Logging taxi time for aborted flight

[The500man]

Just wondering if anyone knows for certain whether I should log taxi time for an aborted flight? I had a look at the UK ANO but I couldn't find the answer to my question.

What actually happened was having checked the nearest airports METAR, I taxied a C172 out for circuits at an A/G airfield, at which point calling ready for departure the radio operator passed me a suface wind of 16 knots, 90 degrees to the runway. Since my checkout instructor gave me a 15 knot maximum for a crosswind I decided to taxi back and park.

If anyone can point me toward the relevant legislation that covers this I'd greatly appreciate it.

[Ryan5252]

You're P1 and so you are logging P1 time during the taxi. As long as you were the sole manipulator of the controls this time is fine to log. You will obviously need to leave a note in the remark section to explain why T/O, LDG has been left blank.

At least this is my understanding of the situation. :ok:

[sapperkenno]

...so what happens if you go out for a trip solo, as PIC/P1, then on your return the wind is a steady 15+kts right across the runway? Are you not supposed to land, because your "check out instructor" says he's limiting you to 15kts?! What is the max demonstrated for the type?

You could have waited at the hold until they gave a more favourable wind :eek: and then departed!

As it is generally regarded as "flight time", it would seem odd if someone could sit on the apron with the engine running and the Hobbs ticking away, or do a bit of taxiing practice, and count all of this time as flight time. I think that as long as a flight takes place somewhere between taxiing and parking, you can log it all... but would you want to?



PS: I found all the gubbins below from google....

+++++++++++++++++++

Flight Time – FAA – ICAO – JAR

Flight Time

Typically refers to block time, i.e. chocks-away to chocks-under, which includes taxi time plus airborne time, i.e. wheels-off to wheels-on.

FAA Definition

FAA Regulations (14 CFR 1.1) defines flight time as “block time” as follows:
(1) Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing; or

(2) For a glider without self-launch capability, pilot time that commences when the glider is towed for the purpose of flight and ends when the glider comes to rest after landing.

ICAO Annex 1 Definition:

Flight time — aeroplanes. The total time from the moment an aeroplane first moves for the purpose of taking off until the moment it finally comes to rest at the end of the flight.

Note — Flight time as here defined is synonymous with the term “block to block” time or “chock to chock” time in general usage which is measured from the time an aeroplane first moves for the purpose of taking off until it finally stops at the end of the flight.

JAR-FCL 1.001 Definition:

The total time from the moment an aircraft first moves for the purpose of taking off until the moment it finally comes to rest at the end of the flight.

[tmmorris]

...which means that yes you can log it (as you taxied with the intention of flying).

I once logged a trip which went to the holding point - rough running on one mag, flight aborted - and back to the flying school again...

Tim

[Ryan5252]

...so what happens if you go out for a trip solo, as PIC/P1, then on your return the wind is a steady 15+kts right across the runway? Are you not supposed to land, because your "check out instructor" says he's limiting you to 15kts?! What is the max demonstrated for the type?Take-offs are optional, landings are not! Instructors and clubs often set their own guidelines regarding acceptable weather minimums. This may be more stringent than the POH and therefore the demonstrated cross wind component per the POH is not of concern if it is 15kts or greater.

You could have waited at the hold until they gave a more favourable wind http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif and then departed!At who's expense? To hire an aircraft is costing around £2.50/minute! Also, aside from obvious financial considerations do you really think it is wise to sit and wait for marginal weather before committing to flight? It is likely that things will deteriorate after take off.

[josher]

if you are using chocks off to chocks on as your logged 'flying time' just fill it in with a note inthe RH column but unless you are scambling for your 12 hours why agonise over it.

[oscarisapc]

Can't be done unless the intention to fly which is when the clock starts (brakes off) culminates in a landing which is when the clock stops (brakes on). If you didn't go flying you can't make a landing and so you can't count the time at all. I agree that it probably doesn't matter much in the general scheme of things (how long was actually spent at the hold?) and it is very annoying when the flight school or whatever still charges you for a flight that didn't take place. Better to ignore it than have your application for a licence rejected because of a discrepancy in hours.

[The500man]

Thanks for the replies guys, I'll log it P1 with a comment.

...so what happens if you go out for a trip solo, as PIC/P1, then on your return the wind is a steady 15+kts right across the runway? Are you not supposed to land, because your "check out instructor" says he's limiting you to 15kts?! What is the max demonstrated for the type?@ sapperkenno. I would land if the surface crosswind was 15 knots or less. However if it were greater than I would go somewhere else to land or ask for a different runway if available. If you would land anyway well that's upto you.

