Logging taxi time for aborted flight
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks again for all the replies. I went back to the ANO after reading some of the quotes from it supplied on this thread. The only part that seems relevant is this...
..and the definition of flight in the ANO is this:
Personal flying log book
79 (1) Every member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom and every person who engages in flying for the purpose of qualifying for the grant or renewal of a licence under this Order must keep a personal flying log book in which the following information must be recorded:
(a) the name and address of the holder of the log book;
(b) detailed information about the holder's licence (if any) to act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft; and
(c) the name and address of the holder's employer (if any).
(2) Detailed information about each flight during which the holder of the log book acted either as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft or for the purpose of qualifying for the grant or renewal of a licence under this Order must be recorded in the log book as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each flight.
79 (1) Every member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom and every person who engages in flying for the purpose of qualifying for the grant or renewal of a licence under this Order must keep a personal flying log book in which the following information must be recorded:
(a) the name and address of the holder of the log book;
(b) detailed information about the holder's licence (if any) to act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft; and
(c) the name and address of the holder's employer (if any).
(2) Detailed information about each flight during which the holder of the log book acted either as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft or for the purpose of qualifying for the grant or renewal of a licence under this Order must be recorded in the log book as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each flight.
Meaning of in flight
256 (1) An aircraft is 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
256 (1) An aircraft is 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
So I'll leave it in my logbook for my own benefit but tippex out the time so it isn't counted as flight time or for the issue of a future license.
I maybe should have said in my OP that I have a PPL, and that the checkout was by a group instructor to fly their aircraft as PIC.
One comment for the OP that nobody has mentioned - the attitude that the club / POH has set a xwind limit, and that if it's 15kts you will fly, 16 kts you will not.
As I posted earlier the POH does not set out a limit but it does say that an average pilot can operate safely upto 15 Knots. This is not limiting but a recommendation. My groups policy is however limiting and I will respect the owners wishes when operating their aircraft.
Since I only have 1 hour PIC on type I don't consider myself above average!
As to this being an arbitrary number; aviation is full of them, whether it is in the definition of VMC/ IMC or licensing hour requirements etc. I agree that these are arbitrary numbers but they have been set out for our benefit based presumably on others past experience or hind sight.
Put the tippex away!
If the aircraft moved under its own power for the purposes of taking off, then it is a logged flight. If, for any legitimate reason, you failed to take off, that does not change the original purpose.
G
If the aircraft moved under its own power for the purposes of taking off, then it is a logged flight. If, for any legitimate reason, you failed to take off, that does not change the original purpose.
G
I'd put it more directly. Anyone wanting to log taxying time to the runway and back without having flown must be an utter ar$e.
I taxyed a Vulcan a couple of years ago and yes, put it in my logbook because it was rare and interesting - and it was exactly 25 years since I'd last taxyed one. But as for logging the time? No!
I also have the following in my logbook:
29 Sep 1991 Fury ISS N36SF Southampton Docks (0545Z) - Southampton Airport (0710Z). Remarks: Road tow, av. GS 3.9 Kts.
But it's on a photo stuck to the page!
Should I have logged the taxying time for all the Hunter compass swings I did in 1976? I think not!
I taxyed a Vulcan a couple of years ago and yes, put it in my logbook because it was rare and interesting - and it was exactly 25 years since I'd last taxyed one. But as for logging the time? No!
I also have the following in my logbook:
29 Sep 1991 Fury ISS N36SF Southampton Docks (0545Z) - Southampton Airport (0710Z). Remarks: Road tow, av. GS 3.9 Kts.
But it's on a photo stuck to the page!
Should I have logged the taxying time for all the Hunter compass swings I did in 1976? I think not!
