Would or How to log this?

ihv7qn8.jpg
 
nosehair said:
FAR 1.1 defines it as "from the time the airplane moves under it's own power for the purpose of flight until it comes to rest after landing."
Did you land?
Click to expand...

That hadn't occurred to me. You're right: without a landing, there's no flight time. (But please note: the CFRs do not misspell "its"--that's a misquote.)

Also, I now notice that taxiing back from the runway to the tie-down counts as flight time if and only if he plane doesn't stop momentarily after exiting the runway.

Flight time is time in the air, not taxi and preparation time for the flight.
Click to expand...

No. As you just quoted, the FAA's definition of flight time intentionally includes some taxi time. If they'd meant time aloft, that's what they would've said.

In the spirit of the rule, the time you move for the purpose of flight is when you have completed your run-up and decided to take flight.
Click to expand...

You assert that that's the spirit of the rule, but you don't explain why you think so. Why would the spirit of the rule be to include your taxi time if you perform the run-up before taxiing, but not if you perform the run-up after taxiing?

Perhaps you think the plane isn't moving "for the purpose of flight" until you've made the final go-or-no-go decision. But that would be immediately prior to rotation, not merely after the run-up. In fact, from the moment the plane starts to taxi for takeoff, it's moving for the purpose of flight, despite the possibility of aborting before takeoff.
 
acrophile said:
Perhaps you think the plane isn't moving "for the purpose of flight" until you've made the final go-or-no-go decision. But that would be immediately prior to rotation, not merely after the run-up. In fact, from the moment the plane starts to taxi for takeoff, it's moving for the purpose of flight, despite the possibility of aborting before takeoff.
Click to expand...

That's the standard I use. Take off roll until runway exit, and only if I depart. I don't log aborted takeoffs. I pull the flight time on GNS430 which only starts recording above 30kts.

I don't need to weasel extra hours into my logbook. When I'm with students I note the time when we taxi onto the runway.
 
Ron Levy said:
Kania is irrelevant to the question at hand. It discussed flight time only as it applies to Part 121 crew duty limitations, not the logging of flight time for Part 61 purposes.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

The interpretation is based on the definition of "flight time" in 14 CFR 1.1 as stated in the first paragraph of the letter. Mr. Kania tries to use the lack of a landing to disqualify the time from being counted as "flight time" and the interpretation is clear in saying that it is still "flight time" even if a (takeoff and) landing is not performed.

There is only one definition of "flight time" in 14 CFR 1.1. Once so defined, "flight time" is used in 14 CFR 121 as well as 14 CFR 61.51 but it is the same definition in both cases.
 
If a landing is required what about rated jumpers sitting right seat and flying all or part of the way to altitude? Plenty of that happens.
 
EdFred said:
That's the standard I use. Take off roll until runway exit, and only if I depart. I don't log aborted takeoffs. I pull the flight time on GNS430 which only starts recording above 30kts.

I don't need to weasel extra hours into my logbook. When I'm with students I note the time when we taxi onto the runway.
Click to expand...

IMHO, The 30 knot thing is what really adds some silliness to the equation. So you hit the timer mid-takeoff roll?? Do you stop it as you touch down and apply brakes? Talk about splitting hairs!!

Weaseling extra hours versus logging valid flight experience that you're paying for. Two different ways to look at the same equation. I hope you're not "weaseling" your students out of valid time they're paying for.
 
ClimbnSink said:
If a landing is required what about rated jumpers sitting right seat and flying all or part of the way to altitude? Plenty of that happens.
Click to expand...

Flight time isn't limited to just one person.
Jumper logs a T/O and climb time.
Remaining pilot on board logs descent time and landing.

Total flight time 0.3
.2 for the jumper
.1 for the remaining pilot

Just like when giving instruction, or a two man crew.
 
ahkahn said:
IMHO, The 30 knot thing is what really adds some silliness to the equation. So you hit the timer mid-takeoff roll?? Do you stop it as you touch down and apply brakes? Talk about splitting hairs!!

Weaseling extra hours versus logging valid flight experience that you're paying for. Two different ways to look at the same equation. I hope you're not "weaseling" your students out of valid time they're paying for.
Click to expand...

