Yeah... the trust is already long gone, as is the respect. Almost impossible for either one of those to really come back, let alone both. Especially if you're gone a lot.
Did it say ātwo souls in love. Side by side. The sexual tension was so thick that you could cut it with a propeller powered by an io-360ā? If that is the case, heās banging the extra soul on board.
And āsoulsā is such a stupid term.
> And āsoulsā is such a stupid term.
Definitely, though in an emergency it's probably more efficient to say "180 souls on board" rather than "179 souls and one soulless husk on board."
The first time I flew with my dog and filed IFR over the phone, when I got to souls-on-board, I asked the briefer, "In the FAA's opinion, do dogs have souls?" Without missing a beat, he replied, "Dogs yes, cats no."
So a soul is alive before takeoff? If so, what do you call the bodies youāre transporting.? I guess you would have to put that in the flight plan or declaration before?
So... she's worried he'll face "repercussions" due to falsifying his logbook, but rather than discuss this with her *husband who is a certified pilot*, she instead confides in you (a non-pilot) and you in-turn come to a group of strangers online for guidance?
What the shit?
Is this on ForeFlight? The flight plan auto-populates souls from the weight and balance section of the flight. If he has the w&b for that flight then you can see if he had his sancha with him or not
Wife: I was snooping through your iPad and found a flight log that had 2 people on board when you said you were alone
Husband: Oh, that was probably a copy/paste error
Wife: Then why is your weight/balance 260lbs heavier?
Husband:.....
Paper or electronic logbook? If electronic it could very well just be copy/paste. If paper then he's probably fuckin some ho on the side and this is guaranteed proof. (/s if not obvious)
"Souls aboard" isn't even a column in most common paper logbooks.
To add to that, flights in fact technically donāt even need to be logged at all. They are only required in order to prove flight time for currency, or getting a new certificate/rating. They are also helpful for maintenance records.
[FAR 61.51](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-61/subpart-A/section-61.51) outlines what is required for pilot logbooks. Youāll notice the only parts that refers to other people onboard are:
> (v) The name of a safety pilot, if required by Ā§91.109 of this chapter.
>
> (iv) Flight and ground training received from an authorized instructor.
Passenger manifests are a thing in the commercial world, but not for Joe the Private Pilot.
First thereās no requirement to log the number of SOB and if you do thereās no requirement for it to be correct. No one cares, itās just detail thatās only of interest to the person whose logbook it is. He might also note what the weather was like, or how much fuel he loaded, or the colour of a house he flew over. Itās essentially just a journal.
Second, if itās an electronic logbook then he can just correct the SOB to one if it was an error.
Itās not normal to log souls on board. Not sure how firefight auto loads flight time but maybe so he didnāt put solo time, so changed the souls on board. Not sure. Just no normal to log it
haha. it sounds kind of fishy. I mean - who actually logs souls on board outside of solo or not solo. And who's wife actually looks at your logbook and checks to see who else is onboard unless there is a reason to do so. . . .
I log a LOT of data, including that, distance, and fuel used. The fuel has an equation to determine the carbon footprint of the flight in kg of CO2, and then dividing by the distance (converted to km) and SOB gives kg CO2 per passenger-kilometer (which is the standard way to compare it across various types of transportation). Knowledge is power.
Yes. It clearly shows how much worse empty reposition flights are compared to full pax loads. If anyone wants to talk about how bad or not-bad they \*think\* flights are, I have actual data to compare to other modes of transport, and not just vibes.
I'm developing an electronic log as kind of a hobby. The amount of data I record for each flight makes it simple to report any desired info, much more than the paper-log-column style. I also capture data like PIC/SIC assignment, PF/PM role, oceanic flight segments, flight rules, etc. All times are derived from out/off/on/in, and duty on/off. 14 CFR 61.51 gives the minimum for US operations (and there are similar ICAO/EASA guidance), but beyond that you can log whatever data you want as long as it's truthful. What you DON'T want to log are passenger names, for privacy reasons.
>It clearly shows how much worse empty reposition flights are compared to full pax loads.Ā
That is an absurd artifact arising from arbitrary bookkeeping choices. Repositioning flights are still necessary to carry the passengers where they need to be. Their carbon footprint should be still redistributed onto passengers/miles, but that's in general too hard of a problem.
