does cross channel check count as PIUS?
 

Just before applying for my license I want to make sure I have the correct P1 hours. I did a cross channel check to Le touquet with an instructor on a 172. I was already checked out on the aircraft and also had my ppl license. He only came along as it was the policy of my school if you are going for the first time. I want to know if this counts as Pilot in command under supervision as I flew the aircraft and planned it and I was not beign taught how to fly.
Also do the caa go through every single trip you log to add it up or they just go with the school stamps on your log book as I did 90% of my hour building and training at a uk school and have a couple of stamps verifying my hours.

just checked with the caa and they said it could be logged as P1 (sorry it wasp1 they told me)

This flight should be logged as P1S, the instructor would have been the commander of the aircraft during the flight. Correct, but if the flight was handled solely by you i.e the instructor did not take over at any point, then its P1S, otherwise it would be PUT.

Read LASORS.

Page 60 of LASORS sets it out all very nicely in an easy enough to follow table. Case H from their table looks like it is the bit you need for future reference since the CAA has come to your aid.

I can't see how it would ever be P/UT as someone said above as you were not "under instruction for the purpose of gaining a licence or rating or gaining lessons in a new aircraft type". Interestingly enough if the instructor had to take over during the check out for safety reasons then I would say he logs P1 and you get nought. Well that is my interpretation of the rules anyway.

potkettleblack not sure about your reference. The table about logging time gives to options for logging PIC U/S: Case J which is only for the successful completion of a flight test with a JAA or CAA examiner; Case B co-pilot performing the duties of PIC under the supervision of the PIC. Case B might look to apply except in the notes it says this is only applicable if the aircraft has a C of A requiring it to be operated two crew.

I don't actually understand how the CAA came to their conclusion as it appears to contradict other written information. However this really is an old chestnut and liable to be debated on here ad infinitum. Personally I think P1/s should be abolished as it just causes confusion for the small amount of it that a pilot gains. This case really should be either P1 or PU/T, and the deciding factor is whether or not the instructor is named as P1 and logs the time themselves (which is most likely what happened).

I agree LASORS is for refrence only, but it can get frustrating if the CAA start quoting different things to LASORS.

The problem with logging it as "Case A" is that you will invariably get into a situation where both yourself and the instructor will want to log P1 which clearly is outside of the rules considering you are in a light aircraft that is not certified for multi crew operations/no AOC etc etc. Therefore H seems to be the only thing left until the CAA come along with a new letter. I is free!

As for P/UT I was always taught (and that table seems to bear it out) you log this when under recognised training. In a checkout where you are acting as the commander and demonstrating your skills mainly for insurance purposes I can't see how this would fit under P/UT.

I agree it would be nice for the CAA to add to their notes and assign a letter for these sorts of things as it is a regular debate. That way we can put it to bed once and for all.

Potkettleblack, Case H SPIC is something specifically reserved for integrated training (see notes at end of table). It is where on an integrated course instead of the 'hour building' element the student does supervised solo where there is an instructor on board but the instructor takes no action during the flight. It cannot be used for anything else.

PUT for a XChannel check is a con.

All they did on mine was brief me on the customs procedures and just sat next to me on my first crossing for insurance purposes.

Prehaps the fact the instructor has to 'intervene' to 'instruct' you on customs at L2K makes it PUT :}

"Cross channel checks" are a con FULL STOP! If you feel under confident or are just generally unsure then by all means take an instructor, that’s what they are there for but for a school to FORCE a pilot to take an instructor with him to exercise the privileges of his licence?! :*

X-Channel check w/ an instructor IS a con! Or are these clubs/FTOs afraid of their own shadow? All those who have crossed the Channel on a light aircraft will know that it's a non-event. Basically, file VFR, then head South-East until reporting mid-Channel, when ATC will advise to contact Paris Information with your details. That's it! Big deal... :rolleyes:

As long as you have a life jacket on board and can swim, you should be OK :E

If the school requires an instructor to be present when crossing the Channel, why not also when doing a X-country to North Wales or the Highlands (which have some pretty foreboding terrain), or the Isle of Man, or even the Isle of Wight? Nobody requested me in Florida to take an instructor along when overflying the Everglades (even though it wasn't recommended on a single-engine). Likewise in South Africa, no instructor necessary for navigation flights over the highveld and the bush, or the Kalahari... pretty inhospitable too!

Cheers :cool:

So how does the pilot navigate cross-channel? I would say that it is not unreasonable for a trip where the aircraft might be out of sight of recognisable navigation features for a school to ask for a checkout, considering the navigation test in the PPL skills test only allows for use of ground features. Where is it written that trips to the IOM don't need a check? Of course trips to the IOW don't go out of glide range, let alone out of sight of land.

