Fudging the logbook

[zippiesdrainage]

One thing I've learned in my short life on this planet is that everything is arguable these days. Everything. It's become part of our culture. Police bag your for speeding? Contest it! You don't like a court ruling? Appeal it! Even decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court are not respected. Nothing is considered The Last Word.

 

Obamacare, for example. It's been ratified by all three branches of the government, yet it may be repealed or reversed or overturned with the next presidency (if it's not Obama or Romney).

 

So some schmucks in the FAA's Legal Department make a ruling that helicopter pilots must log "pilot flight time" as skids-up to skids-down...UNLESS that helicopter has wheels, in which case they can log that time from the moment it begins taxiiing for takeoff like airplane pilots do. This is so inconsistent it's not even funny.

 

In my post #84 you'll see that I make a pretty clear case that we helicopter pilots should be able to log rotors-in-motion time as pilot flight time. There is no trickery or subterfuge involved. As I say, I believe that if the airframe is moving, the aircraft is moving. And when the rotors are moving, the airframe is moving. Why some pilots fail to see this, or find it humorous is puzzling. You'd think people would be more intelligent than that. Whatever...

 

Now, what happens in flight instruction in the real world? Hobbsmeters are not required to be installed in aircraft- there only must be a "reliable" method of recording flight time. Many older helicopters (e.g. Bell 47's, Hiller 12's) do not have Hobbs. In aircraft that do not have them the pilots note their "off-time" on a piece of paper. When they get back from the instruction period they note their "on-time. The difference is the flight time. Did some of that time get spent on the ground between maneuvers? Certainly. Has the FAA ever made an issue of this? No. And the only way they will is if people constantly bring it their attention that there's this HUGE DISCREPANCY of about a .1 or a .2 between pilot flight time and component time for each flight.

 

In fixed-wing aircraft, it is accepted and assumed that "pilot flight time" and "aircraft component time" will not be equal. The FAA knows this; it is a normal situation. But yet people FREAK OUT if the same happens in a helicopter. OH MY GOD!!! But you know what? The FAA really doesn't care. Until you poke them. And then some lawyers who may know nothing about helicopters but a lot about rules and regulations make some silly judgment and we take it all as gospel that's carved in stone like the (fictitious) Ten Commandments.

 

Me, I say it's arguable. Who's to say it isn't?

 

 

This may be the single greatest post I've ever read in these forums

Edit: as well as the "Honey Badger" reference on the previous page

[nightsta1ker]

Here's the dilemma that my boss and I are trying to sort through. As soon as you start the engine, you are burning gas and component time. That costs money. All those little .1s and .2s do add up. And they actually add up pretty quickly, especially when you are talking in money terms. So as I see it, we have three choices.

 

Choice no. 1: Do what is legal and only log skids up time. But charge the customer for the extra .1 or .2

 

Choice no. 2: Do what is legal and only log skids up time. Eat the cost of the .1 or .2 and charge the customer only for flight time they are logging.

 

Choice no. 3: Keep doing it exactly the way we have been, and everyone else for that matter, for as long as people have been learning to fly in these aircraft.

 

 

Who wants to weigh in on that one, because I am having a hell of a time. We can't afford to eat those .1s and .2s, and making our customer pay for them but not let them log the time is going to be a tough pill for some to swallow, especially when our competition down the road doesn't do that. But we really want to do the right thing. So, do we do the right thing for us, the right thing for our customer, or the right thing for the FAA? Pick 2.

[jimbo2181]

Follow the order of logic. Customer company FAA.

[ridethisbike]

Nightsta1ker: The saying that if it ain't broke, don't fix it comes to mind here. I understand both sides of the argument, but can anyone think of a time where the FAA came knocking on the doors of a flight school to bust a student/cfi for logging the .1-.2 of time on the ground per flight? That would be a LOT of students/cfi's to be putting through the wringer. And if the FAA busts me for doing it, they had better bust everyone else in my flight school for it too or I'm going to get a lawyer of my own.

 

It would take far too much time and resources to try and bust everyone for it, and as stated, it's arguable. Leave your system how it is... if the hobbs is turning, the students get to pay for and log that time.

 

I agree with jimbo... Customer, company, FAA.

 

The FAA doesn't pay the bills. Obviously, don't give them a reason to put your company under the microscope, but if your customers aren't happy... well, we know how that'll end.

 

PS I am only speaking on the flight school side of the house. Any other operators can do it how they want, and if in the future the company I work for tells me to only log collective up time per their policy, well I guess I don't have much of a choice.

