Logging of Flight Time
Guest
Posts: n/a
Logging of Flight Time
Hi
Reading some of the latest Amendment 3 to JAR-FCL 2, I see that the definition for Flight Time has now changed to read:
"The total time from the moment a helicopter's rotor blades start turning until the moment the helicopter finally comes to rest at the end of the flight, and the rotor blades are stopped."
Is this just the start of the case for the JAA to now increase the number of hours that we can fly each year, combined with the increase of Duty Hours?
I know the fixed-wing pilots through BALPA are fighting a case for the new changes to be stopped, but I haven't heard or read anything as to how the rotary world will be affected. Any one out there with any knowledge on the proposed changes for helicopter pilots and whether they are being discussed at CAA/BALPA level?
BHPS
Reading some of the latest Amendment 3 to JAR-FCL 2, I see that the definition for Flight Time has now changed to read:
"The total time from the moment a helicopter's rotor blades start turning until the moment the helicopter finally comes to rest at the end of the flight, and the rotor blades are stopped."
Is this just the start of the case for the JAA to now increase the number of hours that we can fly each year, combined with the increase of Duty Hours?
I know the fixed-wing pilots through BALPA are fighting a case for the new changes to be stopped, but I haven't heard or read anything as to how the rotary world will be affected. Any one out there with any knowledge on the proposed changes for helicopter pilots and whether they are being discussed at CAA/BALPA level?
BHPS
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHPS,
JAR FCL defines flight time for FCL purposes ONLY. Flight and Duty Time limitations (for commercial operations) are governed by NON JAR requirements. Even in JAR-OPS3, the FDTL section is blank because (I understand) that the committee couldn't reach any agreement.
Each operator still has to "define" its own scheme and definitions by using the CAA publication (CAP 372) which is unchanged (for now).
Of course the JAA has now been rather subverted by the appearance on the scene of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) courtesy of the EU. At present, it only seems to consist of a website and a new CEO - a French ex-army Colonel !! Who knows what will happen with yet another lot of regulators..............
JAR FCL defines flight time for FCL purposes ONLY. Flight and Duty Time limitations (for commercial operations) are governed by NON JAR requirements. Even in JAR-OPS3, the FDTL section is blank because (I understand) that the committee couldn't reach any agreement.
Each operator still has to "define" its own scheme and definitions by using the CAA publication (CAP 372) which is unchanged (for now).
Of course the JAA has now been rather subverted by the appearance on the scene of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) courtesy of the EU. At present, it only seems to consist of a website and a new CEO - a French ex-army Colonel !! Who knows what will happen with yet another lot of regulators..............
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks for that Helinut. Please forgive my ignorance but I am even more confused now.
Surely if JAR FCL defines flight time for FCL purposes, then operators should work to that also. I may have mis-understood you, but I think you are sying that despite what JAR FCL says, operators have the right to decide what they consider is flight time logging for crews (and I am talking crews logbooks here rather than what is calculated for passenger fares or charges to clients).
Surely operators who work to JAR are not allowed to reduce what the authority has decreed? I can accept that they can make them more stringent, although I don't know of a commercial operator that would necessarily want to do that.
BHPS
Surely if JAR FCL defines flight time for FCL purposes, then operators should work to that also. I may have mis-understood you, but I think you are sying that despite what JAR FCL says, operators have the right to decide what they consider is flight time logging for crews (and I am talking crews logbooks here rather than what is calculated for passenger fares or charges to clients).
Surely operators who work to JAR are not allowed to reduce what the authority has decreed? I can accept that they can make them more stringent, although I don't know of a commercial operator that would necessarily want to do that.
BHPS
It's good news for us Bell 47 G3B pilots who;
a) five minute cool down on the turbo charger.
b) no rotor break on a rotor system with alot of inertia!
he he!! if anybody needs hours in their log book, i know where theres a bell47 avail for SFH!
a) five minute cool down on the turbo charger.
b) no rotor break on a rotor system with alot of inertia!
he he!! if anybody needs hours in their log book, i know where theres a bell47 avail for SFH!
