Legal Flight? You decide...

Captain said:
Actually, since he taxied for the purpose of flight the time IS log'able. I have a couple such entries.
Click to expand...


But you don't feel right logging safety pilot time?

I'm not questioning the legality, but, why bother?
 
nosehair said:
FAR 1.1 Flight Time. ..bla bla bla after landing. Where's the landing?
Click to expand...

You got the right reg;

Commences when the aircraft moves under its own power for purpose of flight....
Click to expand...

There are situations where it ends sooner than after landing. Say two students switch inflight. One stops logging and the other starts...no landing. Examiner takes the plane from the applicant and flies them home. Should the applicant continue to log after the take-over? And my example, runup goes bad and you never take off.

All cases the counter started.
 
Ron Levy said:
Since there was no flight, there was no logable time, and the FAA doesn't care at all whether you were charged or not. Mechanics without pilot certificates get paid to taxi planes around all the time -- legally.
Click to expand...

And we are allowed to fly them too. I can do the post maintenance test flight on any aircraft I have the proper certificates for.

I can also pick up and deliver the aircraft as long as the flight is incidental to my work.

I do not often do this, because it creates great animosity if I ding it.

My major problem with the whole rule is it not any business of the FAA who's aircraft I fly, or where I land to get maintenance or who's paying the bill.

I do agree with the poster that thinks that when you haul pax you should be held to a higher standard. But for me to be violated for picking up and aircraft and flying it over to get serviced is asinine.
 
cowman said:
What if a school ran a promotion... every 10 hours of rental you get one hour free. Would that also be illegal? In theory you can say the first 10 were partial payment towards the free hour. So could the school in this case take the student's previous charges as partial payments towards a courtesy flight... or whatever you want to call it?
Click to expand...

If the pilot gets to select the destination, for his own purposes, then I would say it is legal. If a destination is selected (by whomever) to serve the flight school's purposes, then I would say it is not, although if the pilot doesn't log the flight, then the exception in the Harrington letter may or may not apply.
 
You can't get out of or into trouble by not logging a flight. That's dumb.
 
A Pilot rents an aircraft from the FBO, to go to lunch at XXX airport. The FBO manager says stop by the Avionics shop at XXX airport and get the transponder check completed while you are having lunch.

legal?

the renter is paying the rental fee based upon tack time, so he will pay full price for the time he places on the aircraft, he was going to lunch at XXX anyway.
 
Tom-D said:
A Pilot rents an aircraft from the FBO, to go to lunch at XXX airport. The FBO manager says stop by the Avionics shop at XXX airport and get the transponder check completed while you are having lunch.

legal?

the renter is paying the rental fee based upon tack time, so he will pay full price for the time he places on the aircraft, he was going to lunch at XXX anyway.
Click to expand...

FBO manager is buying lunch, right? ;)
 
Captain said:
Actually, since he taxied for the purpose of flight the time IS log'able. I have a couple such entries.
Click to expand...
That's not what 14 CFR 1.1 says.
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;
Click to expand...
No landing, no flight time.
 
Ron Levy said:
That's not what 14 CFR 1.1 says.
No landing, no flight time.
Click to expand...

That's not what 14 CFR 1.1 says.

Commences means starts. Your position is that a condition of ending isn't met so therefore it can't start. That is false and you adding opinion to reg.

Covered above in post #82.
 
Did everyone forget that America is a capitalist society??? ...and that one of the basic functions of American regulatory bodies is the protection of the economics of their area of responsibilty. Laws and regulations are designed to do that above all else. Cynical as it sounds, people and personal freedoms do not motivate lawmakers. Never did.
 
Captain said:
That's not what 14 CFR 1.1 says.

Commences means starts. Your position is that a condition of ending isn't met so therefore it can't start. That is false and you adding opinion to reg.

Covered above in post #82.
Click to expand...

Register my agreement here. Hobbs ran and the intent was for flight; whether it occurred or not is irrelevant. However the logging becomes strictly an honor system deal.

I've put airplanes back after run up where I determined not airworthy. Those where i was charged I logged.
 
MassPilot said:
I don't understand why a CPL is needed for any flight that doesn't involve carrying passengers. What's the harm with a private pilot ferrying a plane or doing banner towing or aerial photography, even if they're getting paid? I understand holding pilots to a higher standard when they're carrying passengers for hire, but I don't get why all paid flying needs to be held to this standard.
Click to expand...

Banner towing is edge of the envelope flying, especially the pick up, you need a bit of experience and proficiency to it safely.
 
Tom-D said:
And we are allowed to fly them too. I can do the post maintenance test flight on any aircraft I have the proper certificates for.

