Jump to content

How do you log R22 time?


Recommended Posts

Running landings=as soon as you hit the ground you're no longer flying!

Running takeoff=as soon as your off the groung you're flying!

 

In either one of these cases, if you let go of the controls upon touching the ground, I almost guarantee it will be your last flight. You're flying. You're controlling the aircraft to prevent it from being a pile of twisted metal.

 

I interpret the FAA version this way (and I'll use a notional wheeled helicopter...it's obvious you're flying if you're hover-taxiing with skids.): If I taxi out of parking with the intent to fly, I can log time starting then. If I run up and start taxiing around, and DON'T intend to fly (for...whatever ungodly reason...I guess more applicable to airplanes?), then I don't log time. Easy.

 

The way MY regs say is (even though I'm in a wheeled helicopter) I can start logging time once I leave the ground, until I come back and shut down. If I was flying under the FARs, I would log time as above.

 

 

Let's leave the equine alone. I think it's had enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know some people think this topic is a dead horse that has been beaten for the last two laps. But I for one am still enjoying it. I just hope I'm not the last one to beat the dead horse. They never call any of the guys before the last guy dead horse beaters.

 

I'm with you, this is still entertaining! Lets beat this SOB all the way to the glue factory!

 

I was reading the definition,...again!,...and I noticed that for gliders flight time begins when they're being towed with the intent of flight.

 

It got me thinking that, perhaps the guy who wrote this believed that once the airfoil begins to move with the intent of flight, that the flight has begun and thus you can start logging it, and when the airfoil comes to rest after landing that the flight is over, and thus logging stops?

 

Maybe how a helicopter's airfoil works didn't even occure to him when he wrote it? 91.103 still says that we must know the runway lengths at airports of intended use! Why do we care about that? Aviation is already pretty airplane biased!

 

Anyway, keep on beat'n!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had alot to say on this issue but dummped it for over complicating the subject- The FAA got this wrong and if everyone pushed them and allowed some comments to be entered, they would change their interpretation.

Log as you see fit, but if the engine is running and the blades turning and a pilot makes the slightest mistake he could easly kill someone, destroy a helicopter or take-off in less than a second or two. If thats not flying then i dont know what is.

Check the accident reports and insurance companies on this one- much different than airplanes for a reason.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that how you teach it at your school? "The FAA has their own regs wrong, so log whatever you feel."?

 

So if the reg is clarified for different types, but doesn't specify helicopters, you feel it's an oversight on the feds and you know better? That regs has stood for years. How does the FAA look at mechanics doing run-ups? It's no less dangerous with them at the controls (possibly more dangerous as they can't control it) I know of fatalities involving mx run-ups and the FAA and NTSB don't categorize them as accidents because they don't involve flight.

 

When do you start logging flight then, in a twin helicopter? After the first engine start since the rotors are turning? After the second?

 

Regarding the accident reports, can you show me one that doesn't fall under the FAA definition of flight? (I'm not being sarcastic, I couldn't find one but maybe your NTSB/FAA search skills are better than mine)

 

Again, I feel there could be a change in the reg, but so far, the argument hasn't been articulated well enough and since it reads what it reads, with the regulations division consistently saying the same thing, I'd say they are comfortable with the verbiage.

Edited by C of G
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah C of G, so narrow-minded! Just because a regulation has been in place for a long time does not make it right. This particular regulation is *not* consistent. Helicopters absolutely should begin logging flight time when the rotors begin turning. I don't know why you are so resistent to the very concept. What's it to you? It can only be a benefit to pilots.

 

Your mention of twin-engine helicopters is weak and a bit silly. Who cares how many engines the aircraft has? As long as the rotor is turning the blades are flying. Your stance seems to be that the blades do not constitute the airframe/aircraft but are only a part of it, like the flaps or ailerons. And there is where many of us disagree...with both you and the FAA. I think the blades *are* what makes a vehicle an aircraft. Without them it's a very expensive lawn ornament.