FYI
The maximum allowable crosswind velocity is dependent on pilot capability as well as aircraft limitations. With average pilot technique, direct crosswinds of 15 knots can be handled with safety.This is from the Cessna manual.

[peter272]

I have to ask why you would want to log a non-flight. It doesn't count in any meaningful way.

I have had many occasions (some with an instructor on board) where we turned back at the hold. It could be due to weather or the aircraft had gone tech. I never thought of recording it in my logbook if the wheels hadn't lifted.

I think the quotes mentioned

ICAO Annex 1 Definition:

Flight time — aeroplanes. The total time from the moment an aeroplane first moves for the purpose of taking off until the moment it finally comes to rest at the end of the flight.

This implies that a flight should have taken place to log the time. It you turn back, it obviously didn't.

[Human Factor]

Flight time is "Brakes Off" to "Brakes On" in civilian parlance. Therefore, technically it counts as a flight. In the commercial world, if you return to stand after moving under your own power, it counts as a sector in terms of the operation and technically also counts as a sector for FTL purposes. In theory, the same should apply to a private operation.

...first moves for the purpose of taking off...

The implication is that you intend to fly, not that you actually fly. If you have to return due to a technical problem (say), it counts as a flight - or at least it does in the commercial world.

PS: The500man, good decision. :ok:

Edit: A stage further (once again in the commercial world) - If you were to "remote hold" (ie. taxi from the stand to wait for a slot), this holding time must be deducted from the actual block time (brakes off to brakes on).

Another edit (only smaller): What's this obsession with logging hours anyway? Surely one flies for fun, not to prove anything. If you're counting hours for a licence, you can log them but they won't count unless they're meaningful.

[Anonystude]

Surely...

(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;

(Art 155 of the ANO) implies that unless you get airborne enough to land you were never in flight and thus can't log anything?

[J.A.F.O.]

Technically, yes you can.

Realistically, oh come on?

[Halfbaked_Boy]

Oh for gawd's sake, just log it as a 'local' flight, or 'XXXX' to 'XXXX'. It's quite plausible you may have taken off, flown around for ten or fifteen minutes, seen the 'weather' and landed again.

Mind you, I'd be influenced by a couple of things - if you're still training, don't log it, as somebody else mentioned, it's not 'meaningful'. If you're qualified, nobody's ever going to check it, and ultimately it's another ten (presumably free) minutes in the old logbook.

[BackPacker]

I once logged a trip which went to the holding point - rough running on one mag, flight aborted - and back to the flying school again...

That actually happened on my first solo. So I can claim two first solos - one where I intended to fly and one where I actually got into the air. (And the third first solo was last year in a glider.)

Anyway, I'm with the crowd that says that legally you can claim the flight since you moved the aircraft under its own power for the purpose of taking off. That you never took off due to weather or a tech issue is not really relevant. But I'm also with the crowd that says: why bother?

In my case, my first first solo was kindly not charged by the flight school, so it never appeared in my log book. But another flight where I taxied to the hold, then got carb ice during taxi (!) due to a squall line moving through and decided to head back to the clubhouse, did generate a tacho tick and was charged by the club so I did put it in my logbook. With a remark "aborted flight due to wx".

Anyway, better safe than sorry. You can always abort the flight right until the moment your wheels leave the ground, and should so if you have any doubts about being able to complete it successfully.

[sapperkenno]

At who's expense? To hire an aircraft is costing around £2.50/minute! Also, aside from obvious financial considerations do you really think it is wise to sit and wait for marginal weather before committing to flight? It is likely that things will deteriorate after take off.

You were the one who started up and taxied out, presumably after checking that the wind would be within your personal limits (looking at a windsock, asking someone on the desk before you hired their aircraft, asking an instructor, calling the tower) and making sure that you could safely conduct the flight in the first place. Weather can improve as well as deteriorate. If something is "likely" to happen, would it not be forewarned, and you would have picked up on it in the pre-flight stage?? If you asked someone with local knowledge, looked at some nearby TAFs etc, then although it may not have seemed possible at the time, after 30mins-1 hour, it could be a totally different scenario.

I'm NOT knocking you, as in the end, you made a decision which was safe, and you didn't upset your club and/or break any club rules, or think you knew better than the instructor who signed you off. You also had the discipline to say "No", so good on you. If it looked "marginal" before you even walked out to the aircraft though, then there's only really you to blame for not leaving it 'til another time and saving the money you spent sat on the ground with the engine running. Could you not have asked for the wind from the A/G as soon as you'd started up?

As far as logging the time, I wouldn't be happy logging such a thing towards my "hours", as it's worthless as far as the flying and the experience side of things is concerned. I think you should take it on the chin that you didn't fly, and just put it down to experience. Flying is all about learning, and this should be a good lesson to you on pre-flight planning. So just think, you now have this experience first-hand, and it will help you in future.

