Would you log this?

[C150J]

Although I could really care less about .3 in my logbook, I went out with a student today only to witness a severe deterioration in Wx at the end of the runway. Made the call to taxi back to the ramp. Would you log it? The only reason I might is that it would coincide with my employer's FBO program and its logs of my flights...

Any insight?

J.

[averyrm]

If you went out with the intention to fly, you can log it. I don't remember the reg off hand, sorry.

[meritflyer]

Sure. Its time and experience in the airplane.

[Ralgha]

Technically you could since you intended to fly, but I wouldn't.

[Flysher]

I once logged .3 in twin because we had a rough engine on runup that turned into an engine failure on the ground. I figured it was worth logging due to the troubleshooting of the aircraft/decision making involved in going back to the ramp.

Id log the .3 if I was you.

[TonyC]

Absolutely log it.


It absolutely fits the definition, and the student absolutely paid for it.


There's no "technically yes, but I wouldn't" about it. Imagine the stupid judgment calls some guys would make if they had to take off in order to legally log the hours. Can you see it now? "Well, the mag ain't right, but I don't wanna forfeit the taxi time. Let's take 'er around the pattern once so we can log this baby."

No, if you intended to fly, it counts from brake release until shutdown.




.

[taildragger173]

Do not log it! Check the definition of flight time in your regs. You'll be surprised. It mentions that you have to have a landing for it to count.

From 1.1 in your regs: Flight time means: "Pilot time that commences from when the aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of the flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after a landing."

I dont know how to make it clearer than that. Now if you've done it in the past, I wouldnt worry about it; just dont keep doing it.

[Jonesberuitchamp]

Originally Posted by taildragger173

Do not log it! Check the definition of flight time in your regs. You'll be surprised. It mentions that you have to have a landing for it to count.

From 1.1 in your regs: Flight time means: "Pilot time that commences from when the aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of the flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after a landing."

I dont know how to make it clearer than that. Now if you've done it in the past, I wouldnt worry about it; just dont keep doing it.

solution: high speed taxi down the runway, pop it off for a sec and put er back down

[kellwolf]

Actually, if you read the the regs under logging time (Part 61 I believe, not Part 1), it says you can log it if you intend to fly. Therefore, I'd do it (and have done it).

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by kellwolf

Actually, if you read the the regs under logging time (Part 61 I believe, not Part 1), it says you can log it if you intend to fly. Therefore, I'd do it (and have done it).

Care to point it out? I don't think you'll find a definition of logable =flight= time that differs from the FAR 1.1 definition.

It's "common wisdom" that you can log the time for taxiing to and from the runway on an aborted flight, so long as you intended to fly. I think just about "everybody does it." But I'm not so sure that taildragger isn't technically right. All of the FAA discussion of the issue I've seen describes situations in which there has in fact been a takeoff and a landing.

[Ralgha]

Originally Posted by TonyC

There's no "technically yes, but I wouldn't" about it.

Yes there is, because that's how I do it. You CAN log it, but I WOULDN'T. It's a personal choice. It has nothing to do with legality, and I don't give a crap what other people think about that. I don't HAVE to log anything except what's required to show that I'm current.

Actually, after reading what Taildragger pointed out, I might agree with him.

[lnewby]

So once you decide not to fly for whatever reason. You no longer have intention to fly. Under that logic you shouldn't log the time you taxi back.

[Timbuff10]

I had one of those the other day... Volts annunciater light came on after startup and had full deflection on the ammeter. Couldn't get it squared away so we shut it down and logged the point two.

I have a few of those in my logbook actually. Usually in the remarks I write "NO-GO Decision due to...". Usually it says something about the weather, Convective Sigmet, or something like that.

If certificates are on the line, you should be able to log it

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by Timbuff10

If certificates are on the line, you should be able to log it

Maybe. But 61.51 is unfortunately pretty specific about what you can log for FAA purposes and it doesn't include "certificate on the line" as one of the categories.

[roundout]

i'd actually argue the opposite here. i'd think that when certificates are on the line, that .3 would be better spent doing a couple laps around the pattern than taxiing to and from the runup area.

[nosehair]

Unbelieveable! It's bad enough that the aviation community has degraded to logging taxi time as flight time when there is an actual flight, but now I see that people are logging pure taxi time as flight time under the supposed idea that "if you intended to fly!"

What a load of crap, kids! Get it together. Do you really believe that taxi time is flight time? Get outta here.

Just because you pay for it doesn't mean it's loggable - and any operator who makes a customer pay for taxi time that the flight is cancelled due to mx or wx is also out of line and is the root cause of such inane ideas.