 

You seem to justify the skids-up to skids-down rule by saying that mechanics can do run-ups, so there! Well guess what? If the rule were to change to "RIM = flight" mechanics would stop doing run-ups. Is this any skin off my nose? Nope, what do I care? Generally they don't get any extra pay for doing ground runs and in my feeble mind it's a horrible, unacceptable risk for them. (I know a mechanic who was doing a "simple" ground run on a CRJ airliner for American Eagle. In violation of the procedure he put the power up on *both* engines instead of doing them one at at time. The plane dragged the brakes, jumped the chocks and rammed into a hangar. He was fired. Lucky he wasn't killed.)

 

Before flight training helicopters were equipped with Hobbsmeters, we logged the first takeoff and the last landing and everything in between was "flight time." This was a rough equivalent of "RIM." Then the R-22 came along with its "engine Hobbs." This was fine, it's basically "RIM" as well and nobody said anything...until...until the R-44 came along and now had a "collective Hobbs" and people realized that the two Robinson products were logging "flight time" differently. (I don't know what mechanism is used in the H-300 but in any event there probably were always fewer of those doing flight instruction than B-47's and R-22's.)

 

"RIM = flight time" for pilots is logical and consistent. The FAA needs to change the rule. Get on board, man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Before flight training helicopters were equipped with Hobbsmeters, we logged the first takeoff and the last landing and everything in between was "flight time." This was a rough equivalent of "RIM." Then the R-22 came along with its "engine Hobbs." This was fine, it's basically "RIM" as well and nobody said anything...until...until the R-44 came along and now had a "collective Hobbs" and people realized that the two Robinson products were logging "flight time" differently. (I don't know what mechanism is used in the H-300 but in any event there probably were always fewer of those doing flight instruction than B-47's and R-22's.)

 

 

So before the hobbs, you did it correctly? That's a novel idea.

 

The 300's I learned in there were two hobbs: one was oil pressure driven, I wanna say txmsn but it's been a few years, and a squat switch that was for MX. There was routinely a 1000 difference between the two with relatively low time aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple days ago; I had tally my time to fill out my annual FS-5700 form for carding. While doing so, I thought of these "flight time" treads and I had to giggle...........

 

Once while out on a boat, after landing and shutdown, it was almost impossible to get the blades to stop turning. The coning angle was ridiculous if not downright scary. Ergo, blades "in motion" by themselves, with no engine power..............

 

Plus, think about this; there are some who get out while running.......

Edited by Spike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A could days ago; I had tally my time to fill out my annual FS-5700 form for carding. While doing so, I thought of these "flight time" treads and I had to giggle...........

 

Once while out on a boat, after landing and shutdown, it was almost impossible to get the blades to stop turning. The coning angle was ridiculous if not downright scary. Ergo, blades "in motion" by themselves, with no engine power..............

 

Plus, think about this; there are some who get out while running.......

 

Making them not the PIC ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I logged my R22 time with a BIC...pretty simple really. Some prefer pencil so they can erase it later and not be embarrassed when showing off their shiny logbook to the girls at the bar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C of G:

So before the hobbs, you did it correctly? That's a novel idea.

Well...if you consider that between the first takeoff and the last landing there was plenty of time spent on the ground (or water) with the collective down between maneuvers which is technically not "pilot flight time" as defined in the regs...I guess you could say we did it "correctly."

 

Spike adds:

Once while out on a boat, after landing and shutdown, it was almost impossible to get the blades to stop turning. The coning angle was ridiculous if not downright scary. Ergo, blades "in motion" by themselves, with no engine power.......

Spikey old bean, I hate to point out to you that the reg for airplanes says that the aircraft must be moving under its own power, not some external power source. So once the engine is shut off your wind-generator rotor system is no longer turning under its own power when it's autorotating. Is it?

