OG/03/201 0 18:0 G FAX 202493514 2 FA A + DMS IgOOI/OI I

SERVE D MA Y 21 , 201 0 US

- DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N ^ .., .

OFFIC E O F HEARING S " ' " •.' : ' "

- ^- 1 >

, f ij

- : i ' WASHINGTON , D.C . - - 

### I N TH E MATTE RO F '•' ' I-

" A?: ' N G DOCiv-. : i RECURREN T TRAININ G CENTER , INC . FA A DOCKET NO . (CP09GL0008 ) (Civi l Penalty Action ) DM S NO . (FAA-2009-0971 ) 7 •

--- I RESPONDENT' S REPL Y BRIE F ?= 1 L, J COME S NO W Respondent , RECURREN T TRAININ G CENTER , INC. , b y andthroug h it s counsel , BARNET T LA W OFFICES , P.C. , pursuan t t o th e Cour

t s ORDE RON MOTION S an dhereb y files it s REPLY BRIE F i n th e instan t matte r an dstate s a. s follows : 1 . AGREE D STATEMEN T O F FACT S 1 . O n Septembe r

21 , 2009 , Respondent , Recurren t Trainin g Centers , Inc. , was advise d throug h aFinal Notic e o f

Propose dCivi l Penalt

y that th e FAA propose dt o asses s a civi l penalt

y i n th e amoun t

o f $3,850 . 2 . O n October

5 , 2009 , th e FA

A receive dRespondent' s timel y writte n reques t for a hearing . 3 . Responden t

hold s an dat

al l time s mentione dherei n hel da n Ai r Agenc y Certificate Numbe r R9KS949 K

fo r a n approve dProvisional Pilo t Schoo l wit

h aSpecial Preparatio n Course s ratin g is.sue db y th e FAA . 4 . RT C als o hold s an da

t al l time s mentione dherei n hel dTrainin g Cente r Certificate Numbe r R9KX049 K

with Trainin g Specification s t o conduc t trainin g course s wit

h respec t t o 14C.F.R-142 .OG/03/201 0 18;0 G FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S 121002/01 1

5 . O n o r abou t Januar y 16 , 2008 , RT C certifie dtha t Mr . VanBerko msuccessfull y complete da

n Instrumen t

Proficienc y Chec k

an do n Decembe r

17 , 2007 , RT C certifie dtha t

Mr . Moor e successfull y complete da n Instrumen t Proficienc y Check . Thes e IPC s wer e performe di n aFligh t Trainin g Devic e ("FTD") , Leve l 1 , 3 , o r 6 . 6 . Circlin g Approache s an dLandin g fro maStraight-i n or Circlin g Approac h maneuver s canno t b e performe dwit

h aFligh t Trainin g Devic e ("FTD" ) Leve l 1 , 3 o r 6 . 7 . FT D Leve l 1 , 3 an d6 are th e FTD s approve dfo r RTC . I L ISSU E In th e ac t

o f completin g an Instrumen t Proficienc y Check , whethe r i t i s require db

y regulatio n t o conduc t

acirclin g approac h an dalandin g fromstraight-i n o r circlin g approach , a s suggeste db y th e Practical Tes t StandardBook . III . ARGUMEN T Th e Complainan t

i s askin g thi s Cour

t t o tak e aflyin g lea

p i n thi s matter ; aleap that i s no t required , rational o r

proper . Simpl y put , th e Complainan t i s askin g for

th e Cour t t o ignor e th e plai n meanin g o f

th e regtilaiio n a s wel l a s th e Administrator' s ow n previou s interpretation s i n th e for

mo f FAA Orders , Advisor

y Circulars , Legal Interpretatio n Letter s an dth e Federal Registe r

t o lea p t o th e conclusio n th e Piuctical Tes t Standard s bookle t

i s "incorporate dint o §61.57(d ) b y reference" ' an dno w become s th e law . Whil e th e concep t o f usin g F ID' S t o conduc t

