Inaccurate logbook entries
Quote:
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?
No.
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?
No.
Quite often a wx radar tests serviceable in the preflight and then when it is activated on the runway prior to takeoff in the wet season it is found to be U/S. It's a no go item and the taxi time can still be logged.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, as GG says above, as long as the intent is flight, you don't actually have to fly for it to be loggable. Along the same lines, if you taxied out and had a rejected takeoff before taxying back to the apron for whatever reason, you'd absolutely be logging it, even though there was no actual flight.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yep, as GG says above, as long as the intent is flight, you don't actually have to fly for it to be loggable. Along the same lines, if you taxied out and had a rejected takeoff before taxying back to the apron for whatever reason, you'd absolutely be logging it, even though there was no actual flight.
Watch out GG and b sta: you could be in line for one of those CASA strict liability prosecutions and confinements to (Australian) barracks.
The rules are ‘clear’.
Or perhaps not.
The rules are ‘clear’.
Or perhaps not.
It does not state you have to 'take-off' merely that you need to be taxiing for the purpose of takeoff.
For an ex FOI I thought you would have been pretty clear on that one (although I'd prefer not to cross swords with you). This is taught pretty much from day dot as a student and is accepted practice in every flying school/company I have been involved with.
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.
You company ops manual says the company TO minima is 200m yet this is way below the minima published in the regs which takes precedence?
Your company has an approval in the ops manual to fly 12 hour duty day which is beyond the regs which one is right?
If ops manual says to add .1 per landing yet the regs say start to shut down on a ramp check what is the FOI going to say?? And the answer is follow the ops manual because I have had this very thing happen!!!
Neville,
The answer to your first two examples is easy --- both will be covered by Legislative Instruments , have a look at the CASA web site for many examples for minima below standard minima.
If you have a "tailored" Jepp, they will print your actual minima, not the IAL minima.
As for the last, another example of the fact that FOIs come out of industry, and due to nil/inadequate training, they just continue on with all the misconceptions they "absorbed" before being elevated to godlike status (at least in their --- in some cases own eyes).
See the last two ICAO audit reports, it's all public information.
Tootle pip!!
The answer to your first two examples is easy --- both will be covered by Legislative Instruments , have a look at the CASA web site for many examples for minima below standard minima.
If you have a "tailored" Jepp, they will print your actual minima, not the IAL minima.
As for the last, another example of the fact that FOIs come out of industry, and due to nil/inadequate training, they just continue on with all the misconceptions they "absorbed" before being elevated to godlike status (at least in their --- in some cases own eyes).
See the last two ICAO audit reports, it's all public information.
Tootle pip!!
This thread is depressing on so many levels.
It is depressing because there should be a simple clear cut answer to the question of logging time that is either embodied in the legislation itself or if not so embodied, CASA should provide a simple direction and explanation, written in plain English, of what is acceptable and not acceptable to it, supported by examples if necessary. CASA should then require its own staff to abide by that direction.
The mere fact that we are discussing the subject of "inaccuracy" indicates that no such direction exists, at least not in a useable form. I do not accept that an explanation of the matter gleaned from interpolating the legislation, regulations, orders and a CAAP (which is after all "advisory") is sufficient.
That such a simple matter has NOT been settled leads me to suspect, CASA being populated by intelligent individuals, is that CASA, for it's own internal reasons, does not wish for the matter to be cut and dried. The only reason I can think of at present for that possibility is that CASA wishes its FOI's to be able to make their own determination of compliance, a practice that to my mind is unusual in the public sector since it invests certain public servants with very considerable power that is not transparently open to review. This is not a good thing.... and, since I was not born yesterday, don't try and fob me off with the excuse "The Legislation means what it says."
The damage to the aviation community is compounded if Leadsleds (and others) allegations of witch-hunts followed by vindictive and malicious prosecution are true. I have no doubt of the consequences of conviction either. The little legal concept of "Materiality" seems to be lost or ignored by CASA, if the reports of prosecution for a Three hour historical error on an MR, and LAME loss of licence are to be believed, which also begs the question of whether Qantas or VB have ever been prosecuted for similar errors.
At a personal level, I have now realised that my logbook, which should be a treasured possession, is actually a millstone around my neck.
My logbook contains errors, going back to early student days that were corrected by the liberal application of "white out". It is "mostly" correct, in that I cannot guarantee that simple "finger trouble" has not intervened, but there is at least one entry where I've conflated about Five flights over a weeks tour into one sixteen hour entry. Individual flights have always been recorded from Hobbes engine hours, which I believe are a reasonable facsimile of what CASA apparently wants because, since I'm paying for them, the aircraft is moving pretty soon after start up.
