Plain English - (thread moved from Private Flying)
 

I see that in a thread below (or maybe above now!) someone has quoted a section out of LASORS..

Article 155
(2) An aircraft shall be 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;


Why the plethora of clauses that convolute the text so as to make understanding so difficult to comprehend. (not necessarily in the above though) Is it that over time amendments have been made to close abuses or unintended interpretations of the regulation?


So to the above extract:-

1) "in the case of a piloted flying machine" ..... Have pilots been logging P1 for pilot-less aircraft :confused:

2) "for the purpose of taking off" ..... Pilots were logging P1 for moving the aircraft under it's own power when there was no intention of taking off.

And the one I really like.

3) "from the moment when, after the embarkation of its crew"..... So have we had a crew member logging P1 when he was not actually in the aircraft?? Co-pilot start-up taxis out, Captain joins him at the threshold. :confused:

Ah, no. The co-pilot logs P1 for the taxi bit. You can hardly be "in command" if you're not in the aircraft, can you (unless it's a pilotless, radio-controlled aircraft)?

Question is, during that taxi bit, was the co-pilot PF or PNF?


Personally, I've been involved in another interesting scenario. Taxiing out for my first solo and the aircraft failing its runup checks at the hold, so taxi back to the school to had the engineers take a look. I had moved the aircraft with the intention of taking off, so legal to log P1. My second first solo actually got me into the air (and safely down).

There's also a bunch of interesting scenarios where the pilot hand-swings the prop but forgot the chocks or brakes so the aircraft starts taxiing, or even taking off, on its own. How do you log that?

Ground runs? Engineering testing?

Someone, somewhere will always think of a loophole and that is why all rules, legislation and regulations are written in this manner. Spend enough time reading this sort of English, and you get used to it! LASORS isn't too bad; try some of the Taxes Acts!!

Cheers

Whirls

I don't wish to detract from your argument JP1 ... but the quote is from Article 155 of the ANO, and not from LASORS ...

JD
;)

For helicopters, Hooloovoo, the relevant paragraph (ANO) is
JD
:)

... oh dear ... such pedantry, Hooloovoo ...

The licence you hold (I assume) is to fly a helicopter - and not part of a helicopter - so I would guess it means when the whole helicopter moves under its own power ... but I may be wrong ...

In my humble opinion, it means when the helicopter moves under its own power, i.e ground taxy, air taxy, lift, or whatever it does to itself to physically displace itself from its previous position, for the eventual purpose of taking off ...

To employ "plain English" one must assume some "common sense", surely ... ? Or perhaps the current wording is an attempt to pre-empt mischievous interpretations such as yours ... !


JD
;)

I always thought helicopters did not move under their own power but were repelled by the earth for being so ugly...:confused:

Another question. I have heard that, amongst others, Heathrow may be going to be experimenting with using tugs to take the aircraft from the apron to the hold, and then starting the aircrafts engines only at the hold. Environmental concerns such as fuel consumption, noise etc. are the reason for this. In this case, the aircraft is not moving under it's own power, but it is moving with the intention of taking off, and there is a pilot in command. How to log this?

Whether or not your assertion that is correct (and I rather doubt it), I still think your interpretation of the law is wrong in this regard. The fact that "everyone does it" doesn't necessarily make it correct.

Why don't you try and clarify it with the CAA? I wish you luck ... ;) but I confess I really can't get excited about it ... :bored:


JD
:)

I'm not trying to have anything both ways - maybe you are, tho' ...

I suppose if you are hours building in an R22, you would hardly want to seek a clarification of something which would be to your disadvantage, would you?

JD
:bored:

Funny how this kind of ties in with a comment of mine posted on a different thread a few days ago.

I think it's just what the customer demands.

On the contrary, Hooloovoo, please re-read my post - you have misunderstood me. I expressed doubt about you being correct in your assertion that because I can't believe everyone logs the time the way you say, as it seems contrary to the wording of Article 35. I was not expressing doubt that they could be wrong.

Put simply, my point remains that to start logging time from "rotors running" is not in accordance with ANO Article 35, whether or not it is, as you claim, "the worldwide recognised way".

I really think this point has run its course, as we are clearly not going to agree ...


JD
:bored:

I see some irony in the fact that I have not made myself clear to you in an earlier post on this topic, entitled as it is "Plain English". :confused:

Equally, I am not sure what lesson is to be learned from this - however maybe it should simply discourage me from further postings on this point..? :hmm:

On this basis, I will return to lurking on this thread ... and also now on Rotorheads, maybe ...

JD
;)

Logging Haleicopter time
 

Lasors 2008 section A - appendix B recording flight time. (page 40) says:

"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."

if thats what you meant

Er, when "the helicopter first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking off".

ie when it lifts into the hover (for skidded aircraft) or when it starts to taxi (for wheeled aircraft - as long as the taxi phase ends with a lift, and is not just ground positioning).

Ignore LASORS - after all, it is only an interpretation of the ANO. (And in this case, it's wrong. And not for the first time.)

The ANO (which you quoted) is the law.


(If you're still wondering about the LASORS reference, think about it this way: according to the LASOR's criteria, you can start up, run on the ground for 30mins then go flying for 5mins. Is this really 35mins of flight time?)

The LASORS reference comes from JAR FCL-2 and is at variance from the ANO - this has been known for sometime. The ANO definition is the one that should be used in the UK, and B73 has described it's interpretation correctly. The point about "intending to take off" is important as it rules out ground runs and other ground taxying (such as a compass swing in a wheeled helicopter)

Being in command is nothing to do with flying time - that starts when you sign your name in the tech log :ok:

Yes. (As was pointed out in the thread that you got locked over on the Private forum, just because everyone does it, it doesn't make it either right or legal.)

It was when I made the comment. BRL has now unlocked it and, for some reason, made a copy of the thread over here.

A) It's easier this way. B) But more importantly, so that you can be billed for the time.

See point B) above. The collective mounted switch was introduced for this very reason. Schools that add the extra 0.1hrs don't want to lose out on the revenue that they were getting previously.

That's because you currently want to log as much time as possible. Most of us want to get the aircraft shut down ASAP. :ok:

LooL, there is some truth in that :ok: