Inadvertent regulation error

This is well put . I got the ATP in 87 and 6 type ratings (2 with an actual FAA examiner ) and a check airman letter and no one ever looked at my books .
Your experience is not typical of what happens in the light GA world today. I sit in on quite a few practical tests every year, and logbook inspection has become a hot item, right down to checking for the logging of all ground training requirements as well as flight hours. It may not be such a big deal for air carrier pilots taking checks on company time, since there are comprehensive documentation systems in place in the 121 environment, but it is for GA pilots dealing with FAA Inspectors and DPE's.
 
Don't bet your ticket on that. Log entries alone have hung more than one pilot. I know of a situation in progress involving someone who was discovered to have no complex endorsement (and doesn't meet the grandfather clause). The FAA needs only the logbook to hang that person -- it is documentary evidence of the violation, signed and sworn to by the violator. The case I mentioned above involving the violation 10 years past was also based entirely on a logbook entry of a flight with a passenger without enough logged landings in the preceding 90 days to meet 61.57(a).

I meant THIS particular instance. If the flight at night was logged with a safety pilot, just by looking at the log you'd be able to determine that the pilot flying was not night current, but you wouldn't be able to determine that he was in violation by acting as PIC.

Otherwise, yes, you can certainly hang yourself with your logbook.

Also, let me echo that the FAA guidance recently to DPEs has been to look for documentation of the required ground training, not just the flight training logged and the instructor endorsement that the ground training was given. So those of you getting instruction, be sure the ground portion is logged in your logbook or in a separate record (schools I know use the Jepp Syllabus folder) and bring that record with you to the checkride.
 
Assuming a paper logbook, I'd presume that the two choices here are:
a) do nothing, hope nobody ever notices
b) go back and "white out" the line in the logbook

If I maintain an electronic logbook, then b) is just "delete that flight", with no tell-tale marks.

In effect, you're "unlogging" a flight. While the flight is clearly illegal, that's not a reason to require the logging of a flight for which logging is otherwise optional, and I don't think I'm under any obligation to self-incriminate.

If I have a line whited out in my logbook, what are the potential implications of that? If I'm called upon to explain it, and I refuse to, what happens next? Can I "take the fifth"? Do they have the responsibility to prove wrong-doing, or am I responsible for proving my innocence?

I guess I'm trying to focus on "what legal actions can I take to avoid self-incrimination", without stepping over the line into "what further violations can I commit to help myself get away with an earlier one" territory.
-harry
 
Erasing, whiting out, or removing an entry in a legal document like a log (flight, maritime, medical, etc) so the original entry is no longer legible is against all standards for such documents. It raises questions about what was originally there, and why it was changed, and seriously jeopardizes the document's legal credibility. In some cases, such as medical records, it can be a crime (even a felony, in some jurisdictions) to do so. The only acceptable way to alter legal records like your logbook is to line through the erroneous entry (leaving it legible), put the correct data above it, and initial and date the change -- and be prepared to explain why you made the improper entry in the first place if it ever goes to a legal proceeding.

As for FAA enforcement actions, this one's been tested -- it is not considered "self-incrimination" if your logbook provides the evidence to hang you. You can "take the Fifth" as regards any explanation of the entries, but they can use those entries against you, and the ALJ can decide what they mean with or without your assistance, and you cannot refuse to provide your logbook for examination on those grounds. As for having your logbook mysteriously disappear, ask Richard Nixon what happens next.

IOW, once you put it in your logbook, it's there -- it's done -- it's written for all time. If you find you entered evidence of wrong-doing by mistake, you can correct it as described above. Otherwise, you're treading on the edge of criminal conduct if you alter your log to conceal evidence of wrong-doing. Consider this good reason to think carefully about every mark, letter, number, and comment you put in that official legal document known as your pilot logbook, and not to enter anything you don't want held up in a legal proceeding later, be it an FAA enforcement hearing, a civil trial for negligence/liability, or a criminal felony case. As we used to say in the Navy, "TINS" (This Is No Fooling, or something like that).
 