What would benefit you more... 15 mins of time logged actually flying, such as practicing touch and goes in strong crosswinds sat alongside a competent pilot... or 15 mins of p1ssing about taxiing around and holding..?? Unfortunately, it does cost a lot of money to hire an aircraft, and that's just the nature of the beast.

So quite rightly, when you're forking out £££ to hire, then this happens, you're going to want the time that you paid for. But do you really think that a flight that isn't, should be logged as such!? I don't, cuz that's just daft. :E

[Fuji Abound]

For goodness sake, I can't begin to count the number of occasions on which I've taxied back to parking without ever taking off, and frankly I don't think I'd be able to cope with the barrage of p**s take I'd get from the boys if I tried to LOG it!

Which is a worry.

[BackPacker]

I wouldn't be happy logging such a thing towards my "hours", as it's worthless as far as the flying and the experience side of things is concerned.

Actually, having the guts to abort a flight when you've started up and taxied all the way to the hold, is probably a very valuable experience.

Fortunately I don't hold an instructor or examiner rating, but if I would and I would need to review other peoples logbooks, I would love to see one or two 10-minute "flights" where no take-offs and landings took place. Because it would show me that somebody has the guts to say "no" even when 99% of the preparation to go flying has been done.

[Ryan5252]

@sapperkenno, you seem to have quoted my text but your reply seems addressed to the OP, which wasn't me. No big deal, just wanted to clear it up.

To the OP, I think the consensus is that technically and legally it seems you can log the 'flight'. Also, it would have to be logged in the aircraft's tech log but not sure if that helps you. As to whether or not you 'should' log the time I suppose is your decision alone. Personally, I think anything 10mins or more is worth logging especially if I happened to be charged by the club (which is entirely reasonable).

Whether or not it is acceptable for the purpose of licence issue is grey but I feel a one off isn't going to make a difference and can't see your application being declined for this alone. If this is for PPL training, you are not likely to send off for your licence with exactly 45 hours which includes the aborted flight.

As to the interpretation of the ANO specifically
Flight time — aeroplanes. The total time from the moment an aeroplane first moves for the purpose of taking off until the moment it finally comes to rest at the end of the flight.
I believe that for the CAA or any examiner to disregard any flight time explicit references should be made available from the relevant sections of legislation and as such, I personally, would not accept to be penalized for something implied by the ANO. I agree that 'flight' implies the aircraft having left the surface, but honestly, there are much more worthwhile worries to concern yourself with.
Log it or not, it's your call but after you decide move on to other things.

PS, very well done for sound decision making.

[Big Pistons Forever]

At some point common sense as to enter into the equation. I think it is obvious you have to do some flying before you can have a flight. Even if you can twist the rules to somehow find a legal rational it is still silly. Life is not fair and some days you get right to the hold point and you cannot take off. That day goes into the "sucks to be you" column and you move on. As an instructor, if I saw non flying flights logged I would immedately wonder what other liberties he/she had taken with how they logged time

I also think that the commercial example is not very usefull as movement of the aircraft has to be accounted for in order to manage cost assignment and turbine engines often must account for start cycles even if no takeoff was performed. However none of this ever shows up as pilot flight hours, just block or duty hours

[Pilot DAR]

Realistically, oh come on?

I'm with JAFO, and Big Pistons on this...

Were I to hire a pilot, I would not be looking for that last 0.2 hours in the log book of total experience. I would be looking for a person who was honest about the flying experience they had. We will always give you some credit for some time not logged, which was spent operating an aircraft on the ground. We'd rather that you not take more credit for this that you're due...

[Ryan5252]

That's absolutely cast iron, concrete evidence on which basis an examiner can refuse to accept taxy time as 'flight time'. If there ain't a take-off, and there ain't a landing, there ain't a flight. I stand corrected. "...until the moment when it next comes to rest after landing;" It's the reference to a landing that screws me on this one im afraid! However, not nit-picking as I agree 100% with your comments but it would appear that there seems to be slight disadvantage to fixed wing in the ANO;

(5) For the purposes of this article, a helicopter is 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.

Ryan :}

[Big Pistons Forever]

On a related note I met a guy last year who kept a flying diary. I thought it was a smashing idea as he started with his first flying lesson and made observations, comments, posted pictures and momentos of most of his flights since then. Almost 20 years later he now has an invaluable record of the kinds of things that make flying special.....and will never show up in the bald one line entries of an official pilot logbook.

Sounds like the perfect place to note the day you were all ready to fly but holding short thought better of it and packed it in.......

