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.

Is there not a situation where the total P1 time can exceed the sector time? For instance, if the pilot flying is regaining currency, under the supervision of a current and qualified pilot (who is therefore 'in command'), then can the pilot flying not claim P1 (actually P1/S), and the supervising pilot also claim P1?

Straight off the top of my head, with a mixture of JAA/FAA (and other) experience. So it might be a bit mixed up and I stand ready to be corrected.

Hours
 

TT wrote:
If the P1 is regaining currency he would not be able to assume command at any time of the flight and log the hours unless the other person is a current FI.( nothing preventing him having a little 'drive' but it will not make him current).You cannot carry passengers unless you are current (90 days and all that) so at least one of the other people on board has to be a FI qualified to instruct on that class of a/c.
Note for all the FI's here-when instructing,how do you log your personal hours-just curious?

MM

Just been able to check FARs (it has been a while since I used my FAA license). FAR 61-51 covers this:

Note the requirement is to be rated or to have priveleges, NOT to be current.

and significantly:

So I stand by my original premise that in these circumstances the pilot regaining currency, being the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he/she is rated or has privileges, is entitled to log P1. From the above, the instructor will also log P1, so the total P1 time will indeed exceed the sector time.

Similarly, during a routine proficiency check (FAR 61.58), the flying pilot will normally be current to begin with, so is definitely entitled to claim P1 as the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft. Instructor can also claim P1.

This is FAR remember, not JAR. Anyone disagree?

Well the FAA is different to the JAA or CAA.

You can log under the FARs whatever they say you can, but don't expect the CAA to recognise those hours.

The FARs also allow one to log "performing the duties of PIC" as PIC. In this case, for example a ME commercial rating, where you NEED 10 hrs of ME PIC (I think, something like that anyway) and the FAA realise that no school in their right mind will let someone "solo" a ME without a rating, or rent a ME having just gained the rating. So they allow someone who performs ALL of the duties of PIC to log PIC despite not having a rating and despite having a FI sat alongside them.

Let's develop this a bit further, and JAA this time:

JAR–FCL 1.080 Recording of flight time:

: Really helpful! :ugh:

and as with FARs:

So I fly a proficiency test with an instructor. I am flying the aeroplane, I am current (rating has not yet expired) and qualified. I log PiC for the entire trip. This is what I have always done, and I do not believe it to be immoral or illegal.

Question though is what does the instructor log. If he is acting as an instructor, then he logs PiC. But is a proficiency check instructional flying? I have spoken to three (JAA) instructors in the last hour and they all log this as PiC (and all agree that the pilot undergoing the check can do the same.

So, FAR, or JAR, I still maintain my position. Total PiC time CAN exceed the sector time.

If you mean the one hour out of twelve that you need to fly with an instructor for your revalidation by experience, you have to log it as a lesson (P/UT, which goes in the Dual column), otherwise it is not counted as a lesson and cannot be used for your revalidation by experience. The instructor logs P1 and the instructor needs to countersign your logbook.

If it's a club check or something else, then you have to decide up front who logs P1. If you log P1, the instructor logs nothing. If the instructor logs P1, you can log P/UT.

At least, that's how I understand it.

JARs also make provision for "Student PIC" which can be logged as "PIC" by the student, and is by definition (something like) a flight where the student fulfills all of the obligations and actions that would normally be fulfilled by the PIC of an aircraft but does so under the supervision of an instructor who must also countersign the logbook entry.

This was not something that was in force (neither were JARs) when I trained, so I had no experience of this. I then moved to RIXland and started spending part of my time working in training and examinations - Now I am confronted by students (even pre-solo) who have PIC time .... go figure that one out!!!

Can someone tell me if this SPIC is something that is being used now in the UK?

As for the division of flight time in something that is single crew, it depends. My understanding is that you can legally relinquish control and command to another suitably qualified (this means in currency including 3to/landings) pilot however it is likely that you will have not fulfilled your obligations if you are in a club AC, as the stated AC commander will probably be already signed as such in the tech log - how do you bring the tech log up to date when it is on the ground and you can only have one nominated commander?

I remember something like 20 years ago in the UK, reading an article about the division of flight responsibilities in single pilot AC. This stated that you are within your rights to divide responsibilities (e.g. one of you does the navs and rads), but only provided that person is qualified and current to fly the type and even then, there is no possibility for that 2nd pilot to log the time other than in "any other flight" with no holder's capacity.

RIX

SPIC can only be used by a student on an integrated course.

I agree totally. There is some precedent for this too, in cases where e.g. an instructor flies as a passenger for a bit, and the training part of the flight starts outside the UK airspace boundary.

Well, yes but that is totally irrelevant to legality of the flight. That is just [non]compliance with some club rule, and might impact an insurance claim. I would assume that if there was a prang, the PIC in the club records would accept responsibility even if somebody else was actually on the controls. But one cannot guarantee human integrity in the face of adversity or poverty :)

So, stated above is: -

"Sec. 61.51

Pilot logbooks.

(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time.

(1) A sport, recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person—

(i) Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated or has privileges;"

With the fear of opening a HUGE can of worms... how does this relate to the 90 day rule and a "Safety Pilot"

There has been a huge amount of debate as to whether or not a PPL in the RHS is a passenger or not, and although I can not find the quotes, I am fairly sure the CAA conclusion is that a RHS PPL is a passenger in a single crew aircraft.

So this paragraph seems to allow a 90 day current PPL to take an aircraft into the air and hand control to a non 90 day current PPL to fly ciruicts as it only has the privelidge not currency statement.

I think this would be a good way forward for safety.

Mixing up U.S. FAA with UK CAA rules?

There are several ways to log P1 for both pilots.

One of them is when an instrument rated pilot practice IFR (to gain IFR currency), he/she wears a IFR hood and simulates IFR condition while the other safty pilot provides look-out. In this case, they can both log P1 (not sure which type of P1 though).

Another one is when you are an airline pilot (or at least comerial). Captain and First officer share legs for experience. e.g. outbound leg, PF:Captain is P1 while PNF: FO is P2, inbound leg, PF: FO is P1US while PNF: Captain is still P1. In fact the captain is still in comand regardless who is flying.
(not entirely sure about this case)

again people are mixing up CAA (JAA) and FAA rules. This question is about the CAA and JAA as far as I understand it.

Yes in the USA system you can both log PIC when doing instrument training (but note the requirements....).
No in JAALand you cannot. End of story. In fact in the UK you do not even need a PPL in the RHS as safety pilot, whereas in the USA you MUST have a licenced and rated safety pilot.