I can also pick up and deliver the aircraft as long as the flight is incidental to my work.

I do not often do this, because it creates great animosity if I ding it.

My major problem with the whole rule is it not any business of the FAA who's aircraft I fly, or where I land to get maintenance or who's paying the bill.

I do agree with the poster that thinks that when you haul pax you should be held to a higher standard. But for me to be violated for picking up and aircraft and flying it over to get serviced is asinine.
Click to expand...

I used to do it on a PP working at a CRS, I'd also give customers a ride back to their airport in my plane. The FSDO was right next door and the inspectors (sometimes in our hangar having coffee) were well aware, it was never an issue.
 
The FAA has consistently held that good will is a form of compensation. The PP compensated the flight school with good will for the flight by waiting on the avionics shop to look at the plane.

.
 
Palmpilot said:
Perhaps you should let the Chief Counsel's office know that.
Click to expand...

Is he your neighbor? Drinking buddy? How is it you get to claim inside knowledge of what he does or doesn't know? Or is that quip based on decisions available to everybody? If so maybe you could share the written decision where he states 'the pilot would have been fine had s/he simply not logged the flight'.

Because I doubt your going to find that. Instead people read that logging time is considered a form of payment and then make the leap on their own, "ah Ha! If I don't LOG it I can do it" and than is asinine.

Some people just really really really want something to be true so bad they will jump through massive mental hoops to make it true in their minds.
 
Captain said:
That's not what 14 CFR 1.1 says.

Commences means starts. Your position is that a condition of ending isn't met so therefore it can't start. That is false and you adding opinion to reg.

Covered above in post #82.
Click to expand...
Your interpretation has no basis in law. By your argument, that flight time wouldn't end until the next time you park that plane after landing, and the Latin for that is reduction ad absurdum. You can, of course, try that argument with the FAA if you like, but it will cost you your pilot certificate if you get caught logging flight time when you didn't actually fly. They don't trifle with violations of 61.59.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Register my agreement here. Hobbs ran and the intent was for flight; whether it occurred or not is irrelevant. However the logging becomes strictly an honor system deal.

I've put airplanes back after run up where I determined not airworthy. Those where i was charged I logged.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the FAR's saying that you can log anything for which you pay.
 
Ron Levy said:
Your interpretation has no basis in law. By your argument, that flight time wouldn't end until the next time you park that plane after landing, and the Latin for that is reduction ad absurdum. You can, of course, try that argument with the FAA if you like, but it will cost you your pilot certificate if you get caught logging flight time when you didn't actually fly. They don't trifle with violations of 61.59.
Click to expand...

I can't log it or ill be violated.

Ron Levy said:
There is nothing in the FAR's saying that you can log anything for which you pay.
Click to expand...

I can log it if I pay.



Ummmm. It would be absurd to continue logging until next week flight ended. I did not say that.

Did you read post #82?

One plane, one instructor, two students. One student takes off, does some touch and go's, heads out does air work. After air work, and in flight the students switch. The second student does air work, some touch and go's and ends in a full stop.

How should those students log it? The first never had a full stop landing? Could it be I'm right and there are situations outside FAR 1.1? Again, just because a condition for stoping the logging of time isn't met does not mean that the condition for starting flight time didn't happen.

In my 10K'ish hours I'd guess I have around a dozen such .2 entries in my book and I'd be happy to explain them to the FAA or an interview board. In fact, I put little remarks right there in the log book for just that.

Hope I don't lose my pilot certificate over it! :rofl:
 
Captain said:
I can't log it or ill be violated.
Click to expand...
...if they catch you.

I can log it if I pay.
Click to expand...
That's what Jaybird seems to think, but he's wrong -- it's not loggable no matter whether you pay for it or not.

Ummmm. It would be absurd to continue logging until next week flight ended. I did not say that.
Click to expand...
Yes, you did. You said that the flight time commenced when you first moved the plane with intent for flight. However, since you never landed, there is no end to the flight time until after you land next time. That's the absurdity.

One plane, one instructor, two students. One student takes off, does some touch and go's, heads out does air work. After air work, and in flight the students switch. The second student does air work, some touch and go's and ends in a full stop.

How should those students log it?
Click to expand...
In accordance with 61.51. Each student logs that portion of the flight during which they were receiving training.

The first never had a full stop landing?
Click to expand...
You're confusing the division of the time of the flight with the total time of flight. There is nothing in the definition of "flight time" about who did the flying, only what the aircraft did. The flight time began when the aircraft first moved under its own power with intent for flight. The flight time ended when the aircraft came to rest after landing. That's the 1.1 flight time issue. How that flight time is divided for logging is a 61.51 issue.

