Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-01-01202/USCOURTS-caDC-01-01202-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Aviation Administration
Respondent
National Transportation Safety Board
Respondent
Andrew W. Van Dyke
Petitioner

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued March 4, 2002 Decided April 23, 2002

No. 01-1202

Andrew W. Van Dyke,

Petitioner

v.

National Transportation Safety Board and

Federal Aviation Administration,

Respondents

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

United States Department of Transportation

Mark T. McDermott argued the cause for petitioner. With

him on the briefs was Peter J. Wiernicki.

Robert P. Vente, Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,

argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was

Peter J. Lynch, Assistant Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation

Administration.

USCA Case #01-1202 Document #673050 Filed: 04/23/2002 Page 1 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: Edwards and Randolph, Circuit Judges, and

Williams, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Randolph.

Randolph, Circuit Judge: This is a petition for judicial

review of an order of the National Transportation Safety

Board affirming the decision of an administrative law judge to

suspend Andrew W. Van Dyke's commercial pilot license for

45 days on a charge brought by the Federal Aviation Administration. The question is whether there is "substantial evidence" in the record to support the Board's order. See 49

U.S.C. s 46110(c).

On April 25, 1998, the date of the incident for which he was

suspended, Van Dyke worked for Sky's the Limit, Inc., a skydiving company operating out of the Orange County Airport,

in Montgomery, New York, some 50 miles north of New York

City. He piloted a Beechcraft King Air in and out of the

airport, dropping off one group of skydivers and picking up a

new group throughout the day. At 6:15 p.m., as Van Dyke

was making his descent to the airport, a regional air traffic

controller instructed him to change course and approach the

airport from the south. The traffic controller wanted Van

Dyke to avoid heavy traffic departing from Stewart International Airport, seven miles to the east. What happened next

is the crux of the dispute between Van Dyke and the Federal

Aviation Administration.

Because there is no air traffic control tower at the Orange

County Airport, FAA regulations require approaching pilots

to make all turns in the same direction. 14 C.F.R.

s 91.126(b). The usual path is left-hand turns only. The

"preferred method" is for the pilot to approach the pattern on

a course 45 degrees to the downwind leg and join the pattern

at midfield. The pilot then flies parallel to the runway. Once

past the end of the runway, the pilot turns to the left. This is

the "base leg." The pilot turns left again, into the wind, and

lands. Figure 1 illustrates the standard FAA landing pattern.

USCA Case #01-1202 Document #673050 Filed: 04/23/2002 Page 2 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Figure 1 not available electronically.

The runway Van Dyke approached at Orange County Airport has a different rule: all turns must be made to the right

(to avoid planes from nearby Stewart International Airport).

Markings, visible from the sky, indicate this. This landing

pattern is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2 not available electronically.

In testimony before the ALJ, Bucky Gorton, the operations

supervisor at the airport on April 25, 1998, said that while he

was in the airport office he received a radio call from Van

Dyke announcing that he was entering a left downwind

USCA Case #01-1202 Document #673050 Filed: 04/23/2002 Page 3 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

pattern for landing. Gorton radioed back that this Orange

County runway was right traffic, not left. Gorton said Van

Dyke responded that the regional air traffic controller had

told him to enter a left traffic pattern. Gorton repeated that

all turns must be made to the right. Gorton then looked out

of his office window, and saw a King Air flying on a left

downwind leg. See Figure 3. The plane passed out of

Gorton's sight, traveling to the east, and he saw nothing more

until the plane landed. Gorton did not see the plane make

any turns.

Van Dyke testified that he radioed to announce that he was

on an extended left base to land at the airport, which would

have required only that he turn left onto the runway. When

USCA Case #01-1202 Document #673050 Filed: 04/23/2002 Page 4 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Gorton said the plane could not land this way, Van Dyke flew

past the runway and made several right turns to bring the

plane down. See Figure 3. Jeffrey Hawke, another company

pilot on the flight, confirmed Van Dyke's version. The owner

of "Sky's the Limit," Jeffrey Root, saw the plane fly north

across the field, as Van Dyke claims. This is segment 1 of

Van Dyke's path. See Figure 3. Root was then distracted.