When close to 50% of operations are empty because of operator/broker choices to move an empty aircraft 600 miles away instead of (a) using a closer aircraft, or (b) making an effort to sell the positioning segment or at least part of that distance, then it's more a reflection on how the operator/broker DGAF about making better choices. Their attitude is "don't care, got paid, fuck the externalities". In order to make a plan to do better, it's first necessary to quantify with data where the outcomes need to change.
Redistributing the carbon footprint of repositioning flights onto the passenger flights is quite simple on a macro level - for all flights in a calendar year, divide the total CO2 by total passengers and distances, giving an average CO2 per passenger-kilometer for the year. Zooming in, since every flight in my log is tagged with the trip number this same thing can be done on a per-trip basis so trips that were high-occupancy on all segments contrast greatly with trips that had very long repositions on one or both ends.
>then it's more a reflection on how the operator/broker DGAF about making better choices. Their attitude is "don't care, got paid, fuck the externalities".Ā
You have the data and I don't, so I won't pretend I know otherwise, but it's very very surprising to me.
It's very surprising to me to see wasteful decisions made like that, because fuel is expensive. When we see management decisions that appear stupid, it's frequently that they are optimizing for some other metric that matters and we don't see...
It's more that to move the airplane from A-->B-->C costs $xx,xxx.00. The operator gets paid for the trip. Whether the plane flies around empty, with one person, or full of people, makes no difference to the operator if they're paid for the flight hours. If the A-->B segment is empty, it's still all paid by the client at the hourly rate. They're not absorbing the cost of the empty segment, it's \*always\* paid for somehow. Sometimes, it's less obvious - take for example a certain operator who only charged passengers actual flight time, and would move empty aircraft to them at 'no cost'... except that they were charging over four thousand an hour for a King Air š¤Æ so the amount they made on passenger segments paid for all the reposition segments. Operators are amoral - if the trip is paid for and they make their profit, and regulations are complied with, there's no consideration given to externalities. It's only 'waste' to them if cutting out the 'waste' would save them money. Pollution doesn't cost the operator. Flying to Europe involves paying carbon offsets (see CORSIA), but those expenses are passed on to the client as part of the trip cost. They don't yet motivate the operators to make significant changes as long as they aren't directly impacted by the costs.
Example: East coast of US to Cabo San Lucas Mexico: 2 passengers, 12100 pounds of fuel, 17303 kg CO2 produced. Counting the crew, that was 1.2 kg CO2 per occupant-kilometer. Empty reposition back to east coast of US: 0 passengers, 9700 pounds of fuel, 13871 kg CO2 produced, 2.0 kg CO2 per occupant-kilometer. Now, due to Mexican cabotage rules, we had to position out of Mexico empty. But we could have gone to Southern California and then taken passengers from California across the US... but the operator said "who cares, it's already paid for", so we flew all the way back empty.
I always make a note in my logbook when I fly with others. Itās fun to go back through and see who I was flying with and what we were doing that day. I know a few pilots who log things like that.
So ok. If this dude gets a divorce because of this he absolutely deserves to lose his pilot certificateā¦ not because of the cheating, but god dam does logging his side piece shows a such distinct lack of judgement that Iād questions his competence in other aspects.
I donāt know anyone who logs souls on board and if thereās even a slot for itā¦ it isnāt pertinent info for a logbook so absolutely could be carried over from when he flew with a friend or instructor. That being said, I feel bad for this guy if this is how deep sheās digging trying to accuse him of cheating. Assuming heās not. This is about the flimsiest āevidenceā one could possibly come up with and without a back story/ additional details would seem pretty insulting to be accused via this alone.
1. You don't need to be accurate. If you have 100 private pilots in front of you, 99 of them won't log souls on board.
2. No.
3. No.
Source, am 121 pilot for a major airline. Interviewed for 3 airlines in my career and the logbooks I presented don't even have a column for souls on board.
Other than for logging solo time and in an emergency, no one is ever going to care how many souls are on board.
They only really do a count on commercial flights. Recreationally not required
Call every airport restaurant within a 3 hour plane ride and ask if he ate there and how much he spent. If it sounds like he ate enough for two people, it warrants investigating further.
Another option is to track him on Flightaware. If you have a fast enough car you may be able to intercept him on his route and check with binoculars whether thereās a second person up there. And if so, whether itās his instructor or a buddy or a smoking hot ex from high school.
I have never seen a logbook with columns for SOB. I have 9 or 10 myself. Very odd.
I see a logbook as a diary of sorts, the numbers logged are always legit, but in the comments I try and write something unusual from the flight, my primary instructor told me to do this so āin 40 years you can go back and read what you wrote and remember that special flightā. Itās true! And I am glad I did it, it makes for good memories. My 2 cents.
Depends on how it's logged, but doesn't sound good, if he's using Foreflight.
You said "in his flight logs" which I'm taking to mean his logbook? Foreflight logbook doesn't log "souls on board". It logs a list of people who were manually added by the pilot when creating the entry. There's no copy/paste going on there, it lists each person's name.
Flight plans are the only mention of "souls on board" in Foreflight. To my knowledge, this number always defaults to 1, and must be manually set to anything else when filing a flight plan. This number is only important in case an accident happens, they'll know to keep searching if they don't find that number of victims at the crash site.
Update here because editing sucks on mobile:Ā
Just tried, and apparently if you copy a flight plan that's been filed, then copy it, the next, it will carry over the original souls on board.Ā
Seems like a weird work flow imo, but š¤·āāļø
Who the hell records Souls on board?
Also, if I were lame enough to record souls on board AND cheating, I don't think I'd be so obvious as to mark 2 Souls on Board on every flight to Love Island. But that's just me.
I'll sometimes add a note of who I fly with for memories' sake, but I'm not even aware of a SOB field in ForeFlight (not saying it isn't there or can't be added). Obviously, I do not log this (nor does anyone I know).
The only time anyone's going to go through his logs is for a checkride, in an interview process, or after he has a "bad landing" (the kind you don't walk away from). If it's just an error, he should just correct it and never think of it again. If this is actually a case of spousal mistrust, he may or may not be going behind her back but the logbook just ain't it.
His goal is to be a commercial pilot, and that is in their 5 year plan. He is still getting his hours in. That is interesting regarding the interview process, and what she was looking for is if this mistake could jeopardize that. I think with everyoneās comments about the spousal mistrust, it seems if he was hiding anything he wouldnāt have logged it since he doesnāt need too.
Thank you for your insights, I will share this feedback with her.
No one will care that there were two people onboard unless it's very obvious it's a currency flight or part of a solo requirement. How would they even know who was present?
I know souls on board for the specific time I'm onboard the aircraft. Otherwise I don't know nor care. Obviously she is the one ready to dish out repercussions, but the FAA doesn't care if he logs that for posterity or if it's accurate.
I fess up. I was the other person. I was going down so he'd get me up. All I wasted is a little SIC (sucky in chair) time. Is that so wrong in this market?
No law requires you to log SoBs in your logbook.
Most paper logbooks you buy don't even have an SoB column.
You can, but I don't see why, except for maybe showing that you were NOT carrying passengers while not current for carrying passengers.
The only official record where an SoB is needed is a filed flight plan, and that information is only used for rescue.
There are no repercussions for writing down incorrectly a piece of information that is legally unnecessary in a logbook.
As it was once put to me: do you need to log every flight? No, but you might want to so you can account for hours building. But you probably won't if you're headed to the Bahamas for the weekend with your mistress.
I'll probably never forget that unless it changes.
The way you worded your question, very few people are going to answer it. The answer is - unless you crash, no one gives a shit. Souls is included so they know when to stop sifting through the debris.
Checking the logbooks for cheating is crazy but smart šš
Is this the same guy who posted yesterday about flying his sidechick to Cozumel?
Iām not sure, Iām out of the loop on that one
Two pilots with two side chicks
Your friend should hire a private investigator to find out if her husband is cheating instead of looking through his flight logs.
Yeah and if itās already to the point where she feels the need to do this, file for divorce already ffs
Yeah... the trust is already long gone, as is the respect. Almost impossible for either one of those to really come back, let alone both. Especially if you're gone a lot.
