Time entries for a logbook when there is no VDO

[Krazy]

So here's the deal: the hours in my logbook are based on VDO hours. However, I've just spent some time flying a plane with no VDO meter. I realise I should/could have just used a watch to work out my time, but I managed to not remember to do that every time I flew! So, what is the best/approved/correct way to record such flying time in one's logbook? The few ideas I've had are:

Use tacho time
Estimate VDO time based on a multiple of tacho
Estimate VDO time based on the small proportion of flights where I remembered to time myself and multiply by a suitable factor to compensate for the other flights


I'm really a bit unsure here, so any helpful advice would be great.

[spirax]

use your watch!

Time in the air goes in the M/R - chock to chock in your log book

:ok:

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

You'll probably find for an average taxi, runup and taxi after landing there will be a .3 difference between flight and MR time.

(Multiplying a 3 hour flight by 1.2 would mean you spent over half an hour taxiing. Don't think so.)

[rmcdonal]

(Multiplying a 3 hour flight by 1.2 would mean you spent over half an hour taxiing. Don't think so.)
unless you started in Mascot.... :E

[eocvictim]

For charter the norm is to add .2 or .3 depending on where you're flying to and from. Get used to jotting the times down though. Remember tacho is dependant on what RPM you're using too! Sometimes it can be as far out as .2 per hour... if you're clever :E

[Krazy]

Thanks for the responses guys. And yes, I know I need to make a habit of writing watch times down. Also, noting that the time I have available is tacho (not airswitch), I was wondering - at what RPM does the tacho time run at 1=1 hour? Obviously this would be different for different planes - but on what basis is it determined? (ie., would the LAME just set to to something like at the top of the green arc, 1 on the tacho = 1 hour of real time?)

[PyroTek]

What I get told to do is add 0.2 for every startup/taxi etc. so If i went for a local flight for 1.0 tacho, i'd log 1.2

flight to ... Gold coast, stop for lunch, come back, say each way was 1.0 on the tacho, i'd log 1.2 each way.

:ok:Pyro

[povopilot]

I bet you pay for 1.2 too Pyro....... Bloody flying schools.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
The law (as in LAW) is quite clear about what to log;

Blocks time (aircraft first moves under its own power etc) for the pilot log book.
Air time, wheels off to wheels on for the MR.

The Act/Regulations do not recognize any rules of thumb, as one major operator at YSBK (and owners with aircraft on line with said operator) found out to his/their very great expense, in a CASA audit.

The law requires you to have a timepiece in the aircraft, use it.

Tootle pip!!

[YPJT]

I flew an aircraft some time back with no clocks at all. I kept a sheet with four time columns on it; Engine Start / Engine Stop - that went in the log book and Wheels Off / Wheels On - that went in the MR. My trusty Casio did the rest.

It's not an unreasonable question from Krazy, if all he / she has been used to is flying school aircraft with a Hobbs meter working off oil pressure. Beware though of some operators who have them hooked up to the master switch :=

[Super Cecil]

Obviously this would be different for different planes - but on what basis is it determined? Depends do you mean these?
http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p106/Almostoldfart/Planes.jpg Or do you mean Aircraft?

[Brian Abraham]

at what RPM does the tacho time run at 1=1 hour?
Krazy, the only way you will know is to check the particular tachos part number and look up the manufacturers specs. For example see,

Untitled (http://www.mitchellproducts.com/tachometers.htm)

BTW, loved your other thread. All the best for the future.

Super Cecil, you need to get out more. :p Aircraft were called planes long before your father was a glint in his fathers eye. := Well in 1920 at least, which is the furtherest back I've bothered to research.

[goldypilot]

haha 0.3 for each landing. I am sure if i did tt my boss would fire me

[senshi]

Leadsled has it..

It has nothing to do with when you started the engines or when the engines stopped. It is Chocks Off (when the aircraft first begins to move under its own power), to Chocks On (when it comes to a stop). A lot of larger aircraft above 5,700 kg don't have any instruments indicating engine time, flight time etc, so they rely on the fitted timepiece.

