I've hear this as well but if that's the justification for logging it as flight time, when does the flight time end? If we're using the same definition, the answer is "when the aircraft comes to rest after landing" which poses a problem because there is no landing.
The fact that you’ve been doing it doesn’t mean it’s right, though. Reading through the whole definition, it’s hard to justify logging a return to the block without flying, since the flight time ends “after landing.”
It is right, it doesn’t require a landing. It has been interpreted, legally, this way since before you and I were born. I’m sorry you find it hard to accept.
Care to show any legal interpretation that supports this? If it don’t require a landing, why would the end of the time specify “after landing,” and not just “comes to a stop for purpose of terminating the operation?”
The Kania LOI? The one that specifically mentions it’s for 121 (Q) (R) and (S)?
The one that says the time from parking a broken airplane to taking out a replacement is “flight time?” You gonna log that?
Obviously not, because the kania LOI isn’t about logging time and definitely isn’t about logging time for the purposes of certification experience requirements.
If it counts towards my flight time limits, I'm logging it. The basic reference was part 1.1, which would be the basis for all other flight time as well.
Read the FAA Kania LOI. They answer it there. If the pilots have to stay on board the aircraft, flight time continues to accrue. If they don't, then it's when the aircraft comes to rest at the gate.
The flight time limitations are in 121 Q, R, and S. However, Kania interprets how "flight time" is defined in 1.1. That is the one and only one definition of "flight time," and it applies the same whether it's flying under 121 or getting aeronautical experience towards a certificate or rating under 61.
By this logic, a crewmember who returns to the gate and waits for a replacement airplane due to a mechanical problem can log the time from the original taxi out, including time spent deplaning and emplaning a replacement aircraft. You logging that?
Kania’s letter interprets 1.1 for the purposes of 121 QRS, not reinterprets 1.1 for all scenarios because of 121QRS.
Not only that, but did you have access to the terminal? Did you remain onboard with mx working to resolve the problem? Congratulations the 2004 Kania interpretation applies and the time at the gate counts as block time if you continued to fly after the RTG
“Until it comes to rest at landing”. Insinuates there must be a landing and therefore some sort of takeoff….but I’ve used your interpretation my entire career…..
OP just make sure you moved under your own power with the intent of taking off. Depends on how airtight you wanna make this. Some airlines track when the nose wheel was engaged some just track engine starts.
The regional I was at tried to tell me I was good on time for a 2 hour flight when I already was over 7.5 hours. They were not counting 2 separate times that day I had to return to the gate. So I told them I wasn’t going to do it. And never heard back from management about it. So I guess I was right lol.
(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
And yet, you have shown no argument demonstrating that they’re wrong, even when you’ve claimed there are legal interpretations that you totally know of
A counter-point, the second part of the clause doesn't counter the first part. It clearly states flight time begins when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight. It does not say that flight time does not begin if there is no landing.
So the question becomes, "when does flight time end?" which is a legitimate question, but no one can argue that it doesn't begin under the first half of the clause.
For what its worth, at my airline (I wasn't a pilot) we counted the RTG time as flight time when logging a pilots rolling flight time.
Ex-Crew Scheduler here. We counted the RTG time towards your rolling flight hour limits. We have very well paid lawyers deciding how we count time. Take that as you will.
It’s duty and flight time. A return to gate counts towards every single legal flight time limit known. It counts towards 100/672, 1,000 hours/365 days, it counts against you toward your daily max block too.
It’s duty and flight time. A return to gate counts towards every single legal flight time limit known. It counts towards 100/672, 1,000 hours/365 days, it counts against you toward your daily max block too.
I'll go against the grain and encourage you to read 14 CFR 1.1 “Flight time” for yourself. A lot of comments here love to disregard the "and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing."
If that clause doesnt matter for 121 operations, I'd say it doesnt matter for any operation. The part that they clearly find more important is "the intention of flight."
If you're at a "gate" there's a fair assumption you're doing something Part 121. Why in the world are you worried about logging minutiae at this point in your career?
It's been a lot of years since I was hired at a major, but if they still look at logbooks, it seems (to me) it may be uncomfortable to explain an RJ700 "flight" that was .2.
definition of flight time is in FAR 1.1 it says move under your own power AND come to rest after landing so I would say no. but other people are saying log it so just go for it and see what happens
How many people have failed a checkride because they attempted a takeoff when they should've returned to parking? Clearly there's experience to learn between engine start and takeoff...
