to club checkouts. Assuming you are otherwise legal to fly the aircraft as P1 (90 day rule clouds this of course in which case I presume the flight has to be logged as PUT) then why not log it as plain old P1?? A club checkout doesn't need a log book signature does it? I realise this leaves the instructor with a problem!
I agree entirely with StrateandLevel; flying under the supervision of someone conducting a check-out means that you cannot consider yourself as P1.
The signature is confirmation by the Commander that you operated under his/her supervision. Nothing to do with the requirements of the check-out.
Why do people make such a song and dance about this? If you're under supervision, you're not the Commander - so log it as P1S. S stands for 'supervised'......
The signature is confirmation by the Commander that you operated under his/her supervision. Nothing to do with the requirements of the check-out.
Why do people make such a song and dance about this? If you're under supervision, you're not the Commander - so log it as P1S. S stands for 'supervised'......
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This one does seem to run and run.
If you are valid for the class and type that you are flying in, but the club has sent an instructor with you, either to meet club rules, or to "check you out", for some sort of club sign-off, then you have a choice of two.
1) You can file P1 (PIC), and the instructor files nothing
2) You file PUT and the instructor files P1
PICUS (the JAA term for P1/S) applies in a slightly different way. Normally a student pilot, or the applicant for a rating, will be allowed to fly under the supervision of his instructor. When the person giving the authority is an Examiner, the role of the examiner is not to instruct, but to oversee the flight. PICUS is logged by the candidate in the event that the skills test or rating test flight is successful.
StrateandLevel, there is no contradiction in the paragraphs you quote. SPIC is not relevant for the purposes of this conversation. PICUS is the JAA term for P1/s, not SPIC.
The SPIC rules you quote allow for a student pilot to log P1 with the coutersignature of his instructor. Ordinarily, P1 would not be available, because the student has no licence. To understand the reference to "holder of", you need to read the sentence again. It covers all options. He who holds a licence, does not need to log SPIC time (obviously) unless with an instructor receiving instruction for a mode of flight for which he is not licenced (for example a SEP PPL holder, flight training in a MEP).
Hope this helps
If you are valid for the class and type that you are flying in, but the club has sent an instructor with you, either to meet club rules, or to "check you out", for some sort of club sign-off, then you have a choice of two.
1) You can file P1 (PIC), and the instructor files nothing
2) You file PUT and the instructor files P1
PICUS (the JAA term for P1/S) applies in a slightly different way. Normally a student pilot, or the applicant for a rating, will be allowed to fly under the supervision of his instructor. When the person giving the authority is an Examiner, the role of the examiner is not to instruct, but to oversee the flight. PICUS is logged by the candidate in the event that the skills test or rating test flight is successful.
StrateandLevel, there is no contradiction in the paragraphs you quote. SPIC is not relevant for the purposes of this conversation. PICUS is the JAA term for P1/s, not SPIC.
The SPIC rules you quote allow for a student pilot to log P1 with the coutersignature of his instructor. Ordinarily, P1 would not be available, because the student has no licence. To understand the reference to "holder of", you need to read the sentence again. It covers all options. He who holds a licence, does not need to log SPIC time (obviously) unless with an instructor receiving instruction for a mode of flight for which he is not licenced (for example a SEP PPL holder, flight training in a MEP).
Hope this helps
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think its about thim the CAA made a clear ruling on this one. When I did my check I was told to log P1s but I diddnt think that was correct and asked the examiner who did my skills test. He told me I could only log PUT and not P1s. I therfore logged PUT.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to muddy the waters. If you are legal to act as PIC and carry a passenger but the club/group rules require a check flight to meet their currency rules or as a type check there is no requirement for the person doing the checking to be an instructor. In this case as the handling pilot you log PIC he logs nothing. If however he takes command you each log PIC for the time that you had command, the total not to exceed the flight time.
Mike
Mike
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Logically it seems like this:
The role of observation does not make it P/UT. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that a non Instructor rated observer could not have you log P/UT.
