Lets try it from this angle!

[pilot#476398]

The other poll wasn't what I was really driving at, so lets try this one.

 

The definition of flight time was obviously written with airplanes in mind, since their entire aircraft must move when they intend to fly.

 

With helicopters, only the blades must start moving when you intend to fly, some say this is enough to start logging flight time, others say it must be skids up to skids down.

 

Perhaps if the hobbs meters on all helicopters worked the same, this would not be an issue?

 

I only ask that the FAA add the stipulation For Helicopters (as they have done with other regs) JUST TO CLEAR THINGS UP!

 

When the regs are CLEAR there is no need, or room, for personal interpretation!

Edited July 31, 2012 by pilot#476398

[C of G]

"The logging of flight time begins when the skids leave the ground, for the intent of flight,"

 

Hahaha!! That's about the best reg I've ever read. It covers all the times the skids leave the ground when I'm not intending to fly!!!!

 

You have my vote!!

 

I'll go erase all the wheeled helicopter flight time I have since no skids ever left nor touched the ground.

 

When the regs are CLEAR there is no need, or room, for personal interpretation!

Edited July 31, 2012 by C of G

[Mikemv]

Gotta love all the energy of the up and coming pilots that decide to spend time on redefining something they should be taught initially. I vote for keeping the current definitions in place as operators, flight schools, DPEs, ASIs, FAA and insurance companies have not spent anytime on a rewrite or re-define. Has anyone had a problem with flight time numbers on an 8710 or other document?

 

Think of all the threads and posts on Fudging & Logging time and some of the crazy responses in the last few weeks. Gotta love time well spent in an area of such concern to the industry.

 

Best wishes,

 

Mike

[Roondog]

As a rated pilot, I log PIC. I interpret that to mean, when I become responsible for any action(s) that may occur when the A/c is under power. The way I was taught, when you start the engine, you, as PIC, become the manipulator of controls and controls should read, control of the A/C, not manipulation of the cyclic, collective etc. Do I have a few tenths of an hour logged, here and there for run up and shut down? Sure I do. But consider this. If something happended during these phases of opperation, who is responsible? The PIC. If the meters are running, and I cause the meter to run, and I'm paying for it, it gets credit.

[pilot#476398]

"The logging of flight time begins when the skids leave the ground, for the intent of flight,"

 

Hahaha!! That's about the best reg I've ever read. It covers all the times the skids leave the ground when I'm not intending to fly!!!!

 

You have my vote!!

 

I'll go erase all the wheeled helicopter flight time I have since no skids ever left nor touched the ground.

 

There, I fixed it, and thanks for pointing that out,...and in such a nice way too!

 

Gotta love all the energy of the up and coming pilots that decide to spend time on redefining something they should be taught initially. I vote for keeping the current definitions in place as operators, flight schools, DPEs, ASIs, FAA and insurance companies have not spent anytime on a rewrite or re-define. Has anyone had a problem with flight time numbers on an 8710 or other document?

 

Think of all the threads and posts on Fudging & Logging time and some of the crazy responses in the last few weeks. Gotta love time well spent in an area of such concern to the industry.

 

Best wishes,

 

Mike

 

Its hard to be taught something that is open to interpretation!

 

However, I appologize for being just another low-timer wasting everyone's time one such frivolous topics! I'm not yet experienced enough to realize that things are better left the way they are, and nothing should ever change? Perhaps my energy would be better spent engaging in one of the fifteen billion threads about WOFT!

[Gomer Pylot]

Personally, my time has all been logged in the air, from when the skids or wheels leave the ground until they touch again when the flight is over. However, it's your logbook, so you're free to log your own time however you think is right.

[Eric Hunt]

When the rotors are turning, the machine is capable of flight, and the person at the controls is the one who is STOPPING it from launching off by itself. He is in control, and should be logging it.

 

A plank is different, it is not capable of flight until the taps are open and it has 60kt of airspeed.