I agree it's a change though the old definition seemed to be straight from FCL-1 and was fixed wing based. As helinut says, FCL has no bearing on how many hours you can fly; that will be defined in OPS-3 subpart Q when they finally agree a scheme.
However, I fail to see how the new definition would increase the number of hours you can fly: for any given limit it would result in fewer actual flying hours when compare to the current CAP 371 definition (a/c first moves for the purpose of taking off to the time the rotors finally stop).
What may be afoot is to introduce a scheme with higher limits than some existing national regulations, to apease those other nations with very high current limits, but with the new definition of flight time the result would be actual flying time values not so different from the current more stringent schemes. If that makes sense! The reason there has been no agreement so far on subpart Q is that there are hugely differing schemes presently in force within the JAA member states and not all countries agree that our 371 limits are commercially practical. A stale mate has ensued (as far as I understand it)
However, I fail to see how the new definition would increase the number of hours you can fly: for any given limit it would result in fewer actual flying hours when compare to the current CAP 371 definition (a/c first moves for the purpose of taking off to the time the rotors finally stop).
What may be afoot is to introduce a scheme with higher limits than some existing national regulations, to apease those other nations with very high current limits, but with the new definition of flight time the result would be actual flying time values not so different from the current more stringent schemes. If that makes sense! The reason there has been no agreement so far on subpart Q is that there are hugely differing schemes presently in force within the JAA member states and not all countries agree that our 371 limits are commercially practical. A stale mate has ensued (as far as I understand it)
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its always been something to wonder about. In the Military as long as the turbine is cooking they log time, and if two are in the cockpit they both log, although only one is supposed to log PIC.
I have seen at least two Chief Pilots,with low time, find more than a few hundred extra hours in their logbooks. Nobody really cares, it sort of goes to the integrity of most Helicopter Pilots. I know of one Pilot who claimed 13,000 hours. He couldnt even pass a Company Checkride. AND he had an ATP, CFI etc. So I guess its the old saying. "Fly what you have too, Log what you need."
I have seen at least two Chief Pilots,with low time, find more than a few hundred extra hours in their logbooks. Nobody really cares, it sort of goes to the integrity of most Helicopter Pilots. I know of one Pilot who claimed 13,000 hours. He couldnt even pass a Company Checkride. AND he had an ATP, CFI etc. So I guess its the old saying. "Fly what you have too, Log what you need."
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The change to the definition of flight time JAR-FCL was to bring it into line with ICAO Annex 6 Part III. The ICAO change was undertaken to remove the complexity of the previous definition with its accompanying notes (the definition is clearer but the application is now more complex).
The responsibility for JAR-OPS 1/3 Subpart Q was taken away from the JAA by the EU several years ago - there was no question of the committee agreeing or not agreeing DGTREN (the commission transport group) declared itself competant on the issue. The EU, having failed in its exercise to achieve consensus on Flight and Duty Times regulations, is now attempting to hand it back to the JAA (looks like a poisoned chalice).
There is considerable opposition to the new definition of Flight Time in ICAO Annex 6 but as the NAAs appear to be split 50:50 for and against, it is likely that the definition will remain and notes will be added to make the intent clearer.
212man is correct in his statement that the new definition will reduce the number of hours a pilot can fly as the run-up and run-down time will be added to the total.
The responsibility for JAR-OPS 1/3 Subpart Q was taken away from the JAA by the EU several years ago - there was no question of the committee agreeing or not agreeing DGTREN (the commission transport group) declared itself competant on the issue. The EU, having failed in its exercise to achieve consensus on Flight and Duty Times regulations, is now attempting to hand it back to the JAA (looks like a poisoned chalice).
There is considerable opposition to the new definition of Flight Time in ICAO Annex 6 but as the NAAs appear to be split 50:50 for and against, it is likely that the definition will remain and notes will be added to make the intent clearer.