The500man
All "logging of taxi time" discussions aside I commend you on your good airmanship for deciding not to fly that day. We taxi with the intent of going flying and a momentum and sense of expectation can develop that can be hard to arrest. As you correctly noted the demonstrated maximum crosswind speed is not limiting but 15 kts is the maximum demonstrated value for the C172. just because it is not limiting does not mean it should just be ignored. Flying is like everything else, you get better at it with expereince. Lower houred pilots should respect their lack of experience by giving themselves a bigger margin just as higher houred pilots need to respect the dangers of complacency.
advice to wait for the ATCO to call the winds at 15kts IMO misses the point. You are either comfortable to handle the 15 or 16 kt wind or not. The best way to develop confidence is to practice and this is where some flying schools with extremely low student crosswind limits (sometimes as low as 5 kts) are IMO doing their students a great disfavour.
All "logging of taxi time" discussions aside I commend you on your good airmanship for deciding not to fly that day. We taxi with the intent of going flying and a momentum and sense of expectation can develop that can be hard to arrest. As you correctly noted the demonstrated maximum crosswind speed is not limiting but 15 kts is the maximum demonstrated value for the C172. just because it is not limiting does not mean it should just be ignored. Flying is like everything else, you get better at it with expereince. Lower houred pilots should respect their lack of experience by giving themselves a bigger margin just as higher houred pilots need to respect the dangers of complacency.
advice to wait for the ATCO to call the winds at 15kts IMO misses the point. You are either comfortable to handle the 15 or 16 kt wind or not. The best way to develop confidence is to practice and this is where some flying schools with extremely low student crosswind limits (sometimes as low as 5 kts) are IMO doing their students a great disfavour.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by The500Man
As I posted earlier the POH does not set out a limit but it does say that an average pilot can operate safely upto 15 Knots. This is not limiting but a recommendation. My groups policy is however limiting and I will respect the owners wishes when operating their aircraft.
Since I only have 1 hour PIC on type I don't consider myself above average!
As to this being an arbitrary number; aviation is full of them, whether it is in the definition of VMC/ IMC or licensing hour requirements etc. I agree that these are arbitrary numbers but they have been set out for our benefit based presumably on others past experience or hind sight.
Perhaps I didn't put it so well - I think Big Pistons Forever hits the nail on the head.
I have no idea of your experience, but; would you have flown if it was 15kts because you're confident and competant with that, or because the POH says Mr Average can do it?
Aviation has a lot of 'arbitrary' minimum requirements. Just because you meet the minimums doesn't mean you should go do it. The way the initial Q was phrased jarred slightly, hence the thought. I'll shut up now.
I'd put it more directly. Anyone wanting to log taxying time to the runway and back without having flown must be an utter ar$e.
I taxyed a Vulcan a couple of years ago and yes, put it in my logbook because it was rare and interesting - and it was exactly 25 years since I'd last taxyed one. But as for logging the time? No!
I also have the following in my logbook:
29 Sep 1991 Fury ISS N36SF Southampton Docks (0545Z) - Southampton Airport (0710Z). Remarks: Road tow, av. GS 3.9 Kts.
But it's on a photo stuck to the page!
Should I have logged the taxying time for all the Hunter compass swings I did in 1976? I think not!
I taxyed a Vulcan a couple of years ago and yes, put it in my logbook because it was rare and interesting - and it was exactly 25 years since I'd last taxyed one. But as for logging the time? No!
I also have the following in my logbook:
29 Sep 1991 Fury ISS N36SF Southampton Docks (0545Z) - Southampton Airport (0710Z). Remarks: Road tow, av. GS 3.9 Kts.
But it's on a photo stuck to the page!
Should I have logged the taxying time for all the Hunter compass swings I did in 1976? I think not!
- Because it's interesting, and
- Because it reminds you of the lessons learned that day, and
- Because it is actually relevant to experience. Taxying with intention of flight means all of the preparation and planning for that flight, RT, decision making not to fly were all there and are relevant to your profile as a pilot.
I've just scanned through my logbook (thanks to it all being on a computer these days this is quite easy) and find four flights in 21 years where the flight was abandoned after I started to taxi out (2 sets of fouled plugs, one nosewheel steering failure, one radio failure at an airshow and another two where we abandoned after engine start but before taxi (a hyd caption, and an airbrake caption). The logged time comes to 0.07% of my total flying hours, but I can remember each event and I can think of lessons I learned from each.
