Log taxi time?

[robin]

I don't think you should concentrate too much on 'intention to fly'. The rules make it clear that a flight should have taken place ie wheels left the ground

[AdamFrisch]

I agree with Mike Hallam/Sillert/Pace et al. It's not like you're exempt from any responsibilities when the prop is turning but aircraft is not moving - you'd still get nailed to the wall if any accident was to happen or braking any rule. So that's PIC time any way you slice it.

[S-Works]

I said it earlier. Log what you want, just don't expect time logged outside the requirements for issue/renew/revalidation of a rating to count.

If you really are so desperate for house in your logbook, then why not just Parker pen them.......

[AdamFrisch]

I'm not desperate for the time necessarily, it just makes things 10 times easier - you log Hobbs/tach time (can never remember which one is which - the one that goes off engine time), same as in the airplane log. No need to write down and remember takeoff times, landing times and deductions for taxi, runups etc. It's just more logical.

[Pace]

Robin

I flew a jet today to Geneva. As far as I am concerned my operation of the aircraft commences when myself and the first officer / co pilot use our skills to take the aircraft from cold to running, flying and back to cold again at the end of the flight!
This includes the start up procedures and checks as well as getting start up clearances, taxi instructions etc.
Ok that maybe regarded as over the top so the brakes off to brakes on is a good compromise!
It is the operation of the aircraft which is relevant not just the fun bit of actually being in the air!
As I stated do you discount autopilot time as your not actually flying the aircraft as such?
Intention to fly is important!
With my jet I may start up with no intention to fly maybe to go through engine checks with an engineer?
Whenever there is an intention to fly brakes off to brakes on is a compromise of a period of time where you are operating an aircraft so log every minute you can and do so with no regrets as the whole period requires your skills as a pilot and you are operating the aircraft!
Otherwise take off to touchdown do you take the first touchdown or the subsequent bounces : ) or when you come to a physical stop ; )
When I touch my jet down at 105 kts do I throw my hands in the air ? Job done! I am no longer a flying pilot as it goes through 80 kts 40 kts etc in the roll out ????

Pace

[BEagle]

When I flew Mrs. E Windsor's mighty Vickers FunBus around the world, we used to be required to note down 'Off chocks, airborne, landing and on chocks' times for the journey log and for the stats people. So it was very easy - off chocks to on chocks in my civvie log book, airborne to landing in the auth sheets and my military log book.

Even when landing back from a trip with a shopaholic navigator who had to get out and clear customs on the other side of the aerodrome - the rest of us being within our entitlements. So we sat there with the engines running for 10 min until he was almost back, then taxyed off to our parking spot, making the bug.ger scrounge a lift back to the jet. That taught him a lesson!

[robin]

Pace

I take your point, but with my little toy, it makes no sense to claim more than flight time + 10mins.

[The500man]

I posted this exact question a few years ago, and as far as the CAA were concerned when I asked them the key phrase was "after landing". Since I didn't take off they didn't consider it loggable. That was a few years ago though, and as someone else has already pointed out you can log whatever you want and no one will ever check it!

[Pace]

You can log whatever you want and no one will check it

There is a certain truth to that as well as the fact that there is a grey area.
I feel sorry for those pilots who intend to make a career from flying the ones who do not have the hours which make them of interest to anyone yet cannot afford to build the required hours without someone taking them on in one capacity or another in the first place.

Years ago it was possible to buy time loggable time in the USA where type ratings were not required and the first officer/co pilot only required a Multi IR to legally act as a co pilot on complex aircraft which required type ratings in Europe!
Do I blame pilots from expanding their flight times in any way they could?
No.
Morally you are flying an aircraft from start up to shutdown! Flying is an expensive business as long as you tick the boxes you are good to go! Does anyone really care? I doubt it as long as you tick the boxes!

Pace

[S-Works]

Morally you are wrong.... You are not 'flying' the aircraft until it actually take flight......

