Logging command time
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Age: 46
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Except for the last sentence - logging command if you were "doing the flying". Incorrect, and probably misleading to the OP, who was specifically asking about command time.
Flying schools have been asking students to log VDO time from engine start, to shutdown, for as long as I can remember thus explaining why people are confused about this. So ineffect they knowingly encourage their students to be in breach of the regs. Not a good example to set for student pilots.
Last edited by smiling monkey; 29th Jan 2013 at 11:39. Reason: missed the word 'of' in the initial post, if you really want to know ..
Creamie,
Most countries, and Australia once did, comply with ICAO Annex 1, a few don't. and if you want to see how complicated it can be, have a look at the UK CAA version of how to log time as part of a "heavy crew". An accounting nightmare, goes double where "night" is involved.
As to ICAO definitions incorporated in the Air Navigation Act or the Civil Aviation Act, given the Commonwealth's significant dependence on the constitutional powers re. aviation, would a High Court be likely to change a definition that comes from our signing the Chicago Convention. That is a question I wouldn't even start to answer.
For private operations, FAA makes it easy, a pilot does not have to log anything in a pilot log book, unless he or she is making a claim for recency of some kind, or a license or rating.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I must go an have a look at the old definitions.
Most countries, and Australia once did, comply with ICAO Annex 1, a few don't. and if you want to see how complicated it can be, have a look at the UK CAA version of how to log time as part of a "heavy crew". An accounting nightmare, goes double where "night" is involved.
As to ICAO definitions incorporated in the Air Navigation Act or the Civil Aviation Act, given the Commonwealth's significant dependence on the constitutional powers re. aviation, would a High Court be likely to change a definition that comes from our signing the Chicago Convention. That is a question I wouldn't even start to answer.
For private operations, FAA makes it easy, a pilot does not have to log anything in a pilot log book, unless he or she is making a claim for recency of some kind, or a license or rating.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I must go an have a look at the old definitions.
Last edited by LeadSled; 30th Jan 2013 at 07:17.
Ridicule me if you like, but I always do Wheels Off to Wheels On time + 0.1 per Takeoff/Landing, so taking off at 1300, landing at 1400, would be 1.1hrs in the Logbook. Main reason is that with our paperwork the takeoff and touchdown times are the ones we record so it simplifies writing it up in the logbook at the end of a day.
The 0.1 as as i'm concerned is fairly accurate for taxiing time on average as there is usually 2-3minutes before take off and 2-3minutes after take off. If there is an abnormally long Taxi time for whatever reason then of course I take it into account, but this is very uncommon where at the places I've mainly been operating for the last few years.
Personally the way I see it is that its meant to be Start up to Shut Down time as this is the time you are "In Command" of the aircraft and, as of course mentioned, only if Start Up is intended for the purposes of take-off. If I go to take off and have a rejected take-off necessitating a return to the Apron then I'll still log it of course. IMHO it really has to do with your Flight and Duty as these are designed to reduce the risk of Fatigue Related Incidents/Accidents.
The 0.1 as as i'm concerned is fairly accurate for taxiing time on average as there is usually 2-3minutes before take off and 2-3minutes after take off. If there is an abnormally long Taxi time for whatever reason then of course I take it into account, but this is very uncommon where at the places I've mainly been operating for the last few years.
Personally the way I see it is that its meant to be Start up to Shut Down time as this is the time you are "In Command" of the aircraft and, as of course mentioned, only if Start Up is intended for the purposes of take-off. If I go to take off and have a rejected take-off necessitating a return to the Apron then I'll still log it of course. IMHO it really has to do with your Flight and Duty as these are designed to reduce the risk of Fatigue Related Incidents/Accidents.
Lancer said:
It’s not what the CARs say at all.
I’m assuming the ‘airliner’ is ‘heavier than air’. If it is, then whatever else happens, it ain’t racking up ‘flight time’ if it never moved under its own power.
The definition was quoted earlier. It may be counter-intuitive, but it’s not so counter-intuitive as to mean that you are racking up ‘flight time’ while you are being pushed around by a tug.
The ‘airline’ might count it as a ‘flight’ for administrative purposes, but anyone who puts that in his/her logbook as ‘flight time’ is having a lend.
An airliner that pushes back for a flight departure and subsequently returns to the gate, whether having started engines or not, has logged a 'flight'. It might be a bit counterintuitive, but that's what the CARs say.