I have 0.3 logged after a run up was bad. We neither took off nor landed, but we logged it because the aircraft was moving under its own power for the purpose of flight, which is technically time.
As long as you had the intention of taking flight when you first moved, yep! If you were not taxiing for the purpose of flight, then no. I always log it whenever I encounter issues in the runup.
The definition of flight time is in Chapter 1 and isn’t specific to part 91.
Everything we do in the airlines is block time and that’s certainly what I log but “block” time isn’t in the definition of “flight” time. There may be an LOI out there but I haven’t seen it.
Is block time regulatory? 14 CFR 121.471(a) specifically uses the phrase "flight time" and flight time is defined in 1.1 and doesn't change between part 91 or 121.
CFR 14 1.1
"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
Ok so when does it end? If the start condition is satisfied but the end isn’t, my interpretation would be that there is no way to determine the true flight time, and thus, it doesn’t count as flight time
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
BagOfMoneyNoChange@reddit
Yes. You moved under your own power for the purpose of flight.
That block time also counts against your regulatory block time limit.
belugey@reddit
I've hear this as well but if that's the justification for logging it as flight time, when does the flight time end? If we're using the same definition, the answer is "when the aircraft comes to rest after landing" which poses a problem because there is no landing.
PWJT8D@reddit
Been logging them my whole career. It is correct to log it as origin to origin.
OrganicParamedic6606@reddit
The fact that you’ve been doing it doesn’t mean it’s right, though. Reading through the whole definition, it’s hard to justify logging a return to the block without flying, since the flight time ends “after landing.”
PWJT8D@reddit
It is right, it doesn’t require a landing. It has been interpreted, legally, this way since before you and I were born. I’m sorry you find it hard to accept.
OrganicParamedic6606@reddit
Care to show any legal interpretation that supports this? If it don’t require a landing, why would the end of the time specify “after landing,” and not just “comes to a stop for purpose of terminating the operation?”
Rainebowraine123@reddit
See the response with the hyperlink to the LOI in the thread of the original comment.
OrganicParamedic6606@reddit
The Kania LOI? The one that specifically mentions it’s for 121 (Q) (R) and (S)?
The one that says the time from parking a broken airplane to taking out a replacement is “flight time?” You gonna log that?
Obviously not, because the kania LOI isn’t about logging time and definitely isn’t about logging time for the purposes of certification experience requirements.
Rainebowraine123@reddit
If it counts towards my flight time limits, I'm logging it. The basic reference was part 1.1, which would be the basis for all other flight time as well.
OrganicParamedic6606@reddit
So, you’d log time at the gate during a maintenance return as flight time?
PWJT8D@reddit
Poor guy is so mad he has been logging time wrong his whole career that he’s lashing out on Reddit.
OrganicParamedic6606@reddit
Attacking me instead of engaging on the topic is compelling
PWJT8D@reddit
My logbook matches what the airline says I’ve flown across decades, to the minute.
Shove your interpretation where it belongs.
Small_Chicken1085@reddit
He was landed the whole time.
__joel_t@reddit
Read the FAA Kania LOI. They answer it there. If the pilots have to stay on board the aircraft, flight time continues to accrue. If they don't, then it's when the aircraft comes to rest at the gate.
OrganicParamedic6606@reddit
That’s specifically for 121 Q,R, and S, as mentioned in the first paragraph not for logging for certification
__joel_t@reddit
The flight time limitations are in 121 Q, R, and S. However, Kania interprets how "flight time" is defined in 1.1. That is the one and only one definition of "flight time," and it applies the same whether it's flying under 121 or getting aeronautical experience towards a certificate or rating under 61.
OrganicParamedic6606@reddit
By this logic, a crewmember who returns to the gate and waits for a replacement airplane due to a mechanical problem can log the time from the original taxi out, including time spent deplaning and emplaning a replacement aircraft. You logging that?
Kania’s letter interprets 1.1 for the purposes of 121 QRS, not reinterprets 1.1 for all scenarios because of 121QRS.
imblegen@reddit
I mean, technically any time the aircraft comes to rest, it’s after a landing. The only question is how long ago the landing was.
