Plain English

[JP1]

I see that in a thread below (or maybe above now!) someone has quoted a section out of LASORS..

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;


Why the plethora of clauses that convolute the text so as to make understanding so difficult to comprehend. (not necessarily in the above though) Is it that over time amendments have been made to close abuses or unintended interpretations of the regulation?


So to the above extract:-

1) "in the case of a piloted flying machine" ..... Have pilots been logging P1 for pilot-less aircraft :confused:

2) "for the purpose of taking off" ..... Pilots were logging P1 for moving the aircraft under it's own power when there was no intention of taking off.

And the one I really like.

3) "from the moment when, after the embarkation of its crew"..... So have we had a crew member logging P1 when he was not actually in the aircraft?? Co-pilot start-up taxis out, Captain joins him at the threshold. :confused:

[BackPacker]

3) "from the moment when, after the embarkation of its crew"..... So have we had a crew member logging P1 when he was not actually in the aircraft?? Co-pilot start-up taxis out, Captain joins him at the threshold.

Ah, no. The co-pilot logs P1 for the taxi bit. You can hardly be "in command" if you're not in the aircraft, can you (unless it's a pilotless, radio-controlled aircraft)?

Question is, during that taxi bit, was the co-pilot PF or PNF?


Personally, I've been involved in another interesting scenario. Taxiing out for my first solo and the aircraft failing its runup checks at the hold, so taxi back to the school to had the engineers take a look. I had moved the aircraft with the intention of taking off, so legal to log P1. My second first solo actually got me into the air (and safely down).

There's also a bunch of interesting scenarios where the pilot hand-swings the prop but forgot the chocks or brakes so the aircraft starts taxiing, or even taking off, on its own. How do you log that?

[Whirlygig]

2) "for the purpose of taking off" ..... Pilots were logging P1 for moving the aircraft under it's own power when there was no intention of taking off.
Ground runs? Engineering testing?

Someone, somewhere will always think of a loophole and that is why all rules, legislation and regulations are written in this manner. Spend enough time reading this sort of English, and you get used to it! LASORS isn't too bad; try some of the Taxes Acts!!

Cheers

Whirls

[Jumbo Driver]

I see that in a thread below (or maybe above now!) someone has quoted a section out of LASORS..

I don't wish to detract from your argument JP1 ... but the quote is from Article 155 of the ANO, and not from LASORS ...

JD
;)

[Jumbo Driver]

How does this work for helicopters? Does the rotor going around equal the machine moving under it's own power, or does it mean when you actually lift?

For helicopters, Hooloovoo, the relevant paragraph (ANO) is

Article 35

3) For the purposes of this article, a helicopter shall be deemed to be in flight from the moment the helicopter first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking off until the rotors are next stopped.

JD
:)

[Jumbo Driver]

... oh dear ... such pedantry, Hooloovoo ...

The licence you hold (I assume) is to fly a helicopter - and not part of a helicopter - so I would guess it means when the whole helicopter moves under its own power ... but I may be wrong ...

In my humble opinion, it means when the helicopter moves under its own power, i.e ground taxy, air taxy, lift, or whatever it does to itself to physically displace itself from its previous position, for the eventual purpose of taking off ...

To employ "plain English" one must assume some "common sense", surely ... ? Or perhaps the current wording is an attempt to pre-empt mischievous interpretations such as yours ... !


JD
;)

[BackPacker]

I always thought helicopters did not move under their own power but were repelled by the earth for being so ugly...:confused:

Another question. I have heard that, amongst others, Heathrow may be going to be experimenting with using tugs to take the aircraft from the apron to the hold, and then starting the aircrafts engines only at the hold. Environmental concerns such as fuel consumption, noise etc. are the reason for this. In this case, the aircraft is not moving under it's own power, but it is moving with the intention of taking off, and there is a pilot in command. How to log this?

[Jumbo Driver]

Whether or not your assertion that everyone flying an R22 has illegally logged time in their book! is correct (and I rather doubt it), I still think your interpretation of the law is wrong in this regard. The fact that "everyone does it" doesn't necessarily make it correct.

Why don't you try and clarify it with the CAA? I wish you luck ... ;) but I confess I really can't get excited about it ... :bored:


JD
:)

[Jumbo Driver]

I'm not trying to have anything both ways - maybe you are, tho' ...

I suppose if you are hours building in an R22, you would hardly want to seek a clarification of something which would be to your disadvantage, would you?

JD
:bored:

[LH2]

Is it that over time amendments have been made to close abuses or unintended interpretations of the regulation?

Funny how this kind of ties in with a comment of mine posted on a different thread (http://http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/346852-intereuropean-light-aircraft-ferry-flight.html#post4486391) a few days ago.

I think it's just what the customer demands.

[Jumbo Driver]

Sure you are. You're saying you doubt that the worldwide recognised way to log R22 time is illegal, and yet my interpretation of the relevant rule is still wrong.

On the contrary, Hooloovoo, please re-read my post - you have misunderstood me. I expressed doubt about you being correct in your assertion that everyone flying an R22 has illegally logged time in their book! because I can't believe everyone logs the time the way you say, as it seems contrary to the wording of Article 35. I was not expressing doubt that they could be wrong.

Put simply, my point remains that to start logging time from "rotors running" is not in accordance with ANO Article 35, whether or not it is, as you claim, "the worldwide recognised way".

I really think this point has run its course, as we are clearly not going to agree ...


JD
:bored:

[Jumbo Driver]

I see some irony in the fact that I have not made myself clear to you in an earlier post on this topic, entitled as it is "Plain English". :confused:

Equally, I am not sure what lesson is to be learned from this - however maybe it should simply discourage me from further postings on this point..? :hmm:

On this basis, I will return to lurking on this thread ... and also now on Rotorheads, maybe ...

JD
;)

[BRL]

Just copied it to Rotorheads... :)

[Bravo73]

Arghhh, BRL. Hooloovoo has just started another thread (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/348786-when-do-you-start-logging-time.html) with the same question in mind. We've now got the same thread effectively running in triplicate...

[BRL]

Never mind, it will give the lazy rotorheads mob something to do...... :D

[Bravo73]

http://www.mtorque.co.uk/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/default/lolwsign.gif

[JP1]

Ok, now that the rotorhead discussion has moved...

Would anyone log P1 (or other flavours) before embarkation onto/into the aircraft, if not explicity excluded by the ANO. :confused:

[Whirlygig]

Never mind, it will give the lazy rotorheads mob something to do......
You mean while we're sitting waiting for the rotor blades to stop turning in windy conditions?

Cheers

Whirls

[AMEandPPL]

Someone, somewhere will always think of a loophole and that is why all rules, legislation and regulations are written in this manner

No loophole required on this one . . . . . . I become P1 when engine is started (ie I am in the aeroplane, in LHS) . . . . . . . my P1 time ends when I park the aeroplane and shut down the engine. Could not be simpler.

[Whirlygig]

Sorry but do you mean your flight time ends when you park the aeroplane or when you stop the engine because the two may not necessarily happen at the same time!!

So you see, the word "and" will not mean the same thing to all people and the law has to cover all eventualities.

Cheers

Whirls

[AMEandPPL]

the law has to cover all eventualities

Of course it does. Sorry to have intruded, you just go on propping up the bar (as it says in your profile) .

I'll just go on flying as I was taught so well, using common sense and good airmanship. I find that's enough . . . . . . . .

[Whirlygig]

Unfortunately, the law and common sense are very strange bedfellows!

Cheers

Whirls