Could it be I'm right and there are situations outside FAR 1.1?
Click to expand...
Not in this case.

Again, just because a condition for stoping the logging of time isn't met does not mean that the condition for starting flight time didn't happen.
Click to expand...
As I said, if the flight time for pilot logbook purposes doesn't end until after the next time it lands, the result is an absurdity.

In my 10K'ish hours I'd guess I have around a dozen such .2 entries in my book and I'd be happy to explain them to the FAA or an interview board. In fact, I put little remarks right there in the log book for just that.
Click to expand...
I'd like to be there when you try to explain your inclusion of those times for an FAA purpose. On second thought, no, I wouldn't, as seeing someone hang themselves before the FAA is not something I find enjoyable.
 
Taxiing for the purpose of flight and never getting airborne is an excellent way to build time. It's just as good as being airborne and the navigation, fuel planning and wind effects are by far easier to determine. :)
 
Well, in all the times I've submitted my log books to the FAA it's never been an issue. The .2's and .3's here and there have never been leaned on for required time anyway.

Seems to me if a guy goes out, flight plans, checks the weather, fills out a nav log, preflight a the plane, gets ATIS, a clearance and all that .2 going in the book isn't a big deal. But then, some people like to big deal everything. Meh...
 
Captain said:
Well, in all the times I've submitted my log books to the FAA it's never been an issue. The .2's and .3's here and there have never been leaned on for required time anyway.
Click to expand...
The fact that a violation isn't detected and enforced doesn't make it any less a violation.

Seems to me if a guy goes out, flight plans, checks the weather, fills out a nav log, preflight a the plane, gets ATIS, a clearance and all that .2 going in the book isn't a big deal. But then, some people like to big deal everything. Meh...
Click to expand...
"Seems, Madam? I know not 'seems'."
 
Lol,

Strange world you live in. How do think it could possibly play out to a violation? Applicant presents his book for a PPL ride. Examiner sees he has 45.4 hours and going through notices an entry for .2, his eyebrow raises and he asks, "What's this?"

The applicant responds, "ah, that. Picked up a plane. During the runup the magneto didn't look right so I brought it back."

The examiner slams his fist down and yells, "YOU are the reason aviation is DANGEROUS!!!" and proceeds the paperwork to ensure this kid never flies again.

That about it?

You're a smart guy Ron, but comm'on.
 
Captain said:
Lol,

Strange world you live in. How do think it could possibly play out to a violation? Applicant presents his book for a PPL ride. Examiner sees he has 45.4 hours and going through notices an entry for .2, his eyebrow raises and he asks, "What's this?"

The applicant responds, "ah, that. Picked up a plane. During the runup the magneto didn't look right so I brought it back."

The examiner slams his fist down and yells, "YOU are the reason aviation is DANGEROUS!!!" and proceeds the paperwork to ensure this kid never flies again.

That about it?

You're a smart guy Ron, but comm'on.
Click to expand...
I try not to respond to trolling, so I'll let your post go unanswered.
 
Ron Levy said:
I try not to respond to trolling, so I'll let your post go unanswered.
Click to expand...

I never troll. You said it'd be a violation. I honestly don't see it. The parody above is the cartoon version I came up with in my head and it looks pretty absurd.

You claimed violations and cert revocations. How and oh what grounds?
 
Captain,

Because Ron said so. That's the only explanation he ever needs, and the only explanation the rest of us are deserving of. When you provide an example that goes against him and catch him painted into a corner he takes his ball and goes home. I've watched it for 10 years. Even when shown to be obviously wrong, he will either disappear from the board for a few months, or say something along the lines of 'I may have been mistaken' still never admitting to being incorrect. Or the best is, "I had a letter but it was sent to me at my last job, and I don't have access to that anymore."

So, don't expect him to back up his opinion when it comes to hypothetical situations.
 
Captain said:
Is he your neighbor? Drinking buddy? How is it you get to claim inside knowledge of what he does or doesn't know?
Click to expand...

No inside knowledge is required.

Have you been reading the thread?

Or is that quip based on decisions available to everybody? If so maybe you could share the written decision where he states 'the pilot would have been fine had s/he simply not logged the flight'.
Click to expand...

It's in the Harrington letter, which I cited in the post before yours. That letter is also cited by the Chief Counsel's office in the Bobertz memo that Cap'n Ron cited earlier. It's available to everybody by going to the Chief Counsel's Web site and searching on "Harrington," but to save you the trouble, here it is:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../harrington - (1997) legal interpretation.pdf

Here is the relevant passage:

"To avoid compensation, these pilots could either not log the flight time or they could log the flight time while bearing the full cost, including fuel and oil, for ferrying the aircraft." (Page 2, third full paragraph, last sentence.)

