Night flying from the run-up bay

[SayAgainSlowly]

Landed at BK last night and heard some interesting/disturbing RT.

Ground advised a 152 that there would be delays for circuits because the bank run were on instrument app's.
The 152 replied in his 'english as a second language' voice:

'Im going to stay in the run up bay with my engine running because I need night hours.'

I think ground was equally as disturbed as me.

It is pilots like this that make flying in GAAP airspace unsafe, NOT the procedures.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Not actually illegal as long as he gets airborne once.....


I've heard about this being fairly common practice in the US.

[strim]

How is it different from waiting at the hold point for 0.5 for ATC to give you a clearance?

Not saying I agree with it, but it isn't illegal if he gets airborne.

[b_sta]

If that's the kind of pilot he is, probably safer in the runup bay than in the air anyway.

[the air up there]

Maybe, just maybe with the poor grasp of the Engrish language some students have he meant to imply that he would sit and wait for a departure slot, not just sit there reading the paper for an hour.

I know this is unlikely given the rep some of these students have but it's just a possibilty.

I'm ducking just in case.

[VH-XXX]

Nobody would care, it's not like he would have had to wait long for the instrument approach to take place anyway, we're talking about a few minutes here, not an hour. Maybe he was saying what he was thinking, perhaps he thought there would be a lengthy delay and he would need to shut down which might be the disconnect.

Reminds me that I heard a story about someone once (possibly on here) on a NAV who got lost so he returned to a known airport and ran the engine for half an hour or more to pretend when he got back that he had been to the intended destination, only problem was that someone drove past whilst he was sitting there and called the instructor / owner as he was a mate of his.

[PA39]

Flight time> start up to shut down. Maintenance time> wheels off to wheels on. That guy in the 152 is only fooling him/her self.

[goldypilot]

PA 39 i think u mean aircraft movin under its own power not engine start. that is my take of the regs.

that is just a small one but i have nothing better to do with myself

[the air up there]

Anyone that seriously believes a pilot should right down the time he starts moving and not the time he starts up is being pedantic with the interpretation of the laws.

So here is another way to be pedantic. There is no definition as to how far the aircraft has to move or how it has to move. So a pilot can release and immediately reapply his brake, the aircraft moved 1/2inch, so he can start logging the hours then do his checks. Or to be even more pedantic, when starting the aircraft may change the way it sits when you start. The aircraft has moved.

Seriously, we are talking 2, 3 minutes at most. And the pilot is working so why shouldn't they log it.

[VH-XXX]

Can I start up, start logging time, taxi out, do a high speed taxi, get the wheels off the ground, taxi back in, idle for 55 minutes and write down an hour in my log book?

[megle2]

XXX - that would be a variation of the abbreviated method ( 3 take offs on a long runway ) discussed on the night recency thread!

[SayAgainSlowly]

Nobody would care, it's not like he would have had to wait long for the instrument approach to take place anyway, we're talking about a few minutes here, not an hour. Maybe he was saying what he was thinking, perhaps he thought there would be a lengthy delay and he would need to shut down which might be the disconnect


Ground told him that there would be a delay of around an hour and a half because all of the bank run were on approaches - 6 mins between each and a dozen or so coming in i spose.

[frigatebird]

Three X, Your story reminds me of one about a Bucaneer pilot once who threw his Scuba tanks in the back, and when he had dropped the pax off, dropped in on a nice reef on his way back for a bit of exploring. The only trouble was he was under the main revenue route for the company, and the Chief Pilot coming back in a Queenair saw the aircraft bobbing on the water with bubbles coming up beside it..

[the air up there]

VH-XXX, in theory that would be acceptable, as you have completed a flight, no matter how short the duration. It worked for Wilbur and and Orville.

If you can afford it/justify it to your boss then why not. Bit of a waste of .1 on the MR though as you must then must take something off the total. As for the 55 minutes after landing, that is bit excessive but I myself have been stuck and unable to cross a taxiway for 20 min as it was obstucted, am I not allowed to log that.

As for why people would sit on the ground, as stated in previous threads/posts they are only cheating themselves and may explain why some 250hr CPL's fly like 100hr PPL's. I for one, can't wait to get out of my stinking hot aircraft with a plane load of stinkers.