 

Having said that, a helicopter's ground run to sort out a start problem or to warm up a generator is not "for the purposes of flight" and should not be logged.

 

A compass swing, 10 seconds of flight, 2 minutes on the ground, another 10 seconds flying, another 2 minutes on the ground and so on, should be logged as half the total time the engine is running.

[Mikemv]

There, I fixed it, and thanks for pointing that out,...and in such a nice way too!

 

 

 

Its hard to be taught something that is open to interpretation! You should find a CFI or school that will teach you to put time in your log book. Some pilots have logged time before and helped students log time also. Maybe logging flight time is impossible if everyone makes up their own system according to whether or not the rotors are turning, if they are responsible, if the skids moved forward or upward, if it has a working hobbs, if you have a watch for timing or if they are paying for the helicopter. Did I miss any?

 

However, I appologize for being just another low-timer wasting everyone's time one such frivolous topics! I'm not yet experienced enough to realize that things are better left the way they are, and nothing should ever change? Beating a dead horse comes to mind and no one said you should apologize but when will your CFI or school help you with this? Perhaps my energy would be better spent engaging in one of the fifteen billion threads about WOFT!

 

Why not visit or call your FSDO or the DPE that will test you and ask how to log flight time? Go with that and do not worry.

[C of G]

 

 

...thanks for pointing that out,...and in such a nice way too!

 

 

 

Its hard to be taught something that is open to interpretation!

 

 

 

Look, I don't mean to be picking on you, but you aren't really learning from this exercise. There isn't really much to interpret from the reg. It's yours and others personal bias that simply doesn't want it to be the way it is. Sorry that you are trying to squeak every .1 you can, because you want a rating, or more experience for whatever reason. The examples you gave that others use are all examples of improperly logging flight time as well.

 

The reg is pretty cut and dry and there are lots of general counsel interpretations to go off of to find the FAA's take on the matter.

 

Like I said in an early post, most log it incorrectly, and if you take the time to read the regs, you can see that it is neither in accordance with the letter nor intent of the law. I was joking to show you that your limited scope doesn't cover nearly any circumstance that could be considered "flight time" nor "PIC" time, as that itself is predicated on "flight".

 

Take for example that you don't know what a "Toe in" is, and yet you want to rewrite regs. You use terminology, like skids, when that alienates plenty of helicopters. Come to grips that you don't know the regs and that you should be working on understanding them before you go spouting off that they should be changed. Clearly you are not capable of writing a "Clear" regulation yourself. Additionally, having a survey with two responses isn't exactly unbiased. Consider if I asked: Should we change the stripes on the American Flag to Blue and yellow or Purple and Black?

 

Now also consider this, you want it to be rewritten for a very subjective purpose. The reg needs to cover all aspects of helicopter "flight time” I understand you want to log every tenth you pay for or are ultimately responsible for, but the reg is in disagreement with that. When you step into the commercial world, if that is your intent, or even ownership, think of this: Should a customer or owner be paying for all that start up and shutdown time? The helicopter I fly has at times run more per hour than I made as a CFI in a year. That .1 costs over 7 hours in an R22. I'm compensated via salary and flight pay, but certainly the customer shouldn't be charged for time the FAA has clearly stated is not flight time.

 

 

And the concept that a helicopter can fly as soon as the blades turn? Not really. You need to get up to operational RRPM and then to pull pitch, just as a prop driven fixed wing needs to add throttle or feather the prop. Then it needs the airflow across the wings. Given enough of a headwind, some can launch in the same place it rests in parking, no? I've seen airplanes "hover" in the right conditions. My point again being that the reg needs to cover all situations. This reg has been around a long time. If it needed revamping, the FAA would do it. However, to pad you logbook isn't going to motivate them.

