Peter wrote:
Well, yes, but there is this overriding principle which I dare say would render void a Policy if the pilot did not have valid papers, because prob100.00 such a scenario would not amount to a “full declaration of all material facts”.To argue the contrary is to argue that why should you have a pilot license. Just got your uncle to teach you to fly really well.
That applies worldwide. Is not at all a UK concept.
Post #7 appears to disagree with you Jason, but I too would find it surprising if a flight in Sweden was legal without a valid license.
I didn’t suggest that Uberrima Fides was a UK-only idea. It is a cornerstone of the insurance business. If the insurer doesn’t have the full risk picture, he can’t work out the, ahem, risk, and thus the premium.
Peter wrote:
Post #7 appears to disagree with you Jason, but I too would find it surprising if a flight in Sweden was legal without a valid license.I didn’t suggest that Uberrima Fides was a UK-only idea. It is a cornerstone of the insurance business. If the insurer doesn’t have the full risk picture, he can’t work out the, ahem, risk, and thus the premium.
I would be very surpised if any European legal system did not have the roman law concept of utmost good faith. Even if the policy is not not explicit, flying an illegal aircraft or one which you are not legal to fly should not be insured vis-a-vis the insured person.
Does the requirement to keep logbooks and so on up to date preclude the pilot from carrying their personal logbook in the aircraft? If a fatal crash should occur, it seems like it would destroy some of those documents, or how is that dealt with? (Or is it only the aircraft logbooks, and not the pilot’s logbooks that need to be kept up to date for the insurance to be in effect?
redRover wrote:
Does the requirement to keep logbooks and so on up to date preclude the pilot from carrying their personal logbook in the aircraft? If a fatal crash should occur, it seems like it would destroy some of those documents, or how is that dealt with? (Or is it only the aircraft logbooks, and not the pilot’s logbooks that need to be kept up to date for the insurance to be in effect?
A falure to update the, say journey log book, does not make the flight illegal.
The sentence in post #8 about keeping logbooks up to date (we probably have a whole thread about that one, too) is debatable. I recall some reg (FAA perhaps?) which explicitly required them to be fully up to date. OTOH there is AFAIK no requirement to enter every flight into the aircraft logbooks (airframe, engine, prop) so a possible interpretation of “up to date” could be “up to date with each relevant event” i.e. you must enter all work done and the hours when that work was done*. Not every flight. These logbooks are not records of individual flights, AIUI, even though that is how they are normally written up, at least here in Europe.
Someone familiar with EASA regs may know more. I am pretty sure that in FAA-land a lot of people don’t write individual flights.
* I operate this absolutely i.e. won’t fly the plane after any service action until I have the logbook entry (or insert) done, and it is in the logbook, or at least in the car parked at the airport car park.
JasonC wrote:
A falure to update the, say journey log book, does not make the flight illegal.
Agreed, but my point was more that the insurance company (at least per @Peter ‘s post of his insurance contract) requires you to be able to produce the logbooks on request, and that they be up to date. Presumably for things like a gear up they want to check that you’ve had the gear inspected and signed off at the latest annual or whatever. My question is more how this impacts flying with the logbooks (either the aircraft’s or the pilot’s), as a crash could conceivably destroy those records, and then let the insurer off the hook because the pilot (or his estate, more likely) can’t prove that the pilot was current/the aircraft was properly in annual. With maintenance records this probably isn’t a huge deal, because those seem to usually be at the hangar (at least for the US planes I’ve seen), but could be an issue for the logbook, which most pilots carry for ramp checks/proof of currency.
No sane person carries maintenance logbooks in the plane. And your pilot logbook should be kept and updated outside the plane. The only thing you are required to have for international travel is the journey log.
Peter wrote:
OTOH there is AFAIK no requirement to enter every flight into the aircraft logbooks (airframe, engine, prop)
Agree. I’ve never heard of such a thing (entering flight information into maintenance documents such as airframe, engine, prop). My aircraft maintenance records (they happen to not be called logbooks) don’t contain any flight information at all, only maintenance events.
Also agree about the maintenance entry needing to be completed before flight. This is critical for insurance. For FAA aircraft, it just needs to exist and be in the operator/owner’s possession (not meaning on the person though). There is no requirement for it to actually be in any “log”. Many FAA A&P’s now do their entries on computer and print them on a label and hand the label over to the owner/operator. Except perhaps for scheduled maintenance, the record book isn’t at hand, and the label can be inserted at a later date & time when convenient. If one or more maintenance events are needed when travelling, the records should certainly all be back at home.
In fact, for FAA-based operations, there is not even a regulatory need for a bound book of any sort. While perhaps risky and unconventional, all the maintenance event entries could be made on scraps of paper and kept in a folder or a drawer. 
JasonC wrote:
No sane person carries maintenance logbooks in the plane. And your pilot logbook should be kept and updated outside the plane. The only thing you are required to have for international travel is the journey log.
Amen.
