Logbook Allowances

[Filthy]

Hello All,

Can anyone tell me the definative allowances that may be added to military logbook times to factor in the taxi time etc allowed with the civil sector.

Thanks

[WannaBeCiv]

See Appendix B to Section A of LASORS2007 where it is all explained.

For Tucano/Hawk/Tornado, the flight time supplement is 10 min per flight.
For Display Flying, it is only 5 min per flight.

Recording of Military Flying Times –

Taxi-time allowances

It is normal practice for pilots in civil aviation to record their flying hours on a “chock-to-chock” basis. However, UK military flight crew are required only to record “airborne” time – this practice being linked to Service engineering procedures and is unlikely to change.

The CAA has always been aware of this discrepancy, and of the fact that it led to Service pilots being slightly disadvantaged compared to their civilian colleagues
when they left the Services.

In recognition of this, the CAA worked with the MOD (Training Policy Unit) to devise a system that would give some credit for military taxi times.

The system that was decided upon was the taxi-assessment system. The Service pilot adds a taxi-time allowance (see table 1 below) to each sector flown as entered in his Service logbook - the taxi-time allowance being dependant on the type of sortie flown by the pilot. The taxi-time allowances built up throughout a career are then entered into a table (see table 2 below) to arrive at a total for their career. Prior to leaving the Services this table should be placed in the pilot’s logbook and signed by his last Squadron Commander.

Please note that this arrangement cannot be used for CAA licence issue purposes.

It should be emphasised that when canvassed, most UK airlines said they were aware of the discrepancy between the Service and CAA method of recording flying hours, and took this into account in the recruitment process. Where this is the case, any hours calculated by the individual Service pilot in excess of 75 hours should be taken into account by the individual airline.

The taxi-time allowance that the CAA is prepared to recognise for licence issue purposes is 5% of the total military “airborne” hours up to a maximum credit of 75
hours for ATPL(A) issue and 10 hours for CPL(A) issue. This corresponds to the average amount of taxi hours credited for civil pilots under the “chock to chock” system. When the Service pilot submits his application for licence issue, this taxi-time allowance (where required to meet minimum experience requirements) may be added to the recorded military airborne hours and the new total declared on the application form. Effectively it will mean that a military pilot will be required, inter alia, to acquire 1425 hours of military “airborne” flight time for ATPL(A) issue and 190.5 hours for CPL(A) issue.

Note: this allowance cannot be used to satisfy the eligibility requirements for any of the QSP licence accreditation schemes detailed elsewhere in this publication (LASORS).

Stolen from BEagle in this thread: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=292827

for full info see LASORS http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/SECTION%20D.pdf

EDIT: Sorry link seems to be wrong one and I see you are a herc mate http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/LASORS_07.pdf should work and Multi engine transport aircraft is 15 mins per sector.

[brit bus driver]

Be careful. I don't have LASORS in front of me so happy to be proved wrong, but don't think you can use taxi time towards the 1500 hrs P1 requirement for licence exemption. Mind you, it soon adds up; I added over 250 hrs to my total!!

[MrBernoulli]

I added 447 hrs 20 mins to mine ............... but I already had the licence so it didn't really matter!:ok:


In case anyone here wishes to know the sortie taxy times:

Fixed Wing Training Aircraft - 10 mins
Fast Jets - 10 Mins
Mult-engined Transport Aircraft -15 mins
Display Flying - 5 mins
Wheeled Helicopter (Airfield Operations) - 5 mins
Wheeled Helicopter (Field Operations) - None
Skidded Helicopters - None
Aircraft Carrier Operations - None

[Dan Winterland]

LASORS say that 5% may be added to the total for licence issue, therefore only 1425 hrs are required. It also used to state that taying hours should be declared as such and should not be added to aircraft totals to look like they are flying time. This is particualry relevant if applying to a non JAR airline as some operators don't recognise military taxy time.

One way round it is to keep a separate civilian logbook recording blocks times and not airborne times. This will make a significant difference in most cases as the times mentioned by Mr Bernoulli are based on a minimum time assumed spent taxying. The longest ground time I have ever spent was a few minutes short of two hours!

Mr Bernoulli, we obviously had similar careers. I added 448 taxying hours to my CV!

[BEagle]

Please note that this arrangement cannot be used for CAA licence issue purposes.