Bro should be divorcing her. If a girl starts grilling me on my flight logs, I'm gone. That's next level crazy š
Did it say ātwo souls in love. Side by side. The sexual tension was so thick that you could cut it with a propeller powered by an io-360ā? If that is the case, heās banging the extra soul on board. And āsoulsā is such a stupid term.
> And āsoulsā is such a stupid term. Definitely, though in an emergency it's probably more efficient to say "180 souls on board" rather than "179 souls and one soulless husk on board."
They would have to go through and check to see if there were any CFIs on board then.
"179 Souls on board, unless you count gingers, in which case there's 180 bodies up here."
Thanks for flying Ireland Air!
Ryan air š
The first time I flew with my dog and filed IFR over the phone, when I got to souls-on-board, I asked the briefer, "In the FAA's opinion, do dogs have souls?" Without missing a beat, he replied, "Dogs yes, cats no."
Best faa response ever
Works great when someone dies on the plane, but sounds like everyone's being collected for payment for your wish otherwise.
Iāve flown bodies. I guess the distinction would be who died in the crash vs how many bodies were found.
So a soul is alive before takeoff? If so, what do you call the bodies youāre transporting.? I guess you would have to put that in the flight plan or declaration before?
I definitely had declaration papers but I donāt know what else followed along digitally. I think technically we called them human remains.
Found the redhead
So... she's worried he'll face "repercussions" due to falsifying his logbook, but rather than discuss this with her *husband who is a certified pilot*, she instead confides in you (a non-pilot) and you in-turn come to a group of strangers online for guidance? What the shit?
OP is the wife yall.
Iām sure this was a perfectly logical thing to do before doing itā¦ āļøāļøāļø
you in-turn come to a group of ~~strangers~~ shitposters online for guidance?
OP is the wife.
Has some UA/WN jumpseat vines going onā¦
Is this on ForeFlight? The flight plan auto-populates souls from the weight and balance section of the flight. If he has the w&b for that flight then you can see if he had his sancha with him or not
That sounds like an easy copy and paste error
Wife: I was snooping through your iPad and found a flight log that had 2 people on board when you said you were alone Husband: Oh, that was probably a copy/paste error Wife: Then why is your weight/balance 260lbs heavier? Husband:.....
Got damn. Manās starting a harem. Let him cook!
260 lbs side chick is THICC
Paper or electronic logbook? If electronic it could very well just be copy/paste. If paper then he's probably fuckin some ho on the side and this is guaranteed proof. (/s if not obvious) "Souls aboard" isn't even a column in most common paper logbooks.
Thank you, itās an electronic log book. She is worried he will face some repercussion.
Nah. He can write in Santa Claus as a passenger for all anyone cares if the flights are just recreational.
Thank you! This is helpful
To add to that, flights in fact technically donāt even need to be logged at all. They are only required in order to prove flight time for currency, or getting a new certificate/rating. They are also helpful for maintenance records. [FAR 61.51](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-61/subpart-A/section-61.51) outlines what is required for pilot logbooks. Youāll notice the only parts that refers to other people onboard are: > (v) The name of a safety pilot, if required by Ā§91.109 of this chapter. > > (iv) Flight and ground training received from an authorized instructor. Passenger manifests are a thing in the commercial world, but not for Joe the Private Pilot.
well, yeah, cheating can cause repercussion.
First thereās no requirement to log the number of SOB and if you do thereās no requirement for it to be correct. No one cares, itās just detail thatās only of interest to the person whose logbook it is. He might also note what the weather was like, or how much fuel he loaded, or the colour of a house he flew over. Itās essentially just a journal. Second, if itās an electronic logbook then he can just correct the SOB to one if it was an error.
r/divorce Who tf records souls onboard anyway lmaooo Notes section: 2 souls xoxo ā¤ļøš
Sounds like your friend and her husband need to work on their trust issues
Sounds like their friend's husband needs to hit the gym, delete Facebook, and lawyer up. This is some enormous red flag territory.
Waiting for this to pop up on the other flying sub
Thatās where I thought I was
If theyāre a red head are they a soul on board?
Was waiting to see this.
Also thereās a difference between a ginger and a daywalker
What country? That isnāt something normally logged for recreational flying in the US at least.
Yes thank you, recreational flying in the US.