Also remember VDO is just the name of the manufacturer so in some aircraft it will be called something different. Finally, if you apply 0.2 habitually, you could actually be falsifying hours (favourably or unfavourably) depending on what airport you are taxying at.

S

[LeadSled]

Folks,
The Law is the Law is the Law!!!

THE LAW on pilots logging flight hours is quite clear !!

Failure to comply with the LAW is a CRIMINAL OFFENSE ---- but perhaps that is too complex a concept for you "rule of thumb" merchants.

VDO is the name of an instrument manufacturer.
Hobbs is the name of an instrument manufacturer.

VDO/Hobbs/airswitch/master switch/oil pressure switch are all of a total irrelevance in the no small matter of the requirement to comply with the law.

Various aircraft operators practices for charging out aircraft, be they flying schools or whatever, are of a total irrelevance when it come to your obligation to comply with the LAW.

Failure to comply with the aviation law is a criminal offense, a serious matter for any pilot, in this post 9/11 world were ANY criminal action against a pilot (not even necessarily a conviction) can seriously limit your ability to travel outside Australia.

Quite apart from the fact that CASA inspectors love this subject, the "proof of the offense" is all there in writing ----- and given the reality of CASA Administrative fine system ---- log book offenses have become a "nice little earner".

So why don't you all do yourself a favour, comply with the law, and avoid all the easily avoidable but totally predictable consequences.

Tootle pip!!

[strim]

This should be taught in lesson 1 - Effects of Controls.

It's really not that hard.

Some of the questions on these forums worry me :confused:

[ZappBrannigan]

LeadSled - yep, spot on. I'm also a little worried at some of the responses from apparently working professional pilots in some recent threads. First guys logging pre-determined amounts of instrument time regardless of weather - and now pre-determined amounts of taxi time.

[AerocatS2A]

Sure LeadSled, the law is the law, however if you forgot to time a flight then you need to put something in. Logging less than your actual block time is illegal as is logging more, so the only thing to do is to put in a good faith guess. No one's going to take you to court for that as long as you're not making a habit of it.

The worst case I've heard of people using rule of thumb times was a company in NZ that was timing blocks off to blocks on and then subtracting a set amount for taxi and coming up with a dodgy flight time (resulted in some spectacularly fast Cook Straight crossings ;).) That is much worse than adding a set time to a measured flight time to obtain your log time.

[LeadSled]

No one's going to take you to court for that as long as you're not making a habit of it.

Aerowhatever,
That's not the way CASA sees it, and it is not the way the law sees it ------ and "It won't matter if I don't make a habit of it" ---- will cut no ice in an audit or ramp check --- and this is something that is routinely checked, because CASA inspectors so often get a score ---- and enough administrative fines to pay for the visit.

The best I have seen was where every non-compliant entry, ie each pilot log book entry for months, was treated separately, as a separate offense, the total was a doozy. Glad I wasn't paying the bill and copping the points ----- in this case enough for a long license suspension.

Oh!!, and by the way, a prosecution under the Crimes Act as well as penalties under the Civil Aviation Act are not unknown, as some of you who have had any dealings with CASA Compliance and Enforcement will be able to testify ---- the DPP seem to have a habit of taking whatever CASA puts up at face value.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Re. transonic crossings of Cook Straight, that wouldn't be Sounds Air, would it. Maybe it was just very strong winds that day ---- after all, 50-60 kt. is not unknown between Wellington and Picton.

[YPJT]

Aerowhatever:rolleyes:

[FRQ Charlie Bravo]

The What if game (don't worry the next post is much better... I humbly opine):

But what if you note the time as you start to taxi but then whilst taxying you get the updated ATIS and with it roll your watch forward or back to adjust and fail to note the difference. Well I may as well hand my wings in now, sell the house, cancel the holiday and turn myself in to my FOI.

