Plain English
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plain English
I see that in a thread below (or maybe above now!) someone has quoted a section out of LASORS..
Article 155
(2) An aircraft shall be deemed to be in flight:
(a) in the case of a piloted flying machine, from the moment when, after the embarkation of its crew for the purpose of taking off, it first moves under its own power until the moment when it next comes to rest after landing;
Why the plethora of clauses that convolute the text so as to make understanding so difficult to comprehend. (not necessarily in the above though) Is it that over time amendments have been made to close abuses or unintended interpretations of the regulation?
So to the above extract:-
1) "in the case of a piloted flying machine" ..... Have pilots been logging P1 for pilot-less aircraft
2) "for the purpose of taking off" ..... Pilots were logging P1 for moving the aircraft under it's own power when there was no intention of taking off.
And the one I really like.
3) "from the moment when, after the embarkation of its crew"..... So have we had a crew member logging P1 when he was not actually in the aircraft?? Co-pilot start-up taxis out, Captain joins him at the threshold.
Article 155
(2) An aircraft shall be deemed to be in flight:
(a) in the case of a piloted flying machine, from the moment when, after the embarkation of its crew for the purpose of taking off, it first moves under its own power until the moment when it next comes to rest after landing;
Why the plethora of clauses that convolute the text so as to make understanding so difficult to comprehend. (not necessarily in the above though) Is it that over time amendments have been made to close abuses or unintended interpretations of the regulation?
So to the above extract:-
1) "in the case of a piloted flying machine" ..... Have pilots been logging P1 for pilot-less aircraft
2) "for the purpose of taking off" ..... Pilots were logging P1 for moving the aircraft under it's own power when there was no intention of taking off.
And the one I really like.
3) "from the moment when, after the embarkation of its crew"..... So have we had a crew member logging P1 when he was not actually in the aircraft?? Co-pilot start-up taxis out, Captain joins him at the threshold.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3) "from the moment when, after the embarkation of its crew"..... So have we had a crew member logging P1 when he was not actually in the aircraft?? Co-pilot start-up taxis out, Captain joins him at the threshold.
Question is, during that taxi bit, was the co-pilot PF or PNF?
Personally, I've been involved in another interesting scenario. Taxiing out for my first solo and the aircraft failing its runup checks at the hold, so taxi back to the school to had the engineers take a look. I had moved the aircraft with the intention of taking off, so legal to log P1. My second first solo actually got me into the air (and safely down).
There's also a bunch of interesting scenarios where the pilot hand-swings the prop but forgot the chocks or brakes so the aircraft starts taxiing, or even taking off, on its own. How do you log that?
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2) "for the purpose of taking off" ..... Pilots were logging P1 for moving the aircraft under it's own power when there was no intention of taking off.
Someone, somewhere will always think of a loophole and that is why all rules, legislation and regulations are written in this manner. Spend enough time reading this sort of English, and you get used to it! LASORS isn't too bad; try some of the Taxes Acts!!
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JP1
I see that in a thread below (or maybe above now!) someone has quoted a section out of LASORS..
JD
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hooloovoo
How does this work for helicopters? Does the rotor going around equal the machine moving under it's own power, or does it mean when you actually lift?
Article 35
3) For the purposes of this article, a helicopter shall be deemed to be in flight from the moment the helicopter first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking off until the rotors are next stopped.
JD3) For the purposes of this article, a helicopter shall be deemed to be in flight from the moment the helicopter first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking off until the rotors are next stopped.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... oh dear ... such pedantry, Hooloovoo ...
The licence you hold (I assume) is to fly a helicopter - and not part of a helicopter - so I would guess it means when the whole helicopter moves under its own power ... but I may be wrong ...
In my humble opinion, it means when the helicopter moves under its own power, i.e ground taxy, air taxy, lift, or whatever it does to itself to physically displace itself from its previous position, for the eventual purpose of taking off ...
To employ "plain English" one must assume some "common sense", surely ... ? Or perhaps the current wording is an attempt to pre-empt mischievous interpretations such as yours ... !
