Logging PIC hours without signing the tech log (UK CAA)
 

My friend has a share in an aircraft and said that I can use it to keep my SEP rating current, however the owner said that as I am not a shareholder I am not able to sign the tech log.

Is it still possible for me to log the hours as PIC without signing it? Obviously I would be flying as the PIC, my name would be on the flight plan and no one else would be logging the hours.

Yes, all you need is a current license and class rating for the aircraft flown and endorsed on the insurance. Privately, the tech log is simply a stop gap before the aircraft log books are updated.

However, you still need someone to fill in the log after you’ve completed the flight for the interests of maintance. Perhaps this is something you should discuss with the owner as it sounds like he doesn’t want you to fly it.

I don't understand what you're proposing. If it's a group owned aircraft, i.e. shared, I can't see how you can fly it on your own without being part of the group.
Or do you mean that you and your friend will fly together, he or she will sign the tech log and be flying the aircraft as a group member though in reality you will handle the controls and log it as PIC?
If the latter, you are on very dodgy ground from both insurance and legal points of view when/if you have a mishap. Sorting out who was really PIC will be fun (not).

EASA requires aircraft to have insurance. P1 without insurance is illegal. Will you be covered by the aircraft insurance?

Would you be permitted to fly this aircraft alone?
If not then you have your answer.

I'm not so sure - but very happy to be put right.

Extreme case, if I steal a plane and fly off with it - as long as I'm type rated etc. surely I can log the time as that part of the regulations is complied with?

Some of the earlier answers suggest that every single aspect of a flight must be legal for the time to be legal - and whilst clearly a good idea (!) I'm not sure it's needed for putting hours in your logbook.

Every aspect of the flight needs to be legal in order for you to act as commander. Putting hours in your logbook when you are not legal is actually writing your own confession.......... :rolleyes:

I would say that if you are flying as Pi/c, then you log the hours. That's not rocket science.

However.......... Why can't you sign the tech log? Who is it that you are hiding the full details of the flight from?

That seems a bit iffy to me. Who else can sign it for that flight? I take it the tech log has a box for the Pi/c to sign. Why on earth would anyone else sign for it?

Maybe you need to think on the bigger picture here. When the owner is suggesting that you do something that's clearly not right, how's the maintenance working out for that aircraft? Maybe you are not the only person not signing the tech log, maybe there are more pages than you know about. Maybe it's not about the signature, maybe he just doesn't want the hours recorded.

Remember, if there's any doubt, there's no doubt.

What a shame, then, that these guys couldn't log their flight.

What a brilliant defence against any accusation of wrongdoing.

Whilst it might not be very bright to steal a plane and then log the flight, my point is that I think the hours would 'count'. You would be, after all, still flying the plane!

If the statement "Every aspect of the flight needs to be legal in order for you to act as commander" was true, then thousands of people are logging time illegally. The word 'every' opening the door to all sorts of (very minor in the most case) violations.

If they'd waited six months they could have walked across....

You can log whatever you want. Whether it would be accepted by the CAA towards the issue of a licence is another matter. There can only be one Commander on a flight, not two.

If you were flying but crashed the aircraft, the person who signed for it would have to take responsibility for it.

Seems to me there's more to it than who can sign/fly.;)

Thank you for all of the replies. I should have probably added more information in the first post.

The aircraft is insured for anyone with over 100hours, so insurance is not a problem. It seems that the owner is happy for my friend to book and pay for the hours as normal and then me go up flying (as PIC) with him and only me logging the hours.

The tech log is still being signed and the maintenance hours are still being recorded. I have no doubts about the integrity of the owner or the maintenance of the aircraft.

To answer the question about would I be permitted to fly the aircraft alone, I have the appropriate rating and am covered by the insurance.

Can someone explain the difference between what the OP is suggesting the syndicate is doing, and an aircraft rental business?

You have not mentioned cost sharing. Is your friend going to pay for your flying?

I'm still struggling with the concept of the aircraft having a single owner, yet your friend has a share in it.

I am not entirely sure how the whole aircraft share thing works, but from what I understand here someone has bought a plane and is selling shares in the aircraft, "shareholders" pay a monthly fee to cover maintenance and then pay per hour of flying.

As for the finances, I think there are some differences to an aircraft rental business. I would never be exchanging any money with anyone. My friend would book and pay through the normal booking system and then I would cover the fuel and landing fees.

Is this "share" that your friend has, a share in a "non equity group" or a syndicate of owners?

Have a look on G-Info and see who is registered as the owner of the aircraft.

I think that the tech log is the wrong question.

Being insured is - that's the simple test: will the insurer, informed by the registered owner, insure you as PiC. If they will, you should be fine, if they won't, you have your answer.


That said, I suspect that the OP is not actually a PPL as "my name will be on the flight plan" is basically nonsense for most recreational flying, where flight plans aren't used.

G

The registered owner is someones name, trustee of G-xxxx Group.

Not that it makes much difference but the aircraft is in Spain and flight-plans will be required.

Back to the discussion that with the immensely complicated regulatory environment we're now trying to play in, with almost hourly changes, it seems unlikely that very many flights are actually totally legal ...

Agreed. Completely.

You have not answered the question. Are you allowed to fly the aircraft totally ALONE? It would seem not, even though you have the licence.

If your friend has to be there with you it is for a reason....probably because he is involved with the group.

As there can only be one PiC then that would obviously be him.

As I said before you have your answer!

It makes a huge difference, as air law in Spain is not the same as air law in the UK.

I've not flown in Spain without a flight plan, but didn't think that was the law so much as the local requirement at some airports? In any case, as I'm certainly not an expert in Spanish air law (and nor I suspect are most other people posting on here) I think that getting local advice might be a really good idea.