IPC' s ma y b e acas e o f

first impressio n before thi s court , i t shoul db e note dthat R l C wa s not

tryin g t o wor

k thr u aloo p whol e o r

exploi t alegal technicality . T o th e contrary , th e practic e o f conductin g IPC' s i n a

n FT D b y performin g arepresentativ e numbe r o f TASK , at th e discretio n o f

th e examine r

wa s awid e sprea dpractic e i n th e industry . 1 Complainant' s Openin g Brief , Par t lil.A.L , pag e 2 .06/03/201 0 18:0 G FAX 202493514 2 FA A * DMS 0003/01 1

Fo r example , w c hav e attache dth e certificatio n for mfor a n IP C issue dt o Va

n Berko mb y Fligh t Safet y i n thei r FTD . (se e Respondent' s Exhibi t R-1 ) Further , RT C ha s conducte d IPC' s i n it s FTD' s for

some twenty year s wit

h th e ful l knowledg e an dconsen t o f th e FA A prio r t o th e presen t

enforcement

action . W e ar e her e becaus e th e Complainant' s (mor e precisely , th e Springfiel dFSDO' s an dno w Regional Counsel's ) interpretatio n o f it s ow n regulatio n i n thi s particula r matte r i s arbitrary , capriciou s an dotherwis e not accordin g t o law 3 S w e wil l mor e fiill

y se t fort h below . A . Al l TASK S Containe di n th e Instrumen t Ratin g Practica l Tes t

Ar e NO T Require dt o Successfull y Conduc t a n IPC . 1 . Th e languag e o f

1 4 CF R§61.S7(d ) require s arepresentativ e numbe r o f TASK S b e accomplished . A s th e Complainant' s Openin g Brie f stated , 1 4 CFR§61.57(d ) reada s follow s ai : th e tim e o f th e IPC' s whic h ar e th e subjec t o f thi s matter : 1 4 CFR6 1 -57(d ) read s i n pertinen t part : d ) Instrumen t

proficienc y check . Excep t a s provide di n paragrap h (e ) o f thi s section , aperso n wh o doe s no t mee t th e instrumen t

experienc e requirement s o f paragrap h (c ) o f thi s sectio n withi n th e prescribe dtime , o r withi n 6 calenda

r month s afte

r th e prescribe dtime , ma

y no t serv e a s pilo t

i n comman dunde r

IF Ro r in weather

condition s les s tha

n th e minimum s prescribe dfor

VF Runti l that

perso n passe s a

n instrumen t

proficienc y chec k

consistin g o f

arepresentativ e number o f task s (emphasi s added ) require db y th e instrumen t ratin g practical test . (1 ) Th e instrumen t

proficienc y chec k

mus t be — (i ) I n an aircraf

t that i s appropriat e t o th e aircraf t category ; (ii ) Fo r othe r tha n aglider , i n aflight

simulato r o r fligh t trainin g devic e (emphasi s added ) that i s representativ e o f

th e aircraf

t category ;06/03/201 0 18:0 6 FA X 202493514 2 FA A • > DM S 0004/01 1

Th e Re.spondcni finds itsel f in th e unusual positio n o f arguin g that

th e Chevron^ doctrin e shoul db e controllin g i n thi s matter . Th e Administrator' s officia l interpretatio n i s correc t

whe n use din FA A Orde r

8900.1 , whic

h state s i n pertinen t part ; Instrumen t

Proficienc y Check . A

n instrumen t

proficienc y chec k mus t b e accomplishe di n acategor y o f aircraf t in whic h th e pilo t

i s rate dan dshal l consis t

o f on e o r al l o f th e procedure s an d maneuver s fro

mth e instrumen t

pilo t practica l les t

standard s (emphasi s added) . Furthermore , no t

onl y di dth e Administrato r "ge t i t right" in th e Order , bu t

FA A Order s tak e preceden t

ove r FA A booklet s (e.g . PTS) . I f a n FA A Orde r

i s i n conflic t

with an FAR , becaus e al l FA A Order s canno t b e update dsimultaneousl y with th e FARs , th e FA Rtake s precedence. ' I t

