Pilot Past BFR

U

Unregistered

Guest
A pilot who I fly with from time to time has come to me for a BFR. No problem, he's a competent pilot who I've flown with before. His last one expired in July. Also no problem. The problem: He's had solo flights since then. Only about two or three, and this was a paperwork oversight on his part. He's also had several flights with instructors (including with me) for mostly fun purposes. The flights with instructors never were able to count as BFRs (no ground school and not more than an hour of flight time).

My thought is that he made an honest mistake, we take care of his BFR, and he moves on with life, having learned his lesson on keeping track of these things. The ground school portion will focus on use of a calendar. I'm wondering if legally there's something else that he's supposed to do or should bother doing. I also wonder if by signing his logbook knowing he's had flights past his BFR expiration if I'm on the hook for anything if I don't report it. I'm sure this is not the first time someone has let a BFR lapse and made illegal flights unintentionally.
 
How much trouble do you think it would cause to notify the local FSDO vs not? In other words, which consequence would you be most willing to live with. Seems to me the answer is pretty obvious.
 
Unregistered said:
A pilot who I fly with from time to time has come to me for a BFR. No problem, he's a competent pilot who I've flown with before. His last one expired in July. Also no problem. The problem: He's had solo flights since then. Only about two or three, and this was a paperwork oversight on his part. He's also had several flights with instructors (including with me) for mostly fun purposes. The flights with instructors never were able to count as BFRs (no ground school and not more than an hour of flight time).

My thought is that he made an honest mistake, we take care of his BFR, and he moves on with life, having learned his lesson on keeping track of these things. The ground school portion will focus on use of a calendar. I'm wondering if legally there's something else that he's supposed to do or should bother doing. I also wonder if by signing his logbook knowing he's had flights past his BFR expiration if I'm on the hook for anything if I don't report it. I'm sure this is not the first time someone has let a BFR lapse and made illegal flights unintentionally.
Click to expand...

WRT your own exposure, can you say for certain that the flights in his log were really solo (i.e. did he list the time in a "solo" column")? If not it might be reasonable to assume he had a qualified pilot along who was Acting PIC. Nothing in the regs says you can't fly the plane and log PIC when not current as long as you're not acting as PIC (Just trying to give you some wiggle room here).

And how does the other pilot feel about fessing up? I'll bet that the FAA wouldn't go for more than a recommendation/requirement for some remedial ground training which has already been given but I could be wrong. OTOH, if the infraction somehow came to light later without the pilot admitting it now, the FAA would be a lot more likely to seek some sort of enforcement action. One thing I would do if I were that pilot is to contact an aviation attorney for advice (the AOPA legal services plan is good for this kind of stuff) before going to the FAA or deciding to stay mute. And one thing for certain, any attempt to alter his logbook to cover up the mistake would be a very bad idea (and yes, I know you haven't suggested anything like that).
 
It's the pilot's responsibility to fly only when current. Not yours.

Give him the BFR and send him forth to sin no more.
 
Just to make things (hopefully) clearer, there are two issues here:

Did the pilot act as PIC in conflict with the regulations? If he logged the time as PIC and SOLO, then it's a safe bet that he did so, and he should get competent advice about how to handle it. If he didn't log solo time, then it's quite possible there was another person acting as PIC, and he can't be hung by the logbook entries alone. Regardless of the log entries, if he did bust the rules he should get the advice and deal with it, as there are other potential ways for it to come to light (even if unlikely).

The second issue is what the CFI duty is when discovering a violation like this. I'll state up front I have no idea what the FAA would say. I think it hinges around if the CFI KNOWS the pilot acted as PIC without a current Flight Review - because the time was logged as solo or because the pilot told him so. In that position, I think I'd urge the pilot (who's now current) to get competent advice and then he should follow up with the FAA, and make a note somewhere that that was what I'd told him. I wouldn't feel obligated to report him to anybody.
 