[Atlas Shrugged]

Can I start up, start logging time, taxi out, do a high speed taxi, get the wheels off the ground, taxi back in, idle for 55 minutes and write down an hour in my log book?

Yep, but you might have to tape the airswitch back as well ;)

[ZappBrannigan]

VH-XXX, in theory that would be acceptable, as you have completed a flight, no matter how short the duration.Do you even have to leave the ground? I know people who've logged taxi time where there was an intention to depart but return to parking was required due to technical issues/rejected takeoff etc. - the argument being the aircraft had moved under its own power for the purpose of taking off, as per the rules. I probably wouldn't do this even if it's legal - just doesn't feel like honest logging if the aircraft never leaves the ground.

[neville_nobody]

Yeah Zapp that is correct. If you taxi out have a rejected takeoff taxi back get it fixed and take off that is all loggable.

Or put it this way if you taxiied out had a rejected take off taxiied back. Got it fixed, then flew 8.0 hours and crash on your last approach what do you think CASA would say? Do you think they will ignore the first flight? Or do you think they will declare the flight illegal because you busted the 8 hour flight rule?

[tmpffisch]

Straight from the CASA website


Flight Time means, in the case of a heavier-than-air aircraft, the total time from when 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. This is synonymous with 'chock to chock', 'block to block' or 'push back to block' time.


"For the purpose of taking-off". That student could have taxied out to the runup bay, spent an hour sitting there because he was delayed by the bank runners, done one touch and go (to satisfy the 'landing' requirement) taxied back and logged the whole time.

(So Zapp, they do have to depart for it to be counted IMO)

[eternity]

Assuming that this fellow was a student conducting a flight as part of his training................

I understand that these students need night hours to pass whatever they need to pass.
I also understand that inexperienced pilots that are training can sometimes makes decisions that may not be terribly safe.
That is why student flights NEED to be authorised by an instructor.
And my understanding is that for night flying school operations a duty instructor is required.

Looking back at my days of instructing (I do actually miss it a bit), I had many situations where I canned student solo night CCTS due wx.

So my question is........if aircraft are shooting approaches to get in (and I expect this would also be reported on the ATIS), then what the hell was the instructor doing authorising this fellow for solo night CCTS in the first place??!!??!!


Can anyone else see this????? Or am I the only one?

[b_sta]

(So Zapp, they do have to depart for it to be counted IMO)I don't think that's the case. "For the purpose of taking-off" doesn't necessarily mean "inclusive of take-off". As neville_nobody said, if you taxi out for the purpose of taking off, spend half an hour holding, throttle up, reject the takeoff (for honest reasons!) and taxi back, it's all loggable, because you went out there for the purpose of taking off, even if wheels in the air didn't eventuate.

[tmpffisch]

b_sta

May I point your attention to "until the moment at which it comes to rest after landing"

[remoak]

frigatebird

Three X, Your story reminds me of one about a Bucaneer pilot once who threw his Scuba tanks in the back, and when he had dropped the pax off, dropped in on a nice reef on his way back for a bit of exploring. The only trouble was he was under the main revenue route for the company, and the Chief Pilot coming back in a Queenair saw the aircraft bobbing on the water with bubbles coming up beside it..

He went flying, then went diving, and then immediately went flying again? Did this guy have some sort of death wish? :eek:

[VH-XXX]

He went flying, then went diving, and then immediately went flying again? Did this guy have some sort of death wish? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif

Doesn't matter! he's in a float plane, he can fly home at 100ft if he wants to :ok:

[eocvictim]

I know we're all nittpicking the wording here, but why include "for the purpose of taking-off" if its intended that the flight time shall NOT be logged regardless if you DO NOT depart. If this were the case then it would only state "the total time from when the aircraft first moves under its own power until the moment at which it comes to rest after landing"

I think the intent (something that needs to be considered for ALL rules and regs) of the wording is for as previously stated, the purpose of CAO 48.1 1.4.

I know some of our pilots have waited so long at the threshold for a clearance they've had to come back for fuel. None of us are after hours anymore but you'd be mad NOT to log that for your own flight and duty records. Not to mention the flaming you'd get from the CP for not recording it.