They aren't paying for it. And perhaps you need a remedial reading class.

Taxiing isn't flight experience. It's taxiing experience.
 
EdFred said:
They aren't paying for it. And perhaps you need a remedial reading class.

Taxiing isn't flight experience. It's taxiing experience.
Click to expand...

My logbook says "Time: Airplane Single Engine Land". Taxiing with a prop spinning is ASEL time.

Not sure what you mean by a remedial reading class. I guess I missed reading that you offer free flight lessons?
 
I can see that the aborted takeoff scenario is a grey area. If you start up, abort the takeoff then decide to try again which results in you taking off, you can log all the time from when you first taxied to your next parking spot (unless you are EdFred). If you abort then taxi back to the shop you can't. Or at least that's the grey area. I didn't read where Kania addressed aborted takeoffs, only taxiing back without attempting to takeoff. In EdFred's world it would probably depend on if you exceeded 30 knots. :D

In any case, does it really matter? Are people aborting so many takeoffs that it makes a significant difference in their flight time?
 
Last edited:
Greg Bockelman said:
Now you are arguing just to argue.

You can log it however you want, but there is precedent for logging it tiedown to tiedown.
Click to expand...


No. I've never logged taxi time. I log flight time, not driving around on the surface time.
 
ahkahn said:
My logbook says "Time: Airplane Single Engine Land". Taxiing with a prop spinning is ASEL time.

Not sure what you mean by a remedial reading class. I guess I missed reading that you offer free flight lessons?
Click to expand...

Mine doesn't. And if you read what I said, the 430 automatically starts the timer at 30kts GS. I don't start or stop the timer. It's automated.

http://www.rif.org/ <---look into it, you might learn something.
 
Everskyward said:
I can see that the aborted takeoff scenario is a grey area. If you start up, abort the takeoff then decide to try again which results in you taking off, you can log all the time from when you first taxied to your next parking spot (unless you are EdFred). If you abort then taxi back to the shop you can't. Or at least that's the grey area. I didn't read where Kania addressed aborted takeoffs, only taxiing back without attempting to takeoff. In EdFred's world it would probably depend on if you exceeded 30 knots. :D

In any case, does it really matter? Are people aborting so many takeoffs that it makes a significant difference in their flight time?
Click to expand...

I don't log an aborted take off. I didn't even log the time where I departed on 12, had smoke come into the cockpit, and made an immediate left to land onto 27. What am I going to log that as? 0.0167? Do people log to the hundredth or thousandth?
 
EdFred said:
I don't log an aborted take off. I didn't even log the time where I departed on 12, had smoke come into the cockpit, and made an immediate left to land onto 27. What am I going to log that as? 0.0167? Do people log to the hundredth or thousandth?
Click to expand...

You logged it in the aircraft logbook. More experience value in that short flight then droning along logging 'good' time. None of the time matters for hobby or established working pilots anyway and after some number of hours pilots are going to stop improving and suck at flying or not.
 
EdFred said:
I don't log an aborted take off. I didn't even log the time where I departed on 12, had smoke come into the cockpit, and made an immediate left to land onto 27. What am I going to log that as? 0.0167? Do people log to the hundredth or thousandth?
Click to expand...
If you are asking me, I would have logged taxi out to taxi in. But as Greg said, there's no requirement to log it at all unless you are using that takeoff and landing for currency. I know some people who don't log anything and just guess at numbers for insurance. They could easily be off by 50 or 100 either way. I can't guess at my current flight time closer than to the 1000s. There is a record of their time on the company flight logs and computer but they don't put it in a personal logbook. I don't know (and I don't care) what they do outside of work.
 
ClimbnSink said:
You logged it in the aircraft logbook. More experience value in that short flight then droning along logging 'good' time. None of the time matters for hobby or established working pilots anyway and after some number of hours pilots are going to stop improving and suck at flying or not.
Click to expand...

I did not log it.
 
There are several consistent FAA General Counsel rulings on this topic. The ones going back to 2000 I can find, but there are more back as far as 1974.