The CFI is not on the hook for anything. What s/he does is a matter for his/her own conscience and personal morality. Personally, I wouldn't tell anyone about it, but if it ever came to being asked by the FAA, I wouldn't lie, and since I'm neither a spiritual nor legal counselor, I couldn't refuse to answer, either. In any event, educating the pilot on the regulatory requirements involved and trying to convince him not to do this again should discharge any legal responsibility the reviewing CFI has. OTOH, if this happens again two years from now, you might think about doing more, since that would suggest a noncompliant attitude, and folks like that are usually a danger to themselves and others.

The question for the pilot is what happens if the FAA ever examines his logbook and sees the situation. There is no limit on how far back the FAA can go in such an examination, since the "stale complaint" rule 6-month clock only starts when the FAA discovers the violation, i.e., when an FAA Inspector examines his logbook, not when the actual violation occurred, i.e., when he made the flight. There was a case of an Inspector finding a 10-year-old landing currency with passengers violation in some pilot's logbook, and the case stood up. Of course, if the Inspector was digging that far back, there was probably something else the pilot had done to get that Inspector's attention, and if they do get their fur that far up, they're going to find something on which to hang you, no matter what.

So, what does this pilot do? On the one hand, you don't want to be falsifying your logbook, but on the other, you don't want to have evidence of a violation sitting there waiting to be discovered. Lining out the entry would be legal, but obviously unwise, as would be whiting it out or otherwise obscuring it. Of course, ripping a page out of one's logbook is likely to create more questions than one would like, so that's not a good idea either. My suggestion to the pilot is just let it lie, and don't do anything that motivates an FAA Inspector to go digging back through his log looking for a petard on which to hoist him.
 
Last edited:
Jack Spectre said:
It's the pilot's responsibility to fly only when current. Not yours.

Give him the BFR and send him forth to sin no more.
Click to expand...

I agree. AFAIK CFIs are not an enforcement arm of the FAA.

Does anyone know if the FARs include a duty to narc? I don't recall such a rule.
 
I would give the guy his flight review - remind him about his having expired and move on. You're not going to do well in your area if you become the CFI known for calling the FAA when someones logbook isn't quite right.
 
Aviation Safety Reporting System

added: that wont work as 10 days have past....oh well, it was an idea
I strongly advise said pilot to come clean with the FAA.
I had an similar issue , (in reverse, I flew after a BFR that was not valid that cost me a 709 ride.)
 
Last edited:
I don't think the issue here is the logbook.

The issue is how the pilot wants to be viewed by the FAA. Besides, what's wrong with having a clear conscience (assuming you have one)?

Self-reporting invokes a lot less punitive action than discovery. I would think that confession is going to be easier to deal with than receiving tacit approval in the long run. If the attitude is the Bart Simpson excuse - no one saw me do it, you can't prove I did it - then I feel that will lead to more risk taking on the part of the pilot.

As a pilot we're not the sheriff, but as a community if we don't self-police, we'll get plenty of help from those outside the community. History has demonstrated that. The alternative is to watch our privileges as pilots be further eroded, imho.
 
Unregistered said:
A pilot who I fly with from time to time has come to me for a BFR. No problem, he's a competent pilot who I've flown with before. His last one expired in July. Also no problem. The problem: He's had solo flights since then. Only about two or three, and this was a paperwork oversight on his part. He's also had several flights with instructors (including with me) for mostly fun purposes. The flights with instructors never were able to count as BFRs (no ground school and not more than an hour of flight time).

My thought is that he made an honest mistake, we take care of his BFR, and he moves on with life, having learned his lesson on keeping track of these things. The ground school portion will focus on use of a calendar. I'm wondering if legally there's something else that he's supposed to do or should bother doing.
Click to expand...

Give him the BFR. Make sure to cover areas you feel he's deficient in.

Unregistered said:
I also wonder if by signing his logbook knowing he's had flights past his BFR expiration if I'm on the hook for anything if I don't report it. I'm sure this is not the first time someone has let a BFR lapse and made illegal flights unintentionally.
Click to expand...

You are not "on the hook" for anything.
 
