PeterPilot
New Member
NTSB Case Reference
The link listed below leads to the case of an airman who did not furnish his logbooks when requested. This is a case that had gone before the NTSB’s Administrative Law Judge, and then been appealed to the full NTSB by the respondent. I have excerpted the applicable part, but you can read the full record at the link below.
https://ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4935.PDF
We have previously held that ‘reasonable’ in the context of FAR section 61.51(i) means that “compliance presents no undue or inappropriate burden[,]” for “the Administrator is not obligated to explain or establish why [she] wants or should be permitted to see the logbooks or other records [she] is authorized to review under regulations[.]” Weinstein at 5 (1992); compare Administrator v. Ringer, 3 NTSB 3948, 3949 (1981) (an FAA request to re-examine an airman can be sustained only if there is a potential nexus between an event giving rise to the reexamination request and pilot competence).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Respondent’s appeal is denied;
2. The law judge’s initial decision upholding the Administrator’s Order of Suspension is affirmed; and
3. The 30-day suspension of respondent’s certificates shall begin 30 days after the service date indicated on this opinion and order. In the event respondent does not produce the requested records before or within the 30-day suspension period, the suspension shall remain in effect indefinitely until such time that respondent fully complies with the Administrator’s inspection request.
The link listed below leads to the case of an airman who did not furnish his logbooks when requested. This is a case that had gone before the NTSB’s Administrative Law Judge, and then been appealed to the full NTSB by the respondent. I have excerpted the applicable part, but you can read the full record at the link below.
https://ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4935.PDF
We have previously held that ‘reasonable’ in the context of FAR section 61.51(i) means that “compliance presents no undue or inappropriate burden[,]” for “the Administrator is not obligated to explain or establish why [she] wants or should be permitted to see the logbooks or other records [she] is authorized to review under regulations[.]” Weinstein at 5 (1992); compare Administrator v. Ringer, 3 NTSB 3948, 3949 (1981) (an FAA request to re-examine an airman can be sustained only if there is a potential nexus between an event giving rise to the reexamination request and pilot competence).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Respondent’s appeal is denied;
2. The law judge’s initial decision upholding the Administrator’s Order of Suspension is affirmed; and
3. The 30-day suspension of respondent’s certificates shall begin 30 days after the service date indicated on this opinion and order. In the event respondent does not produce the requested records before or within the 30-day suspension period, the suspension shall remain in effect indefinitely until such time that respondent fully complies with the Administrator’s inspection request.