Acceptance of electronic logbooks (or simple Excel files) in different countries

That’s funny! It implies that “EASA-FCL compliant” and “Switzerland FOCA” don’t have the same requirements

FOCA isch sicher uf schwyzerdütsch.

loco wrote:

I use LogTen Pro. It has export to “Easa-FCL compliant” PDF. That got accepted several times by the Polish CAA. The program also has “Switzerland FOCA” and some other formats.

That’s funny! It implies that “EASA-FCL compliant” and “Switzerland FOCA” don’t have the same requirements.

Same here… you can even go as far as edit the CSS and use your own handwriting font (did that before reproducing when I still had time).

I use LogTen Pro. It has export to “Easa-FCL compliant” PDF. That got accepted several times by the Polish CAA. The program also has “Switzerland FOCA” and some other formats.

@Silvaire, you ARE lucky! UK CAA insisted that I resend them the copy of my logbook, reason being that the day of the month and the month were unreadble due to poor copy. But! Examiner confirmed in a separate paper that he verified and the numbers were OK. And last, but not the least, that was in early 2020 and all the hours were for 2019 and I had to show that the hours were within 18 months of the application date! The year WAS readable…

Malibuflyer wrote:

And what exactly is the difference or even the advantage compared with EASA?

Nobody except me and the CFIs I’ve used for biennial flight reviews has ever looked at my logbook for any reason in almost twenty years and I am not required to log any flight except those needed for currency, which in my case is those flight reviews and three landings every 90 days for carrying passengers. Other than that, logbooks don’t exist officially for my purposes. Mine is just a personal record I keep for fun. Many very experienced pilots I know (with e.g. 10+ times more flight hrs than me) no longer keep a real logbook for every flight, they’re beyond proving anything to anybody and it’s unnecessary to do so.

It occurs to me that one could probably demonstrate currency with on-line Flightaware ADS-B data for recent flights, versus keeping a logbook that obviously anybody could make up and create by hand. Neither is flawless documentation, but I don’t think flawless is required by precedent. This would get rid of flight log record keeping entirely for many people subject to FAA regs, given that nothing is required for the plane.

EASA likes vague regs. FUD works better because everybody runs around scared because they read something on a forum. Look at the journey log stuff for example. Nobody has ever reported anybody looking at this.

Identical threads on the topic of electronic logbooks merged.

Airborne_Again wrote:

You are only required to make it available “without undue delay” upon request (FCL.045). This is not even an AMC but hard law.

Hard law using soft words is kind of a double edged sword. Nobody in whole Europe can tell you positively which delay is “undue” and which not.

A Swedish official might be ok with you bringing the docs next time you are around anyways while a German one could regard it as “undue” if he had to stay in Office longer than 5pm (Friday 2pm) to wait for you bringing the log.

chflyer wrote:

This is one of the big advantages of the FAA licence for Part 91 flight. Time is only relevant when a new licence or rating is desired. Regular renewals such as flight reviews or proficiency checks don’t have any flight hour requirements.

And what exactly is the difference or even the advantage compared with EASA? For flight reviews and proficiency checks there is also no flight hour requirement at all in EASA.
The only difference is that in EASA you have the additional option to renew a SEP-rating without a flight review or a proficiency check at all if you can demonstrate certain flight hours (and a training flight). I would not call it an “advantage” if we did not have this option.