 

And Aeroscout has already addressed this "getting out while running" deal. If you're not at the controls, can anyone see a way that a pilot could legitimately claim flight time? And you know what? Maybe that would help clarify whether it's legal or not to get out while it's running - yet another contentious issue on which the various departments within the FAA don't seem to agree.

 

Why are some of you guys so obtuse?

 

Obviously no rule or reg can address EVERY conceivable situation. But "Rotors in motion under their own power with the intention of flight" is a very simple and...at least should be...easily understood concept. I'm not quite sure why some of you are having so much trouble with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C of G:

The 300's I learned in there were two hobbs: one was oil pressure driven, I wanna say txmsn but it's been a few years, and a squat switch that was for MX. There was routinely a 1000 difference between the two with relatively low time aircraft.

 

Wait...what?

 

So...which Hobbs did you use for pilot logging flight time?? According to the regs there is only one Hobbs needed- the one that records "skids-up to skids-down."

 

And that "1000 difference"...is that a typo?

 

I'm not understanding this post at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the 300C there is a squat swich, this we already know. The other is either run off the engine oil pressure switch or (if the owner is sneaky and really wants to gouge his customers) run off the battery switch. We all know the squat switch was intended to log skids up time. But guess which one everyone that operates an S300 uses to log time/charge the customers? If you guessed the oil/battery hobbs, you guessed right.

 

Never seen it done different.

 

Despite this, yes, I very clearly and completely understand the regulation. No questions here. I think people are having a hard time ACCEPTING the regulation, not understanding it. The excuses and justifications are seemingly endless, as is this thread. The letter of the law is exactly that. And as my pops always said, you're never breaking the law unless you get caught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously no rule or reg can address EVERY conceivable situation. But "Rotors in motion under their own power with the intention of flight" is a very simple and...at least should be...easily understood concept. I'm not quite sure why some of you are having so much trouble with it.

 

That is completely clear. However that's not the reg.

 

If you look at my very first response to this thread, I said, most people log it incorrectly, and then spelled out what you are supposed to do. How are you not understanding that what people commonly do, and what is legal are two different things.

 

And, Spike was pointing out, that if an aircraft can be locked down and a pilot get out, that it is "rotors in motion under it's own power" and by your logic, it's flight time.

Edited by C of G
Link to comment
Share on other sites

C of G:

 

Wait...what?

 

So...which Hobbs did you use for pilot logging flight time?? According to the regs there is only one Hobbs needed- the one that records "skids-up to skids-down."

 

And that "1000 difference"...is that a typo?

 

I'm not understanding this post at all.

 

No, not a typo. There could be 1000hr difference between the mx hobbs and the oil pressure hobbs on a 3500hr helicopter. So should that 1000hours be flight time?

 

And, I have to ask: Can you show me the reg that requires a hobbs? I must have missed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spikey old bean, I hate to point out to you that the reg for airplanes says that the aircraft must be moving under its own power, not some external power source. So once the engine is shut off your wind-generator rotor system is no longer turning under its own power when it's autorotating. Is it?

 

And Aeroscout has already addressed this "getting out while running" deal. If you're not at the controls, can anyone see a way that a pilot could legitimately claim flight time? And you know what? Maybe that would help clarify whether it's legal or not to get out while it's running - yet another contentious issue on which the various departments within the FAA don't seem to agree.

 

Obviously no rule or reg can address EVERY conceivable situation. But "Rotors in motion under their own power with the intention of flight" is a very simple and...at least should be...easily understood concept. I'm not quite sure why some of you are having so much trouble with it.

 

Of course I know these things. I just thought I’d add to the ridiculousness of the conversation (no offence). BTW, there is no purer definition in aerodynamics of “under its own power” then an airfoil producing its own lift/thrust…… That is, wind cannot produce lift/thrust on an airfoil without the airfoil…..

 

I mean really, a proposed rule change to define helicopter “flight time” to benefit pilots? The saying goes, the rules were written in blood. FYI, there’s no blood lost with this argument….