 

Ultimately, what is your motivation in accruing more time? Regs are supposed to be unbiased when it comes to that. I speed on the highway. Most cars do. It doesn't make it right. It makes it common practice and as such, there tends to be a buffer. But just like flight time, it's in black and white what it is supposed to be whether I agree with it or not.

[Wally]

The definition is clear:

 

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space

§ 1.1 General definitions.

 

Flight time means:

(1) 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...

(Note that the definition specifies aircraft movement; not Hobbs time, billing time, engine time, doors, seatbelt, prop or rotor blade time even though they may be parts of the airframe...)

 

Lacking squat switches or something elaborate, start a timer or note the time you lift the collective to fly, and stop the process as soon as the collective bottoms out.

 

If you need bigger numbers in your log book, fly more.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Wally

[Nearly Retired]

C of G wrote:

(SNIP)

 

Now also consider this, you want it to be rewritten for a very subjective purpose. The reg needs to cover all aspects of helicopter "flight time” I understand you want to log every tenth you pay for or are ultimately responsible for, but the reg is in disagreement with that. When you step into the commercial world, if that is your intent, or even ownership, think of this: Should a customer or owner be paying for all that start up and shutdown time? The helicopter I fly has at times run more per hour than I made as a CFI in a year. That .1 costs over 7 hours in an R22. I'm compensated via salary and flight pay, but certainly the customer shouldn't be charged for time the FAA has clearly stated is not flight time.

Whoa, Nelly! Wait. Why are you taking the customer's side in this? Who friggin cares? In my opinion yes, YES the customers ought to be paying blade time!! (Bristow/Air Logistics seems to agree with me as well.) If I have to be sitting in the thing, responsible for it while the customers are downstairs on the oil platform doing whatever it is they do, they damn well ought to be paying. Oh, and it might help keep me from spending as much as ten hours in the aircraft while only "flying" the eight-hour part-135 maximum - which I've done. Hell yes, the customers ought to be paying if we're in it with it running!

 

C of G, you say that "pilot" wants the reg rewritten for a very specific purpose. I contend that there are other purposes for having the reg rewritten, not just for student pilots. If the reg truly reflected reality - that is, that helicopter pilots are "flying" once the blades are turning, then it would have ramifications far beyond the flight instruction realm.

 

Here's another thing you are mistaken about: An owner will not be paying for the flight time if the pilot can log "RIM" time. It has nothing to do with the cost of operation of the helicopter. Just because the pilot can log flight time doesn't mean the helicopter can. The regs clearly state that for all aircraft, as far as the components are concerned "time in service" is only accrued from skids/wheels-up to skids/wheels-down. So the logging of "RIM" time has absolutely no effect on an owner's pocketbook. Just the customer's. And that's appropriate.

 

AND! ...And if it's that big of an issue, an operator can always bill the customer from the "time in service" Hobbsmeter. The pilot might still be limited in his availability, but the customer still gets the break you think he richly deserves. If they have to stick another pilot in the ship to fly more than eight hours, so be it.

 

And the concept that a helicopter can fly as soon as the blades turn? Not really. You need to get up to operational RRPM and then to pull pitch, just as a prop driven fixed wing needs to add throttle or feather the prop. Then it needs the airflow across the wings.

Negative, Ghostrider, and you're mixing things up here. Damn! Once a helicopter's blades are turning, they ARE flying even if your opinion is to the contrary. The cyclic in my 206 works just as well at idle as it does at 100%. But so what? The FAA considers airplane pilots to be "flying" once they move the aircraft with the intention of flight (however the airplane does not start accruing time until the wheels leave the ground). Thus, airplanes do not even need "airflow across the wings" for their PILOTS to be flying. Why is it different for us?

 

And why is it "padding" or "fudging" for a helicopter pilot to log RIM time, but when airplane pilots log flight time as they taxi out toward the runway that's *not* considered padding or fudging? When I rent a Cessna 172 from Pensacola Aviation, it's a loooooong taxi out to runway 17 for takeoff - and all that ground time is legitimate "flight time" for me. Yippeee!

 

Come on, let's stop with the double-standards.

 

My point again being that the reg needs to cover all situations. This reg has been around a long time. If it needed revamping, the FAA would do it. However, to pad you logbook isn't going to motivate them.

Oh, that's rich. You haven't been a pilot for very long, have you? Clearly, the FAA does not understand helicopters. Thinking that the FAA would revamp a rule that affects us merely because it needs it is horribly, unbelievably naive. And it *does* need revamping.

 

Ultimately, what is your motivation in accruing more time? Regs are supposed to be unbiased when it comes to that. I speed on the highway. Most cars do. It doesn't make it right. It makes it common practice and as such, there tends to be a buffer. But just like flight time, it's in black and white what it is supposed to be whether I agree with it or not.

To say that rules and regs cannot change is narrow-minded. Of course they can...and sometimes should...change. Here we have a case where the rule is not clear. Helicopter pilots have adopted the standard for component "time in service" as the de facto way we should log pilot flight time. It is the wording of the rule about pilot flight time that screws us up, again, because of the FAA's lack of understanding of how helicotpers work.

 

Pilot, the rule you are seeking to clarify needs to state: For helicopters: The logging of pilot flight time begins when the ROTORS turn with the intention of flight and end when the rotors come to a stop at the end of the flight.

[C of G]

I appreciate your input, however, paying for aircraft as you stated has noting to do with logging of flight time. No matter who is paying for it. I'm just saying the pilot isn't the end all be-all of the job. So if RIM is flight time, when I get out with the controls locked, I can log flight time?

 

Wind over the wings doesn't make it flight time. No matter the local velocity, nor if it's spinning or fixed. Where is the double standard? Your Cessna is no different than my EH101 when I'm taxiing for a runway departure. Why should a helicopter engine start be any different than a fixed wing? In my 61 I keep the rotors locked while the engines spool up.

 

I will say that I'm not clear on when you real pilots stop off at a platform and keep it running if the deck time is flight time by FAA standards. I know a stop and go on a runway is considered flight time so it may be flight time, or it may not. I keep meaning to write to the feds on that one. If I do, I'll post my response. But I won't ask if rotors turning on start up or shut down is flight time, because I know it is not. They've covered that one before.

 

How long I've been flying is really irrelevant as I understand the reg and it's intent and application. (Btw, if everything goes well I'll have my supervised solo in two weeks!!!)

 

The start of this is reg vs opinion. How long has this reg remained in place? I know they can change, I see the little black bars and even occasionally read the NPRM from time to time.

 

So, please write the FAA, or General counsel and post your response.

[pilot#476398]

Why not visit or call your FSDO or the DPE that will test you and ask how to log flight time? Go with that and do not worry.

 

From what I've heard from people who contact FSDOs and DPEs, their answers are no more universal than anyone else's! Even my own experience with DPEs has led to different points of view on things that should be standardized!

 

Hence my desire to have a CLEAR definition added for helicopters!

[C of G]

Whoa, Nelly! Wait. Why are you taking the customer's side in this? Who friggin cares? In my opinion yes, YES the customers ought to be paying blade time!! (Bristow/Air Logistics seems to agree with me as well.) If I have to be sitting in the thing, responsible for it while the customers are downstairs on the oil platform doing whatever it is they do, they damn well ought to be paying. Oh, and it might help keep me from spending as much as ten hours in the aircraft while only "flying" the eight-hour part-135 maximum - which I've done. Hell yes, the customers ought to be paying if we're in it with it running!

 

 

I really don't care who is paying for it. My time is valuable, and it is charged appropriately. Whatever deal you have with a customer is up to your sales team. I know my helcopter makes a lot just sitting on the ramp. Maybe I should be logging all the time they are charged for that too!!!

