Time entries for a logbook when there is no VDO
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still think you miss the point here, what do you propose Krazy do after the fact? He's already stated that he should have noted the times and will do so in the future but neglected to do so in this instance. He cant log Tacho, he has no exact chock to chock time so what does he do?
Those who commented have given advice on what he can use, this time, based on previous experience with flight time to log time comparison.
Those who commented have given advice on what he can use, this time, based on previous experience with flight time to log time comparison.
Last edited by eocvictim; 5th Mar 2010 at 05:18.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: your house
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok Lead,
Sorry in that case.. (taking cover!) I can't see what the big fuss is though. Most GPS units (the IFR ones anyway) will actually tell you the flight time. Is it that hard to get an off/on blocks time to accompany this??
S
Sorry in that case.. (taking cover!) I can't see what the big fuss is though. Most GPS units (the IFR ones anyway) will actually tell you the flight time. Is it that hard to get an off/on blocks time to accompany this??
S
When I first saw the original post in this thread I thought " how the hell does something that should be simple become so complicated". Surely common sense should prevail.
Then I watched some of the replies and I realised that it is not that simple.
There are many pilots out there who just do not know or understand the rules regarding logging of flight time and lots of other rules also. It seems that the question should be WHY?. Lack of education ad training maybe. That does not really seem to be the case. Our industry has theory exam pass mark requirements of at least 70% and in some cases 80% with the requirement in some cases for the ATO to bring this up to 100% based on the candidates KDR. There is not an educational instution in the world that I am aware of that requires 100%. I believe that 50% is a pass in a lot of uni courses. So it seems that the problem should not be one of education.
So that leaves interpretation.
In this case, I have had a fixed view on the definition of flight time for many years. This view is what was taught to me and has been discussed with a number of FOI's and industry people over the years. ie. from brakes released to brakes set. This includes any time at holding points etc and also if you taxi with the "intent" of taking off but return for some reason. This does not include taxying to the bowser or for maintenance or repositioning. Now, Leadsled points out a possible flaw in my reasoning. He is quite possibly correct. Having said that I would be happy to defend my interpretation in front of a magistrate if necessary. So interpretation becomes the issue.
I understand that the criminal code includes a provision along the lines of "if you have an honest and genuine belief that what you did was not illegal' then you could not be convicted. I am not a lawyer and will happily stand to be corrected.
My point is that I believe that my interpretation is correct and any flight time that I log in these circumstances is legitimate.
Likewise I believe that if the OP, under the circumstances, logs flight time that he genuinely believes is accurate and provided it is not manifestly wrong, then he should not have anything to worry about.
Now comes the problem. My approach is one that I believe to be legal and above all practical. Unfortunately the next person, specifically a CASA person, may disagree. In fact if you were to approach 10 different FOI's for an opinion on this you will get multiple answers. If they can't agree, how can we be expected to know the answer. Indeed professional lawyers can and do get into arguments over what a particular piece of legislation means.
The problem is that we have a real problem with our legislation. The rules are spread out between many separate documents. Act Regs CAO's AIP Flight and Maintenance Manuals etc. Now we have the increasing tendency for some people, CASA included, to state the "requirements of the CAAP". A CAAP is an advisory publication but it seems to be encroaching on legislative territory.
So what am I saying here.
We have a disgracefull set of legislation and regulation that we pilots and engineers as well as other aviation professionals have to interpret. We are essentially practical people who have to try to sort out this mishmash of legislation and apply it in a practical safe legal way.
The best that we can do, is do out best, be honest in our professional lives and hold our heads up. If we inadvertantly make an honest and genuine mistake then so be it, but I do not believe that any Magistrate will view this to seriously.
Then I watched some of the replies and I realised that it is not that simple.
There are many pilots out there who just do not know or understand the rules regarding logging of flight time and lots of other rules also. It seems that the question should be WHY?. Lack of education ad training maybe. That does not really seem to be the case. Our industry has theory exam pass mark requirements of at least 70% and in some cases 80% with the requirement in some cases for the ATO to bring this up to 100% based on the candidates KDR. There is not an educational instution in the world that I am aware of that requires 100%. I believe that 50% is a pass in a lot of uni courses. So it seems that the problem should not be one of education.
So that leaves interpretation.
In this case, I have had a fixed view on the definition of flight time for many years. This view is what was taught to me and has been discussed with a number of FOI's and industry people over the years. ie. from brakes released to brakes set. This includes any time at holding points etc and also if you taxi with the "intent" of taking off but return for some reason. This does not include taxying to the bowser or for maintenance or repositioning. Now, Leadsled points out a possible flaw in my reasoning. He is quite possibly correct. Having said that I would be happy to defend my interpretation in front of a magistrate if necessary. So interpretation becomes the issue.
I understand that the criminal code includes a provision along the lines of "if you have an honest and genuine belief that what you did was not illegal' then you could not be convicted. I am not a lawyer and will happily stand to be corrected.