212man is correct in his statement that the new definition will reduce the number of hours a pilot can fly as the run-up and run-down time will be added to the total.
Sorry to have given duff gen: my impression of the cause of the delay to part Q was based on BALPA briefings from several years back (including the HSG chairman who was heavily involved in OPS-3 at the time)
Does this mean a FODCOM to change the definition for the purposes of CAP 371? I gather the planned change to 371 is on hold for a while, or will we (UK) file a difference with ICAO for this purpose?
Does this mean a FODCOM to change the definition for the purposes of CAP 371? I gather the planned change to 371 is on hold for a while, or will we (UK) file a difference with ICAO for this purpose?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Between layers
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guest
Posts: n/a
rotordk
Sorry I do not have a link as I saw the actual amendment at my work. However, Amendment 3 to JAR FCL 2 is dated 1 September 2003 if that helps?
With regard to hours, I have heard rumour that the annual maximum hours for helos operating to JAR-Ops 3 could be increased to 1000 hrs from 800, and that this might come in next summer. It was also suggested that all the other flying and duty limits would be increased as well.
As 212man suggests, if the limit of 800 pa remained then the "flying" hours would be reduced, however, increase to 1000 pa and I would suggest that there would be an increase.
I take it that CAA/BALPA are looking in to the rotary side of things as well as the fixed-wing? If not, then perhaps we are looking at double Aberdeen-East Shetland Basin flights again!!!
BHPS
Sorry I do not have a link as I saw the actual amendment at my work. However, Amendment 3 to JAR FCL 2 is dated 1 September 2003 if that helps?
With regard to hours, I have heard rumour that the annual maximum hours for helos operating to JAR-Ops 3 could be increased to 1000 hrs from 800, and that this might come in next summer. It was also suggested that all the other flying and duty limits would be increased as well.
As 212man suggests, if the limit of 800 pa remained then the "flying" hours would be reduced, however, increase to 1000 pa and I would suggest that there would be an increase.
I take it that CAA/BALPA are looking in to the rotary side of things as well as the fixed-wing? If not, then perhaps we are looking at double Aberdeen-East Shetland Basin flights again!!!
BHPS
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Between layers
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll do a search, so any pointers are helpfull..
EU directive for mobile workers in aviation may only fly maximum 900 hours blok, with a planned FDP of max. 2000 hours ( which includes all standby time etc).
So 900 hours is the magic word. The planned 2000 hours are
to be notified PRIOR to working, so they can't plan in reverse, and use 2000 as a target figure !
Ohh, and the hours has to be spread evenly over the year !!
EU directive for mobile workers in aviation may only fly maximum 900 hours blok, with a planned FDP of max. 2000 hours ( which includes all standby time etc).
So 900 hours is the magic word. The planned 2000 hours are
to be notified PRIOR to working, so they can't plan in reverse, and use 2000 as a target figure !
Ohh, and the hours has to be spread evenly over the year !!
Blades turning to blades stop for flight time, actual time airborne for MR time except for Robbies which are supposed to use blades turning time for MR as well.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason for the new definition is not very complex, it is an old business position drawn from the civil operators wishing to make more revenue. Since they charge by the hour, this makes an automatic 5 to 10% increase in their billings without costing a cent in extra operating cost.
The manufacturers have fought against this for years. The components do not withdraw fatigue beans while spinning an unloaded rotor, so maintenance and component costs are going to drop, on a per hour basis.
In effect, the new ruling allows a rate increase to be masked as a simplification.
The manufacturers have fought against this for years. The components do not withdraw fatigue beans while spinning an unloaded rotor, so maintenance and component costs are going to drop, on a per hour basis.
In effect, the new ruling allows a rate increase to be masked as a simplification.
The legal reasoning behind this is very, very simple and has nothing to do with beans.
Propellors are considered to be part of the engine. Run your engine all day long if you like, but don't put any time in your logbook.