If it is done by an instuctor, and the instructor logs it as P1, instructional time then the other pilot must log it as dual instruction, as my log book would have it, I assume that is P/UT to others. You cannot log P1S in a single-crew a/c unless it is a flight test!

Tuned In,

Passing the PPL does not limit you to navigating via ground features, however if you are crossing VFR then you can see France anyway so you will be using ground features. If you pick a suitable xing altitude then even the humble 172 can glide for approx. 10 miles from 7k and 20 miles from 12k.

Its not PUT. Or to invert your question - show me where it is written down that xchannel trips require an instructor logging P1 except in the flying schools book.

If it was a group aircraft then you would be P1, even if you took someone with you who had done the trip before and can explain those oh-so-tricky French customs.....

[Edited for splleing :) ]

In this circumstance if it is a school aircraft that you are renting then it is really up to them. It should be detailed in either their Flying Order Book or Ops Manual. If one of these states that the school require you to complete a x-channel dual checkout before you can complete it solo then you have to and the flight is PU/T. Whether you agree with their thinking is irrelevant if its their aircraft you are renting its up to them to set the requirements for using it.

As has been mentioned, in VMC, one can see the French coast long before reaching mid-Channel, so dead-reckoning isn't too difficult - not to say that VOR/DME/ADF/GPS/VDF shouldn't be used. Belt and braces - never let an instrument unused.

The schools in question might require an instructor, but they either want to make a fast buck :* , or they need to remember that Louis Bleriot first crossed the Channel (with no navaids or ATC to help him) over a hundred years ago...

Cheers :cool:

JAR-FCL 1 seems to be pretty clear (after more than one reading!) that you cannot log a flight such as a cross-channel checkout as PICUS (P1S) because you are not multi-crew and not flying for a rating or type/class checkout, neither can you log PUT as there is no such examiner qualification for channel checkouts. That leaves only two possibilities: P1 or unloggable. Unloggable is untennable so it is probabaly appropriate to insist that you claim the P1 time.

Checkout of difference training logging
 

Although not strictly related to the original post I thought it relevant to post here (sorry for duplicating anything above).

I have a JAR PPL and recently underwent some difference training on a single engine with a variable pitch prop. I've just phoned the CAA to clarify the "Guide to logbook annotation" table on Page 42 section A of LASORS 2006 and they've made it clear to me that:

- "PIC U/S" or "P1 U/S" is for really for use with multi-pilot aircraft or for flight tests
- I should log my difference training as "P/UT". The instructor would log his time as "P1".

This is also the case for my colleague who recently underwent a check-out flight on a non-complex SE aircraft (Piper Warrior) that he'd flown before. He is also a JAR PPL but his currency on that aircraft had lapsed. His time can only be logged as "P U/T" and not "PIC U/S". Again the instructor will log "P1".

We have 2 different situations above:

Yourself - Undergoing comlpex training in an aircraft, agree you are PUT and instructor P1 as you did not (I presume) hold a complex signoff prior to your training with the instructor.

Your mate - How has his currency lapsed? If you mean that in the flying clubs eyes it has lapsed (i.e. not flown for 28days, etc) then that is their requirement to allow him fly their aircraft - however that is all, his PPL SEP has not lapsed. This is where club/group differ, if he had been in a group and gone up with a group member, as a safety pilot, he would log P1. Likewise if he had taken the local instructor up in his group aircraft to act as safety, with no instruction recieved, then again he would be P1, not the instructor.

Julian - you're correct. My friend's PPL SE rating hasn't lapsed. He no longer meets the flying currency/recency rules imposed by the club. He wasn't too happy when I told him so I suspect he'll be busy with the tippex tonight.

Oh dear. Here we go again.

LASORS (although not a definitive document) lists a number of scenarios, and how to log time in each of those scenarios.

However, it does not list the case where a qualified pilot flies with an instructor, when not receiving any additional instruction.

That doesn't mean in can't be logged. It just means that LASORS doesn't tell you how to log it. So it's up to you to use your common sense.

Common sense suggests that PICUS sounds like the most logical way of logging the time, but PUT also sounds like it might be correct. However, there is sufficient debate on the subject that, for such a small number of hours, it seems sensible to be conservative. PICUS mightbe acceptable, but there is nothing in writing to say that it is, so why risk being accused of over-logging? So, unless Nuclear Weapon has it in writing from the CAA that PICUS is ok, I would recommend he logs it as PUT - since no one can argue that he is trying to over-claim hours if he logs it this way.

