Correcting for long ago log book error?

[aviator1978]

Well, I'm at the point at which I might get asked to a airline (regional) interview soon. Another instructor told me to make sure my single and multi times added up to equal my total time. No Problem, just break out the calculator and....CRAP! 1.6 hrs off. Found the error, just forgot to add the last entry in the single engine column (exactly 1.6 hrs). Problem is, this error is over 600 hours old.

Is it all right and legal to put a comment in the log today to the effect: "This entry is to correct for the mistake on XX/XX/XXXX." Or should I go through each page and move the correction forward?

Thanks

 

[Flyerjosh]

There's no problem making a new line entry at the end of your log with the correction. I would make a comment as to why the correction is being made, the date of the correction, and the date to which the correction applies.

I would also go back to the original entry and make a note that you corrected the error on whatever date/page the correction is entered. No biggie. I wouldn't go back and cross out the totals for each page since then... it just looks sloppy.

You might consider starting a spreadsheet or computerized logbook in lieu of the old paper ones... especially while you are relatively "low time"... it took me almost a year to enter the info from 3 years of flying (2500 hrs) into a spreadsheet. The nice thing is you can configure the spreadsheet into printable pages, add a certification signature line at the bottom of the page and it's just as good as a "hard copy" logbook. Plus with the software or an excel spreadsheet, the math is always right.

PM me your email and I'll be happy to send you a copy of what I have.
~J

 

[avbug]

Just make a new logbook entry, just a single log entry and only enter the time adjustment. If you're adding 1.6 hours of multi time, for example, just put 1.6 in the multi column and no time in any other column. Make a comment in the remarks section as to the purpose, and if you know where the mistake occured, reference the page number. Something like "correction for error, page 76."

At the bottom of this page when everything is totalled up, it will balance.

Make it as simple and discreet as possible, not a big deal.

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

More importantly, make sure that you are/were properly endorsed to fly X aircraft that you logged PIC time in. I know of too many people who got to fly a C421, BE20, P210, but did not have a high altitude endorsement and logged PIC time. When logbooks are reviewed, it will go something like; I see you have 5 hours of PIC time in a C421, tell me a little about it. OK, great, can you show me where your high altitude endorsement is? Oh you don't have one. Well thanks for stopping by, we are sorry we can't extend a job offer at this time, but we like to hire pilots that can follow the regulations.

 

[avbug]

An endorsement isn't necessary to log the time as PIC, and one won't be denied an interview or job on that basis.

 

[flyer172r]

An endorsement isn't necessary to log the time as PIC, and one won't be denied an interview or job on that basis.

I believe that statement would only be correct if the person in question was flying with a CFI at the time. But if he happened to know someone who had a C421 but wasn't a CFI and they went for a flight together, I don't see how he could log the time as PIC if he didn't have the high altitude endorsement. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Sorry for the hijack.

 

[avbug]

Flyer172r,

There are no hijacks...only natural thread progressions. An endorsement has never been a requirement to log flight time. It is only a requirement to act as PIC, and nothing more.

Acting as PIC is not at all the same as logging PIC.

The requirement for the various operational endorsements (tailwheel, high altitude, complex, high performance, etc) are found in 14 CFR 61.31. These are required only if one is to act as Pilot in Command.

Logging regulations are found in another regulation, 61.51. Specifically, 61.51(e) allows the logging of flight time if one is rated in the airplane and sole manipulator of the controls. Rated means category and class. If one is going to log time in a single engine land airplane, for example, the category is Airplane, and the class is Single Engine, Land. The issue of an endorsement is irrelevant, as logging time has nothing to do with acting as pilot.

One may log time as PIC in a high performance, high altitude, complex, tailwheel airplane while one is out of flight currency, doesn't have a valid medical certificate, and lacks a tailwheel, high altitude, high performance, and complex endorsement. One does not need to act as PIC in order to log PIC. Some feels this represents an inconsistency in the regulation, but it really doesn't. Logging time shows operational experience...indeed if one has been responsible for flying the airplane, handling the controls, operating the aircraft, then logging PIC in accordance with 61.51(e) is reasonable.

If one lacks the necessary endorsements, one may manipulate the controls, but still requires someone legally endorsed and properly trained to take the final responsibility for the safe operation of the aircraft, and legally act as the pilot in command for the flight in question.

To take it a step further, if pilot A is manipulating the controls under day visual flight of an Arrow and lacks a complex endorsement (but holds a private pilot certificate with airplane, single engine land ratings), he or she may log the time as PIC. If pilot B, who does hold the proper endorsements and IS the pilot in command of the flight, does not touch the controls, pilot B cannot log the time. Go figure. Logging pilot time and acting as pilot are entirely different subjects which should not be confused.

 

[100LL... Again!]

I really think that the FAA should rewrite the reg to more clearly state this. It seems to be a recurring thread, which means that even though the reg is clear, it is apparently not quite clear enough.

Anyone read the FAA's Plain Language Initiative Advisory Circular? They have been contemplating taking the legalese out of the regs.

 

[avbug]

I have mixed thoughts on that. I'm all for clarity, but the confusions regarding the regulation generally don't stem from difficult language...they stem from pilots who don't bother to read and understand the regulation.

I think attempting to water down the regulation to make it more understandable is a little like trying to introduce ebonics to the educational system...rather than teach proper english, why not just bring the educational level down to street talk to include everybody. Same for the regulation. It's not that complicated, if people will lift a finger to read it for themselves...but the reason certain topics come up so often is people assume the regulation, never look, and embrace laziness.

Part of the problem, if indeed there is one, is that the regulation is a little too concise. The regulation to which we refer as the "FAR's" is among the smallest and shortest regulation in the Code of Federal Regulations (anybody ever have a gander at the revenue codes for the IRS??). There's not a lot to learn and know...but expanding it a bit might not hurt.

I'm afraid if they water it down too much I'd feel like I was reading a third grade primer, and I don't think that's necessary.

 

[Lostdog65]

I asked this very same question of a DE when I was getting my CFII/MEI a few years back. I went to a spread sheet format, reentering all of my time and came up about 50 hrs short on XC than I had logged and about 20 hours more TT than I had logged. He said, "No big deal...make an entry in your logbook and explain why." No one's hassled me about it...ever.

Eric