i s importan t

t o note , tha t

i n th e instan t

case , th e FA A Orde r

wa s writte n i n 2007 , wel l aite r 1 4 CFR6 1 -57(d ) wa s effective . In addition , a s previousl y mentione di n Respondent' s Motio n fo r Decision , th e Administrato r ha s publishe dan Advisor y Circular , drafte dalegal interpretatio n letter , publishe dsimila r regulation s wit h clear

directio n t o accompUs h al l TASK S i n th e PT S an drevise dth e regulatio n that i s th e subjec t

o f thi s matter . Therefore , base don th e hierarch y o f

law s an dth e Chevro n doctrine , th e positio n take n b y th e Springfiel dFSD O an d Regional Counse l i n th e instan t matte r i s no t supportable . I n arecen t

FA A enforcemen t

cas e tha t wa s appeale dt o th e U.S . Court o f Appeal s for

th e Distric t

o f Columbia , th e court

state d"[a] n agency' s failur e t o com e t o grip s with conflictin g preceden t constitute s a n inexcusabl e departur e fromth e essentia l requiremen t o f reasone ddecisio n making, " (Ramaprakas h v . FAA , 34 6 F.3 d 1121,112 5 (D.C . Cir . 2003 ) 2 Chevro n U.S.A. . Inc . v . Natura l Resource s Defens e Council , Inc . 46 7 US . 837 , 863 , (1984) . 3 Chapte r 1 , Sectio n o f

FAA Orde r

8900. 1 read s i

n pertinen t

part : "C . Conflict s Wit h Othe r Federa l Aviatio n Administnitio n (FAA ) Orders , Th e guidanc e i n thi s orde r

may b e found1 0 b e i n conflic t

wit h tha t in othe r FA A order s an ddirectives . Thi s situatio n may aris e inadvertentl y o r becaus e i t i s Impractica l t o revis e al l order s simultaneously . I n suc h aca.se , th e orde r wit h th e mos t

recen t dat e shoul dnormall y b e used . Shoul dth e guidanc e i n thi s orde r conflic t wit h 1 4 CFR , 1 4 Cl' Rtake s precedence . Inspector s shoul drefer

question s abou t

suc h conflict s t o thei r

immediat e supervisors . Supervisor s an dmanager s ma y contac t th e respectiv e AF S Divisio n throug h th e regional offic e t o resolv e suc h questions. "06/03/201 0 18:0 G FAX 202493514 2 FA A ^ DMS 0005/01 1

Moreover , i n orde r

t o tak e th e Complainant' s "leap " thi s Cour t mus t ignor e th e word "representative " i n it s readin g o f FAR61.57(d) . Thi s i s contrar y t o fiindamenta

l rule s o f statutory construction . Fo r instance , a s th e Suprem e Cour t ha s state d"[i] n interpretin g astatute , acourt shoul dalway s turn l o on e cardinal cano n before al l others . [CJourt s mus t presum e tha i a legislatur e say s i n astatut e what i t mean s an dmean s i n astatut e what i t say s there. " Cormecticu t Nationa l BankV , Germai n IHS.C t 1146 , 114 9 (1992) . Th e Complainant' s interpretatio n can b e likene dt o readin g agovernmen t regulatio n (ha

t state s "D o no t

accomplis h th e followin g action " a s "D o accomplis h th e followin g action" . I t completel y alter s th e meanin g o f th e regulatio n t o not

giv e meanin g t o th e word s i n th e regulation . Th e Complainan t

ignore s th e wor d"representative " an dimmediatel y make s th e argumen t that "th e practica l tes t

