I did NOT click on a he link and have no intention of doing so! (30 pages? Forget it.)
It is well known that the best way to keep a url confidential is to post it in an aviation forum 
But I posted it for a good reason.
The FAA is requiring electronic (cryptographic) signatures.
This is pretty obvious since forging some scribble in an electronic logbook is trivially easy.
But I can also see nobody wants to talk about it.
Don’t the standard electronic logbooks support this already?
Peter wrote:
This is pretty obvious since forging some scribble in an electronic logbook is trivially easy.
How are paper logbooks any different? The whole concept of physical signature is worthless, scanned or not.
Sure… all signatures on paper documents are completely worthless
And I don’t own my house… dammit… I paid a lot of money for it.
Peter wrote:
Sure… all signatures on paper documents are completely worthlessThat’s not what I said, was it?And I don’t own my house… dammit… I paid a lot of money for it.
Anyway, how do you protect against paperwork with a fake written signature?
Peter wrote:
And I don’t own my house… dammit… I paid a lot of money for it.
I am one hundred percent positively certain that when you and the seller signed the contract for your house there was a notary present (or whatever official person does this in the UK) to witness the act. But when I sign the logbook of a student (I should have written “would sign”, because I don’t) and he damages the aircraft on his next flight, I can simply say “this is not my signature, I would never have signed him off to fly that”. And then? Therefore I agree that signatures in logbooks are totally useless…
I think the value of an instructor signature and certificate number is so FAA can seek out the instructor involved when they want to talk to him. They fact that he signed is symbolic, and mainly of emotional value to the student, a bit of theatre to bolster student confidence. It’s the name and certificate number that’s of interest to FAA. They can then find the guy, examine his records, which will presumably match the students on the date in question, and beat up the instructor If the instructor is dead, but wasn’t dead on the date of signature, that’s another issue.
I keep a written logbook but it’s just for fun, it’s never been examined by anybody official and likely never will be. In the event of some routine investigation after an accident, it would to serve to show I had a current flight review and tailwheel endorsement if needed, those items are the only real value of a logbook for me. I couldn’t be bothered storing the data electronically, too much work for no practical purpose.
Cobalt wrote:
This EASA AMC is one of the most useless AMCs of them all.
I agree. They could easily be interpreted as prescribing bound paper books, which is what the BMVI wants to see, if you listen to the grapevine. Unfortunately EASA grants the right for the “competent authority” to prescribe a form. They should make the use of electronic logs explicitly allowed, especially in hindsight of part NCO allowing a good deal of “paperwork” to be carried in electronic form.
Having said that, I personally don’t care too much, because I actually like paper booklets.
LeSving wrote:
Also, in the certified world, you need signing for just about everything, down to each rivet and nut.
Well, fortunately that far from true.
WhiskeyPapa wrote:
It’s strange to me to hear that students/PPLs don’t have proof of sig offs with with them. What happens if they move?
Up until now we had the Ausbildungsnachweis signed by the FI and the logbook where the student entered his or her flights. When a “half finished” student enters the school, he presents both to the compliance manager or head of training and they or an other FI makes an evaluation lesson. Then they carry on with training. It’s very straightforward even without additional signatures.
I am one hundred percent positively certain that when you and the seller signed the contract for your house there was a notary present (or whatever official person does this in the UK) to witness the act
Well, yes, but what I was getting at is surely blindingly obvious: faking a written signature is going a big extra step. It’s also not trivial; you would need to practice for a while to do a good job. Consequently most of our society is underpinned by written signatures. A forgery is usually detectable if the signature is later questioned. I can’t believe I need to spell this out…
My earlier Q stands: do any of the online logbook apps support crypto signatures?
Peter wrote:
…faking a written signature is going a big extra step.
Like others here have already written we need to sign dozens of useless things every day. For every commercial flight I have to sign about 30 times. For that purpose I (and every other pilot I know) have a shorthand signature (otherwise I would go crazy halfway through the day…) which would be trivial to fake. Useless, completely nonsensical and useless this whole signature-here signature-there nonsense.
what_next wrote:
Useless, completely nonsensical and useless this whole signature-here signature-there nonsense.
It always reminds me of MASH:
Corporal Walter O’Reilly: Okay, sir, uh, you sign this top form, then initial all the rest.
Lt. Colonel Henry Blake: Initial, Radar?
Corporal Walter O’Reilly: Oh, yes, sir. Your initials signify that instead of signing, you initialed. Uh, then you have to sign this form, which states that you merely initialed the forms that required signing. Then after you’ve signed, you put your initial where you signed so that people will know that you okayed your signature with your initial.
Lt. Colonel Henry Blake: Radar, tell me the truth. Do you understand any of this?
Corporal Walter O’Reilly: Uh, I try not to, sir. It slows up the work.