Jesus some of the drivel I read here about the drivel I read here makes my head spin.:oh:

It's absolutely right that it's important to know the law (and I agree in principal with Leadsled says) but don't scare the kiddies too much. Use your judgement and try to be accurate but don't go buy a special 'block time watch' to strap onto your 'holding pattern timer'. The law is crystal clear... that's why we have judges (and to a degree juries), to allow for a bit of ambiguity, interpretation, reasonableness and good intentions.

Four spaces for times on a piece of paper (and some common sense) and you'll be right.

FRQ CB

[FRQ Charlie Bravo]

Part II

So here's another curly one. I do a CHTR from A to B to D (because the client is sick of me taking him to C) and back to A. The first leg block time was 34 minutes (0.6 hrs) the second leg was 34 minutes (0.6 hrs) and the third leg was 34 minutes (0.6 hrs). Do I log 0.6 x 3 = 1.8 or (34 x 3)/60 = 1.7?

Is Big Brother really going to throw the book at me if I choose to interpret it in the way which may benefit my logbook sum?

Take this to the Nth degree however and the obsessively prudent pilot might start logging her hours in terms of HH:MM and I suspect that her hours may drop due to the centuries old practice of rounding up when faced with an _._5 sum or product (i.e. rather than 5 flights out of 9 you'll only get to round up your current TTIS sum... maybe).

Know your Regs and don't let the bastards think that they have a god-given right to know them better than you.:ok:

~FRQ CB

[pcx]

Yes and yes.
Both cases meet the definition of flight time.

[AerocatS2A]

Ok LeadSled, rather than bleating about the law, how about you come up with something constructive, what should someone log if they find they've forgotten to time a flight?

Aerowhatever
I'm not sure what I've done to deserve that.

[Horatio Leafblower]

CAR 2 defines flight time as
the total time from the moment at which the aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking-off until the moment at which it comes to rest after landing.
(My underlining).
This perhaps infers that flight time commences at the start of the take-off roll and does not include taxi, run-ups etc at all.

However, the advice in AIC H10/99 says:

Flight time means the total time from when the aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of a flight until the moment at which it comes to rest on completion of the flight. (This is synonymous with 'chock to chock', 'block to block' or 'push back to block' time)

This clarifies the intent of CAR 2.

So taxiing the aircraft around for refuelling, parking etc is (in and of itself) not loggable.

Taxiing out (for the purpose of flight), getting to the holding point, discovering an unserviceability and taxiing back IS (in my opinion) loggable.

School I trained at nearly 20 years ago would send you off in the C150, before your first solo, over the other side of the airport to refuel, and come back. The CFI would say "log 0.2 command time for that, Ace!" := :yuk:

Tell me Leadsled, what do I do with those logbook entries (signed off by the Deputy CFI, who is now very high in Qlink) that are plainly incorrect? :ooh:

[slice]

When large aircraft are pushed back by a PPU or tug the timing (off blocks) starts from then but one could say that the A/C is not under it's own power. Usually only 2~3 minutes (sometimes more with delay for taxy clearance) but I guess it would add up over a period of time.

[LeadSled]

Clinton,

I agree with PCX.

Indeed, in the case of the unserviceability and return to blox case , QF and an associated crew was picked up by CAA (that long ago) for not logging a pushback and return to blox as flight time, when a window cracked as the window heat was turned on.

I am very familiar with the details, because I was the F/O.

The scenario you quote, all too feasible at YSBK, causes a real problem, because CASA audits look at ratios of recorded blox times and air times, and have rejected properly recorded air times (in HH:MM), after applying a "rule of thumb" ratio.

You can't win with CASA, Chapter 94477 of the never ending story.

At the other end of the scale, a pilot (around 1966) needed 4 hours more command by a nominated day, otherwise he last a job. The YSBK Wx had be atrocious for days, and on the final day, has below VFR most of the day. Said pilot "taxi'd" for four hours, got the job.

Sad but true, many organisations that hire aircraft have a concealed Hobbs or similar meter, activated by an air switch tapped into the pitot pressure line.

