Logbook Allowances
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England
Age: 52
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Logbook Allowances
Hello All,
Can anyone tell me the definative allowances that may be added to military logbook times to factor in the taxi time etc allowed with the civil sector.
Thanks
Can anyone tell me the definative allowances that may be added to military logbook times to factor in the taxi time etc allowed with the civil sector.
Thanks
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See Appendix B to Section A of LASORS2007 where it is all explained.
For Tucano/Hawk/Tornado, the flight time supplement is 10 min per flight.
For Display Flying, it is only 5 min per flight.
Recording of Military Flying Times –
Taxi-time allowances
It is normal practice for pilots in civil aviation to record their flying hours on a “chock-to-chock” basis. However, UK military flight crew are required only to record “airborne” time – this practice being linked to Service engineering procedures and is unlikely to change.
The CAA has always been aware of this discrepancy, and of the fact that it led to Service pilots being slightly disadvantaged compared to their civilian colleagues
when they left the Services.
In recognition of this, the CAA worked with the MOD (Training Policy Unit) to devise a system that would give some credit for military taxi times.
The system that was decided upon was the taxi-assessment system. The Service pilot adds a taxi-time allowance (see table 1 below) to each sector flown as entered in his Service logbook - the taxi-time allowance being dependant on the type of sortie flown by the pilot. The taxi-time allowances built up throughout a career are then entered into a table (see table 2 below) to arrive at a total for their career. Prior to leaving the Services this table should be placed in the pilot’s logbook and signed by his last Squadron Commander.
Please note that this arrangement cannot be used for CAA licence issue purposes.
It should be emphasised that when canvassed, most UK airlines said they were aware of the discrepancy between the Service and CAA method of recording flying hours, and took this into account in the recruitment process. Where this is the case, any hours calculated by the individual Service pilot in excess of 75 hours should be taken into account by the individual airline.
The taxi-time allowance that the CAA is prepared to recognise for licence issue purposes is 5% of the total military “airborne” hours up to a maximum credit of 75
hours for ATPL(A) issue and 10 hours for CPL(A) issue. This corresponds to the average amount of taxi hours credited for civil pilots under the “chock to chock” system. When the Service pilot submits his application for licence issue, this taxi-time allowance (where required to meet minimum experience requirements) may be added to the recorded military airborne hours and the new total declared on the application form. Effectively it will mean that a military pilot will be required, inter alia, to acquire 1425 hours of military “airborne” flight time for ATPL(A) issue and 190.5 hours for CPL(A) issue.
Note: this allowance cannot be used to satisfy the eligibility requirements for any of the QSP licence accreditation schemes detailed elsewhere in this publication (LASORS).
For Tucano/Hawk/Tornado, the flight time supplement is 10 min per flight.
For Display Flying, it is only 5 min per flight.
Recording of Military Flying Times –
Taxi-time allowances
It is normal practice for pilots in civil aviation to record their flying hours on a “chock-to-chock” basis. However, UK military flight crew are required only to record “airborne” time – this practice being linked to Service engineering procedures and is unlikely to change.
The CAA has always been aware of this discrepancy, and of the fact that it led to Service pilots being slightly disadvantaged compared to their civilian colleagues
when they left the Services.
In recognition of this, the CAA worked with the MOD (Training Policy Unit) to devise a system that would give some credit for military taxi times.
The system that was decided upon was the taxi-assessment system. The Service pilot adds a taxi-time allowance (see table 1 below) to each sector flown as entered in his Service logbook - the taxi-time allowance being dependant on the type of sortie flown by the pilot. The taxi-time allowances built up throughout a career are then entered into a table (see table 2 below) to arrive at a total for their career. Prior to leaving the Services this table should be placed in the pilot’s logbook and signed by his last Squadron Commander.
Please note that this arrangement cannot be used for CAA licence issue purposes.
It should be emphasised that when canvassed, most UK airlines said they were aware of the discrepancy between the Service and CAA method of recording flying hours, and took this into account in the recruitment process. Where this is the case, any hours calculated by the individual Service pilot in excess of 75 hours should be taken into account by the individual airline.
