Inaccurate logbook entries
You have read something into a law that is simply not there and are now running around trying to force that interpretation onto others using scare tactics about prosecution and shouting about how people's careers will be ended.
Grow up.
I have lost count of the number of matters, in which I have had some involvement over the years, where CASA and it's predecessors have done over a pilot for personal log book errors, or an operator for "false entries" ---- being inaccurate times entered in an MR.
This is nothing new, but the latest one, of which I am aware, is likely to be listed for hearing in the next month or so, once the DPP finally decides how long the list will be.
The number of pilots I have personally dealt with, that are barred from the US is 11, including two chaps who used to go to Oskosh every couple of years --- but no more, sadly. Two other of the pilots were working for a corporation, but no more. Now they are effectively limited to Australian territory, and will not be considered by any Australian ( or any other) airline for employment.
One poor sod was prevented from accepting a USAF invitation to attend 60th Anniversary of VE Day functions, he has flown with the 15th Army Air Force in WWII.
I suggest Tailwheel has been in the aviation business since before many posters on this site were born, read his words very carefully.
As for CASA "approving" a manual, CASA DO NOT approve manuals, they "accept" them, there is a very significant difference. Various CASA FOIs directing amendments to manuals as several have suggested only reveals the lack of basic standards of knowledge and lack of CASA training of FOIs ---- a matter raised in successive ICAO audits.
As to the guy booking IF time in the gin clear, I suggest whoever criticized that, go re-read the relevant CAO, it's quite legal.
Much of the time in Australia, if you had to be in actual IF conditions to log IF time, it would be well nigh impossible to log the time required for recency ---- the CAO recognizes this fact ---- and it can be on autopilot, contrary to opinions I have seen elsewhere on this site.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Most operators of large aircraft, to avoid these problems, use automatic time recording, and have done for may years. They literally read park brakes off to park brakes on for flight time, and air time off and on is triggered by the U/C squat switches.
Not mentioning the airline by name, just let's describe it as a very long standing Australian based international airline, got into an interesting stoush because the Operations Manual purported to direct the aircrew to log time in a manner contrary to the Act and Regulation. That problem has long since been corrected to reflect ICAO Annex 1, which means there is a Legislative Instrument to allow a variation from the non-ICAO parts of the Australian regulations.
All legally neat and tidy, as it should be.
Last edited by LeadSled; 27th Aug 2010 at 15:42.
Can anyone tell me if Hobbs meter engine time is a legal basis for logging flight time? If it isn't then there are Tens of thousands of illegal entries in thousands of log books, because that is what I was taught.
Furthermore does CASA understand and apply the concept of materiality in making decisions to prosecute? Sounds like they don't.
Furthermore does CASA understand and apply the concept of materiality in making decisions to prosecute? Sounds like they don't.
Clinton,
With respect, re. my posts on this subject, differentiate between pilots and engineers who have a conviction for log book mis-recording, of whatever variety, and pilots and LAMEs who have found their travel rather restricted, as a result of any conviction on an aviation matter.
As I am certain you are aware, the US in particular takes a very dim view of anybody with a conviction on an aviation matter trying to enter the US.
I first became aware of how serious this is taken, when a LAME well known to me arrived in KLAX with family in tow, for a holiday built around a visit to Disneyland.
Much to his surprise, disappointment, and expense, he was refused entry, and was on a flight back to Australia the same day.
Several posters on this thread have made light of this type of matter, for their information, see the following:
Framing Commonwealth Offences, Civil Penalties And Enforcement Powers
See P 11, of the 2007 doc., and the serious consequences of a criminal conviction, quite apart from any immediate penalty.
Given the extent of the criminal offences in the aviation law, is it wise to ignore relatively simple compliance with the logging of hours, in favour of "rules of thumb" that have no legal basis, and are clearly contrary to law ----- no matter how long they may have been in "general use".
Tootle pip!!