Rotor blades are airframe parts ("rotary wings"). When the blades are turning, the airframe is moving. When the airframe is moving, you are logging time. Period. Why there needs to be any discussion about this is astounding.
Propellors are considered to be part of the engine. Run your engine all day long if you like, but don't put any time in your logbook.
Rotor blades are airframe parts ("rotary wings"). When the blades are turning, the airframe is moving. When the airframe is moving, you are logging time. Period. Why there needs to be any discussion about this is astounding.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Log Book time
So are you saying that all ground runs are counted as flying for the logbook?
When I was in the military we only booked "skids off" time.
You can book as much ground time as you want but it is getting the job done that shows the pilot from the poser.
Once over 10,000 it is just conversation for the bar.
GFAB
When I was in the military we only booked "skids off" time.
You can book as much ground time as you want but it is getting the job done that shows the pilot from the poser.
Once over 10,000 it is just conversation for the bar.
GFAB
Nick,
I don't think your comment stands up to much scrutiny! In an operation/company where pilots are operating close to the maximum allowable FTL limits, and factors such as rotors running turn rounds, multi-sector leg times and additional routings for IF approaches can all affect the ability of the company to meet contractual obligations with minimum crewing, the last thing the comapny wants is an edict that will increase the crew flight times still further! What this will mean is that the company will need to employ more pilots and I doubt very much that the extra cost would be compensated by charging another 5-10 minutes per flight.
By way of an example, I know of an operation run by another company, now closed, where the a/c (and crew) did a triple trip programme, rotors running from start to finish, that (in general) was 8 hours total pilot time (the maximum allowable.) However, to achieve this, the a/c were ground towed by tractor, from their main base to the passenger terminal across the airfield, first thing in the morning as the additional flight time this would have entailed would invariably have put the crew over 8 hours, and therefore would have required a second crew.
So, I think you'll find that what the operators would ACTUALLY want is legislation that puts the flight crew time CLOSER to the airborne time, not FURTHER from it.
In countries with low regulatory oversight, this can be achieved, and my first two years on the 212 were on such an operation, with crew time logged as airborne time. With 40 sector days common place, the 6-8 hours logged was more like 7:30-10.
jbrereton, no ground runs don't count as there is not the 'intent' to take off.
I don't think your comment stands up to much scrutiny! In an operation/company where pilots are operating close to the maximum allowable FTL limits, and factors such as rotors running turn rounds, multi-sector leg times and additional routings for IF approaches can all affect the ability of the company to meet contractual obligations with minimum crewing, the last thing the comapny wants is an edict that will increase the crew flight times still further! What this will mean is that the company will need to employ more pilots and I doubt very much that the extra cost would be compensated by charging another 5-10 minutes per flight.
By way of an example, I know of an operation run by another company, now closed, where the a/c (and crew) did a triple trip programme, rotors running from start to finish, that (in general) was 8 hours total pilot time (the maximum allowable.) However, to achieve this, the a/c were ground towed by tractor, from their main base to the passenger terminal across the airfield, first thing in the morning as the additional flight time this would have entailed would invariably have put the crew over 8 hours, and therefore would have required a second crew.
So, I think you'll find that what the operators would ACTUALLY want is legislation that puts the flight crew time CLOSER to the airborne time, not FURTHER from it.
In countries with low regulatory oversight, this can be achieved, and my first two years on the 212 were on such an operation, with crew time logged as airborne time. With 40 sector days common place, the 6-8 hours logged was more like 7:30-10.
jbrereton, no ground runs don't count as there is not the 'intent' to take off.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Harwich
Age: 65
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone looked at AIC 79/2002 (UK)? I thought this was all to do with working time and came from Europe. Of course I want to achieve a work/life balance, but not if I'm working in aviation.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPrune Fan #1 is quite wrong, the rotor and transmission are not taxed by turning under no load. The overhauls on these components is not affected by ground runs and taxi-ing on the ground.