The taxi-time allowance that the CAA is prepared to recognise for licence issue purposes is 5% of the total military “airborne” hours up to a maximum credit of 75
hours for ATPL(A) issue and 10 hours for CPL(A) issue. This corresponds to the average amount of taxi hours credited for civil pilots under the “chock to chock” system. When the Service pilot submits his application for licence issue, this taxi-time allowance (where required to meet minimum experience requirements) may be added to the recorded military airborne hours and the new total declared on the application form. Effectively it will mean that a military pilot will be required, inter alia, to acquire 1425 hours of military “airborne” flight time for ATPL(A) issue and 190.5 hours for CPL(A) issue.
Note: this allowance cannot be used to satisfy the eligibility requirements for any of the QSP licence accreditation schemes detailed elsewhere in this publication (LASORS).
for full info see LASORS http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/SECTION%20D.pdf
EDIT: Sorry link seems to be wrong one and I see you are a herc mate http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/LASORS_07.pdf should work and Multi engine transport aircraft is 15 mins per sector.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Mostly here, but often there
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be careful. I don't have LASORS in front of me so happy to be proved wrong, but don't think you can use taxi time towards the 1500 hrs P1 requirement for licence exemption. Mind you, it soon adds up; I added over 250 hrs to my total!!
I added 447 hrs 20 mins to mine ............... but I already had the licence so it didn't really matter!
In case anyone here wishes to know the sortie taxy times:
Fixed Wing Training Aircraft - 10 mins
Fast Jets - 10 Mins
Mult-engined Transport Aircraft -15 mins
Display Flying - 5 mins
Wheeled Helicopter (Airfield Operations) - 5 mins
Wheeled Helicopter (Field Operations) - None
Skidded Helicopters - None
Aircraft Carrier Operations - None
In case anyone here wishes to know the sortie taxy times:
Fixed Wing Training Aircraft - 10 mins
Fast Jets - 10 Mins
Mult-engined Transport Aircraft -15 mins
Display Flying - 5 mins
Wheeled Helicopter (Airfield Operations) - 5 mins
Wheeled Helicopter (Field Operations) - None
Skidded Helicopters - None
Aircraft Carrier Operations - None
LASORS say that 5% may be added to the total for licence issue, therefore only 1425 hrs are required. It also used to state that taying hours should be declared as such and should not be added to aircraft totals to look like they are flying time. This is particualry relevant if applying to a non JAR airline as some operators don't recognise military taxy time.
One way round it is to keep a separate civilian logbook recording blocks times and not airborne times. This will make a significant difference in most cases as the times mentioned by Mr Bernoulli are based on a minimum time assumed spent taxying. The longest ground time I have ever spent was a few minutes short of two hours!
Mr Bernoulli, we obviously had similar careers. I added 448 taxying hours to my CV!
One way round it is to keep a separate civilian logbook recording blocks times and not airborne times. This will make a significant difference in most cases as the times mentioned by Mr Bernoulli are based on a minimum time assumed spent taxying. The longest ground time I have ever spent was a few minutes short of two hours!
Mr Bernoulli, we obviously had similar careers. I added 448 taxying hours to my CV!
Please note that this arrangement cannot be used for CAA licence issue purposes.
Means what it says - it does not count towards the 'experienced QSP' accreditation described in LASORS D3.3.
I agree with Dan - I logged everything in a civil logbook from chox-chox as well as keeping military hours in my military logbook. Then sent the civil one in for my ATPL issue. Not that hours were a factor by then.
So those 'Ar$ecoat departure messages' did at least have one use - chox times for the civil logbook, take-off and landing for the mil one.
Means what it says - it does not count towards the 'experienced QSP' accreditation described in LASORS D3.3.
I agree with Dan - I logged everything in a civil logbook from chox-chox as well as keeping military hours in my military logbook. Then sent the civil one in for my ATPL issue. Not that hours were a factor by then.
