One needs to be a little careful because the exact logging entitlement varies between Euro and FAA systems, and chunks of LASORS are probably becoming irrelevant due to the vast reams of stuff oozing out of EASA.
Generally, in light GA, I think it's right to say P1=PIC.
PU/T is what you should log if flying with an instructor and you do not have the papers to legally do that particular flight (in that particular airspace class, etc) yourself. However even this varies; for example a lot (all, supposedly?) JAR-FCL training has to be logged as PU/T even if the LHS does have the papers to be legit on the actual flight (a good and weird example is JAA IR training in Class G in VMC, when the LHS already has an FAA PPL/IR, which is logged as PU/T).
P1/S is what a UK PPL student logs for a successful PPL skills test. A failed skills test is logged as PU/T.
The real Q is why we write stuff in our logbooks. One doesn't get a medal at 1000hrs. One does it for two (rational) reasons: 1) To build hours towards licenses/ratings which require certain minimum hours, and (2) The insurance gets cheaper
And also because some people seem to be drawn towards 'aviation as a theatrical activity' like moths to a flame.
The really good and experienced pilots I know personally probably haven't recorded an individual flight in 20 years. Don't ask them about their BFRs - they do have logbook entries for them ;-) I'm not one of those guys, that's for sure, but I do smile in the observation that as really profound experience accumulates they (1) don't worry about nonsense and (2) humor discussion with guys like me quite willingly.
One of those guys BTW flies for a national aerobatic team and said to me "I really learned how to fly by carrying the traffic guy around every afternoon 25 years ago as a kid. It was so boring that I experimented a lot, every variation possible on normal procedures. I learned more from that than anything else.. you should do that" I think he means it too!
I thought P1 was in charge. Pu/t is flying with an instructor acting as an instructor - which he also logs. P1s is for flight with an examiner, which is passed. I used to share a plane with an instructor. If we flew together, I logged P1, he logged nothing, and vice versa for the next leg. He was NOT flying as an instructor.
He was NOT flying as an instructor.
Would that not create an "interesting" situation if there was a crash and only the instructor died.
I don't mean you; I mean a hypothetical low-time PPL who takes an instructor as a RHS passenger.
In a civil action, the party that is looking for some £££ only needs to show, on the balance of probability, that the instructor was PIC.
This is, I believe, also a possible issue with mentoring if the mentor has instructor qualifications (CRI or higher, I guess). I have asked top people in insurance about liability of mentors generally and the reply was a straight "there isn't any" but if I was an instructor I would be uncomfortable flying as a passenger with a low-time PPL (or even some high-time PPLs) unless I was involved in the preflight stuff etc, and then I would not be a mere passenger, perhaps....
Thoughts?
Would that not create an "interesting" situation if there was a crash and only the instructor died.
I think I see where your coming from. I mentioned earlier I took a club instructor up with me as a safety pilot on the first flight after having a new engine fitted. He literally came along for a 2 hour flight and although he didnt give me any 'instruction' at all, I assumed he logged the time as P1 (could he log it as anything else in a SEP?), and he was paid the going rate via the airfield employer.
But if there was a crash, I guess it depends on whether the instructor hindered or helped the surviving pilot in that fatal landing. The surving pilot would give his account to the investigating authority but I would assume from a insurance point of view, that what the qualification or status of the other person was, is not relevant. Good question though. Does the instructor automatically become in some way more senior or even accountable just because of his qualifications?
Good question though. Does the instructor automatically become in some way more senior or even accountable just because of his qualifications?
There is actually some relevant (for FAA pilots) case law from the US on this subject. There was a case of a low hour PPL flying with an ATPL, PPL in left seat and apparently mutually agreed that the ATPL was along for the ride. Unfortunately, if memory serves me, the flight misidentified the destination airfield and landed at a restricted military field rather than the nearby civil field (oops). The ATPL was violated because he should have flagged the error.
Peter said:
The absolute maximum worth logging is 1500hrs ....
In Australia, Air Navigation Regulations require that each member of the operating crew of an aircraft keep a personal logbook in a form and manner approved by the Secretary or his Delegate.
For practicing professional pilots keeping official record of their weekend private aerial "jollies" is also required since these private flights impact on the total number of hours they are allowed to fly in a given period of time.
For practicing professional pilots keeping official record of their weekend private aerial "jollies" is also required since these private flights impact on the total number of hours they are allowed to fly in a given period of time.
A very good point, and I hear the same applies in Europe, to airline pilots.
The ATPL was violated because he should have flagged the error.
From vague recollection, there was more than one such incident in the USA.
An interesting aspect is the UK AOPA mentoring scheme.
The scheme requires both the mentor and the mentee to be paid-up AOPA members, and the mentor is required to have at least the Silver AOPA Wings Award.
AOPA took out some insurance, described here.
The advice given was that there was a risk of litigation against the more experienced flyer, even if just a friend in the right hand seat but who happens to be pilot, in the event of a accident resulting in serious injury or death.
I am not suprised they got such a reply, because if you ask a lawyer "is there any risk" the answer will nearly always be "yes" 
But my own enquiries in legal and insurance circles suggest that the PIC=PIC principle is clear and there is no case law otherwise, in Europe. I put that question to the head of UK's top aviation insurer myself. It would also hardly square with pilot privileges under ICAO - if a passenger could magically become a PIC. What, for example, if the "ATP passenger" in mm_flynn's example didn't have a valid medical?
This is just as well, otherwise no experienced pilot would ever fly RHS with anybody less experienced.
My view is that it is AOPA's acting as an introducer and a de facto vetting agency for the mentor and asking for a fee (by virtue of the joining qualifications) is what makes them liable, and the insurance is to protect AOPA first. If they didn't have the joining qualification requirement, they could be no more liable than a straight internet dating website is liable for a dodgy date.
It seems clear that none of this could possibly become relevant unless there was an accident (would AOPA's insurance protect against the "landing at the limitary airport" scenario? - clearly no; you can't insure against a criminal conviction, even if one can, or could, insure against the fine) and in a scenario where the RHS occupant gets killed but the LHS survives, it would be easy for the LHS to make some spurious claim and strip the RHS's estate.
P1 was a term used in the RAF to identify the person who was sitting in the left hand seat. P2 was the person who occupied the right hand seat. The P1 was not necessarily the PIC or even Captain, which could be two different people. Another term used was Aircraft Commander who might not be either PIC or Captain.
On a check flight the PIC was probably operating as P2
Where responsibilities were associated with a crew position it was important to ensure that inter-crew communication was directed to the correct seat. V-bomber crews operated in silence with communication between crew members preceded by the seat identification, a bit like RT communication.
The term P1, along with P2 and P3 were also defined in some older civil logbooks.
Just checked my UK Transair published logbook and it gives only the following advice...
"Enter flight time as pilot-in-command (PIC), student pilot-in-command (SPIC) and pilot-in-command under supervision (PICUS)". It says all must be listed in the PIC column. There is no mention of PUT or P1/S. What confusion... This is my 2nd logbook due to the old one being damaged, but I am sure it was a different brand, and there was mention of PUT and P1/S there.
Thankfully im not going for an ATPL as I dont think I could bear the hassle of having my logbook entries poked around at.
