William A. Curtright 

Respondent 

PO Box 1350 

Jefferson, OR 97352 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax: (503) 485-0812 

RECEIVED 

JAN 2 3 2017 

HEARING DOCKET 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In The Matter Of: 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

WILLIAM A. CURTRIGHT, DBA 

Case No. 2014NM090046 

Respondent 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

RESPONDENTS SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY AND MOTION TO 

DISMISS 

COMES NOW Respondent, William A. Curtright, DBA respectfully files and submits 

additional authority in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, filed October 26, 2016. 

and Respondents Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion and Memorandum for Summary 

Judgment filed November 10, 2016. Respondent hereby incorporates by reference the 

aforementioned motions and adds the following: 

l. Pursuant to the ALJ's Order of December 14, 2016 Respondent submits for 

consideration that in the ALJ's Order of December 14, 2016 the ORDER makes the 

following reference: "Dispute is a legal issue: specifically whether the Respondent made 

the aircraft and engine logbooks "available for inspection' as required by 14 C.F.R. § 

91.407(c) .. .. page 6 of 8 paragraph 4 of the ORDER". Herein Attached as (Exhibit "1") 

RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

Page 1lf5 

William A. Curtright,DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
Respondent responds to this portion of the ORDER of December 14, 2016 that 14 

C.F.R.§ 91.407 (c) has nothing to do with making aircraft and engine logbooks available 

for inspection and requests this court to grant Respondents Motion for Summary 

Judgment filed October 26,2016 in its entirety and would show the court that 14 C.F.R. § 

91.407 (c) is regarding the Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

rebuilding, or alteration. Herein Attached as (Exhibit "2.") 

2. Respondent would argue that after many hours of research of the FAA database that is 

available for searching for previous orders by the FAA that there is no case law that 

specifically addresses 14 C.F.R. 91.417(c) or specifically addresses the issue of time, 

what the time period is for a Respondent making aircraft and engine logbooks available. 

Respondent would submit to the court that Respondent produced the aircraft and engine 

logbooks available in a reasonable time in the database available to the public regarding 

the issue; specifically whether the Respondent made the aircraft and engine logbooks 

"available for inspection" as required by 14 C.F .R. § 91.417( c) and that this issue is a 

precedent case for the FAA and all pilots. There is no case law regarding the specific 

issue of when does one have to make the records available and what is considered 

reasonable pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 91.417(c). Respondent would submit to this court that 

14 C.F.R. § 91.417(c) does not give a specific time, date, or amount of days, that a 

Respondent has for submitting the aircraft and engine logbooks "available for 

inspection." Respondent would argue to this court that Respondent made available for 

inspection the aircraft and engine logbooks in a reasonable amount oftime for inspection. 

RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY 

Docket No. FAA-201S-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright, DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
3. In addition, Respondent would argue that the aircraft and engine logbooks were made 

available for inspection as soon as they were located. In the motion for Summary 

Judgment, Respondent cited to the case In the Matter Of: PREMIER JETS, INC., with 

FAA ORDER NO. 99-7 and Docket No. CP97NM0005 that was served on August 31, 

1999. Premier Jets, Inc., was also sent to FAA attorney David F. Shayne with 

Respondents Request for Admissions No. 7 and is herein attached as (Exhibit "3"). In 

that case, the FAA "(T)his appeal involves flight time recordkeeping by Part 13 5 air 

carriers. It raises the issue of which records Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

inspectors may use to determine compliance ... " "The FAA inspectors requested 

Premier's flight logs to check the accuracy of the crew ...... " The law judge assessed a 

$375.00 penalty for ..... the ... violation." 

4. Respondent would argue before this court that all case law that Respondent could find 

on the FAA website the administrative law judges lowered the assessed penalties 

amounts brought and sight by the Complainants and would request that this court do the 

same in lowering any penalties if penalties are awarded. Respondent would further 

request that a time period for making aircraft and engine logbooks available for 

inspection be added to 14 C.F.R. § 91.417(c). 