As for whether a x-channel checkout is required, I know that when, as a low-houred pilot, I did my x-channel checkout with my club (as the club required), I gained a huge amount of benefit from it. If you don't like the rules, find another club to fly with - after all, it's their aircraft, so it's their rules you follow when you fly their aircraft. End of story.

FFF
--------------

If he is a qualifed pilot not receiving any instruction then common sense would say P1, not PUS, not PUT. There is NO instruction taking place.

But I can almost guarantee the instructor logged it as P1 so the other pilot can't.

However, I would say it is instruction because the instructor is technically doing a refresher course and is being paid for his time. What the school is saying is the student has already got the licence but doesn’t know how to exercise the privileges properly so needs extra training before they will allow him/her to cross the channel in their aircraft.

:ugh: Only in the UK!

I suspect you are right on this one MP.

If no instruction is taking place and they are there as a requirement for the 1st XC of a qualified pilot hiring from a club then the FI is in effect filling the capacity of a safety pilot and therefore SNY.

As you said, only in the UK! :)

As I said if the school specifically require you to do this then it should be detailed in their flying order book/operations manual. In which case the only sensible thing for them to do is to make it a requirement that a pilot completes a dual channel crossing therefore making it PU/T. Unfortunately unless the CAA issue some new specific guidleines this argument is going to go on ad infinitum (check the search there are countless threads like this). As far as i can see it is simply a case of who was P1, if the instructor was then you log it dual, if the instructor wasn't you log it P1 and they cannot log it.

If it is a "club" and not a school, they should act like a "club".

A decent club would arrange a fly out to someplace like Le Touquet and place experienced members with new members who have never crossed the channel. One member fly’s there, one fly’s back. The new member gets the experience while the other pilot gets to share costs. This promotes both a cost reduction, a chance to meet and fly with new people, utilisation of aircraft and most importantly FUN!!! (It would also do away with this daft "Can I log the hours for a none existent flight check" thread). Isn’t that the whole point of a club?

I have seen it done like this but sadly it seems not to be the norm in the UK....and people wonder why GA is dying over here.


:( :rolleyes:

I would like to meet an instructor who can keep their gob shut in an aircraft long enough to not give any instruction :uhoh:. You could argue that as you have paid to cart an instructor along with you, then you are receiving instruction, irrespective of whether they do.

It simply comes down to who signs for the aircraft. If you sign it out, then you are P1 and the instructor is SNY. If the instructor signs is out, you are PUT and the instructor logs it as P1. There is no such thing as P1S outside of a multi crew or skills test.

And if the club's/school's Flying Order Book, or insurance company, states that the pilot can not be Captain because he has not had the required checkout???

Personally, I make sure that any time I am hired through my employer to fly with someone, I log P1, whatever the circumstances. If I am at work, then I am acting as an instructor. If you don't want an instructor as Captain, then you don't have to fly with me - but don't be offended if my employer doesn't let you hire our aircraft. This is quite aside from the legal aspect, which I have repeated on these forums many times - it is important to me that I am Captain, because if I am not Captain I have no legal right to take over the controls from you if you screw up.

On the other hand, if a friend phones me and asks if I want to go flying on my day off, then he is probably going to be logging P1, and I am a passenger.

FFF
---------------

Julian

Did you read my post?

I didn't say the PPL limited the navigation. The point I was making is that DR backed by visual navigation is the only type examined on the PPL skills test. My x-channel check develops that, using DR backed by radio nav one way, radio tracking the other.

I was not saying that gliding range is the reason.

I also never said that it was written down anywhere that a x-channel check is required by any CAA rule. In fact if it was you would be able to log it P1S!

You cannot just invert the question, it makes no sense to answer my point! The point I was making was that clubs I have worked at would require a cross-water check before a flight well away from land, and the Isle of Man would probably count as Ireland certainly would (Fouga was suggesting that Isle of Man trips might not need a check). A previous cross channel check would be sufficient. It is only known as a "cross-channel check" because this is by far the most common situation, not because it is the only situation.

However it is written down somewhere. It is in many clubs' flying orders, which you must read and should comply with, or you risk a hefty bill from the insurance company if anything goes wrong. You are hiring something that belongs to someone else. If you don't like the conditions of hire then buy your own!

I also said that if it is flown with an instructor (the club might accept an experienced member or club official/director instead) and the instructor logs it then you can't log it P1! I agree that there is nothing to say that the instructor must log it, but that will depend on the agreement between the pilot wanting to fly and the club or the instructor. The fact remains that any time cannot be logged as P1 by both pilots.

These discussions would be an awful lot shorter if you read the post you wanted to reply to!

I hope you make sure there is instruction taking place any time you fly with an instructor. Or do you know everything there is to know about flying light aircraft already, and are you current with practicing all of it? I'm with Gus on this one.