Tootle pip!!

[FRQ Charlie Bravo]

School I trained at nearly 20 years ago would send you off in the C150, before your first solo, over the other side of the airport to refuel, and come back. The CFI would say "log 0.2 command time for that, Ace!" := http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gif

Tell me Leadsled, what do I do with those logbook entries (signed off by the Deputy CFI, who is now very high in Qlink) that are plainly incorrect?

Well, that's a bit shonky if you ask me (and I think you agree but I'm unsure). Taxi for fuel then back is def not blox time and not loggable (a non-pilot LAME could have done that).

Also, the CFI's relationship with Qlink is totally irrelevant for two reasons:

He/She was not in Qlink at the time
being "very high in Qlink" doesn't make anyone more right.What an anticlimactic way to get your first solo.:(

FRQ CB

[Krazy]

Well thanks to the people on here who are able to read and comprehend my question (namely that I wanted to know what to do AFTER THE FACT of not having written down the times) and provide me with some useful advice. To all those dimwits who like the sound of their own voice (or the sight of their own typing), instead of crapping on for hours on here and paying the crap out of others who really don't give two hoots what you say, log yourselves into a Unix box and type "echo 'your crap here' > /dev/null" Seriously people!

[Checkboard]

Sad but true, many organisations that hire aircraft have a concealed Hobbs or similar meter, activated by an air switch tapped into the pitot pressure line.
An unofficial modification to a primary instrument source?! When it would be so much easier to use an electrical source?! Rubbish. :hmm:

[PyroTek]

Unix box and type "echo 'your crap here' > /dev/null" Seriously people!
Something along the lines of "sudo rm -rf" would float my boat more.

Anyway: I was not aware of specific laws about this. Will have a look! :ok:

[Horatio Leafblower]

I think you agree but I'm unsure

Put your mind at rest, I think so too. There are about 20 entries in my logbook that (as a CP/CFI/ATO) I believe are dodgy and were made at the behest of others more qualified (at the time) than me. The local CASA office photocopied my logbooks in their entirety when I applied for my ATPL in 2001, so if they were going to have a go it would have been before now.

the DCFI's relationship with Qlink is totally irrelevant
...yeah sure but the old DCFI is a good person who only did as they were told.

They had trained at the same school as they worked at and had never had outside experience. Beware the inbred GA operation!!! :eek:

[frigatebird]

That was a pretty harsh post, Krazy. After we had been encouraging you on another thread. Just ignore the bulls..ters as you identify them.
You have a lot to learn yet !

[LeadSled]

Ok LeadSled, rather than bleating about the law, how about you come up with something constructive, what should someone log if they find they've forgotten to time a flight?All,
Have any of you even thought about why we even bother to log hours, with criminal penalties for non-compliance ---- or is it just a hangover from the military beginnings of civil aviation in Australia, and the continued dominance of CASA by the "Wing Commander's Club".

It is instructive to look at US practice: Essentially, nobody has to log flight hours, unless they are claiming credit for recency, or other license and qualifications, and then only enough to meet the minimum requirements. Anything additional is individual choice.

Where a notice of limitations is involved --- flight and duty times under FARs 121/125/135, the Certificate Holder has to keep the records.

Naturally, records of air time are still required for maintenance records. FAA Acceptable Means of Compliance lays down a number of alternative (in a quite flexible way) methods for recording both flight time and air time, where required.

There is simply no evidence to suggest that Australia criminalizing essentially administrative chores of little to nil importance, has had the slightest beneficial air safety outcome.

But it sure as hell keeps a whole bunch busily employed.

Krazy, you sound like such a nice chap, must be a pleasure flying with you. Just what sort of answer did you expect, to a question to which there is no legal answer, which I rather suspect you knew all along.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Checkboard,
Who said anything about "unofficial modifications", whatever they might be. Do you understand how an air switch might activate a Hobbs or similar ---- a meter which doesn't care where the power supply comes --- be it connected to the master switch, an oil pressure switch or a squat switch.
I have personally investigated a number of cases where an aircraft hirer was disconnecting the tachos at the first away landing. When confronted with the evidence from the concealed Hobbs meter, plus Airservices records and fuel records, said hirer found themselves in a very uncomfortable position.