With respect, re. my posts on this subject, differentiate between pilots and engineers who have a conviction for log book mis-recording, of whatever variety, and pilots and LAMEs who have found their travel rather restricted, as a result of any conviction on an aviation matter.
As I am certain you are aware, the US in particular takes a very dim view of anybody with a conviction on an aviation matter trying to enter the US.
I first became aware of how serious this is taken, when a LAME well known to me arrived in KLAX with family in tow, for a holiday built around a visit to Disneyland.
Much to his surprise, disappointment, and expense, he was refused entry, and was on a flight back to Australia the same day.
Several posters on this thread have made light of this type of matter, for their information, see the following:
A Guide To
Perhaps the most important factor to be considered in determining whether a provision should be criminal or civil, is the effect of a criminal conviction. Conviction for a crime carries with it a range of consequences beyond the immediate penalty (eg imprisonment or a fine).
- A person who is convicted of certain offences will be ineligible to hold public office and may be removed from a position they already hold. For example a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for 12 months or longer cannot become a Senator or member of the House of Representatives, Commonwealth Constitution section 44(ii).
- Subject to the spent conviction provisions in Part VIIC of the Crimes Act 1914, a person may be required to disclose the fact of their criminal conviction in a range of circumstances. For example, disclosure may be required in seeking employment to care for minors or work in a law enforcement agency.
- The person may be ineligible to travel to many countries.
- A conviction may affect also the right of a non-citizen to remain in Australia under the Migration Act 1958.
- A person, whether a natural person or a body corporate, may be disqualified from becoming accredited under various legislation. [ added by me: Holding an ASIC card ??]
- A person may be ineligible to be a director, principal officer or auditor of a company, for example section 245 of the Life Insurance Act 1995.
In addition, a criminal conviction carries with it a social stigma, particularly where the conviction is accompanied by imprisonment. As with the other consequences discussed above, this will have more impact on a natural person than on a body corporate.
- A person who is convicted of certain offences will be ineligible to hold public office and may be removed from a position they already hold. For example a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for 12 months or longer cannot become a Senator or member of the House of Representatives, Commonwealth Constitution section 44(ii).
- Subject to the spent conviction provisions in Part VIIC of the Crimes Act 1914, a person may be required to disclose the fact of their criminal conviction in a range of circumstances. For example, disclosure may be required in seeking employment to care for minors or work in a law enforcement agency.
- The person may be ineligible to travel to many countries.
- A conviction may affect also the right of a non-citizen to remain in Australia under the Migration Act 1958.
- A person, whether a natural person or a body corporate, may be disqualified from becoming accredited under various legislation. [ added by me: Holding an ASIC card ??]
- A person may be ineligible to be a director, principal officer or auditor of a company, for example section 245 of the Life Insurance Act 1995.
In addition, a criminal conviction carries with it a social stigma, particularly where the conviction is accompanied by imprisonment. As with the other consequences discussed above, this will have more impact on a natural person than on a body corporate.
Tootle pip!!
LS, nobody on here has once suggested that rules should be ignored, yet that's 4 times you've told us why they shouldn't.
Can you please tell me which part of the rule you think my company's method is "clearly" not complying with?
Can you please tell me which part of the rule you think my company's method is "clearly" not complying with?
Clinton,
Fitting unapproved parts ---- but it was far from straightforward, he had accepted parts under a release note from a CASA CAR 30 approved organisation.
The argument that he lost concerned what he should have done to verify that the parts were airworthy, other than take the release note ( a local DA-1, not an import under an 8130) at face value. I never understood how he was convicted, but he was!
You should know that pilot or maintenance logs have long been a happy hunting ground for inspectors since aviation regulation was invented ----- the one aviation area where Australia was years ahead of the US, and by volume or weight, we still are the world leader in aviation legislation.
As I have told just about every student I have ever had, it is usually just as easy to do the right thing as the wrong thing, and this certainly applies to all flight records.
