FAR 61.59 Falsification

[ghogue]

I just ran across a very recent change, November 3, 2025, to FAR part 61. Section 61.59 has been removed and consolidated in a new regulation that governs all types of falsification. This is a quote I got from ChatGPT in regards to the change. Haven’t had a chance to look it over thoroughly, but I believe it’s much more expensive than in the past. I’m just posting this for anyone who’s interested.

“The conduct previously covered by FAR 61.59 (falsification, fraudulent or false statements or entries in applications, logbooks, etc.) has been consolidated into a newly created section in 14 CFR Part 3 — specifically into subpart D (now including §§ 3.403.”

 

[Doc Holliday]

Bottom line: Falsification is very bad and has severe consequences.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I just ran across a very recent change, November 3, 2025, to FAR part 61. Section 61.59 has been removed and consolidated in a new regulation that governs all types of falsification. This is a quote I got from ChatGPT in regards to the change. Haven’t had a chance to look it over thoroughly, but I believe it’s much more expensive than in the past. I’m just posting this for anyone who’s interested.

“The conduct previously covered by FAR 61.59 (falsification, fraudulent or false statements or entries in applications, logbooks, etc.) has been consolidated into a newly created section in 14 CFR Part 3 — specifically into subpart D (now including §§ 3.403.”

Yep, they consolidated all of the falsification regs into three new regulations, FAR 3.401, 3.403, and 3.405 (Part 3 has been there; the new SubPart D is new). Not only 61.59 but all the previously existing ones in Parts 21, 43, 60, 61, 63, 65, 67, 89, 107, 111, 120, 121, 139, 142, and 145. The final rule was published back in September and became effective on Nov 3.

No idea what you mean by

I believe it’s much more expensive than in the past.

There's really no net effect except when the FAA revokes all your certificates for falsification (standard penalty), they will cite 3.403 rather than 61.59.

 

[AdamZ]

Yep, they consolidated all of the falsification regs into three new regulations, FAR 3.401, 3.403, and 3.405 (Part 3 has been there; the new SubPart D is new). Not only 61.59 but all the previously existing ones in Parts 21, 43, 60, 61, 63, 65, 67, 89, 107, 111, 120, 121, 139, 142, and 145. The final rule was published back in September and became effective on Nov 3.

No idea what you mean by

There's really no net effect except when the FAA revokes all your certificates for falsification (standard penalty), they will cite 3.403 rather than 61.59.

Don't want to speak for him but I think he may mean "expansive" not expesnive. Although with the FAA expansive can certainly be expensive LOL.

 

[ghogue]

Yep, they consolidated all of the falsification regs into three new regulations, FAR 3.401, 3.403, and 3.405 (Part 3 has been there; the new SubPart D is new). Not only 61.59 but all the previously existing ones in Parts 21, 43, 60, 61, 63, 65, 67, 89, 107, 111, 120, 121, 139, 142, and 145. The final rule was published back in September and became effective on Nov 3.

No idea what you mean by

There's really no net effect except when the FAA revokes all your certificates for falsification (standard penalty), they will cite 3.403 rather than 61.59.

What I was saying by expansive was the consolidation as you said. Probably not the best choice of words, not that it changed the significance of falsification.

 

[ghogue]

Don't want to speak for him but I think he may mean "expansive" not expesnive. Although with the FAA expansive can certainly be expensive LOL.

Yep, I fixed that. I was using voice text and didn’t check closely enough.

 

[MauleSkinner]

So…is Part 3 listed in the relevant training/testing materials, for example, the Private Pilot ACS?

 

[midlifeflyer]

So…is Part 3 listed in the relevant training/testing materials, for example, the Private Pilot ACS?

Not, but (a) the ACS has not been amended since November 3, 2025 so there is hardly enough time, (b) there are a whole bunch of FARs that apply to pilots that aren't listed in training and testing materials*; and (c) I might have missed something but don't particularly recall "Lying to the FAA" being the subject of the ACS or knowledge test or ground school courses even before the consolidation.

(* I wonder how many here have even heard of, let alone read anything from FAR Part 13, dealing with the FAA's investigative and enforcement process, and that's been around in its present structure since at least 1979)

 

[MauleSkinner]

Not, but (a) the ACS has not been amended since November 3, 2025 so there is hardly enough time, (b) there are a whole bunch of FARs that apply to pilots that aren't listed in training and testing materials*; and (c) I might have missed something but don't particularly recall "Lying to the FAA" being the subject of the ACS or knowledge test or ground school courses even before the consolidation.

(* I wonder how many here have even heard of, let alone read anything from FAR Part 13, dealing with the FAA's investigative and enforcement process, and that's been around in its present structure since at least 1979)

I agree there’s quite a bit that applies but isn’t listed. And while I’m probably a minority, I’ve brushed shoulders with several pilots over the years who had falsification issues with the FAA. As grumpy as they were about it, I’d think they’d be grumpier if the first they heard that Part 3 existed was, “ignorance is no excuse.”

 

[Doc Holliday]

I agree there’s quite a bit that applies but isn’t listed. And while I’m probably a minority, I’ve brushed shoulders with several pilots over the years who had falsification issues with the FAA. As grumpy as they were about it, I’d think they’d be grumpier if the first they heard that Part 3 existed was, “ignorance is no excuse.”