Means what it says - it does not count towards the 'experienced QSP' accreditation described in LASORS D3.3.

I agree with Dan - I logged everything in a civil logbook from chox-chox as well as keeping military hours in my military logbook. Then sent the civil one in for my ATPL issue. Not that hours were a factor by then.

So those 'Ar$ecoat departure messages' did at least have one use - chox times for the civil logbook, take-off and landing for the mil one.

[Brain Potter]

I don't understand why the RAF continue to insist that pilots log flying hours this way. The actual flight time recorded in the F700 is used for engineering purposes and some sqns also derive stats from auth sheet entries. However, I see no reason why chock-to-chock times shouldn't be recorded in log books, giving the pilot due credit for being in charge of an ac moving under it's own power. As far as I'm aware no-one then subsequently cross refers to log books to produce any other stats - do they? If necessary, one of the spare columns on the auth sheet could be used to record chock-to-chock times for audit purpose, or we could simply adopt the CAA credit for each flight when completing the log book.

Whilst this topic is trivial in isolation, it is perhaps symptomatic of a wider issue. We have several out-of-step practices, such as RT and altimeter setting, that do have their own merits but start to look decidedly anachronistic as we become a relatively smaller player. I firmly believe that adoption of common practices carries greater benefit than the minor irritation of getting used to doing things everyone else's way and, except where absolutely necessary, we should swim with the tide.

[MrBernoulli]

Nice idea Brain ........... but try to get those dyed-in-the-wool MoD types and Ivory-Tower dwellers to move their posteriors on that would be like trying to persuade the USA that eating less lard and using far less gasoline is a good thing!

[Roland Pulfrew]

I don't understand why the RAF continue to insist that pilots log flying hours this way

Perhaps something to do with the fact that we log flying hours? Not taxi time?!?!:rolleyes:;)

[airborne_artist]

Perhaps something to do with the fact that we log flying hours? Not taxi time?!?!

The CAA regs log control time - the Captain is still responsible under the ANO when the a/c is taxying.

[rmac]

No doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I am led to understand that in civil long haul operations the PIC logs time, even when lying flat on the crew rest bunk, as he/she is still "in command of the aircraft".

Instructors log time for sitting in the seat, when they may never actually touch the controls.

Short haul pilots will do multi sectors in the same time a long haul one drinks coffee and keeps an eye on the dials while the A/P cruises the aircraft halfway round the world.

Surely logged time is very subjective as a means to assess experience ?

[Brain Potter]

Roland,

The reality is that the RAF do not allow pilots to claim credit for a phase of aircraft operation that requires just as much care as any other. Accidents whilst taxiing are just as serious and seem to actually bring more wrath down on the perpetrators than mistakes made elsewhere.

Your rationale for this situation seems to be - we only claim flying hours because.....we only claim flying hours.

I'm afraid that such logic and the "we've always done it that way" mentality feature highly amongst the reasons that we are still lumbered with all the other RAF-isms that unnecessarily separate us from the way that the rest of the world operate aircraft.

[Roland Pulfrew]

AA

As you say - CAA not military!

BP

Does it really matter? I do not deny that the taxy phase requires just as much care, and if you are taxying your small military aircraft around a major international airport, probably more!!

As to just because the CAA do it that way is that really enough reason for the RAF to change the way they have always done business? To me you are arguing for one of those "change for changes sake" situations. Do the RAF need to change they way they do business? What is the benefit? None. Unless you want to argue that it makes it easier for RAF pilots to gain a few extra hours in the log book - which we are all entitled to when applying for a licence anyway!! Anyone who has done a half decent length of time in the RAF will have racked up more than enough hours not to worry about it!! ;)

[BEagle]

However, the RAF does at least log 'IF' properly - both simulated and actual.

Whereas the Eurocrats have people logging 'IFR time'......:hmm:

[Dan Winterland]

Sod the hours, think of the pay! With my current employer, we're paid by the hour. At about a quid a minute overtime - it counts! (BTW, my flights todays netted 53 minutes taxying).

[Brain Potter]

Roland,

Yes I agree that this issue by itself is trivial - although I don't know why anyone wouldn't be in favour of crediting pilots with experience that the vast majority of aviation regards as perfectly legitimate. I simply feel that it highlights the whole issue of us retaining our parochial practices.