Why give the CASA a free kick ???
Quite a few of the posters here do not seem to understand that, if, and it's a big if, I can help to get the message across, I will have achieved something.
Something I really hate having to do, is tell a young and enthusiastic pilot that his job application cannot be considered, because of a conviction.
Tootle pip!!
Fitting unapproved parts ---- but it was far from straightforward, he had accepted parts under a release note from a CASA CAR 30 approved organisation.
The argument that he lost concerned what he should have done to verify that the parts were airworthy, other than take the release note ( a local DA-1, not an import under an 8130) at face value. I never understood how he was convicted, but he was!
You should know that pilot or maintenance logs have long been a happy hunting ground for inspectors since aviation regulation was invented ----- the one aviation area where Australia was years ahead of the US, and by volume or weight, we still are the world leader in aviation legislation.
As I have told just about every student I have ever had, it is usually just as easy to do the right thing as the wrong thing, and this certainly applies to all flight records.
Why give the CASA a free kick ???
All you appear to be saying is that if a person gets convicted of a criminal offence, there are serious consequences for the person. Thanks for that.
Something I really hate having to do, is tell a young and enthusiastic pilot that his job application cannot be considered, because of a conviction.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 29th Aug 2010 at 09:52.
Clinton
You may recall a decade ago in your previous employment that one of the many trivial matters used by CASA to justify suspension of an Air Operator's Certificate and ending up in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, involved a three hour over run on an Islander Maintenance Release. The error was the result of an innocent pilot error in addition. It was "discovered" by CASA (actually pointed out to CASA) over 300 hours and three hundred hourly inspections later.
The same innocent error was also used in the subsequent action to remove the Maintenance Controller's LAME license.
Whilst I suspect flight time plus 0.1 hours for log book time may be reasonable, it is not in accordance with the regulatory requirements and would no doubt delight some vindictive, bureaucratic FOI seeking to make a name for himself.
Considering your previous employment and your profession I would have thought your advice would be simply that all pilots should follow the regulatory requirements when recording flight time and completing their Log Book?
Which is what Leadsled is suggesting?
Sunfish
As you would know, a Hobbs Meter is only a timing device. I have seen them connected to an air switch (to record MR time); and to an engine oil pressure switch (which would approximate pilot's Log Book flight hours). Considering Hobb's claimed accuracy of ±200ppm, (±0.02% over the entire voltage and temperature range) any reasonable CASA FOI should accept that the hours indicated by a Hobbs Meter, switched by an engine oil pressure switch, would reasonably equate flight time for pilot Log Book recording purposes.
But I also recall a CASA AWI requiring a Hobbs Meter disconnected and removed until the aircraft owner obtained a CAR35 Engineering Order for the Hobbs Meter installation, despite it originally being installed by an E&I LAME. That may invalidate Hobbs Meter hours recorded on an MR or in a Pilot Log Book?
You may recall a decade ago in your previous employment that one of the many trivial matters used by CASA to justify suspension of an Air Operator's Certificate and ending up in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, involved a three hour over run on an Islander Maintenance Release. The error was the result of an innocent pilot error in addition. It was "discovered" by CASA (actually pointed out to CASA) over 300 hours and three hundred hourly inspections later.
The same innocent error was also used in the subsequent action to remove the Maintenance Controller's LAME license.
Whilst I suspect flight time plus 0.1 hours for log book time may be reasonable, it is not in accordance with the regulatory requirements and would no doubt delight some vindictive, bureaucratic FOI seeking to make a name for himself.
Considering your previous employment and your profession I would have thought your advice would be simply that all pilots should follow the regulatory requirements when recording flight time and completing their Log Book?
Which is what Leadsled is suggesting?