I might also point out that only one of the cases involved private hire --- think about it.

[senshi]

I have personally investigated a number of cases where...

LeadSled, if you do work for CASA, that would explain the long-winded, regulatory based diatribes that you continue to write.

Again, the DG&P forum descends to worthless slander.

S

[Horatio Leafblower]

Senshi

Who has been slandered? :confused:

[Stationair8]

Many moons ago a number of operators north of Victoria and south of Queensland, used standard flight times for there RPT route. That's what went on the M/R and .1 got added to that figure for the pilots logbook and flight and duty sheet. Holding at Bindook was not included on the M/R or pilots flight time, very convient for all parties concerned apart from the pilots who were paid on a casual basis. Funny how it was never picked up on CASA audit for many years!

Another operator for M/R time used to use depature time a/beam the field or five miles from the field, and arrival time was joining downwind.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

LeadSled, if you do work for CASA, that would explain the long-winded, regulatory based diatribes that you continue to write

To quote Leadsled:

There is simply no evidence to suggest that Australia criminalizing essentially administrative chores of little to nil importance, has had the slightest beneficial air safety outcome. But it sure as hell keeps a whole bunch busily employed.

Doesn't particularly look like the words of a CASA person to me!

Dr :8

[LeadSled]

senshi,
Fear not, I don't and have never worked for CASA. The investigations, with which I have been involved, all concern operators/owners who have been the victims of criminal fraud.

What I do come across repeatedly, is the the surprise of many pilots who have had the same cavalier approach to the aviation law AS IT IS, as is illustrated in many posts on this thread.

When they are confronted with the fact that the system/courts are very unforgiving of breaches of aviation law, pleading ignorance of the law cuts no ice, whether it is a matter that will be handled by an Administrative Fine and loss of points or go to a full court hearing.

The sad thing is that, in most cases it is just as easy to it "to do it the right way than the wrong way" --- but laziness/ignorance/contempt for the law rules, until it hits you, and maybe your career, for a six.

Tootle pip!!

[AerocatS2A]

So do you have a constructive suggestion for the OP or not? What, in your opinion, should he put in his log book?

[eocvictim]

I still think you miss the point here, what do you propose Krazy do after the fact? He's already stated that he should have noted the times and will do so in the future but neglected to do so in this instance. He cant log Tacho, he has no exact chock to chock time so what does he do?

Those who commented have given advice on what he can use, this time, based on previous experience with flight time to log time comparison.

[senshi]

Ok Lead,

Sorry in that case.. (taking cover!) I can't see what the big fuss is though. Most GPS units (the IFR ones anyway) will actually tell you the flight time. Is it that hard to get an off/on blocks time to accompany this??

S

[pcx]

