AOPA Pilot Magazine - August 2011 - 32

PILOTCOUNSEL

BY JOHN S. YODICE
AOPA SECRETARY

Logbook entries; an important reminder

n 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

as documentation on the annual inspection of his aircraft, as requested. But, as for the evidence of his review, he explained that his briefcase, containing his logbook, had been behind the front seat of 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 review with a CFI named Jim who was from a certain town in California. The FAA tracked down two CFIs named Jim in the areas have associated logging requirements. Pilots pay around the town, but they both stated that they had strict attention to the substantive requirements of not conducted a review for this pilot. In the FAA’s John S. Yodice is the rules, the main reason for the columns. But even attempt to further refute the pilot’s explanation, one an instrumentthe most conscientious pilots are sometimes lulled of the first responders to the scene of the accident rated private pilot into complacency about the logging requirement, was a fire chief who testified that about an hour and and owner of a even though they actually meet the substantive a half after the accident, he escorted the pilot back Cessna 310. requirements. That’s because we rarely get a request, to the aircraft to retrieve some personal belongings. one that we don’t expect, from someone in authorSince it was nighttime, the chief held his flashlight ity that asks us to evidence the associated logbook entries. inside the aircraft to assist the pilot. Contrary to the pilot’s testiHowever, the requests, although rare, inevitably follow an mony that he did not remove his logbook from the aircraft, the unexpected accident or incident. Few realize that the absence chief testified he witnessed the pilot take some papers, flight of a required logbook entry is itself considered a serious viola- charts, and a logbook from the aircraft. Later that evening, the tion even if the pilot actually meets the requirements. So, this chief again escorted the pilot to the aircraft. On that trip, the secondary message is worth a column of its own. And, we now pilot removed additional items from both of the front seats and have a case—admittedly an extreme one—but one that clearly behind the seats. The chief then ensured that no personal items illustrates my secondary message. were left in the aircraft and secured it for the evening. At no time A pilot attempted a takeoff from an airport in California in did the chief see a briefcase in the aircraft, nor did he see the his Piper Cherokee PA-28-140. In the darkness, the aircraft ran pilot remove a briefcase. off the left side of the runway and came to rest entangled in a After a hearing, an NTSB law judge denied the pilot’s appeal, fence some 210 feet off the runway. Apparently the pilot was believing the fire chief’s testimony over the pilot’s. The full board unable to turn on the runway lights because of confusion about affirmed the law judge. The result is that the pilot is grounded the correct Unicom frequency to activate them. until he produces evidence of a review (presumably dated The FAA routinely investigated the accident. As part of the within the prior 24 calendar months of the accident, though investigation the FAA aviation safety investigators asked the the NTSB decision does not discuss this aspect). A serious and pilot for his logbook and maintenance records, following up maybe impossible penalty. with two letter requests. The pilot provided the inspectors copFor completeness I must mention that in a separate but ies of most of the records, but he failed to provide proof of a related case, the FAA brought other charges against the pilot current FAR 61.56 flight review, more commonly known as a arising out of this same accident. In addition to the recordkeep“biennial flight review” or “BFR.” ing violations, the pilot was charged with failure to familiarize A pilot is generally required to have a review every 24 calen- himself “with all available information concerning that flight;” dar months, consisting of one hour of flight training and one with “careless or reckless” operation; and with not actually hour of ground training, typically with a certified flight instruc- having accomplished the review. These charges resulted in a tor, and both the pilot and the CFI are required to document 180-day suspension of his private pilot certificate. I am still the review in their logbooks. scratching my head, unable to reconcile the two suspensions. Because the pilot failed to provide a logbook entry of the In any event, the main message of this column, making required review, the FAA issued an emergency order suspending more explicit the secondary messages in past columns, is that the pilot’s certificate until such time as he provided proof of his we almost certainly will be asked for logbooks at a most inopreview. An emergency order means an immediate grounding. portune time—after an aircraft accident or incident. Knowing The pilot appealed the suspension to the NTSB. In the appeal, that, we should try to keep our logbooks up to date. And as a the pilot admitted that he did not provide evidence of his footnote that you may not read anywhere else, in my opinion review to the FAA in response to the FAA’s requests. He argued you may even update the logbooks after an FAA request so long that he did produce his medical and pilot certificates as well as the entry is truthful and accurate. 32 • AUGUST 2011

AOPA PILOT •

AOPA Pilot Magazine - August 2011

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of AOPA Pilot Magazine - August 2011