Both cases involved flight instructors; both came to the attention of the FAA after an accident had occurred. In each case, the FAA alleged that logbook entries failed to meet the requirements of the federal aviation regulations (FARs). In the first case, the FAA concluded that the entries were false and sought to revoke all of the pilot's certificates. In the second case, the FAA maintained that the instructor's endorsements were not in accordance with the FARs and sought to suspend his flight instructor certificate for 30 days. In each case, the airmen appealed to the National Transportation Safety Board, and in each case, the NTSB sided with the FAA.
In the first case, two flight instructors had been flying a Piper Apache, which they had bought to build flight time. During one of their flights, they experienced an engine malfunction and made a forced landing. When FAA inspectors reviewed the two pilots' logbooks, they discovered that the logbook entries were mirror images of each other-both pilots had recorded themselves as pilot in command (PIC) on all of their flights together. They justified this by arguing that when one was operating the controls of the aircraft, the other was instructing. (Under FAR 61.51, a certificated flight instructor may log PIC time for the entire flight when he or she is giving instruction, even though the pilot receiving the instruction is manipulating the controls. The in-structor must endorse the logbook of the person who received instruction. The recreational, private, or commercial pilot receiving the instruction may also log PIC time for the flight time during which he or she is sole manipulator of the controls.)
The pilots explained that they had intended to update their logbooks by splitting up the time and recording the appropriate endorsements, but had not yet gotten to the task. They revised their logbooks to reflect the division of flight time and resubmitted them to the FAA. But the FAA maintained that the pilots only changed the entries because they got caught. The NTSB agreed with the FAA that the logbook entries were false. The pilots asked that the revocation of their airman certificates be reduced to a 90-day suspension, but the NTSB steadfastly imposed the revocation.
The other case involved a flight instructor who had endorsed a student's logbook for solo flight. This case demonstrates how strictly the FAA may construe the regulations. After the student damaged the aircraft on landing, the FAA reviewed the student's pilot certificate and logbook. The endorsements were "pre-solo checkride, OK to solo," and "first solo supervised," but according to the FAA, the endorsements did not contain the pre-solo certification requirements of FAR 61.87(m). (This regulation has been rewritten and is now codified at 61.87(l) and (n)(1).) Specifically, the instructor's endorsements didn't mention that the instructor had given instruction in the make and model of aircraft in which the solo flight was made. And, the instructor did not mention that the student was found to meet the flight training requirements and to be competent to make a safe solo flight in that aircraft. All of this was evident from other endorsements in the logbook. The bottom line was that the FAA did not believe that the instructor's shortcut endorsements met the requirements of the regulation.
On appeal, the NTSB focused on the fact that the flight instructor had not certified that the requirements had been met, as required by the then-wording of the regulation. The NTSB imposed a 10-day suspension against the instructor's certificate. The word certify has since been removed from the regulation.
From these cases we should learn that the failure to carefully log required training or experience in accordance with the regulations is a violation of the FARs. This point is critical because it also applies in other contexts, such as recording recent experience requirements for carrying passengers or operating under instrument flight rules. The lesson is clear-be careful how you log your flight time.
Related Articles