[CharyouTree]

I could easily log way more time with collective up to collective down time, using the clock.

 

0900-0904 (pattern) .1

0906-0907 (Tower asked me to sidestep) .1

0908-0909 .1

0909-0910 .1

0910-0911 (giving student repeated landings with boost off) .1 total

 

That's .5 in what would normally be a .2, and I'm just getting started. I could probably log 3 hours between 10 and 11 am just doing slopes.

[eagle5]

I could easily log way more time with collective up to collective down time, using the clock.

 

0900-0904 (pattern) .1

0906-0907 (Tower asked me to sidestep) .1

0908-0909 .1

0909-0910 .1

0910-0911 (giving student repeated landings with boost off) .1 total

 

That's .5 in what would normally be a .2, and I'm just getting started. I could probably log 3 hours between 10 and 11 am just doing slopes.

 

One tenth equals six minutes, so how are you getting .1 between these times? Am I missing something?

[Flying Pig]

Here's the dilemma that my boss and I are trying to sort through. As soon as you start the engine, you are burning gas and component time. That costs money. All those little .1s and .2s do add up. And they actually add up pretty quickly, especially when you are talking in money terms. So as I see it, we have three choices.

 

 

When I was doing my airplane rating, I was heading out on a xctry solo. I taxied out to the opposite end of the almost 2 mil runway, did my run up, waited for a couple airliners and some other traffic, then taxied up and held short, then after .5 of Hobbs, I taxied onto the runway, gave it power. Backfire, loss of power, surging engine. Abort take off and taxi back to school. I had a .6 on the hobbs. I reported it to the school and it went into maintenance. The next week I saw the deduction from my account. I contested it and the school actually told me it was chargable and that it was great experience for me. OK, Yes, total BS. It had already been charged and I was already scheduled for my Comm Checkride. So I paid for it, I logged it. so there....sue me

[Bobsyouruncle]

Are airline pilots logging time while they take a crap on a long flight?

[rotormandan]

Are airline pilots logging time while they take a crap on a long flight?

 

 

HA!!! Uncle Bob is great!

[Wally]

A lot of times are being lumped into one big pile here. Who's being charged for what doesn't enter into it. What we're logging is supposed to reflect more or less the same criteria to provide a uniform standard of experience. Being on a job that puts you in an un-airconditioned Jet Ranger for 10 hours a day turning and burning while the critters loaded doesn't mean you FLEW 10 hours that day.

Engine Hobbs time isn't necessarily flight time and business considerations of the difference don't factor into the issue. An aside, I've flown aircraft with multiple Hobbs, which was the loggable flight time?

Time in the seat turning and burning isn't necessarily flight time either. In EMS, it's not unusual to accept a request, crank and be cancelled- not loggable even with the intent in my opinion. Nor are maintenance runups.

If you're flying with autopilot engaged, that's loggable and no argument.

The flight instruction issue is more complicated, as you are required to perform duties and teach them even if you're not actually the "sole manipulator of the controls". I logged, and consider justly, time following through, talking through while the student flew, and time on the ground verbally instructing.

The instructing thing could be a segue to the question about the 121 taking a comfort break. I never worked a job requiring my ATP, but my recollection from the classroom is that the entire flight is loggable. I didn't even need to be in the cockpit, the requirement for the certificate places the entire responsibility on the holder, kinda like the autopilot scenario.

[pilot#476398]

Are airline pilots logging time while they take a crap on a long flight?

 

With today's technology, who knows? He could still be flying it using his smart phone!,...maybe that's why we have to turn ours off?

 

 

By the way, if we're stopping the clock now every time the skids hit the floor, well...you know those little talks students and cfis have every so often after a few maneuvers? I'm going to start doing my from a hover!

[Spike]

Am I to understand from that link, Spike, that using the "collective up, to collective down" method of logging... you would have times where you were sitting on the ground, maybe talking to a student, that wouldn't technically count as loggable time? (Apologies if I'm coming across wrong...I genuinely find that concept...interesting/confusing.)

 

If you're asking me, truthfully, I'm not sure. This link was posted because this is yet another really old discussion with varying opinions and no apparent resolution. And, why is that? Because the regulations, policies, and whatever else this industry or the feds publish are up for interpretation. Simply put, it's up to the individual to interpret the rules and apply them. If, for whatever reason, someone chooses to rely on someone else to interpret for them, then doom on them. The responsibility falls on the PIC/owner/operator to interpret the rules and if required, articulate that interpretation in order to defend your actions. And saying; "I do it this way because CopterproGuy on vertical reference said so" is probably not advisable.

