@Ibra
NCO.135 above lists all you need, including a journey log.
NCO.150 lists the format of the journey log.
If your techlog conforms to NCO.150, then yes that „does it“.
Concerning pilot log EASA FCL.045 says you have to present it when requested i.e. you do not have to have it on you during flying, presenting it later suffices.
FCL.045 Obligation to carry and present documents
(a) A valid licence and a valid medical certificate shall always be carried by the pilot when exercising the privileges of the licence.
(b) The pilot shall also carry a personal identification document containing his/her photo.
(c) A pilot or a student pilot shall without undue delay present his/her flight time record for inspection upon request by an authorised representative of a competent authority.
Ibra wrote:
In the Part.NCO list there is a reference to the aircraft/journey log? I guess TechLog does it?
GM1 to NCO.GEN.135(a)(8) helps.
’Journey log or equivalent’ means that the required information may be recorded in documentation other than a log book, such as the operational flight plan or the aircraft technical log.
Also, does one have a legal requirement to carry aircraft/pilot logbooks?
Pilot logbooks are not mentioned in NCO.GEN.135, so no. You don’t need to carry any aircraft log books either if the “required information” is “recorded in documentation other than a log book” as stated in the GM above.
To recap, is there any requirement in Europe to carry any evidence that the aircraft is airworthy in scheduled maintenance terms?
BTW, on the subject of Part 91 signoffs etc, there are some great posts in the past e.g. this one which are well worth a read. The situation is different from the European “hard signoff” regime.
Thanks Snoopy/Airborn_Again for the clarifications on logbooks/journey logs
Silvaire wrote:
a mechanic does not “release the aircraft for service” as part performing maintenance,
Of course they do.
Here’s a direct copy & paste from AC 43-9C:
16. MAINTENANCE RELEASE.
a. In addition to those requirements discussed previously, § 43.9 requires that major repairs
and alterations be recorded as indicated in part 43 appendix B, (i.e., on FAA Form 337). An
exception is provided in paragraph (b) of that appendix, which allows repair stations certificated
under part 145 to use a maintenance release in lieu of the form for major repairs (and only major
repairs).
b. The maintenance release must contain the information specified in paragraph (b)(1), (2),
and (3) of part 43 appendix B; be made a part of the aircraft maintenance record; and be retained
by the owner/operator as specified in § 91.417. The maintenance release is usually a special
document (normally a tag) and is attached to the product when it is approved for return to
service. The maintenance release may, however, be on a copy of the work order written for the
product. When this is done (for major repairs only) the entry on the work order must meet
paragraph (b)(1), (2), and (3) of the appendix. That is to say that the repair station is required to
give the owner: (1) the customer’s work order upon which the repair is recorded, (2) a signed
copy of the work order, and (3) a maintenance release which has been signed by an authorized
representative of the company. In some cases, a work order and a maintenance release may be a
different document. Both must be supplied to the customer.
c. Some repair stations use what they call a maintenance release for other than major
repairs. This is sometimes a tag and sometimes information on a work order. When this is done,
all of the requirements of § 43.9 must be met (paragraph (b)(3) of appendix B not applicable) and
the document is to be made and retained as part of the maintenance records under § 91.417 per
discussion in paragraph 5c.
I’ve just read on a German site of a fairly aggressive ramp check on an N-reg aircraft.
They demanded the original pilot logbook, to check if he had currency to carry the other person (an alleged passenger) in the plane.
It is not often one reads of checks such as these.
Especially ones where original documents are asked for. We should never carry original documents, although some FAA regs appear to stipulate an original for the CofA.
Peter wrote:
Especially ones where original documents are asked for. We should never carry original documents, although some FAA regs appear to stipulate an original for the CofA.
You have to carry the original CofA and CofR on an N-reg aircraft.
How do you interpret the EASA AMC wording „original“ (number 2 & 3)? Is it the „one and only“ initial original document, no copy allowed? Or could it be a copy of the initial document?
1) the AFM (Aircraft Flight Manual / Pilot Operating Manual), or equivalent document(s);
2) the original certificate of registration;
3) the original certificate of airworthiness (CofA);
4) the noise certificate, if applicable;
5) the list of specific approvals, if applicable;
6) the aircraft radio licence, if applicable;
7) the third party liability insurance certificate(s);
8) the journey log, or equivalent, for the aircraft;
9) details of the filed ATS flight plan, if applicable;
10) current and suitable aeronautical charts for the route of the proposed flight and all routes along which it is reasonable to expect that the flight may be diverted;
11) procedures and visual signals information for use by intercepting and intercepted aircraft;
12) the MEL (Minimum Equipment List) or CDL (Configuration Deviation List), if applicable; and
13) any other documentation that may be pertinent to the flight or is required by the States concerned with the flight.
I was ramp-checked in Croatia twice in last few months. Nothing special was asked but both times they found minor findings – first time I wasn’t signing daily preflight check, second time I didn’t have ARC in paper form – I had it only on iPad.
Peter wrote:
It is not often one reads of checks such as these.
What’s the legal basis behind such a check? I know about SAFA checks of commercial operators and they are manifested in EU law, but what about private airplanes/pilots? Is it national law?
In the case you mentioned above the ramp check personnel is employed by the „province“ (state). Apparently in Germany some aviation jurisdiction is carried out not by the CAA (LBA) but regional state authorities?!
I would like to make a folder (offline/analog and digital) that is based on a „red thread“ handling along specifically for ramp checks. We have such guidance for SAFA checks but the inspectors doing those are absolut pros (usually with many years in commercial ops) and never cause any trouble. It seems that is not so on the non commercial level.
