logging time question

Makes sense to log the whole thing because even the time on the ground is either spent prepping maps, gps's, frequencies, etc or taxing at an unfamiliar airfield which is all relevant XC experience.
 
nosehair said:
Yeah, me too. I would like to see an official FAA Letter of Interpretation that says taxi time is flight time.
Just to put an end to this quibbling over .2 on the hobbs.

Of course. I don't think that would be the legal interpretation, since ALL the regulations concerning flight time definitions infer being in flight. I think the legal definition of "power for the purpose of flight" begins with the take-off roll. Applying power to taxi is for the purpose of positioning the airplane to prepare for take-off.

I think that is what a legal interpretation would be.
Click to expand...

Not at all and any 121/135 crew member logging time this way (not counting taxi time), could face certification action. In addition, any company logging aircraft time this way (not counting the time from out to off), could face legal action and fines.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Does this count?
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...0/interpretations/data/interps/2004/kania.rtf

Remember that the definition of "flight time" is not just about people logging time that you perosnally don't like them to. It implicates flight time duty issues for professional pilots as well.

You'll find similar "flight time equals block-to-block time" references in Chief Counsel opinions going back to at least 1979.
Click to expand...

I would think you should be able to show up with that and tell the fsdo to pound sand, but in nicer terms. "Lets call OKC right now then." lol. I doubt the checkride would then go to well, but still.
 
z987k said:
I would think you should be able to show up with that and tell the fsdo to pound sand, but in nicer terms. "Lets call OKC right now then." lol. I doubt the checkride would then go to well, but still.
Click to expand...
The overriding rule during checkrides with an examiner who is wrong is, "Yes sir. I didn't realize that. Thank your for explaining it to me."

What I have to wonder is whether the company POIs oit of that FSDO are regularly allowing certificate holders to force employees to exceed mandatory flight time limitations or if it's "yes, but that definition only applies to Parts 91, 119, 121, 125, 135 but not Part 61."
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
The overriding rule during checkrides with an examiner who is wrong is, "Yes sir. I didn't realize that. Thank your for explaining it to me."

What I have to wonder is whether the company POIs oit of that FSDO are regularly allowing certificate holders to force employees to exceed mandatory flight time limitations or if it's "yes, but that definition only applies to Parts 91, 119, 121, 125, 135 but not Part 61."
Click to expand...

Or exceed aircraft inspection times if companies are not logging that time on the airframes. It was not unusual to have over 30 minutes of taxi time at larger airports. You add that up on a daily basis and you're talking quite a bit of airframe time. We had two pilots who really lied about their out/off/on/in times. In addition to being fired their certificates were revoked for falsifying aircraft records.
 
Thanks for all the input guys! It seems North Florida is the only FSDO looking for stuff like this. everyone else i talked told me the same thing.. log the WHOLE time, which i agree with.
 
Blackhawk said:
Or exceed aircraft inspection times if companies are not logging that time on the airframes. It was not unusual to have over 30 minutes of taxi time at larger airports. You add that up on a daily basis and you're talking quite a bit of airframe time.
Click to expand...
Not true. Per 14 CFR Part 1, aircraft time in service is defined as
Time in service, with respect to maintenance time records, means the time from the moment an aircraft leaves the surface of the earth until it touches it at the next point of landing.
Click to expand...
 
If the engine is running, then I'm counting it. The Hobbs and Tach run with the engine in operation soo..
 
Blackhawk said:
The FAA felt differently when they revoked their certificates.
Click to expand...

I've gone back a couple of times through the posts, but I'm not sure I'm following everything here. I understand that there was a pilot(s) that got certs pulled for falsely reporting time. The part I'd like clarified is if you're saying that aircraft time has to be Block time as opposed to Flight time?
 
For part 135 the minimum time you log should be from the start of the taxi to the end of the taxi or block to block. You may log from engine start to engine shutdown as far as I am concerned and the FSDO guys I have talked to agree. This would of course unnecessarily limit your 8 hours of flight time that day.

As far as part 91, if you FLY after you start the engine you may begin logging time. After all you are responsible if someone walks into your propeller or you pass out and fall on the throttles sending the aircraft careening through parked airplanes and hangars only to end up in a ball of fire. And if that does not happen and you land at another airport regardless of distance for other than certain experience for certain ratings or certificates you may log it all as cross country time.
 
SteveC said:
I've gone back a couple of times through the posts, but I'm not sure I'm following everything here. I understand that there was a pilot(s) that got certs pulled for falsely reporting time. The part I'd like clarified is if you're saying that aircraft time has to be Block time as opposed to Flight time?
Click to expand...

The point is that "flight time" =is= "block time" as the FAA has defined, interpreted and used it.

There are two issues. One is logging for certificates, ratings and currency. The other involves counting time toward the time limitations for various pilots - primarily flight time limitations for pilots in commercial operations.

If you're talking about logging time for certificate, ratings and currency, there nothing at all wrong with counting less time than you are entitled to. If you don't want to count the 0.2 or 0.3 for taxi as flight time, no problem at all. Heck if you want to skip logging for a month or to, no problem there either. The only problem comes when you log more time than you are entitled to.