Last edited:
Erasing, whiting out, or removing an entry in a legal document like a log (flight, maritime, medical, etc) so the original entry is no longer legible is against all standards for such documents. It raises questions about what was originally there, and why it was changed, and seriously jeopardizes the document's legal credibility. In some cases, such as medical records, it can be a crime (even a felony, in some jurisdictions) to do so. The only acceptable way to alter legal records like your logbook is to line through the erroneous entry (leaving it legible), put the correct data above it, and initial and date the change -- and be prepared to explain why you made the improper entry in the first place if it ever goes to a legal proceeding.

As for FAA enforcement actions, this one's been tested -- it is not considered "self-incrimination" if your logbook provides the evidence to hang you. You can "take the Fifth" as regards any explanation of the entries, but they can use those entries against you, and the ALJ can decide what they mean with or without your assistance, and you cannot refuse to provide your logbook for examination on those grounds. As for having your logbook mysteriously disappear, ask Richard Nixon what happens next.

IOW, once you put it in your logbook, it's there -- it's done -- it's written for all time. If you find you entered evidence of wrong-doing by mistake, you can correct it as described above. Otherwise, you're treading on the edge of criminal conduct if you alter your log to conceal evidence of wrong-doing. Consider this good reason to think carefully about every mark, letter, number, and comment you put in that official legal document known as your pilot logbook, and not to enter anything you don't want held up in a legal proceeding later, be it an FAA enforcement hearing, a civil trial for negligence/liability, or a criminal felony case. As we used to say in the Navy, "TINS" (This Is No Fooling, or something like that).

Ron, I was gonna stay out of this until I read this post . Most all of this post is PURE conjecture .
Kirk
 
Also, let me echo that the FAA guidance recently to DPEs has been to look for documentation of the required ground training, not just the flight training logged and the instructor endorsement that the ground training was given. So those of you getting instruction, be sure the ground portion is logged in your logbook or in a separate record (schools I know use the Jepp Syllabus folder) and bring that record with you to the checkride.
Are you a DPE ? The local FSDO has been hitting me up to become one .As a DPE do you look this close at a logbook ? I probably wouldnt mention anything to a pilot applicant unless I saw a recurring pattern of questionable entries .
Kirk
 
Ron, I was gonna stay out of this until I read this post . Most all of this post is PURE conjecture .
Kirk
No, it's black letter law, precedent cases, and state/federal regulation. And no, I don't have time to write a full, citation-loaded paper on the subject. As I've left the university and no longer teach Aviation Law, you'll just have to take my word for it or take your legal chances, because you can no longer take my course.:)

However, for some light reading on the subject, let me recommend Hamilton's "Practical Aviation Law," and for some not-so-light reading, Gesell's "Aviation and the Law." Also, for cases, try Administrator v. Guy Jones.
 
Last edited:
Are you a DPE ? The local FSDO has been hitting me up to become one .As a DPE do you look this close at a logbook ? I probably wouldnt mention anything to a pilot applicant unless I saw a recurring pattern of questionable entries .
He may not be a DPE, but I deal with DPE's all over the eastern third of the US on a regular basis, and he's absolutely correct. DPE's have been specifically directed for about 18-24 months to check the ground training records of all applicants, and make sure they have documentation of receiving training in each of the knowledge areas for the certificate rating (e.g., each item in 61.105(b) for Private Pilot). There's no minimum number of hours, but training on all those items must be documented and signed by an authorized instructor (appropriately rated CFI/GI). I'm sure that will be covered when you take the DPE course at the FAA Academy.
 
DPE's have been specifically directed for about 18-24 months to check the ground training records of all applicants, and make sure they have documentation of receiving training in each of the knowledge areas for the certificate rating (e.g., each item in 61.105(b) for Private Pilot). I'm sure that will be covered when you take the DPE course at the FAA Academy.

I think he insinuated that he was . No biggie though I will say that verifying ground training requirements doesnt pertain to logging an illegal flight . Not sure why it was brought up .
(Laughing) , Im really looking forward to spending time in Oak City .;)
 
I will say that verifying ground training requirements doesnt pertain to logging an illegal flight .
I agree. However, what I wrote about the issues surrounding logbook alterations and the use of logbooks in legal proceedings is still valid and accurate. But enforcement actions aren't covered in the DPE course, just the Inspector course.
 
