I think “Luftaufsichtler” will have a tough time ramp checking this guy for his 90 days pax currency 
I don’t see why this is such a big deal… it’s rather clear and simple, isn’t it?
The FCL clearly states that an electronic format is permitted. The AMC contains a sample logbook. Keep an electronic version of the data as it is formatted in the FCL and you will be ok.
And even before that, you could simply keep an electronic log, but had to print it on paper when submitting it, whereas now it can remain digitally.
The competent authority cannot draw up some random requirement of logging various things against what’s defined in the regs. And neither are they interested in doing that, it would only over complicate things for them.
By “acceptable to the competent authority” I believe it is meant that, for instance, the authority can reject an electronic log written in some random code, or ASCII or whatever. Strictly speaking, the latter would also be an electronic format.
Again, create an excel based on the FCL AMC, print it if you wish, sign it and present it when required, it will be ok!
For ramp checks, be friendly, tell the inspector you can email him a certified/signed copy ASAP and you’ll be fine as well.
In my conversations with Switzerland’s FOCA I heard these problems:
The last one is quite Swiss, i.e. they follow the rules to the point. All other authorities just allow it without publicly admitting it. I asked Austrocontrol where it is written and their answer was “hmmmm…. let’s talk about something else”. It would be great if the authorities (or even EASA) would just write on their website: “digital time records are accepted as long as they conform to the format in Part-FCL.050 and can be verified to be error free”.
I wonder what happens if a person from e.g. Sweden, where it is (again silently) accepted to just print your own Excel sheet, flies to Switzerland and presents their printout during a ramp check. Switzerland could say “this is not EASA conform, show me it is accepted by the Transport Styrelsen (the Swedish authority)” and you have to prove it is ok but there is no official information about it. I suppose the ramp check agents don’t go into such details, hence the “could”.
That Nottingham pilot might have been legal. I think carrying a pilot rated pax was made legal a few years ago.
Group members current on our Jodel DR1050 flew if asked with out of currency members.
Three landings with an instructor in a Pa38 would no help.
Three landings in the Jodel with an instructor not familiar with it, but in whose name an accident would be listed would be a disaster waiting to happen.
There would have been no problem for the pilot getting a suitable instructor in the case quoted however
Shall I merge all these threads ?
If I may be the devil’s advocate,
“Having a digital record allows people to add/edit flights as needed (say if they have 11 hours for SEP revalidation, they add a flight of one hour to get to 12) and once we have received the data, they return the data to the original values so that the trick cannot be matched against the aircraft’s log”
is of course completely true. So if you accept them, you are ok with flying records which are, no pun intended, not worth the paper they are written on. They are worth less than Andreas Lubitz’s medical The only way to verify them is against some other records, which is going to need some serious legwork; that is sometimes done in accident investigations when even paper records are suspect. The auth issue is same as any other auth of electronic data; somebody needs to set up the infrastructure, and nobody is going to do that for GA.
Of course nobody should argue to tighter regulation in our already grotesquely over-regulated activity, but nobody is gonna argue that the above is not true 
I can imagine doing an electronic logbook which is tamper-proof, and any corrections are possible and visible, but that will rely on the platform being non-rooted.
Maoraigh wrote:
I think carrying a pilot rated pax was made legal a few years ago.
That was done for UK (non–Part-FCL) licences.
ANO 2016, sched 8 pt 1 ch1:
Exception to the recent experience condition
2.—(1) In this Part, a reference to the “recent experience exception”
in the privileges for aeroplane and helicopter private pilot’s
licences is to the condition set out in this paragraph.
(2) The condition is that—
(a) the intended flight will carry a single passenger who is also
qualified to act as pilot in command on that flight; and
(b) the holder of the licence has informed the intended passenger that
the holder does not meet the recent experience condition.
The UK CAA initially rejected my CPL licence application last year because the logbook evidence I supplied did not conform to their requirements. I had printed out my electronic logbook (from logbook.aero) and had the first page stamped and certified by an examiner, but neither the examiner nor I had signed any of the subsequent sheets. The logbook.aero standard printouts do have a space for the signature on each page which I should have paid attention to.
They directed me to a specific page on the UK CAA website that states their requirements for logbook evidence
We note that only 2 pages of the electronic logbooks submitted were signed. Electronic logbooks must be printed and each page hand signed by yourself before submitting to us. You are therefore required to print and sign each page before resubmitting the electronic logbook into this department for assessment.
Please read the guidance on our webpage regarding logbook submission:
https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-industry/Pilot-licences/Applications/Documentation/Guidance-on-documentation/
Interestingly, while copies of logbooks must be certified by a suitable person, electronic printouts only need to be signed by the pilot.
DavidC wrote:
Interestingly, while copies of logbooks must be certified by a suitable person, electronic printouts only need to be signed by the pilot.
Yes, indeed very interesting and the reason why my logbook got rejected during my IR application.
Isn’t it weird that a photocopy of a logbook is not valid, but if you take that photocopy and transcribe it onto a speadsheet, and print that, it suddenly becomes an “electronic printout” and this is accepted?
Peter wrote:
is of course completely true. So if you accept them, you are ok with flying records which are, no pun intended, not worth the paper they are written on.
Well, I would go even further: if we accept pilots’ self-certified logbooks as evidence of flight hours, then the above is a direct consequence.
Technology is only making the tampering easier, but it has definitely not eliminated the possibility! If sticking to paper, one could buy a new logbook and copy all entries over, making all the tampering he wanted.
The system should be based on the question: is there any reason to indicate that the flight time evidence provided by the pilot is not true? If there isn’t any evidence to support the contrary, then just accept the logbook as it is.
Whatever happened to trust?
Criminals have long found that anything can be fiddled, so if you don’t have trust what do you have?
