Not Logging

I'm done trying to teach this guy. If you want to know why, see "Law of Readiness" in the AIH. I only hope his posts don't encourage anyone else to try to invent their own interpretations of regulations the Chief Counsel has already interpreted.
 
I think that Ron is saying, and the regs bear him out, that IF the instructor gives instruction, and he logs same, then there should be an equivelant record in the SAID student logbook. Should said student logbook not exist, it appears the FAA will disqualify the time. That does not mean the instructor does not log it, it just means he can't use the time for additional ratings or for existing qualifications.
Isn't that kind of like "If a tree falls in the forest, does anyone hear it."
There is nothing wrong with the instructor, then the student, signing a piece of paper to be added to the logbook should that not be available.
I can see why instructors WANT every hour they instruct logged somewhere. This is a cross check. I can write all kinds of stuff in my log. Just how do you think ANYONE can prove it happened? How about crosschecking my log with... The airplane, the instructor, the FBO, fuel purchases. Does anyone of us really think if needed, it wouldn't come down to a detailed examination of OUR LOG, ANY INSTRUCTORS LOG NOTED ABOVE, AIRCRAFT LOGS, and FBO RECEIPTS?
So the original question is if I, the stu, don't keep a log, can the instructor count it? The answer is SURE. Write whatever you want to in your OFFICIAL record. It doesn't mean it will survive scrutiny.

If the FAA suspects an instructor (or any pilot for that matter) is logging bogus time, they'll ask for his or her logbook and use it as an aid in investigating the matter. Lets say they find that an instructor logged 500 hours of dual given (or "instruction given" or whatever term you chose). There are many ways to prove whether these flights took place or not. One way would be to look at the student's logbook and see if they match, but, in the case of a student who does not keep a logbook, the absence of record of that flight DOES NOT prove that the flight did not happen. All it proves is that the student didn't log time that he didn't even need to log in the first place (which would be the case if the student wasn't training for a certificate or rating).
 
I'm done trying to teach this guy. If you want to know why, see "Law of Readiness" in the AIH. I only hope his posts don't encourage anyone else to try to invent their own interpretations of regulations the Chief Counsel has already interpreted.
Oh please, you're the one saying the FAA can go after someone because SOMEONE ELSE didn't log something that they aren't even required to log in the first place. If anyone here needs to be educated on the FARs, it's you.
 
OK, guys, this has gotten into a spitting contest. Thanks for the input.
 
Oh please, you're the one saying the FAA can go after someone because SOMEONE ELSE didn't log something that they aren't even required to log in the first place. If anyone here needs to be educated on the FARs, it's you.
Scenario: Joe Pilot attends a professional pilot program at Big Time University to obtain a degree in aviation management. During his senior year he decides to get his private pilot license. As far as he's concerned, he completed all the experience requirements for private pilot in airplanes per 61.109(a). It's at the end of his senior year and his instructor says he's completed the requirements. But, since the school year is over and he has to leave, he's told he can go to a local instructor at home and get ready for his checkride since he needed to brush up a little anyway.

He came to me. The first thing we do is audit his log book for experience requirements. We find he's short .3 hours in hood time and .7 of night flight. We also find there is no proof he ever attended ground training, either in class or individually with an instructor. It gets worse. The accumulated night flight was spread among four log entries for a total of 2.3 hours of night flight. The hood time was spread over seventeen separate flights for a total of 2.7 hours of hood time.

He tells me he knows he did a lot more night flight than that and certainly had more hood time than that. So, let's say he goes into his log and adds that time he knows he has already flown. But, there's a problem. If he puts in on a new line, it's done without an instructor's signature to certify that training took place. If he modifies an existing line, he's altering a legal record of flight experience.

There's nothing to back up that experience but his word and those instructors are no where to be found, or at least not easily or cheaply. He certainly cannot submit that log on his checkride as it would be insufficient to meet the requirements. Beside that, I won't endorse him for a checkride without those requirements met and properly certified. If I did, I'll be the one to get chewed on by a DPE or inspector.

If he makes a non-certified entry or modifies an existing line, he's violating 61.59(a)(2). His chance for a ticket goes out the window for years or possibly forever.