becom e amandator

y par t o f the IP C regulation' " I f

th e Administrato r

ha s consistentl y ignore dth e plai n meanin g o f th e languag e o f

th e regulation , RT C woul dstil l hav e a compellin g argument ; however , that i s no t th e case . I n fact , th e Administrato r ha s consistentl y interprete dFA R61.57(d ) t o requir e exactl y th e opposit e o f what th e Complainan t

i s arguin g her e an dha s demonstrate dtha t consistenc y i n FAA Orders , Advisor y Circulars , Legal Interpretatio n Letter s an dth e Federal Register . Th e Complainan t

als o incorrectl y allege s that th e PT S i s mandatory fo

r IPC's . Th e Complainan t

quote s languag e fro

mth e PT S i n Complainant' s Openin g Brief , "Adherenc e t o th e provision s o f

th e regulation s an dth e practica l tes t standard s i s mandator y fo r evaluatio n o f instrumen t

pilo t applicants. " Whil e w e agre e with th e Complainan t that thi s i s unambiguous , stron g wording , i t

simply doe s no t

appl y t o pilot s wh o ar e no t instrumen t

pilo t applicants . A s th e Cour t ca n see , th e PT S i s mandator y fo r instrumen t

pilo t applicants , not

for instrumen t

pilot s wh o are merel y seekin g aproficienc y check . A pilo t seekin g a n IP C i s no t

a n "applicant" . Thai 4 Complainant^ s Openin g Brief , Par t IIT.A.l. , pag e 3 .OG/03/201 0 18:0 7 FAX 202493514 2 FA A ^ DMS lOOG/01 1

pilo t ha s alread y applied , an dreceived , a n instrumen t

rating . Th e PI S standard s ar e no t mandator y for th e pilo t seekin g a n IPC . Th e PT S read s i n pertinen t part : "Instrumen t

Proficienc y Check . 1 4 CF Rpar t 61.57(d ) seL

s fort h th e requirement s fo

r an instrumen t

proficienc y check . Ih c perso n givin g that chec k shal l us e th e standard s an d procedure s containe di n thi s PT S whe n admiriisterin g th e check . A representativ e numbe r o f TASKs , a s determine db y th e examiner/instructor , mus t b e selecte dt o assur e th e competenc e o f th e applican t

t o operat e i n th e IF Renvironment . A s aminimum , th e applican t mus t dewionstrat

e th e ability t o perfor

mth e TASK s a s liste di n th e abov e chart . Th e perso n givin g th e chec k shoul d develo p scenario s t o asses s th e pilot' s AD M an dris k managemen t

skill s durin g th e IPC." * Note , th e PT S doe s no t

sa y "A s aminimum , th e applican t mus t successfull y demonstrat e al l th e TASK s liste di n th e abov e chart . I t i s clear fromIhe languag e i n th e PT S that th e evaluato r use s th e PT S merel y a s guidanc e to determin e i f an applican t

shoul dsuccessfiill y pas s th e evaluation . I t

i s no t intende dt o fiinctio n with th e inflexibilit y o f an FA A Order , no r

shoul d it . I f that were th e case , fe w applicant s woul db e abl e t o fl y th e "perfect " chec k

rid e under

a n unforgivin g se t

o f standards . 2 . Recen t

Chang e t o 1 4 CF R61.57(d ) Responden t

argue s that

th e recen t

chang e t o FAR6L57(d ) woul dno t hav e bee n necessary ha dth e requiremen t t o complet e al l o f

th e PT S TASK S bee n include di n th e versio n o f th e regulatio n that

wa s curren t

a t th e tim e o f

th e allege dviolations . T o counte r Respondent' s argument , th e Complainan t argue s th e Federal Register / Vo l 74 , No . 16 1 p g 42519 * i s silen t o n whether th e chang e was ane w rule . Whil e w c agre e that th e chang e wa s aclarification , amor e helpfii l volum e o f

th e Federal Registe r

ca n b e foun da

t Federal RegisterA/'o l 72 , No . 2 5 at pag e 581 8 (attache da s Exhibi t

R-2) . Th e note s i n thi. s volum e o f th e Federal Registe r

state : 5 FAA-S-808I-1D , INSTRUMEN T RATTN G Practical Tes t

Standard s fo

r AIRPLANE HELICOPTERPOWERE D LIF T 6 Complainant' s Openin g Brief , Par t III.A.3. , pag e 6 .OG/03/201 0 18:0 7 FAX 202493514 2 FA A - DMS glOOT/OI I