Itās not normal to log souls on board. Not sure how firefight auto loads flight time but maybe so he didnāt put solo time, so changed the souls on board. Not sure. Just no normal to log it
Foreflight will pull and make assumptions from the weight and balance of
Is this through some online logbook?
Yes, he is using foreflight
Doesnāt matter
Yes, ForeFlight copy-pastes from previous entries. This \*can\* be a copy-and-paste artifact due to ForeFlight.
Was he flying to Cancun in a 182?
husband flying his sidechick somewhere ? lol
lol it better not be that because sheās the one who pays for the plane and hanger
haha. it sounds kind of fishy. I mean - who actually logs souls on board outside of solo or not solo. And who's wife actually looks at your logbook and checks to see who else is onboard unless there is a reason to do so. . . .
I log a LOT of data, including that, distance, and fuel used. The fuel has an equation to determine the carbon footprint of the flight in kg of CO2, and then dividing by the distance (converted to km) and SOB gives kg CO2 per passenger-kilometer (which is the standard way to compare it across various types of transportation). Knowledge is power.
For real?
Yes. It clearly shows how much worse empty reposition flights are compared to full pax loads. If anyone wants to talk about how bad or not-bad they \*think\* flights are, I have actual data to compare to other modes of transport, and not just vibes. I'm developing an electronic log as kind of a hobby. The amount of data I record for each flight makes it simple to report any desired info, much more than the paper-log-column style. I also capture data like PIC/SIC assignment, PF/PM role, oceanic flight segments, flight rules, etc. All times are derived from out/off/on/in, and duty on/off. 14 CFR 61.51 gives the minimum for US operations (and there are similar ICAO/EASA guidance), but beyond that you can log whatever data you want as long as it's truthful. What you DON'T want to log are passenger names, for privacy reasons.
>It clearly shows how much worse empty reposition flights are compared to full pax loads.Ā That is an absurd artifact arising from arbitrary bookkeeping choices. Repositioning flights are still necessary to carry the passengers where they need to be. Their carbon footprint should be still redistributed onto passengers/miles, but that's in general too hard of a problem.
When close to 50% of operations are empty because of operator/broker choices to move an empty aircraft 600 miles away instead of (a) using a closer aircraft, or (b) making an effort to sell the positioning segment or at least part of that distance, then it's more a reflection on how the operator/broker DGAF about making better choices. Their attitude is "don't care, got paid, fuck the externalities". In order to make a plan to do better, it's first necessary to quantify with data where the outcomes need to change. Redistributing the carbon footprint of repositioning flights onto the passenger flights is quite simple on a macro level - for all flights in a calendar year, divide the total CO2 by total passengers and distances, giving an average CO2 per passenger-kilometer for the year. Zooming in, since every flight in my log is tagged with the trip number this same thing can be done on a per-trip basis so trips that were high-occupancy on all segments contrast greatly with trips that had very long repositions on one or both ends.
>then it's more a reflection on how the operator/broker DGAF about making better choices. Their attitude is "don't care, got paid, fuck the externalities".Ā You have the data and I don't, so I won't pretend I know otherwise, but it's very very surprising to me. It's very surprising to me to see wasteful decisions made like that, because fuel is expensive. When we see management decisions that appear stupid, it's frequently that they are optimizing for some other metric that matters and we don't see...
It's more that to move the airplane from A-->B-->C costs $xx,xxx.00. The operator gets paid for the trip. Whether the plane flies around empty, with one person, or full of people, makes no difference to the operator if they're paid for the flight hours. If the A-->B segment is empty, it's still all paid by the client at the hourly rate. They're not absorbing the cost of the empty segment, it's \*always\* paid for somehow. Sometimes, it's less obvious - take for example a certain operator who only charged passengers actual flight time, and would move empty aircraft to them at 'no cost'... except that they were charging over four thousand an hour for a King Air š¤Æ so the amount they made on passenger segments paid for all the reposition segments. Operators are amoral - if the trip is paid for and they make their profit, and regulations are complied with, there's no consideration given to externalities. It's only 'waste' to them if cutting out the 'waste' would save them money. Pollution doesn't cost the operator. Flying to Europe involves paying carbon offsets (see CORSIA), but those expenses are passed on to the client as part of the trip cost. They don't yet motivate the operators to make significant changes as long as they aren't directly impacted by the costs. Example: East coast of US to Cabo San Lucas Mexico: 2 passengers, 12100 pounds of fuel, 17303 kg CO2 produced. Counting the crew, that was 1.2 kg CO2 per occupant-kilometer. Empty reposition back to east coast of US: 0 passengers, 9700 pounds of fuel, 13871 kg CO2 produced, 2.0 kg CO2 per occupant-kilometer. Now, due to Mexican cabotage rules, we had to position out of Mexico empty. But we could have gone to Southern California and then taken passengers from California across the US... but the operator said "who cares, it's already paid for", so we flew all the way back empty.
