CAA rules for their Annex II aircraft? In Sweden we have a engine and propeller logbook as well but we typically never write in it. The mechanic does whenever there is maintenance to that component.
He was referring to UK CAA rules specifically, where they have these engine and propeller logbooks. Don’t worry.
Really?
These are standard in the USA, so hardly UK only!
I also have a US prop logbook but few entries are made into that. Only at the Annual, or overhaul.
Like I said, most people don’t see these because their CAMO does it, as part of the CAMO fee. I am N-reg so no need for a CAMO so I do it myself.
It’s like a lot of small builders, plumbers and decorators simply throw the year’s paperwork at their accountant and pay him to sort it out 
CAA rules for their Annex II aircraft?
All G-regs have an airframe logbook, engine logbook, and if the prop is a VP prop then a prop logbook too.
In Sweden we have a engine and propeller logbook as well but we typically never write in it. The mechanic does whenever there is maintenance to that component.
Presumably the mechanic writes something into the airframe logbook too. What does he write there?
The Q is really whether one is supposed to enter into the airframe logbook:
I don’t recall seeing a regulation anywhere specifying which of the above three should be done, but fairly obviously doing the last one will render the logbook nearly useless to any prospective buyer because it won’t show possibly long periods of sitting around. For example a plane which did 45hrs between Annuals would have nothing in the logbook except the Annuals, which is silly.
The engine logbook is redundant if the airframe logbook is trustworthy, and same with the prop logbook.
There is a separate Q which is whether each logbook entry should be made ASAP after each flight / each day’s flights, or whether the books can be written up say once a year. I recall seeing a reg specifying the former, years ago, but have no idea where.
Peter wrote:
I don’t recall seeing a regulation anywhere specifying which of the above three should be done, but fairly obviously doing the last one will render the logbook nearly useless to any prospective buyer because it won’t show possibly long periods of sitting around. For example a plane which did 45hrs between Annuals would have nothing in the logbook except the Annuals, which is silly.
I’ve never seen it done any other way, ever, anywhere on any plane I’ve come into contact with personally. Any plane that’s flown 45 hrs a year is likely to have no airframe maintenance log entries between annuals. That’s entirely normal and expected. In this case all the maintenance gets done in conjunction with the annual, and given the low hours its common that nothing is required in between. It’s a maintenance logbook, not a diary, and each maintenance operation entry notes total time in service on that date. That’s it!
There is no way in conventional 2017 US practice to determine the distribution of hours through a year, unless a maintenance operation is done to capture a slice in time. The only exception is for aircraft having no recording device (typically antiques) which under FAA regs must have a separate flight log like the green one you’ve shown, as well as maintenance logs as described above. In that case, you can see the distribution of hours in the flight log but the flight log, airframe maintenance log and engine maintenance log(s) are kept in separate books, not mixed. The separate flight log serves as the missing recording device, nothing else.
Peter wrote:
The engine logbook is redundant if the airframe logbook is trustworthy.
The engine maintenance log is not redundant in conventional 2017 US practice because there are no engine related entries in the airframe maintenance logbook except maybe to note if/when a different engine is installed on the airframe. Annual inspection logbook entries are different in saying “I have inspected this aircraft” or “this engine” as appropriate. You need both.
I agree that the ‘standard’ logbooks sold at FBOs are a mishmash of archaic practice, normal 2017 practice and a flight log data column for antiques. Presumably they aren’t changed because people just use the columns they need for the purpose of a given book.
The funniest bit is that the two ASA logbooks in my photo don’t have the same number of rows per page. The airframe log has 16 and the engine log has 18
My comment about the engine logbook being redundant was to do with the fact that the engine time is directly linked to the airframe time (the two are screwed together ) and on a Lyco/Conti engine there is normally no maintenance performed, other than the standard servicing, which can be recorded in the airframe book.
I need to try to dig out that reg saying the logbook entries need to be made “ASAP” after each flight. Obviously almost nobody follows that but it’s out there somewhere.
