CE750

Ok, so now I'm flying again and have decided to keep my log book up to date. The thing is I've gone from (when I was a CFI) logging ever leg in a separate entry, to (when I was at my last two jobs) logging every day into a separate entry and would like to switch to just logging monthly entries..

My question is, has anyone done this? more over, has anyone heard of any interview or log book reviews at interviews where the month to month was frowned down upon? Seem like with todays electronic records keeping and such, there is really no need to break down each leg and destination, is there?

Any thoughts on this?

org1

I can't say if it's good or bad, but that's the way I've done it for years. I do keep the company printouts that show daily legs, destinations, and flight times though.

ERJ135

I have two logbooks, one paper, the other electronic. My paper one I'll do a day by day entry just putting where I started and finished the day. In the remarks I just write the legs I did. On the electronic, I just started, and I have decided to just put in each entry by the month. I also might try every two weeks. Not sure yet. So I hope it helps.

Pilot41

Over the years I've just entered the totals for the day on one line. Never even had it questioned on any interview.

CE750

Ok so have you had anyone ask you for the printouts at an interview as a result of the lack of detail on the monthly entries?

The main thing I'm wanting to avoid by going to the month to month is the hassle of someone even making a small deal out of it, much less going into wanting printouts etc..

Velocipede

I keep a real paper log with each entry based on individual flight numbers. If the flight had multiple legs, I note it in the remarks column. If I change planes, flight numbers or F/Os its a new line item.

I've heard some airlines don't accept printouts in interviews.

CE750

Interesting, I wonder what their logic is? Anyway, I'm not planning to interview anytime soon, but I just don't want to shoot myself in the foot if I ever did again, and I was logging month to month. I'm curious if anyone has ever heard of a case where month to month logging of flight time was a reason for not having their logbooks accepted?

ToiletDuck

It feels like anything more than a daily log would be a little excessive. I say this because most regs have to do with a date. Not a month. So your takeoffs and landings ect couldn't be proven on a monthly entry.

RedGuy

Why not just stick with the daily method? It really doesn't take tha much too keep it up that way. That's the way I've been doing it ever since I got my licence. Of coarse one thing that helps alot is a sheet I made that I keep in my can. It just has the basics on it for what I need to log, Date, Miles (to keep track of my pay), TT, Night, IMC, approach, A/C id, where I went, and now I started keeping track of my duty also but have yet to revise my sheet for it. The way I set it up a standard 2 sides sheet will hold 60 trips, which works out to be about 3 months for me, I take it home about once a month and update my log book which really only takes about 1/2 an hour. I also keep those sheets in a binder as a backup log book along with my old duty sheets. I know several of the guys I work with keep monthly records only, but I guess when you have 12-15,000hrs it really doesn't matter that much anymore. I still like to keep all mine separate with the places I've been to, I'd like to think maybe some day I could flip my old log book open and look back at all the places I've been too.

CE750

After realizing that most of my flying now is going to be 1 or 2 legs per day max, as compared to my prior 4-6 legs a day, I guess the daily method will work fine. It's just that it got so crowded writing in all of those cities back when I did the 135 Charter thing.. Daily it is.

btw... I got a printout from my prior employer today and it showed that I had 152 more hours of PIC Jet than my logbook... I'm still scratching my head as to how that happened.. I'm not about to go dig into my logbook now and edit anything however.. especially since it's an overage.