Ratty_BeardFace@reddit
Not only that, but did you have access to the terminal? Did you remain onboard with mx working to resolve the problem? Congratulations the 2004 Kania interpretation applies and the time at the gate counts as block time if you continued to fly after the RTG
Ratty_BeardFace@reddit
There are some additional nuances if I recall. I recommend reading the letter of interpretation.
Small_Chicken1085@reddit
“Until it comes to rest at landing”. Insinuates there must be a landing and therefore some sort of takeoff….but I’ve used your interpretation my entire career…..
HistorianOk4604@reddit
OP just make sure you moved under your own power with the intent of taking off. Depends on how airtight you wanna make this. Some airlines track when the nose wheel was engaged some just track engine starts.
hypnotoad23@reddit
OO would like a word
RydeOrDyche@reddit
The regional I was at tried to tell me I was good on time for a 2 hour flight when I already was over 7.5 hours. They were not counting 2 separate times that day I had to return to the gate. So I told them I wasn’t going to do it. And never heard back from management about it. So I guess I was right lol.
Matuteg@reddit
I have 6-7 RTG and counted them on my logbook. No legacy interview had issues
Low-Age8594@reddit
Idk bruh, honestly why take the risk?
Darth_Fire@reddit
So many people miss the “after landing” bit of the reg the explicitly defines this
r80rambler@reddit
We never missed it, it just didn’t mean what you’re saying it does.
Darth_Fire@reddit
Then what would it mean?
Dr_Scout123@reddit
No.
Everyone commenting has stopped reading the definition of flight time after the first half of the definition.
You have to continue to read and understanding that it ends “after landing”
So if you do land you have not met the definition of flight time and cannot log it.
Now, you should still get paid, but it doesn’t get logged as flight time
Flight time means:
Enhanced Content - Paragraph Tools
URLhttps://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-1/section-1.1#p-1.1(Flight%20time)
Citation14 CFR 1.1 “Flight time”
(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
PWJT8D@reddit
wrong.
OrganicParamedic6606@reddit
A compelling response to someone quoting the reg and explaining their reasoning
PWJT8D@reddit
Their reasoning is wrong and improperly quoting the reg doesn’t support their position.
OrganicParamedic6606@reddit
A compelling rebuttal showing how they’re wrong
PWJT8D@reddit
Circular arguments are your hobby, eh? This one goes in the dumpster with your interpretation of flight time.
OrganicParamedic6606@reddit
I mean, you could just try to engage with a compelling argument instead of declaring people wrong
PWJT8D@reddit
They are wrong, your fetish for debates doesn’t factor into the equation.
OrganicParamedic6606@reddit
And yet, you have shown no argument demonstrating that they’re wrong, even when you’ve claimed there are legal interpretations that you totally know of
LowTimePilot@reddit
A counter-point, the second part of the clause doesn't counter the first part. It clearly states flight time begins when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight. It does not say that flight time does not begin if there is no landing.
So the question becomes, "when does flight time end?" which is a legitimate question, but no one can argue that it doesn't begin under the first half of the clause.
For what its worth, at my airline (I wasn't a pilot) we counted the RTG time as flight time when logging a pilots rolling flight time.
pilotchriss@reddit
That time counts directly against someone’s legal block time limit under 117. So the FAA certainly counts it.
Dr_Scout123@reddit
Its duty time sure. But not flight time
LowTimePilot@reddit
Ex-Crew Scheduler here. We counted the RTG time towards your rolling flight hour limits. We have very well paid lawyers deciding how we count time. Take that as you will.
pilotchriss@reddit
It’s duty and flight time. A return to gate counts towards every single legal flight time limit known. It counts towards 100/672, 1,000 hours/365 days, it counts against you toward your daily max block too.
pilotchriss@reddit
That time counts directly against someone’s legal block time limit under 117. So the FAA certainly counts it.
pilotchriss@reddit
It’s duty and flight time. A return to gate counts towards every single legal flight time limit known. It counts towards 100/672, 1,000 hours/365 days, it counts against you toward your daily max block too.
flyboy520@reddit
I'll go against the grain and encourage you to read 14 CFR 1.1 “Flight time” for yourself. A lot of comments here love to disregard the "and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing."
Rainebowraine123@reddit
If that clause doesnt matter for 121 operations, I'd say it doesnt matter for any operation. The part that they clearly find more important is "the intention of flight."