Flight time is flight time simple. Logging anything else is fraud. If you use it to secure advancement in your career and get caught you will be throwing away a lot of investment.

[Pontius]

I'm with Bose-X on this one. People, it's a flying hours log book, not a driving hours log, nor a 'duties connected with flying' log book. All this nonsense about being PIC with the engines running etc, is just that, nonsense. Maybe I should start adding another 1.5 hours before a flight when I report and assume the duties of PIC

Admittedly the rules are not absolutely clear. Maybe something like, 'Moves under its own power and subsequently takes-off....' would quell the argument but, still, we're talking about a flying log book, so it doesn't take a genius to figure out driving an aircraft is not flying it.

I also don't like it when people dispense what they've always done as being legal and advise others to do likewise. Adam's use of the Hobbs, or whatever 'engine running' meter is used, is wrong, pure and simple. There is nowhere in the rules that says from start up to shut down, so others should not use that method. Sitting on the ramp before taxying on a freezing cold day with the engine running, waiting for the oil temp to get into the green is not recordable as the aircraft has not moved under its own power.

Nobody is arguing that taxying an aircraft doesn't involve another 'skill set' but don't delude yourselves that it takes Diety-like skill and should count as flying.

So, in summary, the time from brakes off to brakes on, with a flight in between, is legal. Anything else is not legal and, quite frankly, smacks of desperation to pad out logbooks.


PS: I agree that I would not be coughing up and money for a rental aircraft that wasn't fit for purpose (that's flying, not driving )

[Pace]

Pontus

You cannot have it both ways ; ) first you go on about how taxiing is not flying and then you state that you should log hours brakes off to brakes on which is correct !
With your strong held principals why not be purist and just log. Takeoff to touchdown as any time either side of those times is morally wrong!
It's always been brakes off to brakes on times !

Pace

[Unusual Attitude]

Nobody is arguing that taxying an aircraft doesn't involve another 'skill set' but don't delude yourselves that it takes Diety-like skill and should count as flying.

Dunno, I did once get the tail off the ground doing a power check sat at the hold in a taildragger on a very windy day, technically part of the aircraft was actually flying!

[BabyBear]

Originally Posted by bose-x

Flight time is flight time simple. Logging anything else is fraud. If you use it to secure advancement in your career and get caught you will be throwing away a lot of investment.

Bose, you should know better than me, but my belief is that most ppls are issued based on logging an amount of taxy time, which although not a career in itself it is issuing a licence.

BB

[Pontius]

You cannot have it both ways ; ) first you go on about how taxiing is not flying and then you state that you should log hours brakes off to brakes on which is correct !

Don't be obtuse, Pace; I'm saying you log 'brakes off to brakes on' (moving under its own power) because that's what the regulations say i.e that's the legally correct definition, rather than someone's 'take' on the matter. I'm also saying you can't log taxying around, without flying, as flight time; an important point that seems to have been lost in this discussion. Taking it to ridiculous extremes, why bother getting airborne at all when, in the opinion of some of the posters here, taxying time should count as flight time, without slipping the surly bonds?

My 'strongly held principles' are simply obeying the regulations, rather than adding my own slant. When I was in the military I did just log flight time (take-off to landing) because that's what's done. In the civilian flying world the rules are 'block' times, so I obey those rules. You're always so keen to let us know how you've flown a 'jet', so you must hold at least a CPL and, therefore, should know this stuff without maligning, as 'strong held principles', someone who does abide by the written word instead of 'that's what I've always done'.

[JW411]

gijoe:

"....which is why you could get a credit up to a certain number of hours of taxying time that you would have done whilst working for HM".

I did my ATPL in 1977 and I don't think that concession existed then. In my case it didn't matter for I had more than enough hours anyway.

Just as a matter of debate, I was once number 54 in the conga line for take-off at JFK one particularly foul night. It took us over 3 hours from brakes off to finally getting airborne.

How should I have recorded that in my logbook?

[dublinpilot]

Pontius,

I think Pace is correct in so far that you are trying to have it both ways.

