CFI Records

[got2av8]

Here's what might be a foolish question. Under 61.189(b)(1), which endorsements are supposed to be listed? I was under the impression (for the last two years) that this record needed to reflect the endorsement for an initial solo flight. I've been told now that each endorsement for each cross country, each repeat landing within 25 nm endorsement, etc needs to be recorded. This is according to a friend who got a visit from the FSDO busybody (not our normal inspector, who's a pretty nice guy) at one of the flight schools I work for. He was under the same impression and is now facing a 90 day suspension of his CFI certificate. Apparently Mr. Busybody now wants to see ALL the records of ALL the flight instructors in the area.

Anyone want to weigh in on this? Have I just been doing it wrong for 2 years? I'm not afraid to eat my crow, but if I don't have to spend the next week tracking down old students from across two years and three states, I'd be very relieved.

 

[tgrayson]

Anyone want to weigh in on this?

What other evidence do you need, besides 61.189(b)? If the story is accurate, then this Inspector has a boss...find him; if that fails, you can talk to someone in Oklahoma City. Individual Inspectors can't make their own rules, but make sure you have the facts straight before making waves.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

What other evidence do you need, besides 61.189(b)? If the story is accurate, then this Inspector has a boss...find him; if that fails, you can talk to someone in Oklahoma City. Individual Inspectors can't make their own rules, but make sure you have the facts straight before make waves.

I felt the same way until I read 61.189(b)(1):

==============================
(b) A flight instructor must maintain a record in a logbook or a separate document that contains the following:
(1) The name of each person whose logbook or student pilot certificate that instructor has endorsed for solo flight privileges, and the date of the endorsement; and
==============================

I've never seen a formal interpretation one way or another, but I don't have the level of confidence you apparently have that, for example, the required endorsement for each solo cross country flight in 61.93(c)(2) cannot be considered to be an endorsement for solo flight privileges.

But the common wisdom has in fact been that they are talking about a limited subset of endorsements.

If this is a real situation, hopefully the CFI in question has representation - this is one that you definitely want to at least get to the level of in informal conference with the FAA attorney with a representative who speaks the same language.

 

[Guy]

tgrayson hit the nail on the head. It is pretty clear and concise.

Assuming that your "normal inspector" is the POI for a 141 school, then the best first action is to have one of the school managers give him a call.

§ 61.189 Flight instructor records.
(a) A flight instructor must sign the logbook of each person to whom that instructor has given flight training or ground training.
(b) A flight instructor must maintain a record in a logbook or a separate document that contains the following:
(1) The name of each person whose logbook or student pilot certificate that instructor has endorsed for solo flight privileges, and the date of the endorsement; and
(2) The name of each person that instructor has endorsed for a knowledge test or practical test, and the record shall also indicate the kind of test, the date, and the results.
(c) Each flight instructor must retain the records required by this section for at least 3 years.

 

[tgrayson]

I've never seen a formal interpretation one way or another

You shouldn't need an LOI for every sentence in the regulations. The wholesale lack of discussion of the subject indicates there isn't much ambiguity...it means what it says. This has been pointed out in LOIs:

A fundamental principle of statutory construction is that when language is clear and unambiguous it must be held to mean what it plainly expresses.
​

Obviously, an LOI could ignore that, but it hasn't yet.

hopefully the CFI in question has representation

I hope not. This whole thing might be nipped in the bud if you get a couple of adults talking together in a reasonable fashion. Getting a lawyer involved is an escalation that should be avoided.

 

[Guy]

After reading what MidlifeFlyer wrote, I can see where someone could interpret the regulation in that manner. It runs contrary to common industry practice, but that isn't a defense in and of itself.

 

[tgrayson]

After reading what MidlifeFlyer wrote, I can see where someone could interpret the regulation in that manner. It runs contrary to common industry practice, but that isn't a defense in and of itself.

You can twist almost anything to mean what you want it to mean. The question is, would the unbiased reader form that conclusion by reading the text; in the case, the answer is clearly "no".

By similar reasoning, you could say you need to record other endorsements, such as a complex, high performance, etc. And how about a flight review? That's an endorsement for solo flight.

A reasonable man interpretation would say that if they wanted the flight instructor to record cross country endorsements, the regulation would have said so.

 

[Guy]

I hope not. This whole thing might be nipped in the bud if you get a couple of adults talking together in a reasonable fashion. Getting a lawyer involved is an escalation that should be avoided.

Very true. However, when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/if_all_you_have_is_a_hammer,_everything_looks_like_a_nail

If you are a lawyer, the solution to every problem you see is to give money to a lawyer.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

You shouldn't need an LOI for every sentence in the regulations. The wholesale lack of discussion of the subject indicates there isn't much ambiguity...it means what it says. This has been pointed out in LOIs:

A fundamental principle of statutory construction is that when language is clear and unambiguous it must be held to mean what it plainly expresses.
​

Obviously, an LOI could ignore that, but it hasn't yet.

I hope not. This whole thing might be nipped in the bud if you get a couple of adults talking together in a reasonable fashion. Getting a lawyer involved is an escalation that should be avoided.

What makes you say that? Depends a lot on the lawyer wouldn't you say?

Okay, so an endorsement for solo cross country flight privileges is clearly not an endorsement for solo flight privileges under your definition of plain language.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

By similar reasoning, you could say you need to record other endorsements, such as a complex, high performance, etc. And how about a flight review? That's an endorsement for solo flight.

That's a little extreme don't you think? I can find the "plain" word "solo" in a whole bunch of student pilot regulations (and in one part of 61.31); can you find the word "solo" in the complex, high performance, etc regs? Or the flight review reg? Your arguments are usually much better than that.