It's a good working assumption that when flying a G-reg outside the UK, basically the most restrictive of the state of registration permissions, and local permissions, apply. If there's uncertainty about that, you need more expert advice than a bunch of us on an internet forum.

G

"Every aspect of the flight needs to be legal in order for you to act as commander."

So, as a PPL and an owner, if I took off solo and flew straight over Heathrow at 400ft AGL what would happen ?

I suspect the owner of my plane (me) would get a letter asking - amongst other things - who the Commander was. My reply would be 'nobody, as the flight wasn't legal' Is that where the correspondence would stop ?:rolleyes:

If you happen to get audited by the CAA, where is the paper trail that these are your hours to log if your name isn't on the tech log?

When the owner says you cannot sign the tech log, does he mean to authorise the flight like flying schools do? Signing as PIC and signing to authorise the flight can mean different things, and if the owner is happy for you to put your name as PIC and countersign it with your pal, then that's the only way I could see you logging these hours for licencing purposes.

If a flight being illegal meant that there was no commander, I suspect that CAA Enforcement branch would have to be largely made redundant.

Of course you can be pilot in command of an illegal flight. A stupid thing to do knowingly, but you'd still be in command.

G

Is it a legal obligation to have a document detailing every flight done by the plane?

I have one, and indeed most aircraft do - but I believe it's not an obligation?

There is an obligation for the servicing intervals, prop, engine etc., but noting each and every flight?

Journey Log
 

Under latest rules you have to have a journey log for the aircraft. Trouble is the rules don't seem very specific about how far back it needs to go. Entries need to be signed by pilot. As I've always kept a "tech log" I'm using this with the addition of "usual captains signature" inside front cover. Not that I ever expect anybody ever to ask to see it..........

(It doesn't have to be carried in the aircraft, but be available if requested). Whereas your current journey, plog etc, does.

Is this under EASA?

I had a US registered aircraft and there was no requirement to put every flight in the aircraft logbook. Just an annual summary of hours flow.

AIUI the UK requires all flights to be entered in the logbook.

It is eminently sensible to keep a log of all flights as I found out when the Drawback people came to see me! There was no problem at all but the guy did say there would have been one had I not got a set of log sheets. No proof of flight....etc...

Okay, that all makes sense. I've not (ever) flown a plane, or heli, without some sort of little book for every flight but was confident that it wasn't a legal requirement in FAA land.

Thanks.

Yes EASA rules
 

Seem to remember it's part of Part NCO.......sure it's searchable, but currently too busy trying to stop new puppy destroying latest copy of Pilot magazine 😠

It is perfectly normal and legal in both CAAland and EASAland to simply list "December 10th, 4 flights, 5:30 TT, serviceable". The individual flights are not required in the logbook.

G

If you are a shareholder you can fly. If you are not a shareholder, then technically, what you are doing is "hiring" the plane. As such, it needs to be on a Public Transport C of A, just like other rental planes ... it is very unlikely that a group owned aircraft would be on a Public Transport C of A.

All non-equity groups are really rentals and operate on a Public Transport C of A.

If it is a "permit" aircraft, you are also bang out of luck, as it is impossible to put an LAA type craft onto a Public Transport C of A, and this is why there are no non-equity groups on permit aircraft.

Tl;Dr; you probably can't legally fly it.

You can still log the hours...

Are you sure about this paperHanger? It would be helpful if you could provide a reference for this. I know of a situation where shareholders approve non-shareholders to use an aircraft without payment. The non-shareholders are insured.

The Public/Private Category CofA system disappeared a while back - a CofA now simply exists, supported by its ARC and current CRS. When it comes to operating private aircraft under a CofA, there are provisions for limited owner maintenance under the EASA Part-M regulation. The main issue for hire in this instance is likely to be engine life: while CAP747 is rather out of date in some areas and definitions, it remains the declaration of UK policy and under GR24 specifies that aircraft with engines "on condition" may not be used for aerial work. Aerial work is no longer defined in the UK ANO, but previously (and within the intent of CAP747) would have included hire.

In this instance, I would ask if the constitution/binding rules of the group or trust operating the aircraft forbids the aircraft to be hired out. If not, then assuming the aircraft is appropriately insured and in possession of a current CRS then it is simply down to the group members whether they wish to allow their aircraft to be hired to or flown by the individual. It is ultimately down to an operator to designate who may or may not fly its aircraft, so the legality of being allowed to command that aircraft rests there. This would also apply to a cost sharing flight where the aircraft was not hired to a non-owner, but one of the individuals sharing the cost was not an owner but still allowed by the operator to command the aircraft.

When it comes to national Permit aircraft, there are changes on the way... The ANO already allows the hire of national Permit aircraft when permission is given by the CAA - they are working on how and when to give this permission.

Are you sure about that? Non-equity does seem to be an option in some groups based around Permit aircraft. A case of 'don't ask, don't tell' perhaps?

It's illegal, plain and simple.

Of course the pilot is still in command (and can be prosecuted for commanding an illegal flight!).

G

errrm.....

How so? If, in a single pilot aircraft (which I am guessing this is what we're talking about) there is either crew or non-crew (i.e. Passengers!). The clue is in the title, SINGLE pilot. The only time there is legally two 'crew' in a single pilot aircraft is when the person manipulating the controls is under instruction from an instructor. The instructor logs P1 the 'student' logs U/T. If you're a passenger then you could put the flight in a logbook to the record, but non of the totals/flight time would be eligible for inclusion in flight time totals.

There is discussion about AOC operators declaring multi-crew ops on SPA, but that is a whole different ball game.

As GTE says, any flight, legal or not has to have a commander - someone who will be responsible at all times (and carry the can) for the safe operation of the flight.