No, it's black letter law, precedent cases, and state/federal regulation. And no, I don't have time to write a full, citation-loaded paper on the subject. As I've left the university and no longer teach Aviation Law, you'll just have to take my word for it or take your legal chances, because you can no longer take my course.:)

Thanks for all of this . I took about 20 units of upper division law classes (Including aviation law ) and was headed to law school when I made the foolhardy decision to fly airliners . I have also read two of the books you mention . I will say it again , your post was mostly conjecture . Furthermore you are blurring several important distinctions .
Lets motion for a dismissal before we bore everyone to tears .
Kirk
 
Are you a DPE ? The local FSDO has been hitting me up to become one .As a DPE do you look this close at a logbook ? I probably wouldnt mention anything to a pilot applicant unless I saw a recurring pattern of questionable entries .
Kirk

Nope, I'm a FAASTEAM Rep and an AGI working on my CFI. As such, I'm facilitating the CFI workshops now in progress. I was there in the recurrent training meeting when the Inspector that oversees the DPEs in the Washington FSDO reminded them that the endorsement that the student has received the ground and flight training for the rating wasn't sufficient - they needed to review the log entries or training record to back up the claim. As Ron notes, it's not a question of hours logged in ground training, but subject material covered.

When I went to the examiner for my private, instrument and commercial rides (all more than 9 years ago), my flight time was reviewed but the ground training wasn't. Nowadays I see students going to the examiner and they've either got their training folder, their graduation certificate from John and Martha, or some other proof of the ground training in their logbook.

Kirk, care to share your full last name? Your post about aviation law sounds very much like another former poster here, but I believe he claimed his name was something else.
 
Last edited:
Further, any inspection of your logbook by the FAA will start the 180-day "stale complaint" clock ticking -- after that, they can't touch you. So when was the last time your log was examined, say, on a practical test?

I agree. However, what I wrote about the issues surrounding logbook alterations and the use of logbooks in legal proceedings is still valid and accurate. But enforcement actions aren't covered in the DPE course, just the Inspector course.
That's interesting. It seems that, even if the DPE hasn't received the training in the Inspector course, their having seen the logbook limits how long the FAA has to bring an enforcement action.
 
Thanks for all of this . I took about 20 units of upper division law classes (Including aviation law ) and was headed to law school when I made the foolhardy decision to fly airliners . I have also read two of the books you mention . I will say it again , your post was mostly conjecture . Furthermore you are blurring several important distinctions .
Lets motion for a dismissal before we bore everyone to tears .
Kirk
Good luck, Kirk, in your DPE course. I just hope you don't end up like the DPE involved in the complex endorsement case I mentioned above.
 
Erasing, whiting out, or removing an entry in a legal document like a log (flight, maritime, medical, etc) so the original entry is no longer legible is against all standards for such documents.

I distinctly remember reading a Rod Machado article a few years ago in which a person asked him this very question. His response was that since you're not required to log the flight there is nothing to compel you to keep it in there if you want to remove it. He gave that advice with the same admonishments you did about sin no more. Now, the last time I checked, Rod's pronouncements weren't regulatory but he's not often wrong and, in fact based upon the FARs, makes perfect since.

Does anyone have a good reference that is definitive about "in a manner suitable to the administrator?" That's the only regulation I'm aware of that prescribes flight logging.
 
I distinctly remember reading a Rod Machado article a few years ago in which a person asked him this very question. His response was that since you're not required to log the flight there is nothing to compel you to keep it in there if you want to remove it. He gave that advice with the same admonishments you did about sin no more. Now, the last time I checked, Rod's pronouncements weren't regulatory but he's not often wrong and, in fact based upon the FARs, makes perfect since.

Does anyone have a good reference that is definitive about "in a manner suitable to the administrator?" That's the only regulation I'm aware of that prescribes flight logging.
"Let me make one thing perfectly clear" -- I did not say that erasures or whiteouts in a pilot logbook were a violation of the FAR's, just that they are contrary to the general standards for such documents, and in the legal world, they cast doubt on the credibility of the altered logbook. I will admit there is no published FAA Chief Counsel opinion or any case directly on point I can find. However, to get an idea of how they look at altered entries, see

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3748.PDF
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4260.PDF
 

I'd suggest that neither of those two references are relevant. In both of these cases the log books were doctored to provide the pilot with privileges they were not entitled to. In one case they changed an endorsement from 1981 to 1989 and in the other case they falsified a checkout. Both of these cases are clearly in violation of 61.59.