5. Respondent would additionally, argue before this court that Complainant's Submission of 

Additional Authority of case In Re Schuman Aviation Co. LTD, FAA Order 2016-2(2016) 

RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright1DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
and Administrator v. Weinstein, NTSB Order EA-3675 (1992) do not have anything to do 

with a violation under 14 C.F.R. § 91.417(c). 

6. Furthermore, Respondent would argue before this court that Complainant's Submission 

of Additional Authority of case Administrator v. Weinstein, NTSB Order EA-3675 

(1992)1321. In this cases, the Respondent refused to produce his logbooks, not failed to 

produce as Complainant claims in his submission of additional authority. Respondent 

would argue that he did not refuse or fail to produce his aircraft and engine logbooks and 

they were inspected pursuant to 14 C.F.R.§ 91.417 (c). Respondent would argue before 

this court that Complainant's Submission of Additional Authority of case In Re Schuman 

Aviation Co. LTD, FAA Order 2016-2(2016). In that case the Respondent again, refused 

to produce his logbooks, under violation of 14 C.F.R.§ 135.73 not 14 C.F.R.§ 91.417 (c). 

Respondent would argue that he did not refuse or fail to produce his aircraft and engine 

logbooks and they were inspected pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 91.417 (c). 

7. Respondent submits to this court that Complainant has failed to meet his burden of corning 

forward with specific admissible evidence to support the elements of his claims for which he 

bears the burden of proof at trial. 

8. Respondent would request this court grant Respondents Motion for Summary Judgment and other 

relief filed on October 26, 2016. 

WHEREFORE, It is appropriate for this Court to grant Respondent's Motion for Summary 

Judgment. 

RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

Page Lf ~S 

William A. Curtright,DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
Dated this b_ '"' day of January 2017 

Respectfully submitted, 

) 

Dr. Wm. Ames Curtright, DBA 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration (Fax and Certified First Class Mail) 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 Fax: (202) 267-1293 

ONE COPY 

Judge J.E. Sullivan (Fax, Email, and Certified First Class Mail) 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

David F. Shayne, FAA Attorney (Fax, Email, and Certified First Class Mail) 

Complainant's Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1847 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

PagE> 5~5 

William A. Curtright,DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
2016·12·)4 09:11 1 1 n 

SERVED; December 14, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT O:F TRANSPORTATlON 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In The Matter Of: ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-20 15-1319 

W!LLJAM A. CURTRIGHT 

Respondent 

Case No. 20 14NM090046 

ORDER SETTING NEW TELEl'HONE CONFERENCE :FOR 

SUMMAlW JUDGMENT ARGUMENTS, 

SETTING DEADLINE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS, AND 

GRANTING/DENYING OTHER RELIEF 

p 1/9 

On Novemoer 18, 20115, an Order Reserving the Respondent's Motion for Summar-y 

Judgment. Setting Deadlines. and Adding Agenda to the Telepllone Conference ("November· 18. 

201 G O•·der'') was filed. 1 Among othc•· things, thi~ Order c:o\panded the Telephone Conference 

pt·cviously set on Thw·sday. Decembe1· 8. 201 G (1 :30 P·"'·- 3:00p.m. ET) to include va,·ious 

matters raised by the parties' summm·y judgment cross-motions. (Nov. 18, 2016 Orde1·. 3 ~~~12·4.) 

On November 22,2016, the prose Respondent, Mr. William A. Curtright, filed the 

Respondents' (sic] Response a11d Objection to Complainant's Motion for Partial Dccisio11 

(Stnnn1ru·y Judgment). 

On December 6, 2016, the Respondent filed Respondents [sic] Motion to Compel. 

On December 8. 201 G (1 :30 p.m. ET), the parties convened for a Telephone Conference 

and discussed v~u·ious matters ,·ai~cd by the parties' sumrn<li'Y _judgmcm matel'ials. as well as 

other matters pending. in the pt·oceeding. 

1 This Novembe1· 16,. 20 16 Order identi lies tile prio1· summary judt;ment and other motion filings by the parties. 

du1·ing the period of October 31, 2016 through Novc111bcr 16, 20 \6. 
2016·12-~4 09:11 1 1 ,.,. p 2/9 

That same day, on Decombe1' 8, 2016 (2:58p.m. ET), the FAA filed ')lith this Court by 

fax 2 a complete copy (i.e., with al.lattachments included) of the Complainant's Motion for Partial 

Decision (Sun1mary JudQIM"t) ("Cross-Motion"). 

This Order codifies and ~upplements the oral ntlings issued during tbe Oii:cember 8, 2016 

Telephone Conference. Certain matte~ resarding the pending svmmary j~dgemcnt motion ~re 

also briefly highlighted herein. 

On November 16, 20 16, the FAA filed by fux a couttesy copy of a four (4) page 

document titled Complainant's Motionibr Partial Decision (Sun'lmary .Tud~:mem) ( .. CrossMotion'). The cover sheet to the FAA's faxed material statc:d, ''The attachment:~ are volumlnou.~. 

so they will be in the U.S. Mail." (Nov, 16,2016 FAA Fax Covet' Shc~:t). 

On November 21, 2016, the FAA tiled by U.S. Mall a four (4} pa~e duplicate oflts fa,xed 

Cross-Motion. There \Yert: no att!!Ohm~:nts included in the mailing. Neither the fa.xed court<:;5y 

copy of the FAA's Ct·oss-Motion, nor the mailed filins of the FAA's Cross-Motion. rcfercnc.::d 

any atta<::hments or exhibits within tho four-pase document. 

At the beginning of the Decembe1· 8, 2016 Telephone Co11fcrence. the FAA alerted thi~ 

Co11rt and Mr. CurtriGht that its Cross-Motio11 acMtlly Included approximately 39 pases of 

atrachments. However, neither the Court nor Mr. Cuttright had received any attachments. The 

FAA orally moved to continue the summary judgment argumen1s to a !low it tim"' to supplemenl 

its cross-motion material$ to include the missi11g attachments. The FAA'$ oral motion was 

granted ov~r Mr. Curtright's obJection. 

8. Complaint and Proposed Civil Pcm11ty 

On ot· about May 27. 201 S. the FAA Hearing Docket filed with the U.S. Ocpartmertt of 

Transportation's Office ofHearin!),Jl a copy of the FAA's unsislled Complaint (dated May 19. 

2 The FAA ~srced during the OoQomber S, 2016 Telcphom: Conf~rt!noo to $¢rv¢ \he Slime motcrials on Ml', CiJttri,;.ht 

by both u.s. mail and cerrlfied mall. 

Page 2 ora 
2016-12-14 09:11 1 1 n p 3/9 

20 1.5).3 According to tbe Complai•1t, the FAA had sent the Respondent a Letter on ot· about July 

1, 2014, aski11g tho Respond.:mt to· provide its maintemmce records for inspectio,,. (Com pl. 2-3 § 

ll ,[2.) Although the Respondent aclmowledged •·eceipt of the Lette•·, he did not immediately 

produce all the requested records. (Campi. 3 §II, 3.) On May 19,2015. approximately eleven 

(II) months after send inc the Lettet·, the FAA charged the Respondellt with a violation of 14 

C.F.R. § 91.417(c). The FAA's May 19. 2015 Complaint asserted that tl1e Respondent ''failed to 

make allmaintena11ce •·ecords required w be kept by this section [14 C.F.R. § 91.417(c)] 

- availaillc~forinspectton"as 1'etWi1'ed. (Compl. 3 §Ill 111.) Tl1c J'AA rcqireste<:l a-civil penalty in 

the amount of $11,000 ibnhe violation. purs~1ant to 49 U.S.C. § 46301 (a) and (d). (Compl. 3 § 

Ill, 3.) 