 

C of G, you say that "pilot" wants the reg rewritten for a very specific purpose. I contend that there are other purposes for having the reg rewritten, not just for student pilots. If the reg truly reflected reality - that is, that helicopter pilots are "flying" once the blades are turning, then it would have ramifications far beyond the flight instruction realm.

 

Yes. Signifcant ramifications the FAA hasn't seen fit to change. I'm pretty sure they make the rules for this game, so if I wanna keep playing, I should be well versed in them.

 

 

Here's another thing you are mistaken about: An owner will not be paying for the flight time if the pilot can log "RIM" time. It has nothing to do with the cost of operation of the helicopter. Just because the pilot can log flight time doesn't mean the helicopter can. The regs clearly state that for all aircraft, as far as the components are concerned "time in service" is only accrued from skids/wheels-up to skids/wheels-down. So the logging of "RIM" time has absolutely no effect on an owner's pocketbook. Just the customer's. And that's appropriate.

 

So let me make sure I'm clear, the owner pays for the same time as what the FAA calls flight time? That sounds valid. I think the FAA should probably also make pilots log it the same. Oh, wait... what was your argument?

 

 

AND! ...And if it's that big of an issue, an operator can always bill the customer from the "time in service" Hobbsmeter. The pilot might still be limited in his availability, but the customer still gets the break you think he richly deserves. If they have to stick another pilot in the ship to fly more than eight hours, so be it.

 

 

Yep, been there and done that. Timed out on my 8 or 10 hours of duty. So, again, billing and flight time. I'm still searching for the FAR connection on that one.

 

Negative, Ghostrider, and you're mixing things up here. Damn! Once a helicopter's blades are turning, they ARE flying even if your opinion is to the contrary. The cyclic in my 206 works just as well at idle as it does at 100%. But so what? The FAA considers airplane pilots to be "flying" once they move the aircraft with the intention of flight (however the airplane does not start accruing time until the wheels leave the ground). Thus, airplanes do not even need "airflow across the wings" for their PILOTS to be flying. Why is it different for us?

 

I'm glad the stick between your legs still works at your age and with all your flight time. But wiggling you cyclic will not get you into flight no matter how much you play with it.

 

 

And why is it "padding" or "fudging" for a helicopter pilot to log RIM time, but when airplane pilots log flight time as they taxi out toward the runway that's *not* considered padding or fudging? When I rent a Cessna 172 from Pensacola Aviation, it's a loooooong taxi out to runway 17 for takeoff - and all that ground time is legitimate "flight time" for me. Yippeee!!

 

 

This one I can help you with. It's fudging because it's not in agreement with the regs. I understand that you don't agree with the reg. By all means bring it up with them. I hope it changes. But until it does, you are simply not correct in your logging. (As an aside, I fully get it. Just like I speed on the highway. And when I log that .1 or whatever that is in my interest, but in conflict with the regs, I am aware of what I'm doing. I'm just not fooling myself or telling anyone else that it's correct.)

 

Come on, let's stop with the double-standards.

 

I still don't see a double standard. My take off distance is less than that of a 757, but aircraft movement is aircraft movement no matter how the wings are attached.

 

 

 

Oh, that's rich. You haven't been a pilot for very long, have you? Clearly, the FAA does not understand helicopters. Thinking that the FAA would revamp a rule that affects us merely because it needs it is horribly, unbelievably naive. And it *does* need revamping.

 

I'll say again, show them why it needs revamping and I'm sure it will be.

 

 

To say that rules and regs cannot change is narrow-minded. Of course they can...and sometimes should...change. Here we have a case where the rule is not clear. Helicopter pilots have adopted the standard for component "time in service" as the de facto way we should log pilot flight time. It is the wording of the rule about pilot flight time that screws us up, again, because of the FAA's lack of understanding of how helicotpers work.

 

I'm glad we can adopt our own rules. My gross weight limit has always been a bugger to stay within.

