"Taxi only" flight

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

CFR
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 784
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: CYAV

Re: "Taxi only" flight

Post by CFR »

jump154 wrote:
cncpc wrote:You can't log a flight that doesn't have air time in the aircraft log book.
You can log pulling on your underwear in the morning if you want
Personal Logs

401.08 (1) Every applicant for, and every holder of, a flight crew permit, licence or rating shall maintain a personal log in accordance with subsection (2) and with the personnel licensing standards for the documentation of

(a) experience acquired in respect of the issuance of the flight crew permit, licence or rating; and
(amended 2001/03/01; previous version)

(b) recency.

(2) A personal log that is maintained for the purposes referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) shall contain the holder's name and the following information in respect of each flight:

(a) the date of the flight;

(b) the type of aircraft and its registration mark;

(c) the flight crew position in which the holder acted;

(d) the flight conditions with respect to day, night, VFR and IFR;

(e) in the case of a flight in a aeroplane or helicopter, the place of departure and the place of arrival;

(f) in the case of a flight in an aeroplane, all of the intermediate take-offs and landings;

(g) the flight time;

(h) in the case of a flight in a glider, the method of launch used for the flight; and

(i) in the case of a flight in a balloon, the method of inflation used for the flight.

(3) No person shall make an entry in a personal log unless the person

(a) is the holder of the log; or

(b) has been authorized to make the entry by the holder of the log.
specifies minimum information, does not say anywhere "and nothing else".

Now, that does not mean that underwear pulling time will be counted towards a higher rating or recency, but if you want to log it go ahead, it's your book after all.
I would suggest to you that types of logs are getting confusing. He refered to "Aircraft log" I assume he meant journey log. The mandatory info in a journey log includes Air Time - if no air time a log entry (other than maintenance issues or other issues that affect the aircraft) is not required. In the pilots log, you can indeed add any info you would like (I split out aerobatic time, from the total flight time). Unfortunately even TC is confused in that one section of the CARS states Flight Time is entered in the journey log, which conflicts with another section that states it is Air Time that is entered.
---------- ADS -----------
 
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8132
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: "Taxi only" flight

Post by iflyforpie »

GUMPS wrote:
DanWEC wrote:The engine was running. The pilot was in control of it, and had previously learned how to taxi the plane and use the radio. The entry will be made in the FTU's ledger, under the airplanes TT and engine TSMOH.
As a minnow trapper float pilot you could log 8 hours PIC in a day, but only 3 of that might be flight time....the rest spent sitting on the float picking up traps.
So short answer, sure, log it if you really want the .2.

Now..... The AME doing the exact same run up test can't log it, but with a pilot license you can. Funny.
Please elaborate on this? Other than the pilot who's pen and papering his PIC time how is this beneficial to anyone else? That's another 5 hours a day flight-duty time, thats another 5 hours burned before next inspection. Or is this logged in your logbook but not the journey logs? (This could come back to haunt someone)
It's early an I might be missing something here but utilizing the extra .2 is one thing but adding an extra 5 hours PIC a day?
It will add to your duty hours but not your duty time.. since you would be on duty anyways. If there is another pilot there so you can take a few days off to reset the clock... or if you don't fly every day.. then it isn't a big deal. The flight time could be high but the air time (the time that the engine and airframe maintenance requirements are based on) would still be the same.

It is always best to have high flight time and low air time... because if the plane is being billed by hours it is usually flight hours... plus you get to log more time.