Even if there is an entry in line with other experience and is not certified (signed) by the instructor giving that training, it will be disallowed to meet experience requirements. Again, the student is held accountable.

Students should let the instructors make the entries and stand there until they are done. In many cases, the student is left to fill out the log after which the instructor reviews it then signs. Had all the entries been made by the student and one was left unsigned by the instructor, sadly the student pays for the lack of the instructor's signature.

That log book is your personal record of flights for purposes of experience and currency. It is entirely your responsibility to insure its accuracy and full completion of all aspects of that flight lesson, flight review, IPC or any procedure done for the purpose of currency.

The only way the instructor is responsible is if he intentionally writes a false amount of flight time such as indicating night flight training that did not take place or if he inscribes ground instruction that did not take place or some other type of training, any of which must be followed by the instructor's signature. That signature and CFI number attests to the accuracy and truthfulness of the entry. Upon such an entry, the instructor is then in violation of 61.59(a)(2). His ticket to teach is forever toast along with his pilot certificate.

Short of what I described in that last paragraph, I'm confused why the student would not be held accountable. The next time you go for a new certificate or rating, take a look at Section V on the 8710. You "certify" that all information on that form "are complete and true." That includes Section III just above it which is your experience requirements... which is based on your log book.

As for that student, we did a night cross country flight of about 2 1/2 hours, more than half of which was under the hood. His experience requirements were then complete and could be legally indicated as such in his log book. He gained a significant amount of experience and skill in VOR tracking. Furthermore, all of it was a true cross country experience from scratch rather than the cookie cutter cross countries that school's students did for every flight, both dual and solo.
 
He tells me he knows he did a lot more night flight than that and certainly had more hood time than that. So, let's say he goes into his log and adds that time he knows he has already flown. But, there's a problem. If he puts in on a new line, it's done without an instructor's signature to certify that training took place. If he modifies an existing line, he's altering a legal record of flight experience.

I agree with everything you posted, except for this part. I don't think it would be illegal for the student to change an entry in his logbook. On the 8710, the line you sign reads "I certify that these records are true to the best of my knowledge". If you honestly feel that the instructor made an error in putting 0.3 of hood when you feel like it was more like 1.0, then change it! Its all about honesty and good faith anyways. In your case you ended up doing the extra flights with him anyways, so it really didn't matter.

A few months after I got my private, I was going to do a cross country to build time for the instrument rating. For various reasons, I didn't get to the airplane until about an hour after I had originally planned to leave. I remember being kinda rushed because there was weather moving in, and I had to hurry up in order to not get stuck in the weather. I had to walk over to the maintenance hangar to get the plane because it just came back from a annual or something like that. I asked one of the guys to help me get it out of the hangar, which ended up taking an hour because, well, you know how maintenance hangars are... I remember being kinda anxious because I NEEDED TO GET GOING because the weather was coming in, and these guys were taking their sweet ol' time.

Eventually things got squared away and I started up the plane and got on my way. Once I got airborne, I didn't like what I was seeing weather wise, so I turned back. After I landed I had noticed in my haste, I forgot to write down the starting hobbs time. Normally when you forget that, you can just use what the last person used as their end hobbs time, but in this case I couldn't because it came from maintenence. So I just put down the start hobbs as 0.1 hours before my start hobbs time, and logged the flight in my logbook as 0.1 hours.

If the FAA ever went snooping, theres a chance (allbeit a very small one since it was a while ago) that they'll discover that the flight school logs don't match what I have in my logbook. As long as I can convince them my entry was logged as such to the best of my knowledge, theres nothing they can do to me.

Fast forward to a few years later. I'm going through my logbook and notice that flight. I remember starting up the plane, taxiing to the runway, doing a runup, taking off, exiting the pattern, coming back, re-entering the pattern, landing, and then taxiing back to the ramp. Theres no way I could have done all that in 0.1 hours. So I changed it to 0.4, which I felt was more accurate. This change was done in good faith, and not at all with the intent to deceive or inflate my hours.

Theres nothing illegal about changing a logbook entry if you feel the original is in error. The only thing the CFI certifies when he signs the student's logbook is that the training actually took place. The student owns his logbook and is free to change any part of it he wishes. You can't punish an instructor for something a student does to his own logbook.
 
If the FAA suspects an instructor (or any pilot for that matter) is logging bogus time, they'll ask for his or her logbook and use it as an aid in investigating the matter. Lets say they find that an instructor logged 500 hours of dual given (or "instruction given" or whatever term you chose). There are many ways to prove whether these flights took place or not. One way would be to look at the student's logbook and see if they match, but, in the case of a student who does not keep a logbook, the absence of record of that flight DOES NOT prove that the flight did not happen. All it proves is that the student didn't log time that he didn't even need to log in the first place (which would be the case if the student wasn't training for a certificate or rating).

Here's where the conundrum lies... Can the CFI log it as PIC? And yes, I'm serious.

Conditions: Let's say we have a pilot who is rated in category and class, who is sole manipulator of the controls for the entire flight, and a CFI who is also qualified but does not manipulate the controls. The CFI is giving instruction, but the rated pilot does not keep a logbook and the flight does not get logged.

The way I read the regs, the CFI *cannot log the flight at all.* Why?

Well, 61.189(a) states:

§ 61.189 Flight instructor records.

(a) A flight instructor must sign the logbook of each person to whom that instructor has given flight training or ground training.

Must. Not may. Must. If the instructor does not sign the student's logbook, the flight does not count as flight training. It's right there, in black and white.

Then, there's our favorite regulation, 61.51. Let's start by establishing two things:

§ 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.

First thing: The "trainee" pilot, sole manipulator in this test case, is NOT required to log the flight at all unless he needs it for a rating or recent experience.

§ 61.51 Pilot logbooks.

(h) Logging training time. (1) A person may log training time when that person receives training from an authorized instructor in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device.

(2) The training time must be logged in a logbook and must:

(i) Be endorsed in a legible manner by the authorized instructor; and

(ii) Include a description of the training given, the length of the training lesson, and the authorized instructor's signature, certificate number, and certificate expiration date.

Again, this time the reg says a person may (NOT must) log training time. The training time, if logged, must be logged in a logbook and signed by the instructor.

And now back to our favorite part of our favorite regulation:

§ 61.51 Pilot logbooks.

(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A sport, recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person—

(i) Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated or has privileges;

(ii) Is the sole occupant of the aircraft; or

(iii) Except for a recreational pilot, is acting as pilot in command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.
...
(3) An authorized instructor may log as pilot-in-command time all flight time while acting as an authorized instructor.

Again, note the "may" not "must." The trainee-pilot can log the flight as PIC by virtue of 61.51(e)(1)(i) if he so wishes. The instructor, had logbooks been signed, would log PIC by virtue of 61.51(e)(3). However, since the trainee-pilot's logbook was not signed, the CFI was not officially acting as an authorized instructor, and the CFI cannot log PIC. In fact, the CFI cannot log ANYTHING because (s)he also does not meet the requirements to log SIC under 61.51(f)...

§ 61.51 Pilot logbooks.

(f) Logging second-in-command flight time. A person may log second-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person:

(1) Is qualified in accordance with the second-in-command requirements of §61.55 of this part, and occupies a crewmember station in an aircraft that requires more than one pilot by the aircraft's type certificate; or

(2) Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating (if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft being flown, and more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted.

...or any other time.

Is it fair? No. Is it written in black and white? Sure is, and if you don't like it... See part 11.
 
We also find there is no proof he ever attended ground training, either in class or individually with an instructor.

Interesting....I never took a "Ground School." I read Rod Machado's book, and damned if I have anything that proves it (other than passing the written).

Citation of requirement please?
 
Interesting....I never took a "Ground School." I read Rod Machado's book, and damned if I have anything that proves it (other than passing the written).

Citation of requirement please?

I got it!

§ 61.103 Eligibility requirements: General.

To be eligible for a private pilot certificate, a person must:

(d) Receive a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor who:

(1) Conducted the training or reviewed the person's home study on the aeronautical knowledge areas listed in §61.105(b) of this part that apply to the aircraft rating sought; and

(2) Certified that the person is prepared for the required knowledge test.
 
I got it!

I have the following endorsements....do they count?

I have given Nick the ground training required by 61.105(b) and that he/she is prepared for the required knowledge test.

and

I certify that I have given Nick the ground and flight training required by 61.107(b)(1) and find him/her proficient to perform each area of operation safely as a private pilot, and that he/she is prepared for the required practical test.


