a standard complaint has to affirmatively demonstrate rather than merely allege which is the heart of our strong right we disagree with that your honor but having said that we thought that it was understandable and something one would live within the context of a case in which the think that if you look at the armstrong the factual allegations and armstrong there the question was whether or not the pilot had the claim was that the pilot had three implied consent violations of motor vehicle laws and under and she has the president that's a serious violation but it's not something that is inherently shows a lack of qualification there was that l j in that case i'm held that the administrator had not proved a lack of qualification and the board and the  you understand armstrong to be requiring when it talks about demonstrating that there's a where i complication mean as i read it in armstrong when they what they were saying is you need to demonstrate that this is a case in because whatever it may have meant in armstrong was much less troubling in that context than this one where there's nothing additional a complaint could say that would take the case into the qualifications realm it was already in the publications or decisions have been regulation i mean it i'm not sure it matters too much your honor because either way it's not acceptable in this context i was just the way i conceive of it is that the present case illuminates what the what the board meant when it of what this because this stat that the regulation simply says present the allegations present an issue it doesn't say demonstrate that came from the board itself and we think that's an impermissible extension of the scale complaint rule if you look at the allegations of the complaint you know it's very specific in terms of what they say was  demonstrate it to me if the board met by demonstrate something different than allege or present you know we think that that is in permissible under that language of the regulation we think we think that but even on its own terms it doesn't make sense because in certain instances in which it's a complicated matter to figure out what was false and how you know what should have been said that's not the case in a case like this one where you know three flights took place was palm beach palm beach jackson jackson because that's what actually happened there's no dispute about that what the law said was to get you in jackson which not only is false but it manages to paragraph nine and then paragraph twelve goes on to say that the plates that were actually taken were taken in violation of f a a regulations so i think there you have both false and you know specifically what was false  likely from purposes of complaint now i understand and later accidental as tensional well i think i think that inference is less likely in fact than the inference that it was intentional given the fact that the lights that were not written the by stating it that way he can seal the actual regulatory violation which was flying in international passenger carrying flight without the appropriate sort of type rating  everything is done correctly in that context the idea that that was not enough to say to come from social falsification which is essentially what the board saying now is incomprehensible and it leaves the administrator in a state of not knowing what is supposed to be pled the an the most of the cases say you know you you don't go back and revisit armstrong it's not to go back and revisit it based on the failure of proof it went back and looked at the allegations which we  you go back to look at the allegations that seem odd because there's nothing that the hearing adds to the analysis and we don't think it makes sense to do it based on the evidence because the rule doesn't rule speaks the allegations only that and i'm going to ask you about count four it seems to me that should be charged with the knowledge that he does not have this rating and yet when you look at his that the order the defect in count four is no logbooks no presented that he didn't have the reading i just don't understand how looking at the last paragraph of the board's order they talk first about the counts one and three and then they say concerning the application of the stale complaint rule which should get rid of four without any regard to specificity lack of qualifications or whenever we carefully review the facts and and then the last sentence of the order is we know that this determination that is with respect to count four is limited to the unique facts of this case so how do you interpret how the board and characterized count four and if it is a lack of qualifications charge why you specificity any more specificity needed then to know that the n t s b knows whether this fellow has the rating or not the way i read the rule and it's certainly confusing when it was undisputed that there was a regulatory violation as to count four right now it's conceded and i think the reason that the board is talking there about specificity and all of that complaint survives but they then they keep taking this stand alone count four and applying specificity to it well because i think what they're doing but i think they're not looking so much at the specificity with respect to the allegation in count four as to whether or not presumptive penalty for flying in ark and flying an aircraft without the proper type rating for that aircraft is grounds for suspension but not ordinarily grounds for education but this you took again to be a publication's issue under the board's president  serious type of violation and that's why it's presumptively disqualifying because the entire f a a scheme depends upon the accuracy and the trustworthiness of the information that pilots mechanics everybody who is regulated provides t so that they can determine whether any safety hazards exist whether the skies are are safe and that's what this is that is the hearing before the sale of typical hearing and the reason i ask you is there seems to be an unusual five years it was typical hearing that took place with george mullins and keep in mind if you read his decision which is rendered orally at the end of a whole day of evidence very difficult we were new orleans was in july they shut together the evidence and the testimony and assessing the credibility of my client jody to cody again my name is greg winter and i represent a responded captain jody to cody in this matter we ask that you deny the petition for review and affirm the should be ignored if i may speak to that sometimes we get involved in arguing a position that we can't see the force of the trees and certainly over the last two if years i was most concerned about winning on the merits in this case upon which we have prevailed three times over the past two and a half years we are their aircraft owners and pilots association and we have the united states policy population adequately briefed the position that standing does not apply here you know i've been before this court before never been sitting in this paid this position as a responded i have represented west ten years approximately nine or ten responded successfully in revocation hearings nine of ten of those have resulted in attorneys fees being granted back reapply meaning he could take all the test me again and all the flight tests however we feel it a privilege he will get a certificate back my point is without the ability to earn an income you don't have to defend yourself before the war judge before the board on a reconsider unique backs of this case and then we have to square that with the letter from the administrator of the f a a that says i have determined that the n t s b is decisions will have a significant adverse impact on carrying out the f a s regulation if this decision in the dakota case is limited to the unique facts of this case it doesn't go beyond dakota so how does that affect the administrator why is your ministry a lot of bring this to your adverse impact of the code case which is limited you didn't seek any review on that i'm sorry did the secret i have not no i mean concerned about winning this case on the merits which again the decision of the board n t s b e a five six what the f a a says i did fly and what put in my logbook ok does it say exactly which which flights were falsely stated intentionally falsely stated and which ones were just omitted because no mid flight is not false with cation right but i'm reading this with my client and he looked at his master walkable which added with that he described and recorded these flights the way they should have been so we're looking at a log book and we're looking here to complain saying this is no mission because keep in mind pilot records both flights are not required to be cut by any pilot so i guess the line between innovation and a false statement about where you live seems to me nearly unworkable standard  to make a command pilot on board the cessna jet aircraft all over the united states it's when he flies internationally he's required to have a second in command type rating with passengers with with passengers right so that is the distinction so let's talk about the holster cation charges there were no false mckay's charges on his face of a complaint that would have substantiated demonstrated a lack of qualifications as found by previous case law and a very interesting thing is that you m argues that this is an unworkable solution if you require us to plea was such specificity revocation cases we can't do that when we have a case here it's easy to n t s b order eight five seven two seven fairly then simply to get the rest of the case before we go forward and i think you're pretty even acknowledged that that happened some time and so you address why the agency did here isn't a sufficient check isn't sufficient to check on a process of human knowledge has had some problems well your honor i think the check was already in the board president i mean that there are cases in which the board has said we think you know an intentional publication claim was added sort of here as an afterthought and this case is really not about that it's your work qualifications claim was just added on as an afterthought as a way to try to see the complaint whether or not that's actually going on i don't know and i you know certainly hope not but the point is the president already made clear that those cases do not survive the still complain after all but that's certainly how we have here in this case all of the vast majority of the allegations go to straightly strictly to the politicians plate was admitted the allegations are that he stated that he flew from picayune to jackson when in fact he flew from the bahamas to to palm beach and then from palm beach to distinction between as you're posing counsel pointed out between what the the board said here which said this is a this is self back down just focused on this and then the certification of the ministry of this is this has dire consequences for a well i mean as i tried to explain in my previous argument while there is that language in the complaint it leaves the administrator in a very awkward posture here we don't know again because we don't know what was missing from the intentional possibly cation charge