Logging command time
Thread Starter
Logging command time
Can anyone point me in the direction of the reg or order that dictates what can be written in the log book as command time? I have been told airswitch plus .2; tacho total; tacho plus .2. - but was looking for the Reg or Order which defined it.
A weekend spent trawling through the regs & CAOs has turned up some good stuff, but not this bit, and my trusty Pilot's Index has for once let me down.
Any help would be appreciated - thanks in advance.
A weekend spent trawling through the regs & CAOs has turned up some good stuff, but not this bit, and my trusty Pilot's Index has for once let me down.
Any help would be appreciated - thanks in advance.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: no fixed address
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know that clock/watch thingy you have to carry? When you start moving to go for a fly - look at what it says. When you stop ... Look at it again. Work out how long it was since you first looked at it. Then write it down in your log book. Command if you were doing the flying between times you looked at the clock/watch thingy.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: australia
Age: 35
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Definition
Flight Time (Aeroplane) means the total time from the moment an aeroplane aircraft first moves for the purpose of taking-off until the moment at which it comes to rest at the end of the flight.
Note: This is synonymous with 'chock to chock', 'block to block' or 'push back to block' time.
It will be around CAR 5.51 to it saying you need to log flight time
Flight Time (Aeroplane) means the total time from the moment an aeroplane aircraft first moves for the purpose of taking-off until the moment at which it comes to rest at the end of the flight.
Note: This is synonymous with 'chock to chock', 'block to block' or 'push back to block' time.
It will be around CAR 5.51 to it saying you need to log flight time
Bottums Up
Originally Posted by outnabout
I have been told airswitch plus .2; tacho total; tacho plus .2. - but was looking for the Reg or Order which defined it.
Folks,
Here we go again!!
85trx has it right, forget tachos, tachos plus 10% and all the other rubbish. Forget "the CFI told me", "the company policy is", "how many hours they charged me for" etc., this law is clear and simple, and it is your responsibility to comply, nobody else, and your neck, nobody else, if your logbook is wrong.
For the maintenance release it is air time, wheels off to wheels on.
Nothing else, no "rules of thumb" or all the other old wives tales.
Sadly, pilot log books are a happy hunting ground during a CASA audit.
With all due respect to Claret, Flight Time is defined in CAR 2. As has already been mentioned, keeping a log book starts at CAR 5.51.
CAR 2
flight time means:
(a) in the case of a heavier‑than‑air aircraft — 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; and
(b) in the case of a lighter‑than‑air aircraft — the total time from the moment at which the aircraft first becomes airborne until it comes to rest on the ground, excluding any time during which the aircraft is moored.
Tootle pip!!
Here we go again!!
85trx has it right, forget tachos, tachos plus 10% and all the other rubbish. Forget "the CFI told me", "the company policy is", "how many hours they charged me for" etc., this law is clear and simple, and it is your responsibility to comply, nobody else, and your neck, nobody else, if your logbook is wrong.
For the maintenance release it is air time, wheels off to wheels on.
Nothing else, no "rules of thumb" or all the other old wives tales.
Sadly, pilot log books are a happy hunting ground during a CASA audit.
With all due respect to Claret, Flight Time is defined in CAR 2. As has already been mentioned, keeping a log book starts at CAR 5.51.
CAR 2
flight time means:
(a) in the case of a heavier‑than‑air aircraft — 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; and
(b) in the case of a lighter‑than‑air aircraft — the total time from the moment at which the aircraft first becomes airborne until it comes to rest on the ground, excluding any time during which the aircraft is moored.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 28th Jan 2013 at 07:01.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Logging command time
What of a casa approved company operations manual that stipulates air/m.r. time + 0.2? I've never seen one myself, or maybe that is another OWT???
Last edited by Trent 972; 28th Jan 2013 at 08:13.
I taxi from the hangar to the fuel bowser, shut-down, refuel then taxi back to the flight line. Log-able as flight time or not?
I taxi from the hangar and idle for an hour at the holding point then taxi back and shut down. Log-able as flight time or not?
Don't worry: All this hypothetical nonsense will be irrelevant once the new, simple 1998 regulations are completed.
'soon'
I taxi from the hangar and idle for an hour at the holding point then taxi back and shut down. Log-able as flight time or not?
Don't worry: All this hypothetical nonsense will be irrelevant once the new, simple 1998 regulations are completed.
'soon'
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Central Hub
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've read one operations manual that stipulates from start to shut down, as all checks are done on the flight line. Legality? Reality? You can answer those yourself, personally common sense should prevail, we're talking 2-3mins between start and taxi.
If you taxi with the intent to depart and encounter a problem/burn through some of your flight fuel and require more, should you log it? In my humble opinion, for the purpose of flight and duty limitations and rest calculation, yes you should. The limitations are there for a reason, ignore them at your peril. If something goes wrong and you haven't logged this time forget CASA slapping you on the wrist, you've got the coroner slapping cuffs on them.
The way I like to view these scenarios, ignore what will CASA say if all goes well, ask what will the coroner say if all goes wrong.
If you taxi with the intent to depart and encounter a problem/burn through some of your flight fuel and require more, should you log it? In my humble opinion, for the purpose of flight and duty limitations and rest calculation, yes you should. The limitations are there for a reason, ignore them at your peril. If something goes wrong and you haven't logged this time forget CASA slapping you on the wrist, you've got the coroner slapping cuffs on them.
The way I like to view these scenarios, ignore what will CASA say if all goes well, ask what will the coroner say if all goes wrong.
Remembering what the legislation states, I interpret it to mean
You weren't taxiing to take off, so no not logable
You were taxiing for take off (I assume that's the scenario, not that you were going to the holding point for fun) and the runway closure/mechanical problem, causes you to come back, it's logable.
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
I taxi from the hangar to the fuel bowser, shut-down, refuel then taxi back to the flight line. Log-able as flight time or not?
I taxi from the hangar and idle for an hour at the holding point then taxi back and shut down. Log-able as flight time or not?
(a) in the case of a heavier‑than‑air aircraft — 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;
Avconnection, you can't argue with the CAR 2 definition and an ops manual cannot change a legal definition, it can however add to safety requirements. Your duty time wouldn't be affected on any case, but I find it more likely CASA would look more unfavourably at logging taxi only time as command experience (say for claiming CAO 82 Para 4 time?).
Bottums Up
G'day LeadSled,
I wasn't advocating the +0.2 on top of [insert gauge reading], as I agree with and understand the official definition. Was just trying to comment on the advent of the practice.
I wasn't advocating the +0.2 on top of [insert gauge reading], as I agree with and understand the official definition. Was just trying to comment on the advent of the practice.
Jack,
The short answer is no, it wasn't. I was far to junior in the company at the time to have such needs. I don't think I would have had the imagination to think up such a stunt.
Was it fraud, only a court could decide that, the aircraft left blox " for the purpose of taking‑off".
I have never understood the "what's done in practice" as some kind of justification for non-compliance. We all exceed the speed limits on the roads from time to time, no matter how often you do it, "what's done in practice" doesn't make it legal.
There are enough ways of getting into strife with our aviation regulations, without giving the Airstapo a free kick.
Tootle pip!!
The short answer is no, it wasn't. I was far to junior in the company at the time to have such needs. I don't think I would have had the imagination to think up such a stunt.
Was it fraud, only a court could decide that, the aircraft left blox " for the purpose of taking‑off".
I have never understood the "what's done in practice" as some kind of justification for non-compliance. We all exceed the speed limits on the roads from time to time, no matter how often you do it, "what's done in practice" doesn't make it legal.
There are enough ways of getting into strife with our aviation regulations, without giving the Airstapo a free kick.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Age: 46
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
85trx gave a nice, brief, correct answer, and LeadSled is on the money.
After a decade of lurking here, a few things have come to disturb me. This repeated question is one of them. For an aircraft that actually leaves the ground (i.e. doesn't get into the slightly murky "purpose of taking off" area), the correct method of logging *flight time* is one of the few pieces of Australian aviation law that's not up for much interpretation.
It astounds me how many pilots think because the company they used to work at "just added 0.2" that this is correct. It's easier, and I may have been guilty once or twice myself over the years when I've forgotten to write a taxi time down and had to "guesstimate" it... But the lawful, correct answer is black and white!
I'd say a good 10-15 hours of my M/E PIC time was spent twiddling my thumbs in the YPDN Zulu passing bay, waiting for wx/congestion etc.
After a decade of lurking here, a few things have come to disturb me. This repeated question is one of them. For an aircraft that actually leaves the ground (i.e. doesn't get into the slightly murky "purpose of taking off" area), the correct method of logging *flight time* is one of the few pieces of Australian aviation law that's not up for much interpretation.