Ron Levy said:
There was a case of an Inspector finding a 10-year-old landing currency with passengers violation in some pilot's logbook, and the case stood up. Of course, if the Inspector was digging that far back, there was probably something else the pilot had done to get that Inspector's attention, and if they do get their fur that far up, they're going to find something on which to hang you, no matter what.
Click to expand...

How far back are you required to keep logbooks and if you have some that are older than required do you have to surrender them for inspection if the FAA asks to see them?

While I truly don't know that there's any evidence of wrongdoing in my logs, in the 30+ years I've been making entries it seems likely there are some mistakes and/or entries that might suggest a "misinterpretation" of the regs in effect at the time. I do know that I used whiteout to correct some early errors before I knew better and I'm wondering if I should "lose" some of the older ones just to be on the safe side. I suppose that I might want to make copies of pertinent entries such as endorsements, grandfathering experience, etc. and keep those around.
 
gismo said:
How far back are you required to keep logbooks and if you have some that are older than required do you have to surrender them for inspection if the FAA asks to see them?

While I truly don't know that there's any evidence of wrongdoing in my logs, in the 30+ years I've been making entries it seems likely there are some mistakes and/or entries that might suggest a "misinterpretation" of the regs in effect at the time. I do know that I used whiteout to correct some early errors before I knew better and I'm wondering if I should "lose" some of the older ones just to be on the safe side. I suppose that I might want to make copies of pertinent entries such as endorsements, grandfathering experience, etc. and keep those around.
Click to expand...

Whiteout or corrections on a page aren't illegal. You can use pencil,ink (your choice of color) permanent marker, crayon, etc.

Typically if you are asked for your logbooks it is to establish currency at the time of an incident/accident. Another situation may be if fraud is suspect in gaining a certificate.

Unless you get an LOI (Letter of Investigation) and they specify what they are looking for I wouldn't worry about it.
 
gismo said:
While I truly don't know that there's any evidence of wrongdoing in my logs, in the 30+ years I've been making entries it seems likely there are some mistakes and/or entries that might suggest a "misinterpretation" of the regs in effect at the time. I do know that I used whiteout to correct some early errors before I knew better and I'm wondering if I should "lose" some of the older ones just to be on the safe side. I suppose that I might want to make copies of pertinent entries such as endorsements, grandfathering experience, etc. and keep those around.
Click to expand...

My instructor once told me "No logbook is without errors." He didn't mean it to say that you should go around and be lax with entries, but I think the point was that we all will make mistakes from time to time unintentionally.

If our resident inspector says not to worry about it, that seems like good advice.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
My instructor once told me "No logbook is without errors." He didn't mean it to say that you should go around and be lax with entries, but I think the point was that we all will make mistakes from time to time unintentionally.

If our resident inspector says not to worry about it, that seems like good advice.
Click to expand...
Not that you shouldn't try to make your logbook as accurate as possible, but how many people have ever had their logbooks examined by another party in detail? I never have. Wouldn't it take forever to check all the currency requirements way back in the past?. As R&W notes it's probably only relevant if you are not current at the time of whatever accident or incident they are investigating.
 
jesse said:
I would give the guy his flight review - remind him about his having expired and move on. You're not going to do well in your area if you become the CFI known for calling the FAA when someones logbook isn't quite right.
Click to expand...

To be clear, my point was not to be a whistle blower. I have known this pilot for years and I would be willing to stand in front of a courtroom as a character witness to say that I do not believe it was an intentional error, merely a case of forgetting to use a calendar. He's a good pilot, a safe one, and one who makes good decisions.

My question had to do with if there was any culpability on my part for now knowing this information, and also what advice to give him. That has been answered very well here, and I thank everyone for their helpful responses.
 
Everskyward said:
Not that you shouldn't try to make your logbook as accurate as possible, but how many people have ever had their logbooks examined by another party in detail? I never have. Wouldn't it take forever to check all the currency requirements way back in the past?. As R&W notes it's probably only relevant if you are not current at the time of whatever accident or incident they are investigating.
Click to expand...

