Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Do you fancy paying 20% more for your maintenance?

Total du temps décompté depuis le moment où l’aérof commence à se déplacer par ses propres moyens jusqu’au moment où il s’immobilise à la fin du vol

Tot time elapsed between the moment the aeroplane starts moving under its own power until the moment it stops moving at the end of the flight.

(non-certified translation by amateur Dolmetscher available free-lance)

But the warning

Be careful, this is a document of 1991. That was before EASA and even before JAR. Things may be different now.

is highly relevant.

Last Edited by at 27 May 10:46
EBZH Kiewit, Belgium

We did this very recently here but with the same reference.

1991 is a very long time ago.

It’s hard to find references, except for N-reg which is that maintenance is done on time in service which is defined as the time the aircraft is off the ground. Pilot time is done by the time between when the airplane first moves until it comes to rest. One US AOPA article is here

Does ICAO actually say both maintenance and pilot time is brakes-off to brakes-on? If not, then I reckon it’s possible that the French reg is a mis-understanding which somehow got through and nobody questioned it for all those years. It seems certain that the French wording is correct, but possibly only for half the situation (crew time logging).

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The 1991 document will be covered by EASA PART-NCO.
As of today, it is still valid.
However PART-NCO will come in force on the 25th august 2016 (in France). So the 1991 document is still valid until 2016.
Part-FCL defines “flight time”

AMC1 FCL.050 Recording of flight time
(g) Flight time is recorded:
(1) for aeroplanes, touring motor gliders and powered-lift aircraft, from the moment an aircraft first moves to taking off until the moment it finally comes to rest at the end of the flight;

PART-NCO doesn’t define “flight time” as such. It just says PIC is responsible :

(b) the operation and safety of the aircraft:
(1) for aeroplanes, from the moment it is first ready to move for the purpose of flight until the moment it comes to rest at the end of the flight and the engine(s) used as primary propulsion unit(s) is/are shut down;

Unless EASA releases an AMC which explicitly state that airborne time can be used for maintenance purposes, it is very likely to stay the same way beyond 2016.

Last Edited by Guillaume at 27 May 11:05

Does ICAO actually say both maintenance and pilot time is brakes-off to brakes-on?

AFAIK ICAO never had nothing to say about maintenance.

EDDS - Stuttgart

Block time for maintenance? I hope not indeed. It would mean a 20-40% decrease in intervals as opposed to flight time. Another nail in the coffin for GA if it becomes law.

Is not done like that in Switzerland and hopefully won’t be.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

AFAIK ICAO never had nothing to say about maintenance.

ICAO doesn’t say anything binding but it provides recommendations in it’s annex 8 (“Airworthiness of Aircraft”)

Does ICAO actually say both maintenance … time is brakes-off to brakes-on?

No it doesn’t say anything regarding maintenance.
So it’s up to every state to define it’s own way.
France choose block to block time.
It seems that the FAA and Switzerland choose another way.

Last Edited by Guillaume at 27 May 11:16

That means an N-reg is right away going to be 20%+ cheaper to maintain than an F-reg even if you do exactly the same work!

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

It would mean a 20-40% decrease in intervals as opposed to flight time. Another nail in the coffin for GA if it becomes law.

I don’t think it won’t make such a big difference. Most privately owned and operated GA aircraft don’t see much usage and many maintenance events are rather necessitated by calendar time than by flying time.

In our flying school we have mixed IFR and VFR training both from small airfields and large airports. We have an agreement with the national authority that allows us to calculate with fixed additionals of five minutes before and after the flight to derive block time from air time. So a typical training sortie of 90 minutes gives a block time of 100 minutes (or 11 percent extra). I would think that these figures apply to many typical private flights as well.

Last Edited by what_next at 27 May 11:21
EDDS - Stuttgart

Sweden applies airborne time and always has. But doesn’t part M say anything about this? I don’t see how this can be up to national regulations.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Flight time goes in my aircraft logbook, block time goes in my logbook.

Spending too long online
EGTF Fairoaks, EGLL Heathrow, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top