Logbook Help: Opinions Requested

Clear-Prop

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Oct 5, 2022
Messages
1
Display Name

Display name:
Clear-Prop
Introduction:

I am currently utilizing my second logbook in my aviation career. I have approximately 850 hours of total time, of which almost half is logged as cross country. Presently, I work for an operator which conducts flights between 100-200 nautical miles away (straight-line distance). Rarely, I will stop for fuel or lunch at another airfield.

During my flight training, I only logged flights as cross country if it met the requirements of 61.1 (B)(II):

(A) Conducted in an appropriate aircraft;

(B) That includes a point of landing that was at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and

(C) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems to navigate to the landing point).

Once earning my first position as a pilot, I began logging cross country time to the 6th definition that the FAA provides (7 total). That is 61.1 (B)(VI), for the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for an airline transport pilot certificate. The requirements include that the flight is:

(A) Conducted in an appropriate aircraft;

(B) That is at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and

(C) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems.

Where I need help:

When I began flying for this operator, I continued to log flight time in the same logbook that I utilized during training. This logbook has no separate column for the different types of cross-country time. I would place cross country time that only counted towards my ATP, in the same xc column as those flights that counted towards a certificate under part 61.

My worry:

The legal definition of cross-country time includes a landing at a point other than the point of departure. The exception to this rule is in paragraphs (II) through (IV). My worry is that while those flights count towards the ATP requirement, they are not to be logged in the normal cross-country column.

My solution:

(I already have an asterisk (*) next to each XC flight that does not count towards any rating outside of my ATP. Furthermore, in the remarks section, if the flight only qualifies towards 61.1 (B)(VI) cross-country time, I say so. I can easily differentiate between which type of cross-country time qualifies towards a rating under part 61, or towards my ATP. However, my total cross-country figure includes time under both definitions.)

The next logbook I purchase will have an empty column in which I will place my cross-country time that only qualifies towards an ATP requirement. That column, and my normal XC column in my new logbook, will equal the total XC time of the prior logbook.

My Question:

Is this an appropriate solution? Should I make corrections to my current and prior logbook to only show time towards the generally accepted XC time? I am willing to make the large number of corrections in my logbook if it is the right thing to do. Any remarks, comments, or opinions would be greatly appreciated. I wanted to ask the POA community before making my own decision and putting pen to paper.
 
You're probably overthinking it and overworrying about it. You have the entries asterisked, that's fine. I would recommend you switch to an electronic/online logbook such as MyFlightBook which makes tracking all this kind of stuff really simple.

Remember, the only real purpose for tracking XC time is for ratings, and for Part 135 qualifications. Once you meet those, the definition you use doesn't much matter. I have an ATP and am well past any 135 minimums, and I still just track XC the Private Pilot way - 50 nm and a landing. Really, I suppose I should be tracking the 1st definition (landing anywhere else counts), but it just doesn't really matter. I have plenty no matter how you count it - and it seems you will too.
 
I have an ATP and am well past any 135 minimums, and I still just track XC the Private Pilot way - 50 nm and a landing.
Yes, but did you annotate those flights that did not involve the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems? ;)
 
I’ve always logged anything with a landing elsewhere than the takeoff point as cross country, with no differentiation for other definitions. (I think my shortest cross country flight is two miles, and it was logged pretty regularly.) When I filled out an 8710, I simply didn’t include flights that didn’t obviously meet the requirements for the certificate/rating I was getting. I’ve never had an examiner or inspector question the validity of the times, but I’ve also only taken one checkride with anything close to minimum flight time requirements (I did my Commercial checkride at 252 hours,) and with the exception of my first IFR 135 job, my cross country time always exceeded requirements by a fair margin.
 
Yes, but did you annotate those flights that did not involve the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems? ;)

Sometimes I just take off, point a random direction, find an airport and land.

Wait, that "finding an airport" part still involves pilotage.

I suppose no-gyro radar vectors from takeoff to a PAR approach might not use any of the things in that sentence.
 
Yes, but did you annotate those flights that did not involve the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems? ;)

Not trying to be difficult, but I am having trouble imagining a flight that does not involve at least one of those elements.

If you look the DG or wet compass even once during the flight, then that's part of dead reckoning and/or pilotage. Looking out the windows to see the airport and correct your heading to go towards it, that is pilotage.

Even RussR's scenario of
I suppose no-gyro radar vectors from takeoff to a PAR approach might not use any of the things in that sentence.
may not disqualify a flight because of the simple means of "how are you receiving those vectors?" I really suspect that the actual comm radio itself would count as a radio aid in that scenario.