I'd agree. Even when I had my CFI ride, the examiner didn't look through every single entry. He did spend about 5 minutes looking through it (which seemed like a lot for 400 hours worth of flight time), but was looking primarily for the flight requirements specific to the CFI. As he put it, "I'm not here to question your previous ratings, I'll assume you earned those fairly."

Then there's also the question of whether currency is an issue. I have had times when I've had to go do touch-and-gos in a 172 so I can be current to take a passenger, since I'm now rarely current in singles. But if I'm flying solo, it doesn't matter.

I don't have experience with how the FAA works in such matters, but R&W's statement is in line with logic. If they're digging that deep, there's probably a reason.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'd agree. Even when I had my CFI ride, the examiner didn't look through every single entry. He did spend about 5 minutes looking through it (which seemed like a lot for 400 hours worth of flight time), but was looking primarily for the flight requirements specific to the CFI. As he put it, "I'm not here to question your previous ratings, I'll assume you earned those fairly."
Click to expand...

Here's a question...

You present your logbook for review for your CFI ride...does that start the clock for the stale complaint rule? I know a DPE review doesn't, but if you take the ride with a FAA inspector, then the FAA reviewed the information, right?
 
JeffDG said:
Here's a question...

You present your logbook for review for your CFI ride...does that start the clock for the stale complaint rule? I know a DPE review doesn't, but if you take the ride with a FAA inspector, then the FAA reviewed the information, right?
Click to expand...

Not sure why this is an issue, but if an Inspector reviewed your logs (as in a checkride) and accepted them and completed the exam then it's a moot point. However if during the log review something is discovered then the ride is stopped until the problem is addressed.
 
JeffDG said:
You present your logbook for review for your CFI ride...does that start the clock for the stale complaint rule? I know a DPE review doesn't, but if you take the ride with a FAA inspector, then the FAA reviewed the information, right?
Click to expand...
Based on all the cases I've seen involving the stale complaint rule, I believe you are correct -- review of your logbook by any FAA official starts the clock.

Also, while R&W has said whiteout is not illegal for correcting pilot logbooks, unless he has a reference I haven't been able to find (and if he does, I'd appreciate a pointer to it), that is his own personal opinion, not an official FAA position. AFAIK, neither the Administrator nor the Chief Counsel have ever given an official specific answer to the question of what constitutes a method of correction which is "acceptable to the Administrator."

By comparison, in most other realms of official record-keeping (e.g., medical records, military logbooks, etc), the only acceptable method of correcting legal records is to line out leaving the original entry legible, add the correct data, and date and initial/sign the correction. Until the Chief Counsel says otherwise, that's how I'll do it and how I'll recommend others do it. And remember that per Administrator v. Merrell and NTSB, 190 F.3d 571 (D.C. Cir. 1999), the Chief Counsel need not put forth his interpretation of a regulation in advance of an enforcement action.
 
What Ron has a difficult time comprehending is the FAA is not structured like the Air Force, i.e everything has a manual or a SOP that details every single and small detail that must be followed.

The FAA does detail in 14 cfr 61.51 what should be entered into "record" that is in " a manner acceptable to the administrator". In this instance "the administrator" is the same as an Inspector. The FAA gives the Inspector his knowledge and expertise when examining these records. No where in guidance are criteria listed for use of pencil/pen (color of ink) or even how to make a correction.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Whiteout or corrections on a page aren't illegal. You can use pencil,ink (your choice of color) permanent marker, crayon, etc.
Click to expand...
I agree, but it has always amazed me that this is one area where aviation differes greatly from the rest of the transportation industry.

Try using white-out or erasures in a ship's log, for example, and that logbook instantly becomes worthless from a credibility standpoint.
 
