Logbook - conditions of flight - do I double count

Palmpilot said:
Do you really think this makes all that much difference, in the grand scheme of things?
Click to expand...
In theory it could. Pilot seeking ATP minimums but really cheap on fuel decides to do laps around the airport, building Hobbs time at low fuel burn before and after taking flight.

if it happens and there is some reason for the FAA to look at it, we're probably talking 61.59 certificate revocation. It's not morality. At some point conduct that technically fits the letter is treated as a sham.

My first year in law school, one of my classmates came up with what he referred to as The Bull$hit Doctrine. "You can quote all the cases, statutes, rules, and regulations you want, but at some point they just say, 'Bull$hit! You're screwed!" Sadly, he flunked out, but he nailed this one. The Doctrine has proved its worth many times.
 
Lindberg said:
Cool. You disagree with something nobody has claimed.
Click to expand...

Evidently you haven't read all the posts regarding this. A number of people have said that as soon as they move they start logging it. Hell there's one person (not in this thread) that never even took off and said they logged it as flight time, and the padders rallied around saying "yeah absolutely."
 
midlifeflyer said:
In theory it could. Pilot seeking ATP minimums but really cheap on fuel decides to do laps around the airport, building Hobbs time at low fuel burn before and after taking flight.

if it happens and there is some reason for the FAA to look at it, we're probably talking 61.59 certificate revocation. It's not morality. At some point conduct that technically fits the letter is treated as a sham.

My first year in law school, one of my classmates came up with what he referred to as The Bull$hit Doctrine. "You can quote all the cases, statutes, rules, and regulations you want, but at some point they just say, 'Bull$hit! You're screwed!" Sadly, he flunked out, but he nailed this one. The Doctrine has proved its worth many times.
Click to expand...

Then the letter needs to be changed. Sorry, gonna write something with a loophole, close it.
Novel idea: flight time = time in the air. Because you know, you're, like flying n ****.
 
This is kinda funny. You disagree with the rule so in response you penalize yourself and complain that everyone else is wrong.

I agree that the rule is stupid, but I still follow it. I log my taxi time because that’s the rule.
 
Salty said:
This is kinda funny. You disagree with the rule so in response you penalize yourself and complain that everyone else is wrong.

I agree that the rule is stupid, but I still follow it. I log my taxi time because that’s the rule.
Click to expand...

Oh no. The premise was that if 0.2 extra is fine for every flight or even 2 hours due to ground stop, then so should 24 hours be fine as well. But it's not according to the padders. I point out that by the letter of the regulation it should be allowed. But the argument as to why sitting for 2 hours when told by someone else is OK, but me deciding on my own to sit is basically nothing but hypocrisy. No one gives a cogent reason why their time sitting with the brakes set counts and my 24 hours of sitting with the brakes set doesn't. All I want is a cogent argument within what is written in regulation. No one provides that. So my stance is, until someone can provide that, then 24 hours should be acceptable if 20 minutes or 2 hours is. But the padders say it isn't.
 
EdFred said:
Oh no. The premise was that if 0.2 extra is fine for every flight or even 2 hours due to ground stop, then so should 24 hours be fine as well. But it's not according to the padders. I point out that by the letter of the regulation it should be allowed. But the argument as to why sitting for 2 hours when told by someone else is OK, but me deciding on my own to sit is basically nothing but hypocrisy. No one gives a cogent reason why they’re time sitting with the brakes set counts and my 24 hours of sitting with the brakes set doesn't. All I want is a cogent argument within what is written in regulation. No one provides that. So my stance is, until someone can provide that, then 24 hours should be acceptable if 20 minutes or 2 hours is. But the padders say it isn't.
Click to expand...
You seem to be willfully ignoring ethics.
 
How could this be more clear?

Flight time means:
Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing. . .
 
EdFred said:
Oh no. The premise was that if 0.2 extra is fine for every flight or even 2 hours due to ground stop, then so should 24 hours be fine as well. But it's not according to the padders. I point out that by the letter of the regulation it should be allowed. But the argument as to why sitting for 2 hours when told by someone else is OK, but me deciding on my own to sit is basically nothing but hypocrisy. No one gives a cogent reason why their time sitting with the brakes set counts and my 24 hours of sitting with the brakes set doesn't. All I want is a cogent argument within what is written in regulation. No one provides that. So my stance is, until someone can provide that, then 24 hours should be acceptable if 20 minutes or 2 hours is. But the padders say it isn't.
Click to expand...
Your arguing only with yourself and your strawmen.
 
EdFred said:
Oh no. The premise was that if 0.2 extra is fine for every flight or even 2 hours due to ground stop, then so should 24 hours be fine as well. But it's not according to the padders. I point out that by the letter of the regulation it should be allowed. But the argument as to why sitting for 2 hours when told by someone else is OK, but me deciding on my own to sit is basically nothing but hypocrisy. No one gives a cogent reason why their time sitting with the brakes set counts and my 24 hours of sitting with the brakes set doesn't. All I want is a cogent argument within what is written in regulation. No one provides that. So my stance is, until someone can provide that, then 24 hours should be acceptable if 20 minutes or 2 hours is. But the padders say it isn't.
Click to expand...
Do you really think that the FAA or any judge would buy the idea that a continuous 24-hour stretch of ground operation was "for the purpose of flight"? That phrase is in the letter of the regulation too, you know.
 