C. Respondent'~ Motion f'or Summary .Judgment 

On October 26,2016, the prose Respondent. Mr. William A. Curtt'igl1t. filed mulliple 

documents, including the Respondems' [sicJMotion and Memorat1dum for Summary Judgment 

(''Motion").4 In essence, the Rcspo11dent SOltght dismissal as a matter of law of th~ entire 

Complaint, on the gt•ounds that be did pt·oduce the documents the FAA had·t·cqucstcd. In suppot·t 

of his Motion, the Respondent submitted twelv~ (12) Exhibits, identified as Exhibits I tbt·ough 

12. The Respondent also pt·offered an additional three (3) Reply Exhibits, identified as R~ply 

Exhibits 1 through 3. Th~ FAA did not object to the admissibility of any of the Respondc•H·~ 

Exhibits. 

'On November: 17. 201S. the Respondent raised objections to the validity of the unsigned Complaint. (Show Couse 

Stmt. I.) Sl:lvonteGn ( 17)' days Intel". on DocumbllH' 4, 20 IS. the PAA 's Rc~ponsc to Show Couac wns filed, which 

included a signed version of tile May 19.2015 Complaint. (FAA Resp. I. Attach.) On May IS. 2016 this Couo·• 

~bund thar the FAA'$ action to file o signed vcl'$ion of it$" Complaint constiluu:d a prompt corrective nc£ion, pursuant 

lO Federal Rule of Civil P1·acedure ll(a). gince th~C signed Complai11t was l~ll.}d prio1· to the Dr:cembt}t' IS. 2015 

doodlino sot by the Coun lbr the fAA to nle o Rcspons~. (May 18. 20 IG OrUcl'7.) Thus. the FAA's Complaint is 

cotuidctcd lobe volidly filed with the FAA H~rll'ing Dookul und toOI'~Iold on rhe Respondcnl on Mny 19. 20 IS. even 

tl1ougl1 it was unsigned at the \'ime of filing and service. (lei,) 

., On October 26. 2016. the Respondent also tiled the (,,flowing: I J n [Po·opoood) Oo·deo· Grunting R•spondonr< [sic] 

Motion fo•· Summilry Judgm~:nr; 2) Ruspondenrs (sic] Requesl for tl Ruling on Motion ana M!.!morandum 1'01' 

Stm1nuu·y Judgment; ;md 3) a (P1·oposeJd] Or·der Ct•a,ui,,g Rc~>pond~nls (sic] Request !"or f'l Rulin~ on Motion t01· 

Summat·y Judgmcnl. 

Pa~e S of 8 
2016-12-14 09:11 1 1 » p 4/9 

D. Undisputed Mntcrinl Fncts Undca·lying the Alleged Viol~tion 

During the December 8, 2016 Telephone Conference_, the 1mdisputed facts underlyio~s the 

Respondent's motioo~ for summal'y judgment wc!'e briefly reviewed, to help the parties prepal'e 

for oral arsun~e11t scheduled on Jaouary 25,2017. Based on the paa·ties' submissions. it appeao·ed 

that there was no genuine dispute as to most (if not all) of the n,ateo·ial facts undel'iying the 

alleged violation ofl4 C.F.R. § 91.417(c). 

---------fn-brief. acoordia~s to 14 C.F.R. § 91.417(o). the owneo· oa· opea·ato•cofs.a~ aircraft shall - --- --

make all maintenance •·ecords i·equio·ed to be kept by 14 C.F.R. § 91.417 av;oilable lor iMpection 

by the Adminiwator or ao~y authorized repo·esentative of the National Transpol'!ation Safety 

Board. 

Tn the instant case, as bl'iet1y summarized by this Cmu1 dur·ing the December 8, 2016 

Conference/ the parties asreed that Ma·. Curtl'igbt was at allr·elevant times the owner of a Pipco· 

Model PA-18135 civil aircraft, with registration number N949JP ("N949JP"). (Com pl. 1 ,11; 

Ans. 1 ~ l.) On July l, 2014, FAA Inspector Mattin Conroy asked Mr. Cunrightto provide by 

July 17, 2014 "aircraft and engine maintenance logbooks'' ofN949JP (among other documents) 

for the FAA's review. (Compl. 1·2 112: Ans. I 112: Ex. 7m3.) lnspccto•· Cono·oy·, a·equcst for 

ia~spection of M1·. Cuo·trisht's airoo·aft maintenance logbooks was part of the 1: A A's Portland 

Flight Stanclao·ds District Office official investigation of an aircraft accident involving N949JP. 

