USMCmech said:
There are no FARs regulating pilot logbooks at all. They state that you must "keep a record" the FAA dosen't care if you use napkins.
Good accepted pratices however.......
Ahhhh, yesssss.... Here it is... Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations...
§ 61.51 Pilot logbooks.
§ 61.51 Pilot logbooks.
Well, it seems that there
is a regulation regulating pilot logbooks after all. I can't seem to find the part where it says one must "keep a record," though.
What is
does say is that one must "document and record" the "training and aeronautical experience" required for a "certificate, rating, or flight review" and the "aeronautical experience" required for "recent flight experience." It also describes specific items of information that must be recorded in order to meet the training time and aeronautical experience requirements. Finally, it describes a requirement to present or carry the logbook under specific circumstances.
No mention of a Bic pen.
I haven't found, thankfully, a Federal requirement for pilots to be perfect, flawless, and mistake-free. Consequently, we should all deal with the realistic proposition that we'll likely make an error in record-keeping somewhere along the way. The issue, then, becomes how do we correct those errors. Your convention insists on a ballpoint pen (I really think you'd allow Papermate, too
) and prohibits correction fluid. In my opinion, correction fluid serves the same purpose in an equally valid way. The object is to document those things that must be documented, and present them for examination or inspection when required.
As you suggested, the record may be kept on a collection of cocktail napkins. Such a method might present a problem when a reasonable request is made by the Administrator to present that logbook.
The record may be kept on paper of any color, shape, or size, and it may be bound or loose-leaf. It may be typed, computer printed by dot-matrix impact, inkjet, or laser, or even hand-written, in pencil, ink, or crayon. It could be a black Bic pen, or a purple Pilot, or a pink Papermate, it could be a fountain pen or a quill pen, it could be ballpoint, ink gel, or india ink, or it could be #2 pencil lead. It could be permanent ink, or even erasable ink.
Common sense dictates that the record be neat and legible, even though the only actual requirement for "legible" is the instructor's endorsement for training time. A common convention for making corrections to errors in logging that meets the common sense test of "neat and legible" is the strikeout method you've described. This method has been in use for documents such as a pilot logbook long before airplanes were invented, and as such, is widely accepted.
Of course, this method was employed long before Bette Nesmith Graham used her kitchen blender to create a concoction to correct typing errors. Her simple invention, basically a tempera paint to match the color of the paper, did nothing less than revolutionize the error correction world.
Can her product, or one similar, meet the same standard for the record of training and experience of "neat and legible" that the age-old method of "strike out and initial" has provided? I submit the answer is a whole-hearted "Yes!". Not only "Yes!", but more so. That is, more neat, and more legible.
Now, you might raise the objection that one might use "White Out" to alter the logbook in a way that will falsify the experience and training represented. Of course, you'd be exactly right. It
can be used to alter items of information, just as easily as it can be used to correct mistakes. Mind you, the "strike out" method can also be used to alter and falsify the record. Ahh, but the "strike out" method is more difficult, you say. True, and the computer-generated logbook is far easier. Does that make the computer logbook illegal or less desirable? I would say not.
Lose your hangup with correction fluid. This is the 21st Century. We no longer need use tablets of stone and chisels. The deterrant to fraud is integrity, not a ban on tinted tempera paint.