So, actually, they may punch well above their weight in terms of learning value - whilst having no significant impact on my numerical ability to gain or maintain any licence or rating.
On that basis, nope, I'll leave them in my logbook thanks, even if you think I'm an ar$e for doing so.
G
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am perfectly happy to see people what write what ever they want into a log book. Just don't bring an entry that refers to taxi time and expect me to sign a certificate of revalidation if you are trying to include that time in the 12hours for revalidation.
On that basis, nope, I'll leave them in my logbook thanks, even if you think I'm an ar$e for doing so.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
until the moment when it next comes to rest after landing
Then you taxi on and park. On finally parking you stop paying for the time.
Nope, I've never heard of anyone actually behaving like this.
Riiight ... so you vacate the runway, pass the hold, stop for a few seconds to perform the after landing checks. At this point as you have "come to rest" the "flight" stops and you stop logging the time.
Then you taxi on and park. On finally parking you stop paying for the time.
Nope, I've never heard of anyone actually behaving like this.
Then you taxi on and park. On finally parking you stop paying for the time.
Nope, I've never heard of anyone actually behaving like this.
Has anybody asked the CAA whether Ghengis's, or Beagle/Bose's, interpretation is correct?
You are, of course, entitled to record anything you wish in your personal logbook, provided that you at least record the minimum required by Article 79 of the ANO. However, any time recorded when the aircraft did not leave the ground is as worthless as time spent sipping G&T in the comfy seats down the back.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all of those saying you are not PIC of a FLIGHT if it does not take off and land. Consider the following.
You are a mechanic and a SE pilot.
You are allowed to taxi multi-engine aircraft by virtue of your mechanics licence.
You decide to have a go at flying a ME (so you commence moving an aircraft for the purpose of flight)
You have an engine failure on takeoff, fail to respond to the yaw, slew off the runway into a ditch (never having got the wheels off the ground)
Was this a taxing accident or a flying accident?
Were you authorised to undertake this activity (you are not allowed to FLY an ME as PIC, but you can taxi one).
I think the regs are perfectly clear that the moment you move for the purpose of flight, it is a flight; you must be qualified and current to fly that aircraft. The reason the Regulator phrases the rule as they do, is specifically to identify that a flight has started as soon as the airplane moves (unless it is being moved with no intention to fly) and all regulations to flights apply.
On the other hand, should you log it? who cares. Should a 3 hour wait at the hold followed by a taxi back be counted for recent flight - No, of course not. Do you learn more from a 15 minute aborted flight than spending 5 additional minutes doing a circuit? Probably yes.
You are a mechanic and a SE pilot.
You are allowed to taxi multi-engine aircraft by virtue of your mechanics licence.
You decide to have a go at flying a ME (so you commence moving an aircraft for the purpose of flight)
You have an engine failure on takeoff, fail to respond to the yaw, slew off the runway into a ditch (never having got the wheels off the ground)
Was this a taxing accident or a flying accident?
Were you authorised to undertake this activity (you are not allowed to FLY an ME as PIC, but you can taxi one).
I think the regs are perfectly clear that the moment you move for the purpose of flight, it is a flight; you must be qualified and current to fly that aircraft. The reason the Regulator phrases the rule as they do, is specifically to identify that a flight has started as soon as the airplane moves (unless it is being moved with no intention to fly) and all regulations to flights apply.
On the other hand, should you log it? who cares. Should a 3 hour wait at the hold followed by a taxi back be counted for recent flight - No, of course not. Do you learn more from a 15 minute aborted flight than spending 5 additional minutes doing a circuit? Probably yes.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SE England
Age: 70
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that example is a bit odd
If you aren't qualified by your licence to undertake an ME flight, then trying to take-off is not permitted. The engineer's ticket only covers you for the taxying bit.
Having an incident like this would invalidate insurances and cost you a hell of a lot personally.
In other parts of the ANO I would guess, but won't go looking for it, it will say that you are not permitted to commit aviation unless your insurance, licences and ratings are valid.
If you aren't qualified by your licence to undertake an ME flight, then trying to take-off is not permitted. The engineer's ticket only covers you for the taxying bit.