"Th e proficienc y chec k

woul dconsis t

o/th e task s liste di n th e practica l les t standard s fo

r th e instrumen t

ratin g appropriat e t o th e aircraf t categor y (emphasi s added)" . Clearly , th e ne w versio n o f 61.57(d ) contemplate s th e ne w requirement s fo r a n IPC . Onc e again . Responden t

argue s tha

t chang e woul db e unnecessar y ha dth e previou s versio n clearl y require dth e accomplishmen t o f al l th e task s i n th e practical tes t standard . B . I n th e alternative , th e Agency' s propose dsanctio n i s no t appropriat e base dupo n th e Agency' s sanctio n guidance . Immediatel y upo n notificatio n that RT C ma y hav e bee n i n violatio n o f th e Federal Aviatio n Regulations , an ddespit e that fac t that RT C di dno t

agre e wit h th e allege dassessmen t

o f aviolation , RT C cease dt o conduc t IPC' s i n it s FTDs . Subsequently , FA R§61.57(d ) wa s change dto requir e al l o f

th e task s i n th e PT S t o b e accomplishe ddurin g a n IPC . A civi l penalty wil l no t serv e t o dete r

any conduc t

by th e Respondent , a s th e regulation s n o longer allo w that conduc t t o exist . In addition , th e Respondent ha s demonstrate dtha

t the y ar e n o longe r conductin g IPC s i n thei r

FTDs . RTC' s complian t attitude , a s wel l a s th e fac t tha t thi s issu e i s no w moot , rende r

any sanctio n impose db y th e Administrato r a.s undul y harsh . IV . CONCLUSIO N Th e Complainan t

allege s that

RT C ha s violate dFA R61.57(d ) becaus e that regulation , accordin g t o th e Complainant , require s a n In.strumenl Proficienc y Chec k t o consis t o f AL L th e TASK s containe din th e Practical Tes t Standards , includin g circlin g approache s whic h csmno t b e conducte di n RTC' s Fligh t lYainin g Devices . T o hav e amor e re.strictiv e interpretatio n applie d by wa y o f a n ambiguou s PT S i s illogical an dcontrary t o th e rule s o f statutory constructio n an d agenc y precedent .OG/03/201 0 18:0 7 FAX 202493514 2 FA A * DMS 0008/01 1

RT C doe s no t

conten dthat

i t i s equippe dt o conduc t

acirclin g approac h i

n it s FHgh t Trainin g Device. RT C doc s contend , however , tha t not AL L o f th e TASK S containe di n th e Instrumen t

Ratin g Practical Tes t

Standard s ar e require dt o successfull y complet e a n Instrumen t Proficienc y Check . RT C base s it s positio n firmly on th e plai n languag e o f FA R61.57(d) , whic h at th e time o f

th e Instrumen t

Proficienc y Checks , allowe dth e instructo r t o choos e froma REPRESENTATIV E numbe r o f TASK s containe din th e Instrumen t Ratin g Practica l Tes t Standards . Thi s plai n languag e interpretatio n i s furthe r supporte db y cas e la w regardin g statutor y construction . I n addition , th e FA A itsel f support s RTC s positio n wit h it s ow n preceden t i n document s authore dan dpublishe db y th e FA A whic h include :

• FA A Orde r (emphasi s added ) 8900.1 , als o know n a s th e Flight Standard s Informatio n Managemen t

Syste mhandboo k

whic h clearl y state s that

a n IP C wil l "consis t

o f ON E O R AL L o f th e procedure s an dmaneuver s fromth e instrumen t pilo t practical tes t

stiuadard s (PTS). "

• Th e FA

A ha s recentl y change dFA R61.57(d ) t

o requir e al l o f

th e TASKs containe din th e P T S b e complete dwhe n accomplishin g a n IPC . A chang e thai woul db e unnecessar y ha dth e instan t

versio n o f

th e FARha dth e sam e requirement .

