Opinion ID: 687353
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: specificity of faa regulations

Text: 16 Reno's final contention is that Section 61.51 of the F.A.R., 14 C.F.R. Sec. 61.51, is vague with regard to what constitutes a pilot logbook. He argues that reliable record as contained in section 61.51 can be substituted for the requirement of an endorsement in a pilot logbook as required by sections 61.87(d) and 61.93(c)(2) of the F.A.R. Section 61.51 provides: 17 (a) Pilot logbooks 18 The aeronautical training and experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate ... must be shown by a reliable record. (emphasis added) 19 However, Reno's discussion of section 61.51 is not relevant to his F.A.R. violations. The order suspending Reno's commercial pilot certificate was based on his violations of sections 61.87(d) and 61.93(c)(2), not section 61.51. Section 61.87(d) provides in relevant part: 20 (d) Flight Instructor Endorsements 21 A student pilot may not operate an aircraft in solo flight unless his student pilot certificate is endorsed, and unless within the preceding 90 days his pilot logbook has been endorsed, by an authorized flight instructor.... (emphasis added) 22 Section 61.93(c)(2) provides in relevant part: 23 (c) Flight Instructor Endorsements 24 A student pilot must have the following endorsements from an authorized flight instructor ...; (2) an endorsement in his pilot logbook that the instructor has reviewed the pre-flight planning and preparation for each solo cross-country flight. (emphasis added) 25 In addressing Reno's argument regarding the use of reliable record as contained in section 61.51, the ALJ found this language to mean a reliable record in the logbook itself. It is clear from the heading of section 61.51, Pilot logbooks, that all subsequent discussion in that section is with regard to Pilot logbooks and logbook requirements. Reno has taken the phrase reliable record out of context and misinterpreted its intended use. Further, as noted above, it is well established that FAA interpretations of FAA regulations are entitled to a high degree of deference. Janka v. Nat. Transp. Safety Bd., 925 F.2d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.1991). 26 The language of a regulation is the starting point for its interpretation. The plain language of sections 61.87(d) and 61.93(c)(2) supra, requires endorsements on the student pilot certificate and pilot logbook. This court has held that the plain meaning of language in a regulation governs unless that meaning would lead to absurd results. Dyer v. U.S., 832 F.2d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir.1987) (citing Bechtel Const., Inc. v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 812 F.2d 1220, 1225 (9th Cir.1987). Such is not the case here. 27 Given the unequivocal language of sections 61.87(d) and 61.93(c)(2) requiring endorsements on student pilot certificates and pilot logbooks, we hold that Reno's failure to comply with these requirements constitutes sanctionable violations.