But if you're talking about time limitations for pilots - take a look at 135.265 for example, we're talking about the most amount of time a pilot is permitted to fly in a day, week, month, year. In that case, counting less than the regulation requires is a potential problem. If you're only allowed to fly 8 hours and you log 8 hours but actually flew 9 hours based on the FAA "block to block" definition, you have possible violated two regs - the flight time limitations and 61.59 - falsifying records on something material.
 
Blackhawk said:
The FAA felt differently when they revoked their certificates.
Click to expand...
Do you know for a fact they were fired because of maintenance time discrepancies? Or was it the flight/duty issue that got them? Because I don't know that the part 1 definition of aircraft time in service could be more explicit or simple. Or, perhaps that airline had no other method of tracking time than block to block, and therefore that was what they used for mx time. Our airline uses an air pressure switch for the Hobbs meter to track airframe time, activates around 30 KIAS.
 
Roger said:
Do you know for a fact they were fired because of maintenance time discrepancies? Or was it the flight/duty issue that got them? Because I don't know that the part 1 definition of aircraft time in service could be more explicit or simple. Or, perhaps that airline had no other method of tracking time than block to block, and therefore that was what they used for mx time. Our airline uses an air pressure switch for the Hobbs meter to track airframe time, activates around 30 KIAS.
Click to expand...

For a fact because they falsified aircraft logbooks- the "can". There was no other means of tracking aircraft time other than this logbook (EMB-120).
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
The point is that "flight time" =is= "block time" as the FAA has defined, interpreted and used it.

There are two issues. One is logging for certificates, ratings and currency. The other involves counting time toward the time limitations for various pilots - primarily flight time limitations for pilots in commercial operations.

If you're talking about logging time for certificate, ratings and currency, there nothing at all wrong with counting less time than you are entitled to. If you don't want to count the 0.2 or 0.3 for taxi as flight time, no problem at all. Heck if you want to skip logging for a month or to, no problem there either. The only problem comes when you log more time than you are entitled to.

But if you're talking about time limitations for pilots - take a look at 135.265 for example, we're talking about the most amount of time a pilot is permitted to fly in a day, week, month, year. In that case, counting less than the regulation requires is a potential problem. If you're only allowed to fly 8 hours and you log 8 hours but actually flew 9 hours based on the FAA "block to block" definition, you have possible violated two regs - the flight time limitations and 61.59 - falsifying records on something material.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mark, I follow that. My question was related to tracking aircraft flight time for MX purposes. On our Flight Logs we track both block and hobbs (true flight) time. We use block for all logging and pilot flight time purposes, and I'm pretty sure we use Hobbs for tracking aircraft required MX. I thought I was reading Blackhawk to say that the guys had their certs revoked because they used Hobbs, not block time, for the purpose of AIRCRAFT flight time tracking. Now I believe he's saying that the pilots put fraudulent time in the aircraft logs (in order to make their pilot flight time appear legal), that's why they got busted.

Blackhawk said:
For a fact because they falsified aircraft logbooks- the "can". There was no other means of tracking aircraft time other than this logbook (EMB-120).
Click to expand...

So, just to clarify my point above, they did NOT get busted for using Hobbs time instead of Block time in the aircraft logs?
 
I would have thought it was purely tach (and whatever the count for jets) time for maintenance purposes since that reflects overall wear on the engine. Not an issue I've had to look at, though.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
I would have thought it was purely tach (and whatever the count for jets) time for maintenance purposes since that reflects overall wear on the engine. Not an issue I've had to look at, though.
Click to expand...

I believe all our Hobbs are controlled by one of the squat switches, so Hobbs is recording the amount of time from take-off to touch-down.

The original reason for my question was this exchange:



Roger said:
Not true. Per 14 CFR Part 1, aircraft time in service is defined as
Time in service, with respect to maintenance time records, means the time from the moment an aircraft leaves the surface of the earth until it touches it at the next point of landing.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Blackhawk said:
The FAA felt differently when they revoked their certificates.
Click to expand...

...where I thought it sounded like Blackhawk was implying that aircraft flight time had to be block time, not Hobbs (or tach), or else a violation has taken place.
 
Blackhawk said:
For a fact because they falsified aircraft logbooks- the "can". There was no other means of tracking aircraft time other than this logbook (EMB-120).
Click to expand...

Gotcha, so the problem wasn't the fact that they did not use block time for recording aircraft TIS, but rather the fact that since the company was using block time as their sole record of TIS, and they falsified the block times, it then follows that they falsified mx time. So, my original point about air time vs block time for maintenance intervals still stands, provided your company is not using some other method of tracking/computing TIS.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
I would have thought it was purely tach (and whatever the count for jets) time for maintenance purposes since that reflects overall wear on the engine. Not an issue I've had to look at, though.
Click to expand...
I would have thought so too, until I started studying for my IA test and found a question that referenced the 14 CFR part 1 definition of time in service for aircraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top