[Minnesota_Flyer]

Always helpful to the look at the actual regulations. Rule 1.1 is vague in this circumstance because, although it clearly treats taxi time as "flight time" in a normal flight, it is not clear what happens when, although you have taxied for purposes of flight, the flight ultimately does not take place.

Rule 1.1: 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; or

(2) For a glider without self-launch capability, pilot time that commences when the glider is towed for the purpose of flight and ends when the glider comes to rest after landing.

Rule 61.1(b)(1) and (12) are more helpful and, I think, dispositive. "Aeronautical experience" includes any "pilot time obtained in an aircraft." "Pilot time," in turn, includes any time in which a person "gives training as an authorized instructor in an aircraft." Absent contrary guidance from FAA, I interpret these provisions clearly to mean that if you were giving instruction in an aircraft, it is "pilot time" and can be used as "aeronautical experience" for meeting the requirements of a certificate, rating, flight review, or recency of flight, even if the aircraft never left the ground.

Rule 61.1(b)(1): Aeronautical experience means pilot time obtained in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device for meeting the appropriate training and flight time requirements for an airman certificate, rating, flight review, or recency of flight experience requirements of this part.

Rule 61.1(b)(12) Pilot time means that time in which a person—

(i) Serves as a required pilot flight crewmember;

(ii) Receives training from an authorized instructor in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device; or

(iii) Gives training as an authorized instructor in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device.

Take an example -- you are giving or receiving instruction in a tailwheel airplane, and you spend about 30 minutes doing high speed taxi operations. Then the airplane pops a tire, and you have to quit for the day without taking off. Would you honestly say that no time could be logged because the plane didn't leave the ground?? I don't think Rule 61.1(b)(1) or (12) requires that result.

Of course, how an employer might look at the time is a totally different question.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by Minnesota_Flyer

Always helpful to the look at the actual regulations. Rule 1.1 is vague in this circumstance because, although it clearly treats taxi time as "flight time" in a normal flight, it is not clear what happens when, although you have taxied for purposes of flight, the flight ultimately does not take place.

Rule 61.1(b)(1) and (12) are more helpful and, I think, dispositive. "Aeronautical experience" includes any "pilot time obtained in an aircraft."

Pretty good working with the words.

So, you can arguably count it as "pilot time."

But remember the limitation on that. "Flight time means 'pilot time' that..." meets some additonal requirements.

So "Pilot time" alone is not countable toward =any= form of flight time unless those other requirements are met. So, no PIC, no SIC, no total flight time. No FAR 61,51 logbook column that requires "flight time" for logging the event. And, of course, no adding that time to you "flight time" totals.

I think even nosehair won't complain too much about you popping those odd 0.2 and 0.3s into their own lonely column in a logbook that counts toward nothing except perhaps the 1500 hours "total time as a pilot" required for the ATP.

[Minnesota_Flyer]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

Pretty good working with the words.

I is a lawyer. Tis what I am paid to do.

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

So, you can arguably count it as "pilot time."

But remember the limitation on that. "Flight time means 'pilot time' that..." meets some additonal requirements.

So "Pilot time" alone is not countable toward =any= form of flight time unless those other requirements are met. So, no PIC, no SIC, no total flight time. No FAR 61,51 logbook column that requires "flight time" for logging the event. And, of course, no adding that time to you "flight time" totals.

I think even nosehair won't complain too much about you popping those odd 0.2 and 0.3s into their own lonely column in a logbook that counts toward nothing except perhaps the 1500 hours "total time as a pilot" required for the ATP.

You're right as to "flight time" -- it is "pilot time" which is subject to additional restrictions. But "aeronautical experience" is "pilot time", not "flight time", used to the training and flight time requirements. I suppose if we wanted to really split hairs (which we do) we would have to look at any individual certificate, rating, etc. requirement to see if it calls for training time or "flight time." There is certainly an argument that a specific requirement for XX hrs "flight time" should not include taxi operations which do not actually conclude with a flight. However, such time clearly (to my mind) could be used for training time and for "pilot time" -- as MidLife says, Total Time as a Pilot, as opposed to Total Flight Time.

Or you could just say "fudge it, it's just 0.2 hours."

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by Minnesota_Flyer

I is a lawyer.

Big deal.

However, such time clearly (to my mind) could be used for training time and for "pilot time"

Probably. Although the training time would be limited to training time that is =not= "flight training.""Flight training means that training, other than ground training, received from an authorized instructor in flight in an aircraft." 61.1(b)(6)

So, now that we've split the hair sixty ways, any ideas on how much of that taxi-no flight-taxi back is actually worth toward =any= certificate, rating, or recent experience requirement other than toward ATP requirements?