So, if the observer happens to be an instructor, I don't see that the observer's role has changed by merely by dint of having that rating.
What would make it instruction is if any instruction actually happened. If not, surely it's P1?
I dunno, instructors eh? Hour leeching merceneries, the lot of them...
The role of observation does not make it P/UT. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that a non Instructor rated observer could not have you log P/UT.
So, if the observer happens to be an instructor, I don't see that the observer's role has changed by merely by dint of having that rating.
What would make it instruction is if any instruction actually happened. If not, surely it's P1?
I dunno, instructors eh? Hour leeching merceneries, the lot of them...
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So would you be if your highly expensive license was on the line.
I don't think the CAA would have any hesitation of putting us over the coals if anything went wrong, just because you logged PIC and we didn't log anything.
It degenrates even further into farce now the SEP renewals are out of sinc with the FI revalidations. We have to go up with 1 with our m8's to sign the log book. It either ends up with a maint trip with 2 instructors on board splitting the time or an example of bad airmanship at the limits of the flight envelope ( that last statement was tongue in cheek BTW) .
MJ
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well jock, I might just be joining you leeching lot one of these years...
seriously though, the same logic applies - at least it should do in my book. Whether it's the insurers, CAA, whoever... it's the PIC that's, err, in command. If the CAA would
(a) Pursue the PIC if the observer didn't have an instructor rating.
(b) Pursue the observer if he did have an instructor rating.
then that's equally illogical.
There is of course another way of looking at it. You log P/UT, and if the instructor has little to teach you then it's simply an incredibly bad value lesson. It can't be both ways though - if it's instruction, great, then the clubs should say there's a mandatory lesson. If it's not a lesson, if there isn't instruction, it's not instruction, surely?
Does anyone know the official CAA line on this?
seriously though, the same logic applies - at least it should do in my book. Whether it's the insurers, CAA, whoever... it's the PIC that's, err, in command. If the CAA would
(a) Pursue the PIC if the observer didn't have an instructor rating.
(b) Pursue the observer if he did have an instructor rating.
then that's equally illogical.
There is of course another way of looking at it. You log P/UT, and if the instructor has little to teach you then it's simply an incredibly bad value lesson. It can't be both ways though - if it's instruction, great, then the clubs should say there's a mandatory lesson. If it's not a lesson, if there isn't instruction, it's not instruction, surely?
Does anyone know the official CAA line on this?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I can see if there are 2 PPL's on board.
The person which pays the bill gets to log the PIC. Otherwise benefit in kind and all that.
If an instructor is sitting next to you its up to them.
If I do a check ride for a wannabie and they are building hours towards CPL and need PIC time I leave the tech log blank just in case, then fill it out afterwards with them as PIC and not log anything. I might add when i was low hours this wasn't the case.
If its a local PPL who flys for fun, I just log it as normal. We don't make a big fuss about check rides at our school, and all the full time instructors can waive checkrides if we know the pilot. And i do regularly. If they fly a couple of hours every month and the previous checkflights have been Ok after longish breaks, no probem if they are a couple of weeks over.
The result of this seems to be that because we treat our customers as adults they request checkrides more than we would inforce them.
Anyway define checkflight. Mine is 1 circuit unless the pilot has requested they would like to go and practise anything else. If you don't hassel the customer by telling them they have to do x y z. They usually end up doing more than you wanted anyway.
MJ
The person which pays the bill gets to log the PIC. Otherwise benefit in kind and all that.
If an instructor is sitting next to you its up to them.
If I do a check ride for a wannabie and they are building hours towards CPL and need PIC time I leave the tech log blank just in case, then fill it out afterwards with them as PIC and not log anything. I might add when i was low hours this wasn't the case.
If its a local PPL who flys for fun, I just log it as normal. We don't make a big fuss about check rides at our school, and all the full time instructors can waive checkrides if we know the pilot. And i do regularly. If they fly a couple of hours every month and the previous checkflights have been Ok after longish breaks, no probem if they are a couple of weeks over.
