Inadvertent regulation error

[poadeleted20]

How does one tell if that's the instructor's original signature or a forged copy?

 

[SkyHog]

How does one tell if that's the instructor's original signature or a forged copy?

How does one do that in a paper logbook, Ron?

edit: and a new question....

The federal government is required to allow electronic alternatives to paper stuff to save trees.....

So, why can I not carry a scanned copy of my Medical around with me instead of the physical paper?

 

[TMetzinger]

It's reasonable to assume the electronic log should be acceptable. Until one gets challenged and reviewed by an ALJ, though, it's still undefined.

 

[LearDriver]

How does one do that in a paper logbook, Ron?

edit: and a new question....

The federal government is required to allow electronic alternatives to paper stuff to save trees.....

So, why can I not carry a scanned copy of my Medical around with me instead of the physical paper?

I think you answered your own question. Federal Government is involved.

 

[Everskyward]

So, why can I not carry a scanned copy of my Medical around with me instead of the physical paper?

Aren't you still using paper when you print your scanned medical? Or do you mean you carry around a file on your PDA or something.

 

[SkyHog]

Aren't you still using paper when you print your scanned medical? Or do you mean you carry around a file on your PDA or something.

I meant on the PDA that I always have with me when I fly (my phone). Would be a lot better to not worry about it being damaged....

 

[poadeleted20]

How does one do that in a paper logbook, Ron?

Pretty easy to tell if it's an original rather than photocopied in. As for forgeries, that's not all that hard for the experts. And yes, there have been a few cases before the NTSB involving forged signatures.

The federal government is required to allow electronic alternatives to paper stuff to save trees.....

So, why can I not carry a scanned copy of my Medical around with me instead of the physical paper?

Because they want to be certain nobody's flying around with a copy after their original was suspended/revoked (both of which requiring handing in the actual certificate).

 

[gprellwitz]

Pretty easy to tell if it's an original rather than photocopied in. As for forgeries, that's not all that hard for the experts. And yes, there have been a few cases before the NTSB involving forged signatures.
Because they want to be certain nobody's flying around with a copy after their original was suspended/revoked (both of which requiring handing in the actual certificate).

But when I got a medical direct from OKC, it was laser printed. How do you tell the original in that case?

I'd like to believe (but don't) that this whole system operates on honesty and trust.

 

[SkyHog]

Pretty easy to tell if it's an original rather than photocopied in. As for forgeries, that's not all that hard for the experts. And yes, there have been a few cases before the NTSB involving forged signatures.

Gotcha. I think they'd be able to tell with a forged scan too....unfortunately, only way to know is to try to use one and see what the FAA says.

Because they want to be certain nobody's flying around with a copy after their original was suspended/revoked (both of which requiring handing in the actual certificate).

Makes sense. That's something I'd like to see changed...somehow. I have no idea how though.

 

[gprellwitz]

Because they want to be certain nobody's flying around with a copy after their original was suspended/revoked (both of which requiring handing in the actual certificate).

Makes sense. That's something I'd like to see changed...somehow. I have no idea how though.

How about with them being able to look up the validity of a certificate like the police do with drivers licenses?

 

[TMetzinger]

How about with them being able to look up the validity of a certificate like the police do with drivers licenses?

They can, back at the office. But to do it remotely would require a level of tech the FAA doesn't have yet, and a level of computer proficiency it's inspectors don't have either!

They could always call back to the office or to OK city for a records check, just like cops without carcomps do now. But judging by the staffing I see at the Washington FSDO, I'm not sure anyone would answer.

 

[gprellwitz]

They can, back at the office. But to do it remotely would require a level of tech the FAA doesn't have yet, and a level of computer proficiency it's inspectors don't have either!

They could always call back to the office or to OK city for a records check, just like cops without carcomps do now. But judging by the staffing I see at the Washington FSDO, I'm not sure anyone would answer.

Well, Nick said he had no idea how it could change. This is at least one way.

 

[poadeleted20]

Gotcha. I think they'd be able to tell with a forged scan too....unfortunately, only way to know is to try to use one and see what the FAA says.

I don't have the technical knowledge to know whether you can tell a scan of an original from a scan of a scan. I think that may be one reason e-signatures like we use on IACRA use passwords, not handwriting. In that regard, I'm not sure the scanned signature e-log system described above meets Federal e-signature standards for security and forgery prevention, but I'd be interested to hear if anyone's checked on that.

 

[poadeleted20]

But when I got a medical direct from OKC, it was laser printed. How do you tell the original in that case?

I think the experts can tell the difference between an original printing and a scanned copy.

 

[TMetzinger]

I don't have the technical knowledge to know whether you can tell a scan of an original from a scan of a scan. I think that may be one reason e-signatures like we use on IACRA use passwords, not handwriting. In that regard, I'm not sure the scanned signature e-log system described above meets Federal e-signature standards for security and forgery prevention, but I'd be interested to hear if anyone's checked on that.

