Logbook question

FlyBoyAndy

FlyBoyAndy

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Messages
212
Location
Syracuse, NY
Display Name
Display name:
FlyBoyAndy
I was thumbing through my logbook recently and noticed that I did not make an entry in the cross country section for several of my entries. I just wasn't thinking about it I guess. I am now contemplating getting my instrument rating so I want to make sure that the 50 hours cross country PIC are met.

Is the correct process for adding those hours in the book to enter them and then place a strike through the page totals and make the change?

Thanks
 
It's not specified for pilot logbooks.

The most important thing is that the examiner can read and understand it.

The accounting-style single line strikethrough works.
 
Thanks. I did read part 61.51 but nothing mentioned about "mistakes" or changes.
 
Yes. A single strike will work. Remember, your logbook is a legal document and should look professional and presentable.
 
Yup, I've always done a single line through with the correction next to it, then initial next to that. No biggie.
 
If they are way back in your logbook, I wouldn't go through every page making the correction in the totals.

Just strike it through or add the hours if you left the XC time blank, then go to the last page where you totaled, strike it through, and add them there with a note of what dates the correction came from. There's enough bottom margin in my logbook to do this.

I'm a bit OCD so this drives me nuts (I wish I could just fix every total), but it's the only clean way to do it.
 
Another way is to just make a new entry with the correction factor referencing the previous entries where the omissions occurred. After all there is really only one TOTAL, all previous totals are basically irrelevant.
 
Use pencil and erase mistakes, write a short line that mistake was corrected. Then initial.




Ink fades after some years. I have some documents from the 1870s that were all signed in pencil. The signatures look as good now as the day they were signed.
 
Last edited:
Zeldman said:
Use pencil and erase mistakes, write a short line that mistake was corrected. Then initial.
Click to expand...
I stopped running totals at all in my paper logbook 10 years ago, unless I was asked to. That happened once, 8 years ago.

That's mostly because I had bee using an eLog for about 10 years before that and realized it made more sense to leave the page totals blank and run electronic totals as needed.

But I agree with you that if your logbook is only paper, pencil for totals is the way to go.
 
The student pilot portion of my logbook was a mess as I learned how to properly enter numbers in the columns and, well, add.

I ended up using a white-out tape dispenser to clean it up. Yes, you're covering content vs a single line strikethrough, but it looks a bit better, imho. Initials next to every error.

I haven't updated my logs since my checkride as I now do everything in Excel. This is a nice double-check for when I go back and have to enter 20 pages manually when my Instrument checkride is due.
 
If you are going to do the single strike and update method of the XC total (perfectly acceptable) I would suggest you do the line item modifications in a different color pen so if it is questioned by the DPE (which it may very well be) it is simple to go back and show him "Those flights with the XC in green ink are the ones I originally forgot to log as cross country." The easier and more transparent you make it to understand, the better off you are.
 
Silvaire said:
Another way is to just make a new entry with the correction factor referencing the previous entries where the omissions occurred. After all there is really only one TOTAL, all previous totals are basically irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I like this method as it does not require a bunch of strikethroughs or white out which might make your log look sloppy. The only thing I would add to this suggestion is that all of the cross country time entries that you enter on previous pages be marked in someway so that anyone auditing your book will see where the totalizing entry came from. This can be done with a different color ink (as Henning suggested), highlighting or an asterisk. Just decide on some descriptive verbiage to put in the totalizing entry that explains it all well.
 
I was told a long time ago that only the individual flight entries had to should be in ink. The totals at the bottom of the page should be in pencil for just this reason. It has really saved some headaches. Especially after I duplicated my logbook in SafeLog and discovered a few math errors.

If I need to prove anything, print out a report from SafeLog, and then have the original pen&ink entries to back it up.
 
Last edited:
wilkersk said:
I was told a long time ago that only the individual flight entries had to be in ink. The totals at the bottom of the page should be in pencil for just this reason. It has really saved some headaches. Especially after I duplicated my logbook in SafeLog and discovered a few math errors.

If I need to prove anything, print out a report from SafeLog, and then have the original pen&ink entries to back it up.
Click to expand...

There has never, ever been a requirement to use ink. There has never, ever been a requirement to use a logbook.

One could use Piggly Wiggly paper grocery sacks and write in crayon and it would be perfectly legal.
 
RotorAndWing said:
There has never, ever been a requirement to use ink. There has never, ever been a requirement to use a logbook.

One could use Piggly Wiggly paper grocery sacks and write in crayon and it would be perfectly legal.
Click to expand...

Not up for splitting hairs today. Let's just say this method was suggested to me as a way to make it easier to get through a check-ride.
 
RotorAndWing said:
There has never, ever been a requirement to use ink. There has never, ever been a requirement to use a logbook.

One could use Piggly Wiggly paper grocery sacks and write in crayon and it would be perfectly legal.
Click to expand...

I don't think the FAA would consider Piggly Wiggly to be kosher.:D

Besides the following really does seem to require that we use logbooks. :

Sec. 61.51 — Pilot logbooks.

