"Must receive and log instruction"

[CamYZ125]

Hey guys,



I work at a 141 school, but have some students who came in with some time, so I'm going to finish them up part 61 before starting them with a 141 syllabus. So I have a few 61 questions...


61.105(a) states that a person must receive and log ground training from an authorized instructor or complete a home study course on the aeronautical knowledge areas...


Does that mean that their logbook must have a record of ground training over those areas, or does the endorsement to take the knowledge test [61.103(d)] and the completion of the knowledge test suffice?



Same question but for the flight profieciency areas of 61.107. Must their logbook show each of these areas of operation in it, or does the endorsement certifying they are prepared for the practical [61.103(f)] cover that?



Basically, I'm wondering if the logbook must have it written in there that they got instruction over this, and that, and so on...



Thanks for the help...

[MidlifeFlyer]

If you look at the regs (and you obviously have), there is not only the FAR you cited (and the similar ones for just about all certificates and ratings), but 61.51(b) includes required ground instruction in the "must log" group, and 61.189(a) requires an instructor to "sign the logbook of each person to whom that instructor has given flight training or ground training."

So, when we give ground, the student is indeed required to log it and we are required to endorse it. We're pretty good at endorsing each flight lesson, but we are generally bad at endorsing each ground, even though the regs clearly require it. I think it's because so many students do group ground school or self-study - it's not as necessary to show that the subjects were logged as it was before, so we've gotten sloppy.

On the flight proficiency part, definitely. If training in each of the "areas of operation" is not logged, a DPE would be well within his rights in rejecting the application. As I recall, there's even an NTSB case upholding a suspension or revocation of a CFI's certificates in part because the CFI didn't log the required presolo tasks (he also gave a half-assed solo endorsement).

BTW, many 141 schools use a shortcut by referring simply to "Jepp Lesson 3 completed." It's probably okay to refer to an outside document as part of the 61.51(a) requirement to "document and record the following time..."

[CamYZ125]

Thanks for the response, that's the answer I was looking for. I can honestly say that going through my training in the 141 environment, I never logged any ground instruction until I was working on my CFI (which is done part 61 at our school). Do you typically log the ground in with the flights, or pick a separate area in the log book to log all ground info? Thanks again...

[N422NM]

I usually tell people to get the logbook made by Jeppessen that has the 'Ground Log' in the back for this reason. Otherwise make a sheet up with a space for date, and a line to put down what you did and keep it in the back of the logbook.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by N422NM

I usually tell people to get the logbook made by Jeppessen that has the 'Ground Log' in the back for this reason. Otherwise make a sheet up with a space for date, and a line to put down what you did and keep it in the back of the logbook.

Other logbooks have "Ground Logs" also. The ASA logs have it also. There are also some that have a "Ground" column on the regular logbook page - it's real handy to log an extra .3 for ground in the same row as the 1.2 for flight when listing "ground reference maneuvers" in the comments. No reason why you can't use a spare empty column also (if you can find one).

(Personally, I'm as sloppy as most everyone else in logging ground in student's logbook.)

[Ian J]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

If you look at the regs (and you obviously have), there is not only the FAR you cited (and the similar ones for just about all certificates and ratings), but 61.51(b) includes required ground instruction in the "must log" group, and 61.189(a) requires an instructor to "sign the logbook of each person to whom that instructor has given flight training or ground training."

So, when we give ground, the student is indeed required to log it and we are required to endorse it. We're pretty good at endorsing each flight lesson, but we are generally bad at endorsing each ground, even though the regs clearly require it. I think it's because so many students do group ground school or self-study - it's not as necessary to show that the subjects were logged as it was before, so we've gotten sloppy.

On the flight proficiency part, definitely. If training in each of the "areas of operation" is not logged, a DPE would be well within his rights in rejecting the application. As I recall, there's even an NTSB case upholding a suspension or revocation of a CFI's certificates in part because the CFI didn't log the required presolo tasks (he also gave a half-assed solo endorsement).

BTW, many 141 schools use a shortcut by referring simply to "Jepp Lesson 3 completed." It's probably okay to refer to an outside document as part of the 61.51(a) requirement to "document and record the following time..."

Ack... I'll admit it... I'm horrible at this. Let's just say a certain flight instructor has been relying on a training record to record ground instruction and not really recording it in the student's logbook... would you advise doing the hard thing and recreating all the ground in the students logbook? I guess that would be the right answer. Crap... that's a lot of logging...

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by ChinookDriver

Ack... I'll admit it... I'm horrible at this.

Me too.

I don't =think= that relying on the training record is a problem. Go back to that reference to 61.51(a) in my post:

==============================
§ 61.51 Pilot logbooks.
(a) Training time and aeronautical experience. Each person must document and record the following time in a manner acceptable to the Administrator:
==============================

The title may be "pilot logbooks" but there's nothing that says that you must document and record the time "in a hard bound book with columns that you bought at an aviation supply store" or that the record can't consist of multiple types of records.

Frankly, I've never seen an interpretation or an indication of an FAA policy either way, but I suspect it doesn't have too much trouble with the concept, at least when it comes to ground.

I use a 2-part kneeboard sized form for each training session. Although I record flight training in my students' logbooks in addition to the my training record, most of the ground I give is recorded only in the training record.

[flyguy]

Now it says in 61.51 that that you have to include a description in the logbook of the training that was recieved for each flight. If there is a training syllabus, and you simply write in the comments "XYZ Flight School Private Lesson 26" and sign it, does that count as a description acceptable to the administrator? I mean if the administrator wanted, he could refer to leson 26 in the syllabus and get a much more detailed description of the what went on during that flight, than you could possibly write in the comments section of the logbook.

That's what I do on most flights, except for those flights that are specifically required for aeronautical experience. For those I write what we did and reference the FAR that requires that flight. Also, once flight proficiency in a given maneuver is demonstrated, I'll indicate that in the comments along with the lesson number, especially for pre-solo maneuvers.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by flyguy

Now it says in 61.51 that that you have to include a description in the logbook of the training that was received for each flight. If there is a training syllabus, and you simply write in the comments "XYZ Flight School Private Lesson 26" and sign it, does that count as a description acceptable to the administrator?

I know that this is common practice among Part 141 schools. It fits the multiple-record concept that I think 61.51(a) allows. I learned it during the brief time I was 141-qualified. It's been in use so long that I doubt the FAA has a problem with it (I can't imagine how many checkrides have take place with logbooks completed just like that). There may even be something from the FAA specifically okay-ing it, but it's not something I've seen.

The only small thing that bothered me about it was what happens if the syllabus changes and the syllabus that was in use at the time is gone; or you're in that short space of time when dome folks might use the old and new syllabi at the same time? But that's just me being hyper-technical (and is easily fixed by a reference to the syllabus edition)