Logging command time
Ahh yes, but you're quoting from some 'guidance material', not the legal definition. The latter says, in respect of heavier-than-air aircraft:
[Bolding added]
That's why the heavy metal drivers cannot legally log flight time for the period they're being pushed and pulled around by a tug.
But lots of them do log it as flight time.
That definition is also why, as you say, "if it doesn't fly at all then there is no flight regardless of the intent when starting." I'd go on to say: "There's no 'flight time' to log."
But lots of people log it as flight time.
Go figure.
the total time from the moment at which the aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking‑off until the moment at which it comes to rest after landing
That's why the heavy metal drivers cannot legally log flight time for the period they're being pushed and pulled around by a tug.
But lots of them do log it as flight time.
That definition is also why, as you say, "if it doesn't fly at all then there is no flight regardless of the intent when starting." I'd go on to say: "There's no 'flight time' to log."
But lots of people log it as flight time.
Go figure.
Last edited by Creampuff; 1st Feb 2013 at 23:25.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creamie, are you arguing that the definition of 'under its own power' precludes the attachment of a temporary motive force (tug) which is physically pinned to the aircraft so as to form a single unit for the purpose of moving the aircraft, even though the tug operation is at the discretion and direction of the aircraft captain?
If so, would Road Train drivers need a 'Multi Combination' drivers licence if the trailers 'pinned' behind, could be considered as not part of vehicle unit.
semantics
If so, would Road Train drivers need a 'Multi Combination' drivers licence if the trailers 'pinned' behind, could be considered as not part of vehicle unit.
semantics
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 …. ).
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.
Tootle pip!!
I see your point, Trent.
Makes my and Leaddie’s cheap, no-stress flying school even cheaper and more relaxed!
We don’t even need to make the trainees start the engines. We connect the aircraft to modified electric golf carts, and tow them to the fogged-in holding point with the trainees ‘in command’!
No engine wear or AVGAS bill! (Charging the electric golf carts will cost, but nowhere near the saved AVGAS bill.)
The business case writes itself.
Makes my and Leaddie’s cheap, no-stress flying school even cheaper and more relaxed!
We don’t even need to make the trainees start the engines. We connect the aircraft to modified electric golf carts, and tow them to the fogged-in holding point with the trainees ‘in command’!
No engine wear or AVGAS bill! (Charging the electric golf carts will cost, but nowhere near the saved AVGAS bill.)
The business case writes itself.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tjuntjuntjarra
Age: 54
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the great fascination of adding extra time on at every turn to squeeze another .1 or .2 out of a flight? Are you guys trying to hit max flight hours for the month early so you can have a week off? Its hard enough keeping under the 120hrs in 28 days limit just logging the bare minimum as it is some months.
Last edited by aileron_69; 2nd Feb 2013 at 16:53.
aileron 69,
Its all about logging in accordance with legal requirements, nothing else.
What consequences it has for FDT, FRMS etc. is not relevant. Are you suggesting that pilots game the rules (not easy, without leaving yourself wide open to something nasty) by what is falsification of an entry to improve your roster, or some such??
Tootle pip!!
Its all about logging in accordance with legal requirements, nothing else.
What consequences it has for FDT, FRMS etc. is not relevant. Are you suggesting that pilots game the rules (not easy, without leaving yourself wide open to something nasty) by what is falsification of an entry to improve your roster, or some such??
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
Aileron 69:
It's more on the lower end of the scale that I've heard of - ie the new pilot with a brand spanking new CPL logging .1 for the time he takes to taxi the aircraft from fuel bowser to tie down point. Pilot who actually flew the flight deemed such mundane chores (re-fuelling, cleaning up the aircraft at the end of the day) as beneath him.
It's more on the lower end of the scale that I've heard of - ie the new pilot with a brand spanking new CPL logging .1 for the time he takes to taxi the aircraft from fuel bowser to tie down point. Pilot who actually flew the flight deemed such mundane chores (re-fuelling, cleaning up the aircraft at the end of the day) as beneath him.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Age: 46
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GA is rife with the above. I made sure it never happened when I was in a supervisory role - but it's everywhere. Fudging flight times to get to the magical 500 M/E figure sooner, time shifting to get to the magical 100 night command sooner, fudging duty times either upward or downward depending on whether one wants to work more or less that particular fortnight.
When 95% of the piston-engine charter pilots are using the job to merely progress to the next level, more often than not in a relatively unsupervised, single-pilot role, and as a young pilot you see yourself as only as good as the hours in your logbook, it's not hard to see why some go down this path.
I've seen a couple come unstuck due to this behaviour. Thankfully not guys I was in charge of.
Edit: I will straighten out one potential sore point, when I say "rife" above, I'm in no way saying a majority, or even a significant percentage engage in this behaviour. But it's more than some might imagine.
When 95% of the piston-engine charter pilots are using the job to merely progress to the next level, more often than not in a relatively unsupervised, single-pilot role, and as a young pilot you see yourself as only as good as the hours in your logbook, it's not hard to see why some go down this path.
I've seen a couple come unstuck due to this behaviour. Thankfully not guys I was in charge of.
Edit: I will straighten out one potential sore point, when I say "rife" above, I'm in no way saying a majority, or even a significant percentage engage in this behaviour. But it's more than some might imagine.
Last edited by BleedingAir; 3rd Feb 2013 at 05:36.
I like to think of it as how would you feel if some turd got a look in at a job ahead of you because they'd flown their hours in VH-BIC?
Pretty pissed?
Well guess how your associates will feel when they find out. And I use the term associates, because they ain't gonna be your friends anymore.
Pretty pissed?
Well guess how your associates will feel when they find out. And I use the term associates, because they ain't gonna be your friends anymore.
---- they'd flown their hours in VH-BIC?
Long before Baron Bich perfected and popularised the BIC biro, and VH-BIC entered the lexicon.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 3rd Feb 2013 at 12:46.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why isn't logging taxi time OK when logging time with a katnap on shorthaul and bunk time in longhaul is OK? 
Last edited by Super Cecil; 4th Feb 2013 at 23:49. Reason: utilize impactful relationships
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adherence to CASA’s authorised policies will almost always produce an appropriate decision. As said, however, from time to time there will be circumstances in which the strict application of policy may not result in the “preferable” decision. In these cases it may be appropriate (and possibly necessary) to depart from otherwise applicable policy.
Any departure from policy must be justified in order to ensure that it:
• Is genuinely necessary in the interests of fairness
• Does not inappropriately compromise the need for consistent decision- making; and, of course
• Is not in conflict with the interests of safety.
Creampuff, the above is from CASA enforcement manual
Any departure from policy must be justified in order to ensure that it:
• Is genuinely necessary in the interests of fairness
• Does not inappropriately compromise the need for consistent decision- making; and, of course
• Is not in conflict with the interests of safety.
Creampuff, the above is from CASA enforcement manual