So those 'Ar$ecoat departure messages' did at least have one use - chox times for the civil logbook, take-off and landing for the mil one.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand why the RAF continue to insist that pilots log flying hours this way. The actual flight time recorded in the F700 is used for engineering purposes and some sqns also derive stats from auth sheet entries. However, I see no reason why chock-to-chock times shouldn't be recorded in log books, giving the pilot due credit for being in charge of an ac moving under it's own power. As far as I'm aware no-one then subsequently cross refers to log books to produce any other stats - do they? If necessary, one of the spare columns on the auth sheet could be used to record chock-to-chock times for audit purpose, or we could simply adopt the CAA credit for each flight when completing the log book.
Whilst this topic is trivial in isolation, it is perhaps symptomatic of a wider issue. We have several out-of-step practices, such as RT and altimeter setting, that do have their own merits but start to look decidedly anachronistic as we become a relatively smaller player. I firmly believe that adoption of common practices carries greater benefit than the minor irritation of getting used to doing things everyone else's way and, except where absolutely necessary, we should swim with the tide.
Whilst this topic is trivial in isolation, it is perhaps symptomatic of a wider issue. We have several out-of-step practices, such as RT and altimeter setting, that do have their own merits but start to look decidedly anachronistic as we become a relatively smaller player. I firmly believe that adoption of common practices carries greater benefit than the minor irritation of getting used to doing things everyone else's way and, except where absolutely necessary, we should swim with the tide.
Nice idea Brain ........... but try to get those dyed-in-the-wool MoD types and Ivory-Tower dwellers to move their posteriors on that would be like trying to persuade the USA that eating less lard and using far less gasoline is a good thing!
I don't understand why the RAF continue to insist that pilots log flying hours this way
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Perhaps something to do with the fact that we log flying hours? Not taxi time?!?!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 60
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I am led to understand that in civil long haul operations the PIC logs time, even when lying flat on the crew rest bunk, as he/she is still "in command of the aircraft".
Instructors log time for sitting in the seat, when they may never actually touch the controls.
Short haul pilots will do multi sectors in the same time a long haul one drinks coffee and keeps an eye on the dials while the A/P cruises the aircraft halfway round the world.
Surely logged time is very subjective as a means to assess experience ?
Instructors log time for sitting in the seat, when they may never actually touch the controls.
Short haul pilots will do multi sectors in the same time a long haul one drinks coffee and keeps an eye on the dials while the A/P cruises the aircraft halfway round the world.
Surely logged time is very subjective as a means to assess experience ?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland,
The reality is that the RAF do not allow pilots to claim credit for a phase of aircraft operation that requires just as much care as any other. Accidents whilst taxiing are just as serious and seem to actually bring more wrath down on the perpetrators than mistakes made elsewhere.
Your rationale for this situation seems to be - we only claim flying hours because.....we only claim flying hours.
I'm afraid that such logic and the "we've always done it that way" mentality feature highly amongst the reasons that we are still lumbered with all the other RAF-isms that unnecessarily separate us from the way that the rest of the world operate aircraft.
The reality is that the RAF do not allow pilots to claim credit for a phase of aircraft operation that requires just as much care as any other. Accidents whilst taxiing are just as serious and seem to actually bring more wrath down on the perpetrators than mistakes made elsewhere.
Your rationale for this situation seems to be - we only claim flying hours because.....we only claim flying hours.
I'm afraid that such logic and the "we've always done it that way" mentality feature highly amongst the reasons that we are still lumbered with all the other RAF-isms that unnecessarily separate us from the way that the rest of the world operate aircraft.
AA
As you say - CAA not military!
BP
Does it really matter? I do not deny that the taxy phase requires just as much care, and if you are taxying your small military aircraft around a major international airport, probably more!!
As to just because the CAA do it that way is that really enough reason for the RAF to change the way they have always done business? To me you are arguing for one of those "change for changes sake" situations. Do the RAF need to change they way they do business? What is the benefit? None. Unless you want to argue that it makes it easier for RAF pilots to gain a few extra hours in the log book - which we are all entitled to when applying for a licence anyway!! Anyone who has done a half decent length of time in the RAF will have racked up more than enough hours not to worry about it!!
As you say - CAA not military!
BP
Does it really matter? I do not deny that the taxy phase requires just as much care, and if you are taxying your small military aircraft around a major international airport, probably more!!