(a) Training time and aeronautical experience. Each person must document and record the following time in a manner acceptable to the Administrator:

(1) Training and aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate, rating, or flight review of this part.
(2) The aeronautical experience required for meeting the recent flight experience requirements of this part.
(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—
(i) Date.
(ii) Total flight time or lesson time.
(iii) Location where the aircraft departed and arrived, or for lessons in a flight simulator or flight training device, the location where the lesson occurred.
(iv) Type and identification of aircraft, flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device, as appropriate.
(v) The name of a safety pilot, if required by §91.109(b) of this chapter.
(2) Type of pilot experience or training—

It goes on but I think you see the point that the use of the terms logbook and logbook entries in the FAR makes it clear that is what the FAA wants.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I don't think the FAA would consider Piggly Wiggly to be kosher.:D

Besides the following really does seem to require that we use logbooks. :

Sec. 61.51 — Pilot logbooks.

(a) Training time and aeronautical experience. Each person must document and record the following time in a manner acceptable to the Administrator:

(1) Training and aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate, rating, or flight review of this part.
(2) The aeronautical experience required for meeting the recent flight experience requirements of this part.
(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—
(i) Date.
(ii) Total flight time or lesson time.
(iii) Location where the aircraft departed and arrived, or for lessons in a flight simulator or flight training device, the location where the lesson occurred.
(iv) Type and identification of aircraft, flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device, as appropriate.
(v) The name of a safety pilot, if required by §91.109(b) of this chapter.
(2) Type of pilot experience or training—

It goes on but I think you see the point that the use of the terms logbook and logbook entries in the FAR makes it clear that is what the FAA wants.
Click to expand...
I think all the FAA "wants" is a record of flight time that is clear and doesn't require gymnastics (mental or physical) to review to determine your qualifications and currency. "Logbook" is just a simple and concise way of saying that, and the traditional bound formbook sold by Jepp, ASA znd others, just the standardized way of accomplishing that.

Crayon on Piggly Wiggly bag may be in the "technically yes but...group along with the contract written on toilet paper, the negotiable check written on a a 3' wide piece of foam board, and handing a shopping bag of unsorted receipts to the IRS agent for an audit. Not particularly practical or useful but a good illustration of how not to get too anal about formality.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I don't think the FAA would consider Piggly Wiggly to be kosher.:D

Besides the following really does seem to require that we use logbooks. :

Sec. 61.51 — Pilot logbooks.

(a) Training time and aeronautical experience. Each person must document and record the following time in a manner acceptable to the Administrator:

(1) Training and aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate, rating, or flight review of this part.
(2) The aeronautical experience required for meeting the recent flight experience requirements of this part.
(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—
(i) Date.
(ii) Total flight time or lesson time.
(iii) Location where the aircraft departed and arrived, or for lessons in a flight simulator or flight training device, the location where the lesson occurred.
(iv) Type and identification of aircraft, flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device, as appropriate.
(v) The name of a safety pilot, if required by §91.109(b) of this chapter.
(2) Type of pilot experience or training—

It goes on but I think you see the point that the use of the terms logbook and logbook entries in the FAR makes it clear that is what the FAA wants.
Click to expand...

Please find the FAA definition for "logbook".

Here is Merriam Webster:

Logbook: noun a written record of activity, events, or travel.

So could a logbook be a spiral wound school notebook? a diary? a business journal? a homemade book using Piggly Wiggly sacks?

If someone shows up for a 44709 evaluation with an Inspector and presents this (filled out with required information)
spiral_notebook_paper_page_zps1zgags7p.jpg

or this (again, filled out with required information)

logbook-month_zpsnh0ozhow.jpg


is the airman in violation of 61.51???

People bemoan about "over regulation" of aviation, but then try to take simple regulations and read too much into them. :dunno:
 
RotorAndWing said:
People bemoan about "over regulation" of aviation, but then try to take simple regulations and read too much into them. :dunno:
Click to expand...
I think I do know.

I see the same thing, on a lot of subjects. For a long time had the same :dunno: question, scratching my head over questions that seemed so simple. But then I recall that I (and you) have the advantage of working with the system.

There are regulations that require pretty strict reading with attention to the detail of paragraphs, cross-references, and tight FAA definitions; there are others that can be read more loosely and are pretty much plain English.

As the serenity blessing goes, it's nice to have the "wisdom to know the difference." But that's not easy without some experience.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I think I do know.

I see the same thing, on a lot of subjects. For a long time had the same :dunno: question, scratching my head over questions that seemed so simple. But then I recall that I (and you) have the advantage of working with the system.

There are regulations that require pretty strict reading with attention to the detail of paragraphs, cross-references, and tight FAA definitions; there are others that can be read more loosely and are pretty much plain English.

As the serenity blessing goes, it's nice to have the "wisdom to know the difference." But that's not easy without some experience.
Click to expand...

Fortunately the recent "easing" of the compliance and enforcement process and moving towards a risk management approach will give the field offices more latitude in approaching these matters.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Fortunately the recent "easing" of the compliance and enforcement process and moving towards a risk management approach will give the field offices more latitude in approaching these matters.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it will take a long time before people have confidence that the "kinder, friendlier FAA" is a reality, even though I've already seen it in the works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top