FAA Form 8710



FAA Form 8610



FAA Form 8500-8



Seems fairly obvious about not submitting false data.

 

[Bell206]

and that's been around in its present structure since at least 1979)

And just to note Part 3 has been around since 2005 and was the reason vendors must now differentiate part applicability between certified and non-certified aircraft, ie., "experimental" parts. It also contains the only standalone regulatory definition of "airworthy."

 

[jbarrass]

I think this is mostly a nothing burger. But I will say one of my peeves is when there is redundancy (or inconsistency) between parts of the FAR, so broadly speaking, consolidating references from 15+ places to 1 seems like a good thing.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I agree there’s quite a bit that applies but isn’t listed. And while I’m probably a minority, I’ve brushed shoulders with several pilots over the years who had falsification issues with the FAA. As grumpy as they were about it, I’d think they’d be grumpier if the first they heard that Part 3 existed was, “ignorance is no excuse.”

I have more than "brushes" and none were in the least surprised that lying to the government had consequences. They may have been a bit surprised to learn there are also criminal penalties associated with it. Even more surprised to get caught

 

[midlifeflyer]

And just to note Part 3 has been around since 2005 and was the reason vendors must now differentiate part applicability between certified and non-certified aircraft, ie., "experimental" parts. It also contains the only standalone regulatory definition of "airworthy."

True. Part 3 is entitled "General Requirements." Subpart A is the one that deals with parts for certificated products, and goes back to 2005. To fill out the group,
Subpart B (2019) talks about denying, suspending and revoking certificates if TSA informs the FAA that a holder is a security threat. SubPart C is only a year old - it's the one that requires designations of US agents for service of process if a certificate holder does not have a US address. Subpart D is the new one that consolidates the falsification rules.

 

[midlifeflyer]

FAA Form 8710

View attachment 147865

I guess that (and similar warnings in IACRA) cover the objection that it hasn't been covered in the relevant training/testing materials for practical tests, eh @MauleSkinner?

 

[WDD]

Bottom line: Falsification is very bad and has severe consequences.

I think you're just making that up......

(Dad joke there - "Making it up" and "falsification". Ye gads, plane needs to get out of the shop - I'm beyond bored and hanging around this place too much....... )

 

[Palmpilot]

I assume that 18 USC 1001 also applies.

18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[midlifeflyer]

I assume that 18 USC 1001 also applies.

18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally

www.law.cornell.edu

It does. FAA can do certificate action and civil penalties for reg violations. If it’s bad enough, the FAA refers the case to DOJ. Those medical application prosecutions are based on that general criminal statute, although others may apply as well.

 

[Bell206]

Those medical application prosecutions are based on that general criminal statute, although others may apply as well.

Aircraft part records falsification is another common area for 18 USC. Here's a recent one over some helicopter parts and work. Unfortunately this issue will never go away no matter how much its enforced.

Ventura man arrested on Federal Grand Jury....

​

 

[Clip4]

I just ran across a very recent change, November 3, 2025, to FAR part 61. Section 61.59 has been removed and consolidated in a new regulation that governs all types of falsification. This is a quote I got from ChatGPT in regards to the change. Haven’t had a chance to look it over thoroughly, but I believe it’s much more expensive than in the past. I’m just posting this for anyone who’s interested.

“The conduct previously covered by FAR 61.59 (falsification, fraudulent or false statements or entries in applications, logbooks, etc.) has been consolidated into a newly created section in 14 CFR Part 3 — specifically into subpart D (now including §§ 3.403.”

Meh, who cares.

 

[theplanesalon]

Aircraft part records falsification is another common area for 18 USC. Here's a recent one over some helicopter parts and work. Unfortunately this issue will never go away no matter how much its enforced.

Ventura man arrested on Federal Grand Jury....

View attachment 147919​

We ran across a helicopter that was part of his maintenance history. I believe the FAA was going to send out letters to dozens, if not hundreds, of helicopters serviced by this man.
Basically, the government alleges that the mechanic would use nearly timed out parts, split out a Robinson Overhaul kit and spread it across several aircraft, and falsify records showing parts as serviceable that were timed out and more.

FSDO PMI's / ASI's are NOT law enforcement officers.
That matters little.

There's an organization within the FAA (and may be others) called "Special Emphasis" investigations - in this case, in Fort Worth, I believe. They'll come in and check the aircraft...in detail. This means grounding, red tagging and the like.
It doesn't stop there.

In the event they find falsification, they will forward this to OIG who has their own law enforcement arm within DOT - and they will prosecute.

The good thing is that people who don't do what's supposed to are kept an eye on - that's not the list you want to be on.

 

[Bell206]

FSDO PMI's / ASI's are NOT law enforcement officers.

But they are inspectors and have wide powers to investigate any Title 14 violation. Plus the FAA via the Chief Counsel does have enforcement powers over civil penalties and seizures. However, fraud has its own special path as it is usually criminal in nature where the OIG and DOJ are involved. Regardless, the guy above will also get hit with a number of FAA enforcement actions in addition to the DOJ actions just as John Walker with Hansen Helicopters got hammered on.