Eternity raises a good point too, the bank runners scud into BK during some pretty crappy conditions. I certainly wouldn't be sending a student solo in those conditions.

[j3pipercub]

Eternity raises a good point too, the bank runners scud into BK during some pretty crappy conditions.

EOC, request clarification please...

[eocvictim]

They will be cleared into BK in marginal VMC. Conditions that are not conducive to VFR solo circuit training.

[the air up there]

first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking-off

Yep, also forgot to add that part. If you make it to the runup bay, have a dodgy magneto, and park and write the plane up, this is can be logged. I always felt this to be the case, and an FOI agreed as this instance happend with him in the RH seat.

eocvictim, I agree, it needs to go in your flight and duties, and hence your log book.

I am intrigued also as to why a student would be conducting circuit training at night when there are bank runners doing approaches. I'd assume that it was IMC, and not everyone choosing that night to get their recency back up. ( I hate to assume, it makes an ass out of u and me)

[das Uber Soldat]

EDIT:

Actually my entire post is useless so im deleting it. (no jokes about them all being useless) :ok:

Sending students up for solo ccts when wx requires approaches. Poor form.

[SayAgainSlowly]

Im not concerned with the legallity of logging the time spent in the bay, Im concerned with the student's attitude that hours logged sitting on the ground makes him proficient in flying under the NVFR.

And a good point was raised a few posts ago re: the instructor, because the weather and CTR status was on the ATIS, and the TAF didnt paint a pretty picture either...

[the air up there]

maybe it's a reflection on the attitude of alot of young guys out there. Thinking that hours in the logbook give them experience, not actual hands on time up in the sky. Ive heard of guys adding 10-15 the departure taxy and 10-15 on the arrival. Purely cause the next job required so many hours and they wanted them quick.

Not saying it was a good move on the instructor to send the guy up, but maybe if he had gotten up for an hours circuits then he may have learned something. Or at least more than sitting on the ground.

Maybe he knew sitting on the ground was a better option. Maybe he was just a little slow on the uptake.:}

[socks and thongs]

No approaches into BK for the bank runners last night, vis was fairly ordinary however cloud was clear at bk by 1900 so the ric4/watle4 was doing the trick. As far as I'm concerned, no prob with ccts at all.

This has nothing to do with defending old mate for his ground based night hours but more so for the instructor who let him go. Bk was more than reasonable for circuits.

By the way, just out of curiosity, when did they take the expected delay out of the ERSA for the bank runners? Seems like a silly thing to do as they still all come in every night of the week just like they always have.

[goin'flyin]

Delay for the bank runners has been gone for many many years.
About the same time the bank runners changed from being majority high performance turbo-prop aircraft to Chieftains/Aerocommanders.

How do you get visual off the RIC or WATLE star if the cloud base is 1900ft?? Isn't lowest safe on the last sector of both them 2100ft? (Just while we are nitpicking)

[socks and thongs]

Ok I can pick nits. The only change I know would be the absence of the 690, otherwise, the shrikes and pa31s have always been there. With the 2 metros in there too and I'd say not much has changed.

I must admit tower (depending on controller) are always good to the bank runners, but from a student's perspective they are no longer aware of the probable delay because this has now gone from the ersa. You may not consider a shrike or pa31 high performance but they will still very rapidly creep up on a 152 or warrior.

As for the stars, I should have been more clear. By 1900, I meant the time, not the cloud base.

[goin'flyin]

The 1900 reference makes sense now. Understood.

Unfortunately i'm showing my age a little if you think nothing much has changed on the bankstown bank running scene.

Once upon a time when Goin' was a young bloke, (I'm talking about 10-15 years ago) when the bankrunners were just about all Metro's & MU-2's.

It was entertaining watching them all come in of an evening - unfortunately the current bankrunning fleet just doesn't have the same appeal.

Now i'm feeling old :sad: - ahh the good old days.


Thread drift off.

The delays for night circuits at YSBK are insane. It is nice to taxi past the 4 - 5 aircraft sitting in the runup bay as we go straight to the holding point on an IFR departure. There was an aircraft sitting in the runup bay the other night before i departed, and it was still there when i got back almost 2 hours later, hadn't moved an inch. :yuk: