Hobbs/VDO, tach time and airswitch?

[Okihara]

I (think that I) know the difference between these two times however when referring an aircraft to a 50 or 100 hourly maintenance, which time should be considered? Hobbs or tach?

Same question regarding overhauls. If your aircraft manufacturer states TBO: 2000 hours, is that in Hobbs or in tach time?

Also:
– It would seem that in Australia the Hobbs meter is usually called VDO. Is that correct?
– Is the tach time the same as an airswitch?

[Lead Balloon]

I (think that I) know the difference between these two times however when referring an aircraft to a 50 or 100 hourly maintenance, which time should be considered? Hobbs or tach?50 or 100 hourly maintenance is usually measured as hours 'time in service'. 'Time in service' is usually measured from wheels off the ground to wheels on the ground.

That's not tach time.

It could be Hobbs time, but only if the Hobbs is connected to an air switch. Many Hobbs meters start counting and keep counting while ever the battery (and maybe master) switch is on.

Same question regarding overhauls. If your aircraft manufacturer states TBO: 2000 hours, is that in Hobbs or in tach time?That sort of time is usually for engines. If it's for an engine, tach time is the measure.

Also:
– It would seem that in Australia the Hobbs meter is usually called VDO. Is that correct?Dunno.

The confusion arises because a Hobbs meter is merely a brand. That brand can be connected to a master (and maybe master) switch and counts time while ever it's switched on, or can be connected to an airswitch and measures time in excess of a particular airspeed (based on the assumption that the aircraft is flying while ever that airspeed is exceeded).

– Is the tach time the same as an airswitch?Nope. Never.

Tach time measures the time the engine is running. (Although it's worth noting that the time recorded on a tach is only accurate when the RPM is at the RPM for which the tach is calibrated. Below that RPM an hour of actual operation will be recorded as a shorter time on the tach, and above that RPM an hour of actual operation will be recorded as a longer time on the tach.)

Airswitch time measures the time from wheels off to wheels on, or pretty close to that.

[currawong]

Quick, someone post that GIF of Michael Jackson eating popcorn....

[Aussie Bob]

It can be simplified further ...

Maintenance time is the time between the wheels leaving the ground and the wheels touching the ground. How this is recorded is up to the operator but could be taco, air switch or watch time.

What you pay for the aircraft is also an operator decision but is usually startup to shutdown time. Again, how this is recorded is up to the operator but a “Hobbs” (brand) meter is common, it starts when the oil pressure activates it and stops when the oil pressure stops.

The difference between the two is around 0.2 per sector or lesson. This “guestimate” is 6 minutes till airborne and 6 minites after landing till engine off. Pilots log time in command which is usually considered as startup till shutdown.

[StickWithTheTruth]

Maintenance time is the time between the wheels leaving the ground and the wheels touching the ground. How this is recorded is up to the operator but could be taco, air switch or watch time.

This depends on the aircraft type. Some do not allow engine maintenance off the air switch.



https://i.gifer.com/5gq.gif

[currawong]

Well lets see.

Pilots logbook is chock to chock.

Engine and/or airframe on tacho, Hobbs connected to battery or oil pressure or torque gauge line or air switch - it goes on.

All of these times are significantly different when recorded.

Friendly FOI visits and peruses the books.

Notes discrepancy in times recorded.

Does what FOI's do.

Operator now insists hours recorded must all line up.

Now which way do you think it will go?

Pilot logbook now on air switch? Or aircraft time in service chock to chock?

Hint - some of these recording means are very adjustable.

[Lead Balloon]

Aircraft 'time in service' has never been and never will be the same as the time recorded as time in command of the pilots of that aircraft.

Without going into the tedious detail and exceptions, the general rules are:

- aircraft time in service is measured from wheels off to wheels on

- pilot time in command/dual is measured chock to chock.

Accordingly, pilots can and should be recording more time in their logbooks for a flight than the 'time in service' recorded for the aircraft for that flight. The pilot is in command/dual for a longer period of time than just the period from wheels off to wheels on.

If some FOI reckons the numbers should match, the FOI is an arseclown.

[currawong]

It has been thus, longer than I care to mention.

Also, how the air switch is adjusted is shall we say far from standardised or tamper proof. Some may stop logging at TOD.

[Lumps]

That sort of time is usually for engines. If it's for an engine, tach time is the measure.


And if there is no tachometer recording engine time, then flight switch for recording engine TIS?

[A Squared]

Well lets see.

Pilots logbook is chock to chock.

Engine and/or airframe on tacho, Hobbs connected to battery or oil pressure or torque gauge line or air switch - it goes on.

All of these times are significantly different when recorded.

Friendly FOI visits and peruses the books.

Notes discrepancy in times recorded.

Does what FOI's do.

Operator now insists hours recorded must all line up.

Now which way do you think it will go?

Pilot logbook now on air switch? Or aircraft time in service chock to chock?

Hint - some of these recording means are very adjustable.

Really? Is that an Orstralian thing, or just a retarded ops inspector? Anyplace I've ever flown which had an Ops Inspector we noted block out time, wheels off time, wheels on time and block in time. Pilot times were, of course, block to block, Mx times were wheels off to wheels on. I assumed that was the way it was done everywhere.

[A Squared]

This depends on the aircraft type. Some do not allow engine maintenance off the air switch.



Which types, and what is the reason for that?

[A Squared]

Also, how the air switch is adjusted is shall we say far from standardised or tamper proof. Some may stop logging at TOD.

How do you adjust an airswitch so that it stops logging at TOD. Seems like you could conceivably set one so the it *only* logs time when the airspeed builds in the descent, but I'm not seeing how you could do it so that it *stops* logging when you push the nose over.

[A Squared]

Also:
– It would seem that in Australia the Hobbs meter is usually called VDO. Is that correct?

For what it's worth, VDO is, like "Hobbs", just another brand name of instruments.

[StickWithTheTruth]

Which types, and what is the reason for that?

Jabiru.

Because some schools had *massive* differences between the two meters.

[Eddie Dean]

It's all academic, most use their watch or other time piece. Talking only of GA here.

[Pinky the pilot]

Quite a few years ago now, I flew about four different Chieftains at various times. All had Hobbs meters fitted.

None of them worked!:ooh:

BTW, MR time was wheels off to wheels on.

[mikewil]

Every flight school I have dealt with has used only two separate timers for their maintenance and student (or hire & fly) billing.


For charging of students and hire & fly customers it was always hobbs time (engine start to engine stop).


The time recorded in the MR for maintenance purposes was always airswitch time (even on aircraft which also had tachometer). I have flown G1000 C172 aircraft which have the tacho time on the G1000 panel but we always recorded airswitch and hobbs only.

[currawong]

So the answer to the OP's original question is....

You can pretty much do whatever suits you.

If you are an owner or operator seeking to maximise returns for hire, use a system that tends to over read.

If you are an operator seeking to minimise costs, use a system that tends to under read.

Using a combination of both? Pure genius:D

If you are a line pilot seeking to comply with regs but stay employed, well, that can be awkward.

[A37575]

Canny students need to be aware of how his flight is charged. if the VDO is based upon when the master switch is first turned on, he is being ripped off.

[currawong]

And possibly finishing their training woefully short of actual flying hours.

[Lead Balloon]

“Pretty much what ever suits you” might be OK for charging regimes, but care must be taken to comply with the law.

There’s a legal requirement to record an aircraft’s time in service in the MR or its equivalent. There is a definition of time in service. There is no latitude to do anything other than comply with the requirement.

There’s a legal requirement for a pilot to record flight time in the pilot’s logbook. There is a definition of flight time. There is no latitude other than comply with the requirement.

[currawong]

100% agree Lead Balloon.

The sticky point is the many and varied means by which TIS is ascertained.

I'm guessing that some time in the distant past clock time and tacho time were not too different. Not the case now.

[Okihara]

Thank you all for these very informative answers. This now better explains how flight schools and operators turn their profit. From daily meter sheets for various aircraft, I observe that the maintenance time is on average 0.2 to 0.4 hour below engine time, which is a sizeable fraction when the latter only average 0.9 to 1.3 hours. That's at a fairly large airport where taxi distances and waiting times (I'm looking at you, HOLD SHORT OF RWY XY) can occasionally be long, esp. when circuits are busy.

Whilst the practice of charging on engine time alone makes it easier to understand how one is being billed at first, this remains of somewhat questionable ethics if the true cost incurred will only ever be that of 1-3 litres of Avgas.

Alas, I find this just plain counterproductive and almost an incentive to want to rush through run-ups and to taxi at 25 kts.

[Lead Balloon]

Money ‘in’ still has to equal or exceed money ‘out’ in order for an operator to be viable.

You could try to insist that you’re charged on the basis of time in service - wheels off to wheels on - rather than e.g. battery on to battery off. All that would happen is that the hourly rate would be increased accordingly.

Remember, you’re still in command or dual while operating the aircraft on the ground, and that’s aeronautical experience that goes into your logbook. Part of the learning experience is to resist the urge to taxi at 25 knots and rush through run-ups, to save $50. If you have an accident as a consequence, you’ll be a lot further in the hole than $50.

[Okihara]

Remember, you’re still in command or dual while operating the aircraft on the ground, and that’s aeronautical experience that goes into your logbook. Part of the learning experience is to resist the urge to taxi at 25 knots and rush through run-ups, to save $50. If you have an accident as a consequence, you’ll be a lot further in the hole than $50.

You're absolutely right, safety always comes first, and pinching pennies is really not what I'm after either. Rather, I'm trying to find out if there's a way to price and market flight training more cleverly. After all, isn't it also a requirement for pilots to understand how the economics of operating their aircraft works?

[LeadSled]

Folks,
With our "ever changing" rules, two of the things that have been constant are the definitions of (loosely described) "Chock to Chock" for logging pilot time, and "time in service" for maintenance purposes, wheels off to wheels on.

Thankfully, these definitions, in my experience, are universal.

Lead Balloon has spelled it out in legal terms.

If you are being told otherwise by your instructor/CFI/LAME/FOI/AWI/whatever, they are airing their ignorance, the correct aeronautical term being: "talking bollocks".

Commercial organisations can arrange their billing on whatever basis they choose, it doesn't have to be related to Flight Time or Time in Service, or tacho time, dreamtime or whatever.

And confirming, VDO and Hobbs a the name of instrument makers, as are Smiths, Stewart Warner (for the older brigade) and the dreaded Lucas.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Many "tachos" that are part of a rev counter only record "time" at the same rates as your watch at a reference RPM, if you'r using higher RPM the recorded time will be more than elapsed/chronological time, at low RPM, they will record less than elapsed time.

[Lead Balloon]

Oki, if you want to evaluate the market more accurately, you need to ask for the basis on which you will be charged for aircraft hours.

Airswitch = time in the air +/- a bit.

Tacho = what the tacho reads. Remember, for a standard steam driven tacho 1 hour tacho time only equals 1 hour of real time at a specified RPM (I think it’s 2,350 on most, but you can googlerate that to find out). So, keep your RPMs down while taxiing! 15 minutes of taxi time at low RPMs does not equal 15 minutes counted on the tacho.

Hobbs/VDO = meaningless unless they tell you and you can confirm what switches it on and off. If it’s connected to the battery/master switch, that’s the method that results in the longest time charged.

Don’t forget to ask for the fine print about fuel costs. If you rent the aircraft ‘wet’, does that include whatever price fuel costs wherever you go? Even at William Creek or Forrest?

Don’t forget to ask for the fine print about terminal navigation charges, landing and parking fees and all the other people who want to get their hands in your pocket.

Don’t forget to ask what happens if the aircraft goes unserviceable at e.g. Leigh Creek.

[Okihara]

Awesome, as always, this forum is a great place to ask questions. Many thanks to you all.

[Clare Prop]

How dare those evil flying schools try to make a dollar! We should be doing it for the love of it and living under a bridge!

As an example, an aircraft hired on VDO will do about 115 revenue hours for every 100 hours in service. Therefore the gross margins are calculated on 115 hours/100 hourly. So if the hirer wants to rent it on tacho, no worries, but you will pay 15% more per hour.

If you want to buy fuel in Forrest, you pay the difference between that and the local rate so a hire wet or dry won't make any difference.

As for the economics remember that if the operator is on a 15% margin, that's just nine minutes in every hour that is covering fixed costs and maybe evilly making a profit. Agreed this is the sort of thing that CPL students should be aware of. So run an aviation organisation for 20 years and then get back to me if you have a more clever way.

But remember for example things happen that aren't budgeted for. EG The piece of FOD that caused a puncture to one of my aircraft recently ended up costing over $1000 by the time you have paid for recovery, new tube and tyre, labour, down time. That's just when it happens at home base with a handy shop that sells tyres and a handy engineer to fix it. So the evil flying schools have to build that sort of thing into the costs. Unethical to have some bucks set aside for this sort of thing? Making the unfortunate hirer who landed on someone else's FOD pay for the flat tyre would have been unethical.

[andrewr]

The sole advantage to VDO is that it allows you to advertise a lower rate.

This is lost the first time the hirer sits for 15 minutes at the holding point waiting for a break in traffic to take off and works out they spent $70+ to just sit and watch aircraft.

That is a BIG disincentive to coming back and doing it again. I would much rather pay a higher rate for air time, and not have the dollars ticking over while waiting on the ground. Especially if the operators costs are primarily based on airswitch.

[A37575]

and works out they spent $70+ to just sit and watch aircraft

Same thing when the instructor spends an inordinate amount of time while engines are running on the ground giving superfluous and unwanted "advice" when a short and concise briefing is all that is needed.
That includes listening and copying down an ATIS then studying its ramifications before engine start rather than with engines running before taxiing.

[Connedrod]

Maintenance time is calculated only of the m/r or equivalent doc period. What time you or not is up to you. This dose not mean you may go against the requirements of any regulations.

Wheels off to wheels on is actual maintenance time per the regulations.

Flight schools are free to charge what ever they like and calculate it how they wish.

Maintenance on the ground ie engines runs are not part of any time that is to be recorded on the m/r ie it dose not form pard of any additional hours to be recorded against tbo time.

[StickWithTheTruth]

Maintenance on the ground ie engines runs are not part of any time that is to be recorded on the m/r ie it dose not form pard of any additional hours to be recorded against tbo time.

Except for the trusty Jabiru :-)

[Cloudee]

Maintenance on the ground ie engines runs are not part of any time that is to be recorded on the m/r ie it dose not form pard of any additional hours to be recorded against tbo time.

So does that mean the hours on the tacho instrument will never be equal to the total hours on the engine once any maintenance ground runs have been done?

[Okihara]

How dare those evil flying schools try to make a dollar! We should be doing it for the love of it and living under a bridge!

As an example, an aircraft hired on VDO will do about 115 revenue hours for every 100 hours in service. Therefore the gross margins are calculated on 115 hours/100 hourly. So if the hirer wants to rent it on tacho, no worries, but you will pay 15% more per hour.

If you want to buy fuel in Forrest, you pay the difference between that and the local rate so a hire wet or dry won't make any difference.

As for the economics remember that if the operator is on a 15% margin, that's just nine minutes in every hour that is covering fixed costs and maybe evilly making a profit. Agreed this is the sort of thing that CPL students should be aware of. So run an aviation organisation for 20 years and then get back to me if you have a more clever way.

Absolutely nothing wrong with flight schools not being charities and actually thumbs up to those that are profitable in this day and age.
But charging at a fixed rate on VDO is skewed and does not generally benefit flight training in my opinion.

As you seem well versed in the mechanics flight school operations, here's an honest question. How about charging for lessons as follows:

Lesson bill = lesson base price that covers aircraft fixed costs (insurance, parking, landing fees, etc.)+ fuel used ╳ fuel (daily/weekly) rate
+ oil used ╳ oil cost+ tacho/airswitch time ╳ hire rate which will cover variable aircraft costs such as maintenance, engine overhaul, etc.
+ VDO time ╳ instructor rate in flight
+ pre- and post-flight briefing time ╳ instructor rate on ground
where all the rates are transparent and worked out so that, in the end, a margin deemed adequate to run the business is yielded.

[Clare Prop]

Absolutely nothing wrong with flight schools not being charities and actually thumbs up to those that are profitable in this day and age.
But charging at a fixed rate on VDO is skewed and does not generally benefit flight training in my opinion.

As you seem well versed in the mechanics flight school operations, here's an honest question. How about charging for lessons as follows:

Lesson bill = lesson base price that covers aircraft fixed costs (insurance, parking, landing fees, etc.)+ fuel used ╳ fuel (daily/weekly) rate
+ oil used ╳ oil cost+ tacho/airswitch time ╳ hire rate which will cover variable aircraft costs such as maintenance, engine overhaul, etc.
+ VDO time ╳ instructor rate in flight
+ pre- and post-flight briefing time ╳ instructor rate on ground
where all the rates are transparent and worked out so that, in the end, a margin deemed adequate to run the business is yielded.

Before coming up with a formula try learning the difference between fixed and variable costs. :8

In aviation, some are both.

Thank you for being so patronising, the formula I have is working fine. When you have trialled yours at your own flying school for ten years please get back to us all here and let us know how it's going.

[Aussie Bob]

Lesson bill = lesson base price that covers aircraft fixed costs (insurance, parking, landing fees, etc.)+ fuel used ╳ fuel (daily/weekly) rate
+ oil used ╳ oil cost+ tacho/airswitch time ╳ hire rate which will cover variable aircraft costs such as maintenance, engine overhaul, etc.
+ VDO time ╳ instructor rate in flight
+ pre- and post-flight briefing time ╳ instructor rate on ground
where all the rates are transparent and worked out so that, in the end, a margin deemed adequate to run the business is yielded.
Stewth :eek:

I run a flying school, have done on and off for years, decades even. How about we charge VDO. It starts when the oil hits the switch and ends when the engine stops. For that you get me sitting next to you, a heap of free time briefing and debriefing and the use of my facilities, can't come much simpler than that.

Plus I charge flight test fees and flight review fees. Simple really, nothing hidden. Feel free to bring your own aircraft even.

[sms777]

i thought it would be quite simple. Maintainance wise, airswitch. Business wise tacho switch or whatever you call it from start up till shut down. Why complicate it?

[Connedrod]

So does that mean the hours on the tacho instrument will never be equal to the total hours on the engine once any maintenance ground runs have been done?

Correct
The mr ttis for the aircraft dose not change in the top of the mr. Its transfered from the previous mr. So zero change.

So sometimes an air stwich is used so you note that on the mr.

Ie
Ttis
5500/679 airswtich vdo etc

This means if the vdo has been changed its noted with the new hours
But maintenance can also be noted with both figures but must use ttis.
So for example in the due column
Ad/c175/ 4a5 ttis5550 or 729as or 04/dec/18.

[Okihara]

Before coming up with a formula try learning the difference between fixed and variable costs. :8

In aviation, some are both.

Thank you for being so patronising, the formula I have is working fine. When you have trialled yours at your own flying school for ten years please get back to us all here and let us know how it's going.

Thanks buddy for this constructive, high quality reply. If you were going to come to this thread and spend a minute or two anyway, you might as well have been nice and encouraging by pointing out my obvious mistakes to me rather than turning to sarcasm. Ten years teaching flying and that's the kind of standard you uphold?

[Okihara]

Stewth :eek:

I run a flying school, have done on and off for years, decades even. How about we charge VDO. It starts when the oil hits the switch and ends when the engine stops. For that you get me sitting next to you, a heap of free time briefing and debriefing and the use of my facilities, can't come much simpler than that.

Plus I charge flight test fees and flight review fees. Simple really, nothing hidden. Feel free to bring your own aircraft even.

Aussie Bob, I understand the simplicity, seen from your angle. As a student a little so. The flight instruction revenue with the highest financial margin is the lapse of time between engine startup and aircraft take-off. Yet during that time, the student doesn't learn much and the instructor doesn't teach much either. Additionally this time can be highly variable at busy airports, eg. 1.0 dual lesson on circuits with 0.3-0.4 spent on ground.

All I'm saying is: I would find it more rational to charge for effective instructor time separately from aircraft time.

[Clare Prop]

So if the day comes when you become an instructor, you'll be happy to only be paid for the time your student deems to be "effective instructing"?

It would be an interesting experiment, to see if all the students really decided they only wanted to fly with you because you were on a different pay scale to your colleagues and didn't get use of the briefing room or any other school facilities as a result, or is there more that matters than the finer details of the hourly rate? As I've said by all means start your own school and give it a try and let us all know how you get on. :ok:

[jonkster]

Do you really spend 18-24 minutes on the ground due congestion? If that was me as a student I would be seriously considering another school/aerodrome as that is clearly a busy show.

Re paying the instructor... the instructor logs instruction time from time the aircraft moves until it stops at the conclusion of the flight (and you log that time in your log book as flight time).

You seem to be saying you should get that time for nothing because the instructor is not effectively working.

Even on the ground the instructor is in command of the aircraft and hopefully from their employers and customers perspective, actively involved in the flight and lesson's progress.


If the student stuffs up on the ground (and it can happen) - clips another aircraft's wing, misunderstands an instruction from ATC and infringes a clearance limit, takes the wrong taxiway, misses a radio call, damages the aircraft from mishandling, doesn't detect a fault, flicks the mags off in run up then flicks them back on a second or two later with a loud bang, misuses the radio and clogs up a busy situation, misses completing a pre-take off action or sets the aircraft up for flight incorrectly or whatever... the instructor is the one who wears the blame. He or she is in command of the aircraft and should not allow it to happen and is the one liable. Are they really not being effective? Would you take that responsibility without pay?

I work out of a moderately busy class D aerodrome and I average 0.2 (12 minutes) per flight for ab initio students on the ground. Early ones are longer mainly because they are slow and wobbly doing checks, make mistakes and are clumsy and nervous with RT and need time to practice and discuss what is happening but they usually speed up to average a little over 6 minutes out a little under 6 in.

That time is not wasted as far as I am concerned, it involves me monitoring them safely preparing the aircraft for flight, safely and appropriately handling the aircraft on the ground, correctly interacting with ATC, polishing their R/T, building up their situational awareness and actively teaching them things and reviewing their performance and looking out for gotchas (some that could strike after take-off if I wasn't on the ball on the ground).

I think I deserve to paid for that.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
This thread started out as a question about recording "engine" time, mostly recently it has become a slanging match about flying school billing.

So, just a quick summary --- if you are doing business with a flying school or someone who hires aircraft, caveat emptor, particularly the fine print, INCLUDING insurance --- before you get a very nasty twist of the hip pocket nerve. And they do have to make a buck to stay in business.

As to times to be logged as Flight Time and Air Time, the regulatory requirement is clear, and not subject to "opinion".

As a final comment, "customers" are not always paragons of virtue, an old mate of mine, and I am certain he is not the only one, had to fit his aircraft with hidden time recorders, air switch activated, after he found more than one instance of tachos /VDO/Hobbs being disconnected by customers.

Tootle pip!!

[Aussie Bob]

Yet during that time, the student doesn't learn much and the instructor doesn't teach much either.Strewth :sad:

You should be learning and I should be teaching efficient pre takeoff checks, getting underway with a minimum of fuss and getting airborne as soon as possible. I would encourage you to learn your pre takeoff checks by rote and know what you are doing these things for and why without referring to a printed checklist (this does have its place too).

You may be learning at an airport that requires taxy time and clearances etc. Where I teach there is no unnecessary waiting.

I mean no offense when I say this but your comments show me, as an instructor, that you are a difficult student.

[Clare Prop]

Perhaps the easiest solution is for the OP to buy their own aircraft and hire an instructor by the hour, engine start to engine stop of course.

[mikewil]

Do you really spend 18-24 minutes on the ground due congestion? If that was me as a student I would be seriously considering another school/aerodrome as that is clearly a busy show.




This happened to me multiple times at Parafield when the planned lesson included a departure directly into the adjacent class C and we were informed of a 20 minute delay due to inbound jet traffic at Adelaide.


I was paying close to $500 per hour to sit on the ground at the hold point (this was a turbocharged C206).


Flying schools really should arrange their fee structure to prevent unforseen ATC delays on the ground from costing the student a fortune. I'd happily pay a higher hourly air switch rate than a 'lower' rate where I am charged $200 for sitting on the ground waiting for ATC.

[Okihara]

Perhaps the easiest solution is for the OP to buy their own aircraft and hire an instructor by the hour, engine start to engine stop of course.
That is actually a wonderful idea. Actually, I might as well go the extra mile and build a whole airport. I hear Australia has land to spare and could use some foreign funds. I'll make sure to revise my economics 101 to fully grasp the complexity of variable vs. fixed costs beforehand.

Flying schools really should arrange their fee structure to prevent unforseen ATC delays on the ground from costing the student a fortune. I'd happily pay a higher hourly air switch rate than a 'lower' rate where I am charged $200 for sitting on the ground waiting for ATC.
Thank you for breathing some common sense into this thread, at last! Instructors here seem to take the view that I am a forceful defendant of cheaper lessons for students. That couldn't be further from the truth. I am actually quite happy that they are able to make a living out of flight instruction, and by all means, go for it. But like you mentioned and I experienced too many a time by now, I find those delays on ground at the student's expense just preposterous. Yesterday was a great example: although run-up bays are packed, the instructor tells the student to make a start. They carried out their run-ups cornered in the least crowded bay only to taxi to the holding point and and find themselves 4th in line for take off. They ended up waiting for 20 minutes to their clearance. No wonder, all the previous aircraft had done their run-ups and were all lined up for take off. And that's an airport that operates two parallel runways but where instructors always want their students to take-off from the eastern one. No student at this stage will have the awareness or working knowledge to request the western one.

I mean no offense when I say this but your comments show me, as an instructor, that you are a difficult student.
That's rather sticky. What for exactly? Asking questions, is it? Or maybe just wanting to go to the bottom of things or requesting a clear answer? Sorry mate, you and others seem to perceive my post as an attack on your business while this really isn't one. No one gave a constructive answer yet, that's the startling fact. If anything, you should be flattered that a student sees more to those meters than mere numbers. So I'm left guessing that the reason you're all defending yourselves so vigorously is that there might indeed be a little bit of arbitrage in your system, that maybe a few schools are taking advantage of.

Again: not and never against instructors making a living, quite the opposite: go for it and get fat. Just wondering if there's a better way to use those meters that will earn schools equally as much financially and maximise students actual flight time for their money.

Assumption: a flight instructor is happier in the air than on the ground (@Clare prop: in economics term, they have a higher utility function in the air)
Observation: some flight instructors clearly don't seem to have much of an incentive to minimise time spent on the ground, nor minimise ground time for the student
Suggestion: charge flight time separately from ground time, ie. at different rates, the former obviously at a higher rate than currently to even things out
Expectation: more actual flight time for each dollar spent by students, less unnecessary ground time and frustration with ATC

[jonkster]

FWIW, I think it is a fair question to ask, why is the charging done the way it is and also to question whether you are getting value for money if you spend a lot of time held on the ground awaiting clearances.

My comments would be firstly - busy airports will have delays on the ground. You book an hour flight at one of those you are not going to get as much airtime in that session as you would at a less busy airport.

That is a downside of training at schools at busy aerodromes. (There can be upsides as well - you get exposed to a busier traffic environment and may have access to organisations with a wider variety of more advanced aircraft).



Again: not and never against instructors making a living, quite the opposite: go for it and get fat.


just for reference, instructors are the lowest paid pilots in the industry. They are at the bottom of the heap. It is not a way to make a good living.


Just wondering if there's a better way to use those meters that will earn schools equally as much financially and maximise students actual flight time for their money.


You want schools to make the same money. You want to pay less because you are not getting enough air time.

The only way that can happen is how? The only way I can see is they pay instructors less. Ask an instructor what their average annual income is and if they would be happy taking a rate cut.

If you want to get more airtime for logged hour I would think you should consider training at a less busy aerodrome.

Like I said, legitimate to ask the questions, worth looking at how aircraft are charged when hiring aircraft later on.

When training, worth shopping around schools to see what they offer - a smaller school at a less busy aerodrome can give you potentially great training and individualised service but may not have the glitz and glamour.

[Clare Prop]

Flying instructors on the whole want to do a good job, be safe and keep body and soul together, just like real people. What you are suggesting is that the instructor should take a financial hit if you get stuck in a queue for the runway, something the instructor has absolutely no control over.

My staff have the option of knocking off a couple of decimal points from the lesson time when were are stuck behind someone bringing the whole airport to a halt, I usually do, but I wouldn't force the staff to. We don't like being stuck in a queue in 40degrees plus either, while someone sits at the holding point waiting for an IFR clearance from the ATC guys sitting in their air conditioned comfort.

So lets use an analogy. If you were having professional driving lessons, would you want the instructor to "clock off" every time you were at a red traffic light or in heavy traffic? Or do you think the instructor could also use that as a teaching opportunity?

Building these things into the hourly rate is reasonable, using averages from several years operating experience. There are plenty of charges and gimmicks schools have introduced in recent years that I don't think are reasonable and need to be challenged, but paying for engine start to engine stop time isn't one of them.

[mikewil]

Flying instructors on the whole want to do a good job, be safe and keep body and soul together, just like real people. What you are suggesting is that the instructor should take a financial hit if you get stuck in a queue for the runway, something the instructor has absolutely no control over.




No one is saying they expect an instructor to take a financial hit from changing the way in which time is recorded for billing purposes. You can still pay your instructor from engine start to shutdown even if you aren't charging the student on that basis.


A pre-determined air switch rate which approximates the 'average' Hobbs recorded time would yield the same result to your bottom line (and what you pay your instructor), whilst not making every lesson a lucky dip for which student will get a raw deal due to ground based delays.


You could even charge the student a separate hourly rate for the instructor and an air switch rate for the aircraft.


I assume you aren't paying your instructors $300 an hour while the student sits at the hold point....

[jonkster]

No one is saying they expect an instructor to take a financial hit from changing the way in which time is recorded for billing purposes. You can still pay your instructor from engine start to shutdown even if you aren't charging the student on that basis.


A pre-determined air switch rate which approximates the 'average' Hobbs recorded time would yield the same result to your bottom line (and what you pay your instructor), whilst not making every lesson a lucky dip for which student will get a raw deal due to ground based delays.

So the instructor is charged by the hour logged (ie hobbs time) and the aircraft is charged by airswitch time? (the new rate will be more than current hourly rate but calculated so the school will average the same income for hour the aircraft is being used).

It certainly could be done. Would be a bit of a pain in the bum to administer but certainly could be done.

Some issues:

1. you would need pilots to make sure they brought back both hour times from the aircraft after each flight (so the school can work out your hire charge and record the time for paying the instructor and so the student/pilot/instructor can enter the correct time in training records and log books). Not a real biggie but the back of my hand only has so much real estate :)

2. Your invoices would list the air-switch time, you should not log what the invoice says (good reason to fill in your log book after each flight rather than leaving it a while and using invoices so actually a positive incentive I guess)

3. You *will save* some money on a log book hour if you have a delay on the ground - eg if you are slow doing checks, get held up by others/ATC, (what I assume is the problem you want to solve).

4. You will however *pay more* for the same log book hour if you are efficient doing your checks and don't get held up by others/ATC. Then again you are paying for 'quality' airtime so this not necessarily a problem for you.

5. You will have to *pay more* when you do nav or longer flights, you are being charged at a higher airswitch rate and the percentage of the flight spent on the ground when doing navs drops a lot so you will pay more for nav training, CPL hour building etc than you would now (potentially several hundred dollars more per flight).

I can imagine the arguments from nav or CPL students building hours asking why they get penalised for doing nav flights or being polished and efficient getting into the air.



Personally I still would say you would be wiser to look at another aerodrome if you are regularly spending 24 minutes/hr on the ground rather than ask a school to create a messy charging system that penalises those doing longer flights but you could always discuss it with your school.

[kikatinalong]

Remember an old baron in the 80s where the vdo/hobbs was on a gear switch. Gear up it was recording, down it wasn't. Fastest baron in oz, it could complete a lot of its flight at supersonic speeds if you believed the meter.

[Judd]

without referring to a printed checklist (this does have its place too).



In days of yore the student was required to learn the checks (Called Vital Actions Before take Off) by heart and the Before landing drills and others.
Checklists were for airline pilots.
Now we have airline cadets using airline type checklists for a Cessna 172 and without these checklists they are stuffed. Reading checklists that are usually lengthy and have superfluous content costs money and it all mounts up.

[Okihara]

Very good inputs, thanks. I'll take up the point to my school and discuss what can be done.

There are a lot of valuable skills to acquire when learning at a busy aerodrome. It's a little daunting at first, esp. radio calls and keeping a good listening watch but that's good experience that pays off in the long run.

For what it's worth, here's what I learned to minimise ground time (@MS: tell me this didn't make you smile when you read it :)):
0. Get the ATIS before starting your engine. That's especially useful early in the training when you need to listen to it three times to get all those nitty-gritty details. That might sound obvious to many, but consider this: the whole ATIS is around 30 seconds. Some kids will need to listen to it up to three times. If you're in the run-up bays, that's 1.5 min that your aircraft is occupying space unnecessarily. At my aerodrome, there can be up to 5 light aircraft in the bay, so that's anywhere between 7.5 and 10 min saved when done beforehand.
1. Still before starting your engine, take a good look at the run-up bays to ensure that you'll get room or else you might well end up waiting with propellers on on a taxiway while others carry out their checks (or get the ATIS).
2. Don't get yourself stuck in the middle of a run-up bay (actually not so obvious until it happens). Do your run-ups where you can leave without obstruction when done.
3. Know your run-up checks by rote. As long as you do them correctly, there's no extra value to be slow.
4. Take-off and safety briefing while taxiing to the holding point.
5. If your aerodrome operates multiple runways simultaneously, and if you're anyway departing, don't be shy to request take-off clearance from a less popular runway. There's no point being 4th for takeoff with three blokes before you doing circuits.
6. Ditto when inbound, think about which circuit to join to minimise taxi time and holding short of other runways while others are on approach. Listening to tower communications also gives indications of just how busy one circuit or the other might be. To that end, this is where it pays off to have a good mental map of your aerodrome taxiways and runway exits. This may also be an incentive to work on those tight short field landings. At my aerodrome for instance, if you miss the first two exits, you're in for a lot of taxi. You can also request taxi via specific taxiways
7. When inbound, if the busy side won't let you taxi to the apron without delay, just request to join circuits. It's still more valuable to spend those 6 minutes in the air than on the ground holding short of a runway.

[Aussie Bob]

If an up and coming private pilot can’t complete their checks without a checklist I am inclined not to pass them. What I say is this, the last pilot to fly this aircraft went home with the checklist. Are you going to embarrass yourself and grab the book of instructions and thumb through it, or are you going to have a go without it? Or are you going to abandon the flight?

[jonkster]

For what it's worth, here's what I learned to minimise ground time
...
...


:ok:

I don't know if you are looking at CPL but it is the sort of organisational and thinking ahead mentality that an examiner will look favourably on when doing your flight test.

[Okihara]

If an up and coming private pilot can’t complete their checks without a checklist I am inclined not to pass them. What I say is this, the last pilot to fly this aircraft went home with the checklist. Are you going to embarrass yourself and grab the book of instructions and thumb through it, or are you going to have a go without it? Or are you going to abandon the flight?

Surely there can't be anything wrong with having your own checklist on your kneeboard? Just to double check that you didn't skip an important item. I don't mean in the air but on the ground.

[Bend alot]

Okihara,


Your proposed method of charging lacked a cost "admin charge" for doing the calculations for the invoice to give to you.

This while you might think simple would actually take time to work out, confirm, enter and review. (All parts of it must be individually audited and costed to be in a positive income field and on a daily basis in most cases).