 

Frankly, I find it quite amusing this thread has gone from a, "honesty" and "integrity" discussion to "eh- do whatever cuz nobody cares" rationalization. Truth be told, in my experience, no, nobody cares. That is, up until the point of having to explain your actions to an employer/insurance underwriter/FAA/NTSB/USFS/GA. Usually, if you ever need to do any explaining like this, then it gets real expensive and most of the time, you'll lose....

 

In some ways, thats beauty of this country. We all have choices. That is, you're free to lie, cheat and steal and no one will care. No one will care up until the point you're caught or questioned. If you choose not to lie, cheat or steal, then you should have nothing to worry about..

 

Most companies I've worked for had more than one meter installed and it was the head-honchos decision which meter was billed. While I again don't have the time to research but I believe the Regs point out how "Maintenance Time" is determined. Specifically, our machine(s) can run for hours on the ramp and never accrue one second of component time and therefore, zero cost (other than consumables).

 

As far as my own documentation, its my own....

Edited July 20, 2012 by Spike

[Spike]

Edit; becuase my editor has failed...

Edited July 20, 2012 by Spike

[Bobsyouruncle]

 

 

One tenth equals six minutes, so how are you getting .1 between these times? Am I missing something?

 

Because .1 is anything between 1 second to 5:59 of flight time. So if you lift up the skids for one minute it's a .1. So if we are to follow the logic of skids up is flight time and skids down is the end of the flight than every time you lift the skids you begin a new flight. He's saying you could lift up for one minute, land - .1. A minute later lift up new flight begins and again .1. Do it again and in a matter of 6 minutes you have three .1 flights for a .3.

 

Following the logic of skids up to skids down you cannot simply add all the minutes up at the end of the day any more than you would add the minutes up in a week and log them. You must log every flight by itself. If you flew 55 minutes in the morning you would log a 1.0 legally and if you flew again that night for 55 minutes you would again log a 1.0 legally. For the day you have a 2.0 even though you flew 1 hour and 50 minutes which as one flight would be a 1.9.

 

So he's right applying those rules to a helicopter which typically makes a lot of landings especially during training would net you much more time.

 

This is of course absurd. But IMO so is stopping the clock after every landing you make.

 

 

I don't really have to deal with this in the Army because our regs state you will log wheels/skids up to engine shutdown. Take 45 minutes to get the skids up, it is not logged. Hover for one minute, land and then sit for 45 minutes waiting for clearance and you can log it. The regs also state that we must follow all the regs in the country we are in and this means the FAR/AIM and all FAA rules. Since I'm sure that the FAA is aware of how we log time and that that time is considered equivalent to civilian time when you get out I have to believe that they have figured this method meets their standards. It would be nice if they were more clear for Helicopters but I think a level of common sense must come into play here.

[rotormandan]

 

The regs also state that we must follow all the regs in the country we are in and this means the FAR/AIM and all FAA rules. Since I'm sure that the FAA is aware of how we log time and that that time is considered equivalent to civilian time when you get out I have to believe that they have figured this method meets their standards.

 

 

 

Good point. Interesting.

[jimbo2181]

 

 

Because .1 is anything between 1 second to 5:59 of flight time. So if you lift up the skids for one minute it's a .1. So if we are to follow the logic of skids up is flight time and skids down is the end of the flight than every time you lift the skids you begin a new flight. He's saying you could lift up for one minute, land - .1. A minute later lift up new flight begins and again .1. Do it again and in a matter of 6 minutes you have three .1 flights for a .3.

 

Following the logic of skids up to skids down you cannot simply add all the minutes up at the end of the day any more than you would add the minutes up in a week and log them. You must log every flight by itself. If you flew 55 minutes in the morning you would log a 1.0 legally and if you flew again that night for 55 minutes you would again log a 1.0 legally. For the day you have a 2.0 even though you flew 1 hour and 50 minutes which as one flight would be a 1.9.

 

So he's right applying those rules to a helicopter which typically makes a lot of landings especially during training would net you much more time.

 

This is of course absurd. But IMO so is stopping the clock after every landing you make.