If you taxi for the purpose of taking off (which is all the the regulations require) and then subsequently do actually take off, then you agree that the taxi time is logable.

If you taxi for the purpose of taking off and then for some reason don't actually take off, you state that you shouldn't log it because it's only taxi time.

It's the same time, same actions. If I was a barrister, I'd claim that it's perverse that an action subsequent to the taxiing which is to be logged could determine wether that taxi time was loggable or not.

The problem here is that the regulations consider the flight time to start once you move for the purpose of taking off. Not when you actually take off. That is a clear and undisputable fact on reading the leglisation.

The difficulty is the defination of when the flight time ends. Apparently it ends when you next come to rest after landing. But if you didn't take off, your next landing could be days, weeks or months later...in fact it could be never. So that too is a nonsense.

So we're left with a circumstance which the leglisation didn't allow for and as such there is no clear right or wrong answer.

By the way the phrase "first moves for the purpose of taking off" is usually interperted as when it first taxis with the intension of taking flight, but it could of course be read differently. Perhaps that taxi is just moving for the purpose of getting to the runway, and first moving for the purpose of taking off is actually commencing your take off run. Of course that would still leave the problem of what happens if you abort during the take off run!

dp

[Pace]

Pontious

This is a private pilot forum and it has always been brakes off to brakes on!
Whether someone takes their takeoff to land time and adds 10 mins taxi and 5 minutes taxi back in or uses their actual taxi time is irrelevant.
Yes I hold an ATP and my job of flying the aircraft in my opinion is cold to cold although I agree the official stance is brakes off to brakes on with takeoff and touchdown times recorded and that is what I record.
I am often approached by pilots looking for flying and especially in these economic times really feel for the guys who need the time yet cannot get anyone to take them on in complex aircraft to get the time so can quite understand that they will not be frugal on maximizing the time that they do get!
When we had an RAF yes that was a route to take with someone paying for all your flying but we do not have an RAF anymore well not as it used to be.
Good luck to them I do not need the time.

Pace

[Crankshaft]

A slightly different aspect:
Log book issues aside, in commersial ops theres a limit of 100 block hours per 28 days.

So there you are on one of those days: spending 45 minutes in the que for remote de-icing, followed by 30 minutes queing at the holding point. Once as number one the snow gets worser and after another 20 minutes waiting for snow clearing your hold over time expires. New de-icing followed by new taxi etc. Two hours after your initial off blocks time you start your take-off roll only to discover a fault that requires a reject. You taxi back to stand after a total 2 1/2 hours and the flight is cancelled.

Does it add up to your 100 hour limit or not?

[Pontius]

DublinPilot,

If I was a barrister, I'd claim that it's perverse that an action subsequent to the taxiing which is to be logged could determine wether that taxi time was loggable or not.

I agree with you that the definition is not defined clearly enough. I'd be willing to bet a few pints that the rule makers thought it was enough to assume we'd actually go flying during our flight time but, it seems, they were remiss in their assumptions.

The difficulty is the defination of when the flight time ends. Apparently it ends when you next come to rest after landing. But if you didn't take off, your next landing could be days, weeks or months later...in fact it could be never. So that too is a nonsense.

I would say that since you haven't actually flown, then your time hasn't started. The purposeof the flight (and taxying) was to go flying. Since you haven't flown you haven't achieved that purpose, ergo you can't claim it as flight time.

As I previously alluded, let's take it to ridiculous extremes: An imaginary pilot needs 15 hours experience for an imaginary rating. He gets into an aircraft 15 times during the course of a week and taxys around the airfield for an hour each time, without ever actually getting airborne (there's no need for any reason, he just says that the original purpose was to go flying). Do you think he is now qualified for that rating?

It seems pretty obvious to me that unless you achieve the purpose then you haven't sensibly abided by the definition. Clearly just having the purpose seems entirely reasonable and sensible to some of the bar-room lawyers here present and, for them alone, I would suggest the authorities need to reword the regs.