A digitally altered photograph can generally be detected by computer forensics.
The federal e-signature standards were purposely vague on this - individual agencies are permitted to impose tighter restrictions for specific business purposes.

The highest standard is a cryptographic-based digital signature using a biometric token issued with a face-to-face verification of identity at enrollment.

A medium standard would be a password-based signature with online proof of identity (i.e. via a credit card or social security number or other piece of information the subject has or knows).

A low standard would be a scanned image of a signature, digital ink, or inserting intials into a field.

Since the "value" of pilot logbook entries would probably be considered low when compared to maintenance logs, medical records, prescriptions, or purchase orders, they probably wouldn't impose a high degree of rigor on the electronic records.

But it's early days, and this is a fundamental shift in thinking about trust, so expect changes and confusion and such for the next generation or so.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I think the experts can tell the difference between an original printing and a scanned copy.

And you'd be wrong, assuming by "experts" you mean the FAA and not forensics people with microscopes. If you do the scan right and do some minor touch-up to fix any issues with it, you can easily make a copy indistinguishable from the original, with the exception of things like seals. Easily, meaning I can do it. I had a friend in college who was VERY good at it - He somehow ended up with free parking in the dorms. Do the right things on the computer and print it on the right stock with the right printer, you'll never know the difference. I've even seen duplicates of documents printed on a color printer where a ballpoint pen signature looked convincing.

 

[poadeleted20]

A digitally altered photograph can generally be detected by computer forensics.
The federal e-signature standards were purposely vague on this - individual agencies are permitted to impose tighter restrictions for specific business purposes.

The highest standard is a cryptographic-based digital signature using a biometric token issued with a face-to-face verification of identity at enrollment.

A medium standard would be a password-based signature with online proof of identity (i.e. via a credit card or social security number or other piece of information the subject has or knows).

A low standard would be a scanned image of a signature, digital ink, or inserting intials into a field.

Since the "value" of pilot logbook entries would probably be considered low when compared to maintenance logs, medical records, prescriptions, or purchase orders, they probably wouldn't impose a high degree of rigor on the electronic records.

Three points:

• The FAA already requires the "medium" standard for IACRA.
• Forged signatures in pilot records are grounds for revocation.
• There is no significant difference in the cases I've seen regarding forged/falsified signatures in pilot logbooks versus aircraft records -- death penalty (well, revocation, actually) for all, pilots and mechanics alike.

Therefore, I don't see the FAA accepting the "low" standard for pilot logbooks, but we'll see what happens.

 

[TMetzinger]

Three points:

• The FAA already requires the "medium" standard for IACRA.
• Forged signatures in pilot records are grounds for revocation.
• There is no significant difference in the cases I've seen regarding forged/falsified signatures in pilot logbooks versus aircraft records -- death penalty (well, revocation, actually) for all, pilots and mechanics alike.

Therefore, I don't see the FAA accepting the "low" standard for pilot logbooks, but we'll see what happens.

Yep, but unless they have done or do rulemaking, low is acceptable according to the overall law. Oh, and the identity verification part of IACRA is fairly weak - I'm not sure it would meet the medium standard.

We could keep discussing, but the bottom line is - until they violate someone, or formally issue standards - nobody knows.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yep, but unless they have done or do rulemaking, low is acceptable according to the overall law.

They have done the rulemaking, and the rule (14 CFR 61.51) says it must be "in a manner acceptable to the Administrator," with the Chief Counsel making the interpretation of that rule. So far, the only e-signature system established as "acceptable to the Administrator" is the medium-level one in IACRA.

 

[Palmpilot]

Sorry for the late reply - I only just now saw your post.

Since there is no requirement to sign one's logbook, I don't see why initialling a correction would be necessary.

Who made the correction? You? Somebody who was doodling in your logbook? And while there's no requirement to sign the log on a regular basis, the FAA won't consider it official until you certify its accuracy by signing it appropriately.

If you're talking about an after the fact signed certification, then it seems to me that certification would apply to the entire logbook in whatever state it was in, including whatever corrections were present in it at the time of signing. If there were anything in it that I knew to be incorrect, then the certification would have to specify the exceptions.

The explanation that was given to me for why signing one's logbook is not necessary was that the regs just require "a reliable record," and don't say anything about "a signed record." Since then I always figured that what makes it reliable is my willingness to vouch for its reliability. I guess the wording has changed since then. Has the administrator come out with any guidance on what is acceptable, and specifically whether signing one's own logbook and initialling changes are required?

 

[EdFred]

Missed this entertainment the first time around. Fun read

As to the original post....who said you were ACTING as PIC on the night flight? Maybe you went up flying with another pilot who was night current.