[Big Pistons Forever]

not nit-picking as I agree 100% with your comments but it would appear that there seems to be slight disadvantage to fixed wing in the ANO;



Maybe that would be because almost all helicopters have skids and so to move they have to leave the ground which therefore requires the pilot to actually fly during their flight, a concept you seem to have difficulty understanding :rolleyes:

[Ryan5252]

Maybe that would be because almost all helicopters have skids and so to move they have to leave the ground which therefore requires the pilot to actually fly during their flight, a concept you seem to have difficulty understanding

"almost all helicopters have skids" Not all Helicopters have skids, as you seem to be aware - and therein lies the slight disadvantage I referred to. Thanks again for yet another 'productive' comment :ugh:

To put your mind to rest, as a pilot I have a sufficient knowledge of the definition of flight.

[Big Pistons Forever]

To put your mind to rest, as a pilot I have a sufficient knowledge of the definition of flight.

Yes I guess you do thanks to Airbus38 pointing out why your quote and opinion in post # 21 was wrong.

The good news is even silly topics like this one can provide new pilots with good information on topics they probably would never have thought to examine on their own. There always seems to be a lot of good info on the private pilot forum thanks to many contributors who are experts in their own fields, including many very experienced PPL's.

[Tinstaafl]

I find it interesting how many of the 'can log the taxi time even if no flight occurred' group paid attention to the initial part of the logging rules ie '...taxi for the purposes of flight...' but ignored the last bit: '...until comes to rest after landing'.

[Pilot DAR]

to move they have to leave the ground which therefore requires the pilot to actually fly during their flight

Well.... I, for one, am guilty of a certain amount of sliding around on the skids, trying to figure out where the pedals should be held to keep it straight, while power is increased in anticipation of a takeoff. This is particularly true when in a new type.

If this topic were to be in the rotorheads forum, we'd be seeing references to purposfully not using the rotor brake, so as to increase the flight time after landing by .1, by allowing the rotor to spin to a stop on it's own.

Oh, how happy I am, safe in the knowledge that I just don't really care about such details anymore!

[jxk]

I don't know if this has been discussed before but here goes:
Weather is below VFR limits (5 1 1 or whatever it is these days) but good enough if sufficient runway available to do a couple of 'hops'. Does this count as a flight and therefore qualify for the 'until comes to rest after landing'. And is it legal because if wx is below VFR then presumably it's got to be IFR?

[W2k]

Weather is below VFR limits (5 1 1 or whatever it is these days) but good enough if sufficient runway available to do a couple of 'hops'. Does this count as a flight and therefore qualify for the 'until comes to rest after landing'. And is it legal because if wx is below VFR then presumably it's got to be IFR?
If you take off and land, then it's a flight. Doesn't matter if all you do is fly around the circut.

VMC limits can be somewhat relaxed when you are close to an aerodrome. 5 km visibility, 1500 m horz, 1000 ft vert to cloud applies in class B-G airspace below 10 000 ft. But if you are at an airfield without ATC (class G airspace) then you only need to stay out of clouds and have 1500 m visibility (in daylight and below 140 kts) while in the circuit.

Similarily if you are in a CTR (class C) then you may request special VFR which also lets you fly VFR so long as you have 1500 m vis and stay out of clouds.

[Fuji Abound]

Fuji - Explain.


Your post implied that you had aborted a high number of flights at the hold.

[BEagle]

The aircraft might have taxyed for the purpose of take-off, but it never landed. Quite obviously, nothing may be logged.

The first YF-16 test flight wasn't intended - the aircraft was supposed to do a fast taxy run only. So it left the chocks not for the purpose of flying, but then did so - the pilot experienced large roll / yaw excursions on the runway, so applied full power and sorted it out in the air, then landed!

Would he have logged the flight? Probably, but just for the heck of it as he would undoubtedly already have half a squillion hours anyway.

But did 'Taffy' Holden ever log his unintended Lightning flight at Lyneham all those years ago?

[Fuji Abound]

VMC limits can be somewhat relaxed when you are close to an aerodrome


Yeah, I recall the first flight of mine in a new aircraft with a now mate and BA training captain. As we lined up I thought to myself this will be interesting, I am about to get a lesson in real isntrument flying. Well we departed, nearly took a look at the white bits which seemed to me pretty solid at about 500 feet, my mate smiled, said he didnt like the look of it, we did a circuit, and were back on the ground in short order.

Thank you for bringing back the memory.

[Juno78]

In my case, my first first solo was kindly not charged by the flight school, so it never appeared in my log book.

Can I ask a stupid question - why wouldn't you log flying hours because the school decided not to charge you for them?

[hatzflyer]

Is this for real ? Are you so short of time that you have to log taxi time?
You were given 16knts but only cleared for 15 so you didn't go ?
I've never known the wind to be so constant in all the years I've been flying that one knot makes so much difference.Surely it would have been fluctuating a few knots iether way?
I could absolutely understand you saying that you were not comfortable flying in conditions that approached the maximum that you had experienced, and I would say that was a wise decision.
What worries me about your post is the exactness of the statement,i.e. one knot. Flying is all about experience and experience teaches you that it is not an exact science.The world is full of hedges with holes in them where pilots have shoved planes through them because the flight manual said they would take off in the required distance and they took that to be absolute whilst not factoring in other related data (eg length of grass).
The point that I am trying to make is not to get into the trap of being too exact in your flying. Your decision not to take off was a wise one, you shouldn't go if you are not happy for whatever reason.
Good luck with your progress !:ok::ok:

[NazgulAir]

Were I to hire a pilot, I would not be looking for that last 0.2 hours in the log book of total experience. I would be looking for a person who was honest about the flying experience they had. True enough, but I'd also be looking for a pilot who knows his limits and knows when to abort or cancel a flight. As such the decision has to be commended. The500man, you may also make an entry in your logbook with a remark and nothing in the time columns. (If you want to mention taxi time at all you can place it in the remarks column, but it's far less important than the fact that you have exercised good judgement).

As for crosswinds: particularly in gusting winds, it is difficult to determine exactly how close to the limit (the aircraft's or your own) you may be upon landing. One knot isn't going to make much difference.
If you feel uncomfortable with your own limit, get some good sessions with an instructor in a strong and gusty crosswind.
Note: some clubs impose low club limits to safeguard their airplanes against poor technique. I think that is silly; rather than increasing safety, it makes members afraid of crosswinds and that doesn't do any good to their technique.

[BackPacker]

Can I ask a stupid question - why wouldn't you log flying hours because the school decided not to charge you for them?

In my case since I was at an intensive course, and I knew that at the end of the course the CFI would pull the financial records from the accounting department and compare them to what was in my logbook before signing the entries off as "logbook hours correct".

My estimate was that the time it would take me to explain this would be more than the actual time in my logbook, so the most efficient way was not to mention them.

(Never knew that five years down the line PPRuNe would come down to haunt me anyway...:ok:)

[Mark1234]

One comment for the OP that nobody has mentioned - the attitude that the club / POH has set a xwind limit, and that if it's 15kts you will fly, 16 kts you will not.

If you're comfortable in a lot more than 15, then that's fair enough (choosing to obey the rule), but I would suggest the primary concern should be 'can I handle this comfortably', in which case asking for another report in 30 sec might be appropriate if things are fluctuating. However, if it was 15 you're not automatically OK. In my opinion (there are plenty of those round here), you should be thinking about 'airmanship' - i.e. what is smart, rather than observance of a relatively arbitrary rule. Not to pick on you, just making a point - after all, you demonstrated sound judgement (err on the safe side) by not going in the first place.

I believe you'll find what is in the POH (proper) is the maximum demonstrated crosswind, not a *limit*. There are often discussions about insurance should anything go wrong, but I would suggest it is not a binary decision as goes a divert on reported wind landing. For one thing the reported wind is by definition historic data. Yes, I have aborted on excessive xwind before, but only after flying an approach and deciding I didn't like the picture at the end of it; in that case, there was nobody to report the wind, but the crab angle was severely large to make me reconsider.

[W2k]

I believe you'll find what is in the POH (proper) is the maximum demonstrated crosswind, not a *limit*.
I don't know what rules apply elsewhere but here in Sweden it's actually expressly forbidden to start or land if the crosswind component exceeds the maximum allowed or demonstrated as specified by the POH. LFS 2007:58 if anybody wants to look it up.

In my view, if the crosswind is just at the limit of what's allowed, or what the club rules say, or what you personally feel comfortable with, then don't fly. It might get better but it might also get worse.

[BackPacker]

When talking about crosswind limits, what you need to remember is that the manufacturer of an aircraft is legally required to demonstrate a landing with a crosswind component that's an x percentage of Vs0 before the aircraft can be certified. If the aircraft has a low Vs0, the demonstrated crosswind capability will therefore be relatively low too. And that's the number that goes into the POH. Even if the aircraft is perfectly capable of handling a far more severe crosswind. Even with only moderate pilot technique.

On the other hand, if the club (either because of insurance or other reasons) sets a crosswind limit, then that's just that: a limit. Suppose the insurance has limited the x-wind component to 15 and you prang the aircraft when the x-wind is reported to be 16. Or 17. Will the insurance pay or not?

[Genghis the Engineer]

When talking about crosswind limits, what you need to remember is that the manufacturer of an aircraft is legally required to demonstrate a landing with a crosswind component that's an x percentage of Vs0 before the aircraft can be certified. If the aircraft has a low Vs0, the demonstrated crosswind capability will therefore be relatively low too. And that's the number that goes into the POH.

The exact words in part 23 (which covers most of the aeroplanes that most of us fly) are...


CS 23.233 Directional stability and control

(a) A 90° cross-component of wind velocity,
demonstrated to be safe for taxying, take-off and
landing must be established and must be not less
than 0·2 VS0.

(b) The aeroplane must be satisfactorily
controllable in power-off landings at normal
landing speed, without using brakes or engine
power to maintain a straight path until the speed
has decreased to less than 50% of the speed at
touchdown.

(c) The aeroplane must have adequate
directional control during taxying.

(d) Seaplanes must demonstrate satisfactory
directional stability and control for water
operations up to the maximum wind velocity
specified in sub-paragraph (a).



CS 23.1585 Operating procedures

(a) For all aeroplanes, information
concerning normal, abnormal (if applicable) and
emergency procedures and other pertinent
information necessary for safe operation and the
achievement of the scheduled performance must be
furnished, including –

(1) An explanation of significant or
unusual flight or ground handling
characteristics;

(2) The maximum demonstrated values
of crosswind for take-off and landing and
procedures and information pertinent to
operations in crosswinds;



G

[The500man]

Thanks again for all the replies. I went back to the ANO after reading some of the quotes from it supplied on this thread. The only part that seems relevant is this...


Personal flying log book
79 (1) Every member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom and every person who engages in flying for the purpose of qualifying for the grant or renewal of a licence under this Order must keep a personal flying log book in which the following information must be recorded:
(a) the name and address of the holder of the log book;
(b) detailed information about the holder's licence (if any) to act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft; and
(c) the name and address of the holder's employer (if any).
(2) Detailed information about each flight during which the holder of the log book acted either as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft or for the purpose of qualifying for the grant or renewal of a licence under this Order must be recorded in the log book as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each flight.


..and the definition of flight in the ANO is this:

Meaning of in flight
256 (1) An aircraft is 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



So I'll leave it in my logbook for my own benefit but tippex out the time so it isn't counted as flight time or for the issue of a future license.

I maybe should have said in my OP that I have a PPL, and that the checkout was by a group instructor to fly their aircraft as PIC.


One comment for the OP that nobody has mentioned - the attitude that the club / POH has set a xwind limit, and that if it's 15kts you will fly, 16 kts you will not.


As I posted earlier the POH does not set out a limit but it does say that an average pilot can operate safely upto 15 Knots. This is not limiting but a recommendation. My groups policy is however limiting and I will respect the owners wishes when operating their aircraft.

Since I only have 1 hour PIC on type I don't consider myself above average!

As to this being an arbitrary number; aviation is full of them, whether it is in the definition of VMC/ IMC or licensing hour requirements etc. I agree that these are arbitrary numbers but they have been set out for our benefit based presumably on others past experience or hind sight.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Put the tippex away!

If the aircraft moved under its own power for the purposes of taking off, then it is a logged flight. If, for any legitimate reason, you failed to take off, that does not change the original purpose.

G

[Fuji Abound]

I think the single biggest attribute a pilot must have is common sense.

That really is all I have to say on the matter. :)

[BEagle]

I'd put it more directly. Anyone wanting to log taxying time to the runway and back without having flown must be an utter ar$e.

I taxyed a Vulcan a couple of years ago and yes, put it in my logbook because it was rare and interesting - and it was exactly 25 years since I'd last taxyed one. But as for logging the time? No!

I also have the following in my logbook:

29 Sep 1991 Fury ISS N36SF Southampton Docks (0545Z) - Southampton Airport (0710Z). Remarks: Road tow, av. GS 3.9 Kts.

But it's on a photo stuck to the page!

Should I have logged the taxying time for all the Hunter compass swings I did in 1976? I think not!

[Big Pistons Forever]

The500man

All "logging of taxi time" discussions aside I commend you on your good airmanship for deciding not to fly that day. We taxi with the intent of going flying and a momentum and sense of expectation can develop that can be hard to arrest. As you correctly noted the demonstrated maximum crosswind speed is not limiting but 15 kts is the maximum demonstrated value for the C172. just because it is not limiting does not mean it should just be ignored. Flying is like everything else, you get better at it with expereince. Lower houred pilots should respect their lack of experience by giving themselves a bigger margin just as higher houred pilots need to respect the dangers of complacency.

advice to wait for the ATCO to call the winds at 15kts IMO misses the point. You are either comfortable to handle the 15 or 16 kt wind or not. The best way to develop confidence is to practice and this is where some flying schools with extremely low student crosswind limits (sometimes as low as 5 kts) are IMO doing their students a great disfavour.