To put it another way, each page on my logbook should have the words "E and OE accepted" printed on it like most invoices.
The prospect of a detailed logbook analysis by an unsympathetic FOI, perhaps following an accident, does not exactly thrill me. I've already indicated on Pprune (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...t-medical.html) that I am far from thrilled by the bureaucracy and infighting that appears be going on and that is making the holding of a PPL considerably less attractive than it should be.
I can put up with most things and cope with most uncertainties, but the ongoing reports of Aviation related maladministration and capricious prosecution, coupled with the far reaching consequences of such behaviour as depicted in this thread, are one more reason to give the game away permanently. The log book? I'll burn it.
It is depressing because there should be a simple clear cut answer to the question of logging time that is either embodied in the legislation itself or if not so embodied, CASA should provide a simple direction and explanation, written in plain English, of what is acceptable and not acceptable to it, supported by examples if necessary. CASA should then require its own staff to abide by that direction.
The mere fact that we are discussing the subject of "inaccuracy" indicates that no such direction exists, at least not in a useable form. I do not accept that an explanation of the matter gleaned from interpolating the legislation, regulations, orders and a CAAP (which is after all "advisory") is sufficient.
That such a simple matter has NOT been settled leads me to suspect, CASA being populated by intelligent individuals, is that CASA, for it's own internal reasons, does not wish for the matter to be cut and dried. The only reason I can think of at present for that possibility is that CASA wishes its FOI's to be able to make their own determination of compliance, a practice that to my mind is unusual in the public sector since it invests certain public servants with very considerable power that is not transparently open to review. This is not a good thing.... and, since I was not born yesterday, don't try and fob me off with the excuse "The Legislation means what it says."
The damage to the aviation community is compounded if Leadsleds (and others) allegations of witch-hunts followed by vindictive and malicious prosecution are true. I have no doubt of the consequences of conviction either. The little legal concept of "Materiality" seems to be lost or ignored by CASA, if the reports of prosecution for a Three hour historical error on an MR, and LAME loss of licence are to be believed, which also begs the question of whether Qantas or VB have ever been prosecuted for similar errors.
At a personal level, I have now realised that my logbook, which should be a treasured possession, is actually a millstone around my neck.
My logbook contains errors, going back to early student days that were corrected by the liberal application of "white out". It is "mostly" correct, in that I cannot guarantee that simple "finger trouble" has not intervened, but there is at least one entry where I've conflated about Five flights over a weeks tour into one sixteen hour entry. Individual flights have always been recorded from Hobbes engine hours, which I believe are a reasonable facsimile of what CASA apparently wants because, since I'm paying for them, the aircraft is moving pretty soon after start up.
To put it another way, each page on my logbook should have the words "E and OE accepted" printed on it like most invoices.
The prospect of a detailed logbook analysis by an unsympathetic FOI, perhaps following an accident, does not exactly thrill me. I've already indicated on Pprune (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...t-medical.html) that I am far from thrilled by the bureaucracy and infighting that appears be going on and that is making the holding of a PPL considerably less attractive than it should be.
I can put up with most things and cope with most uncertainties, but the ongoing reports of Aviation related maladministration and capricious prosecution, coupled with the far reaching consequences of such behaviour as depicted in this thread, are one more reason to give the game away permanently. The log book? I'll burn it.
For an ex FOI I thought you would have been pretty clear on that one...
Sunfish ..... CAA/CASA recognised the CARs were inadequate in 1988 and launched into regulatory reform. You have been here long enough to be familiar with THIS thread, commenced in 2005.
We have an entire generation of young pilots who trained and now operates under a set of Regulations which at very least are inadequate and ambiguous.
This month is the 22nd anniversary of CASA's regulatory review. I doubt CASA is competent or capable of ever completing the task.
Sunfish, you need cheering up. How about a flying holiday in the USA where you'll see how pleasant flying can be? For example, no FAA requirement to log every flight - only what is required to meet certain specific requirements per their regs. (Professional pilots may have other reasons to log their flights however`)
For my own flight time here I use the bezel on my watch to mark start of the flight (per our regs of course) and when I stop the flight a quick glance indicates the time that I need to know to put in my logbook. I wonder if anyone will ever check it against the flying school's records which have the VDO (engine running) time. It records to the nearest 0.1 hr at the start and at the end. (I know there are some VDO's which record time in minutes but not ours) My flights are typically 1 hr so in terms of measuring my flight time the VDO has an accuracy of +/- 10%. i.e. on average it is OK but for any one flight the VDO could be 0.1 hr less or greater than my watch time.
