Logbook accuracy questions

SkyHog

SkyHog

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
18,433
Location
Castle Rock, CO
Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
I was creating a backup of my logbook at work last night, using logshare.com, when I noticed some errors in my logbook. I was curious if any of the following are serious enough to cause concern:

1) A few entries, pre-PPL are missing CFI endorsements, although the flight is logged as dual

2) I have a flight logged 2/29/2005. That date does not exist.

3) I made a stupid addition error of .3 on one page, which throws off the totals on subsequent pages

4) I have 2 cases of actual logged, in which the time was with a CFII, but he signed the logbook CFI.
 
SkyHog said:
I was creating a backup of my logbook at work last night, using logshare.com, when I noticed some errors in my logbook. I was curious if any of the following are serious enough to cause concern:

1) A few entries, pre-PPL are missing CFI endorsements, although the flight is logged as dual
Click to expand...

A problem for the CFI, but not for you. If you can find the CFI ask for an endorsement, otherwise I wouldn't worry about it.

2) I have a flight logged 2/29/2005. That date does not exist.
Click to expand...

Correct it if you know the actual date but otherwise don't worry about it.

3) I made a stupid addition error of .3 on one page, which throws off the totals on subsequent pages
Click to expand...

Either make corrections to totals on subsequent pages, or make a single error correction entry on the current page, or don't worry about it.

4) I have 2 cases of actual logged, in which the time was with a CFII, but he signed the logbook CFI.
Click to expand...

The entry and the endorsement are both correct. A CFI's certificate ends in "CFI"; folks who enter "xxxxxxxCFI-IA" as the certificate number portion of a flight training endorsement are merely showing their ignorance.
 
Last edited:
And of course none of this matters unless you're planning to go pro, and even then it probably doesn't matter. It wouldn't affect your insurance rates--they don't examine logbooks unless you make a claim (and perhaps not even then) and errors aren't going to get you in trouble even if you have to. None of these raises red flags about false entries, since everyone makes mistakes.

Ed's right about the "CFII" entry, although I suspect most people who do it know it's not correct. They're just justifiably proud of being an instrument instructor, and there's no harm done even if they're going to go pro.

Judy
 
I usually throw the other I (or MEI or G) depending on the type of instructing im doing. Also if Im doing Instrument instruction, i always put the other I on there so that the student will not have to call me in a few years to see if he can count that towards his instrument rating.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
A problem for the CFI, but not for you. If you can find the CFI ask for an endorsement, otherwise I wouldn't worry about it.



Correct it if you know the actual date but otherwise don't worry about it.



Either make corrections to totals on subsequent pages, or make a single error correction entry on the current page, or don't worry about it.



The entry and the endorsement are both correct. A CFI's certificate ends in "CFI"; folks who enter "xxxxxxxCFI-IA" as the certificate number portion of a flight training endorsement are merely showing their ignorance.
Click to expand...

Just try to count time for an instrument or multiengine rating, if your non ignorant CFI doesnt include the I or the MEL on his endorsement.
 
wesleyj said:
Just try to count time for an instrument or multiengine rating, if your non ignorant CFI doesnt include the I or the MEL on his endorsement.
Click to expand...

I have never looked that close at my logbook nor can I say any DE has to see if they endorsed it right. Has anyone had some of their time rejected because of this or other mistakes in their logbook?
 
smigaldi said:
I have never looked that close at my logbook nor can I say any DE has to see if they endorsed it right. Has anyone had some of their time rejected because of this or other mistakes in their logbook?
Click to expand...
Scott -

One of my partners in the R22 got nailed by the DE on his PP-RH checkride for improper endorsements. Fortunately one of our partners was also our CFI and was at the airport, but the DE insisted that the endorsements be fixed before he'd start the oral.
 
smigaldi said:
I have never looked that close at my logbook nor can I say any DE has to see if they endorsed it right. Has anyone had some of their time rejected because of this or other mistakes in their logbook?
Click to expand...

i spent 3 weeks chasing down a CFI because i had 10 hours IFR dual and he did not put the I after CFI.

the feds would not do the ride until i got the endorsements changed
 
wesleyj said:
i spent 3 weeks chasing down a CFI because i had 10 hours IFR dual and he did not put the I after CFI.

the feds would not do the ride until i got the endorsements changed
Click to expand...