Instrument minima, RT, altimeter setting procedures, fire and rescue cover etc are all areas where we do things differently. I am not suggesting that there is no legitimacy to the differences, it's just that they all add up to make it more awkward for others to operate with us and for our people to adjust accordingly whenever they go elsewhere.

I accept that the "change for change's sake" argument has validity but it does depend on your perspective. Rationalizing RT to match CAP413 might seem an unnecessary burden to QFIs at training bases but it would have direct benefits in improving interoperability/deployability for the front-line. As an example - do we really need to be reminded to perform checklists by ATC? They won't do it in sandy places.

[MrBernoulli]

Yes, I have to agree that this JAR (?) bolleaux about logging IFR is just so pointless - its a record of .............. nothing! I still log IF, as I did in the military.

I also take exception to folk logging time when in the bunk. I guess one might (:rolleyes:) be able to make a case for the aircraft Captain, but everybody else? Bolleaux again! Its against the company SOP's for one, but nobody seems to give a sh!te or check up on it. Me? I don't feel the need to fill the logbook with pointless collected numbers ........................

[BEagle]

Surely the only time worth logging 'in the bunk' is when one is enjoying some deep and meaningful quality relaxation time with a trolley tart?

And before anyone says that 'trolley tart' is non-PC, the person who told me about the title was a delightful little ba toastie.......





.....with a penchant for little black lacy things, as I was to find out later :E!!



Very little............aarrrgghhh, Nurse, fetch more bromide tea!

[Dan Winterland]

According to LASORS, bunk time can only be logged by the commander. F/Os log time spent in the seat, but if on relief command - its's P1.

[Brain Potter]

How is bunk time treated with respect to flight time limits and your contracted hours? I'm guessing that these are independent of what you record in your log book.

I'm sure I read something about a middle-east airline that doesn't count bunk time towards any flight time limits.

[brit bus driver]

Canadian Forces log chock to chock. Had I ever been in the position of having had an exchange tour, I would have played the white man (can you still say that?) and not claimed taxi time allowance for those 3 years.

RT discrepancies are in hand, or so I'm told; at the very least, the ivory towers are aware of the issue - or so I'm led to believe. Ditto altimetry.:ok:

[BEagle]

When FIS, RIS and RAS become 'Basic', 'Traffic' and 'Deconfliction' in the not too distant future would seem a good time to ditch things like "Roll" and "Overshoot"?

But will "Final, gear down" ever go?

For those old fossils flying very old turboprops, "Finals, gear checked" was binned over 15 years ago, by the way.

Don't tell me the RAF is going to have yet another flirt with QNH in the visual circuit....:rolleyes:

[brit bus driver]

We can but hope....

Let's face it, must be quite tiresome winding on QFE at Kandahar, for example!

Reminds me of the time I was on the pan at Asmara and 2 Hunters called up ATC for the QFE! Man in tower most confused....needless to say they landed with QNH!

[Brain Potter]

But will "Final, gear down" ever go?
I don't know why the military make it plural, but the JSP says Finals.
I would welcome RT in line with CAP 413, which should sort that one out.
However...

edited: to avoid starting a QFE/QNH debate.

[Chewbacca's co-pilot]

LASORS clearly states the additional hours that can be added to one's total flying time to take into account the difference between military and civilian rules.

However, can we also factor P1 day/P1 night/Captain totals? An extra 300 hours P1 would probably be beneficial on the CV.

Thanks in advance for the reply.:ok:

CCP

[BEagle]

I see your point. However, I don't think that the day/night split would be of huge interest to a prospective employer - but pilot-in-command time and ME pilot-in-command-under-supervision time probably would.

Thus if, say, you described your aircraft types on the Table 2 form shown in LASORS 2008 (.pdf page 77 of 684) as, for example, Tutor PIC, Tutor dual, Tucano PIC, Tucano dual, Hawk PIC, Hawk dual, Tornado PIC, Tornnado dual and totted up the sorties under each heading, you would have a more useful breakdown of taxy-time allowance for CV purposes.

