The trap in choosing which data to log

[Brad W]

I gte these spam newsletter emails from Flying magazine for some reason.
I usually take a quick glance at them before deleting.
Today's edition caught my eye.... an image of an old log book. I noticed the columns for engine and horsepower.


I've never logged the engine brand or model.
I never logged HP either, except I suppose inddirectly in the "High Performance" column... except a few years ago when i transcribed my logbook into a spreadsheet I researched all the tail numbers and recorded the aircraft serial numbers and horsepower...I suppose mainly for trivial reasons. For purposes of the actual logbook though I see little purpose in it

anyway, I just thought it's an interesting trap. My mind favors recording data becasue you never know when you might want to look back and look at stats about something that you hadn't previously considered, but that conflicts with the idea to just keep it simple.
and having actual columns printed for it in an old fashioned paper log..... I wonder why!

 

[dtuuri]

I cheated and asked Gemini (from the CARs):​

​

43.404 Pilot logbooks. ..\record of the flight time used to substantiate recent e>;perience or qualification for certificates or ratings shall be kept in a bound logbook. The logging of other flight time is not required. Such record shall show: (a) made. (b) (c) (d) flying time. date of flight, duration of flight, and the points between which such flight was type and make of the aircraft flown, the airplane class and engine horsepower, aircraft identification mark, dual instruction endorsed by a rated instructor, solo, instrument, and night flying time.​

 

[Racerx]

I'm lazy and let evil foreflight do the logging.

 

[pdonahue]

Are those times to the nearest 30 seconds?

 

[Palmpilot]

I gte these spam newsletter emails from Flying magazine for some reason.
I usually take a quick glance at them before deleting.
Today's edition caught my eye.... an image of an old log book. I noticed the columns for engine and horsepower.
View attachment 152688

I've never logged the engine brand or model.
I never logged HP either, except I suppose inddirectly in the "High Performance" column... except a few years ago when i transcribed my logbook into a spreadsheet I researched all the tail numbers and recorded the aircraft serial numbers and horsepower...I suppose mainly for trivial reasons. For purposes of the actual logbook though I see little purpose in it

anyway, I just thought it's an interesting trap. My mind favors recording data becasue you never know when you might want to look back and look at stats about something that you hadn't previously considered, but that conflicts with the idea to just keep it simple.
and having actual columns printed for it in an old fashioned paper log..... I wonder why!

Why do you consider that a "trap"?

 

[schmookeeg]

I think most "types" in the model column can infer horsepower>200 if needed. And for those that had a low-hp and high-hp option like the PA-24, I just log the full PA-24-180/PA-24-250 in that case.

23 years in, I've never needed to go back and figure out how much time I have in >200hp planes.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I think most "types" in the model column can infer horsepower>200 if needed. And for those that had a low-hp and high-hp option like the PA-24, I just log the full PA-24-180/PA-24-250 in that case.

True, but when the reg said you had to log horsepower, inferring wouldn’t be acceptable.

 

[schmookeeg]

True, but when the reg said you had to log horsepower, inferring wouldn’t be acceptable.

I accept my technical-incorrect-ness, and if an ASI wants to burn me for not knowing which skyhawk was 150hp and which was 160, well, he's gonna get me on something regardless

I think that reg needs updating.

 

[Initial Fix]

I just keep a separate column for complex and high performance and track separately. If someone wants to research that my v tail bonanza has more that 200hp, they can have at it.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I think that reg needs updating.

Apparently the FAA agrees with you, as I don’t believe it ever made it into FARs.

 

[dtuuri]

Apparently the FAA agrees with you, as I don’t believe it ever made it into FARs.

It was the reg — in 1947. Here's the part that requires the logbook entry:

43.680 General. No person shall pilot an aircraft carrying passengers unless within the preceding 90 days he has made at least 5 take-offs and landings to a full stop in aircraft of the same type and class, and of a rated horsepower within 50 percent of the horsepower of the aircraft to be flown.​

 

[MauleSkinner]

It was the reg — in 1947. Here's the part that requires the logbook entry:

43.680 General. No person shall pilot an aircraft carrying passengers unless within the preceding 90 days he has made at least 5 take-offs and landings to a full stop in aircraft of the same type and class, and of a rated horsepower within 50 percent of the horsepower of the aircraft to be flown.​

But still CAR, not FAR?

 

[midlifeflyer]

I just keep a separate column for complex and high performance and track separately. If someone wants to research that my v tail bonanza has more that 200hp, they can have at it.

I did that when I logged on paper, Fortunately, digital logbooks take care of all that automatically.

 

[dtuuri]

But still CAR, not FAR?

I see whatcha mean. So, I went to Gemini again:

The explicit requirement to enter an aircraft's horsepower directly into a pilot logbook row was carried over from the original CARs and remained a part of the newly converted FARs for over a decade.​

​

​

 

[midlifeflyer]

But still CAR, not FAR?

I wonder if logging HP under the old CAR was related to the ATP requirements. Apparently, at some point until 1953, when type ratings were initiated, ATP certificates included horsepower ratings.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I wonder if logging HP under the old CAR was related to the ATP requirements. Apparently, at some point until 1953, when type ratings were initiated, ATP certificates included horsepower ratings.

Looks like they put a big emphasis on horsepower across the board, and eventually realized there were better ways.

 

[Palmpilot]

I see whatcha mean. So, I went to Gemini again:

The explicit requirement to enter an aircraft's horsepower directly into a pilot logbook row was carried over from the original CARs and remained a part of the newly converted FARs for over a decade.​

​

​

Which FAR says that?

 

[dtuuri]

Which FAR says that?

Heh. I asked Gemini once again, but this time it changed its story:

Engine horsepower ceased to be a required pilot logbook entry in 1962 when the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officially replaced the Civil Air Regulations (CARs) with the newly codified Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs).​

​

EDIT: Even that is wrong. My 1961 version of the CARs shows no requirement to log horsepower under then CAR 20.16 (Pilot Logbooks).

 

[midlifeflyer]

Which FAR says that?

Good question. I'm looking at the 1962 Federal Register original enactment of Part 61 and don't see any requirement to log horsepower. This will bring you to the page that contains 61.39 and 61.41, the two logging rules.

Yeah I spent a while with AI which sent me on a few wild goose chases, as usual when asking legal or regulatory questions.