One of my friends was recently put out because I logged the time per my watch rather than tacho time on his aeroplane as it cost him more money to buy my time. No thought to him cheating me out of money if we had used tacho time as the deal was $ per hour not $ per unit on some other device.
For my own flight time here I use the bezel on my watch to mark start of the flight (per our regs of course) and when I stop the flight a quick glance indicates the time that I need to know to put in my logbook. I wonder if anyone will ever check it against the flying school's records which have the VDO (engine running) time. It records to the nearest 0.1 hr at the start and at the end. (I know there are some VDO's which record time in minutes but not ours) My flights are typically 1 hr so in terms of measuring my flight time the VDO has an accuracy of +/- 10%. i.e. on average it is OK but for any one flight the VDO could be 0.1 hr less or greater than my watch time.
One of my friends was recently put out because I logged the time per my watch rather than tacho time on his aeroplane as it cost him more money to buy my time. No thought to him cheating me out of money if we had used tacho time as the deal was $ per hour not $ per unit on some other device.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One VH registered airline operating 737 Classics and operating to Nauru on a scheduled service uses Cruise captains. These are first officers who are authorised by CASA to log in command time when the captain is on rest but are not permitted to log command time for take off and landings or below a certain altitude. There is nothing in the Australian Regulations that permit this and one wonders if this practice is authorised by a local FOI with the knowledge of CASA Head Office? Certainly a very useful way of building command hours on a large jet - but what is the CASA Regulation that permits this practice? And if there isn't one then surely this is illegal. According to the Regulations there can only be one captain for the whole flight from take off to landing even if he is absent from the flight deck for an indeterminate time.
"....and you know what: I don't know of any person - not one person - who's been prosecuted as a consequence of the content of their logbook,..."
I am aware of at least one instance where the regulator insinuated (not alleged) that a pilot's Log Book contained fraudulent entries whilst that pilot was working overseas. That pilot was hassled by various CASA FOIs in every job he accepted around Australia to the point he gave up flying. Indeed, it was suggested the nexus of the issue related back to the RAAF, before the pilot held a civil pilot license.
To give credit Clinton, it was after you left the Halls of Doom and Gloom, but a number of your former colleagues were very involved.
I will not comment on the veracity of that pilot's Log Book as I simply do not know whether it contained fraudulent entries or not. Perhaps if the matter had been heard in an appropriate Court any evidence could have been tested and we may have known the truth with the pilot either vindicated or convicted, a basic precept of our democracy.
The need for clear, concise and unambiguous Regulations, together with an accountable and transparent Regulator, is long over due.
Which I think is precisely what Leadie is alluding to!
djpil. I urge caution in using "tacho time" in recording any time required by CASA. Most tachometers display accurate time only at a pre-determined engine RPM. (I think early Cessna singles were calibrated to indicate accurate time only at 2,400 RPM.) Operating the engine at any RPM above or below the pre determined RPM will result in a corresponding error in time.
Last edited by Torres; 3rd Sep 2010 at 08:38.
Aircraft (not pilot) Logbook Time in Service
Agreed Torres, wrt pilot logbook times.
I have a copy of AAC 198-2 - I don't see it on the CASA website but it is still mentioned there as a reference on the subject of aircraft time in service.
It goes on to describe the methods which may be used to record TIS.
I have a copy of AAC 198-2 - I don't see it on the CASA website but it is still mentioned there as a reference on the subject of aircraft time in service.
This article replaces AAAC 120-5, and is in response to requests from industry to clarify the situation regarding the various methods used to record time in service for aircraft operating in the general aviation industry.
Watch time as noted by the pilot.
An "approved automatic time recording instrument, installed so that it will record an elapsed time that is equal to or greater than the defined "time in service" ...
engine oil pressure switches; airspeed switches (including external vanes); main landing gear squat switches; and/or mechanical tachometers that also record engine hours.
...
In all cases where recording of time in service is achieved through use of an instrument which records a greater time than the defined "time in service" eg: mechanical tachometer, no reduction or factoring of recorded hours for maintenance purposes shall be made.
An "approved automatic time recording instrument, installed so that it will record an elapsed time that is equal to or greater than the defined "time in service" ...
engine oil pressure switches; airspeed switches (including external vanes); main landing gear squat switches; and/or mechanical tachometers that also record engine hours.
...
In all cases where recording of time in service is achieved through use of an instrument which records a greater time than the defined "time in service" eg: mechanical tachometer, no reduction or factoring of recorded hours for maintenance purposes shall be made.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Dublin
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This appears to be a great area of confusion. Would it not be simpler to just take the time that you are the pilot in charge from start up to shut down. Simplifies and is easier to check times?
