The only thing you must log for a French aeroplane (and a Belgium one) is the block time. It’s mandatory by statute.
For each flight you must log the details of the flight in the Carnet de Route (Journey log).
My CAMO tells my for my plane that I’ve no other choice than the block to block time to define maintenance intervals. It means that my 50 hours is a 50 hours block time, that each maintenance operation based on usage of the plane is based on the block time.
A_and_C wrote:
Over the last few years I have flown for four Scandinavian one German and one Irish airline all under EASA and all used flight time in the tech log and did not record the chock to chock time in this document.
In France, the rule says that flight time is eventually acceptable for airline ops regarding maintenance. General aviation is supposed to use bloc to bloc time.
A_and_C wrote:
It would seem to me that the French and Belgians are out of step with EASA.
Part-M only reffers to “flight time” without explicit defnition.
I personnally asked for a clear “flight time” definition in the latest Part-M Light NPA.
Over the last few years I have flown for four Scandinavian one German and one Irish airline all under EASA and all used flight time in the tech log and did not record the chock to chock time in this document. Flight time was used for all maintenance requirements .
It would seem to me that the French and Belgians are out of step with EASA.
As to re-calculating flight time when transferring from one register to another, I would think that this could only be done if you had recorded data for the flight time from a reliable source. It is likely that the authorities will insist on the higher time unless reliable data for another value is presented.
@Peter. Obviously the manufacturer would have to specify. I don’t really see the need to convert number of revolutions into hours (why would anyone do that? would you measure water consumption in hours?). The nice thing about it is that it counts revolutions, not actual time. I have seen tach used for engine maintenance and not once (yes, different logbooks then have different times).
Airborne time makes sense for an airframe, but for a piston engine there is a case, IMO, for tach time.
I have never seen such a definition, in piston GA.
The whole plane can be maintained based on airborne time.
Obviously there can be specific limits e.g. landing gear cycle limits of say 10,000.
“Tach time” cannot make legal sense because there are numerous different “tachs”. It’s the same argument as a law requiring the carriage of printed charts… whose?
I believe a ‘journey log’ will be required by Part NCO.GEN.150 when it is mandated.
Yes – many threads here on the Journey Log business. I keep one and carry it in the plane. I thought it was mandatory already…
But that isn’t the same as a school’s Tech Log, which contains stuff like starting and ending fuel levels.
That reminds me of a bizzare scenario from when I started my PPL: I asked the instructor how can he be sure there is say 2hrs’ of fuel in the tanks, after several flights have been done, when the level isn’t physically visible unless you get up on a ladder (C152). His reply was “the tech log says there are 2hrs so there are 2hrs!”. This was the first step in me deciding very firmly to treat everything with suspicion and to escape from the whole training scene ASAP. I would always start every solo flight with full tanks.
Peter wrote:
while maintenance is done on airborne time.
I would think it depends on what it is. Airborne time makes sense for an airframe, but for a piston engine there is a case, IMO, for tach time. For other things, cycles might be interesting. Obviously, one tries to follow manufacturer’s recommendations.
I believe a ‘journey log’ will be required by Part NCO.GEN.150 when it is mandated.
In France and Belgium, it’s mandatory to log the chock to chock time in the techlog.
What is the legal relevance of a “tech log”?
I have seen such a thing only in flying schools, where it may have been a CAA school-license requirement.
Many private/flying club planes in Belgium are using oil-pressure as reference for there maintenance intervals , but they get extension on the engine TBO (I thought 10%)
I think that’s common but only because the instrument is already installed in the panel and anybody can read the number off it. I have never heard of any law anywhere which attaches any legal significance to any panel mounted “time recorder”. It would not make much sense anyway because – see various threads on “Hobbs” etc here – you can have one instrument reading (practically or literally) airborne time, and another one reading engine running time (and you can imagine renters really not liking that one, and it encourages bad taxiing practices).
Many private/flying club planes in Belgium are using oil-pressure as reference for there maintenance intervals , but they get extension on the engine TBO (I thought 10%)
Does that affect the maintenance intervals, e.g., for engine TBO, which according to the manufacturer is on airborne time?
