JamesNoBrakes

The only thing that has to be "logged" is that you did such and such unit/lesson in accordance with the regulations for pilot logbooks. Unless it's part 61, the course should provide the necessary reference for the maneuvers/tasks and these wouldn't have to be individually written. That said, there's no regulation prohibiting someone from entering more. Most examiners and schools understand that "less is more" approach is best, since it leaves the least amount of liability for all involved, but some like to write a "checkride passed!" or "good job" in the logbook. I wouldn't want someone writing "unsat" in my logbook either.

You are totally right, but a savvy person could look at the logbook, look at the lesson number, see that in the course you got to lesson 29, the highest number, then did a previous lesson, then did lesson 29 again. That doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out. Heck, I'd rather see this, since it tells me the school was doing things right and not just passing people arbitrarily, maybe an indicator of quality rather than being just a pilot-mill.

JamesNoBrakes

I'd have to disagree with this one. It's not chicken**** for exceeding a tolerance. If you've knowingly exceeded a tolerance, the aircraft is not airworthy and must be written up. Not only is this a bad thing to set an example as "ok", these aircraft are often equipped with data-cards that will show any limitation and having knowledge of it, but not writing it up, is going to look very bad if someone comes around asking questions. The correct adaptation is most likely to add a reasonable "buffer" to the speeds, as in you don't pull it up when right on the line at 109, as these electronic displays will show plus or minus a knot instantly, you wait until you've bled off more speed and the trend is going that direction, then retract the gear. We don't treat exceeding limitations as cavalier, we can't afford to as an industry. When you start with one, where do you stop?

rickair7777

There will be an entry for final checkride prep dual instruction prior to sign off. Doesn't *have* to say it's checkride prep but there's typically something to that effect. It will be logged in detail in the schools 121 records, that's required.

Then the student will typically log the *incomplete* EOC, at least logging the flight time. In 141 it might get logged as dual given, in 61 it will not.

Then there will be remedial training prior to the next sign off, *typically* also logged as such.

If you know the date the cert was issued, you can backtrack fairly easily. You're right that the logbook doesn't *have* to include all of that detail in 141, but it inevitably will. Instructors will CYA, I sure as hell would. If a student ever refused to let me document training in his book, that would be the last training he ever got from me. Neither my logbook, not any student's of mine, will ever serve as "documentation" that I omitted training. If it's not in writing, the lawyers will say it never happened.

JamesNoBrakes

The only thing I've ever seen put in 99.9% of the time in comments section for a 141 lesson, is the course and lesson/unit number, in addition to the required hours and info from 61.51. There is no "complete" or "incomplete" or "remedial" or "checkride prep", anything else goes in the 141 training records. Everything is tracked in 141 by the lesson. No need to add more information than necessary. That is CYA, adding anything more opens you up to liability IME. You sign an endorsement that you have trained the person and they are proficient for the checkride, that right there is the statement, traceable to the unit/lesson you performed as the proof.

If it were part 61, yes you'd need to CYA yourself more, because the regs require you to describe what training was provided and there is no "approved course", so you have to be specific as to the maneuvers and/or ground training.

But yeah, again it's easy for someone to piece it together just looking at unit numbers and dates.

Good discussion.

2StgTurbine

That doesn’t mean they failed. Sometimes you get a weather delay and don’t have enough time to finish everything before th next student needs th plane. Then you have to do the rest of the lesson another time. Some instructors don’t always indicate that they weren’t able to finish everything in one flight.

rickair7777

The 141 schools I worked at also did 61, so the instructors tended to default to detailed logbook entries (some 141 students finished up under 61).

Agree there's essentially no requirement to log the detailed training in 141 (other than 141 records), but I bet I could spot a repeated EOC 99% of the time regardless.


You getting paid these days?

JamesNoBrakes

Well, if you're doing a checkride, you should be given all the time in the world barring an aircraft failure or the applicant not knowing what they are doing and unable to perform. Someone "needing the plane" next is the wrong answer for a checkride. If they are being performed under those constraints, there's a serious organizational issue. Every reputable place I've seen gives priority to checkrides.

But you are totally right that there could have been a mechanical issue, student could have gotten sick, etc. In those cases, it's rare to go back and do a previous lesson in between, but even that does happen occasionally, it's just that given the sequence of events in the logbook, it's also highly likely that there was a failure on the end of course lesson. If someone was really paying attention, they could ask some questions about those units.

Rickair7777: no one is getting paid, not until government re-opens!

JohnBurke

The original poster stated that he's got a digital display in the aircraft, and reasoned that there's no question a value has been exceeded because the specific airspeed to the knot is displayed. The problem is that he's in a little, cheap, light airplane that doesn't feature an air data computer and doesn't account for installation error on that specific aircraft, and the truth is that the speeds just aren't that precise.

It's nothing to do with treating anything as cavalier, nor did I suggest or insinuate any such thing.

The student or applicant who dips below glideslope, and upon recognition announces and states "correcting" shouldn't be cut down where he stands, if he's operating safely. There's a bigger picture to see.

It may be the difference in experience and the hall-monitor ready to jump down the throat of an applicant for one knot difference, one degree, one foot, even one dot. I'd much rather see, per current guidance, that the student recognizes the error and corrects it, and if they do, move on.

JamesNoBrakes

Those aircraft generally do have an air data computer, which is called the "air data computer" in the references for the system. GDC 74 if it's a G500/600/1000 installation. I'd say the opposite is true, with the newer electronic displays utilizing the GDC, GRS, etc., the information displayed is hyper-accurate, much moreso than before, causing some control issues as people try to correct for momentary variations that are not trends. Older round gauge systems tended to "smooth" the data more which resulted in less actions by the pilot and much of the time, better control.

my6FOh

Overcontrolling is a common issue I encountered when instructing in a G1000 airplane. If the OP is attending UND they were pretty cut and dry with limitations and students would frequently unsat stage checks for momentary overspeeds of a couple knots.

I wouldn't worry about it delaying your progression to a legacy. I had two checkride failures including a pt.61 pink slip and was recently hired by FedEx. I entered the airlines 4 years ago as a 1000 hour r-atp. List it, be humble, and show how you've learned from it.