 

Whatever the case may be, if any geezers out here have the time to rally the cause and put forth the effort, by all means, you go boy,, errrr,,, ah,,, -gentlemen. However, consider this. Anytime the feds implement changes, it doesn’t always work out as intended or, to benefit the masses. Want an example? Look no further than the rules regarding the use of NVG’s….

 

Lastly, if the feds ever petitioned the industry about any rule change which may benefit helicopter pilots as a whole, defining “flight time” would be waaaay down the list…….. Or better said, this topic is small potatoes my friend, I mean really small. Like Tim… Albeit, I like reading your schtick tho………

Edited by Spike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lawyer asking the question is one of the most respected DPEs in the country. http://www.faa.gov/a...loyd Interp.pdf

 

Definitely have that part right!

 

I have a different twist though. If I take the R44 up to 2000 AGL and practice autos for an hour, my hobbs may only register a .7, since half the time I am in an auto and the collective hobbs may not be activated.

 

Barry makes a great point by getting this clarification though..

 

 

My opinion is the FAA needs to work on their wording, and this isnt the only section that needs some help. Unfortunately, to Spikes point, unless you want it even more screwed up...move on.

Edited by Goldy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The angest coming from this thread is assuming that helicopter pilots are law breakers or not and it's just not the way it is. When Barry originally requested a formal look at this it was passed back in a letter to clarify the issue. Just a letter. Thanks for the clarity, now everyone gets a chance to adapt to this. I understand that c of g has done his homework and is correct, it is just as simple as he states when you only consider legal. But thats the problem, its vastly more of an issue than what legal stated back to Barry. So the question here is how to adapt an industry that misses this one by a significant margin and across the board.

Give it a few more years and maybe everyone will have switched to the dual Hobbs approach in the r22.

 

Pic time from start-up to shut down, using the oil pressure Hobbs. Then for flight time a collective Hobbs or most accurate means of judging the time from first pickup to last set down.

Then get all the log book makers to add a flight time section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people who say the time between the aircraft moving under it's own power, and it's last landing before shutdown, when it's on the ground, isn't flight time are wrong. It is legitimate flight time under the FAR definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just for clarity... all 269's have a hobbs that runs off the main rotor transmission oil pressure switch... so it is measuring RIM. (not engine oil pressure). There is a kit to install the squat switch on the landing gear and alot of newer 300C's have that installed. You can install a collective switch but you have to multiply its hours by 1.12 to calculate component usage... I have rarely seen the collective switches on the 269 series... and when I do... nobody is multiplying the hours to calculate component times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When issuing a statement for public consumption, most decision makers are real careful with the terms they use. This is true for any policy, regulation, law or legal opinion. Simply put, the words they use have a specific meaning. Such words as “could” and “may”. These words have an open ended meaning. If they used “must” and “shall” in their interpretation, the meaning of the statement changes completely. And no, this is no mistake..........

 

“It follows from the plain words of the regulation that the circumstances you described could not be logged as flight time.”

 

“The answer to all three questions is that flight time may not be logged.”

 

Conclusion; Ms. Rebecca Macpherson left the door open and left it open for a reason.......

 

End of discussion....

Edited by Spike
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When issuing a statement for public consumption, most decision makers are real careful with the terms they use. This is true for any policy, regulation, law or legal opinion. Simply put, the words they use have a specific meaning. Such words as “could” and “may”. These words have an open ended meaning. If they used “must” and “shall” in their interpretation, the meaning of the statement changes completely. And no, this is no mistake..........

 

“It follows from the plain words of the regulation that the circumstances you described could not be logged as flight time.”

 

“The answer to all three questions is that flight time may not be logged.”

 

Conclusion; Ms. Rebecca Macpherson left the door open and left it open for a reason.......

 

End of discussion....

 

Spike, that really does end the conversation, but I noticed you were reply #99. I couldn't resist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...