[Mark1234]

As I posted earlier the POH does not set out a limit but it does say that an average pilot can operate safely upto 15 Knots. This is not limiting but a recommendation. My groups policy is however limiting and I will respect the owners wishes when operating their aircraft.

Since I only have 1 hour PIC on type I don't consider myself above average!

As to this being an arbitrary number; aviation is full of them, whether it is in the definition of VMC/ IMC or licensing hour requirements etc. I agree that these are arbitrary numbers but they have been set out for our benefit based presumably on others past experience or hind sight.


Perhaps I didn't put it so well - I think Big Pistons Forever hits the nail on the head.

I have no idea of your experience, but; would you have flown if it was 15kts because you're confident and competant with that, or because the POH says Mr Average can do it?

Aviation has a lot of 'arbitrary' minimum requirements. Just because you meet the minimums doesn't mean you should go do it. The way the initial Q was phrased jarred slightly, hence the thought. I'll shut up now. :}

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'd put it more directly. Anyone wanting to log taxying time to the runway and back without having flown must be an utter ar$e.

I taxyed a Vulcan a couple of years ago and yes, put it in my logbook because it was rare and interesting - and it was exactly 25 years since I'd last taxyed one. But as for logging the time? No!

I also have the following in my logbook:

29 Sep 1991 Fury ISS N36SF Southampton Docks (0545Z) - Southampton Airport (0710Z). Remarks: Road tow, av. GS 3.9 Kts.

But it's on a photo stuck to the page!

Should I have logged the taxying time for all the Hunter compass swings I did in 1976? I think not!

So why put it in your logbook at-all then?

- Because it's interesting, and

- Because it reminds you of the lessons learned that day, and

- Because it is actually relevant to experience. Taxying with intention of flight means all of the preparation and planning for that flight, RT, decision making not to fly were all there and are relevant to your profile as a pilot.


I've just scanned through my logbook (thanks to it all being on a computer these days this is quite easy) and find four flights in 21 years where the flight was abandoned after I started to taxi out (2 sets of fouled plugs, one nosewheel steering failure, one radio failure at an airshow and another two where we abandoned after engine start but before taxi (a hyd caption, and an airbrake caption). The logged time comes to 0.07% of my total flying hours, but I can remember each event and I can think of lessons I learned from each.

So, actually, they may punch well above their weight in terms of learning value - whilst having no significant impact on my numerical ability to gain or maintain any licence or rating.

On that basis, nope, I'll leave them in my logbook thanks, even if you think I'm an ar$e for doing so.

G

[S-Works]

I am perfectly happy to see people what write what ever they want into a log book. Just don't bring an entry that refers to taxi time and expect me to sign a certificate of revalidation if you are trying to include that time in the 12hours for revalidation.
:ok:

[BEagle]

On that basis, nope, I'll leave them in my logbook thanks, even if you think I'm an ar$e for doing so.

The events? Perhaps. The time though (assuming you're referring to pilot time), well, utter ar$e, in my opinion.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

until the moment when it next comes to rest after landing
Riiight ... so you vacate the runway, pass the hold, stop for a few seconds to perform the after landing checks. At this point as you have "come to rest" the "flight" stops and you stop logging the time.

Then you taxi on and park. On finally parking you stop paying for the time.

Nope, I've never heard of anyone actually behaving like this.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Riiight ... so you vacate the runway, pass the hold, stop for a few seconds to perform the after landing checks. At this point as you have "come to rest" the "flight" stops and you stop logging the time.

Then you taxi on and park. On finally parking you stop paying for the time.

Nope, I've never heard of anyone actually behaving like this.

I think once again you have to apply common sense. You stop momentarily (or not) after you vacate the runway but you come to rest when you get to the position where you intend to shut down. In commercial operations the pretty much universal practice is flight time is parking brake off to parking brake on with wheels up/down inbetween and all four times are required before it is considered a "flight".

[chrisN]

Has anybody asked the CAA whether Ghengis's, or Beagle/Bose's, interpretation is correct?

Chris N.

[BillieBob]

Has anybody asked the CAA whether Ghengis's, or Beagle/Bose's, interpretation is correct?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.

[Fuji Abound]

See post #48 :)

[mm_flynn]

For all of those saying you are not PIC of a FLIGHT if it does not take off and land. Consider the following.

You are a mechanic and a SE pilot.

You are allowed to taxi multi-engine aircraft by virtue of your mechanics licence.

You decide to have a go at flying a ME (so you commence moving an aircraft for the purpose of flight)

You have an engine failure on takeoff, fail to respond to the yaw, slew off the runway into a ditch (never having got the wheels off the ground)

Was this a taxing accident or a flying accident?