[FLpilot]

It is your logbook.....log it however you want. Just don't include it on an 8710 or apply it towards currency requirements.

Employers can spot a pencil whipped logbook when it comes time to interview. Having a couple of .3's in there is a far cry from a guy I knew that told me he made up roughly 450 hours worth of instructing so he could move on

[CFIse]

Originally Posted by C150J

Although I could really care less about .3 in my logbook, I went out with a student today only to witness a severe deterioration in Wx at the end of the runway. Made the call to taxi back to the ramp. Would you log it? The only reason I might is that it would coincide with my employer's FBO program and its logs of my flights...

Any insight?

J.

Did you log it in the student's log book? If so then I would log it, because I want my records to match my students records so that at least I've got that going for me if something happens.

Otherwise - it's up to you. I'm not sure what you think your FBOs log of your flights has to do with much (except payroll).

[nosehair]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

the training time would be limited to training time that is =not= "flight training.""Flight training means that training, other than ground training, received from an authorized instructor in flight in an aircraft." 61.1(b)(6)

So, now that we've split the hair sixty ways, any ideas on how much of that taxi-no flight-taxi back is actually worth toward =any= certificate, rating, or recent experience requirement other than toward ATP requirements?

See? The fact of the matter is that the regulatory words don't match. Down through the years, I've watched the regs make slight, almost imperceivable, changes in those words. I don't think the lawmakers intend to have different definitions of the concept, I think it is just plain government inefficancy. The one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing - and by the time it is found out and changed, some other change has occured int he meantime to cause the intended change to have a different effect.

Knowhuddamean?

So, with that concept, it is obvious to a person in the street, or let's say, "common sense", that "flight time" or "pilot time" would be flying the airplane in the air. Really. How can you not agree to that?

Well, I know. We pay a lot of money for the time and we need to log all we can so the human mind adapts to the idea of logging taxi time. It seems perfectly clear that the regulation wording of "moving under it's own power for the purpose of flight" would commence at beginning taxi, but that is because you are paying for it. The purest form, and I believe the intended form that the original lawmakers intended, is when the airplane begins the take-off roll. That's the way it is logged in the military and is the way it was logged by civilians back before the Hobbs meter became the controlling instrument.

When we rented an airplane, we paid for flight time: from take-off time to landing time. That's the way the reg reads to me. But that's the way I was brought into the understanding of the reg because that's the way it was done.

I understand the current mindset to read the reg as beginningg taxi because that's the way it is being done by most every one who is paying for the Hobbs time.

My only point here is to show that there are clearly two different ways of interpreting that reg, and it is not my intent to make everyone do it the way I see it. It is my way of showing that regulations can be seen clearly in different ways.

I think you have to be true to yourself. In training, when I am instructing specifically in taxiing, as in the tailwheel example, you bet, that is valuable learning time and should be logged, however, to keep it true to having a landing, I will high-speed taxi to a short lift-off and landing. If it is a routine taxi out in a 172 where there is absolutely no training or learning experience involved and a decision is made to not fly, I wouldn't want to log it as flying time, and I wouldn't want a student of mine to log it.

That's me. I also require a presolo student to do a few spins along with the stall training, as well as other things not specifically required by black-and-white regulation, but is implied in the concept of being safe and demonstrating satisfactory proficiency. I hold a highr standard than the regulations absolutely requires - that is, if you interpret the regulation in the way that provides the least training in the most time. But why would you do that?

I prefer to interpret the reg in the way that provides the most training and proficiency.

Of course, rules are made to be broken. It is up to the instructor to determine when training has actually occured and log it as such. If you can't trust him to make a mature decision about that, how can you trust him to be giving you quality training?

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by nosehair

So, with that concept, it is obvious to a person in the street, or let's say, "common sense", that "flight time" or "pilot time" would be flying the airplane in the air. Really. How can you not agree to that?

Maybe. But regulations get interpreted and those interpretations become part of the standard. That's just the way it is and it's not limited to aviation. "Block to block" as a way of calculating flight time, whether it be a student pilot or an overworked Part 135 pilot whose boss is trying to squeeze even more hours, has been around for quite a while and gets referred to as such in FAA orders and some regulations.

[aviatorrbt]

Originally Posted by nosehair

Unbelieveable! It's bad enough that the aviation community has degraded to logging taxi time as flight time when there is an actual flight, but now I see that people are logging pure taxi time as flight time under the supposed idea that "if you intended to fly!"

What a load of crap, kids! Get it together. Do you really believe that taxi time is flight time? Get outta here.

Just because you pay for it doesn't mean it's loggable - and any operator who makes a customer pay for taxi time that the flight is cancelled due to mx or wx is also out of line and is the root cause of such inane ideas.