Because I doubt your going to find that. Instead people read that logging time is considered a form of payment and then make the leap on their own, "ah Ha! If I don't LOG it I can do it" and than is asinine.
Click to expand...

I would certainly never claim that the FAA is always logical and reasonable.

Some people just really really really want something to be true so bad they will jump through massive mental hoops to make it true in their minds.
Click to expand...

It's clear that you just really really really want it not to be true that the Chief Counsel's office wrote this.

Don't shoot the messenger. :rolleyes:
 
Who gives a ****?
 
EdFred said:
Even when shown to be obviously wrong, he will either disappear from the board for a few months, or say something along the lines of 'I may have been mistaken' still never admitting to being incorrect.
Click to expand...

I'm not taking sides on the taxi time logging debate, but very few people are capable of admitting it when they are wrong. I see no reason to pillory him over that.
 
Palmpilot said:
No inside knowledge is required.

Have you been reading the thread?



It's in the Harrington letter, which I cited in the post before yours. That letter is also cited by the Chief Counsel's office in the Bobertz memo that Cap'n Ron cited earlier. It's available to everybody by going to the Chief Counsel's Web site and searching on "Harrington," but to save you the trouble, here it is:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../harrington - (1997) legal interpretation.pdf



Here is the relevant passage:

"To avoid compensation, these pilots could either not log the flight time or they could log the flight time while bearing the full cost, including fuel and oil, for ferrying the aircraft." (Page 2, third full paragraph, last sentence.)



I would certainly never claim that the FAA is always logical and reasonable.



It's clear that you just really really really want it not to be true that the Chief Counsel's office wrote this.

Don't shoot the messenger. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, I have to admit I was looking at the first paragraph of the third page of THIS.

Looking at your link all I can say is whoever drafted that is retarded. Or at least was retarded on that day.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm not taking sides on the taxi time logging debate, but very few people are capable of admitting it when they are wrong. I see no reason to pillory him over that.
Click to expand...

I admit I'm wrong whenever I'm wrong. It's just that I so seldom am.
;)
 
I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
 
Captain said:
Well, I have to admit I was looking at the first paragraph of the third page of THIS.

Looking at your link all I can say is whoever drafted that is retarded. Or at least was retarded on that day.
Click to expand...

The more I read that the more incredulous I get get. What a stupid decision!

Think about it, all the FAA really has to go on to do their job is paper records. And there's some dim wit attorney actually opining that a pilot should NOT document a flight he ACTUALLY flew unless he wants to pay full freight of the flight. So go ahead and perform an action...just don't dare document that action. Beyond stupid...

I'm a believer that actions alone can and should be regulated. The action of maintaining a record of what actually transpired should NEVER EVER be the event that is illegal.

Write a note saying "give me all the money or ill blow the place up". Writing the note isn't the crime. Walking into the bank and giving it to the teller is the crime. Get into the get-away car and jot down what happened isn't the crime either. It may well be used against you, but you'll not be convicted of the act of writing it down.

I'm a little beside myself. Whoever wrote that decision should be fired.
 
Just catching up. The response I was going to make was already made by the time I got caught up.

Keep posting my friends.
 
Captain said:
The more I read that the more incredulous I get get. What a stupid decision!

Think about it, all the FAA really has to go on to do their job is paper records. And there's some dim wit attorney actually opining that a pilot should NOT document a flight he ACTUALLY flew unless he wants to pay full freight of the flight. So go ahead and perform an action...just don't dare document that action. Beyond stupid...

I'm a believer that actions alone can and should be regulated. The action of maintaining a record of what actually transpired should NEVER EVER be the event that is illegal.

Write a note saying "give me all the money or ill blow the place up". Writing the note isn't the crime. Walking into the bank and giving it to the teller is the crime. Get into the get-away car and jot down what happened isn't the crime either. It may well be used against you, but you'll not be convicted of the act of writing it down.
Click to expand...

And you thought I was making it up! :rofl:

I'm a little beside myself.
Click to expand...

Obviously the CAF should be required to hire someone like you to fly their planes to air shows! ;)

Whoever wrote that decision should be fired.
Click to expand...

Too late: Sixteen years later, it appears that he doesn't work there anymore:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...c/key_officials/HQ_Key_Officials/?passedOrg=H
 
Captain said:
The examiner slams his fist down and yells, "YOU are the reason aviation is DANGEROUS!!!" and proceeds the paperwork to ensure this kid never flies again.
Click to expand...

OH...

MY...

I see another Nazi video in Ed's future. :thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top