No Bose its actually because it dosnt state it and you are wrong.

Uh? What doesn't state what?

See the price of fish. IF nothing else we will get the 28 pages.

http://www.frozenfishdirect.co.uk/?g...FQbdlAodvTyZrA

enjoy

Nonsense. Art 52 merely says:

The commander of an aircraft shall take all reasonable steps to satisfy himself before
the aircraft takes off:...

There's nothing to prevent two people from both reasonably satisfying themselves that those checks have been made, nor is there a requirement to identify the commander in 'booking out'. And of course very often, the actions themselves are delegated. No single action required by law uniquely identifies the commander.

In its guidance on logging, LASORS specifically accounts for the case of duties being shared:

Whenever two members of flight crew acting in
the same capacity share a particular operating
duty, each performing such duty for particular
periods only and neither acting under the
supervision of the other, only the time during
which the duty was performed is to be recorded
in the appropriate column of the personal flying
log book.

which suggests to me that the case of sharing duties during a flight is well known and accepted. It is not the case that a single person must be the pilot in command for the entire flight, and it's certainly not the case that a single person must be so designated in advance.

The nonsense is yours,it says commander not commanders.

Or perhaps you interpret 'himself' as two people!?

I think all bookworm was saying (and I agree) is that it is possible for more than one person can be eligible (in terms of the ANO) to be commander and therefore while obviously there is only one at a time there is nothing to prevent a change in the air.

I am not disputing that there can be a change in the air, I sit by people who have been trained to take command if I am incapacitated, even the cabin crew are trained to deal with such an event.

But at the end of the day, this is all interpretation subject to opinion and you can never win the argument because it is not in black and white in the ANO.

Even if the CAA came up with an answer in a letter and prosecuted a pilot he would have the right of appeal in a higher court and if he won the CAA ruling would be invalid.

If its not black and white in the ANO its subject to interpretaion and thats a job for qualified aviation lawyers.

We have been discussing the pilots order book at the school with a solicitor who is learning to fly, he commented.

If you hire an aircraft out you are entering a contact with the school (company), if part of that contract is a requirement to sign and abide by the pilots order book and you subsequently failed to abide by the pilots order book the company could bring a civil action for breach of contract providing that what the pilots order book said is fair and reasonable and does not violate any law.

Our POB states that the commander must be decided before flight and that the commander is the hirer unless receiving instruction for the grant or renewal of a licence or rating with a qualifield school instructor. It also states that the commander must book out etc and sign the tech log etc..

and that is, IMHO, admirable.

So at your club is the hirer is the commander on a club check as it does not fall into any of the categories listed above?

J.

Thats the general idea but after all these posting on here I am beginning to doubt it myself (is the commander P1 u/s or P1.)

Have to say i do not really mind how they log it, as long as a commander is decided before flight.

#What is worrying me now that didnt some say many posts ago that CAA wouldnt accept P1 u/s hours towards licence renewal hours?

In all fairness, I don't think it's just "some" saying that. I think pretty much everyone is agreed that the CAA will count P1 u/s hours as actually being dual training time, (P u/t) and not the equivalent of P1 hours.

do

In your particular case, you don't have much of a choice. In your POB it says that a club check can be performed both by an FI and by a designated PPL (with a bit of additional, informal training, including RHS). As you see both of these checks as equivalent, safety-wise, it would be unfair to the hirer to be able to log P1 in one case, and Pu/t in another, just because the person in the RHS happens to have an FI ticket or not.

You can't have it both ways, unless you want to have this discussion all over again each time a club check is being performed. So if the POB specifies that a designated PPL can perform club checks, then in all cases the hirer should be P1, even if the guy in the RHS happens to be an FI. And if the POB specifies that clubchecks can only be performed by FIs (as my club does), you can (but do not have to) specify that the FI is P1, and the hirer Pu/t.

What you want to avoid, obviously, is the situation where the hirer thinks he is Pu/t, behaves as such, logs it as such and later found out that the person in the RHS is just a PPL and not legally capable of supervising/training someone in the LHS. Particularly if something happens and people start inquiring as to who was PIC.

Designating the hirer as PIC in a clubcheck has the added psychological advantage of making the hirer aware that he is responsible for all actions, including pre- and post flight, and cannot cut corners because another PIC is on-board.

Ah Voila.......... At last.

This thread seems to be following the finest tradition of PPRuNe inasmuch as a flat statement is followed by a flat contradiction which is then followed by personal abuse.

To my mind, the essential points are that only one person can log P1 in a single-pilot aircraft and the commander has to be designated before the flight - in a club/school environment it is he/she who signs for the aircraft.

The latter point is an absolute essential (and I'm speaking with my ex-CAA hat on now) since, in the event of a fatal crash, this is where the investigators will decide who was the commander. I can't speak for the ways of the FAA, they do things differently over there (not better, or worse, just differently) but in the UK there is no capacity to switch commander mid-flight. Thus, in the case at issue, the checking pilot has to be in command because he may have to override the pilot being checked.

Well at least that bit I know is definately incorrect, remeber the BAC 1-11 incident out of Birmingham--The Captain was hanging half way out of the DV window for 50% of the flight!

I think you should all fly to a deserted beach somewhere and belt 7 shades of **** out of each other.:bored: All make sure you fly yourself so there iwll be no arguing over P1!

I think that is a good idea but only if I can be P1

Experience widens the mind though you see BP.

Around 30 years ago I worked at a flying school that had a very poor reputation, I arrived one morning for instance to see a F27 mainwheel being loaded into a Grummnan AA5 to be ferried to another airfield. I could write a book about all the incidents that took place in the short 6 months I was there. The CAA had a major interest in the school and visited on a regular basis, in fact I saw more CAA inspectors in that 6 months than I have seen in the rest of my flying career.

Before I got to the school they had employed an instructor who they noticed was very reluctant to fly with students who had not gone first solo, making excuses about the weather etc. After two weeks of this they found out that not only did their new instructor not have an instructors rating, he did not have a pilots licence either, he was however a licensed engineer.

Now you tell me who was pilot in command on those flights and how were they logged?

How much does a Fokker F27's mainwheel weigh? :eek:

You got me there and I am type rated on it!

They got airbourne with it anyway!!!