My point is that I believe that my interpretation is correct and any flight time that I log in these circumstances is legitimate.
Likewise I believe that if the OP, under the circumstances, logs flight time that he genuinely believes is accurate and provided it is not manifestly wrong, then he should not have anything to worry about.
Now comes the problem. My approach is one that I believe to be legal and above all practical. Unfortunately the next person, specifically a CASA person, may disagree. In fact if you were to approach 10 different FOI's for an opinion on this you will get multiple answers. If they can't agree, how can we be expected to know the answer. Indeed professional lawyers can and do get into arguments over what a particular piece of legislation means.
The problem is that we have a real problem with our legislation. The rules are spread out between many separate documents. Act Regs CAO's AIP Flight and Maintenance Manuals etc. Now we have the increasing tendency for some people, CASA included, to state the "requirements of the CAAP". A CAAP is an advisory publication but it seems to be encroaching on legislative territory.
So what am I saying here.
We have a disgracefull set of legislation and regulation that we pilots and engineers as well as other aviation professionals have to interpret. We are essentially practical people who have to try to sort out this mishmash of legislation and apply it in a practical safe legal way.
The best that we can do, is do out best, be honest in our professional lives and hold our heads up. If we inadvertantly make an honest and genuine mistake then so be it, but I do not believe that any Magistrate will view this to seriously.
So to summarize all the dribble on here.
Pilot Logbook:
Chocks off to chocks on, whether you fly or have intent to fly but return to the bay due to a number of reasons.
MR:
Wheels off to wheels on
If you miss timing the flight, you should still have a departure time on your flight plan and an arrival time. Add 0.3 for an IFR flight or 0.1 for a VFR flight for each landing you conducted.
For future reference always log a off chocks, wheels off, wheels on, on chocks.
So I gather you have a flying job Krazy?
Pilot Logbook:
Chocks off to chocks on, whether you fly or have intent to fly but return to the bay due to a number of reasons.
MR:
Wheels off to wheels on
If you miss timing the flight, you should still have a departure time on your flight plan and an arrival time. Add 0.3 for an IFR flight or 0.1 for a VFR flight for each landing you conducted.
For future reference always log a off chocks, wheels off, wheels on, on chocks.
So I gather you have a flying job Krazy?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: here
Age: 45
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So how is CASA going to argue that what I log, for this arguement 6 minutes to taxi and do run up's is not the correct time?
I always start the clock as is interpreted above, from brakes off to brakes on but what if CASA decide to that my time is incorrect? How are they or I going to prove how long it took to taxi 6 years ago
BTW, I find it's generally .1 or .2 over the MR time, which makes sense, 6 minutes to taxi, warm the engine, do a run-up and then wait for a clear runway. Then 3 minutes to taxi and shutdown.
I always start the clock as is interpreted above, from brakes off to brakes on but what if CASA decide to that my time is incorrect? How are they or I going to prove how long it took to taxi 6 years ago
BTW, I find it's generally .1 or .2 over the MR time, which makes sense, 6 minutes to taxi, warm the engine, do a run-up and then wait for a clear runway. Then 3 minutes to taxi and shutdown.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Not a lawyer, but I'm with Clinton on this one as you can't come to a complete stop after landing if you haven't actually taken off. To me the logical answer (not the legal one) is that you should only log from first moving ... until the decision not to take off is made. Once you've decided to return to the gate/ramp/hanger you are no longer taxiing under your own power for the purpose of take off.
However this makes for an interesting conundrum for us barefoot pilots - does a seaplane ever truly come to rest on the water? Leadsled your thoughts?
However this makes for an interesting conundrum for us barefoot pilots - does a seaplane ever truly come to rest on the water? Leadsled your thoughts?
pcx,
Unfortunately, most of our aviation regulations (breaches of) are strict liability offenses, the prosecution does not have to establish "mens rea", the guilty mind, intent to do the thing.
All that has to be proven is the thing was done, why or why not plays no part.
The only defense to a strict liability offense is "honest and reasonable mistake", and it is a very high test ---- effectively something beyond your control ---- which precludes ignorance or forgetfulness.
I most certainly agree about the regulatory shambles, it has been this way since the early 1980's and accelerating post 1988, the formation of CASA. Continual fiddling about, as a result of the changing demands of the A-Gs is only making it worse. Have a look on other threads about Clinton's views on the subject.
The old Air Navigation Act and Air Navigation Regulations were, by comparison, simple and relatively easy to understand.
No other country in the English speaking world has the problems with aviation regulation, that seems to have beset Australia. NZ and Canada are standout examples of modern (reformed) aviation legislation.
Tootle pip!!
Unfortunately, most of our aviation regulations (breaches of) are strict liability offenses, the prosecution does not have to establish "mens rea", the guilty mind, intent to do the thing.
