Logbook Entries; an important reminder

October 2024 editorial comment and Update:  This article first appeared in the August 2011 AOPA PILOT magazine.  The FAA’s position on requiring proof of flight review compliance remains the same today as it was when John wrote his article.  Typically, when the FAA asks for pilot logbooks or a specific record of compliance they will do so in writing and reference 14 CFR 61.51(i) which essentially says you must present your pilot certificate, medical certificate, logbook, and any other record required by Part 61 upon reasonable request by the FAA, NTSB, and law enforcement.  Let’s flesh out what the regulation means by the terms “logbook”, “other record required by this part”, and “upon reasonable request”. 
 
A pilot “logbook” is a platform or medium that documents and records training and aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate, rating, or flight review.  It is also used to display compliance the recent flight experience requirements of Part 61.  The regulations do not mandate the use of a specific type of logbook, however, 61.51(a) does specify that the time must be recorded “…in a manner acceptable to the Administrator” and 61.51(b) specifies what information is to be “logged”.  Many pilots utilize traditional paper logbooks with designated columns for entries while others use electronic versions of the same and some use both—we pilots do tend to like back-up systems.  In theory, though, we could use a loose-leaf binder and/or scraps of paper and still be compliant.        
 
“Other record required by this part” means the myriad of other part 61 requirements that relate to additional training and authorizations.  Examples of these include flight instructor endorsements for certain operations (solo flight, operating high-performance airplanes, tailwheel airplanes, etc.), as well as a record of flight review compliance and recent flight experience (takeoff and landing currency, instrument currency, etc.).
 
As to reasonableness, the FAA’s request to review logbooks is deemed “reasonable” when “that request does not present an undue or inappropriate burden.”  It’s not about the reasonableness of why the FAA wants to review a logbook, but rather the effective practicality of presenting it or a facsimile of it to the FAA, the NTSB, or a law enforcement officer.  For instance, it would be impractical, e.g. unreasonable, for an FAA inspector to demand to see recorded proof of flight currency during a ramp inspection.  In most instances, pilots are not required to carry logbook records during flight operations and so again, such a request would be unreasonable at that moment in time.  Of course, this begs the question, how should a pilot reply to a reasonable request for pilot logbooks or proof of compliance with Part 61 requirements? There is no simple, one-size-fits-all answer to this question.  It depends on the circumstances and it may prove beneficial to consult with a knowledgeable aviation attorney before proceeding.  There is one steadfast recommendation that we give to all our clients: never relinquish possession of original logbook material to the FAA, whether in person or via the mail or overnight delivery service.  It is too valuable and too easily lost or misplaced.  FAA inspectors are often satisfied with reviewing copies of logbook entries submitted via email.  Sometimes, however, an inspector will want to see an original and the only practical option might be to meet in person and allow the inspector to view the record first-hand and copy it, which is okay.  But again, do not relinquish control and possession of the original logbook record itself.
​

​In the many columns in which I review the rules that govern our flying I have tried to include an important secondary message.  These are the rules that have associated logging requirements.  Pilots pay strict attention to the substantive requirements of the rules, the main reason for the columns.  But, even the most conscientious pilots are sometimes lulled into complacency about the logging requirement, even though they actually meet the substantive requirements.  That’s because we rarely get a request, one that we don’t expect, from someone in authority that asks us to evidence the associated logbook entries.  However, the requests, though rare, inevitably follow an unexpected accident or incident.  Few realize that the absence of a required logbook entry is itself considered a serious violation even if the pilot actually meets the requirements.  So, this secondary message is worth a column of its own.  And, we now have a case, admittedly an extreme one, but one that clearly illustrates my secondary message.   
 
In this case, a pilot attempted a take off from an airport in California in his Piper Cherokee PA-28-140.  In the darkness, the aircraft ran off the left side of the runway and came to rest entangled in a fence some 210 feet off the runway.  Apparently the pilot was unable to turn on the runway lights because of confusion about the correct Unicom frequency to activate them.
 
The FAA routinely investigated the accident.  As part of the investigation the FAA aviation safety investigators asked the pilot for his logbook and maintenance records, following up with two letter requests.  The pilot provided the inspectors copies of most of the records, but he failed to provide proof of a current FAR 61.56 flight review, more commonly known as a “biennial flight review” or “BFR.”   
 
A pilot is generally required to have a BFR every 24 calendar months, consisting of 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training, typically with a certified flight instructor, and both the pilot and the CFI are required to document the BFR in their logbooks.
 
Because the pilot failed to provide a logbook entry of the required review, the FAA issued an emergency order suspending the pilot’s private pilot certificate until such time as he provided proof of his review.  An emergency order means an immediate grounding. The pilot appealed the suspension to the NTSB.  In the appeal, the pilot admitted that he did not provide evidence of his review to the FAA in response to the FAA’s requests.  He argued that he did produce his medical and pilot certificates as well as documentation on the annual inspection of his aircraft, as requested.  But, as for the evidence of his BFR, he explained that his briefcase, containing his logbook, had been behind the front seat the aircraft during the accident, and was stolen from the aircraft after the accident, rendering him unable to produce his logbook.  He told the FAA inspectors that he had completed his BFR with a CFI named Jim who was from a certain town in California.  The FAA tracked down two CFIs named Jim in the areas around the town, but they both stated that they had not conducted a BFR for this pilot.  In FAA’s attempt to further refute the pilot’s explanation, one of the first responders to the scene of the accident was a Fire Chief who testified that about an hour and a half after the accident, he escorted the pilot back to the aircraft to retrieve some personal belongings.  Since it was nighttime, the Chief held his flashlight inside the aircraft to assist the pilot.  Contrary to the pilot’s testimony that he did not remove his logbook from the aircraft, the Chief testified he witnessed the pilot take some papers, flight charts, and a logbook from the aircraft.  Later that evening, the Chief again escorted the pilot to the aircraft.  On that trip, the pilot removed additional items from both of the front seats and behind the seats.  The Chief then ensured that no personal items were left in the aircraft and secured it for the evening.  At no time did the Chief see a briefcase in the aircraft, nor did he see the pilot remove a briefcase.

​After a hearing, an NTSB law judge denied the pilot’s appeal, believing the Fire Chief’s testimony over the pilot’s.  The full board affirmed the law judge.  The result is that the pilot is grounded until he produces evidence of a review (presumably dated within the prior 24 calendar months of the accident, though the NTSB decision does not discuss this aspect).  A serious and maybe impossible penalty.
 
For completeness I must mention that in a separate but related case, the FAA brought other charges against the pilot arising out of this same accident.  In addition to the recordkeeping violations, the pilot was charged with failure to familiarize himself “with all available information concerning that flight;” with “careless or reckless” operation; and with not actually having accomplished the review.  These charges resulted in a 180-day suspension of his private pilot certificate.  I am still scratching my head, unable to reconcile the two suspensions.
 
In any event, the main message of this column, making more explicit the secondary messages in past columns, is that we almost certainly will be asked for logbooks at a most inopportune time – after an aircraft accident or incident.  Knowing that, we should try to keep our logbooks up to date.  And as a footnote that you may not read anywhere else, in my opinion you may even update the logbooks after an FAA request so long as the entry is truthful and accurate.


                                         Copyright © Yodice Associates 2011.  All rights reserved.
       
    John Yodice is the former Senior Partner of the Law Offices of Yodice Associates, a law firm experienced in aviation legal matters involving DOT, FAA and TSA certification and compliance, corporate governance, aircraft transactions and more. www.yodice.com