• Th e FAA' s ow n Advisor y Circula r 61-98 A whic h clearl y state s tha t a n instructo r

ha s "discretio n i n selectin g appropriat e maneuver s an dprocedure s fo r th e competenc y check" .

• Th e FAA' s ow

n Lega l Interpretatio

n Lette r datedles s tha

n one yea r ag o vsiiic h clearl y state s tha t "approve dFTD s ma

y b e use dt o mee t

th e recen t

flight experienc e requirements , a s lon g a s agive n FT D i s approve dfor suc h trainin g an dproficienc y check. "OG/03/201 0 18:0 7 FAX 202493514 2 p^f t * DM S 21009/01 1

I n th e instan t

case , th e Complainan t

ha s chose n t o ignor e th e plai n meanin g o f th e FAR' s an dthre e o f

it' s th e Administrator s ow n publication s i n orde r t o alleg e aviolatio n o f

F^V R 61.57(d) . Lastly , th e Complainan t

allege s tha t

th e IPC' s coul donl y b e conducte dwithi n th e scop e o f RTC' s trainin g program . Th e Administrator' s positio n o n thi s issu e i s contrary t o th e FAA' s ow n FSTMS Orde r

whic h expressl y provide s for th e combinin g o f

competenc y review s andflight checks . Du e t o th e fac t

tha t th e FA Rha s bee n recentl y changed , an dRT C i s n o longe r conductin g IPC' s in it s FTD's , thi s poin t o f la w ha s becom e moo t

bu t fo r th e loomin g civi l penalty facin g RTC . Nonetheless , RT C di dhav e asoun dbasi s for conductin g IPC' s i n it s FTD s an d respectfull y ask s thi s cour t t o dismis s thi s Complaint . WHEREFORE , Responden t ask s thi s Cour

t to gran t th e pendin g Motio n for

Decisio n an ddismis s th e instan t

Complain t

i n it s entirety .OG/03/201 0 18:0 7 FAX 202493514 2 FA A * DMS glOIO/01 1

Lis t o f Attache dExhibit s Exhibi t Numbe r R- 1 R- 2 Documen t

Fligh t Safet y Trainin g Recordo f

VanBerko m Federal Register , Vol . 72 , No.25 , pag e 581 8 Numbe r o f Page s 1 Dated : May 21,201 0 Respectfull y submitted .

Attorney : Recurren t Trainiii g Center , Inc . Charle s R . Bamett , 11 1 BARNET T LAW OFFICES , P.C . 1664 Moorlan dLan e Crysta l Lake , Illinoi s 60014-298 5 (815 ) 356-864 7 (815 ) 356-704 2 (FAX )

1 006/03/201 0 18:0 7 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DMS @1011/01 1

CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E Th e undersigne dcertifie s that ih e foregoin g Repl y Brie f wa s serve dvi aU S Regula r Mai l a s follows : ORIGINA L AN D ON K COP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suite 2W100 0 FAX : 202-493-514 2 ON E COP Y Brian aMartino , Complainant' s Counse l Great Lake s Region , AGL-7 M Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 230 0 Eas t Devo n Avenu e De s Plaines , I

L 60018-469 6 TEL : 847-294-771 3 FAX : 847-294-749 8 Th e Honorabl e RichardC . Goodwin , Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Legal Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6 Date dthi s 21 " da

y o f May , 2010 . Charles R . Ba r Attorne y for

Responden t

1 1