Interesting LASORS observation, could save you money?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interesting LASORS observation, could save you money?
heres an interesting observation..
from 2005 LASORS
"Helicopter flight time The total time from the moment a helicopters 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"
so... if you're doing flight training on a Schweizer 300 - no rotor brake so the rotors take a while to stop after you pull the mixture (say 4 mins), and when the hobbs/datcon mater doesn't start until the pressure in the gearbox reaches a certain amount (say 1 min).... a 1.0 hour flight by the meter can be logged as a 65 minute flight.
so... say you pay for 150 hours training, you can officially log 150 x 65 = 9750 mins = 162.5 hours.
12.5 hours for free. about £3,000. not bad eh?
from 2005 LASORS
"Helicopter flight time The total time from the moment a helicopters 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"
so... if you're doing flight training on a Schweizer 300 - no rotor brake so the rotors take a while to stop after you pull the mixture (say 4 mins), and when the hobbs/datcon mater doesn't start until the pressure in the gearbox reaches a certain amount (say 1 min).... a 1.0 hour flight by the meter can be logged as a 65 minute flight.
so... say you pay for 150 hours training, you can officially log 150 x 65 = 9750 mins = 162.5 hours.
12.5 hours for free. about £3,000. not bad eh?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: North of Eq
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is also a down side to this definition.
1. You can’t have a ‘running change’. You must shut the rotor down, as you can’t have ‘half a flight’, and in most cases that means stopping the engine.
2. For night flying (re) qualification the requirement is no longer just a number of circuits (take-offs and landings) but flights, which includes a full shut down. This significantly increases the cost of night training.
Furthermore there is a body of opinion that uses this definition to justify the view that all ground-runs, compressor drying-out runs, etc. are now required to be recorded (logged) as flight time. No longer is there any requirement to be running the machine with the intention of flight.
1. You can’t have a ‘running change’. You must shut the rotor down, as you can’t have ‘half a flight’, and in most cases that means stopping the engine.
2. For night flying (re) qualification the requirement is no longer just a number of circuits (take-offs and landings) but flights, which includes a full shut down. This significantly increases the cost of night training.
Furthermore there is a body of opinion that uses this definition to justify the view that all ground-runs, compressor drying-out runs, etc. are now required to be recorded (logged) as flight time. No longer is there any requirement to be running the machine with the intention of flight.
TFS
Although ICAO and JAA define it that way the UK definition in the ANO is still something like take off to rotors stop.
Slightly different, the CAA did send a trainingcom around a while ago to remind people thats the way we should be doing it.
Cheers
V.
Although ICAO and JAA define it that way the UK definition in the ANO is still something like take off to rotors stop.
Slightly different, the CAA did send a trainingcom around a while ago to remind people thats the way we should be doing it.
Cheers
V.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: GIRT, BY SEA
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be careful, this can work against you - the school can make you land with only 55 mins on the clock, but when the blade is stopped they bill you for 1 hour.
Similarly, I don't want some newbie telling me he has 120 hours of training, when 15 of those were sitting in the cockpit by yourself watching the blades spin down, not learning anything and certainly not flying.
Similarly, I don't want some newbie telling me he has 120 hours of training, when 15 of those were sitting in the cockpit by yourself watching the blades spin down, not learning anything and certainly not flying.
Exactly - 50hrs training turns into 62 hrs, if I owned the trng school I'd charge the full 62hrs!!!
Secondly and much more sinister: these 'extra' 'flying' hours are worthless when it comes to experience.....how many will work this to the limit???
Secondly and much more sinister: these 'extra' 'flying' hours are worthless when it comes to experience.....how many will work this to the limit???
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
There are some reputable flight schools out there, you know. I learned in the Hughes269C and was charged for flight time only; lift to land, not rotor start to rotor stop. And yes, my log book reflects an extra 5 minutes at the end of the flight sitting on the ground (plus, of course the 5 or so minutes at the start of the flight going through checks). However, with the Hughes/Schweizer, three of those minutes are while the engine is running and the cylinder head is cooling.
Cheers
Whirlygig
Cheers
Whirlygig
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The recording of flight time is something that comes up all the time, and there are some discrepancies in the wording within various documents.
The ANO is quite clear on this, and overides anything within a JAA definition.
Section 1 Part IV of the ANO deals with recording of flight time in personal flying logbooks, and states that ' 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'.
In other words, you don't get to record the warm-up as flight time, but you do get the cool down and the blade rundown.
That's what it says, so that is what we must do....but I can think of a couple of issues with this. If you are in your ship, rotors running and warming up, you are not logging flight time according to the ANO, so are you deemed to be in command? I would think you are, and if so, its command time which must be recorded in your logbook as PIC....which is generally accepted as flight time for the issue of ratings etc.
If you are not deemed to be in command of all that rotating machinery because of the ANO definition, then who is in command? Would the CAA deem you to be in command if someone walked into your tail rotor whilst you are warming up, and prosecute you accordingly.....I bet they would, which makes a nonsense of the wording of the ANO.
Seems to me that it is reasonable to record the time that you are in command of the helicopter, as during this time you are performing your duties and of course are at risk if anything goes wrong......I think some common sense has to prevail, and if the CAA would consider you fair game whilst warming up, they could hardly tell you not to log the time.
Any input, Flying Lawyer - does it raise any legal issues ?
The ANO is quite clear on this, and overides anything within a JAA definition.
Section 1 Part IV of the ANO deals with recording of flight time in personal flying logbooks, and states that ' 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'.
In other words, you don't get to record the warm-up as flight time, but you do get the cool down and the blade rundown.
That's what it says, so that is what we must do....but I can think of a couple of issues with this. If you are in your ship, rotors running and warming up, you are not logging flight time according to the ANO, so are you deemed to be in command? I would think you are, and if so, its command time which must be recorded in your logbook as PIC....which is generally accepted as flight time for the issue of ratings etc.
If you are not deemed to be in command of all that rotating machinery because of the ANO definition, then who is in command? Would the CAA deem you to be in command if someone walked into your tail rotor whilst you are warming up, and prosecute you accordingly.....I bet they would, which makes a nonsense of the wording of the ANO.
Seems to me that it is reasonable to record the time that you are in command of the helicopter, as during this time you are performing your duties and of course are at risk if anything goes wrong......I think some common sense has to prevail, and if the CAA would consider you fair game whilst warming up, they could hardly tell you not to log the time.
Any input, Flying Lawyer - does it raise any legal issues ?
Also raises the point about ground runs and wheeled aircraft compass swings; as there is never an intent to take off it does not count as flight time. However, you are still in command!