One that is often quoted is:

In a letter of interpretation issued to James W. Johnson in 2000, the FAA considered whether deicing procedures that take place after an aircraft moves under its own power constitute flight time? In that letter, the FAA examined its prior interpretations and enforcement cases, and concluded that these deicing procedures do in fact constitute flight time. The Johnson interpretation stated that:

In our opinion, the logic and principles of the enforcement cases and our prior interpretation support the conclusion that FAA required de-icing procedures are "preparatory to flight," and when the aircraft taxies under its own power from the gate to the de-icing pad, it is "for the purpose of flight." Thus, we further conclude that flight time starts at the moment when the aircraft taxies under its own power from the gate to the de-icing pad, and flight time continues until the moment the aircraft comes to rest at the next point of landing.​
Click to expand...
Note that in a later opinion, they concluded that if the aircraft had not taxied under its own power, but was towed to the deice station, that time would not be considered as flight time. In an another more recent opinion, the FAA General Counsel also concluded that if an aircraft came to rest after landing while waiting for a gate to open up, then continued to the gate once it was available, flight time ended when the aircraft arrived at the gate. In other opinions, it has been reinforced that just because an engine is running but not moving under its own power, this does not trigger the start of flight time, there must be movement for the purposes of flight. A helicopter that starts its engine and does not move is not considered to be flight time, nor is an aircraft that starts the clock based on the starting of the engine, but remains at rest while the Hobbs meter is running. The Hobbs could be used as a clock, but there must be movement for the purposes of flight prior to it clicking over to the next value.

So those that say they log Hobbs time may or may not be technically legal if the Hobbs starts the clock when electrical power is applied or when the engine is developing oil pressure, but not in motion. This is a very picky distinction and in most cases they are or could be the same. Those that don't log flight time until they are airborne are free to do so, but the regulations are more permissive. They permit the clock to start when an aircraft moves under its own power to a deice station and then stops while it is being performed. What many do to start the clock for logging flight time is to permit a short forward roll to test the brakes after starting and this makes the Hobbs or watch time the starting point for logging if the engine is running.
 
The interpretation also says that flight time stops coming to rest at the next point of landing. This is consistent with the book definition of flight time. No where in the GC interpretation does it say you can go out for de-ice for the purpose of flight and if the flight is cancelled for whatever reason, you can log the taxi time back to the gate.
 
overdrive148 said:
I don't think you can log it, mostly because you no longer have the intention of being in the air :rofl:
Click to expand...

Intention being germane to the discussion, I would nominate a rule change that requires the airplane to be usable again to be loggable :D
 
Larry in TN said:
The Kania interpretation does.
Click to expand...

Ron raised a point that Kania was a 121 interpretation. Did the FAA intend to limit it those set if regulations only? Can a hobby PP apply that logic to his logbook?
 
Jaybird180 said:
Ron raised a point that Kania was a 121 interpretation. Did the FAA intend to limit it those set if regulations only? Can a hobby PP apply that logic to his logbook?
Click to expand...
If you read that interpretation, you'll see the Chief Counsel discussed the issue of "flight time" only as it relates to a Part 121 regulation on crew duty time, and not 61.51 or any other Part 61 regulation. As such, there is no basis to apply that interpretation to any Part 61 regulation.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Ron raised a point that Kania was a 121 interpretation. Did the FAA intend to limit it those set if regulations only? Can a hobby PP apply that logic to his logbook?
Click to expand...
The interpretation is about the definition of "flight time" from 14 CFR 1.1. The examples in the request are all about how the definition of "flight time" would apply to situations under part 121 but there is no separate definition of "flight time" for part 121 as that same definition applies to 14 CFR 61.51 as well.

The interpretation makes it clear that a landing is not required for time to be considered "flight time" under 14 CFR 1.1. Kania's whole argument was based on the lack of a landing in certain situations and he was attempted to get that time excluded from "flight time" so that it wouldn't count against flight time limits.
 
Last edited:
Larry in TN said:
The interpretation is about the definition of "flight time" from 14 CFR 1.1. The examples in the request are all about how the definition of "flight time" would apply to situations under part 121 but there is no separate definition of "flight time" for part 121 as that same definition applies to 14 CFR 61.51 as well.

