Is there really no way to add column to foreflight pdf??

SkyHog said:
Also - I've challenged our lawyers a few times on the concept of "wet ink being the only valid representation of a physical signature" without that language - while the lawyers insist it is true, I have not yet found any case law that would support that a copy of a signature (with full context of what was originally signed) is not a valid signature....I would then argue that the graphical representation that both ForeFlight and MFB display for signatures are as valid as the ink signature in a paper logbook.
Click to expand...
AC-120-78B goes into a lot of detail on this. As a practical matter, I think you're absolutely correct. But the AC does describe in a lot of detail things like non-refutability, signature association, etc., that technically I don't think a photocopy meets without some sort of subsequent attestation (as you suggested about language that photocopies are OK, or you signing that the original logbook was lost, or that you affirm that the image is true and correct, or ...).

I fully agree with you - wet ink is NOT a requirement!!! And AC-120-78B is also perfectly clear - ink is not required! And yet occasionally (but thankfully exceedingly rarely!) I hear of luddite written exam proctors who won't accept them. Fortunately, in 20 years of MyFlightbook, I don't think I've once heard of a DPE insisting on ink.

That said, when I spoke to AA airlines last year about logbooks, they want to see all originals. So, for example, if your logbook is digital signatures, that's great. But if you have records that were originally signed with ink, they want to see those too - precisely to my point not that the ink is what matters per se (it doesn't!) but rather than what was originally done - be it ink or digital - is what truly matters. They want all originals.
 
RussR said:
As another data point to possibly assuage your concern about flight review endorsements and such:

The last endorsement I have in a paper logbook is from 2022, and it is a flight review and IPC endorsement from some insurance training I received.

I also have zero electronic endorsements of sign-offs for anything since in my MFB logbook, not even flight reviews or IPCs.

But I am still legal.

I have had flight reviews and IPCs since then (quite a few actually), but the sign-offs for those are provided in a separate document. In most of these the "endorsement" was provided by CAE or FlightSafety as a result of passing recurrent simulator training in the form of a training report and a "Pro Card". This is perfectly legit and well established.

This is to say that even if you don't have a paper logbook and your CFI doesn't want to provide an electronic signature for some reason, they can still provide the endorsement in a separate form.
Click to expand...
Indeed. My last paper entry was in 2010 or so. I've had numerous endorsements, flight reviews, etc. since then. Heck, last year I got my ATP and 737 type rating - not a drop of wet ink was spilled!!
 
EricBe said:
This is a lot of angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin, and as a practical matter, I've yet to ever hear someone have an issue if they lose a logbook.
Click to expand...
That’s ultimately the point. The FAA has had written policies for lost paper logbooks for decades. I was writing about that stuff more than 20 years ago. There’s no reason they would not apply to eLogs.
 
SkyHog said:
Also - I've challenged our lawyers a few times on the concept of "wet ink being the only valid representation of a physical signature" without that language - while the lawyers insist it is true, I have not yet found any case law that would support that a copy of a signature (with full context of what was originally signed) is not a valid signature....I would then argue that the graphical representation that both ForeFlight and MFB display for signatures are as valid as the ink signature in a paper logbook.
Click to expand...
Interesting. So, if I find something you signed in ink, copy and paste it into another document, it’s “just as valid” as the original?

Yes, that what it comes down to … It’s not about the ordinary course of business. It’s whether the act of signing can be shown to have taken place if it is challenged, if someone say, “no, I did not sign that.” A photograph of a signature, whether wet ink or digital, does not contain any self validation capability. The “real” signature does, even if it’s just the impression the pen makes on the paper. The whole idea of the rules surrounding digital signatures is validation. Pull up a digitally-signed pdf, and look at the signature information.

You mentioned the language often seen in contracts making copies as valid as the originals. The reason is the old “best evidence rule,” which requires the production of originals, not copies, when validity is an issue. Parties used to wet sign multiple duplicates so everyone has an original. The “as valid” language is an attempt to overcome that when there is one wet original, but it’s being scanned and everyone is getting a copy. Full circle… with digitally signed contracts in pdf, everyone has an original. It was fun for me to have practiced as this was morphing.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Interesting. So, if I find something you signed in ink, copy and paste it into another document, it’s “just as valid” as the original?
Click to expand...
No. That's why I keep including "with full context."

If you photocopy an entire document (or entry) I've signed, you can reproduce it a million times and each time it's a representation of exactly that thing I signed.

Same as if I apply that signature to an electronic look book and it's printed. My signature applies Only that that item no matter how many times it's copied.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Interesting. So, if I find something you signed in ink, copy and paste it into another document, it’s “just as valid” as the original?

Yes, that what it comes down to … It’s not about the ordinary course of business. It’s whether the act of signing can be shown to have taken place if it is challenged, if someone say, “no, I did not sign that.” A photograph of a signature, whether wet ink or digital, does not contain any self validation capability. The “real” signature does, even if it’s just the impression the pen makes on the paper. The whole idea of the rules surrounding digital signatures is validation. Pull up a digitally-signed pdf, and look at the signature information.

You mentioned the language often seen in contracts making copies as valid as the originals. The reason is the old “best evidence rule,” which requires the production of originals, not copies, when validity is an issue. Parties used to wet sign multiple duplicates so everyone has an original. The “as valid” language is an attempt to overcome that when there is one wet original, but it’s being scanned and everyone is getting a copy. Full circle… with digitally signed contracts in pdf, everyone has an original. It was fun for me to have practiced as this was morphing.
Click to expand...
BTW, you're making the same argument I keep point out to our lawyers contains no case law. It's all theoretical law. I have not yet seen a single case where a photocopied original document containing a signature is held as being invalid simply because it was a photocopy (excluding real fraud where there were other indicators of tampering).
 
Btw, not lost on me - this discussion is a really good reason that the FAA should explore the use of a blockchain for endorsements and signatures...
 
SkyHog said:
BTW, you're making the same argument I keep point out to our lawyers contains no case law. It's all theoretical law. I have not yet seen a single case where a photocopied original document containing a signature is held as being invalid simply because it was a photocopy (excluding real fraud where there were other indicators of tampering).
Click to expand...
Well sure. If everyone agrees it’s valid, there’s not going to be a case holding that it’s not. That’s the way court works - resolving disputes. No dispute, nothing to be resolved. Heck, it doesn’t need to be signed at all. And nothing written is required at all.

So you think your lawyers are wrong for saying that when it is an issue, “the original” is what’s needed? That’s their job. Attempting to deal with issues that arise when people do not agree.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Well sure. If everyone agrees it’s valid, there’s not going to be a case holding that it’s not. That’s the way court works - resolving disputes. No dispute, nothing to be resolved. Heck, it doesn’t need to be signed at all. And nothing written is required at all.

So you think your lawyers are wrong for saying that when it is an issue, “the original” is what’s needed? That’s their job. Attempting to deal with issues that arise when people do not agree.
Click to expand...
Not at all - what I'm saying is that I have not seen a case yet where a dispute over a photocopied signature in its original context has occurred where it was held invalid EXCEPT where the claim was that it had been tampered, and there was evidence of tampering.

In other words, the exact same argument that exists if someone were to try to modify a wet ink signature with wet ink applies if someone were to try to modify a wet ink signature by photocopying and altering.

But the photocopy itself, unaltered, has not (to the best of my research) been found to be invalid yet in any recorded case.

Which makes sense if you think about it - the copy is simply a record of what happened and contains its own evidence of tampering if tampered with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top