212man is right, crew times would be affected negatively (fewer real flight hours per month) but that is not the big driver, because the customer would have to pay the entire operation more money to carry the same pax on the same trip. More money, more business.
I know these facts cold, when I worked for a helo airframer, we were constantly asked by operators to make ground and taxi time part of the overhaul TBO, so that these operators could charge the oil companies for that time, too. IFR holds would (will) become money making revenue time, time turning in the chocks rings the cash register.
I know of one North Sea operator who refused to increase the cruise speed of his helicopters to match their performance, because he could bill more hours for the trips he flew!
212man is right, crew times would be affected negatively (fewer real flight hours per month) but that is not the big driver, because the customer would have to pay the entire operation more money to carry the same pax on the same trip. More money, more business.
I know these facts cold, when I worked for a helo airframer, we were constantly asked by operators to make ground and taxi time part of the overhaul TBO, so that these operators could charge the oil companies for that time, too. IFR holds would (will) become money making revenue time, time turning in the chocks rings the cash register.
I know of one North Sea operator who refused to increase the cruise speed of his helicopters to match their performance, because he could bill more hours for the trips he flew!
Ah, Nick, Nick, Nick...
I suppose it's fashionable to take gratuitous pot-shots at me, but I never said that the logging of flight time had anything to do with loads and overhaul times. Nick, is your reading comprehension shot to hell now that you fly airplanes? What I said was that the rule about logging "blade time" had nothing to do with beans, which you seem so full of.
Although it's traditional that we helicopter pilots log only the time that there's air underneath our wheels or skids, it is quite wrong (and wrong-headed). This paradigm only benefits the operators who keep their component time to a minimum.
Here's the deal, Nick old-bean. If fire up your shiny, new G-450 and taxi out for takeoff, when do you begin logging "flight time?" Right, when the aircraft (wings and fuselage) moves under it's own power. Nobody on earth would argue that.
Now similarly in a helicopter (jbrereton, pay attention here too), when you start the rotors (airframe part, remember, rotary wing) with the intention of flight you may begin logging flight time. It's not that complicated. It's not a technical consideration, it's a legal distinction.
It works to the pilot's albeit slight advantage, but it's funny how many helicopter pilots resist this. It's like some bizarre code of honour that we should only log skids-off to skids-on! But then, many helicopter pilots consider themselves to be management or at least as smart (or smarter!) than management. So it's not surprising that helicopter pilots consistently take management's side.
Anyway Nick, that's the long and the short of it. I never said it had anything to do with component overhaul times or loads, pallar-breath. So save your haughty pompous attitude for someone who really cares. Like your dog. Or your pet bean.
PPrune Fan #1 is quite wrong, the rotor and transmission are not taxed by turning under no load. The overhauls on these components is not affected by ground runs and taxi-ing on the ground.
Although it's traditional that we helicopter pilots log only the time that there's air underneath our wheels or skids, it is quite wrong (and wrong-headed). This paradigm only benefits the operators who keep their component time to a minimum.
Here's the deal, Nick old-bean. If fire up your shiny, new G-450 and taxi out for takeoff, when do you begin logging "flight time?" Right, when the aircraft (wings and fuselage) moves under it's own power. Nobody on earth would argue that.
Now similarly in a helicopter (jbrereton, pay attention here too), when you start the rotors (airframe part, remember, rotary wing) with the intention of flight you may begin logging flight time. It's not that complicated. It's not a technical consideration, it's a legal distinction.
It works to the pilot's albeit slight advantage, but it's funny how many helicopter pilots resist this. It's like some bizarre code of honour that we should only log skids-off to skids-on! But then, many helicopter pilots consider themselves to be management or at least as smart (or smarter!) than management. So it's not surprising that helicopter pilots consistently take management's side.
Anyway Nick, that's the long and the short of it. I never said it had anything to do with component overhaul times or loads, pallar-breath. So save your haughty pompous attitude for someone who really cares. Like your dog. Or your pet bean.