However, for ME aircraft such as C130, I would suggest describing aircraft types as C130 PIC for captain time, C130 PIC U/S for 'P1 non-captain' time and C130 'other' for any dual or co-pilot time. A right royal PITA to work out though! For Nimrod, '1st Pilot (P1)' time is regarded as PIC time, '2nd Pilot (P1)' time is regarded as PIC U/S and '2nd pilot (P2)' as 'co-pilot'.

[Dan Winterland]

CCP. Did you get your name from an old instructor of yours? If so, PM me.

Dad!

[Torque limited]

Don't lets get started about non-standard logging of hours.

For example RAF CH & ME pilots in Afghanistan will log ALL the time from first lift, until shutting down, even if they spend a large proportion of their time refuelling, or wheels down at BSN. KAF or a FOB.

A RN SK pilot will fly the same programme as their crab counterparts, but will often log much much less, as they only log AIBORNE time.

I have had many days where the crabs would run out of crew duty having logged 8/10 hrs flying, when in fact their matelot colleagues who have been flying with them all day have only logged 6/7 and thus can still continue to fly, even though they've both been strapped to their seats for the same amount of time.

Absolutely barking. Someone decide which way is right, and lets all do the same thing, especially as we all come under JHC and the same rules....

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

what about all those hours on 10 or 5 or 2 minute alert for all AD types? Freezing or boiling our n*ts off as the season/hour dictated.
"157!"
"157 wot, Nav?"
"157 cross-head screws in the back cockpit. I'm going to count the slotheads now!"
:zzz:

[BEagle]

I have had many days where the crabs would run out of crew duty having logged 8/10 hrs flying, when in fact their matelot colleagues who have been flying with them all day have only logged 6/7 and thus can still continue to fly, even though they've both been strapped to their seats for the same amount of time.

Commonsense, a commodity lacking in certain forces, would dictate that, once again, the fishy folk have got things wrong.....

A first post and you're bent on internecine comment. How appropriate that fish is often served with chips....mayhap on the shoulder?

[Chewbacca's co-pilot]

BEagle,

Thank you very much for the reply. - I think factoring P1 hours is within the spirit of the CAA rules. Shame LASORS isn't a bit clearer on the finer detail. - I'm a fast-jet mate so I need all the hours & mins I can get! At least it shouldn't take too long to add them all up!

Dan Winterland,

I think you have a crossed line somewhere in your brain! I am pretty sure we are not related, unless I am misunderstanding your banter. - My old friend Darth Vader used to keep muttering similar rumblings about being related to me too. (Brother's Sister's Uncle's former room mate or something!)

Urrrrrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhh

Chewy:E

[Something witty]

Quote:
I have had many days where the crabs would run out of crew duty having logged 8/10 hrs flying, when in fact their matelot colleagues who have been flying with them all day have only logged 6/7 and thus can still continue to fly, even though they've both been strapped to their seats for the same amount of time.

Commonsense, a commodity lacking in certain forces, would dictate that, once again, the fishy folk have got things wrong.....

Beags, quite where have we 'Fishy Folk' got it wrong? What' is this 'once again'? Where have we previously showed daftness? (not that we are immune from doing so you understand, like anyone else) The blokes on the ground are in a far worse position than we are with far less sleep, more privations and in far more danger; they require our capability, it is our job to provide it in the best and most efficient means possible whilst maintaining an appropriate margin for safety.

Our common sense dictates that, given that RW hours here are severely limited by higher and that we in the RN have always recorded airborne time it seems wise to continue this - firstly it's what we've always done and secondly we might have half a dozen or more pax/refuels of 10 minutes plus - that's an hour straight away for a quiet day. If we log chock-chock then we will add another 1-3 hrs per tasking line per day and these are hours that then can not be used to support those on the ground. I'm not paid to accrue BA / Virgin tokens as fast as possible, I am paid to move blokes, water, ammo and kit by air because by doing so the body count is lower and the severely injured are fewer.

Perhaps you think we lack common sense since we are seeing ourselves off with fewer hours and longer on the poles? Maybe we are but I somehow feel happier doing that, providing a better service to others in need, rather than thinking of how I can better serve myself.

Edited for mong punctuation...

[BEagle]

Regrettably, some people regard the concept of Crew Duty Time as a challenge to their can-do spirit and manhood. This is an outdated and frankly dangerous attitude and leads to lip service being paid to cumulative fatigue risks. There is bugger-all point in pressing for another trip in support of the lads on the ground if you subsequently pile in on landing...