I guess if you maybe put cardboard over the non-engine instruments on instrument panel, turned off all radios, and blacked out the windows* you might be able to achieving the goal, but short of that I'm not sure you can.

* I almost wrote "wear foggles" but we all know with foggles you can occasionally see out of the corner of them and if you can verify the ground is down, even unintentionally, that might risk accusation of pilotage.
 
You are fine. How you do YOUR logbook is TOTALLY up to you. As long as there’s a method explainable, and the time/flights you use are faa legal (date, a/c, places, etc…) you are fine.

They don’t care about verification as much as you signing it.

Employers verify more than the FAA does, so there’s that.
 
I agree with @RussR.

You are raising a bookkeeping issue rather than a regulatory one. It's too bad you did not use a logbook with a spare column or two you could use for at least two of the types. And, of course, an electronic logbook, even if solely a backup, would be helpful. But so long as you have identified them in some way, your biggest issue is running accurate (or at least not misleading) totals if an application asks for them.
 
Yes, but did you annotate those flights that did not involve the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems? ;)

And just HOW do you fly to another airport without using at least one of those?????

Even if you follow a road, that is pilotage.
 
What you are doing sounds fine to me. You have marked those that do not qualify in your old logbook.

You will transfer the totals to the proper columns in your new log book.

I also suggest an electronic log book. I am very happy with Safe Log Pro. And when you add the flights from your first log book, you can log the XC appropriatedly
 
logbooks are a funny thing. Those of us that want to put everything in the box that it belongs in are in for a hard time.

this Xcountry decrepancy is one thing
high performance/complex is another...for example if you flew an apache 150 before some point in 1997
pic time vs student solo time
landings..vs night landings vs day landings (my logbook doesn't have all those columns...
at some point I need a column for conventional gear....not in my logbook
etc...

at some point you've just got to let go of the perfection...kinda like the pilots that no longer even log every flight.
 
logbooks are a funny thing. Those of us that want to put everything in the box that it belongs in are in for a hard time.

this Xcountry decrepancy is one thing
high performance/complex is another...for example if you flew an apache 150 before some point in 1997
pic time vs student solo time
landings..vs night landings vs day landings (my logbook doesn't have all those columns...
at some point I need a column for conventional gear....not in my logbook
etc...

at some point you've just got to let go of the perfection...kinda like the pilots that no longer even log every flight.
Some things we log have nothing to do with the FAA. Others are bookkeeping choices - ours and the logbook publisher. Just using your examples
  • There are plenty of reasons to log tailwheel vs HP vs complex vs TAA but none of those are mentioned in 61.51 nor required to be tracked by the FAA except for limited purposes. Doesn't require a column - just an easy reliable way to identify them in the entries, although a column can be convenient (bookkeeping).
  • Landings vs day landings - who cares? I've seen "Day" landings in paper and electronic logbooks. I can't figure out a good reason why.
  • Night landings are easy enough to differentiate without extra columns and, after all, you are only looking back 90 days and only need to find 3.
  • It's not even PIC vs student solo - it's PIC vs solo. Student solos are loggable as PIC but if you are looking toward a commercial certificate, you still need to be able to identify solo flights.
 
It's not even PIC vs student solo - it's PIC vs solo. Student solos are loggable as PIC but if you are looking toward a commercial certificate, you still need to be able to identify solo flights.
And when you put these numbers on an 8710, the FAA assumes that the “PIC” block includes whatever number you have in the “Solo” block.

Don’t ask me how I know, but the Fed who was observing the checkride got it wrong, too. ;)
 
And when you put these numbers on an 8710, the FAA assumes that the “PIC” block includes whatever number you have in the “Solo” block.

Don’t ask me how I know, but the Fed who was observing the checkride got it wrong, too. ;)
You know because 61.51 says so.
 
You know because 61.51 says so.
61.51 says “may”. FAA assumes “will”. Applicant did the e-logbook equivalent of following the magenta line without validating the route.

And apparently the FAA budget ran out before the IACRA programmers figured it out.
 
Last edited:
61.51 says “may”. FAA assumes “will”. Applicant did the e-logbook equivalent of following the magenta line without validating the route.