Since other Inspectors have told me differently than R&W about the use of whiteout, I'd suggest those of you using whiteout make sure that your logbooks aren't examined by any Inspector other than R&W. Further, individual Inspectors are not the same as "the Administrator" when it comes to intepreting the regulations. Only the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel and Regional Chief Counsel provide "legal interpretations." FAA Inspectors are limited to providing interpretations of the regulations which are supported by approved documents such as Chief Counsel interpretations, Advisory Circulars, or internal FAA documentation, and on this subject, R&W has so far failed to provide any such support for his position.

In summary, I'm not saying whiteout is definitely illegal, but I am saying that in the absence of approved FAA guidance (which R&W doesn't seem to have), nobody short of the Chief Counsel can say it's definitely legal, either.
 
My logbook has white out in it, as well as cross-outs, etc. At my CFI checkride, the inspector saw it, and didn't even mention it.
 
Ron Levy said:
Further, individual Inspectors are not the same as "the Administrator" when it comes to intepreting the regulations. Only the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel and Regional Chief Counsel provide "legal interpretations." FAA Inspectors are limited to providing interpretations of the regulations which are supported by approved documents such as Chief Counsel interpretations, Advisory Circulars, or internal FAA documentation, and on this subject, R&W has so far failed to provide any such support for his position.
Click to expand...

Ok, please point out in guidance, orders or notices, or any regulations that prove me wrong on the subject of this thread.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Ok, please point out in guidance, orders or notices, or any regulations that prove me wrong on the subject of this thread.
Click to expand...
Y'see, that's the part you don't seem to get -- you have to prove that the FAA's official position is what you say it is. I'm only saying that there is no such official position, and that you aren't authorized to create one. And the Chief of Flight Standards agrees on that last point -- "AFS-800 continues to be the final point of resolution in all policy matters regarding the part 61 and 141 regulations." Unless you've got something in writing from AFS-800 or other approved guidance saying you're right, all you can give us is your own personal opinion.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
My logbook has white out in it,
Click to expand...
Mine even has green-out because, in the past, one of my logbooks had some green columns. I had never heard of this objection to white-out until I started reading internet boards. But that's the case with a lot of other things I read on internet boards too. :dunno:
 
Ron Levy said:
Y'see, that's the part you don't seem to get -- you have to prove that the FAA's official position is what you say it is. I'm only saying that there is no such official position, and that you aren't authorized to create one. And the Chief of Flight Standards agrees on that last point -- "AFS-800 continues to be the final point of resolution in all policy matters regarding the part 61 and 141 regulations." Unless you've got something in writing from AFS-800 or other approved guidance saying you're right, all you can give us is your own personal opinion.
Click to expand...

I get alot of things. Please go back to my post and show me where I stated I was offering an "official position" on my comments. I was pointing out to you how the Agency views such matters and as to why there is no particular guidance on such.

I offer my insight here to those reading as someone working inside the Agency. Unlike you I have had extensive training in these areas and work in these type of situations daily.

While you like to fantasize about being an "insider" to the FAA , you're not. Everything you have to offer on the subject is an opinion, just the same as any other person responding.
 
Everskyward said:
Mine even has green-out because, in the past, one of my logbooks had some green columns. I had never heard of this objection to white-out until I started reading internet boards. But that's the case with a lot of other things I read on internet boards too. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Twin Cessna drivers are the coolest. :cornut:
 
Rotor&Wing said:
I get alot of things. Please go back to my post and show me where I stated I was offering an "official position" on my comments.
Click to expand...
Right here:
Rotor&Wing said:
The FAA does detail in 14 cfr 61.51 what should be entered into "record" that is in " a manner acceptable to the administrator". In this instance "the administrator" is the same as an Inspector.
Click to expand...
That just ain't so, and it was the erroneous interpretations provided by many field Inspectors which led to the FAQ file. Unfortunately, it was AFS-800's failure to ensure that the "policies" in the FAQ file conformed to the Chief Counsel's interpretation of those regulations which led to the Chief Counsel's direction to remove that file from public view, along with AFS-1's letter directing field personnel such as individual FAA Inspectors to work such interpretive issues through AFS-800 so the Chief Counsel would be in the loop.