When I first saw the original post in this thread I thought " how the hell does something that should be simple become so complicated". Surely common sense should prevail.
Then I watched some of the replies and I realised that it is not that simple.
There are many pilots out there who just do not know or understand the rules regarding logging of flight time and lots of other rules also. It seems that the question should be WHY?. Lack of education ad training maybe. That does not really seem to be the case. Our industry has theory exam pass mark requirements of at least 70% and in some cases 80% with the requirement in some cases for the ATO to bring this up to 100% based on the candidates KDR. There is not an educational instution in the world that I am aware of that requires 100%. I believe that 50% is a pass in a lot of uni courses. So it seems that the problem should not be one of education.
So that leaves interpretation.
In this case, I have had a fixed view on the definition of flight time for many years. This view is what was taught to me and has been discussed with a number of FOI's and industry people over the years. ie. from brakes released to brakes set. This includes any time at holding points etc and also if you taxi with the "intent" of taking off but return for some reason. This does not include taxying to the bowser or for maintenance or repositioning. Now, Leadsled points out a possible flaw in my reasoning. He is quite possibly correct. Having said that I would be happy to defend my interpretation in front of a magistrate if necessary. So interpretation becomes the issue.
I understand that the criminal code includes a provision along the lines of "if you have an honest and genuine belief that what you did was not illegal' then you could not be convicted. I am not a lawyer and will happily stand to be corrected.
My point is that I believe that my interpretation is correct and any flight time that I log in these circumstances is legitimate.
Likewise I believe that if the OP, under the circumstances, logs flight time that he genuinely believes is accurate and provided it is not manifestly wrong, then he should not have anything to worry about.
Now comes the problem. My approach is one that I believe to be legal and above all practical. Unfortunately the next person, specifically a CASA person, may disagree. In fact if you were to approach 10 different FOI's for an opinion on this you will get multiple answers. If they can't agree, how can we be expected to know the answer. Indeed professional lawyers can and do get into arguments over what a particular piece of legislation means.
The problem is that we have a real problem with our legislation. The rules are spread out between many separate documents. Act Regs CAO's AIP Flight and Maintenance Manuals etc. Now we have the increasing tendency for some people, CASA included, to state the "requirements of the CAAP". A CAAP is an advisory publication but it seems to be encroaching on legislative territory.
So what am I saying here.
We have a disgracefull set of legislation and regulation that we pilots and engineers as well as other aviation professionals have to interpret. We are essentially practical people who have to try to sort out this mishmash of legislation and apply it in a practical safe legal way.
The best that we can do, is do out best, be honest in our professional lives and hold our heads up. If we inadvertantly make an honest and genuine mistake then so be it, but I do not believe that any Magistrate will view this to seriously.

[The Green Goblin]

So to summarize all the dribble on here.

Pilot Logbook:

Chocks off to chocks on, whether you fly or have intent to fly but return to the bay due to a number of reasons.

MR:

Wheels off to wheels on

If you miss timing the flight, you should still have a departure time on your flight plan and an arrival time. Add 0.3 for an IFR flight or 0.1 for a VFR flight for each landing you conducted.

For future reference always log a off chocks, wheels off, wheels on, on chocks.

So I gather you have a flying job Krazy?

[Benjamin James]

So how is CASA going to argue that what I log, for this arguement 6 minutes to taxi and do run up's is not the correct time?

I always start the clock as is interpreted above, from brakes off to brakes on but what if CASA decide to that my time is incorrect? How are they or I going to prove how long it took to taxi 6 years ago :confused:

BTW, I find it's generally .1 or .2 over the MR time, which makes sense, 6 minutes to taxi, warm the engine, do a run-up and then wait for a clear runway. Then 3 minutes to taxi and shutdown.

[werbil]

Not a lawyer, but I'm with Clinton on this one as you can't come to a complete stop after landing if you haven't actually taken off. To me the logical answer (not the legal one) is that you should only log from first moving ... until the decision not to take off is made. Once you've decided to return to the gate/ramp/hanger you are no longer taxiing under your own power for the purpose of take off.

However this makes for an interesting conundrum for us barefoot pilots - does a seaplane ever truly come to rest on the water? Leadsled your thoughts?

[LeadSled]

pcx,

Unfortunately, most of our aviation regulations (breaches of) are strict liability offenses, the prosecution does not have to establish "mens rea", the guilty mind, intent to do the thing.

All that has to be proven is the thing was done, why or why not plays no part.

The only defense to a strict liability offense is "honest and reasonable mistake", and it is a very high test ---- effectively something beyond your control ---- which precludes ignorance or forgetfulness.

I most certainly agree about the regulatory shambles, it has been this way since the early 1980's and accelerating post 1988, the formation of CASA. Continual fiddling about, as a result of the changing demands of the A-Gs is only making it worse. Have a look on other threads about Clinton's views on the subject.

The old Air Navigation Act and Air Navigation Regulations were, by comparison, simple and relatively easy to understand.