That said, I have a ground training section in my logbook, and the only thing specifically listed is
6/13 | Gear System; Prop System; Complex Aircraft | 1.0
which appears to be the ground training for my Complex.
 
Last edited:
Theres nothing illegal about changing a logbook entry if you feel the original is in error. The only thing the CFI certifies when he signs the student's logbook is that the training actually took place. The student owns his logbook and is free to change any part of it he wishes. You can't punish an instructor for something a student does to his own logbook.
If there is an error, document somewhere what the error is and means by which the change was arrived at. A couple small errors can be accounted for. Several? No. You're correct in that you own the log book and you must be responsible and must be accountable for those changes with documentation of why they are done.

As for your last line, absolutely correct. It's your log book. As I described, unless the instructor intentionally made a false entry for fraudulent purposes he's off the hook. You own the book. It's your responsibility to insure its accuracy. Read that line below the signature line on every set of pages you make an entry on. You sign every page and not just the title page for a reason.
 
I have the following endorsements....do they count?

I have given Nick Brennan the ground training required by 61.105(b) and that he/she is prepared for the required knowledge test.

and

I certify that I have given Nick Brennan the ground and flight training required by 61.107(b)(1) and find him/her proficient to perform each area of operation safely as a private pilot, and that he/she is prepared for the required practical test.


That said, I have a ground training section in my logbook, and the only thing specifically listed is
6/13 | Gear System; Prop System; Complex Aircraft | 1.0
which appears to be the ground training for my Complex.
Any endorsement should comply with the wording set forth in Advisory Circular 61.65E.

As for logging ground instruction, for an instrument rating it is required per 61.65(a)(3) for knowledge which is specified in 61.65(b).

61.65 (b) Aeronautical knowledge. A person who applies for an instrument rating must have received and logged ground training from an authorized instructor or accomplished a home-study course on the following aeronautical knowledge areas that apply to the instrument rating sought:
If the training is a home study course, most provide a certificate of completion in some form that includes the endorsement to take the knowledge test.
 
Well, 61.189(a) states:
Must. Not may. Must. If the instructor does not sign the student's logbook, the flight does not count as flight training

Heres the problem. 61.189(a) basically says you must keep track of the training flights you make in a record have no control over. Its a huge loophole. Its very possible to violate someone for 61.189(b), since you're expected to keep these records in your own possession. But for (a), the student's logbook is not under your control, so you can't be held liable for those records going lost or stolen, getting destroyed, or being falsified. It's impossible to get violated. If the FAA were to come to me and say "lets see all your records", I could very easily show them the list of signoffs I've done, but how the heck am I supposed to show them my (a) records? What the heck? That doesn't even make sense. And don't even get me started on (c). Does (c) apply to (a) also? I don't see why not. Can the student erase my signature in his logbook after three years? If so, will the instruction still count? Does my PIC time still count? Can I log PIC and therefore Dual Given when flying with a student that doesnt keep a logbook after three years have passed and 61.189(a) is no longer valid? This whole section is all f'd up.

The way I see it, the FAA probably most likely meant for 61.189(a) to read:

(a) A flight instructor must be willing to sign the logbook of each person to whom that instructor has given flight training or ground training, if that person desires to keep a record of the training for the purpose of meeting flight experience requirements.
...which makes way more sense than how its written now. I really doubt the FAA intended to limit the ability of instructors to log PIC (and dual given) in the case of a student who does not desire to log the training for themselves, which they have effectively (maybe unintentially) done with the way its worded now.
 
Last edited:
I really doubt the FAA intended to limit the ability of instructors to log PIC (and dual given) in the case of a student who does not desire to log the training for themselves, which they have effectively (maybe unintentially) done with the way its worded now.

I agree... But the way it's written is the way it's written and until that is changed, what you or I *think* it should say means Jack Schitt.

I think there's more to the reason it's written the way it is... Maybe there were some time-building CFI's who were refusing to sign the logs of their trainees because they wanted only the time in their own book, and not the liability that goes along with having their training logged in the student's book? Or, it may just be poorly written. Who knows.
 