Were you authorised to undertake this activity (you are not allowed to FLY an ME as PIC, but you can taxi one).

I think the regs are perfectly clear that the moment you move for the purpose of flight, it is a flight; you must be qualified and current to fly that aircraft. The reason the Regulator phrases the rule as they do, is specifically to identify that a flight has started as soon as the airplane moves (unless it is being moved with no intention to fly) and all regulations to flights apply.

On the other hand, should you log it? who cares. Should a 3 hour wait at the hold followed by a taxi back be counted for recent flight - No, of course not. Do you learn more from a 15 minute aborted flight than spending 5 additional minutes doing a circuit? Probably yes.

[Lucy Lastic]

I think that example is a bit odd

If you aren't qualified by your licence to undertake an ME flight, then trying to take-off is not permitted. The engineer's ticket only covers you for the taxying bit.

Having an incident like this would invalidate insurances and cost you a hell of a lot personally.

In other parts of the ANO I would guess, but won't go looking for it, it will say that you are not permitted to commit aviation unless your insurance, licences and ratings are valid.

[Genghis the Engineer]

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

[mm_flynn]

I think that example is a bit odd

Staying with my odd example (and reenforced by Genghis's example)

I believe if you carefully look at the ANO and consider the following two cases

My adventurer licencesed as above (A&P, PPL SE) doing a high speed taxi on the runway with an engine failure at 70% VMC and loosing control.

Case 1 - the individual had a maintenance order to do a acceleration deceleration check (i.e. he had no intention of flight)

Case 2 - the individual had filed a flightplan (i.e. had a clear intention of flight)

Case 1 is totally legal, insured (by the maintenance company's insurance)
Case 2 is totally illegal, not insured.

The only difference is the intent to fly or not. This is why the regulation is written as such.

[onetrack]

One point I haven't noticed being mentioned here, is that taxying time is engine run time, and this affects the fuel reserves and overhaul period of the engine/s.

I hereby put up one classic case, which involved a twin and which resulted in multiple fatalities.

The twin was being fitted with specialised equipment as part of a new job. This installation was a one-day project. The pilot planned to make a flight on the day following the installation, so he fully-fuelled the aircraft.

The LAME fitted the equipment, but had to start and run the engines, and taxi the plane, as part of the new equipment installation testing. This took considerable time.
The LAME did not log the hours involved in engine running and taxying, as he wasn't endorsed to fly, and wasn't the PIC of the aircraft.

The pilot arrived the following morning, received instructions that the equipment was fully installed, and ready to go.
He did not check the fuel tanks, because he knew he had filled them the previous day - and there was no written record of any taxi time or engine run time.

The pilot commenced the flight, and within a relatively short period after takeoff, the plane crashed in heavy forest with the loss of all crew and pax, due to fuel starvation.

In the subsequent inquiry, it was revealed that the engines were run for a substantial period, around 3 or 4 hrs, and that this was not recorded anywhere.
It was deemed crucial in the resulting investigation summary, that all future engine run time, be recorded in the aircraft log book, regardless of whether the aircraft was airborne or not, and regardless of the endorsement/s of the person running the engines.

Yes, the PIC was negligent in not re-checking the tanks, immediately prior to takeoff. However, this neglect, which directly caused the resultant crash, could quite likely have been negated, if the notation of engine run time had been placed in the logbook.

[Pilot DAR]

Without copy and pasting large chunks of the foregoing, I don't completely accept that the circumstances are entirely as prestented.

It is generally accepted that engine time counted from the engine overhaul interval is time accumulated at a fairly high power setting. For most single engine aircraft, the tachometer "hour meter" is actually an odometer of the RPM, not a clock. So if you ilde for hours, you will not accumulate hours off the engine life. (Doesn't do the engines any good at all though)

If a person ground ran engines at such a high power setting, and for so long on one occasion, so as to noticably decrease the fuel quantity, I would expect the engines to be quite overheated, and probably damaged. If I, as the pilot to follow, thought an aircraft had been ground run that long or hard, I'd be much more concerned about the condition of the engines for the next flight, rather than fuel used. But I would of course check fuel anyway - I've learned!

[The500man]

In case anyone is interested, the official response from the CAA:


ANO 2009 Article 256(1) gives the meaning of a flight for an aeroplane as-

"from the moment when, after embarkation of its crew for the purpose of taking off, it first moves under its own power, until the moment when it comes to rest after landing".

In the case you describe the aeroplane did not leave the ground and so there was no landing. This cannot therefore be considered to have been a "flight" and so the time cannot be recorded as flight time.

[BillieBob]

As I said (#58)