Hence my view is that someone claiming to have operated for 7 hours in the same epoch that a colleague has claimed to operate for 10 is setting a very dangerous precedent. It isn't clever and no-one gives a stuff how it appears in a personal flying logbook, the issue is whether the 7 is as accurate a representation of cumulative fatigue as the 10. What would be the effect of the 'extra 3'....?

[thegypsy]

Chewbacca's co-pilot

I would guess that Bananas had an Instructor who chewed tobacco and he wondered whether you had the same one once hence your pprune name. Just a guess and I might be totally bananas. Perhaps he also called everyone Dad?

I don't think Bananas thinks you are a long lost relative!

[BEagle]

Chewbacca's co-pilot, what Dan W meant was do you recall having someone like this QFI'ing from the back of a Chipmunk when you were at EFTS:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/DW.jpg

Hi Dan.....;)!

[Chewbacca's co-pilot]

Ah, a bit low-average from me, soz. My choice of name is out of respect for the great walking carpet from Star Wars. The only bloke I knew in training who properly knew how to chew tobacco was a legendary A10 driver on exchange from the USAF...and he did look remarkably like the chap in BEagle's picture!

:)

CCP

[Torque limited]

Quote:
I have had many days where the crabs would run out of crew duty having logged 8/10 hrs flying, when in fact their matelot colleagues who have been flying with them all day have only logged 6/7 and thus can still continue to fly, even though they've both been strapped to their seats for the same amount of time.

Commonsense, a commodity lacking in certain forces, would dictate that, once again, the fishy folk have got things wrong.....

Beags, quite where have we 'Fishy Folk' got it wrong? What' is this 'once again'? Where have we previously showed daftness? (not that we are immune from doing so you understand, like anyone else) The blokes on the ground are in a far worse position than we are with far less sleep, more privations and in far more danger; they require our capability, it is our job to provide it in the best and most efficient means possible whilst maintaining an appropriate margin for safety.

Our common sense dictates that, given that RW hours here are severely limited by higher and that we in the RN have always recorded airborne time it seems wise to continue this - firstly it's what we've always done and secondly we might have half a dozen or more pax/refuels of 10 minutes plus - that's an hour straight away for a quiet day. If we log chock-chock then we will add another 1-3 hrs per tasking line per day and these are hours that then can not be used to support those on the ground. I'm not paid to accrue BA / Virgin tokens as fast as possible, I am paid to move blokes, water, ammo and kit by air because by doing so the body count is lower and the severely injured are fewer.

Perhaps you think we lack common sense since we are seeing ourselves off with fewer hours and longer on the poles? Maybe we are but I somehow feel happier doing that, providing a better service to others in need, rather than thinking of how I can better serve myself.

Edited for mong punctuation...

BEAGLE:

Regrettably, some people regard the concept of Crew Duty Time as a challenge to their can-do spirit and manhood. This is an outdated and frankly dangerous attitude and leads to lip service being paid to cumulative fatigue risks. There is bugger-all point in pressing for another trip in support of the lads on the ground if you subsequently pile in on landing...

Hence my view is that someone claiming to have operated for 7 hours in the same epoch that a colleague has claimed to operate for 10 is setting a very dangerous precedent. It isn't clever and no-one gives a stuff how it appears in a personal flying logbook, the issue is whether the 7 is as accurate a representation of cumulative fatigue as the 10. What would be the effect of the 'extra 3'....?

Beagle - I'm afraid i agree with 'Something Witty' 100%. Crew duty in terms of flying hour is 8 max, 10 with Command extension, more in exceptional circumstances, and total crew duty time 14 hours, 16 with command extension, and again more in extremis is normal in theatre.

My point is that some of our crab brethren will be well within their 14 hour rest crew duty time, and they will NOT support the troops on the ground further because they say they have flown their maximum 8 hrs per day (even though maybe 90 minutes of this has been sat on the deck at BSN waiting for a re-fuel or waiting for further orders)...

BEAGLE - Crew duty time is not a challenge. Do the blokes sat on the deck (that we are trying to support form the air) wrap their hand in after they have been working for 8 hours?

