Logging Hours
until the moment when it next comes to rest after landing;
It also points out the daftness of hours as a crude measure of experience.
That chap who failed his ATPL skill test because he had, let's say 1450 hours instead of 1510 - did it really make any real difference. He was an experienced pilot who had passed a skilled test. The hours really should not have mattered to that extent.
But it does.
G
That chap who failed his ATPL skill test because he had, let's say 1450 hours instead of 1510 - did it really make any real difference. He was an experienced pilot who had passed a skilled test. The hours really should not have mattered to that extent.
But it does.
G
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was more likely 1495 hours to be honest.
You have to have lines in the sand. Serves him right fiddling it. If he hadn't been so sure he was right he could have done 5 hours in a tommy the week before. ANy way not that it makes much difference there was no way he was getting near the LHS for the next year anyway.
And I agree it should be approaches, if that was the case I would be more experenced than most of emirates
You have to have lines in the sand. Serves him right fiddling it. If he hadn't been so sure he was right he could have done 5 hours in a tommy the week before. ANy way not that it makes much difference there was no way he was getting near the LHS for the next year anyway.
And I agree it should be approaches, if that was the case I would be more experenced than most of emirates
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is on the fiddle, and there is on the fiddle.....yipes, the year is nearly up, and I have to have ten hours to keep my rating! in this case, a person who wanted to maintain a gliding instructor rating.
I am still pxxx......very very very annoyed about it. In December, no chance of a soaring flight, so he asked the tuggie to tow him to 8,000' in a K8 glider, four times in one day. On the second flight they cooked two cylinders in the towplane
IT WAS MY AEROPLANE! I have never forgotten and I will never forgive until I receive a cheque in the post to cover the cost.....and that will never happen.
Of course each said it was the other one's fault..... and no, they didn't ask my permission, either, I wasn't at the airfield on that occasion.
I am still pxxx......very very very annoyed about it. In December, no chance of a soaring flight, so he asked the tuggie to tow him to 8,000' in a K8 glider, four times in one day. On the second flight they cooked two cylinders in the towplane
IT WAS MY AEROPLANE! I have never forgotten and I will never forgive until I receive a cheque in the post to cover the cost.....and that will never happen.
Of course each said it was the other one's fault..... and no, they didn't ask my permission, either, I wasn't at the airfield on that occasion.
Probably a combination - approaches, sectors, hours, night, IFR....
Ideally also a handful of emergencies, but that's a little hard to legislate for.
However we have what we have.
G
Ideally also a handful of emergencies, but that's a little hard to legislate for.
However we have what we have.
G
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ideally also a handful of emergencies, but that's a little hard to legislate for.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 53
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANO reference
Amen to this, Genghis.
What I do is have Hobbs start time, takeoff time and landing time, and Hobbs shutdown time entered in the aircraft's technical log. If I don't trust the students' entries, I refer to the TWR logs and replace the takeoff and landing times with what was recorded there.
What I invoice to the customer is /flight/ time, plus ten minutes (or 0.2 hour if they want decimal).
The three times I need to justify as the aircraft owner are:
1. Elapsed calendar time since an engineering event;
2. Engine hours;
3. Airframe flight hours.
1) is a non issue, and 2) and 3) are both available from the Technical Log.
As far as invoicing to the students: flight time plus 10/12 minutes is entirely reasonable, as any other format invariably encourages them to skimp on preflight or after landing checks.
I'm happy to share my Technical Log format for anyone curious who sends me a PM. I keep it as a Google doc spreadsheet, totally easy.
What I do is have Hobbs start time, takeoff time and landing time, and Hobbs shutdown time entered in the aircraft's technical log. If I don't trust the students' entries, I refer to the TWR logs and replace the takeoff and landing times with what was recorded there.
What I invoice to the customer is /flight/ time, plus ten minutes (or 0.2 hour if they want decimal).
The three times I need to justify as the aircraft owner are:
1. Elapsed calendar time since an engineering event;
2. Engine hours;
3. Airframe flight hours.
1) is a non issue, and 2) and 3) are both available from the Technical Log.
As far as invoicing to the students: flight time plus 10/12 minutes is entirely reasonable, as any other format invariably encourages them to skimp on preflight or after landing checks.
I'm happy to share my Technical Log format for anyone curious who sends me a PM. I keep it as a Google doc spreadsheet, totally easy.
Hobbs time isn't necessarily the time the engine is running ... the Hobbs can be switched on by various things, the master switch, speed sensing, squat switches etc.
In a 172 I don't know specifically what starts the Hobbs turning but I have been told it only records actual flight time (I suppose whether it measures take off and landing roll or not is rather moot). For all I know it may vary from one aircraft to another (age related or factory related.)
I log start of taxi to end of taxi (movement under own power). I get charged Hobbs + 0.2.
What I log and what I pay seem pretty closely aligned to me so I guess what I say in para 1 . is about right.
I am too old and ugly to be counting hours for another license so I have no reason to try and exagerate.
In a 172 I don't know specifically what starts the Hobbs turning but I have been told it only records actual flight time (I suppose whether it measures take off and landing roll or not is rather moot). For all I know it may vary from one aircraft to another (age related or factory related.)
I log start of taxi to end of taxi (movement under own power). I get charged Hobbs + 0.2.
What I log and what I pay seem pretty closely aligned to me so I guess what I say in para 1 . is about right.
I am too old and ugly to be counting hours for another license so I have no reason to try and exagerate.
Last edited by Dave Gittins; 26th Apr 2012 at 11:33.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did once log a non-flight a while back, under the assumption that I intended to fly, but rejected due to rough running during the mag checks. However I had 99 hrs 55 mins after my last flight, so I logged 5 mins to get 100 hrs. I had missed a few flights due to the weather, and wanted that figure - pure vanity I dare say!
My club charges brakes off to brakes on, although they probably didnt really like me adding that to the tech log.
When did they drop the intention to fly bit?
My club charges brakes off to brakes on, although they probably didnt really like me adding that to the tech log.
When did they drop the intention to fly bit?
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am charged Hobbs time, I log Hobbs time. It is started by oil pressure from what I remember. The field I fly at is uncontrolled, and procedure is generally start up, post start up checks, obtain airfield information and then taxi to hold to do power checks (after letting everything warm up). So I might be "stealing" a couple of minutes every flight, but considering I log decimals, this is more often than not, not going to make a difference to log book time.
On a side note, whilst I can't see the "intention of flight" bit anymore, I have copied this from GtE's post:
"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"
Is "for the purpose of taking off" not essentially the same as "for the intention of flight"?
On a side note, whilst I can't see the "intention of flight" bit anymore, I have copied this from GtE's post:
"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"
Is "for the purpose of taking off" not essentially the same as "for the intention of flight"?
