Log Book backups

[Jamie]

So I'm sitting here scanning my POH, and it occurs to me...

 

Are scans of log books acceptable for any legal purpose, or are the physical dead tree books the only legit versions?

 

I'll probably scan them anyway, just because. But I'm curious if they're going to possibly save my bacon some day.

 

 

[rbridges]

So I'm sitting here scanning my POH, and it occurs to me...

 

Are scans of log books acceptable for any legal purpose, or are the physical dead tree books the only legit versions?

 

I'll probably scan them anyway, just because. But I'm curious if they're going to possibly save my bacon some day.

I don't know about legal, but as a buyer, they'd be fine for me.  Much better than nothing at all.

[Jamie]

Ah. That's another aspect I hadn't considered. Sounds like a good poll idea.

[danb35]

Legally, any mx records over a year old can be destroyed anyway (although it may be difficult to prove AD compliance if you do that).  I'm not aware of any legal requirement for paper mx records, and I understand many of the bizjets store all the records electronically--they don't use paper logs at all.  To the extent the logs are required at all, I'd think a scanned copy should be acceptable--though I admit I can't cite chapter and verse to prove it.

[PTK]

AD compliance records is the least of your worries if you destroy and discard records.

I find it very amusing how abscessed owners are about the values of their aircraft and yet very casually overlook the Aircraft Logs.

The most valuable and often most overlooked part of the airplane are the Logs. The terms "COMPLETE AND ORIGINAL LOGS" mean precisely that. Electronic backups or reconstructed logs cannot be passed as "complete and original."

The complete and original logbooks must be safeguarded and preserved. I keep mine in a safe deposit box. I see no good reason to adversely affect the aircraft's value by willingly destroying any part of the aircraft's maintenance logs. Take for example 337's. They are only required to be maintained for one year. Say a 337 for some major damage repair was destroyed after a year and there are no complete and original logs available documenting the repairs. There is no way to prove anything. Value was just reduced and rightly so. Don't count on getting copies from FAA either because they're not always filed.

Scanned backups of everything pertaining to my airplane including but not limited to all Logs and POH are stored also in my computer and a thumb drive. I also keep paper copies for mechanics.

[HopePilot]

I have all my original paper logs and many copies scanned on CDs.  Maybe because I'm an iPilot, but I see no difference whatsoever between scanned and the tree version.

[Jamie]

I'd have to have acid free paper and a nitrogen air environment to preserve this stuff... Some of the POH supplements are almost unreadable due to age. Faded, brittle, wrinkled, starting to separate where folded by previous owners, etc. Scanning is the only practical way to preserve dead tree documents, as far as I know anyway.

 

It's also not encouraging that some of my equipment manuals have not already been converted to electronic form and made available on manufacturer's web sites. Times like this it's very apparent I bought an antique.

[danb35]

Take for example 337's. They are only required to be maintained for one year. Say a 337 for some major damage repair was destroyed after a year and there are no complete and original logs available documenting the repairs. There is no way to prove anything. Value was just reduced and rightly so. Don't count on getting copies from FAA either because they're not always filed.

All 337s are required to be filed with the FAA, and they're also required to be kept as part of the aircraft's permanent records.  They aren't subject to the one-year rule for normal mx records.

 

It's up to you, of course, whether you'd accept an electronic copy of a log in place of the dead tree version.  Most sensible buyers, I'd think, would be quite willing to do so, particularly if there were a good explanation for the lack of the original.  IMO, it's equivalent to a photocopy, which is accepted nearly universally as equivalent to the original.