Darth_Fire@reddit
Finally someone with a brain
fallingfaster345@reddit
Boldmethod article that breaks it all down
skyrider8328@reddit
If you're at a "gate" there's a fair assumption you're doing something Part 121. Why in the world are you worried about logging minutiae at this point in your career?
PWJT8D@reddit
RJ folks trying to upgrade (1000 121) or move on, presumably.
skyrider8328@reddit
It's been a lot of years since I was hired at a major, but if they still look at logbooks, it seems (to me) it may be uncomfortable to explain an RJ700 "flight" that was .2.
swakid8@reddit
I’ve gotten hired with quite a few RTGs in my logbook….
PWJT8D@reddit
100% normal and accepted practice. Nobody bats an eye.
literal_flying_ace@reddit
definition of flight time is in FAR 1.1 it says move under your own power AND come to rest after landing so I would say no. but other people are saying log it so just go for it and see what happens
Darth_Fire@reddit
Which hazardous attitude contributes to conforming to norms?
Maldivesblue@reddit
This. When you move “under power for the purpose of flight” is a test question. So yes.
Darth_Fire@reddit
And after landing. It cannot be logged.
OrganicParamedic6606@reddit
Nope. Doesn’t end with a landing and also what flight experience did you gain?
LowTimePilot@reddit
Reinforcing positive ADM isn't experience to you?
How many people have failed a checkride because they attempted a takeoff when they should've returned to parking? Clearly there's experience to learn between engine start and takeoff...
RydeOrDyche@reddit
I would argue I’ve gained more experience from a return to gates than most than most flights.
Mundane-Reality-7770@reddit
Logged .2 after I heard something funny during run up. Exhaust header was loose and I could hear the exhaust leak.
Jaimebgdb@reddit
Yes. Since my employer logs the time of a return to gate on my schedule, I log it as well.
ToastedBread107@reddit
I have 0.3 logged after a run up was bad. We neither took off nor landed, but we logged it because the aircraft was moving under its own power for the purpose of flight, which is technically time.
OrganicParamedic6606@reddit
In the context of the definition of flight time from 14cfr1.1, when did that “flight” end?
fly123123123@reddit
As long as you had the intention of taking flight when you first moved, yep! If you were not taxiing for the purpose of flight, then no. I always log it whenever I encounter issues in the runup.
Biker1124@reddit
Name checks out
earshloper@reddit
Intent to fly brothaman
320sim@reddit
No. The reg specifies that the flight time ends upon shut down after landing. You didn’t land
Tony_Three_Pies@reddit
It also says that it starts when the aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight.
The Kania 2004 Interpretation clarifies this stuff.
BagOfMoneyNoChange@reddit
That's for part 91. 121 block time almost always begins at brake release and ends at brake set.
Tony_Three_Pies@reddit
The definition of flight time is in Chapter 1 and isn’t specific to part 91.
Everything we do in the airlines is block time and that’s certainly what I log but “block” time isn’t in the definition of “flight” time. There may be an LOI out there but I haven’t seen it.
__joel_t@reddit
Is block time regulatory? 14 CFR 121.471(a) specifically uses the phrase "flight time" and flight time is defined in 1.1 and doesn't change between part 91 or 121.
old_flying_fart@reddit
According to you, he's still building flight time.
The reg is clear about when his flight time started, and you're saying he didn't land...so he's still in the air.
QuazyQuA@reddit
this is straight up wrong
320sim@reddit
CFR 14 1.1 "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
BagOfMoneyNoChange@reddit
OK now read the first part.
320sim@reddit
Ok so when does it end? If the start condition is satisfied but the end isn’t, my interpretation would be that there is no way to determine the true flight time, and thus, it doesn’t count as flight time
saxmanB737@reddit
When you get back to the gate. That’s when it ends.
theonlyski@reddit
Easy fix: just log all of the time until your next landing. That way it started when it moved under its own power and ended after landing.
/s in case people think I’m serious.
dakk33@reddit
The last part of the reg doesn’t negate the first part if it doesn’t occur
Former_Farm_3618@reddit
Got a quote or exact reg number and letter?
BagOfMoneyNoChange@reddit
He's quoting part of the definition of flight time under 14 CFR 1.1.
prex10@reddit
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
BagOfMoneyNoChange@reddit
Confidently incorrect redditor strikes again.