JD
The licence you hold (I assume) is to fly a helicopter - and not part of a helicopter - so I would guess it means when the whole helicopter moves under its own power ... but I may be wrong ...
In my humble opinion, it means when the helicopter moves under its own power, i.e ground taxy, air taxy, lift, or whatever it does to itself to physically displace itself from its previous position, for the eventual purpose of taking off ...
To employ "plain English" one must assume some "common sense", surely ... ? Or perhaps the current wording is an attempt to pre-empt mischievous interpretations such as yours ... !
JD
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always thought helicopters did not move under their own power but were repelled by the earth for being so ugly...
Another question. I have heard that, amongst others, Heathrow may be going to be experimenting with using tugs to take the aircraft from the apron to the hold, and then starting the aircrafts engines only at the hold. Environmental concerns such as fuel consumption, noise etc. are the reason for this. In this case, the aircraft is not moving under it's own power, but it is moving with the intention of taking off, and there is a pilot in command. How to log this?
Another question. I have heard that, amongst others, Heathrow may be going to be experimenting with using tugs to take the aircraft from the apron to the hold, and then starting the aircrafts engines only at the hold. Environmental concerns such as fuel consumption, noise etc. are the reason for this. In this case, the aircraft is not moving under it's own power, but it is moving with the intention of taking off, and there is a pilot in command. How to log this?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether or not your assertion that
is correct (and I rather doubt it), I still think your interpretation of the law is wrong in this regard. The fact that "everyone does it" doesn't necessarily make it correct.
Why don't you try and clarify it with the CAA? I wish you luck ... but I confess I really can't get excited about it ... 
JD
everyone flying an R22 has illegally logged time in their book!
Why don't you try and clarify it with the CAA? I wish you luck ...
but I confess I really can't get excited about it ... JD
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not trying to have anything both ways - maybe you are, tho' ...
I suppose if you are hours building in an R22, you would hardly want to seek a clarification of something which would be to your disadvantage, would you?
JD
I suppose if you are hours building in an R22, you would hardly want to seek a clarification of something which would be to your disadvantage, would you?
JD
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Abroad
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it that over time amendments have been made to close abuses or unintended interpretations of the regulation?
I think it's just what the customer demands.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hooloovoo
Sure you are. You're saying you doubt that the worldwide recognised way to log R22 time is illegal, and yet my interpretation of the relevant rule is still wrong.
everyone flying an R22 has illegally logged time in their book!
Put simply, my point remains that to start logging time from "rotors running" is not in accordance with ANO Article 35, whether or not it is, as you claim, "the worldwide recognised way".
I really think this point has run its course, as we are clearly not going to agree ...
JD
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see some irony in the fact that I have not made myself clear to you in an earlier post on this topic, entitled as it is "Plain English".
Equally, I am not sure what lesson is to be learned from this - however maybe it should simply discourage me from further postings on this point..?
On this basis, I will return to lurking on this thread ... and also now on Rotorheads, maybe ...
JD
Equally, I am not sure what lesson is to be learned from this - however maybe it should simply discourage me from further postings on this point..?
On this basis, I will return to lurking on this thread ... and also now on Rotorheads, maybe ...
JD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, now that the rotorhead discussion has moved...
Would anyone log P1 (or other flavours) before embarkation onto/into the aircraft, if not explicity excluded by the ANO.
Would anyone log P1 (or other flavours) before embarkation onto/into the aircraft, if not explicity excluded by the ANO.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never mind, it will give the lazy rotorheads mob something to do......
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cheshire
Age: 78
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's really very simple . . . . . . . . . !
Someone, somewhere will always think of a loophole and that is why all rules, legislation and regulations are written in this manner
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but do you mean your flight time ends when you park the aeroplane or when you stop the engine because the two may not necessarily happen at the same time!!
So you see, the word "and" will not mean the same thing to all people and the law has to cover all eventualities.
Cheers
Whirls
So you see, the word "and" will not mean the same thing to all people and the law has to cover all eventualities.
Cheers
Whirls