Having an incident like this would invalidate insurances and cost you a hell of a lot personally.
In other parts of the ANO I would guess, but won't go looking for it, it will say that you are not permitted to commit aviation unless your insurance, licences and ratings are valid.
As a matter of fact, they have. According to the 'Policy Section' of the Licensing and Training Standards Department (what used to be PLD), the CAA will not accept as valid towards the issue or revalidation/renewal of any licence or rating any 'flight time' when the aircraft has not left the ground.
You are, of course, entitled to record anything you wish in your personal logbook, provided that you at least record the minimum required by Article 79 of the ANO. However, any time recorded when the aircraft did not leave the ground is as worthless as time spent sipping G&T in the comfy seats down the back.
You are, of course, entitled to record anything you wish in your personal logbook, provided that you at least record the minimum required by Article 79 of the ANO. However, any time recorded when the aircraft did not leave the ground is as worthless as time spent sipping G&T in the comfy seats down the back.
Then the idjit's friend got out, and idjit continued to do the same on his own, at the same speed. The microlight being much lighter, it got airborne - and not having the faintest clue about how to fly, idjot did the obvious thing - which was crash into the tree in somebody's garden next to the park.
The police turned up, arrested him and impounded what was left of the aircraft as evidence. In consultation with CAA enforcement branch, the local Procurator Fiscal charged the idjit with:
- Flying as captain of an aircraft which did not hold a Cof A or permit
- Flying captain of an aircraft without holding a valid pilots licence
- Flying as captain of an aircraft without holding a current medical certificate
- Being a pillock and danger to the general public (I'm sure there's some legal phrase for this, but that's what it amounted to).
Idjit decided to conduct his own defence, which because he clearly enjoyed the sound of his own voice stretched this out to 4 days in the Sherrif's court at public expense. However, he concentrated on the issue of a flight starting when an aircraft moves under it's own power with the intention of flight.
Now here's the interesting bit - he convinced the jury that he was not guilty of the first three charges. The reason being that he proved he had no intention of flying (on the grounds that he knew nothing about flying and would probably kill himself), and thus it was not legally a flight - because of the lack of intention, and despite there clearly being air (and a fence)! under the tyres.
(You'll however be glad to know that he was convicted of the last charge, and having been cross-questioned by him for something like 90 minutes I can't say I had much sympathy for the character).
So that at-least demonstrated what a flight wasn't. If you take the reverse, then it can reasonably be argued that it is a flight, if the captain intended to make one, even if the aircraft never left the ground.
Maybe.
G
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Staying with my odd example (and reenforced by Genghis's example)
I believe if you carefully look at the ANO and consider the following two cases
My adventurer licencesed as above (A&P, PPL SE) doing a high speed taxi on the runway with an engine failure at 70% VMC and loosing control.
Case 1 - the individual had a maintenance order to do a acceleration deceleration check (i.e. he had no intention of flight)
Case 2 - the individual had filed a flightplan (i.e. had a clear intention of flight)
Case 1 is totally legal, insured (by the maintenance company's insurance)
Case 2 is totally illegal, not insured.
The only difference is the intent to fly or not. This is why the regulation is written as such.
I believe if you carefully look at the ANO and consider the following two cases
My adventurer licencesed as above (A&P, PPL SE) doing a high speed taxi on the runway with an engine failure at 70% VMC and loosing control.
Case 1 - the individual had a maintenance order to do a acceleration deceleration check (i.e. he had no intention of flight)
Case 2 - the individual had filed a flightplan (i.e. had a clear intention of flight)
Case 1 is totally legal, insured (by the maintenance company's insurance)
Case 2 is totally illegal, not insured.
The only difference is the intent to fly or not. This is why the regulation is written as such.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One point I haven't noticed being mentioned here, is that taxying time is engine run time, and this affects the fuel reserves and overhaul period of the engine/s.
I hereby put up one classic case, which involved a twin and which resulted in multiple fatalities.
The twin was being fitted with specialised equipment as part of a new job. This installation was a one-day project. The pilot planned to make a flight on the day following the installation, so he fully-fuelled the aircraft.