 

 

Pilot, the rule you are seeking to clarify needs to state: For helicopters: The logging of pilot flight time begins when the ROTORS turn with the intention of flight and end when the rotors come to a stop at the end of the flight.

 

Good luck with that one. Seriously. Whenever I get my certificate and find a real honest to goodness job in the scary Gulf of Mexico and I can rub elbows with cool old guys that have been down there their whole career, I'll be glad that I'll time out faster and can go get some of that delicious fried food.

[C of G]

From what I've heard from people who contact FSDOs and DPEs, their answers are no more universal than anyone else's! Even my own experience with DPEs has led to different points of view on things that should be standardized!

 

Hence my desire to have a CLEAR definition added for helicopters!

 

True. So let's get every pilot's opinion on it and see how that works. Since they really don't have any say in the matter but certainly do have opinions. That'll clear it up.

 

However, instead of playing the game of telephone about what you've heard from someone who had a conversation with a guy that read someone's post about a conversation they had with a guy in the FSDO parking lot.... what Mikemv is advocating is go to the horse's mouth and get an opinion from someone that has some actual enforcement say in the matter.

 

I would write to the general counsel if I were you since they are lawyers and tend to echo each others opinion on these subjects.

[pilot#476398]

True. So let's get every pilot's opinion on it and see how that works. Since they really don't have any say in the matter but certainly do have opinions. That'll clear it up.

 

However, instead of playing the game of telephone about what you've heard from someone who had a conversation with a guy that read someone's post about a conversation they had with a guy in the FSDO parking lot.... what Mikemv is advocating is go to the horse's mouth and get an opinion from someone that has some actual enforcement say in the matter.

 

I would write to the general counsel if I were you since they are lawyers and tend to echo each others opinion on these subjects.

 

I've already had two different DPEs tell me two different, contradicting, ways to pass/fail a max takeoff!

 

So, what happens if one DPE or FSDO tells me that once the blades are spinning the aircraft is moving under its own power for the purpose of flight and thus I can start logging at that point.

 

Then another DPE or FSDO says a helicopter is not moving under its own power for the purpose of flight until the skids leave the ground and thus I should start logging at that point!

 

From what I'm seeing here, I'll bet anything that that's what will happen!,...but we'll see?

 

If the definition is so clear, then why all the arguing over it?,...and I didn't start this argument!

Edited August 1, 2012 by pilot#476398

[C of G]

Yes. Look into it and ask for references for their reasons. When opinion breaks from the reference, the argument loses validity. After all, we all tend to be full of it at the best of times. Keep in mind that they do go to the General Counsel as a reference so you may try there. And, please post what you find.

[Nearly Retired]

Wow, C of G man, I don't get you at all. I mean, okay, you fly an EH-101, you da man! I guess.

 

But as for the whole billing/charging thing...you brought it up! And I quote...

The reg needs to cover all aspects of helicopter "flight time” I understand you want to log every tenth you pay for or are ultimately responsible for, but the reg is in disagreement with that. When you step into the commercial world, if that is your intent, or even ownership, think of this: Should a customer or owner be paying for all that start up and shutdown time?

To which I answer: YES! It's not all that much flight time anyway...but it could make a difference for us lowly (i.e. non-EH-101 flying) pilots. It could make a difference for pilots who get paid a flight-hour bonus.

 

Everyone always complains that helicopter companies don't make any money and that's why they can't pay us a decent salary. Yeah. Maybe it's because they charge skids-up to skids-down when they *should* be charging RIM time. And I don't care whether a .1 in your EH-101 costs more than the entire purchase price of the 206 that I fly. That's the customer's problem. Do they want to use a helicopter or not? And if they do, why should the aviation companies provide it at a loss or, without the ability to make a fair profit?

 

Oh, and just so's you know, here's how it works in most places in the U.S., including the Gulf of Mexico: When I'm about to take off I note the time on the manifest. When I land, I note the time on the manifest. The difference is the "flight time" for that segment in accordance with the regs on keeping track of component "time in service." (That is also how I log my personal flight time, and have for my entire career.)