As for ground runs.... most of them I've done as an AME with a pilot's license... including a few Boeing 727s... but I've never logged any of it for a few reasons. First, how it would look to potential employers... having .2 or .3 of some very odd aircraft types in my log book. That info only gets divulged when somebody asks about my AME license or employment history, that's it. Second, few of the aircraft were actually airworthy at the time... that is why I was doing the ground runs. Third, none were ever done with the intention of going flying... my methods of ground running and taxiing aircraft are different... I could never ground run a plane and then decide to change my mind and fly it even if it was technically airworthy. Test flights are a different story... and there is no more satisfying feeling to take something that you have ripped apart and rebuilt over a period of a few months up for a test flight and come back snag free. 8)
---------- ADS -----------
 
DanWEC
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2312
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:05 pm
Location: 404

Re: "Taxi only" flight

Post by DanWEC »

GUMPS wrote:
DanWEC wrote:The engine was running. The pilot was in control of it, and had previously learned how to taxi the plane and use the radio. The entry will be made in the FTU's ledger, under the airplanes TT and engine TSMOH.
As a minnow trapper float pilot you could log 8 hours PIC in a day, but only 3 of that might be flight time....the rest spent sitting on the float picking up traps.
So short answer, sure, log it if you really want the .2.

Now..... The AME doing the exact same run up test can't log it, but with a pilot license you can. Funny.
Please elaborate on this? Other than the pilot who's pen and papering his PIC time how is this beneficial to anyone else? That's another 5 hours a day flight-duty time, thats another 5 hours burned before next inspection. Or is this logged in your logbook but not the journey logs? (This could come back to haunt someone)
It's early an I might be missing something here but utilizing the extra .2 is one thing but adding an extra 5 hours PIC a day?
It's a funny one alright. I've witnessed it logged that way and it's common practice. (Though not in my book) The engine is running the entire time, and you are steering the plane via the rudders. It's well known up in those circles that a job like that results in good small lake experience, but slightly misrepresented PIC time.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: "Taxi only" flight

Post by Colonel Sanders »

They log it, I log it
Sounds good to me. I do pretty much the same thing.

You can log any time when if something goes wrong:

1) Enforcement will send you a registered letter, or
2) someone could get hurt

If in TC's opinion, you are exercising the privileges of
your pilot licence - and hence they might try to take it
away from you if you don't do it right - they would
have a very very hard time asserting at the same time
that you cannot log it.

In the famous words of the "pilot's favorite" prime minister
Brian Mulroney that created Air Canada, "You can't suck
and blow at the same time".

PS Get your ATPL. It will simplify this question.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: "Taxi only" flight

Post by Colonel Sanders »

Scenario for you.

You get rip-roaring drunk. In your inebriated
condition, you decide that it would be a grand
idea to taxi your aircraft to the pumps to refuel
for a flight tomorrow.

During the taxi to the pumps, you smash into
another airplane, doing serious damage to both
your airplane and the other airplane.

Trust me, a CADORs will be filed, and TC will try
very hard to take away your pilot's licence. With
good reason, I might hasten to add.

Therefore, in the opinion of TC, you should log
that taxi time to the pumps and back, because
if you screw it up, your pilot's licence is on the
line. Any time you risk losing your pilot's licence,
log it - if you want to.
---------- ADS -----------
 
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: "Taxi only" flight

Post by cncpc »

Colonel Sanders wrote:Scenario for you.

You get rip-roaring drunk. In your inebriated
condition, you decide that it would be a grand
idea to taxi your aircraft to the pumps to refuel
for a flight tomorrow.

During the taxi to the pumps, you smash into
another airplane, doing serious damage to both
your airplane and the other airplane.

Trust me, a CADORs will be filed, and TC will try
very hard to take away your pilot's licence. With
good reason, I might hasten to add.

Therefore, in the opinion of TC, you should log
that taxi time to the pumps and back, because
if you screw it up, your pilot's licence is on the
line. Any time you risk losing your pilot's licence,
log it - if you want to.
What are you going to put in the journey log in the air time column. In the time up/time down columns?

You don't put taxi time in the journey log if you don't leave the ground. You can't put time in your flight log that doesn't appear in the journey log of the aircraft you claim the time in.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: "Taxi only" flight

Post by Colonel Sanders »

What CAR says you can't?
---------- ADS -----------
 
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: "Taxi only" flight

Post by cncpc »

Colonel Sanders wrote:What CAR says you can't?
The one that is quoted above. The one that requires you to put in the aircraft type and the reg and the date and the place of arrival and departure, all bits of information that can be used to corroborate claims of flying time when submitting a log to TC. It would be unwise to think they don't corroborate when they can.

