Originally Posted by
BillieBob
As a matter of fact, they have. According to the 'Policy Section' of the Licensing and Training Standards Department (what used to be PLD), the CAA will not accept as valid towards the issue or revalidation/renewal of any licence or rating any 'flight time' when the aircraft has not left the ground.
You are, of course, entitled to record anything you wish in your personal logbook, provided that you at least record the minimum required by Article 79 of the ANO. However, any time recorded when the aircraft did not leave the ground is as worthless as time spent sipping G&T in the comfy seats down the back.
I can sort of go one better than that. Circa 1997 or 1998 I was a witness in a CAA prosecution in Stirling Sherrif's court. A local idjit had bought a second hand microlight in Exchange and Mart, and he and his friend decided to get in and taxi up and down the park in the middle of the town for kicks. This had the obvious effect of annoying and p*****g off most of the locals who were trying to enjoy the peace on a sunny Saturday (they don't get many up there).
Then the idjit's friend got out, and idjit continued to do the same on his own, at the same speed. The microlight being much lighter, it got airborne - and not having the faintest clue about how to fly, idjot did the obvious thing - which was crash into the tree in somebody's garden next to the park.
The police turned up, arrested him and impounded what was left of the aircraft as evidence. In consultation with CAA enforcement branch, the local Procurator Fiscal charged the idjit with:
- Flying as captain of an aircraft which did not hold a Cof A or permit
- Flying captain of an aircraft without holding a valid pilots licence
- Flying as captain of an aircraft without holding a current medical certificate
- Being a pillock and danger to the general public (I'm sure there's some legal phrase for this, but that's what it amounted to).
Idjit decided to conduct his own defence, which because he clearly enjoyed the sound of his own voice stretched this out to 4 days in the Sherrif's court at public expense. However, he concentrated on the issue of a flight starting when an aircraft moves under it's own power
with the intention of flight.
Now here's the interesting bit - he convinced the jury that he was not guilty of the first three charges. The reason being that he proved he had no intention of flying (on the grounds that he knew nothing about flying and would probably kill himself), and thus it was not legally a flight - because of the lack of intention, and despite there clearly being air (and a fence)! under the tyres.
(You'll however be glad to know that he was convicted of the last charge, and having been cross-questioned by him for something like 90 minutes I can't say I had much sympathy for the character).
So that at-least demonstrated what a flight wasn't. If you take the reverse, then it can reasonably be argued that it is a flight, if the captain intended to make one, even if the aircraft never left the ground.
Maybe.
G