The intent of having separate airframe and engine maintenance logs is to allow for them being separable. A given engine could move between three airframes over decades of service and the engine logs stay with the engine… The engine log needs to include all overhaul and AD compliance data too, as well as oil changes etc, because there is no other record that would include the individual mechanic’s certifications… Unsigned invoices, work packages from businesses etc generally count for nothing in FAA practice, unless its a repair station. There is no other certified record for the engine other than the engine maintenance logbook.
The ‘standard’ aircraft log includes the ’today’s flight’ column as a historical artifact from when flight time and airframe time were recorded in a single log, with the (separable) engine having its own log. Later, when recording devices became the norm, owners stopped using that column because a flight log was no longer legally required. And then after a while people with antique planes split their (required) flight log into a separate book, to keep the airframe maintenance log clean and looking like a non-antique plane. I’d guess that all was in place by the 1950s in FAA land, and nothing has changed since.
This discussion is both interesting (on a theoretical level) and a bit strange to me. Like discussing which way up you should mount your car license plate 
I was similarly surprised when looking through 1940s logs for my first plane to see they at that time mixed flight log plus maintenance log, but for anything more modern on N-register I’ve never seen it different than I described, although it can surely be done in any way that meets the regs. Nobody keeps a flight log at all in the US, for their own plane, unless it’s an antique.
For many privately owned planes, they will make only one flight a day at most, so it is essentially all those logs for one flight.
alioth wrote:
For many privately owned planes, they will make only one flight a day at most, so it is essentially all those logs for one flight.
What rules say that you must do it? National or EASA?
Guillaume wrote:
It may seem amazing, but EASA Part-M doesn’t state how flight time should be logged for maintenance purposes. So previous national requirements are still in force.However, I did ask EASA to provide standardisation in the Part-M Light NPA.
Answer from EASA is expected Q2 this year.
Any answer yet?
Being (more or less) frequently ramp-checked while cruising cross-border through Europe (Son Bonet, Biarritz, Granada come to mind) one might wonder which documents ought to be carried on board in order to fulfil (national/international) requirements.
The AIPs in front of me – should be a piece of a cake, shouldn’t it.
First have a look into the German AIP – not 100% sure where to find this information but GEN 1.2, “Section V – Documents carried on bord” might be no bad idea…
Unfortunately, the content of this document only refers to Charter Flights and Scheduled Air Services; not a single word on non-commercial flights.
Well, maybe have a look into GEN 1.5 (Aircraft Instruments, Equipment and Flight Documents)? No answer regarding the initial question.
ENR 1.1, ENR 1.2/3? Nothing!
One being somehow familiar with German Air Law a little bit knows that the relevant information is scattered over multiple (German) regulations, such as the LuftVO, LuftPersV, LuftBO, LuftVZO and the TKG.
BUT: you can not really expect from foreign pilots that they, on the one hand, know of all these regulations and furthermore, completely read (and understand) through them – in German, as they only exist in native language!
And there it also doesn’t help that the German AIP names all this regulations as relevant in GEN 1.6 Summary of National Regulations and International Agreements/Conventions.
Ok, maybe only the German AIP is unclear on that.
Let’s have a look into the French AIP:
GEN 1.2: nothing
GEN 1.5: nothing
…
To cut a long story short: I found… nothing.
Ok, after some investigation I found out that within the french VFR manual (which normally is an extract from the AIP) a reference to NCO.GEN.135 and the appropriate French regulation “ARRETE DU 24 JUILLET 1991 MODIFIE RELATIF AUX CONDITIONS ARRETE DU 24 JUILLET
1991 MODIFIE RELATIF AUX CONDITIONS D’UTILISATION DES AERONEFS CIVILS EN
AVIATION GENERALE”
can be found – but nothing in the AIP itself?!
So the question is: what am I doing wrong??
Or do we really expect from foreign pilots that they make themselves familiar with hundreds of paragraphs, written in foreign language – shouldn’t the AIP easily give answers on those relevant issues?
Why do we not find in the AIPs at least a reference to NCO.GEN.135, where all this is published sufficiently?
TB_flyer wrote:
Why do we not find in the AIPs at least a reference to NCO.GEN.135, where all this is published sufficiently?
Presumably because you are supposed to know NCO.GEN.135. You won’t find the fuel reserve requirements in AIP either…