There is a story that is probably 30 years old now about a guy going into TC in Vancouver with a log book for something, likely an ATPL. He had a couple of hundred hours in a Goose. Unfortunately for him, the Goose had been sitting at the bottom of Bute Inlet for about 20 years, and the inspector looking at his logbook was the pilot who put it there. He lost his licence permanently. Not the inspector, the guy putting in the phony time.

If you didn't fly, its phony time.

You can run a Beaver sitting at a dock ticking over at probably $25 an hour, given that no air time, no maintenance accruals, only fuel cost. On the basis being suggested by several in this thread, you could log 200 hours of Beaver time for $5000.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: "Taxi only" flight

Post by Cat Driver »

You can write anything you want to write in your aircraft logs as long as what you write is a true record of what you did with said aircraft.

As far as legimitate PIC time is concerned you can log taxi time with no air time if you are training a pilot on something like a tail wheel check out or a float plane rating.
---------- ADS -----------
 
beaverbob
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 722
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:34 pm
Location: BC

Re: "Taxi only" flight

Post by beaverbob »

Reminds me of Tariffs that contain a mileage and hourly rate for step taxiing. Do they still?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Skyhunter
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:15 am
Location: Near YOW

Re: "Taxi only" flight

Post by Skyhunter »

That CAR does not say there has to be a line in the journey log for you to put it in your log book. Taxi with the intent to go flying or legit training, log it. Was the same in the military as well. We did put a line in the daily sign out sheets, with a note "aircraft taxied not flown." Would I bother now, nope, but if I was worried about building hours, sure would.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: "Taxi only" flight

Post by Cat Driver »

Remember all the taxi time we did and charged for when log buying out here on the west coast Bob?
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: "Taxi only" flight

Post by photofly »

Taxi with the intent to go flying or legit training, log it.
I don't believe that the CARs give you the option in the case of legit training, absent the intent to takeoff. Rightly or wrongly.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: "Taxi only" flight

Post by Cat Driver »

I don't believe that the CARs give you the option in the case of legit training, absent the intent to takeoff. Rightly or wrongly.
Then there a lot of my former students out there who logged taxi time without flying time that was accepted by TC as legitimate training time.

But I won't get to worried though because you were wrong about the issuances of the new pilots document.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: "Taxi only" flight

Post by Colonel Sanders »

intent to takeoff
Intent is a bit difficult to prove or disprove.

It could also be difficult to prove (or disprove) that I like
tomato sauce with my pasta.

Log what you do. It's really not that difficult.

For example, if I do a tailwheel training lesson with 0.8
spent taxiing up and down the runway, 0.1 doing one
circuit, then 0.1 taxiing in, no legal beagle in all of Canada
can dispute logging 1.0 - because that's what we did.

Some people might think that's fishy, and shouldn't be
counted towards a higher licence. That's fine, but their
opinion really doesn't matter. It's legitimate, valuable
training time, and it counts towards their PPL, CPL or ATPL
as appropriate.

Let's say someone receives 300 hours of dual in a 172
in the process of obtaining their PPL. In my opinion,
that's pretty fishy time, but again, my opinion doesn't
really matter. It counts towards an ATPL (gag) straight
up - not 1/2 time like right seat as a required crewmember
in a large aircraft operated under a 70x AOC.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: "Taxi only" flight

Post by Colonel Sanders »

I remember around 20 years ago, I picked a really
stupid time to leave Oshkosh. We taxiied for a
frikken hour in a long line before we finally we able
to takeoff. On the parallel taxiway to 27, IIRC.

Did I log that taxi time? Sure I did. Do some people
here think that hour of taxi time is "phony" time?
Why would I care?

