The personal log book thing.

[photofly]

If that were true, you only need to log flights that have intermediate landings and takeoffs according to 401.08(2)(f). So that can't be it.

I think you have actually checked out, at this point.

I can only repeat what I said more than a week ago which was:

I don't interpret it the way you do. My interpretation is that the purpose of the log is to show recency, and for that purpose, you are required to log every single flight.

But I really don't have a preference for what you log or don't log - that's up to you.

[AirFrame]

Nope. If you need to maintain a log (there are two reasons you would be required to maintain a log: show recency and apply for a license/permit/rating), you need to log every flight.

This may just be semantics, but if you only need to maintain a log to show recency and to show you meet the requirements for a license/permit/rating, then any other entry over and above what is needed to do that, is superfluous and need not be logged.

Anything else can be lost, deleted, torn out, etc. It's not falsification, and I haven't seen a CAR that requires that you keep them. For example: I only need to show five landings in the last 90 days to carry passengers. If i'm flying every weekend anyway, and find I want to take a passenger, I only need to go to my Aircraft's Journey Log and transfer my last five landings' worth of flights into a personal log. And as long as I do that at least once every 5 years, i'm good as a VFR private pilot. All the other flights I may make are extra.

But as I also mentioned earlier... The practical consideration is that you never know when you'll stop flying for a while... Covid, unexpected maintenance needed during an Annual Inspection, etc. So it's easier to just log them all (which I do).

[AirFrame]

Let's assume you are right for a moment, should I log the following flights:

- if I am a licensed PPL, and post PPL I go fly with an instructor because I feel rusty (but I am not legally required to fly dual)
- if I am a licensed PPL and want to learn tailwheel flying
- if I am a licensed PPL, and a friend of mine with a PPL goes flying. I sit in the right seat, he flies and is PIC
- a PPL holder is a passenger on board a commercial airline

If not, could you specify why?

Simple answer: No, you don't have to log them, because 401.08(1) says you maintain a log for recency or showing experience towards a rating/license/etc. None of those situations are relevant to recency or showing experience that is tracked by Transport Canada.

[photofly]

It’s conceivable your insurance company might ask to see some documentary evidence of the experience you claimed to have when you renewed your policy. Particularly after an expensive claim, when the loss adjuster has a vested interest in denying you a payout. I don’t know how well it would be received by them to hear “oh, yes, I definitely flew 60 hours on type last year, I just was too lazy to log all but five of them”.

[valleyboy]

I guess this is going around in circles but

I definitely flew 60 hours on type last year, I just was too lazy to log all but five of them”.

If it came to that there are journey logs available. You can obtain your flight information without keeping a personal log.

I guess a simple question. Why is it that TC requires companies to track pilots, if the personal log was trustworthy why not just let pilots track their own FDT. 30,90,365 times and training requirements. Companies also hire people who's only purpose is to audit journey and tech logs. I worked for a company who stopped pilots from totalling times in the daily journey log. Too many mistakes and jumping hours due to math errors. Most pilots are just too sloppy and because of flight deck environment the accuracy of record keeping seems to drop off. Easy solution, leave the pilot out of the calculation. The company also went back to hours and minutes since the decimal system cost them money because of rounding up of number. I always wondered why people don't use 2 decimal places in a log. Hours and minutes can be a pain but the cost saving due to maintenance and component replacement was substantial. It seems that operational/maintenance computer programs round up more than they round down.

I know a little drift but one can always question the accuracy of logbook entries if they are not checked and certified by a 3rd party when it comes to legal issues. For personal history, have at her and enjoy looking back when you finally climb out of the saddle or not if you are like me.

[AirFrame]

It’s conceivable your insurance company might ask to see some documentary evidence of the experience you claimed to have when you renewed your policy. Particularly after an expensive claim, when the loss adjuster has a vested interest in denying you a payout. I don’t know how well it would be received by them to hear “oh, yes, I definitely flew 60 hours on type last year, I just was too lazy to log all but five of them”.

No insurance company i've ever worked with has ever asked for copies of my personal log. For that matter, none of them have asked for my aircraft's journey log either. But it's equally conceivable that any needed times could be reconstructed from the journey logs of the various aircraft i've flown.

[photofly]

No insurance company i've ever worked with has ever asked for copies of my personal log. For that matter, none of them have asked for my aircraft's journey log either. But it's equally conceivable that any needed times could be reconstructed from the journey logs of the various aircraft i've flown.

How many $750k claims have you made? Insurance companies will take your money, and take everything you say on trust, until it suits them not to.