When he looked up, he saw the plane turn right from the base

leg into its final approach. This is segment 3 and segment 4.

Figure 3 not available electronically.

The ALJ concluded that Van Dyke "entered a high lefthand pattern," and therefore found him in violation of three

FAA regulations. The first, 14 C.F.R. s 91.126(b), requires

pilots in Class G airspace - when approaching an airport

without a control tower - to make all turns to the left unless

the airport specifies otherwise. The second, 14 C.F.R.

s 91.127(a), applies the same condition to those operating in

Class E airspace, like the Orange County Airport. The third,

14 C.F.R. s 91.13, forbids operating an aircraft in a "careless

USCA Case #01-1202 Document #673050 Filed: 04/23/2002 Page 5 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

or reckless manner," which Van Dyke allegedly did by making left-hand turns.

The Board, in affirming the ALJ, put its decision on the

basis that the ALJ believed Gorton's version of events and

disbelieved the version put forward by Van Dyke and the

other two witnesses. Gorton's story, the Board wrote, provided "adequate circumstantial proof that respondent had

operated contrary to the regulations cited in the Administrator's complaint" by making "left turns."

Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion"

(Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)),

taking "into account whatever in the record fairly detracts

from its weight" (Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S.

474, 488 (1951)). See Lindsay v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 47

F.3d 1209, 1213 (D.C. Cir. 1995). No such evidence supports

the Board's conclusion here. The airport manager, Gorton,

did not see Van Dyke's plane making any turns. The Board

nevertheless thought Gorton's testimony carried the day because he "did observe the landing that followed the left

downwind." But Gorton's observations are entirely consistent with Van Dyke's making only right turns, as Van Dyke

said he did, by crossing over the runway and making right

turns until he turned right again into the downwind leg of the

landing pattern.

One can imagine another theory to support the Board's

conclusion. The ALJ might have concluded, in light of Van

Dyke's demeanor, "not only that the witness' testimony is not

true, but that the truth is the opposite of his story," Dyer v.

MacDougall, 201 F.2d 265, 268-69 (2d Cir. 1952). Perhaps

the Board had this in mind when it stated that the ALJ had

rejected not only Van Dyke's testimony, but also the testimony of Hawke and Root, on the basis of their lack of credibility.

We need not decide whether this court would affirm a sanction on this ground. See United States v. Zeigler, 994 F.2d

845 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The ALJ made no such credibility

determinations. Rather than finding Van Dyke not credible,

USCA Case #01-1202 Document #673050 Filed: 04/23/2002 Page 6 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the ALJ stated in his opinion, delivered orally, "I have no

reason to doubt the veracity of [Van Dyke] but as I said

earlier, nor can I doubt the veracity of [Gorton and the FAA's

expert witness]." Gorton and Van Dyke gave contradictory

accounts on some matters other than the direction of turns so

we cannot understand what the ALJ had in mind. As to

Root, the ALJ never mentioned his testimony confirming Van

Dyke's account. Contrary to the Board, the ALJ thus did not

impugn Van Dyke's credibility or that of his supporting

witnesses.

An expert witness for the FAA devoted some of his testimony to explaining why the landing pattern described by Van

Dyke - with all turns made to the right - was dangerous.

This may be so, but Van Dyke was prosecuted for making left

turns in his landing pattern and thereby flying recklessly.

The government has defended the Board's decision on that

ground alone. Brief for Respondents at 16-17. That is the

reasoning the Board put forward in its opinion. If there is no

substantial evidence to support the Board's reasoning - and

there is none here - its order must be vacated. See SEC v.

Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947).

Vacated.

USCA Case #01-1202 Document #673050 Filed: 04/23/2002 Page 7 of 7