Reminds me of a friend of mine - Gary Palmer. He
was doing the same thing - taxiing out at Oshkosh,
but he happened to have a turkey bomber (Grumman
TBM) behind him. It went horribly wrong:

Image

Gary is quite dead now, doing something that the
experts here say was "phony". Well, it might have
been phony, but Gary's still dead.
---------- ADS -----------
 
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: "Taxi only" flight

Post by cncpc »

There is no loophole for the requirement that there be a flight. Flight time includes ground time, but encompassed in that time is a leaving of the ground and returning to it. That's why it's called flight time.

Glibly claiming that "I intended to fly", but for some reason didn't doesn't turn a taxi into a flight. Why bother taxiing, if that is the case, just start the engine and sit there.

You don't have to be a pilot to taxi an airplane. You don't even have to be a pilot to taxi one with the intention of flight, so long as you realize some way into the taxi "Feck me, I'm not a pilot, what am I thinking of" and abandon your intention.

I'm well up on this. I'm involved in designing a float training program. I've talked to a few float operators about the importance of training on the water at 5 knots. The plan is to begin taxi training, get in the flying parts, takeoff landing all the airmanship bit, and spend some time in which there may be 1.2 flight time and only .2 air time. Informally mentioned to TC a couple of times and no problem with the plan which includes perhaps only one circuit in over an hour of flight time.

Tomorrow I will put this "don't need to take off at all" proposition to TC. I know what the answer is going to be. They will have no problem if there is very little air time in the flight time, but no air time at all is never going to wash. All of what has been said here about a lot of taxi time in taildragger training, float training is all valid, provided there is a flight entered in the aircraft journey log. It can be .1, but you can't enter a flight in a journey log without air time.

There may be a myth that you can't enter more than .2 of flight time on any given flight. That isn't true. It is a convention to take total time, and subtract .2 to get air time. But there is nothing limiting the amount of flight time on a flight in which there is only .1 of air time.

Fill your boots with all these stories about no flight flights and logging that time. It doesn't affect me or most on here, but it can be a serious misconception for people starting out. They will be logging time they can't legally do. It's not just students. If this is the game, people can start up a 150 once every couple of years, sit there with a coffee and a book for an hour, and shut down and log 1.0 in their book to keep current and avoid whatever you have to do if you aren't current. Pick a foggy day, zero/zero, start up the 150, set the idle at 1000 rpm, and start logging IFR time.

Why even bother with an airplane, if actually flying isn't a consideration to log flight time. Get a chainsaw, rig up a prop on it, fire it up, sit behind it on a chair with the wind blowing in your face and the IPOD on playing Copperhead Road, logbook in the flight case ready for the pen.

I may be wrong, of course. I hope I am, because flight training and being able to log, for instance, Beaver time, is going to be waaaayyy cheaper.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: "Taxi only" flight

Post by Colonel Sanders »

Are you an Authorized Person? Really simple question - answer yes or no.
---------- ADS -----------
 
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: "Taxi only" flight

Post by cncpc »

Colonel Sanders wrote:Are you an Authorized Person? Really simple question - answer yes or no.
No.

Are you? Are you saying publicly that you are signing off licences in which flight time is being logged and presented to you, and you know a flight was not made?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by cncpc on Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tiger Moth
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:32 am

Re: "Taxi only" flight

Post by Tiger Moth »

I haven't seem the entries in the pilot personal logbooks, but a few times I have seen aircraft (703/704 types) journey logs that had entries of 0.0 air time, 0.1 or 0.2 flight time due to mechanical issues, for instance a flat tire due to fod on the taxiway, and another where they had a computer failure on the takeoff roll and aborted. I think it was required to have something in the journey log to go with the snags as there was a definite intention to fly, and in at least one occasion there was a CADORS report in he aborted take off. Like I said, I don't know what was in the crew's personal logbook, but putting in the flight time would be appropriate to me in that kind of situation
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”