Good luck with proving your alleged 7,000+ hours from the journey logs of 45 aircraft, two of which were destroyed twelve years ago, and some of which have been sold to foreign jurisdictions. You’ll really be in the mood to trawl through logs from your hospital bed, won’t you? And then there are the owners who won’t respond to your letters to their registered addresses, and meanwhile the insurance still isn’t paying for your rehab, because they think you wildly overclaimed on your hours and you have not a shred of written evidence to back up your claim.

Realistic? I have no idea. Plausible? You decide.

I know a little drift but one can always question the accuracy of logbook entries if they are not checked and certified by a 3rd party when it comes to legal issues

One can. But a court can’t. In law, where a log is required to be kept then the contents are presumed to be both true and acceptable in evidence, unless there is specific evidence to the contrary. It becomes (for example) the insurance company’s job to trawl through logs to find the discrepancies with your logbook, if they want to dispute the information you provided when you took out the policy. Whose job would you rather it to be, to collect and trawl through logs of 45 aircraft? The insurers? Or yours?

[jakeandelwood]

It’s conceivable your insurance company might ask to see some documentary evidence of the experience you claimed to have when you renewed your policy. Particularly after an expensive claim, when the loss adjuster has a vested interest in denying you a payout. I don’t know how well it would be received by them to hear “oh, yes, I definitely flew 60 hours on type last year, I just was too lazy to log all but five of them”.

yes, especially if you are one of those sucky private pilots who just plain sucks and uses lame excuses such as weather and time constraints on why they can't fly each and every day of the week to stay sharp.

[photofly]

Point completely missed. Once you have a thousand hours (or some quantity - exact figure not important - but more than the 84 it took you to get a PPL) you can fly as little as you like, and still not suck.

(Did I touch a nerve there? Are you "one of those sucky private pilots who just plain sucks"? If you are, it's easy to fix. Just fly more.)

[AirFrame]

Realistic? I have no idea. Plausible? You decide.

Hyperbole aside, even keeping the minimum logs as I mentioned above, you would have enough to show that you're qualified for each of your licenses, and that you're current. Since the law doesn't specify that you need to *keep* logs for every flight ever made, it would be down to the insurance company to require that as part of their policy. As you say, whether you have 1000 or 7000 hours is usually irrelevant.

In law, where a log is required to be kept then the contents are presumed to be both true and acceptable in evidence, unless there is specific evidence to the contrary.

Right, so a log kept as per the CARs, which only requires flights for the purpose of obtaining a license/rating or flights for currency to be logged, would mean that the insurance company would need to hunt down evidence to the contrary, not the pilot.

[photofly]

As stated, that's not how I interpret the rule.

Secondly: without a log the insurance company can't hunt down evidence that you *don't* have the hours you stated: if you don't log anything then no such evidence exists. But they don't need evidence - you do. They will sit on the money until you convince them otherwise.

Thirdly: the point about the logbook being evidence in its own right is this: a required log is evidence in its own right, but even a log that isn't required in law can be presented in court if the author of the log gives evidence of its accuracy.

"Is this log accurate?"
"Yes it is."

Bingo. It's now evidence. Then it becomes a matter for the court to judge whether it believes you, or not. So which is more compelling:

A: you go to court and say I have seven thousand hours, because, well, I just do, and I logged some of them, but I never kept a record of each flight.

Or B: you go to court and say I have seven thousand three hundred and thirteen point four hours, as of last Thursday, here are seven logbooks with a thousand hours in each, containing every single flight of mine logged over twelve years. You can see how the ink fades a little bit from more than a decade ago and my handwriting has changed a little bit over time.

Which do *you* feel is more credible? Which one is more likely to get you the result you want?

Like I said, I don't have an interest in whether you log all your flights or not. I've just pointed out that there may be advantages to having a full record of all your flights, for unforeseen circumstances in the future. You won't convince me those advantages don't exist.

[jakeandelwood]

Point completely missed. Once you have a thousand hours (or some quantity - exact figure not important - but more than the 84 it took you to get a PPL) you can fly as little as you like, and still not suck.

(Did I touch a nerve there? Are you "one of those sucky private pilots who just plain sucks"? If you are, it's easy to fix. Just fly more.)

no, no nerves shattered here. i did all my flight training from 0 time to commercial multi ifr at one lesson a week while i worked full time, its all i had time and money for, i paid for each lesson after it was done and hit the books in between, no help from mommy and daddy, it took a while but no student loans to cry about when i was done. i agree with you on the log book thing, it takes 45 seconds to fill in a personal log after a flight, i don't understand why any pilot would not be bothered to, besides, it's kind of fun to look back thru your log at some of the fun flights one has done.