The point is, and as I made very clear in my first post - why do diffent units within JHC have very dissimilar rules for logging flying hours. I read, about 6 months ago, a new draft of the JHC FOB to draw a line in the soil about this, to make our crab sisters tow the sensible line about only logging airborne time, (not time from first burning and turning to shutting down) and what happened?

What happened was that a massive stink was kicked up by some old and bold light blue who decided that because this was the way we had always done business, then we should continue to do so.

IS IT ANY WONDER ROYAL AND PONGO KNOW THEY CAN ALWAYS RELY ON THE RN TO GET THEM OUT OF THE S**T?

[Something witty]

Regrettably, some people regard the concept of Crew Duty Time as a challenge to their can-do spirit and manhood. This is an outdated and frankly dangerous attitude and leads to lip service being paid to cumulative fatigue risks. There is bugger-all point in pressing for another trip in support of the lads on the ground if you subsequently pile in on landing...

Hence my view is that someone claiming to have operated for 7 hours in the same epoch that a colleague has claimed to operate for 10 is setting a very dangerous precedent. It isn't clever and no-one gives a stuff how it appears in a personal flying logbook, the issue is whether the 7 is as accurate a representation of cumulative fatigue as the 10. What would be the effect of the 'extra 3'....?

There are two issues at stake here - first is the one I discussed in my first response, that of the logging of hours airbourne vs chock-chock and its affect on the hours available to effective tasking. Anyone using common sense would, I hope, appreciate where we are coming from.

The second issue is that of crew duty as discussed by yourself and Torque Limited.

Crew duty is something like speeding. Hit the kid that runs out 5 yards in front with you 1mph below the limit and you are ok, 1 mph above and speed was a factor, indeed, you were dangerous driving. Spear in after 7hrs58 min and you're safe. 8hrs 05? Outside crew duty and therefore guilty!

The idea that we are all ok to fly for up to 8hrs but not after is clearly drivel. It is certainly based on statistics I am sure however there will always be crews that unfortunatly prang both inside and outside their crew duty. Aside from financial reasons there is no imperative to fly outside of duty for civis. In the Forces there is often good reason to consider it. Note I said 'consider,' that is distinctly different from 'do it.'

This is an outdated and frankly dangerous attitude and leads to lip service being paid to cumulative fatigue risks.

I beg to differ. Whilst there is always the possibility of just ignoring the limits from what I have seen it works somewhat differently. We always aim to stay within crew duty but for various reasons this is not always the case. Why? Tasking changes, cabs break, weather causes delays, cabs spear in, troops are in contact, ammunition runs out... **** happens.

So - you say we run out of crew duty and call STOP! Fine. That is safe, it saves us and the a/c. It is entirely correct wrt Flight Safety. How about those in need? Those for whom we exist to serve? Should we not consider their position? We are in HM Forces, we are paid to take risk day to day, we are paid to take difficult and dangerous decisions. We are paid to balance risks.

Adopting the PC moral high ground and quoting the rules is all very well, it is easy, you are surely unassailable? However, it is also intellectualy lazy and reduces our capability. I firmly belive in the concept of crew duty - why? Because its a line in the sand. You cross it only after thought and consideration. Once beyond it you are put mentaly on a higher state of alert than you might otherwise be. It is a hole in your cheese... but only one. It is your cue to review the situation. Are we still fit? Is the task really necessary? Is there another asset / crew better placed? What if the blokes don't get this? How are they and their ops affected? Is the met good / bad / worsening? Harry black or gin-pigs? How is the cab - carrying minor snags or tip-top? What have I and my crew done in the last few days? Are they happy? Are those holes lining up?! At the board of inquiry will they say I was foolish and guilty or that I made a considered and understandable decision in light of the operational circumstances and was just unlucky?
If Human Factors only reared it's tragic head when we went outside of crew duty then we would stick to the duty and all be safe. It doesn't. Thats why we all have Human Factors training, why Flight Safety is drummed into us and why religeously sticking to crew duty and ignoring everything else will not ensure your survival. Military aviation is about risk - considered taking, mitigating and knowing when to stop. There is bugger-all point in pressing for another trip in support of the lads on the ground if you subsequently pile in on landing...

I agree entirely, that is why we do not pay lip service to crew duty, we use our common sense and good judgment and break crew duty only if we consider the balance of risks favorable.