All that has to be proven is the thing was done, why or why not plays no part.
The only defense to a strict liability offense is "honest and reasonable mistake", and it is a very high test ---- effectively something beyond your control ---- which precludes ignorance or forgetfulness.
I most certainly agree about the regulatory shambles, it has been this way since the early 1980's and accelerating post 1988, the formation of CASA. Continual fiddling about, as a result of the changing demands of the A-Gs is only making it worse. Have a look on other threads about Clinton's views on the subject.
The old Air Navigation Act and Air Navigation Regulations were, by comparison, simple and relatively easy to understand.
No other country in the English speaking world has the problems with aviation regulation, that seems to have beset Australia. NZ and Canada are standout examples of modern (reformed) aviation legislation.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Krazy asked what tacho RPM was required to make the tacho hour equal an hour on your watch. A few years ago I timed a C210M with an IO520 engine. 2,400 rpm exactly equalled 1 hour on the watch. Less revs and naturally an hour on the watch passed before the tacho read an hour (57.5 min on the tacho at 2,300 rpm) and of course more revs and the tacho read
62.5 mins at 2500 revs, after 1 hr on the watch.
CASA would earn more brownie points if they concentrated their minds on simplifying rules for things like the topics dealt with in this thread. Surely they shouldn't be upset if a pilot under-reported his log book hours or over-reported the aircraft hours.
Using 2,400 revs as a true reading of 1 hour on a typical flight to 10,000 ft, a 6 minute taxi to the line-up point would read 3 mins on the tacho if you used 1200 revs. The climb to 10,000 ft at 2,750 revs for 20 mins would over-read by 2.9 mins. Pretty close to spot-on, I reckon.
Tacho time is pretty hard to fudge and is not subject to too many mathematical errors.
62.5 mins at 2500 revs, after 1 hr on the watch.
CASA would earn more brownie points if they concentrated their minds on simplifying rules for things like the topics dealt with in this thread. Surely they shouldn't be upset if a pilot under-reported his log book hours or over-reported the aircraft hours.
Using 2,400 revs as a true reading of 1 hour on a typical flight to 10,000 ft, a 6 minute taxi to the line-up point would read 3 mins on the tacho if you used 1200 revs. The climb to 10,000 ft at 2,750 revs for 20 mins would over-read by 2.9 mins. Pretty close to spot-on, I reckon.
Tacho time is pretty hard to fudge and is not subject to too many mathematical errors.
Now lets not let this end up in an over square argument guys!
nooooo you can't run over square ecovictim, every young CPL and aero club bar dweller will tell you that you will blow cylinders.
Never mind what the flight manual says.
I am very familiar with the details, because I was the F/O.
LeadSled, if you do work for CASA, that would explain the long-winded, regulatory based diatribes that you continue to write.
Some years ago, due to a pilot addition error, an aircraft over-ran a 100 Hrly inspection by 3.5 hours. The error was detected by the Maintenance Controller and corrections and explanation made to the maintenance records at the time of the 100 Hrly inspection.
300 plus flying hours and six months later during a CASA audit, they discovered the correcting entry on both the MR and aircraft Log Book. CASA issued an NCN due to the aircraft exceeding it's approved 100 hours time in service, which ultimately became part of a matter before the AAT.
As Clinton and LeadSled would both remember.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes diplomacy overcomes prejudices.
As The Dalai Lama was welcomed to Australia, Leadsled is welcomed to the inner sanctum of CASA. One of the few who still have doors open to them without being a sychophant.
An historical pity that many have not capitalised on for their constituents. Mainly because of their own petty political prejudices.
As The Dalai Lama was welcomed to Australia, Leadsled is welcomed to the inner sanctum of CASA. One of the few who still have doors open to them without being a sychophant.
An historical pity that many have not capitalised on for their constituents. Mainly because of their own petty political prejudices.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notwithstanding the above, and at geat risk that I will be attacked by vested money interests, I am of the opinion that "tacho time" is a "fair" representation of what should be written in the pilots log book.
It is also a fair representation of which the aircraft and/ or instructor should be charged out at an flying hourly rate.
I believe this to have legal merit. (but then, I'm not a Lawyer).
It is also a fair representation of which the aircraft and/ or instructor should be charged out at an flying hourly rate.
I believe this to have legal merit. (but then, I'm not a Lawyer).
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Age: 44
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I gather you have a flying job Krazy?
Someone also mentioned get the time off the GPS - very good point. Unfortunately the plane I fly doesn't have one.
However, like all good engineers I came up with my solution using a spreadsheet. I looked at later flights which I did time properly and analysed the radio of tacho time to clock time, as well as the average 'additional' clock time over tacho time for similar type flights. I then used those averages to backfill for my previous flights.
My question was never really asked from a legal point of view, more just from a "rather than me guessing, lets see what more experienced people do when they've had similar situations."
Cheers guys! (and gals)