Maybe there were some time-building CFI's who were refusing to sign the logs of their trainees because they wanted only the time in their own book, and not the liability that goes along with having their training logged in the student's book? Or, it may just be poorly written. Who knows.
*raises eyebrow* if thats the case, the way I suggest they write it is exactly how they should have written it.
 
I think there's more to the reason it's written the way it is... Maybe there were some time-building CFI's who were refusing to sign the logs of their trainees because they wanted only the time in their own book, and not the liability that goes along with having their training logged in the student's book? Or, it may just be poorly written. Who knows.
That would go against the purpose of many CFIs even spending the time to train other pilots. Not only do they want the flight time, if they have any sense about them. They want their students learning and building the time and experience as well.

A good example would be those candidates who were accepted for interviews by ASA after they had 250 total time, 25 hours of multi and a CFI-initial. That was only an interview with a ride in the sim as an initial review. The candidate would be sent back to the school where they would teach and produce new pilots for various certificates.

After the candidates would accumulate another 300 hour or so, they would return to ASA again but this time with a written review by the chief CFI with regard to their success in training other pilots. A 100% pass rate with good knowledge test results would reflect a CFI who is thorough and efficient and therefore demonstrated they have met at least the FAA's level. ASA would find them to be further trainable for the airline's benefit.

Just logging time won't be enough. If the student's aren't benefiting, that will make it back to the chief CFI and of course, on to the CFI seeking to be an airline pilot.
 
I have the following endorsements....do they count?

I have given Nick Brennan the ground training required by 61.105(b) and that he/she is prepared for the required knowledge test.

and

I certify that I have given Nick Brennan the ground and flight training required by 61.107(b)(1) and find him/her proficient to perform each area of operation safely as a private pilot, and that he/she is prepared for the required practical test.
Without looking them up in 61-65E (I think they're right out of that book), I'd say "yes."
That said, I have a ground training section in my logbook, and the only thing specifically listed is
6/13 | Gear System; Prop System; Complex Aircraft | 1.0
which appears to be the ground training for my Complex.
It is only recently that the FAA got on its horse about the logging of ground training for certificates/ratings. If you showed up today for a PPL test, the examiner should want to see documentation IAW 61.51 of the ground training the instructor certified s/he gave you when s/he signed those two endorsements. That said, not all examiners do everything the FAA wants them to.
 
That matches with my recollection, Ron - we didn't log the ground work in the logbook for my certificates and ratings, just the endorsement at the end. It's only recently - last couple of years or so that ground training has been in the log as opposed to another line on the invoice.

Which brings me back to the sort of formal class that PJ will be teaching - should he issue stickers with entries for each class, or just one at the end?
 
Most formal schools like that don't put each session in the students' logs but instead issue a fancy (or sometimes not so fancy) certificate signed by the instructor at the end of training listing the areas covered and the time spent. They will put endorsement for the knowledge test either in the student's logbook, a separate letter, or on the certificate (I've seen it done each way at different schools). To my knowledge, the FAA has yet to violate anyone for using that system even though it does not appear to meet the letter of the law.
 
Most formal schools like that don't put each session in the students' logs but instead issue a fancy (or sometimes not so fancy) certificate signed by the instructor at the end of training listing the areas covered and the time spent. They will put endorsement for the knowledge test either in the student's logbook, a separate letter, or on the certificate (I've seen it done each way at different schools). To my knowledge, the FAA has yet to violate anyone for using that system even though it does not appear to meet the letter of the law.

The Part 141 PP ground school I attended provided the certificate, but at the end of each class period we would line up with logbooks in hand and Rob would sign the next line in each (we entered the topics for that class as listed on the board).
 
Thinking back to my 141 training - Jepp had a folder with the syllabus - and we logged the flights AND ground training there, as well as the flight in my log. So that probably met the letter of the rule - nothing says a student has to have a single log for flight and ground training. School still has the folder.
 
Thinking back to my 141 training - Jepp had a folder with the syllabus - and we logged the flights AND ground training there, as well as the flight in my log. So that probably met the letter of the rule - nothing says a student has to have a single log for flight and ground training. School still has the folder.

Yep -- same here.

I'm using them with my students -- each buys his own and I keep them.

Good back up and easy way to see at a glance where the holes in training are!
 
Back
Top