Sunfish
As you would know, a Hobbs Meter is only a timing device. I have seen them connected to an air switch (to record MR time); and to an engine oil pressure switch (which would approximate pilot's Log Book flight hours). Considering Hobb's claimed accuracy of ±200ppm, (±0.02% over the entire voltage and temperature range) any reasonable CASA FOI should accept that the hours indicated by a Hobbs Meter, switched by an engine oil pressure switch, would reasonably equate flight time for pilot Log Book recording purposes.
But I also recall a CASA AWI requiring a Hobbs Meter disconnected and removed until the aircraft owner obtained a CAR35 Engineering Order for the Hobbs Meter installation, despite it originally being installed by an E&I LAME. That may invalidate Hobbs Meter hours recorded on an MR or in a Pilot Log Book?
Last edited by Torres; 29th Aug 2010 at 09:56.
The grounds relied upon by CASA were never ‘trivial’.
Everyone else: Most of what I’ve heard on this subject for the last 3 decades is the same broken record. I'm only new, but I'm told by those who've been around for a while that the record's been broken ever since pilots were invented. My inexpert advice: Find a real expert, and follow their advice.
Last edited by Torres; 29th Aug 2010 at 12:35.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to butt in on this clearly off topic piece, but to bring it slightly back to topic...
With modern technology, ie. computerized records, your flight training school, if you still go to one, should have a up to date record of your hours flown. I know mine does, and i know a lot of other clubs around do as well. It is ultimately the responsibility of the pilot to take charge of how he/she writes up their log book, however, if the C.I is doing their job properly, they should be keeping a sharp lookout on fraud.
We all have to see a CI at some stage in our training. Now i don't know about you guys, but i'm asked to present my log book to him before a flight. I had to to it for my PPL and he crossed checked it with the clubs records. It is and should be at that point that certain people will be crapping their pants OR happily smiling for once at their C.I.
well thats my 2 cents anyway.
With modern technology, ie. computerized records, your flight training school, if you still go to one, should have a up to date record of your hours flown. I know mine does, and i know a lot of other clubs around do as well. It is ultimately the responsibility of the pilot to take charge of how he/she writes up their log book, however, if the C.I is doing their job properly, they should be keeping a sharp lookout on fraud.
We all have to see a CI at some stage in our training. Now i don't know about you guys, but i'm asked to present my log book to him before a flight. I had to to it for my PPL and he crossed checked it with the clubs records. It is and should be at that point that certain people will be crapping their pants OR happily smiling for once at their C.I.
well thats my 2 cents anyway.
Clinton,
Why was I unable to understand the judgment ---- because the opinion of the eminent SC for the defense (and this is what most LAME would understand) was that the LAME was entitled to rely on the certification accompanying the overhauled components obtained and fitted, and wasn't further required to strip down the component ( an overhauled cylinder assembly) to ensure it was airworthy. After all, the release note was created by the CAR 30 approved overhauler of the cylinder assembly. The relevant section of CAR 42 (CAR 42W(1) ??)had been satisfied.
But that was not the judgment of the court. As I recall, LAME was not able to finance an appeal.
Back to the thread, the definitions of flight time and "air time" are quite straightforward, but that seems to be too simple for some, as does the idea that the CFI/Instructor/ LAME/whoever can "order" that times be logged contrary to the law. About as common as the practice of schools/clubs purporting to direct pilots that they do not have "the authority" to enter defects on the MR, despite the fact that they were the pilot in command of the aircraft.
As for checking logbooks against school/club records, what use is that, if the school/club method of logging is not compliant ---- as many are not. After all, it seem to me that the law is quite clear about who is responsible for a personal log book.
I hark back to the speeding analogy, that lots of people do it doesn't change the law.
As to not hiring young pilots due a criminal record, in the years gone by, when my brother and I had a charter company based in Cooktown, or when I was a school CFI, it never happened. The good old days, when a figurative "clip under the ear" by an Examiner of Airman was the order of the day, not "100% enforcement" ---- you will probably remember that statement.