 

 

I don't really have to deal with this in the Army because our regs state you will log wheels/skids up to engine shutdown. Take 45 minutes to get the skids up, it is not logged. Hover for one minute, land and then sit for 45 minutes waiting for clearance and you can log it. The regs also state that we must follow all the regs in the country we are in and this means the FAR/AIM and all FAA rules. Since I'm sure that the FAA is aware of how we log time and that that time is considered equivalent to civilian time when you get out I have to believe that they have figured this method meets their standards. It would be nice if they were more clear for Helicopters but I think a level of common sense must come into play here.

 

I had some .6 landings during training then.

 

As for common sense... Did you forget we are in aviation? You should have thrown that out the window a long time ago.

[CharyouTree]

:Snip:

 

Thanks for covering that for me.

 

Obviously, there are extremes for everything. I think the real thing to take away from all of this is to log realistically. If you want to log blades turning time, and get maybe an extra .1 every flight, and have 100 more hours than someone else a few years from now, I don't think it's that big of a deal, and I don't think there's really a dishonest intent there. I think the REAL issue at hand isn't someone logging an extra 2-3 minutes for run-up, but instead magically adding numbers to their logbook/applications. (For those of you that go by the clock method: Do you log 9:17-10:39, or 9:15-10:40/ 9:20-10:40?)

[aeroscout]

I never thought this thread would go 6 pages.

[Mikemv]

To All,

 

A few words of wisdom from an old fart.

 

I have been logging time for almost 45 years now. In the civilian world as best as I can remember we always logged hobbs time. When the hobbs broke (more than once in all these years), we logged an approximate time from our watch. I did not worry if the hobbs was oil pressure, electrically, squat switch or otherwise activated. I did consider a flight to be from the time my skids left the ground with the "intent" of the flight to the time I terminated the flight (intent accomplished most times but sometimes not) back on the ground or dolly.

 

On 135 check rides we used the hobbs., POI signed these forms. For training (61, 141, 135) we used the hobbs. Just the way it was done in the organizations where I was.

 

The FAA looks at a lot of things and asks what was the "intent". When checking reports of illegal 135 ops and such especially. Minor differences in a few log books are acceptable from math & transposition errors. Was there intent to falsify? Nope, so who cares? Really, no one.

 

My suggestion is to use the established method for where you operate or your own, but log the same way from flight to flight.

 

I have heard/read about examiners asking how time was logged and not accepting adding .1 or .2 to flights. These were about part 61 applicants and not by a lot of examiners either. If applicants can show beyond minimum requirements it is not a factor. When logs show exactly minimums in any one area, expect to be scrutinized!

 

About adding one or two tenths, I feel this should not be done and the costs of run up and shut down should be in the hourly costs of the helicopter. Explaining how logging and billing works to a student makes this clear and why (billing for helo use & logging for FAA). Just my way of doing it. I try to meld customer, company and FAA into the same system. I have never had an problems in doing this.

 

CFIs should teach their students how flight time is logged in their operations. Pilots follow the system in place.

 

About fudging, reread post #5 for my guidance on that.

 

Best wishes,

 

Mike

Edited July 21, 2012 by Mikemv

[R22139RJ]

Good thing I fudged my logbook and didn't get a job until I had 1600, so it makes it ok!? Right

 

I log rotors turning, I do about 10 landings an hour and I estimate my loads take 2 minutes to get, .1 for startup and it usually comes out damn close to the hours I have been in the air off the clock. Also, when I'm sitting there I'm responsible for the chemicals going into the Heli and I want to track that as my Pt 137 experience, even if I was taking a dump and the helicopter was monitoring itself. I was fertilizing the fields, Ag time baby!!!

 

 

[aeroscout]

Good thing I fudged my logbook and didn't get a job until I had 1600, so it makes it ok!? Right

 

I log rotors turning, I do about 10 landings an hour and I estimate my loads take 2 minutes to get, .1 for startup and it usually comes out damn close to the hours I have been in the air off the clock. Also, when I'm sitting there I'm responsible for the chemicals going into the Heli and I want to track that as my Pt 137 experience, even if I was taking a dump and the helicopter was monitoring itself. I was fertilizing the fields, Ag time baby!!!

 

A little double fudging going on there ?

[Pohi]

 

 

A little double fudging going on there ?

 

Haha, I see what you did there...

[R22139RJ]

Aeroscout with the win.

[Pohi]

That's dedication RJ. If the helicopters not in the air, taking it upon yourself to go above and beyond the call of duty to keep things going

[nightsta1ker]

That's gotta be some tasty corn (or whatever it is).