Salty said:
You seem to be willfully ignoring ethics.
Click to expand...

Nothing in 61.51 states anything about ethically logging.
OneCharlieTango said:
How could this be more clear?

Flight time means:
Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing. . .
Click to expand...

Flight time means:
Pilot time that commences when an aircraft is airborne, and ends when the aircraft is no longer airborne.

Lindberg said:
Your arguing only with yourself and your strawmen.
Click to expand...

Read the previous thread.

Palmpilot said:
Do you really think that the FAA or any judge would buy the idea that a continuous 24-hour stretch of ground operation was "for the purpose of flight"? That phrase is in the letter of the regulation too, you know.
Click to expand...

"I taxiied, really, really, really slow, and was being very, very, thorough with my checklists."
 
EdFred said:
Nothing in 61.51 states anything about ethically logging.


Flight time means:
Pilot time that commences when an aircraft is airborne, and ends when the aircraft is no longer airborne.



Read the previous thread.
Click to expand...
Lol. No, there’s not a reg that says don’t commit fraud. That doesn’t mean it’s ok to commit fraud.
 
I was debating not participating in this thread, but what the heck...

I mostly agree with @EdFred. The regulation SHOULD say "flight time is time that accrues when the aircraft is airborne" or something like that. The current definition of "moves under its own power for the purpose of flight" is unnecessarily vague, as it lends itself to this whole discussion. Personally, I think that years ago when the wording was first written, "they" PROBABLY meant "beginning takeoff roll" as "moves for the purpose of flight". But I have nothing to support that, AND there have been subsequent letters to the contrary. Doesn't mean I agree with them though.

I just base that off a common-sense definition. If you asked any non-pilot what they thought "flight time" meant, I'm willing to guess almost all would say "well, duh, it's when the airplane is in the air". Which makes the most sense to me.

The argument is occasionally brought up that taxi time SHOULD count for "flight time" because you are doing PIC-responsible things and have important flight duties to carry out, etc. I don't buy this argument - you do PIC-responsible important flight duties before ever getting in the airplane, too, but obviously those don't count. Having "PIC-responsible important flight duties" is neither necessary nor sufficient for the determination of flight time.

And the whole "logging while taxiing and runup" interpretation brings up more discussion and its own set of problems. Say two pilots take off in two airplanes for the same flight to somewhere 1.0 hours away. They are both in the air for exactly 1.0. Pilot 1 taxies normally and does a normal runup, and logs 1.2 for the flight. Pilot 2 sits in the runup area for a long time for whatever reason and ends up logging 1.5 for the flight. Same trip, same time airborne, but one pilot logs 1.2 of "flight time" and the other logs 1.5 of "flight time". Legal or not, and in accordance with the regulations or not, how does this make sense? To me, it doesn't.

BUT, I also don't get worked up over it. It is what it is. I log my time like most people here, which includes taxi time. Heck, even at work (and many here know where I work), we log "block in/out" time as flight time. It's pervasive and commonplace and doesn't really make much difference. But that doesn't mean it makes any sense.
 
EdFred said:
"I taxiied, really, really, really slow, and was being very, very, thorough with my checklists."
Click to expand...
Again, do you really think that the FAA or a judge would buy that testimony?

The YouTube "inspection pass" case is an example of a judge disregarding testimony about the pilot's motivations when they don't believe that the witness was being truthful. Pilots can say anything they want about whether a given action was for the purpose of flight, but that doesn't stop the FAA and judges from making up their own minds about it. That's why I can't get all that excited about this theoretical loophole.
 
RussR said:
Pilot 2 sits in the runup area for a long time for whatever reason and ends up logging 1.5 for the flight.
Click to expand...

Pilot 2 violated the letter of the regulation, by logging time from before the aircraft moved.
 
Palmpilot said:
Pilot 2 violated the letter of the regulation, by logging time from before the aircraft moved.
Click to expand...
Had to move from the parking spot. Don't know anyone that parks in the runup area. Or are you saying that taxiing from parking to the runup area is movement for the purposes of runup? ;)
 
As I explained earlier in this thread, sometimes the big decisions and thought processes of a PIC are made on the ground…. And yes, over a two hour period (sometimes more).

If you don’t want to log it, don’t log it…. But I fail to see the argument..?? Are you saying others shouldn’t log it because you don’t see it that way???
 
EdFred said:
Had to move from the parking spot. Don't know anyone that parks in the runup area. Or are you saying that taxiing from parking to the runup area is movement for the purposes of runup? ;)
Click to expand...
Sorry, I didn't read carefully enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top