 

If I do not shut down for some reason (which happens a lot), all of the time I spend with the engine running and rotors turning waiting on the customer to come back up is *not* flight time...not for me, and not for the aircraft. I can do this numerous times during the day. As I said, I have spent upwards of 10 hours actually in the seat while only logging "7.9" as flight time - because pilot flight time equals component flight time.

 

And that, IMHO is wrong.

 

Very simply, in a helicopter, as far as the pilot is concerned a "flight" should include ALL of the time between rotor startup and rotor shutdown. Right now it does not.

 

What puzzles me is why any sane helicopter pilot would object to this? It would not change how component time is accrued. And it would put us on a par with our fixed-wing brethren.

 

If the dimwits at the FAA would realize that our rotors are rotary WINGS, which are flying and controllable even at flight idle, they might possibly change the way we log pilot flight time. I dunno...but I see that as a good thing.

[C of G]

I don't disagree with you. You log it correctly. And it sounds like you understand the reg and are aware when you bend it. Should it be another way, maybe. But until the feds change it, it's not up to any of us to do otherwise. I also don't agree that rotors in motion should be logged as flight time.

 

Do I think our duty day is too long? Yes, but I can't influence that any more than I can how I'm supposed to log flight time. Are the feds looking at duty day? Yes. Again as a fixed wing guy who may be airport to airport with standardized approaches, runways, etc, how can that compare to a unairconditioned 206 flying out of the swamp in 95% humidity and 95deg days? It certainly doesn't. Wanna make an argument that it's a safety of flight issue? Please do.

 

Also, I don't know how the feds would look at the rotors running drop off on a toadstool. Again, stop and goes are all logable on a runway. Same for time spent in de-icing even if the engines are off or pax have disembarked. So, certainly, some clarification is in order. But once it is clarified, that's the way it is, despite any of our opinions or the way we want it to be. (Has the aircraft moved under it's own power for the intent of flight? Yes. at the orig take off. Has the aircraft come to rest? This I'm fuzzy on, because, yes, it's certainly an option to shut down at that point, but we choose not to in order to expedite the next take off. But what is the intention of that wait? Can it be considered flight time? If the toadstool is rocking, and you don't want shut down for safety and you're still flying on the deck is that flight time? What about being above start up/shut down wind limits? Surely that would be in the interest of safety, just like de-icing, and the feds have said that is all flight time.)

 

But the op was suggesting engine on to engine off. Also said that taxiing isn't flight time, nor is any op that incudes surface contact. That just isn't the case. His other argument was that he's paying so he should log it "in order to maximize flight time". I was simply pointing out that paying doesn't justify it, no matter who it is, and that the price he pays is not much on comparison to what an operator might pay.

 

BTW, in one post I haven't soloed and in the others, I fly a 61 and a 101. You were the one assuming I haven't been flying very long. My point being, maybe a forum isn't the best place for clearing this up. I can be anyone I want. I may not even be a pilot.

 

This was meant to clear up a reg, that at the moment really isn't very unclear. Maybe not the way someone wants it, but certainly not ambiguous. Does it stop anyone from putting their bias or desires into it? Obviously not. I should count the number of responses and the number of different ideas.

 

The only reason I even have so much time to respond to these is that one of the belts on my Rotorway tail rotor is out of limit, so my CFI is driving to Arizona to pick up a new one.

 

And just because the "wings" are controllable, doesn't make it flight. If you are actively working the controls, ie a toe in or running it on, taxiing, etc, then sure, it's flight. But sitting at the controls? Really? Just like the fixed wing guys can manipulate the system by playing within the rules to get that clock running, so can we. But let's not fool ourselves that just because there is a big fan above us that it's "flight time", because again, you don't need a pilot certificate to start on up, you need one to cause it to move under it's own power. (Flight)

 

When you say flight idle do you mean whatever the idle parameter is or do you mean 100%? What RRPM can the helicopter actually fly at?

[jimbo2181]

This works for both.

One reg to rule them all...minus lighter than air aircraft...and towed gliders.

Change it to flight time is time the aerodyamic surfaces responsible for creating the lift to oppose the weight of the aircraft are moving under the aircraft's power with the intention of flight.

[Gomer Pylot]

Read Wally's post, and note that it says aircraft, not airplane, not helicopter, but aircraft. Any aircraft. The regulation is the same for all aircraft. If you don't like it, or can't understand it, so be it, but the regulation is very clear, at least to me.

[C of G]

Amen, Gomer.

[pilot#476398]

Read Wally's post, and note that it says aircraft, not airplane, not helicopter, but aircraft. Any aircraft. The regulation is the same for all aircraft. If you don't like it, or can't understand it, so be it, but the regulation is very clear, at least to me.

 

The thing is, if all you high time guys are right, then there's a sh*t load of R22 pilots out there who have been, inadvertantly, fudging their logbooks!

 

Sure, ignorance of the law is no excuse, but how many of those R22 cfiis out there who finally got into an entry level turbine job this season are going to go up to their boss and say they were hired under false pretences?

 

Lets say you have 50pages in your logbook filled with R22 time. There's ,what, 14 entries per page? That equals 700 flights. Multiply that by .1 for each flight, that's 70hrs. A 1000hr pilot now only has 930hrs. With 930hrs you no longer qualify for any turbine job minimums!

 

Tell your new boss and go back to teaching! I wonder, how many will do this?

[C of G]

When I was getting one checkride or another, the DPE asked me about flight time. I gave him the by the book answer. As I paid my flight ticket and filled out my logbook, he obviously watched me and I knocked off a .2 or something. He was happy to sign it, and I was happy to have knocked it off.

 

 

It can become an issue when you are right at minimums. 40 hours for a private, 150hrs commercial, etc if you have been logging it incorrectly, and someone wants to push the issue, you may not be eligible. And yes, I have seen it with my own eyes where a DPE refused to put his name to an applicant because they were bang on minmums.

 

I'm glad the penny has dropped for you. (How in 3 lines Gomer was able to convince you and my 100 posts didn't is amazing, and I thank you for helping with my typing skills. ) But, man, when someone is giving you all these references, take the time to read them. I don't generally take people at their word because too often it's biased with personal opinion. Why does everyone appreciate iChris? Because of the references. He's so solid, he could now pass off a shiny turd and we'd all likely swallow it. Not that he would.

[pilot#476398]

When I was getting one checkride or another, the DPE asked me about flight time. I gave him the by the book answer. As I paid my flight ticket and filled out my logbook, he obviously watched me and I knocked off a .2 or something. He was happy to sign it, and I was happy to have knocked it off.

 

 

It can become an issue when you are right at minimums. 40 hours for a private, 150hrs commercial, etc if you have been logging it incorrectly, and someone wants to push the issue, you may not be eligible. And yes, I have seen it with my own eyes where a DPE refused to put his name to an applicant because they were bang on minmums.

 

I'm glad the penny has dropped for you. (How in 3 lines Gomer was able to convince you and my 100 posts didn't is amazing, and I thank you for helping with my typing skills. ) But, man, when someone is giving you all these references, take the time to read them. I don't generally take people at their word because too often it's biased with personal opinion. Why does everyone appreciate iChris? Because of the references. He's so solid, he could now pass off a shiny turd and we'd all likely swallow it. Not that he would.

 

The penny hasn't dropped for me. Gomer didn't convince me! Because I'm not advocating logging startup to shutdown! I'm just saying that's what I (and many) were taught!

 

You gladly subtracted .2? We R22 guys didn't know we had to (if your interpretation is correct!).