There are many reasons why I might want to white out an entry in my log book that don't involve a cover up of a violation. I would still suggest that if I'm not using the entry to be legal, there's no compelling reason why I couldn't go back and remove them. Now, if the FAA has some proof that you took a flight (opened/closed flight plans, codes assigned, etc) and they can see in your log book there's no currency entries that would be required to make the flight legal, I'd say you're in trouble.

But the punch line should be, and I agree with Ron on this, just don't go there and you won't have to worry about it.
 
I'd suggest that neither of those two references are relevant. In both of these cases the log books were doctored to provide the pilot with privileges they were not entitled to. In one case they changed an endorsement from 1981 to 1989 and in the other case they falsified a checkout. Both of these cases are clearly in violation of 61.59.
My point is that when they see a doctored entry that doesn't comply with the standard procedure for changes (line-out, initial, date), they get suspicious, and when that happens, they start digging, and when they start digging, they always seem to find something bad for you.
There are many reasons why I might want to white out an entry in my log book that don't involve a cover up of a violation. I would still suggest that if I'm not using the entry to be legal, there's no compelling reason why I couldn't go back and remove them.
I agree that there is no compelling legal reason, but if the FAA sees it, you should be ready for "further investigation," probably of an invasive nature.
But the punch line should be, and I agree with Ron on this, just don't go there and you won't have to worry about it.
Exactly -- line-outs just don't get the same attention as erasures, black-outs, or white-outs, so why invite trouble by throwing up red flags?
 
...probably of an invasive nature.

...and we all know how invasive they can be when they want to.

It would be interesting to hear how the legal beagles feel about keeping an electronic log book - or for that matter, multiple log books. I keep a traditional paper log book that includes every endorsement, BFR, etc that I have for ASES/L. I have a separate log book for all of my glider time including check ride sign off. And, all flight time including all the time I have that is apropos of nothing logged electronically. I guess someday if I decided to go for the ATP, I'd have to produce the required flight time and in that case my logs would be electronically generated.

Obviously, if the original poster's log book was electronic, they could just delete the incriminating entries. Does anyone have any knowledge of an official ruling or interpretation vis a vis electronic flight logging?
 
... Does anyone have any knowledge of an official ruling or interpretation vis a vis electronic flight logging?

No, and I am waiting. I did take my printout from Logbook Pro to my last checkride, but I had the paper to back it up. Examiner looked at both, and liked the totals from LBP and checked the endorsements in the paper book.
 
The FAA is perfectly happy with you using an e-log (there's some kind of Federal law requiring Federal acceptance of e-docs as a tree-saving measure) as long as you have a means for instructors to sign training and endorsements. There is at least one on-line e-log service which offers this -- as long as the instructor is also in their system, which kinda limits it. I suspect that system also has a full trail of everything you enter, including changes/deletions/additions, which is, I believe, an essential element in a legally acceptable electronic record system. I believe some air carriers have electronic record-keeping which the FAA accepts for Part 121 purposes, too. Other than that, as a practical matter for the average pilot, from an FAA perspective, e-logs don't exist until you print them out and sign them, and you'll still need paper for instructors to sign.
 
"Let me make one thing perfectly clear" -- I did not say that erasures or whiteouts in a pilot logbook were a violation of the FAR's, just that they are contrary to the general standards for such documents, and in the legal world, they cast doubt on the credibility of the altered logbook. I will admit there is no published FAA Chief Counsel opinion or any case directly on point I can find. However, to get an idea of how they look at altered entries, see

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3748.PDF
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4260.PDF

Both of these cases seem to represent the end of the line results for some very bad operators and people when it comes to a couple of things like character and responsibility. I would be willing to bet big that these people were not first time offenders of the rules and responsibilities of operating aircraft. As well as it wasn't their first time of having an interaction with the FAA in a negative manner.

Mistakes get made in logbooks. As long as you were not making those mistakes to get yourself in a position to get a benefit and you make the corrections to right the situation, I would find it hard for you to get in any serious troubles. I have found that when mistakes are made, more senior pilots, instructors, and FAA inspectors are more than willing to help you as a pilot get with the program and do things right. That is if they feel that you are wanting and willing to do what it take to do things the right way. Everyone in flying has a learning curve this job of flying and operating airplanes is quite complex.