Hopefully, whoever this guy answers to agrees with the common usage (btw, if not, I violated it also) but requiring recording of endorsements relating to solo flight privileges would unfortunately not be an unreasonable interpretation.

 

[tgrayson]

That's a little extreme don't you think?

Certainly. Just pointing out how you can stretch language to fit what you want. Not all the stretches are equally reasonable. The most reasonable interpretations of the regulation in order of decreasing reasonableness:

1) The initial solo or renewal.
2) Every logbook endorsement you give a student pilot.
3) Every logbook endorsement you give anybody.

Once you have a conclusion in mind, almost any sentence which doesn't directly oppose your conclusion can be construed to support it.

requiring recording of endorsements relating to solo flight privileges would unfortunately not be an unreasonable interpretation.

Not if made by the General Counsel's Office, but it would be when made by a random Inspector when such an interpretation is at odds with the industry understanding.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Not if made by the General Counsel's Office, but it would be when made by a random Inspector when such an interpretation is at odds with the industry understanding.

You won't find me disagreeing with you there.

But if got2av8 is correct that the CFI in question is "facing a 90 day suspension" it's either just a threat by an inspector or he's received a notice of proposed certificate action. If it's the latter, it means the regional FAA attorney who prosecutes certificate actions has already looked at it.

 

[tgrayson]

But if got2av8 is correct that the CFI in question is "facing a 90 day suspension" it's either just a threat by an inspector or he's received a notice of proposed certificate action.

My assumption is the former, even though we don't have the details; that's why I discouraged getting counsel too quickly. Yes, if it's gone as far as getting notices from the FAA, he probably needs counsel.

We had a flight instructor who received similar threats from an Inspector because the aircraft registration became invalid in the middle of a flight he was making. The law only requires that the pilot have a pink copy of the Registration Application, which the aircraft had, so the Inspector really didn't have any grounds for the threat. The matter was later dropped, with merely an informational letter sent to the people involved, saying "be careful."

 

[got2av8]

Thanks to everyone who weighed in. To clarify: this is not a 141 but a 61 school. According to the owner, another FAA rep commonly stops in about once a year to go over basic flight school training records including a cursory maintenance record inspection. This has, in the past, been a 2-3 hour affair and usually very informal, more in the line of "you might want to do this in such-and-such a way". In this particular case, the examiner in question is relatively new to the FAA, and has apparently made himself a reputation as a busybody with several other flight schools. The CFI facing the certificate suspension is facing it on this FAA rep's word at the moment, but he's already retained counsel in anticipation of formal notice. We've been given notice that the rep will be at our flight school for a minimum of three days to go through maintenance and flight instructor records, and the CFI recordkeeping issue is apparently one of the ones he's basing the pending certificate action on. To be on the safe side I've already started going back through my phonebook to beg students for specific XC endorsement dates, but there's no chance in the world I'm going to be able to find all of them at this date. Looks like AOPA's legal plan is going to come in handy after all.

 

[tgrayson]

but there's no chance in the world I'm going to be able to find all of them at this date.

I've given you some alternative courses of action. What FSDO is this?

 

[deadstick]

Certainly. Just pointing out how you can stretch language to fit what you want. Not all the stretches are equally reasonable. The most reasonable interpretations of the regulation in order of decreasing reasonableness:

1) The initial solo or renewal.
2) Every logbook endorsement you give a student pilot.
3) Every logbook endorsement you give anybody.

I really don't see how #2 and #3 can come from 189. I can see the student xc, but not other endorsements. Wasn't there a discussion about "operational authority" and endorsements lately? Something about company checkouts. Are the HP, CX, high altitude, or flight review endorsements "solo" endorsements for licensed pilots?

I agree with everything else. One question: which LOI has "A fundamental principle of statutory construction is that when language is clear and unambiguous it must be held to mean what it plainly expresses."

 

[got2av8]

This whole thing might be nipped in the bud if you get a couple of adults talking together in a reasonable fashion.

...

Once you have a conclusion in mind, almost any sentence which doesn't directly oppose your conclusion can be construed to support it.

The problem here is that this fella is apparently out to make a name for himself, and is willing to allow his own interpretations to shade his decisions as to whether or not a regulation means what it says or what his interpretation says, LOI or not. I was hopeful that this might have come up in the past, and that some sort of interpretation or clarification might exist. At the moment my options seem limited to finding all those endorsements or risking a violation, which at best will be overturned down the line and at worst upheld leaving a nice little black spot on my file. Either way, in this employment market any smirch on the record isn't going to look good.

 

[tgrayson]

I agree with everything else. One question: which LOI has "A fundamental principle of statutory construction is that when language is clear and unambiguous it must be held to mean what it plainly expresses."

June 24, 1991
Mr. Glenn H. Rizner
Technical/Airports Specialist
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
421 Aviation Way
Frederick, MD 21701-4798

 

[tgrayson]

At the moment my options seem limited to finding all those endorsements or risking a violation, which at best will be overturned down the line and at worst upheld leaving a nice little black spot on my file.

If I had to bet, I'd bet nothing will come from this. Someone further up the chain will see there is no basis for a violation.

Still, I've pointed out that you have other options, and I have done this. You can find someone bigger and badder up the chain who agrees with you and might can stop this before it gets really started.

 

[Guy]

You can twist almost anything to mean what you want it to mean. The question is, would the unbiased reader form that conclusion by reading the text; in the case, the answer is clearly "no".

Actually, you just made a very good case against your own point.

One can twist anything to mean anything, and if the person in authority believes it says one thing, then you are on the defensive, and in this case you "no" is incorrect. An unbiased reader would not always form that conclusion. The fact you do it one way and wish to passionately argue that you are doing it correctly does not change the fact that the line could be interpreted to mean something different.