As I said above, you can only count on R&W's statements on the acceptability of whiteout if R&W is the Inspector reviewing your logbook. Anyone else, and you could get a different result, and it's not likely that telling the Regional Counsel at your informal hearing that it must be OK because an anonymous person who said he was an Inspector told you on a web discussion board it was OK will be availing.

BTW, while I may not be an FAA employee, I discussed the issues arising from Flight Standards field personnel creating their own interpretations of the regulations with the folks in AFS-800 who put the FAQ file together (Allan Pinkston and John Lynch) many times, including the reasons it was removed from public view, so I do know that side of that story.
 
Last edited:
Anytime one sees references such as in 61.51 where it states "in a matter acceptable to the administrator" not only does that refer to the Administrator (Randy Babbitt) but also his designees (FAA Inspectors).

This was pointed out time and time again at the Academy. In fact in the near future all references to the Administrator are being replaced with "Administration" to further clarify that point.

So what 61.51(a) is telling the reader is he/she must document and record the following time in a manner acceptable to the 1) Administration and 2) the Inspector reviewing it.

So as I was reading this I realized I was in an office full of Inspectors. So I took some time and went around to gather some opinions on the subject. Seems no one had any objection to the use of whiteout and a couple of very senior Inspectors pointed out since it was not in guidance it was to the discretion of the Inspector.

Took it a step farther and called my good friend in DC at AFS-820. Basically he told me the same, as long as it's not called out in Guidance to use my discretion. I also asked him his take on the term "Administrator" in the regulations and he confirmed what I stated above.:thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Talk aboot splitting hairs.

If there's no rule yet then the only thing that matters is what the finder of fact gives a crap aboot.

There could be a thousand white outs unrelated to an incident and no honest man would give a darn.

On the other hand if there is even one white out, or strike through, or overwrite, or . . . that appears to change the record as a CYA post accident, then that's a problem.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Not sure why this is an issue, but if an Inspector reviewed your logs (as in a checkride) and accepted them and completed the exam then it's a moot point. However if during the log review something is discovered then the ride is stopped until the problem is addressed.
Click to expand...

The issue is if the Inspector does a cursory review of your logbook at one point, then a year later something comes up and they decide to do a "deep dive".
 
JeffDG said:
The issue is if the Inspector does a cursory review of your logbook at one point, then a year later something comes up and they decide to do a "deep dive".
Click to expand...

The FAA can at any time request to have you produce your logbooks. If "something was to come up a year later then yes they have the right to look at them.

I would seriously doubt an Inspector would look over a logbook and see something in question and not say anything about it.
 
ebacon said:
Talk aboot splitting hairs.

If there's no rule yet then the only thing that matters is what the finder of fact gives a crap aboot.

There could be a thousand white outs unrelated to an incident and no honest man would give a darn.

On the other hand if there is even one white out, or strike through, or overwrite, or . . . that appears to change the record as a CYA post accident, then that's a problem.
Click to expand...

Well stated. Thanks.
 
Ron Levy said:
Since other Inspectors have told me differently than R&W about the use of whiteout, I'd suggest those of you using whiteout make sure that your logbooks aren't examined by any Inspector other than R&W. Further, individual Inspectors are not the same as "the Administrator" when it comes to intepreting the regulations. Only the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel and Regional Chief Counsel provide "legal interpretations." FAA Inspectors are limited to providing interpretations of the regulations which are supported by approved documents such as Chief Counsel interpretations, Advisory Circulars, or internal FAA documentation, and on this subject, R&W has so far failed to provide any such support for his position.

In summary, I'm not saying whiteout is definitely illegal, but I am saying that in the absence of approved FAA guidance (which R&W doesn't seem to have), nobody short of the Chief Counsel can say it's definitely legal, either.
Click to expand...

I can speak from experience, the FAA has no issue with using white out.
Unless there is evidence to the contrary, they take it as an honest attempt to correct an inadvertent error. That said, the inspector that was investigating a bogus BFR entry in my log suggested we simply strike the entry and initial
Remember this Ron?
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2022
 
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