Issues with AirlineApps.com report

[ARCLIGHT]

I discovered some problems with the way Logbook Pro generates the AirlineApps.com report.

1. PIC time computed incorrectly for aircraft in which instructor time was logged. Example: In my current/primary aircraft, I have 2196.2 PIC hours (including instructor) and 863.3 instructor. Per AirlineApps.com instructions, the correct entries for me are 1333 and 863 for PIC and instructor respectively (PIC=Total PIC - Instructor). However, for reasons I cannot determine, the Logbook Pro AirlineApps.com report gives me 1098 PIC and 863 Instructor, which is only 1961 total PIC. When I run a Logbook Time Summary by Type, my PIC is correctly shown to be 2196.2, so something is wrong with the Logbook Pro's math when the AirlineApps.com report is generated. I do have evaluator time and other time logged, but that should have no effect on PIC computations.

2. Simulator time is reported as aircraft flight time on the report, even though I have the "simulator" box checked for the simulators under Options/Aircraft. If we enter it that way on the AirlineApps.com website, those hours will get included in total flight experience (i.e., as actual flight time), which is NOT what the airlines want. Simulator time should ONLY be recorded on the "By Simulator" page under "My Flight Time."

3. Military sorties computed incorrectly. The report is incorrectly including instructor sorties in the PIC sorties total, and then correctly counting instructor sorties separately. Example: for me in my primary aircraft, the report says I have 333 PIC sorties and 177 instructor sorties. I also have 63 SIC sorties and 167 student sorties. If I enter those values on the AirlineApps.com website, it gives me 740 total sorties, which is incorrect. As specified in the AirlineApps.com instructions, we don't count instructor time as PIC because the website will automatically combine PIC and instructor on the Flight Time totals page. To get the correct number of sorties, I have to subtract my instructor sorties from my PIC sorties. E.g., 333-177=156, and enter that for PIC sorties. When I do that, the total I get on the AirlineApps website matches the number of sorties I flew as reported in the Logbook Time Summary by Type report.

I did my best to explain the above issues as clearly as possible. If anyone from NC Software has any questions, please send me a PM and we can arrange to talk about it. I'm confident I have the hours/sorties on my AirlineApps.com application correct, but I'd hate for others to transcribe the numbers from the Logbook Pro AirlineApps.com report to their application and then not get hired by Delta/United/etc because the numbers they entered on their application don't match what's actually in their logbook!

Thanks,
Cam

 

[Neal Culiner]

Hello,

Logbook Pro is correct in its computations. Be sure to account for all of the rules as set forth by AirlineApps. If you would like us to look into your situation please submit a support ticket and include a Logbook Pro backup for us to review. Here is one of the commonly missed items:

Enter your flight time totals in accordance with FAR Part 61 (see below). However, DO NOT include any "PIC "pilot time that was also logged as "dual". Even though the FARs allow you to log PIC time and dual time
simultaneously under certain circumstances, the airlines want your PIC time to reflect only the time that you had
"final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight".

 

[ARCLIGHT]

Hello,

Logbook Pro is correct in its computations. Be sure to account for all of the rules as set forth by AirlineApps. If you would like us to look into your situation please submit a support ticket and include a Logbook Pro backup for us to review. Here is one of the commonly missed items:

OK, I'll do the trouble ticket, because I don't think the PIC computations in the Logbook Pro AirlineApps.com report are correct. I never logged PIC on any sortie in which I logged dual, so that's definitely not it. There's no reason why the PIC time in AirlineApps.com report would differ so significantly from other reports in Logbook Pro. If you follow the instructions on AirlineApps.com, to get the "PIC" time, you take your total PIC and subtract instructor time and any PIC in which you weren't the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft (reference your example of logging PIC and Dual concurrently). I'm telling you that in my case the numbers on the AirlineApps.com Logbook Pro report just don't add up the way they should, but they are correct in other reports in LogBook Pro. The math behind that is in the OP above. There is a 235 hour discrepancy.

As for how Logbook Pro is computing military sorties, I am 99.999% certain that the PIC sorties are NOT correct. The total number of sorties on the *report* is correct, but it's including instructor sorties in the PIC sortie total, which increases the sortie total on the AirlineApps.com *website* by the exact number of instructor sorties flown. In other words, if you have 100 instructor sorties and 300 PIC sorties including instructor, you should put 200 for your PIC sorties and 100 for your instructor sorties, for 300 total (example assuming no other kind of flight time logged). The Logbook Pro report in this example will say 300 PIC sorties and 100 instructor sorties for 300 total. However, if you enter 300 and 100 on the AirlineApps.com website, it will give you 400 total sorties. About that I'm positive because I've tested it. Hopefully that makes sense.

As for the simulator thing, yes, the computations in Logbook Pro are correct, but the airlines don't want simulators counted anywhere except for the By Simulator section. If someone puts a simulator in as an aircraft in the By Aircraft section on the AirlineApps website, it will get counted as total flight time which I know isn't right. Having the simulators show up like aircraft in the AirlineApps report in Logbook Pro could lead someone down the wrong path. As long as people read and follow the directions on the AirlineApps.com website, they'll avoid that mistake, but I'd recommend just fixing it so it doesn't lead to confusion for your customers.

Thanks for the quick response to my thread.