There are a couple items that just don't ring plausible with this story. First, the Feds go by the FARs and the ACs--and there is absolutely no FAR requirement nor AC recommendation supporting nor substantiating this supposed requirement. Second, the feds can confirm or deny whether the CFI holds an instrument rating on his/her CFI certificate much faster than you can find the CFI. All the Feds would need to do is call Oklahoma City and ask for a reading of the CFI's folder. So, if one were to buy this story one would have to assume a Fed who didn't know what was required and a Fed who also didn't know what resources were available.

Furthermore, if this story were true the same would hold for category & class. I would need to append "ASEL" after my certificate number every time I signed any logbook entry, otherwise, how would "the Feds" know I'm not a helicopter CFI providing fixed wing instruction?

IOW, I don't buy it.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
There are a couple items that just don't ring plausible with this story. First, the Feds go by the FARs and the ACs--and there is absolutely no FAR requirement nor AC recommendation supporting nor substantiating this supposed requirement. Second, the feds can confirm or deny whether the CFI holds an instrument rating on his/her CFI certificate much faster than you can find the CFI. All the Feds would need to do is call Oklahoma City and ask for a reading of the CFI's folder. So, if one were to buy this story one would have to assume a Fed who didn't know what was required and a Fed who also didn't know what resources were available.

Furthermore, if this story were true the same would hold for category & class. I would need to append "ASEL" after my certificate number every time I signed any logbook entry, otherwise, how would "the Feds" know I'm not a helicopter CFI providing fixed wing instruction?

IOW, I don't buy it.
Click to expand...

Sorry Ed, but that is the way it happened, your question is exactly the reason they want it, if you are a CFI-H you are required to state as such, if you are ASEL then you are CFI-A, if multiengine then MEL. it is really simple requires little or no effort on your part and is not in any way a display of arrogance. my endorsement says it all, CFI-AI-MEL so should yours, and very soon mine will be CFI-A&I-H-MEL
 
Last edited:
I am a CFI and also an Instrument instructor. On the front of my card there is a line that says "Certificate Number". It ends in CFI. No A or AI or MEI or anything. Just CFI. Anything else is not required. I know of no reference in the FARs that say anything different.
 
never tried to say my certificate number was 2724948CFII, but putting the I on the end sure can help the student out down the road
 
tonycondon said:
never tried to say my certificate number was 2724948CFII, but putting the I on the end sure can help the student out down the road
Click to expand...

Riight. We all know it's because it makes you feel like a bigger man.
 
well, we will see if you are lucky enough to get that number in your logbook :)
 
wesleyj said:
Sorry Ed, but that is the way it happened, your question is exactly the reason they want it, if you are a CFI-H you are required to state as such, if you are ASEL then you are CFI-A, if multiengine then MEL. it is really simple requires little or no effort on your part and is not in any way a display of arrogance. my endorsement says it all, CFI-AI-MEL so should yours, and very soon mine will be CFI-A&I-H-MEL
Click to expand...

Well, FWIW, I've taken 8 checkrides without the CFI's signatures in my logbook complying with your claims. If a DPE pushed on me for what you claim I'd tell him/her to show me the applicable FAR/AC and then report him/her to the FSDO. If the FSDO butchered the decision I'd keep pushing up the FAA tree. What you claim is not required (show me the FAR/AC if you think otherwise).
 