As to just because the CAA do it that way is that really enough reason for the RAF to change the way they have always done business? To me you are arguing for one of those "change for changes sake" situations. Do the RAF need to change they way they do business? What is the benefit? None. Unless you want to argue that it makes it easier for RAF pilots to gain a few extra hours in the log book - which we are all entitled to when applying for a licence anyway!! Anyone who has done a half decent length of time in the RAF will have racked up more than enough hours not to worry about it!!
However, the RAF does at least log 'IF' properly - both simulated and actual.
Whereas the Eurocrats have people logging 'IFR time'......
Whereas the Eurocrats have people logging 'IFR time'......
Sod the hours, think of the pay! With my current employer, we're paid by the hour. At about a quid a minute overtime - it counts! (BTW, my flights todays netted 53 minutes taxying).
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland,
Yes I agree that this issue by itself is trivial - although I don't know why anyone wouldn't be in favour of crediting pilots with experience that the vast majority of aviation regards as perfectly legitimate. I simply feel that it highlights the whole issue of us retaining our parochial practices.
Instrument minima, RT, altimeter setting procedures, fire and rescue cover etc are all areas where we do things differently. I am not suggesting that there is no legitimacy to the differences, it's just that they all add up to make it more awkward for others to operate with us and for our people to adjust accordingly whenever they go elsewhere.
I accept that the "change for change's sake" argument has validity but it does depend on your perspective. Rationalizing RT to match CAP413 might seem an unnecessary burden to QFIs at training bases but it would have direct benefits in improving interoperability/deployability for the front-line. As an example - do we really need to be reminded to perform checklists by ATC? They won't do it in sandy places.
Yes I agree that this issue by itself is trivial - although I don't know why anyone wouldn't be in favour of crediting pilots with experience that the vast majority of aviation regards as perfectly legitimate. I simply feel that it highlights the whole issue of us retaining our parochial practices.
Instrument minima, RT, altimeter setting procedures, fire and rescue cover etc are all areas where we do things differently. I am not suggesting that there is no legitimacy to the differences, it's just that they all add up to make it more awkward for others to operate with us and for our people to adjust accordingly whenever they go elsewhere.
I accept that the "change for change's sake" argument has validity but it does depend on your perspective. Rationalizing RT to match CAP413 might seem an unnecessary burden to QFIs at training bases but it would have direct benefits in improving interoperability/deployability for the front-line. As an example - do we really need to be reminded to perform checklists by ATC? They won't do it in sandy places.
Yes, I have to agree that this JAR (?) bolleaux about logging IFR is just so pointless - its a record of .............. nothing! I still log IF, as I did in the military.
I also take exception to folk logging time when in the bunk. I guess one might () be able to make a case for the aircraft Captain, but everybody else? Bolleaux again! Its against the company SOP's for one, but nobody seems to give a sh!te or check up on it. Me? I don't feel the need to fill the logbook with pointless collected numbers ........................
I also take exception to folk logging time when in the bunk. I guess one might (
) be able to make a case for the aircraft Captain, but everybody else? Bolleaux again! Its against the company SOP's for one, but nobody seems to give a sh!te or check up on it. Me? I don't feel the need to fill the logbook with pointless collected numbers ........................
Surely the only time worth logging 'in the bunk' is when one is enjoying some deep and meaningful quality relaxation time with a trolley tart?
And before anyone says that 'trolley tart' is non-PC, the person who told me about the title was a delightful little ba toastie.......
.....with a penchant for little black lacy things, as I was to find out later
!!
Very little............aarrrgghhh, Nurse, fetch more bromide tea!
And before anyone says that 'trolley tart' is non-PC, the person who told me about the title was a delightful little ba toastie.......
.....with a penchant for little black lacy things, as I was to find out later
!!Very little............aarrrgghhh, Nurse, fetch more bromide tea!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How is bunk time treated with respect to flight time limits and your contracted hours? I'm guessing that these are independent of what you record in your log book.
I'm sure I read something about a middle-east airline that doesn't count bunk time towards any flight time limits.
I'm sure I read something about a middle-east airline that doesn't count bunk time towards any flight time limits.