I’m assuming the ‘airliner’ is ‘heavier than air’. If it is, then whatever else happens, it ain’t racking up ‘flight time’ if it never moved under its own power.
The definition was quoted earlier. It may be counter-intuitive, but it’s not so counter-intuitive as to mean that you are racking up ‘flight time’ while you are being pushed around by a tug.
The ‘airline’ might count it as a ‘flight’ for administrative purposes, but anyone who puts that in his/her logbook as ‘flight time’ is having a lend.
Last edited by Creampuff; 31st Jan 2013 at 00:12.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Your Local Butcher
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a little bit pathetic that this issue isnt clear as crystal. Either way, you guys are stressing a little bit too much. I'm sure that as long as you're sensible about how you log your flights I think Cuzza wont kick up too much of a stink.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a little surprised that no-one has commented on this as yet.
Pilot Log Books - General Guidance and Crediting of Flight Time
Operating Capacity and crediting of flight time
.....
Co-Pilot: Includes all flight time as co-pilot or second officer.
Time spent as designated crew rest during a flight CANNOT be credited towards co-pilot time.
.....
Co-Pilot: Includes all flight time as co-pilot or second officer.
Time spent as designated crew rest during a flight CANNOT be credited towards co-pilot time.
Ahh yes. More “guidance” that purports to change what a definition in the regulations says. Let’s just leave out the words “moves under its own power”, because they are inconvenient. 
Let’s just leave out the words “moves under its own power”, because they are inconvenient. 
This does raise the interesting point that most airline aircraft automatic time stamping is triggered by the initial "brakes off" signal, terminated by the brakes on signal, from the position of the parking brake handle/lever.
At least one operator of my acquaintance has this anomaly covered by a legal instrument, so the time being moved by the tug is counted, and the crews can't be done over for logging false time, as they almost all use printouts from the company records for their "log book".
Tootle pip!!
“Covered by a legal instrument”?
Is that another one those ‘You’re not breaking the law’ letters from the regulator?
“I, occupant of an important position, deem that you can log flight time for the time you’re being towed around the tarmac (even though that does not fall within the definition of ‘flight time' in the regulations).”
I’d be framing that. More comedy gold.
Is that another one those ‘You’re not breaking the law’ letters from the regulator?
“I, occupant of an important position, deem that you can log flight time for the time you’re being towed around the tarmac (even though that does not fall within the definition of ‘flight time' in the regulations).”
I’d be framing that. More comedy gold.
Last edited by Creampuff; 1st Feb 2013 at 02:17.
Creamie,
Said organisation had a whole separate chapter ( in the manual set) of various instruments that "authorized" variation from various regulation, covered a raft of matters, including but far from limited to:
Alternate minima
T/O and Landing minima
Variations to CAO 48 (not a user of a general exemption to CAO 48 with a FRMS)
Several on how to log flight time, not just the one mentioned previously.
How duty time was to be calculated .
Where pre-flight fuel reserves requirements ended, "in-flight" requirements (generally less onerous than pre-flight requirements) started --- you would love that one.
Given that just about every new CASR seems to have a standard reg. enabling variations by a legislative instrument, in a lot of areas the raw regulations don't mean much any longer.
After all, the CEO did announce the general use of legislative instruments where the regulations didn't fit the bill.
Tootle pip!!
Said organisation had a whole separate chapter ( in the manual set) of various instruments that "authorized" variation from various regulation, covered a raft of matters, including but far from limited to:
Alternate minima
T/O and Landing minima
Variations to CAO 48 (not a user of a general exemption to CAO 48 with a FRMS)
Several on how to log flight time, not just the one mentioned previously.
How duty time was to be calculated .
Where pre-flight fuel reserves requirements ended, "in-flight" requirements (generally less onerous than pre-flight requirements) started --- you would love that one.
Given that just about every new CASR seems to have a standard reg. enabling variations by a legislative instrument, in a lot of areas the raw regulations don't mean much any longer.
After all, the CEO did announce the general use of legislative instruments where the regulations didn't fit the bill.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 1st Feb 2013 at 04:01.
Counterpoint CreamPuff, surely the amount of time under tow amounts to so little as to be negligible? Making the entire argument about counting or not counting time undertow as being pure semantics and as such not really worth the effort?