The interpretation makes it clear that a landing is not required for time to be considered "flight time" under 14 CFR 1.1. Kania's whole argument was based on the lack of a landing in certain situations and he was attempted to get that time excluded from "flight time" so that it wouldn't count against flight time limits.
Click to expand...
The only regulations under discussion in this interpretation were Part 121 crew duty time rules. There is no applicability to Part 61 unless/until the Counsel says there is. You don't put "flight time" in your pilot log book unless you actually flew. Don't believe me? Ask AGC-200 yourself.
 
Never ask the FAA anything - we NEVER like the answer, either way it goes.
 
I'm inclined to go with Larry's interpretation rather than Ron's in this case. Either that or there are (tens of) thousands of airline pilots out there who have logged bogus "flight time". For logbook purposes they are logging as Part 61, not 121. Not that it matters.
 
Ron Levy said:
That is legally correct, but nobody in the FAA ever seems to worry about it, especially since you could start, pull forward 3 inches, and then stop and do all that other stuff making it all legal light time from that first movement onward.
Click to expand...

Some airports have tie-downs in movement areas, so you can't pull forward there until you get a taxi clearance.
 
So, Ed, while I'm taxiing a Mike and a half behind a couple if sir,iners, not logging flight time or PIC time, if I F-up and get too close to the jet in front of. E and his exhaust blows me through a taxi light and into the grass, then I can't get a violation because I wasn't flying right?

Or during my exit from the runway on a windy day at an uncontrolled field, the wind picks up my wingtip because I forgot to apply aileron correction, and the other wingtip drags along the ground, I don't need to report anything to anyone because I wasn't flying the plane?

Glad you cleared all that up!
 
Ron Levy said:
The only regulations under discussion in this interpretation were Part 121 crew duty time rules.
Click to expand...
The key to the Kania interp is the definition of "flight time" and whether or not a landing is required. That one definition of "flight time" applies both to part 121 flight time limits and part 61 logging requirements as neither part modifies that definition.

The interp makes it clear that a landing is not required for time to be "flight time" under 1.1 if the aircraft moved initially with the intention of flight.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
With all due respect, Ron, on what authority do you make that statement?
Click to expand...
I don't think it takes any particular authority to suggest asking AGC-200. Beyond that, if you read those letters, they always make clear that unless they say otherwise, they are answering only the question asked, which in the case of Kania, was strictly about Part 121 crew duty time. If you really believe that you can log flight time or Part 61 certificate/rating requirement or recent experience purposes (which is what 61.51 covers and for which pilot logbooks are used) without actually flying, I doubt anything that anyone other than the Chief Counsel would say would convince you, so I won't try further. But you can be absolutely certain that unless the Chief Counsel comes up with another letter saying the Kania interpretation on "flight time" applies to those Part 61 purposes as well as Part 121 crew duty purposes, you won't see my signature on any logbook entry with "flight time" or "flight training" where there was no actual flight.
 
Last edited:
Hank S said:
... and his exhaust blows me through a taxi light and into the grass, then I can't get a violation because I wasn't flying right?

Or during my exit from the runway on a windy day at an uncontrolled field, the wind picks up my wingtip because I forgot to apply aileron correction, and the other wingtip drags along the ground, I don't need to report anything to anyone because I wasn't flying the plane?
Click to expand...
Being responsible during ground operations is a duty we all share, regardless of flying or not. We call out "clear" even before we start the engine. We are responsible for accidents that occur to pax during deplaning. NTSB 830 spells that out.
I will remind you of this reg:

§91.13 Careless or reckless operation.

(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

As in airline operations, we all have a "duty time" during which we are not flying, or taxiing for the purpose of flight, which is not flying time, but we are still responsible and subject to violations.
 
So Part 1.1 definitions can be interpreted to mean different things depending on what part (91, 135, 121) it is being applied to. Got it. :rolleyes:
 
Ron Levy said:
Then read 14 CFR 1.1, which tells us that flight time involves a landing as well as intent for flight.
Click to expand...

I would think that you could log it as PIC, with 0 T/O and 0 landings.
I have an entry in my log which involves one takeoff, and no landings, with 2.0 PIC. A note in "remarks" SIC made the landing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top