The current systems that flying schools have, are based more on a average based of yearly costs. So on average your flying cost of training will equal the same air time as others in the year you are being trained and the school will make an average profit based on hours charged on a meter.


So if you wanted a more detailed invoice of charges.
a) The hr rate will increase.
b) The admin fee will be introduced.
c) Contingency costs will probably be introduced to share the holding cost risks.


So it would in my opinion cost you more to do your training.


Any Jabiru engine done TBO without a Top? (honest question, think I only heard of one doing TBO with head work done).

I think CAsA do have a set of limits for chock to chock and wheels off to wheels on differences.


Now as for what you record for MR time, if a watch can be used - work out if you need a fast one or a slow one! never heard of CAsA inspectors requesting a calibration cert for a wrist watch yet! - no doubt this will be a Monday ramp check item.

[A Squared]

If an up and coming private pilot can’t complete their checks without a checklist I am inclined not to pass them. What I say is this, the last pilot to fly this aircraft went home with the checklist. Are you going to embarrass yourself and grab the book of instructions and thumb through it, or are you going to have a go without it? Or are you going to abandon the flight?

I'll concede that I've not been involved in primary instruction for quite a while, but I think that if a US PPL candidate "had a go without it" on his PPL checkride, he wouldn't pass the ride. Certainly the FAA's Airman Certification Standards has "Complete the appropriate checklist." sprinkled liberally throughout. Could you pass a checkride without a checklist in Oz? I'm asking. I don't pretend to know what goes on over there, but I'm not left with the impression that CASA is more flexible and understanding than the FAA.

For the record, I don't use a printed checklist in my personal flying. I use a combination of flows and mnemonics. But I think I'd be doing a PPL a disservice training him that way. I believe that a single engine Cessna may be saffely flown without using a printed checklist, but I don't think that belief is shared by the people who will be issuing the certificate.

[Tankengine]

I'll concede that I've not been involved in primary instruction for quite a while, but I think that if a US PPL candidate "had a go without it" on his PPL checkride, he wouldn't pass the ride. Certainly the FAA's Airman Certification Standards has "Complete the appropriate checklist." sprinkled liberally throughout. Could you pass a checkride without a checklist in Oz? I'm asking. I don't pretend to know what goes on over there, but I'm not left with the impression that CASA is more flexible and understanding than the FAA.

For the record, I don't use a printed checklist in my personal flying. I use a combination of flows and mnemonics. But I think I'd be doing a PPL a disservice training him that way. I believe that a single engine Cessna may be saffely flown without using a printed checklist, but I don't think that belief is shared by the people who will be issuing the certificate.
A mnemonic IS an appropriate checklist, nobody is saying just jump in and go without any thought or flow!
Does the ops manual of the aircraft have a printed checklist as a required part to be on board?
What happens if you forget/lose your checklist?
I never even saw a printed checklist for my first couple of dozen aircraft types until I got to jets! :)
Even on heavy jets you follow a flow by memory and only confirm with a checklist.

[A Squared]

A mnemonic IS an appropriate checklist, nobody is saying just jump in and go without any thought or flow!

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Yes I agree that a single engine airplane can be safely operated using nenomics and flows. No, I don't think that the FAA would agree that will fill the requirement for "completing a checklist". Perhaps CASA has a broader view on that. Like I said, I don't know about that. If a CASA inspector would that sufficient on a checkride, I've no issue.

Does the ops manual of the aircraft have a printed checklist as a required part to be on board? All the ones I've seen do. I've always assumed that it was a required element of a POH.

[Tankengine]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Yes I agree that a single engine airplane can be safely operated using nenomics and flows. No, I don't think that the FAA would agree that will fill the requirement for "completing a checklist". Perhaps CASA has a broader view on that. Like I said, I don't know about that. If a CASA inspector would that sufficient on a checkride, I've no issue.

All the ones I've seen do. I've always assumed that it was a required element of a POH.

“Required element”, or just something that is generally there?
Are you saying that a C172/Baron etc that does not have a written checklist on board is now grounded?
I would love to see that somewhere in writing! ;)
I can say that I completed CPL and MECIR (well, it’s ancestor anyway) tests without written checklists, however that was a long time ago. :)

[mikewil]

Are you saying that a C172/Baron etc that does not have a written checklist on board is now grounded?
I would love to see that somewhere in writing! ;)




Your C172 or Baron would definitely be grounded.


The law requires you to carry the flight manual on board, I am pretty sure all flight manuals contain said checklists.

[LeadSled]

I am pretty sure all flight manuals contain said checklists.

Mikewil,
At the risk of picking a few nits, the original C-172/180/182 certification predates mandatory AFM/POH.
I would also make the comment that many GA aircraft manufacturer check lists are terrible, they are NOT really check lists at all, they are procedures lists, leaving you between a rock and a hard place "legally".
For a B767/744, the total normal operations checklists from brakes off the brakes on is a short list on the control wheel boss, why does it run to page after page for many GA aircraft.
Tootle pip!!

[Tankengine]

Your C172 or Baron would definitely be grounded.


The law requires you to carry the flight manual on board, I am pretty sure all flight manuals contain said checklists.

Never seen one with a checklist, the old manufacturers one may have had one.
Of course the last time I flew one the old CAA flight manuals were in force. ;)
I wonder how I passed all those tests and Instructor/Instrument renewals without ever using a printed checklist? :)

[A Squared]

Never seen one with a checklist, the old manufacturers one may have had one.

I have to say, I'm scratching my head over this statement. You've never seen a manual with a checklist????? I have to ask, how many aircraft manuals have you actually read? I don't think I have ever seen a manual for a light airplane manufactured in the last 60 years or so whcih did *not* contain checklists. The regulations regarding manuals and aircraft certification have changed over the years, prior to, I think 1979, an aircraft manual was just *A* manual. After that date, the manual became part of the aircraft equipment, it had a part number and was specific to one individual aircraft, and it will have the aircraft serial number printed in the manual. It was *the* manual, it was required to be updated, and it was a part of the airplane. You could have copies, and you could get generalized manuals from the manufactures whcih had essentially the same information, but they were not *the* official manual for *that* individual airplane.

Here's a scan of a 1967 Cessna 172 manual (http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Cessna/cessna-poh/C172H_1967_POH_scanned.pdf) The checklist begins on the 4th page of the .pdf (Page 1-1).

Here's a scan of a 1982 Cessna 172P "information manual" (http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Cessna/cessna-poh/Cessna_172_C172P-1982-POH-scannedwithinsertblanknotepages.pdf) The 172P was certificated in the era after the serialized aircraft manual was required, but still in the era when a new model had CAR 3, (the predecessor regulations to Part 23) as a certification basis. This is called an "information manual" because it is not *the* aircraft flight manual. this would be the manual that a flight school would give (for a price, of course) to a student that he would take home to study. A note on the third page of the .pdf explains this status and how the "information manual" does not replace the "Official Pilot's Operating Handbook, and FAA Approved Flight Manual" The Emergency Checklists begin on pg 35, and the normal operating checklists begin on page 55.

Here's an "Information manual" for a 2007 172R. (http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Cessna/cessna-poh/Cessna_172_C172R_2007_NavIII-G1000+GFC700-POH-PIM-fromCessna.pdf) The 172R, unlike the 172-172Q, was entirely certificated under the current Part 23 Airworthiness Standards. (vice the predecessor CAR-3 regs) It contains a similar note in the front that the "information manual" when printed contains the same information as the official POH and Approved Flight Manual, but because it is does not get updated, cannot be considered a replacement for the manual assigned to the specific aircraft serial number. Emergency and Normal Checklists are found beginning on pg 72 and 112, respectively.

Lest you be tempted to think that this is just a Cessna phenomenon here's a link to a manual for a 1975-1977 Citabria (www.aerodynamicaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/CitabriaPOH.pdf) Checklists are in the Emergency procedures section, normal procedures section, and also printed on the back cover for convenience.

I also have a manual for a 1965 Helio Courier. It contains checklists. I'd have to host the file somewhere in order to provide a link, and I'm far too lazy for that, so you're just gonna have to trust me on that one.

Since you earlier mentioned Barons, here's a link to the "Normal Procedures Section of the POH for the G58 Baron. (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/www.beechcraft.com/customer_support/technical.../58-590000-67_Section%204.pdf) Yep, you guessed it ... checklists.

Can you provide a link to the manufacturer's manual for a general aviation aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate manufactured in the last 60 years which *doesn't* contain checklists?

[Lead Balloon]

I’ve never used any of the checklists in any of the POHs/Flight Manuals in any of the aircraft I’ve flown, with one exception: emergency undercarriage extension.

Why do you think instructors invented all those TMFISCHs and BUMFHHs and PUFFs and CFMMs etc?

[A Squared]

I’ve never used any of the checklists in any of the POHs/Flight Manuals in any of the aircraft I’ve flown, with one exception: emergency undercarriage extension.

Why do you think instructors invented all those TMFISCHs and BUMFHHs and PUFFs and CFMMs etc?

The question I was answering was "Are there checklists in aircraft manuals?" not : "Are the checklists found in aircraft manuals good checklists in a convenient location?"

[Lead Balloon]

Roger. My mistake.

[Tankengine]

The question I was answering was "Are there checklists in aircraft manuals?" not : "Are the checklists found in aircraft manuals good checklists in a convenient location?"

You are correct, although most of those checklists were crap, embedded in manuals.
There were two seperate ops manuals, the “official” dca, dot, caa, casa (have I missed any?) one and the manufacturers manual, full of interesting stuff (and perhaps some crap checklists)
The fact is though that nobody in the 70s/early 80s took any notice of them! (They did contain good stuff like how to drop the gear as Leadsled said!)
Regarding my own experience, hmm : various singles, travelair, pa23, pa32, baron, c310, pa31, Beagle206!
B747,767,737,a330.
Yep, used a few checklists over the years, just not in 172s, or most of the twins! (I think the navajo had a rolling thing on the control column.)
The original argument was more “do you NEED to use printed checklists” in bugsmashers during a checkflight?my answer would still be no.

[Tankengine]

Asquared,
Have look at your pdf of the 172 manual.
Under checklists are a bunch of “do” items, no actual checklists as an airline pilot would know them. ;)

[A Squared]

The original argument was more “do you NEED to use printed checklists” in bugsmashers during a checkflight, my answer would still be no.

True, but you kind of derailed that discussion by making some, ummm, questionable statements about Checklists not being in manuals, and manuals not being required.

Back to the question at hand; By your own admission, you haven't been involved in General Aviation or flight instruction for about third of a century. Are you sure that "no" is still the correct answer? Are you really sure? As I said earlier, I don't have a whole lot of insight into the way things are in GA in Oz, other than what I read here, but I'm fairly sure that a check-ride with the FAA that didn't involve printed checklists would be short and unsuccessful. I'd be interested to hear what the story is in Oz from someone who's been involved in GA flight instruction in this millennium.

[A Squared]

Asquared,
Have look at your pdf of the 172 manual.
Under checklists are a bunch of “do” items, no actual checklists as an airline pilot would know them. ;)

Well, if you're going to argue that the checklists that Cessna has in their manuals, labeled "checklist", aren't actually checklists, then you'd probably better take that argument to Cessna. Again, I wasn't arguing that they were good checklists, just that they are there.

[Tankengine]

True, but you kind of derailed that discussion by making some, ummm, questionable statements about Checklists not being in manuals, and manuals not being required.

Back to the question at hand; By your own admission, you haven't been involved in General Aviation or flight instruction for about third of a century. Are you sure that "no" is still the correct answer? Are you really sure? As I said earlier, I don't have a whole lot of insight into the way things are in GA in Oz, other than what I read here, but I'm fairly sure that a check-ride with the FAA that didn't involve printed checklists would be short and unsuccessful. I'd be interested to hear what the story is in Oz from someone who's been involved in GA flight instruction in this millennium.
Sorry Asquared, not too current on Oz GA these days.
I did my FAA checkflight last year though! :)
Not a checklist in sight!