And apparently the FAA budget ran out before the IACRA programmers figured it out.
I don't get it. Really. I would automatically assume that PIC on an 8710 means PIC that was logged in accordance with 61.51, not some definition we made up on our own. I guess others would think differently. :dunno:
 
I don't get it. Really. I would automatically assume that PIC on an 8710 means PIC that was logged in accordance with 61.51, not some definition we made up on our own. I guess others would think differently. :dunno:
It’s still in accordance with 61.51.
 
IIRC, this is a change.

When I was as student, I could log solo but not PIC until I got my PPL. Then I could log solo in any category and class as PIC.

They also clarified the XC for military. Mainly for the fighter/attack guys. We would fly out hundreds of miles and back, but not land except at home field. There was a letter that allowed logging it as XC, but I see that is now in the regs to allow it.
 
It’s still in accordance with 61.51.
Like I said, I just don't get the regulatory analysis that would separate PIC time from PIC time in the 8710.

OTOH, so long as the 8710 reflects enough to show you qualify for what you are applying for, I guess it doesn't make a difference what you put in.
 
I already have an asterisk (*) next to each XC flight that does not count towards any rating outside of my ATP.
What ratings are you going for other than ATP?

And yeah, going electronic is the correct answer.
 
I don't get it. Really. I would automatically assume that PIC on an 8710 means PIC that was logged in accordance with 61.51, not some definition we made up on our own. I guess others would think differently. :dunno:

I suspect what @MauleSkinner is referring to is the use of the word "may" in 61.51e(4): (MS, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.)

(4) A student pilot may log pilot-in-command time only when the student pilot -

(i) Is the sole occupant of the aircraft or is performing the duties of pilot of command of an airship requiring more than one pilot flight crewmember;

(ii) Has a solo flight endorsement as required under § 61.87 of this part; and

(iii) Is undergoing training for a pilot certificate or rating.

Which is an interesting wording of the (presumed) intent that "student solo = PIC". A literal reading here means that the solo student pilot could log solo time but not PIC time if they desired. I have no idea why they would want to do this, but it definitely follows the rules.
 
I have no idea why they would want to do this
Personally, I prefer my logbook to reflect “acting” rather than just “logging”. Plus, for us old guys with paper logbooks, it makes it more obvious at the bottom of the page if a math error exists.
 
I suspect what @MauleSkinner is referring to is the use of the word "may" in 61.51e(4): (MS, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.)



Which is an interesting wording of the (presumed) intent that "student solo = PIC". A literal reading here means that the solo student pilot could log solo time but not PIC time if they desired. I have no idea why they would want to do this, but it definitely follows the rules.
61.51(b)(2) says you must log the type of pilot experience for each flight logged. But I don't think you're actually required to log any flight if you don't want to.
 
Maybe to make is easier on people who logged their solo, pre-PPL, as just solo and not having to go back and also log it as PIC, which means fixing EVERY page of EVERY logbook. For something that no long makes any difference (plenty of PIC for any rating).
 
I suspect what @MauleSkinner is referring to is the use of the word "may" in 61.51e(4): (MS, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.)
I was just responding to the apparent surprise that the FAA would expect time countable as PIC to be included in the PIC field. But in terms of "may," you don't have to log any flight you don't want to but...

61.51(b) Logbook entries. For the purposes of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, each person must enter the following information for each flight or lesson logged:

(1) General—
***

(2) Type of pilot experience or training—

(i) Solo.

(ii) Pilot in command.
***

i stopped logging solo at all after the commercial since I didn't need it, but I also didn't deduct it from my PIC time. That's the part I don't get.​
 
True. But when the FAA feels a need to verify it's often bad news.
I have no idea how it’s done today, but back when I got my ATP you needed an appointment with the FAA to have a logbook audit. The successful audit was your sign off to take the written. You also needed a first class medical just to take the written.
 
I have no idea how it’s done today, but back when I got my ATP you needed an appointment with the FAA to have a logbook audit. The successful audit was your sign off to take the written. You also needed a first class medical just to take the written.
Today the examiner audits the logbook before the checkride (I wish the FAA still did it.)
 
Today the examiner audits the logbook before the checkride (I wish the FAA still did it.)
So now it’s before the actual ride, not just the written?

If I recall correctly, the audit was needed as a sign off to take the written.
I guess things change over the years.
 
I have no idea how it’s done today, but back when I got my ATP you needed an appointment with the FAA to have a logbook audit. The successful audit was your sign off to take the written. You also needed a first class medical just to take the written.
Unless it's an examiner during a checkride, and then only to see if the pilot meets qualifications, I would be very surprised to see the FAA audit a logbook outside of a deviation investigation.
 
Back
Top