Dodgy hours-logging advice?
 

I picked up a freeby pilot magazine ('Go Flying', my favourite magazine for adjusting wonky table legs and catching crumbs when eating cakes) at the flying club yesterday and read Pablo Mason's column with some suspicion.

He writes:This is absolutely incorrect, isn't it. In an aeroplane cerificated for single pilot operations, one person is P1, the other is a passenger and nothing more. Not P1, not P2, just pax.

Logging hours as P1 of aeroplanes is a matter quite close to my heart at the moment, but I make sure that I am squeaky clean and my logbook experience is absolutely bona fide and legal. It is quite frustrating to hear of others logging all sorts of dodgy hours and a 'celeb pilot' like Pablo giving this sort of advice can only make the matters worse, disadvantaging those who stay within the letter of LASORS.

Already on another forum I am reading this sort of thing: Oh dear!:mad:

Of course, PM may have meant 'each log P1 for half the time' but that's not how it reads.

Yes,
Pablo has it wrong unless this is out of context or something.

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Another example of the "comics" producing a mess that everyone else has to sweep up.

I wonder how many arguments this will cause in clubhouses up and down the country. "......but it says blah in the magazine."

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

I would expect better from Pablo. I wonder if the article was "sub-edited"?

Can someone give me some advice,
I have just completed my PPL and just say I have 70 hours, to start a commercial training course I need 150 hours, could i include the 70 hours i already have, or do I have to get 150 hours P1.
Cheers for any info.
Adam:)

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/LASORS2...ookmarked).pdf

I won't tell you where to find it. Read, digest and learn how to use LASORS, it will save you a lot of hassle in the future.

I read the article too, but got the impression he was saying fly with a friend to a certain destination and back, one being P1 outbound, then swapping seat and P1 status for the return. Don't have the reference books with me, but wouldn't that be permissible?

Chequered flag, yes that would be fine if only one person was claiming P1 at any point in time. The quotation in my original post was taken verbatim from the article and implies that two people can simultaneously claim P1 time.

Adam, the 150hrs is total time. Any hours you have, whether PUT, P1 or P1S all count towards the 150.

Shunter cheers.
woowho only another 80 hours to go

Flyvirgin - yes, only 80 to go! If you can make as many of these P1 as you will be often asked "total time" and "P1 time". This is often why folk go to the US or abroad to "hour build".

To the rest of this thread - if you log accurately, consistently and truthfully you will always have a clear conscience and never have to worry about your log book (just like the tax return!).

Choose and stick with one of the following:

• Log in Hours:Minutes (e.g. 1:42) - will log every minute
• Log in Hours.Decimal (e.g. 1.7 for 1 hour 42 mins) - will end up with some rounding up / down

Start the timer at the same point and end it at the same point always, e.g.

1. Brakes off / Brakes on
2. Takeoff minus X minutes to landing plus X minutes (X= 6 minutes at Cabair)
3. Engine start to Engine off is another option, as technically you are in charge of the plane all the time the engine is turning!

I think Pablo's article goes on to clarify that one pilot flies to destination as P1, the other flies back as P1. I certainly read it as 'both logging P1, but not both at the same time'.

flyingman-of-kent, there is only one correct way to log flying hours and the ANO tells you how, as follows (my bold):

Article 35
(2) Particulars of each flight during which the holder of the log book acted either as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft or for the purpose of qualifying for the grant or renewal of a licence under this Order, as the case may be, shall be recorded in the log book at the end of each flight or as soon thereafter as is reasonably practicable,

Article 155
(2) An aircraft shall be deemed to be in flight:
(a) in the case of a piloted flying machine, from the moment when, after the embarkation of its crew for the purpose of taking off, it first moves under its own power until the moment when it next comes to rest after landing;

This is generally accepted as meaning from chock-to-chock.


JD
:)

yes
 

It's in this "magazine" called Go flying.

And yes Pablo is sending a WRONG message.

I can only wonder how many are now BOTH logging P1 time....


1/60

Jumbo Driver, there is perhaps another correct way to log flying hours and the ANO tells you how, as follows (my bold):

Article 155
'Pilot in Command' in relation to an aircraft means a person who for the time being is in charge of the piloting of the aircraft without being under the direction of any other pilot in the aircraft;

This is not generally accepted as meaning from chock-to-chock.

Legal docs, don't yer just luv 'em!

Yes, I understand your point - but I think that normally relates more to Long Range Heavy Crew operations.

Nonetheless, I would suggest that, however many Pilots-in-Command "for the time being" there may be, the total "flight time" will still run from "chock-to-chock".


JD
:)

There's nothing that I've read that says both pilots can't log P1 during the same leg and I think this is what Pablo may be referring to.

Example: Pilot A takes off, flies to TOC. Hands controls to Pilot B, who flies a 3 hour cruise. Pilot B then takes controls, flies the approach and lands.

Pilot A P1 = 1 hr
Pilot B P1 = 3 hr

Anybody agree?

Agreed - if the total time logged by both pilots combined is the same as the length of the sector, then fine. Clearly the issue is when the total time logged by both pilots is greater than the length of the sector.

Agree too, but it is only legal if pilot B would otherwise be legal to fly the whole flight (including TO and landing). So if B is out of currency, for instance because of the 90-day/3 landings rule, this would not be legal.

Also, pilot B has to be "in command", not just "in control". If, say, a weather diversion is needed and it's pilot A making that decision while B is at the controls, well, you can't claim that B is "in command", can you?

I regularly fly with non-pilot passengers. They may be temporarily "in control" but I'm the one who is "in command". Never mind that these passengers don't even have logbooks.

Under US regulations there are a few situations where two pilots, and sometimes even three pilots, can all log P1 simultaneously. I don't recall the exact situation but I think one case is where a post-PPL student (CPL, say) is under instruction. Both the pilot and the instructor can log P1. But do NOT take my word for this - somebody from the US can advise?

'Sharing' P1 time
 

It must be quite feasible ( and legal) if flying abroad from the UK for a NPPL to fly until the UK FIR boundary and then hand control to a PPL in the other seat and reverse the idea for the return trip (provided you are both current on the 90 day rule of course)

MM

I'm not an NPPL holder but I remember this came up a while ago and somebody pointed out, then, that an NPPL holder has to remain within x miles off the UK shoreline, or something like that. If that is closer than the FIR boundary, the switchover has to happen earlier (or later, when coming back) but the idea stays the same.

Switching PIC in-flight is still a bit dodgy though. Suppose the first P1 flies the aircraft into a situation where the second P1 is not happy. Does that second P1 accept command of the aircraft then, or does he refuse to take command? And what happens in the latter case?

Oh, and some clubs (like mine) require a pilot who wants to command/fly from the RHS to get a specific RHS checkout. Might be due to insurance reasons or just plain common sense: instruments in a typical GA aircraft are located LHS so from the RHS they're harder to read, plus you get a parallax effect. And you need to control throttle with the other hand in most aircraft.