FFF

LASORs might not say it, but it says elsewhere that P1S (PICUS as you put it) can only be used for flying in multicrew aircraft or on a CAA skills test. There might be an exception if the aircraft is used on an AOC in a situation where the Ops Manual requires multi-crew (such as operating without autopilot under IFR) but I'm not sure and that isn't the case here. You cannot have two people log P1 on a single-crew aircraft for the same hours except a flight test.

I agree with your logic, but the CAA does not.

Tuned In,
Do you know where this is written?

It won't make any difference to me, since I've always logged time when I've flown with instructors as PUT. I've also always recommended to other people when they fly with me in my instructional capacity (or any other instructor) that they log PUT, but if I knew where it was written, I could back up my argument far better. As it is, though, I haven't been able to find it written down anywhere official.

FFF
--------------

Can't give you the reference at the moment, I'm afraid - my reminder is in the instructions printed in the front of my logbook. Don't have easy access to the official references. I did think it was in LASORs, but I haven't even used that for a while.

Tuned,

Interesting. I was examined on VOR tracking as part of my PPL skills test. Radio nav was covered as part of the course syllabus. We have also already said the you can see France anway and not out of sight of ground features. Previous XC checks do not seem to count, in my experience at least, in that another club I have used wanted you to do with their instructor never mind having already done one recently with another school.

I think you also missed my point re 'inverting' your question. It is not a requirement to go XC channel to have a checkout - apart from a schools flying order book - a point which we have already acknowledged and stated that it would be different in as group scenario where only a group member would be required. As you say, not stipulated by the CAA. So you as you say yourself:

:}

Thanks for your advice but have already done this. Not for this reason but got fed up for paying high sums of money for quite frankly delapidated aircraft with half the bits missing out of the panel.

No I dont and there is no reason to do so just because an instructor is sat next to you. No i dont know everything and in fact put myself through a full IPC every year even when, legally, I dont need one. You should always know your personal limitations. I wont execute a priveledge of my licence if I dont feel confident never mind current and at that point I will use either an instructor or a safety pilot dependant on the situation.

JAR-FCL 1.001 and 1.080(c) - as I mentioned earlier in this thread!

Just got my licence from the caa it apperas they accepted my cross channel check as P1 as they've just sent me my shinning blue licence. Sorry for all the argument this caused. Good luck to those of you currently training.

FougaMagister wrote:

Since the VMC minima for a PPL is 3 km viz it is in fact poosible to be out of sight of 'land' for some 25km. I beleive a low hour PPL would find it tricky to fly cross chanel with no land features and possible no visible horizon, yet still be legal VMC.

Personally, as an instructor, if I am flying with a person who is paying me, I am P1, otherwise I may as well not be there.

Julian

Radio navigation is required in training but it is not necessarily examined skills test. It is possible to test in an aircraft with no functioning navigation aids!

How can you see France from the UK? You clearly haven't been to the Channel Islands from the Bembridge VFR - at 3000 feet to remain clear of the airway. Or to Deauville from Shoreham. Or to Cherbourg in the VFR recommended route through the danger area. Or been refused clearance through said route, so had to navigate around it. Or to Brest from Plymouth.

I think it is you that failed to make any relevant point trying to invert my question. No-one has said that it is written anywhere other than local flying orders that a x-channel check is required. That is not the point at issue. Nor does it mean it is not a sensible requirement, which is the point at issue. It also doesn't mean that a qualified pilot shouldn't learn something useful from the trip.

I personally would have signed you off x-channel if you had checked out with another club, with one or two exceptions. On the other hand one of the clubs I worked at wouldn't let me fly x-channel without a checkout, even though I was checking out members of another club. When I'd done about 5 they then allowed me.

nuclear

They don't check very carefully. Technically you have logged it incorrectly, but even if they noticed they would only tell you to correct the small error, you wouldn't get into trouble. However major "errors" have got pilots into trouble, so I would always recommend you fill out the logbook carefully and correctly in future.

Thanks for your concern but I have done several xings. Dont forget Sleaford - L2K? :)

Exactly! Not limited by licence, its a flying club remit which we are going round in circles saying!!!!

I'd be very surprised if you could see Le Touquet from Sleaford!! Grantham, maybe, on a clear day.

I need to be able to spell :}

Thanks for correction BB, I meant Seaford!

But you have done nothing to try and say it is not justified! No-one ever said it was more than a club (or duty-of-care, or insurance) requirement. The argument was whether it was a justified requirement.

The argument was wether it would be P1, PU/s, P-Whatever!

Whats next - north of Watford Gap checkout???