Incorrect log book tally

[RotorAndWing]

Nope. As far as I can tell, the FAA does not provide such certification.

According to the AC they do. See Appendix 2.

At least I haven't been able to find anybody who does so. But they did point me to the AC. I think more than anything else it's that this has not been tested. Ie, validity of an electronically signed logbook entry has not been challenged/ adjudicated.

Lots of FAA official documents are signed everyday via electronic signature. One that most pilots use is IACRA. Other documents are OpSpecs which are digitally signed by both the FAA and the Operator. LOA's are also digitally signed.

 

[RotorAndWing]

The FAA absolutely uses "air operator" in a particular way. But they also use the word "operator" to refer to the person literally operating the aircraft (ie, the pilot), so they do not use it exclusively to refer to one or the other. The FAA inflicts much abuse upon the English language; this is hardly the only example of ambiguous meaning. (Take a look at 61.57(c) for some disastrously bad use of language, for example)

But you are trying to read something in the AC that it doesn't say.

 

[mkosmo]

Yes I have.

What did they say? If you mentioned it earlier, I apologize... I just don't want to read back through the thread yet another time.

 

[RotorAndWing]

What did they say? If you mentioned it earlier, I apologize... I just don't want to read back through the thread yet another time.

That the AC applies to Part 91 LOA's, 125, 135 and 121 Operators and their record keeping systems. It does not apply to pilot logbooks.

 

[EricBe]

But you are trying to read something in the AC that it doesn't say.

It also doesn't say that it doesn't apply to logbooks, and it also doesn't say that operator exclusively refers to the more specific "Air operator"/8900.1 definition of operator, vs. the more basic English language "one who operates" definition, so I'd say that it's clearly open to interpretation and that we are both left reading between the lines.

But I'll just note that nowhere does it exclude non-enumerated uses or otherwise limit its scope.

Note that Zululog (see https://www.zululog.com/wiki/index.php/FAA_Compliance) shares my view on this.

According to the AC they do. See Appendix 2.

This appears to certify that the end-user is OK to use the electronic system. I.e., if a pilot using MyFlightbook wanted to, they could ask the FAA to certify that it's OK for them to do so, and it would apply to them. That's different from auditing the actual solution provider (me) and determining it to be OK for anybody. Subtle distinction, I know.