If the claims of Tony, John, and Jesse had merit you suppose the instrument endorsements from AC61-65D would neglect to include the "CFI-IA" detail? From AC61-65E (particularly note the plethora of CFIs who could make the endorsement in #42, yet according to the AC no delineation required):


INSTRUMENT RATING ENDORSEMENTS ​


41. Aeronautical knowledge test: section 61.35(a)(1) and section 61.65(a) and (b).

I certify that (First name, MI, Last name) has received the required training of section 61.65(b). I have determined that he/she is prepared for the (name the knowledge test).

/s/ [date] J. J. Jones 987654321CFI Exp. 12-31-05


42. Flight proficiency/practical test: section 61.65(a)(6).

I certify that (First name, MI, Last name) has received the required training of section 61.65(c) and (d). I have determined he/she is prepared for the Instrument—(airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift) practical test.

/s/ [date] J. J. Jones 987654321CFI Exp. 12-31-05

[FONT=JFIKGN+TimesNewRomanPSMT,Times New Roman PSMT]

Later Edit: The above was copied this morning from the FAA website, AC listing, and is indeed excerpted from AC61-65E, not AC 61-65D as I previously typed. My error, and the folks who claim the CFI-IA notation is required still haven't found a documented excuse.[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
1) A few entries, pre-PPL are missing CFI endorsements, although the flight is logged as dual
Click to expand...

Without the CFI endorsement that the dual took place how do you
prove it did? I'm surprised the DE didn't pick up on this when they reviewed
your log book. Or don't they do that any more?

RT
 
I usually throw the other I (or MEI or G) depending on the type of instructing im doing. Also if Im doing Instrument instruction, i always put the other I on there so that the student will not have to call me in a few years to see if he can count that towards his instrument rating.
Click to expand...

never tried to say my certificate number was 2724948CFII, but putting the I on the end sure can help the student out down the road
Click to expand...

Where did I say that the CFII was required when giving instrument instruction? I just said this is what I usually do. It will help a student down the road when I am not nearby and he wants to know how much instrument time he has that counts towards the instrument rating. I see no reason to go above and beyond FAR or AC requirements/recommendations in the interest of convienence.

And AC 61-65D has been superceded by 61-65E, last fall I believe. Includes the sport pilot endorsements.
 
RotaryWingBob said:
Scott -

One of my partners in the R22 got nailed by the DE on his PP-RH checkride for improper endorsements. Fortunately one of our partners was also our CFI and was at the airport, but the DE insisted that the endorsements be fixed before he'd start the oral.
Click to expand...

With me being a student...how would I know something was not right in my log book, CFI endorsement wise?
 
tonycondon said:
And AC 61-65D has been superceded by 61-65E, last fall I believe. Includes the sport pilot endorsements.
Click to expand...

Typo on my part, see edit note above, but that still doesn't change the reality--what you claim is not supported by either the current AC (AC61-65E) nor the FARs.
 
Later Edit: The above was copied this morning from the FAA website, AC listing, and is indeed excerpted from AC61-65E, not AC 61-65D as I previously typed. My error, and the folks who claim the CFI-IA notation is required still haven't found a documented excuse.
Click to expand...

i guess finding the documented excuse is up to John, as I never claimed the CFII notation was required, just nice to have.

and Brook,
you dont know, thats why us CFIs are supposed to know whats going on.
 
RogerT said:
Without the CFI endorsement that the dual took place how do you
prove it did? I'm surprised the DE didn't pick up on this when they reviewed
your log book. Or don't they do that any more?

RT
Click to expand...

My DE reviewed it, but didn't go into a whole lot of detail in it.

FWIW - without the time in question, I'd have still had everything required to meet the requirements for my PPL.
 
HPNFlyGirl said:
With me being a student...how would I know something was not right in my log book, CFI endorsement wise?
Click to expand...
I dunno ;)

When I was doing my helicopter add-on my CFI tried to give me the endorsements that he gave primary students. I was pretty sure I didn't need all that stuff all over again and posted a query on the red board, I think. Someone, maybe Ron (or maybe not) gave me a reference to an FAA publication (AC) which has a pretty complete set of endorsements. It turned out that all I needed for solo and x-c work (because I was already a fixed-wing PP) was an endorsement saying that I was capable of acting as PIC in a Robinson R22.