In more recent years, sitting on a review panel for applicants, too often, including several quite recently, and I do not intend to be specific about times, dates and places.
Although I have not been able to confirm it, it would seem to be the case that the US wants to even know about administrative fines, if they are aviation related.
The matter of pilots so easily acquiring a criminal record for matters that are quite trivial, is not a trivial matter.
Tootle pip!!
Why was I unable to understand the judgment ---- because the opinion of the eminent SC for the defense (and this is what most LAME would understand) was that the LAME was entitled to rely on the certification accompanying the overhauled components obtained and fitted, and wasn't further required to strip down the component ( an overhauled cylinder assembly) to ensure it was airworthy. After all, the release note was created by the CAR 30 approved overhauler of the cylinder assembly. The relevant section of CAR 42 (CAR 42W(1) ??)had been satisfied.
But that was not the judgment of the court. As I recall, LAME was not able to finance an appeal.
Back to the thread, the definitions of flight time and "air time" are quite straightforward, but that seems to be too simple for some, as does the idea that the CFI/Instructor/ LAME/whoever can "order" that times be logged contrary to the law. About as common as the practice of schools/clubs purporting to direct pilots that they do not have "the authority" to enter defects on the MR, despite the fact that they were the pilot in command of the aircraft.
As for checking logbooks against school/club records, what use is that, if the school/club method of logging is not compliant ---- as many are not. After all, it seem to me that the law is quite clear about who is responsible for a personal log book.
I hark back to the speeding analogy, that lots of people do it doesn't change the law.
As to not hiring young pilots due a criminal record, in the years gone by, when my brother and I had a charter company based in Cooktown, or when I was a school CFI, it never happened. The good old days, when a figurative "clip under the ear" by an Examiner of Airman was the order of the day, not "100% enforcement" ---- you will probably remember that statement.
In more recent years, sitting on a review panel for applicants, too often, including several quite recently, and I do not intend to be specific about times, dates and places.
Although I have not been able to confirm it, it would seem to be the case that the US wants to even know about administrative fines, if they are aviation related.
The matter of pilots so easily acquiring a criminal record for matters that are quite trivial, is not a trivial matter.
Tootle pip!!
Lasiorhinus:
It's always moving with respect to the water, unless the water is dead flat and there is no current or tidal component. Don't you mean "with respect to the land"?
Surely, when it stops moving with respect to the water.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every time this thread comes up it spins me out a little. There are a lot of grey areas in aviation law - but I didn't think log time was one of them. First movement under own power to rest at completion of flight. Not rocket surgery, and I honestly can't believe the number of operators/ops manuals that specify applying a "standard" addition to airswitch time - or LAMEs requiring MR time to be a "percentage of engine run time". It doesn't take more than a second to note Startup, Wheels Off, Wheels On, Shutdown.
Do the guys doing this think I'm fudging my logbook by adding 0.6 to the beginning of my wheels-off time because it was 35 mins from initial taxi to airborne, as happened a couple of days ago (due to lots of jet traffic in and out, causing congestion)? Because this is not only legal, it's what's required by the regs.
Do the guys doing this think I'm fudging my logbook by adding 0.6 to the beginning of my wheels-off time because it was 35 mins from initial taxi to airborne, as happened a couple of days ago (due to lots of jet traffic in and out, causing congestion)? Because this is not only legal, it's what's required by the regs.
Zapp,
You have it in one.
Amazing, isn't it, the number of people who want to defend "what I was told was ----" in the face of simple and unambiguous regulations.
Tootle pip!!
You have it in one.
Amazing, isn't it, the number of people who want to defend "what I was told was ----" in the face of simple and unambiguous regulations.
Tootle pip!!
Amazing, isn't it, the number of people who want to defend "what I was told was ----" in the face of simple and unambiguous regulations.
Tootle pip!!
Tootle pip!!
The "accepted" ops manual says to add 0.1 to airswitch or longer as appropriate when delays in taxiing are experienced.