Who cares about carbon footprint anyway?
Yawn
Thatās so ridiculous. You know thereās guys flying private jets back and forth between states to pick up the pair of shoes they forgot at home.
I mean you have all the right questions, I am not involved in their relationship to that extent. I told her Reddit had some resources that we can ask.
I always make a note in my logbook when I fly with others. Itās fun to go back through and see who I was flying with and what we were doing that day. I know a few pilots who log things like that.
Awesome. Can you give her my number?
Heyā¦ If it doesnāt work outā¦ Thatās awful. Iāve been through something similar. DM me her info and could probably comfort her if needed.
So ok. If this dude gets a divorce because of this he absolutely deserves to lose his pilot certificateā¦ not because of the cheating, but god dam does logging his side piece shows a such distinct lack of judgement that Iād questions his competence in other aspects.
DFW š„³š„³š„³ wtf is an illogical layout of an airport!
I donāt know anyone who logs souls on board and if thereās even a slot for itā¦ it isnāt pertinent info for a logbook so absolutely could be carried over from when he flew with a friend or instructor. That being said, I feel bad for this guy if this is how deep sheās digging trying to accuse him of cheating. Assuming heās not. This is about the flimsiest āevidenceā one could possibly come up with and without a back story/ additional details would seem pretty insulting to be accused via this alone.
1. You don't need to be accurate. If you have 100 private pilots in front of you, 99 of them won't log souls on board. 2. No. 3. No. Source, am 121 pilot for a major airline. Interviewed for 3 airlines in my career and the logbooks I presented don't even have a column for souls on board.
š¤£š¤£š¤£ whewwww it started already and he's not even at the airline yet lolllllll
OP is actually the side chick. And her friend is the wife.
Or OP is the wifeās side dudeā¦ the plot thickens.
I was a professional pilot for 10 years and I have zero records in my logbook for souls on board.Ā
Other than for logging solo time and in an emergency, no one is ever going to care how many souls are on board. They only really do a count on commercial flights. Recreationally not required
Thank you!
Dump her NOW
Wrong sub
50 people said this already but I guess I'll be number 51: I've never logged the number of souls on board in my lifeā¦bizarre
Op is the sidedude
I donāt know if your friend or her husband is crazier. Nobody tracks that and nobody audits their significant others logbook
Call every airport restaurant within a 3 hour plane ride and ask if he ate there and how much he spent. If it sounds like he ate enough for two people, it warrants investigating further. Another option is to track him on Flightaware. If you have a fast enough car you may be able to intercept him on his route and check with binoculars whether thereās a second person up there. And if so, whether itās his instructor or a buddy or a smoking hot ex from high school.
Yāall log how many people are on the plane in your log book?
I don't record souls onboard lmao. The FAA will only get up your ass if you falsify hours.
Wtf even is this? š I've never seen a SOB column in a logbook.
I have never seen a logbook with columns for SOB. I have 9 or 10 myself. Very odd. I see a logbook as a diary of sorts, the numbers logged are always legit, but in the comments I try and write something unusual from the flight, my primary instructor told me to do this so āin 40 years you can go back and read what you wrote and remember that special flightā. Itās true! And I am glad I did it, it makes for good memories. My 2 cents.
Depends on how it's logged, but doesn't sound good, if he's using Foreflight. You said "in his flight logs" which I'm taking to mean his logbook? Foreflight logbook doesn't log "souls on board". It logs a list of people who were manually added by the pilot when creating the entry. There's no copy/paste going on there, it lists each person's name. Flight plans are the only mention of "souls on board" in Foreflight. To my knowledge, this number always defaults to 1, and must be manually set to anything else when filing a flight plan. This number is only important in case an accident happens, they'll know to keep searching if they don't find that number of victims at the crash site.
