Recording your flight time

Me too; I was born naked, crying and confused Then things really went to
hell.

You mean that there are two of us?

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Almost Instrument
Cessna 172H C-GICE

I record tach time for maintenance (oil change, etc) and arm time
(the watch on my arm) for flying time.

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

For most people with a Hobbs, that could be an extra half hour, from master
switch "ON", to shutdown.

I wonder: does ANYONE does it that way?

I do. My Hobbs does not have an oil pressure switch, it starts counting
from Master On. A typical roundtrip breakfast flight will have .2 taxi
time to the runway.

There a good money reason...

Where I usually rent airplaces, they changed billing time to reflect
aircraft ground time so instead of paying for exemple for 45 minutes we
pay for 0.8 hours ...

It's there way to make more money at the end.

:-(


Tom Sixkiller wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:vfrFb.617298$Tr4.1604490@attbi_s03...

That, and you're stuck using the ridiculous (to me) "1.4 hours" nonsense.
Why don't we just use "1:24", like the rest of the civilized world?


Time math?

I just use tach time. I have a notebook in the plane that I record each
flight in .. along with fuel added. I just enter that same time in my
logbook.
If I end up taxing a lot for takeoff I add a tenth to it. I know I end up
cheating
myself out of logable hours .. but other than showing currency it's not
that important.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:7oiFb.618964$Fm2.558042@attbi_s04...
With built-in flight timers becoming the norm in virtually all new
avionics
(heck, even the new transponder I'm getting has one), just wondering if
folks are migrating away from using hobbs/tach time to record their flight
time?

And if you *are* using the flight timer, have you stopped using the old
archaic "1.3 hours" method of recording flight time? Anyone using actual
hours and minutes in their logbook instead?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Nope. Still using the Mark 1 wris****ch, estimated to within about +/-5
minutes or so, recorded in decimals because I can't add in base 60. Problem
is, I keep forgetting to check my watch on takeoff (there being rather a lot
going on trying to get a Pitts off the ground and into a pattern full of
other aircraft moving at half the speed).

Shawn

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:7oiFb.618964$Fm2.558042@attbi_s04...
With built-in flight timers becoming the norm in virtually all new
avionics
(heck, even the new transponder I'm getting has one), just wondering if
folks are migrating away from using hobbs/tach time to record their flight
time?

And if you *are* using the flight timer, have you stopped using the old
archaic "1.3 hours" method of recording flight time? Anyone using actual
hours and minutes in their logbook instead?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:vfrFb.617298$Tr4.1604490@attbi_s03...
The hobbs seems like a perfect, simple
device.

True, except most aircraft (outside of trainers) don't seem to have them.
Mine doesn't, and never did.

My aircraft (Mooney) came from the factory with one. Some argue that
its actually the legal way to count 100 hour ADs (since the tach
doesn't give 1:1).

That, and you're stuck using the ridiculous (to me) "1.4 hours" nonsense.
Why don't we just use "1:24", like the rest of the civilized world?

Gee, I thought that was the best reason for the 1.4 hours math. Its
hard to add up a line of "1:03", "1:23", "1:55". Seems like "1,4" +
"1.6" +"1.6" is easier to add. I guess if you're using a computer it
doesn't make any difference.

When I get this new transponder, I'm going to try using its internal "flight
time" clock. If it's too much of a pain, I'll go back to the tach time x
1.3.

In my plane (constant speed prop) I find that the hobbs and the tach
are almost 1:1. I don't often do pattern work though. On a typical 4
hour flight the tach will be within .1 of the hobbs. I tend to run the
engine around 2400 RPM. I would think 1.3 would be very, very
generous. In the J-3, I just use my watch since I usually ran the
engine way below the 2200 RPM where it turned 1:1.

-Robert

That, and you're stuck using the ridiculous (to me) "1.4 hours" nonsense.
Why don't we just use "1:24", like the rest of the civilized world?

Why doesn't the civilized world give up the 1:24 nonsense, and go with 1.4?

Now if we had an extra finger on each hand, I'd differ. Base 12 is really a
great base - most fractions are nice fractions. Base ten has only one nice
fraction.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

(Teacherjh) wrote in message ...
That, and you're stuck using the ridiculous (to me) "1.4 hours" nonsense.
Why don't we just use "1:24", like the rest of the civilized world?

Why doesn't the civilized world give up the 1:24 nonsense, and go with 1.4?

Now if we had an extra finger on each hand, I'd differ. Base 12 is really a
great base - most fractions are nice fractions. Base ten has only one nice
fraction.

Especially for guys like me that are more than 8 flights behind in
their log books. Luckily I write receipts for my students so I can
remember those flights. I'm sure there are flights I take by myself
that I never remember when it comes time to sit in front of the T.V
and update the log book.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message m...


My aircraft (Mooney) came from the factory with one. Some argue that
its actually the legal way to count 100 hour ADs (since the tach
doesn't give 1:1).

It is a legal way. The FAA says "hours" and absent any specific instruction
from the manufacturer, you can use the recording tach, a elapsed time meter,
or some other reliable record. The FAA just asks that you be consistant.
However, I don't think they'll buy the TACH multiplied by fudge argument.