The LAME fitted the equipment, but had to start and run the engines, and taxi the plane, as part of the new equipment installation testing. This took considerable time.
The LAME did not log the hours involved in engine running and taxying, as he wasn't endorsed to fly, and wasn't the PIC of the aircraft.
The pilot arrived the following morning, received instructions that the equipment was fully installed, and ready to go.
He did not check the fuel tanks, because he knew he had filled them the previous day - and there was no written record of any taxi time or engine run time.
The pilot commenced the flight, and within a relatively short period after takeoff, the plane crashed in heavy forest with the loss of all crew and pax, due to fuel starvation.
In the subsequent inquiry, it was revealed that the engines were run for a substantial period, around 3 or 4 hrs, and that this was not recorded anywhere.
It was deemed crucial in the resulting investigation summary, that all future engine run time, be recorded in the aircraft log book, regardless of whether the aircraft was airborne or not, and regardless of the endorsement/s of the person running the engines.
Yes, the PIC was negligent in not re-checking the tanks, immediately prior to takeoff. However, this neglect, which directly caused the resultant crash, could quite likely have been negated, if the notation of engine run time had been placed in the logbook.
I hereby put up one classic case, which involved a twin and which resulted in multiple fatalities.
The twin was being fitted with specialised equipment as part of a new job. This installation was a one-day project. The pilot planned to make a flight on the day following the installation, so he fully-fuelled the aircraft.
The LAME fitted the equipment, but had to start and run the engines, and taxi the plane, as part of the new equipment installation testing. This took considerable time.
The LAME did not log the hours involved in engine running and taxying, as he wasn't endorsed to fly, and wasn't the PIC of the aircraft.
The pilot arrived the following morning, received instructions that the equipment was fully installed, and ready to go.
He did not check the fuel tanks, because he knew he had filled them the previous day - and there was no written record of any taxi time or engine run time.
The pilot commenced the flight, and within a relatively short period after takeoff, the plane crashed in heavy forest with the loss of all crew and pax, due to fuel starvation.
In the subsequent inquiry, it was revealed that the engines were run for a substantial period, around 3 or 4 hrs, and that this was not recorded anywhere.
It was deemed crucial in the resulting investigation summary, that all future engine run time, be recorded in the aircraft log book, regardless of whether the aircraft was airborne or not, and regardless of the endorsement/s of the person running the engines.
Yes, the PIC was negligent in not re-checking the tanks, immediately prior to takeoff. However, this neglect, which directly caused the resultant crash, could quite likely have been negated, if the notation of engine run time had been placed in the logbook.
Moderator
Without copy and pasting large chunks of the foregoing, I don't completely accept that the circumstances are entirely as prestented.
It is generally accepted that engine time counted from the engine overhaul interval is time accumulated at a fairly high power setting. For most single engine aircraft, the tachometer "hour meter" is actually an odometer of the RPM, not a clock. So if you ilde for hours, you will not accumulate hours off the engine life. (Doesn't do the engines any good at all though)
If a person ground ran engines at such a high power setting, and for so long on one occasion, so as to noticably decrease the fuel quantity, I would expect the engines to be quite overheated, and probably damaged. If I, as the pilot to follow, thought an aircraft had been ground run that long or hard, I'd be much more concerned about the condition of the engines for the next flight, rather than fuel used. But I would of course check fuel anyway - I've learned!
It is generally accepted that engine time counted from the engine overhaul interval is time accumulated at a fairly high power setting. For most single engine aircraft, the tachometer "hour meter" is actually an odometer of the RPM, not a clock. So if you ilde for hours, you will not accumulate hours off the engine life. (Doesn't do the engines any good at all though)
If a person ground ran engines at such a high power setting, and for so long on one occasion, so as to noticably decrease the fuel quantity, I would expect the engines to be quite overheated, and probably damaged. If I, as the pilot to follow, thought an aircraft had been ground run that long or hard, I'd be much more concerned about the condition of the engines for the next flight, rather than fuel used. But I would of course check fuel anyway - I've learned!