No other country in the English speaking world has the problems with aviation regulation, that seems to have beset Australia. NZ and Canada are standout examples of modern (reformed) aviation legislation.

Tootle pip!!

[rutan around]

Krazy asked what tacho RPM was required to make the tacho hour equal an hour on your watch. A few years ago I timed a C210M with an IO520 engine. 2,400 rpm exactly equalled 1 hour on the watch. Less revs and naturally an hour on the watch passed before the tacho read an hour (57.5 min on the tacho at 2,300 rpm) and of course more revs and the tacho read
62.5 mins at 2500 revs, after 1 hr on the watch.

CASA would earn more brownie points if they concentrated their minds on simplifying rules for things like the topics dealt with in this thread. Surely they shouldn't be upset if a pilot under-reported his log book hours or over-reported the aircraft hours.

Using 2,400 revs as a true reading of 1 hour on a typical flight to 10,000 ft, a 6 minute taxi to the line-up point would read 3 mins on the tacho if you used 1200 revs. The climb to 10,000 ft at 2,750 revs for 20 mins would over-read by 2.9 mins. Pretty close to spot-on, I reckon.
Tacho time is pretty hard to fudge and is not subject to too many mathematical errors.

[eocvictim]

Roxy_Chick_1989, Yes you can. Now lets not let this end up in an over square argument guys! :ok:

[YPJT]

Now lets not let this end up in an over square argument guys!
just when we thought this bun fight had run out of puff :eek:
nooooo you can't run over square ecovictim, every young CPL and aero club bar dweller will tell you that you will blow cylinders. :ugh: Never mind what the flight manual says.

[Torres]

I am very familiar with the details, because I was the F/O.

Window heat in the DC2 or DH84A? :}

LeadSled, if you do work for CASA, that would explain the long-winded, regulatory based diatribes that you continue to write.

Now, that gem has to be the PPRuNe quote of the week! I would not think LeadSled would be a very welcome visitor to CASA's Fort Fumble! :} :}

Some years ago, due to a pilot addition error, an aircraft over-ran a 100 Hrly inspection by 3.5 hours. The error was detected by the Maintenance Controller and corrections and explanation made to the maintenance records at the time of the 100 Hrly inspection.

300 plus flying hours and six months later during a CASA audit, they discovered the correcting entry on both the MR and aircraft Log Book. CASA issued an NCN due to the aircraft exceeding it's approved 100 hours time in service, which ultimately became part of a matter before the AAT.

As Clinton and LeadSled would both remember. :hmm:

[Frank Arouet]

Sometimes diplomacy overcomes prejudices.

As The Dalai Lama was welcomed to Australia, Leadsled is welcomed to the inner sanctum of CASA. One of the few who still have doors open to them without being a sychophant.

An historical pity that many have not capitalised on for their constituents. Mainly because of their own petty political prejudices.:(

[Frank Arouet]

Notwithstanding the above, and at geat risk that I will be attacked by vested money interests, I am of the opinion that "tacho time" is a "fair" representation of what should be written in the pilots log book.

It is also a fair representation of which the aircraft and/ or instructor should be charged out at an flying hourly rate.

I believe this to have legal merit. (but then, I'm not a Lawyer).:)

[Krazy]

So I gather you have a flying job Krazy?

I do. Thanks for asking. It's part time, but it gives me the enjoyment and pleasure I've been seeking. In the mean time I am also continuing with a desk job which gives me the income to live off (though not quite as much enjoyment!)

Someone also mentioned get the time off the GPS - very good point. Unfortunately the plane I fly doesn't have one.

However, like all good engineers I came up with my solution using a spreadsheet. I looked at later flights which I did time properly and analysed the radio of tacho time to clock time, as well as the average 'additional' clock time over tacho time for similar type flights. I then used those averages to backfill for my previous flights.

My question was never really asked from a legal point of view, more just from a "rather than me guessing, lets see what more experienced people do when they've had similar situations."

Cheers guys! (and gals)