Also I was pretty sure that <1 minute was counted as zero, therefore time undertwo being less than a minute which i'm supposing would be the majority of time under tow would therefore not even count?
Also I was pretty sure that <1 minute was counted as zero, therefore time undertwo being less than a minute which i'm supposing would be the majority of time under tow would therefore not even count?
Or…
Just define flight to mean what flight actually means, define flight time to mean what flight time actually means, and log that plus time spent in specified manoeuvres on the ground.
(Sorry, what was I thinking: I forgot we’re talking about the weird and whacky world of aviation….)
Leaddie
There's nothing wrong with issuing exemptions from the rules (although, of course, exemptions will ‘soon’ be academic, as no exemptions will be required under the new, simple, outcomes-based, harmonised regulations …. ).
There's nothing wrong with using legislative instruments other than regulations, when the alternative is available.
But where is CASA’s power to say that you can pretend that something is flight time when it isn’t? What do you get an exemption from, to produce that outcome? Where’s the power to alter the meaning of a definition?
If someone in CASA can wave a magic wand and produce a piece of paper saying a pilot can log time spent being pushed and pulled around by a tug, the same magic wand can be waved around to produce a piece of paper saying that taxiing to the fuel bowser may be logged as flight time. At least in the latter case the aircraft is moving under its own power!
In another thread you recounted some of the things you’ve seen happen that result in lots of logged time without any actual flight:
I have a fantastic idea for running a cheap flying school!
We only roll out the aircraft on foggy days. We send out the trainees with instructions to take off if the fog clears. Alas, it doesn’t, and they taxi back in with time in the log book and no TIS on the aircraft! 150 hours of logged PIC time later, the trainees get their CPLs, and we have pristine, low-hour aircraft and a very small fuel bill.
Everyone wins!
Just define flight to mean what flight actually means, define flight time to mean what flight time actually means, and log that plus time spent in specified manoeuvres on the ground.
(Sorry, what was I thinking: I forgot we’re talking about the weird and whacky world of aviation….)
Leaddie
There's nothing wrong with issuing exemptions from the rules (although, of course, exemptions will ‘soon’ be academic, as no exemptions will be required under the new, simple, outcomes-based, harmonised regulations …. ).
There's nothing wrong with using legislative instruments other than regulations, when the alternative is available.
But where is CASA’s power to say that you can pretend that something is flight time when it isn’t? What do you get an exemption from, to produce that outcome? Where’s the power to alter the meaning of a definition?
If someone in CASA can wave a magic wand and produce a piece of paper saying a pilot can log time spent being pushed and pulled around by a tug, the same magic wand can be waved around to produce a piece of paper saying that taxiing to the fuel bowser may be logged as flight time. At least in the latter case the aircraft is moving under its own power!
In another thread you recounted some of the things you’ve seen happen that result in lots of logged time without any actual flight:
Very long taxi, big departure delays, no gate available for ages on return, could happen to any of us.
Best I ever saw was 3.5h block, nil on the MR, because the aircraft never got airborne --- winter fog at (then) ASBK, and said pilot needed a min. of 3.5 hours PIC that day, or he missed a promotional slot in QF.
Best I ever saw was 3.5h block, nil on the MR, because the aircraft never got airborne --- winter fog at (then) ASBK, and said pilot needed a min. of 3.5 hours PIC that day, or he missed a promotional slot in QF.
We only roll out the aircraft on foggy days. We send out the trainees with instructions to take off if the fog clears. Alas, it doesn’t, and they taxi back in with time in the log book and no TIS on the aircraft! 150 hours of logged PIC time later, the trainees get their CPLs, and we have pristine, low-hour aircraft and a very small fuel bill.
Everyone wins!
Last edited by Creampuff; 1st Feb 2013 at 05:52.
The total time from the moment an aeroplane first moves for the purpose of taking off until the moment it finally comes to rest at the end of the flight.
Comes to rest at the end of the flight - if it doesn't fly at all then there is no flight regardless of the intent when starting.
When I start an engine my experience is that the aeroplane moves a tad at that moment even though I am holding the brakes on.
"Comes to rest" - I wonder what that really means?
Note — Flight time as here defined is synonymous with the term “block to block” time or “chock to chock” time in general usage which is measured from the time an aeroplane first moves for the purpose of taking off until it finally stops at the end of the flight.