The result of this seems to be that because we treat our customers as adults they request checkrides more than we would inforce them.
Anyway define checkflight. Mine is 1 circuit unless the pilot has requested they would like to go and practise anything else. If you don't hassel the customer by telling them they have to do x y z. They usually end up doing more than you wanted anyway.
MJ
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple
Should the PPL be operating under the remit of his license, then from a legal point of view on a club checkout He doesn't need you to be there.
That PPl could quite legally go out and buy an aeroplane and fly his own aeroplane once every six months and answer to nobody.
Now if the person does not comply with the recency rule then you cannot just sit there and "check him out" as you are now a passenger which by law he is not allowed to carry. In which case you the Instructor must now act as P1 and the person being checked out as PUT.
The fact is, is that Most Checkouts are carried out by Instructors who are in the vast majority of cases Hourbuilding.
I'm an Instructor and before I check out a customer firstly I find out if he is current, if he is then as far as I am concerned he can log it as P1 and he pays me £15.00 per hour or £15.00 whichever is the higher figure. If I get to log the time as P1 then I will "claim" the hours and not charge.
All discussed before we go anywhere and agreed before we get in the aircraft.
P1CUS is I am led to believe used to "Bolster" the command time that students on approved courses leave with.
Should the PPL be operating under the remit of his license, then from a legal point of view on a club checkout He doesn't need you to be there.
That PPl could quite legally go out and buy an aeroplane and fly his own aeroplane once every six months and answer to nobody.
Now if the person does not comply with the recency rule then you cannot just sit there and "check him out" as you are now a passenger which by law he is not allowed to carry. In which case you the Instructor must now act as P1 and the person being checked out as PUT.
The fact is, is that Most Checkouts are carried out by Instructors who are in the vast majority of cases Hourbuilding.
I'm an Instructor and before I check out a customer firstly I find out if he is current, if he is then as far as I am concerned he can log it as P1 and he pays me £15.00 per hour or £15.00 whichever is the higher figure. If I get to log the time as P1 then I will "claim" the hours and not charge.
All discussed before we go anywhere and agreed before we get in the aircraft.
P1CUS is I am led to believe used to "Bolster" the command time that students on approved courses leave with.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an instructor on a club check I must be in command but if the pilot being checked is fuly leagal except for club rules and he flys the aircraft as if he was the commander without me having to assist him then he should book it as P1/US and I will put a note in his logbook to that effect.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SPIC can only be logged under an intergrated commercial course. Or PICUS multicrew when the FO is handeling a sector.
If an instructor is on board for PPL it can only be PIC and PUT. Or just PIC for the customer, if you are feeling generous. You don't have to log it if you don't want to. But the tech log must reflect this.
If you sign a wannabies log book like that A and C they might get it sent back when applying for their CPL and told to build PIC time. And a signiture in the remarks is going to be very obvious when they flick through it.
( I have just checked your profile A & C and I am refering to the JAR system, I presume its different in your own system
)
If its a normal PPL who cares. The only ones who I make sure they are logging it correctly are the wannabies who intend to hit the minimum hours for every course.
MJ
Its all covered in
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Lasors_Section_A.pdf
Appendix B
If an instructor is on board for PPL it can only be PIC and PUT. Or just PIC for the customer, if you are feeling generous. You don't have to log it if you don't want to. But the tech log must reflect this.
If you sign a wannabies log book like that A and C they might get it sent back when applying for their CPL and told to build PIC time. And a signiture in the remarks is going to be very obvious when they flick through it.
( I have just checked your profile A & C and I am refering to the JAR system, I presume its different in your own system
)If its a normal PPL who cares. The only ones who I make sure they are logging it correctly are the wannabies who intend to hit the minimum hours for every course.
MJ
Its all covered in
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Lasors_Section_A.pdf
Appendix B
Last edited by mad_jock; 20th May 2003 at 02:59.