You really have to pretty much rely that your CFI knows what they're doing, but if you're unsure, I'd post it here.
 
RotaryWingBob said:
I dunno ;)

Someone, maybe Ron (or maybe not) gave me a reference to an FAA publication (AC) which has a pretty complete set of endorsements. It turned out that all I needed for solo and x-c work (because I was already a fixed-wing PP) was an endorsement saying that I was capable of acting as PIC in a Robinson R22.
Click to expand...

Ed quoted it in another part of this thread AC 61-65E. Here's the link to the whole thing. http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/2E1337FC395E0A33862570D0005EA8A2?OpenDocument
 
Since there are a lot of examiners who reject instrument time for the Instrument and Commercial unless the instructor notes his IA rating in the endorsement, it's not worth letting your trainee get run around (albeit improperly). I guess some examiners just don't like having to confirm via the historical data system that the instructor involved had the rating at the time of the endorsement. Therefore, I add the -IA when endorsing instrument training -- technically it's not necessary, but it saves my trainees some hassle, and I can afford the extra ink.
 
Ron Levy said:
Since there are a lot of examiners who reject instrument time for the Instrument and Commercial unless the instructor notes his IA rating in the endorsement, it's not worth letting your trainee get run around (albeit improperly).
Click to expand...

Why not simply send your students to a competent DPE? Saves ink and saves potential for hassles on other items the DPE should know.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
Why not simply send your students to a competent DPE? Saves ink and saves potential for hassles on other items the DPE should know.
Click to expand...
When I'm giving a pilot instrument training, there's no telling who that pilot might go to for commercial later on. As I said, it just ain't worth quibbling over.
 
Bump..

Is there an AC out there for how you should handle errors? Some entries that are missing a number in a column along with some things that weren't totaled correctly between pages?
 
jesse said:
Bump..

Is there an AC out there for how you should handle errors? Some entries that are missing a number in a column along with some things that weren't totaled correctly between pages?
Click to expand...

Thats why I write the line in ink, but total the bottom in pencil.
 
I would just total everything correctly then on your current page write something like, "corrected previous addition mistakes".
 
Yay old Thread!

Jesse, what I did was cross through the mistaken number, clearly write the correct number and initial next to it (I have a few in both the totals area and the line item area).

I suck at math, and if you look at my logbook, you can tell.
 
SkyHog said:
Yay old Thread!

Jesse, what I did was cross through the mistaken number, clearly write the correct number and initial next to it (I have a few in both the totals area and the line item area).

I suck at math, and if you look at my logbook, you can tell.
Click to expand...
The problem is that every total in all the following pages are wrong. That's a lot of crossing out. It'd look ridiculous by the end.

I guess the totals probably don't matter that much if I generate them with LogTen Pro.
 
first decide if the error is in your favor. like monopoly teaches, if there is a bank error in your favor take the money first and don't ask questions later. :D
 
tonycondon said:
first decide if the error is in your favor. like monopoly teaches, if there is a bank error in your favor take the money first and don't ask questions later. :D
Click to expand...

That's not always good advice Tony. I once had an ATM machine give me $20 too much money. I called the bank the next day and tried to give it back. They kept getting confused and thought I was filing a claim for getting shorted and I had to eventually talk to a higher level manager in customer service to convince them that I was actually reporting that it gave me too much. They assured me that if the ATM came up $20 short that they'd go get it from my account.

A month later, I noticed on my statement that they'd put another $20 in my account :)
 
I keep both written and electronic logs. They don't agree at all. I suspect lots of arithmetic errors.

I don't care either. I don't even know why I bother.
 
Well so far I count 27 Angels dancing on the head of this pin - or is it pin head....

denny-o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top