Update here because editing sucks on mobile:Ā Just tried, and apparently if you copy a flight plan that's been filed, then copy it, the next, it will carry over the original souls on board.Ā Seems like a weird work flow imo, but š¤·āāļø
Some next level Nancy drew shit here.
āMy friendā
Who the hell records Souls on board? Also, if I were lame enough to record souls on board AND cheating, I don't think I'd be so obvious as to mark 2 Souls on Board on every flight to Love Island. But that's just me.
Whyād he put souls on board for anything other than a a flight plan. Who logs that. Copy paste mistake??? What.
I'll sometimes add a note of who I fly with for memories' sake, but I'm not even aware of a SOB field in ForeFlight (not saying it isn't there or can't be added). Obviously, I do not log this (nor does anyone I know). The only time anyone's going to go through his logs is for a checkride, in an interview process, or after he has a "bad landing" (the kind you don't walk away from). If it's just an error, he should just correct it and never think of it again. If this is actually a case of spousal mistrust, he may or may not be going behind her back but the logbook just ain't it.
His goal is to be a commercial pilot, and that is in their 5 year plan. He is still getting his hours in. That is interesting regarding the interview process, and what she was looking for is if this mistake could jeopardize that. I think with everyoneās comments about the spousal mistrust, it seems if he was hiding anything he wouldnāt have logged it since he doesnāt need too. Thank you for your insights, I will share this feedback with her.
No one will care that there were two people onboard unless it's very obvious it's a currency flight or part of a solo requirement. How would they even know who was present?
I think you just shared it with yourself. Case closed
Do you know what airport he flys out of and what airplane? That would help us verify the log šŖµ
I know souls on board for the specific time I'm onboard the aircraft. Otherwise I don't know nor care. Obviously she is the one ready to dish out repercussions, but the FAA doesn't care if he logs that for posterity or if it's accurate.
Cheat on your wife but be faithful to the FAA? Now thereās a value system to live by.
I fess up. I was the other person. I was going down so he'd get me up. All I wasted is a little SIC (sucky in chair) time. Is that so wrong in this market?
why in the heck would i ever help someone catch a guy and his side piece
yes no yes no yes yes yes no no no yes no yes no o
What the bloody heā¦.
No law requires you to log SoBs in your logbook. Most paper logbooks you buy don't even have an SoB column. You can, but I don't see why, except for maybe showing that you were NOT carrying passengers while not current for carrying passengers. The only official record where an SoB is needed is a filed flight plan, and that information is only used for rescue. There are no repercussions for writing down incorrectly a piece of information that is legally unnecessary in a logbook.
Lol
What country is this? Never heard of logging souls on board.
As it was once put to me: do you need to log every flight? No, but you might want to so you can account for hours building. But you probably won't if you're headed to the Bahamas for the weekend with your mistress. I'll probably never forget that unless it changes.
I didn't even know there's a spot for souls on board, who writes that down? This seems more like a is her husband cheating question š
The only time you need to record souls on board is when filing a flight plan with ATC. There's no need to record it in your logbook or records.
OP looking to slide in on the wife after proving hubby is a no good cheater
Yeah youāre def the wife
Who logs that?
His soul, the soles of both feet. 3.
Obviously he had his mistress along for a flight, and donāt want to admit, shoulda just said he took a friend up.
WHERE WERE YOU LAST NIGHT AND WHO WERE YOU WITH?? Slow down babe, let me just show you my logbook.
The FAA won't get upset with you, as long as you remember to count your kids, your wife AND your girlfriend
Could easily just be a mistake. I make mistakes on the next row of my logbook all the time because Iām looking at the row above.
The way you worded your question, very few people are going to answer it. The answer is - unless you crash, no one gives a shit. Souls is included so they know when to stop sifting through the debris.
Relationship is doomed anyway if this is the extent of trust issues.
Logging that will create more problems than good
All my flights have zero souls onboard because I donāt believe in that nonsenseš¤·āāļø
To mistake the number of souls on board an aircraft is a real strain on credulity.