Thats not to say that they aren't out there to get rid of the bad apples. Those two reports seem to support that. Many pilots may not realize that when operating a jet under part 91 just how difficult it would be for the FAA to prove who was the SIC for a particular flight. Its not information that is published like on a flight plan. To get to that information they have to really have a specific reason to come visit your operation to find out all the details regarding a specific flight. If they have a specific reason in mind there is going to be some very legitimate reason for them to have to make that drive over to an operation.

I would rather see people like this helped to figure out their mistakes and then retrained to operate properly or if they are just true bottom feeders then completely drummed out of the industry.
 
Mistakes get made in logbooks. As long as you were not making those mistakes to get yourself in a position to get a benefit and you make the corrections to right the situation, I would find it hard for you to get in any serious troubles.
I agree -- the issue is not whether you made an error in your log, but how you correct it. Line-through/initial is fine, and should be treated as routine, but I think white-out/erasure/obliteration will lead to more questions than anyone wants to answer. And that's all I was trying to say.
 
So here's a question:

Lets say I have an e-log, and I scan all of my endorsements.

Perfectly legal at that point?
 
Lets say I have an e-log, and I scan all of my endorsements. Perfectly legal at that point?
The FAA seems to prefer original signatures for endorsements, but as a replacement, I see no problem. The trick will be finding the program that allows the instructor to sign the lines for training flights. It just seems to me that a truly viable e-log system allowing instructor signatures of training and endorsements hasn't yet been marketed.
 
Yay for me! I read this entire thread and finished just in time to coincide with running out of popcorn. Can I get an endorsement?
 
Yay for me! I read this entire thread and finished just in time to coincide with running out of popcorn. Can I get an endorsement?

Yes. They're available at the local cinema establishment for a small fee and another ~2 hours of training. I would suggest you get the "Gran Torino" endorsement.
 
I agree -- the issue is not whether you made an error in your log, but how you correct it. Line-through/initial is fine, and should be treated as routine, but I think white-out/erasure/obliteration will lead to more questions than anyone wants to answer. And that's all I was trying to say.

Since there is no requirement to sign one's logbook, I don't see why initialling a correction would be necessary.
 
I'm curious. What kind of questions? Walk me through a scenario.
I would suspect something along the lines of possible pencil whipping or such. I had a student a while back who had only 2.9 hours of hood time from a prior flight. Another pilot (not an instructor) suggested just exactly that... white-out one entry and put in that extra couple tenths to cover the requirement. I don't think so!

I'd think anything that is an alteration without a clear indication of what was previously listed could be suspect as an unlawful alteration. That may not be the intent but appearance means a lot.
 
Since there is no requirement to sign one's logbook, I don't see why initialling a correction would be necessary.
Who made the correction? You? Somebody who was doodling in your logbook? And while there's no requirement to sign the log on a regular basis, the FAA won't consider it official until you certify its accuracy by signing it appropriately.
 
The FAA seems to prefer original signatures for endorsements, but as a replacement, I see no problem. The trick will be finding the program that allows the instructor to sign the lines for training flights. It just seems to me that a truly viable e-log system allowing instructor signatures of training and endorsements hasn't yet been marketed.

I'm playing with a program now (Jesse suggested it), called "Logten" and it seems to allow scanning of signatures for every flight. It works with the iPhone, so it seems this could very well be a possibility for something like that. Some sort of "signed/approved" for every flight logged with the log entry...
 
I'm playing with a program now (Jesse suggested it), called "Logten" and it seems to allow scanning of signatures for every flight. It works with the iPhone, so it seems this could very well be a possibility for something like that. Some sort of "signed/approved" for every flight logged with the log entry...

Wow, really? That's what I've been using. I didn't know it had that feature.

That reminds me, I need to upload the latest version of the ASA logbook template I created for them to their forums.
 
Wow, really? That's what I've been using. I didn't know it had that feature.

That reminds me, I need to upload the latest version of the ASA logbook template I created for them to their forums.

It sure does! I actually just bought the full version. LogTen is actually a hell of a program.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Picture 1.png
    Picture 1.png
    416.4 KB · Views: 369
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top