proceedings before the board itself our rules are quite different for example from rules that apply to pleadings filed in the district court and no one would say that were  that you're free to mention it but i don't think it's relevant to the to the standards that approximated if we mention it right and we were to say you're out of luck you're late it would only stand for the proposition that those children are saying that if a party gets a letter then they can they better not be  if we do not mention it then we're into this business of talking about rules in the abstract about a lawyer i don't know by research and so on but here is a lawyer is given a letter telling that lawyer here's the rule record is not the same thing as having mr diaz appear in court present himself personally present other witnesses who can talk about in more detail what happens at the hangar party what happened at the company and  circumstances so i would agree that is when would be the exceptional case that is what the court's precedent says that it would be an extraordinary case for medication would be where there would be mitigating circumstances to lead to a sanction other than revocation only upon a showing of good cause i note that counsel for mr diaz indicates in his reply brief that the administrator could not raise section twenty one eleven but that's not true in fact one of the the four other cases he relies upon which were which involve reply groups are do not involve what's at issue here which is an answer to our late fall the answer to a complaint and i think all of these cases are best conclusion that the practice standard is appropriate or with respect to late filed answers to ija applications and again that approach only makes sense because in answer to an equal  of required pleadings during my preparation and i think it's important to note that during my preparation for this or argument i did come across one case one n t s b case where the board  now that decision has to has to be taken in context back in the late sixty's the n t s b drew a distinction between airman who are represented by counsel and those who are not represented by counsel and john gable  and actually we have a twenty one thirty one c which he received as and attachment to the case management letter i'm indicating that that answers to complaints shall be filed or else the  the litigant must file within ten days after the denial of the of the motion for a more definite statement and in fact judge gary barlow denies mr diaz this request for a more definite statement and so doing judge garrity issued  certification however the board true a distinction between both between actually the and concluding that good cause or and appearance conclude that good cause was not the standard that they were going to apply  are on review and in effect that also is reminiscent of a reply brief and an answer to an application that is it's not this is a document that's not necessary for the framing of issue respondent admitted that he made entries in the post maintenance far wrong checklist that inspection items and underlining underlying maintenance had been accomplished when he knew that these things had not been done the issue that the f a a makes makes its investigation and concludes by entering an order and serving it on in this case the mechanic right correct answer itself may be accepted ok so you think that is that he has some power told that failure to answer may be deemed mission unless you confused about the n t s b president having less of that argument than i was before and it is really very difficult in my opinion to say that the n t s b precedent is clear and uniform about how the board will