[ayseven]

This was my immediate thought. All the stuff you need to do to get a license, remain current, and generally be a pilot, and taking a few seconds to write down what you do after a flight seems pretty easy. I am rather suspicious of those who "lose" their logbooks, or have no written records. I immediately ask myself why.

[AirFrame]

As stated, that's not how I interpret the rule.

Therein lies the rub. Our interpretations don't really matter.

I've just pointed out that there may be advantages to having a full record of all your flights, for unforeseen circumstances in the future. You won't convince me those advantages don't exist.

I agree, which is why I keep complete logs. But I recognize that i'm going over and above the requirements in doing so. The original question was about what the CAR's require, not what is most useful down the road.

[PeterParker]

<Rant>
Dunno why this has become such a d!ck swinging contest here. By refusing to maintain a logbook are you just trying to show that you are too cool to care? Just looks like small p3nis syndrome to me.

Keep a proper logbook if you care or don't... Just stop calling everyone else a pansy because they made the choice give their love and attention to carefully maintain a tidy record of their wonderful memories (and some not so nice ones)...

PSA to future aviators looking to make a career out of aviation. Do not listen to some of these posters against logbooks. They are just crabby old men with fragile egos. Don't fall prey to their "back in my day" B$.
</Rant>

[AuxBatOn]

As stated, that's not how I interpret the rule.

Therein lies the rub. Our interpretations don't really matter.

I've just pointed out that there may be advantages to having a full record of all your flights, for unforeseen circumstances in the future. You won't convince me those advantages don't exist.

I agree, which is why I keep complete logs. But I recognize that i'm going over and above the requirements in doing so. The original question was about what the CAR's require, not what is most useful down the road.

Except that it’s not what the words say.

Paragraph 1 defines when you need to maintain a log, paragraph 2 how to maintain that log (which includes logging each flight). Note that it does not specify log each flight “for the purpose of para 1”.

[digits_]

Except that it’s not what the words say.

Paragraph 1 defines when you need to maintain a log, paragraph 2 how to maintain that log (which includes logging each flight). Note that it does not specify log each flight “for the purpose of para 1”.

(2) A personal log that is maintained for the purposes referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) shall contain the holder’s name and the following information in respect of each flight:

So it boils down to the meaning of "each".
Does it refer to each flight in the log, or each flight the holder partakes in.

If you go with each flight in the log, it's clear.
If you go with each flight the holder partakes in, there is nothing that prevents you from having to log flights as a passenger. Which is silly.

Ergo, the second interpretation seems very unlikely.

[AuxBatOn]

Except that it’s not what the words say.

Paragraph 1 defines when you need to maintain a log, paragraph 2 how to maintain that log (which includes logging each flight). Note that it does not specify log each flight “for the purpose of para 1”.

(2) A personal log that is maintained for the purposes referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) shall contain the holder’s name and the following information in respect of each flight:

So it boils down to the meaning of "each".
Does it refer to each flight in the log, or each flight the holder partakes in.

If you go with each flight in the log, it's clear.
If you go with each flight the holder partakes in, there is nothing that prevents you from having to log flights as a passenger. Which is silly.

Ergo, the second interpretation seems very unlikely.

Actually, no. There is no loophole for passengers. One of the required items to log is the “the flight crew position in which the holder acted” (that is item c). If you are a passenger, you are not a flight crew member.

Just to put what para 2 says in simple words: “if you need to maintain a logbook because you meet at least one of the criteria in paragraph 1, you need to log each flight and include at least the following in your logbook:”

[digits_]

Actually, no. There is no loophole for passengers. One of the required items to log is the “the flight crew position in which the holder acted” (that is item c). If you are a passenger, you are not a flight crew member.

If you log "None", you have fulfilled requirement c) as a passenger.

You might reply that "none" is not a valid value, but what about requirement item f) ? I'm sure you can log "none" or "zero" for that one.


Would it not make more sense that you only have to log flights which affect your recency, eg flights that document/prove your recency?

Just to put what para 2 says in simple words: “if you need to maintain a logbook because you meet at least one of the criteria in paragraph 1, you need to log each flight and include at least the following in your logbook:”

Were you involved in writing this regulation? That's an honest question, not a passive agressive remark. I'm honestly curious because you seem to be absolutely sure there is no room for a different interpretation whatsoever. Granted, I seem to be equally sure about the opposite, but it makes me wonder if you know something more than what is written.

[photofly]

If that’s the hill you want to die on, it doesn’t say specifically you have to be *on* the flight at all. So perhaps you should be asking if it means you have to log every single flight in the whole world, ever. Including the ones that happened before you were born. I think that would keep you pretty busy.