It astounds me how many pilots think because the company they used to work at "just added 0.2" that this is correct. It's easier, and I may have been guilty once or twice myself over the years when I've forgotten to write a taxi time down and had to "guesstimate" it... But the lawful, correct answer is black and white!
I'd say a good 10-15 hours of my M/E PIC time was spent twiddling my thumbs in the YPDN Zulu passing bay, waiting for wx/congestion etc.
So I start taxiing for the purposes of taking off, line up and commence the take-off roll, then reject the take-off and taxi back in, without leaving the ground. (Dopey me left the pitot cover on….)
Log-able as flight time or not?
(Hint: one element of the definition is a “landing” ...
)
Log-able as flight time or not?
(Hint: one element of the definition is a “landing” ...
)
Creamie,
In my view, the answer is yes, that you didn't get airborne isn't relevant.
Many years ago, this exact point came up in a matter involving my then employer.
We pushed back in YSSY, departure just before curfew. On taxi we had a windscreen shatter, mine as it happened, RHS at the time. Trip went out next morning with a new windscreen and crew.
An examiner of airman (as they were then) questioned the company records, which show blox to blox as flight time, and also a debit of crew duty time against the hours remaining for the month.
After an exchange of correspondence, including from the company lawyers, the authority(can't even recall what it was called at the time) legal department confirmed that the company interpretation was correct. We all received a personal letter from the authority confirming we had not breached the law.
The only change I can recall in the rules for logging, in all the years I have been flying, was the change made to what constituted ICUS, probably 25-30 years ago.
What CASA requires (unless, like some airlines, the is an instrument in place to comply with ICAO Annex 1) is non-ICAO.
When the only "official" logbook was produced by the Cth. Government Printer, all the rules were on the inside front cover, and there was never an issue about "how to do it".
Tootle pip!!
PS: There were a couple of minor changes, one that comes to mind was a rehash that clarified who could log PIC when two pilots were flying together and it wasn't a designated crew.
In my view, the answer is yes, that you didn't get airborne isn't relevant.
Many years ago, this exact point came up in a matter involving my then employer.
We pushed back in YSSY, departure just before curfew. On taxi we had a windscreen shatter, mine as it happened, RHS at the time. Trip went out next morning with a new windscreen and crew.
An examiner of airman (as they were then) questioned the company records, which show blox to blox as flight time, and also a debit of crew duty time against the hours remaining for the month.
After an exchange of correspondence, including from the company lawyers, the authority(can't even recall what it was called at the time) legal department confirmed that the company interpretation was correct. We all received a personal letter from the authority confirming we had not breached the law.
The only change I can recall in the rules for logging, in all the years I have been flying, was the change made to what constituted ICUS, probably 25-30 years ago.
What CASA requires (unless, like some airlines, the is an instrument in place to comply with ICAO Annex 1) is non-ICAO.
When the only "official" logbook was produced by the Cth. Government Printer, all the rules were on the inside front cover, and there was never an issue about "how to do it".
Tootle pip!!
PS: There were a couple of minor changes, one that comes to mind was a rehash that clarified who could log PIC when two pilots were flying together and it wasn't a designated crew.
Last edited by LeadSled; 29th Jan 2013 at 01:41.
In my view, the answer is yes, that you didn't get airborne isn't relevant.
After an exchange of correspondence, including from the company lawyers, the authority(can't even recall what it was called at the time) legal department confirmed that the company interpretation was correct. We all received a personal letter from the authority confirming we had not breached the law.
Be careful: the definitions have changed over the years. The ANRs didn’t have a definition of ‘flight time’. They had a definition of ‘flight’.
Most of the perpetual confusion in this area is caused by trying to squeeze some black into the definition of white. “Flight time” means time in the air … unless you’re on the ground about to get into the air, in which case that bit counts, and the bit just after you’ve landed counts, unless you wanted to get into the air but didn’t and had to turn around and go back, but the bit taxing to the fuel bowser to get fuel for your flight doesn’t count because, errrrrm, you weren’t really in command then, or...
This is all because some bright spark decided, incorrectly, that the phrase “time in command” for the purposes of logging time means, and can only ever mean, “flight time in command”. So we have to mess with the definition of 'flight time' so that it covers some ‘not-flight’.
There could be a definition of ‘time in command’ that covered actual ‘flight’ as well as specified kinds of activities other than actual ‘flight’. Then it would be intuitive and clear and this question would not arise so often.
Last edited by Creampuff; 29th Jan 2013 at 05:51.