Leadsled still won't explain why he thinks this is in disagreement with the rules, but I tell you what, I'm not going to ignore my ops manual based on an internet discussion. That is a whole lot more likely to end up getting me in all that strife Leadsled is concerned about.
To those that think its just laziness - this particular operation already requires us to record several other times amongst the other amounts of paperwork, and I for one appreciate the slight saving in time.
What amazes me is that people can bag the airswitch plus appropriate amount of time method, yet then say that engine oil pressure driven VDO time is appropriate. Now there is a method that is clearly not doing what the rules say! I am not condoning it either - its still accurate enough for 99% of the flight schools out there - I just find it funny that people can take offence to the airswitch+ method of calculating total flight time yet are happy to accurately record engine start up to engine shut down and call it chocks to blocks when it clearly isn't. Perhaps engine hobbs time -0.1 would be better
Leadsled still won't explain why he thinks this is in disagreement with the rules, but I tell you what, I'm not going to ignore my ops manual based on an internet discussion. That is a whole lot more likely to end up getting me in all that strife Leadsled is concerned about.
To those that think its just laziness - this particular operation already requires us to record several other times amongst the other amounts of paperwork, and I for one appreciate the slight saving in time.
What amazes me is that people can bag the airswitch plus appropriate amount of time method, yet then say that engine oil pressure driven VDO time is appropriate. Now there is a method that is clearly not doing what the rules say! I am not condoning it either - its still accurate enough for 99% of the flight schools out there - I just find it funny that people can take offence to the airswitch+ method of calculating total flight time yet are happy to accurately record engine start up to engine shut down and call it chocks to blocks when it clearly isn't. Perhaps engine hobbs time -0.1 would be better
I think the issue is more to do with the fact that CASA approve ops manuals that require you to add .1 per landing. If your ops manual say add .1 you have to do it regardless of what the regs say.
If the Ops Manual contains any matter which is contrary to provisions of the Act, Regulations or Orders, then the Act, Regulations or Oders shall prevail - not the Ops Manual. CAAPs are advisory documents, not legislation.
May I ask which part of Tankengine's rather precise, common sense posting do pilots not understand.
You raise an interesting point Clinton, although you may be splitting hairs. Whilst not detailed in legislation (but may be in the CAAPs?) I suspect any movement by the aircraft for the purposes and intent of flight - movement for refuelling, engine run ups etc - by the pilot intending to operate the aircraft on that flight, should be recorded by the pilot as flight time.
If a pilot were to taxi an aircraft for the purposes and intent of flight and subsequently return prior to take off due to a maintenance defect, I suspect that should also be logged as flight time.
Conversely, taxi of an aircraft for the sole purposes of maintenance (e.g. to a hangar) would not constitute flight time and should not be logged, in the same manner that a LAME with taxi approval is not required to log time when he taxis an aircraft for maintenance purposes. However, that time would be included in the pilot's Duty Hours.
I don't claim to be correct, merely a personal assumption without research. If I needed to know I would make appropriate inquiries.
If I taxi to the run-up area and stop to do run-up checks, then taxi to the holding point for the active runway and stop to wait for an aircraft on short final, then line up and wait on instructions from ATC, then commence the take-off roll, what is the point at which the aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking off?
If all that activity is part of the ‘purpose of taking off’ – albeit eventually - what if I taxi to the fuel bowser and shut down to get fuel, on the way to taking off – eventually. Does the taxi time from the parking area to the bowser, and during refuelling, count as part of the ‘flight time’ for the eventual flight. If not why not?
If I taxi out to the run-up area and do run-up checks, then taxi to the holding point for the active runway but find something wrong with aircraft during pre-take off checks, so taxi back, does that count as flight time?
For those who say ‘no’, why should that taxi time count only if I subsequently take off then land?
It is, after all, logging of FLIGHT time. There - hair split.
My own understanding of the current legislation, of course.