(Com pl. 1-2 ~ 2: Ans. 1 11 2; Ex. 7 lH 3.) On July 7. 2014. lnspectoo· Coni'Oy o·enewed his reque~l. 

asking Ma·. Cunright foo· a date cel'tain to ''inspect the aio·cr·an weight/balao1ce and airl1·amc/cngine 

maintenance logbooks." (Mot., Ex. 12 at 7 .) Tilat same day. on July 7. 2014. Mr. Curtright told 

Inspector Colll'oy that the "[r]est of the documents are norrh in Canada" (Mot., Ex. 12 at 7), and 

Mr. Cunrighr needed "some time to get them." (kl.) Approximately, seven (7) weeks later·. on 

August 28,2014, Mr. Curtright advised Inspector Conroy via email that he wo.,Jd not be 

tl'lweling to Canada for the 1·emaindeo· of the yeaa·. (Jd. at 8.) 

!i The ftlot5 pt·oft'bred in·the FAA's Ct·oss-Motion w1:1'~ not di~cul:i~od duri11g th\} December 8, 2016 Telophone 

Confel'{:)nce. bccnus:c none of the PAA 's c,·oss-Motion anachml!nls. which I)I'C$UI113bly protTCt'!!d admiS$ilJI1! fuct:s. 

lli.ld been received by either rhc Coun or Mr. Cuttriglu. As no1ctl~:nrli~r. dw-ing th~ 0\::cc,,,bcr 8. 2016 T,;h;phot,~ 

Confe1·enoe, the FAA w:;~.~ ¥''l;tnt\!d lhc opp(ll'tunily to SUJ)t)l~::tneiH lts. Ct·oss .. Mot.ion nnd tilo it~ J'&c.:t L!Xhibiu. <Hld the 

summili'Y judG,ment oro! tH'gwnl.:lnl wiiS ,·cs~.:l to JatlLH:'II'Y 2,, 2017. 

Page 4 of 8 
2016·12·J4 09:11 1 1 ,.,. p 5/9 

About one (1) week late•·, on Septembe1· 9. 2014. Me. Ctll'tl'ight agai11 informed the FAA 

that the aircraft and enginG logbool{$ were at his residence in Canada. (fix. 12m !.) 

Approximately eleven (11) n1onths latet•, on A"sust 13, 2015, the parties <Ogreed that Mr. 

Curtright made the reco\'(is available to the FAA at Mr. Curtright's place of business in Salem. 

Oregon.6 at which time FAA Inspecrors C1.1rt Cowley and Terry Juran inspected the aircraft 

maintenance records ofN949JP. (Mor. 5; s~. 2 at 2.) The following day. on August 14. 2015, 

InspectOr Cowley reported that Mr. Currright's "records were well organized and complete. hack 

to-th~-birth-ofthc airc1·aft;" (Mot.. Ex.S·at 2;) 

E. Disputed Issue. Time l'o•• Roguhl!ory Compli,\ncc 

Acco•xlit1[; to the record herein. on May 6. 2015, the FAA issued a final Notice ol' 

Proposed Civil Penalty ("FNPCP''), charging M1·. Curtright with the violation of 14 C.J".R. 

§ 91.4!7(c). {Cornpl. 1., !.). On May 11, 2015. Mr. Curtright contest&d the FNPCP by 

submitting a Req~•ett for Hearing. (Jd.) On May l 9. 2015, the FAA tiled its Complain~ On 

All!;ll!St 13,201 S. the FAA inspected Mr. Curttight's aircraft l'ecords and found them tO be 

satlsl'llctory. 

As noted supra. the FAA does 11ot dispute that M1'. Ccnwisht ultimately p•·oduced the 

reco•·ds fo•· inspection, on or about August 13, 201 S. Rathel'. the FAA asserts that the undisputed 

fact timeline. which demonstrates a deliiy of ove•· one {1) year after the FAA's July 1. 2014 

initial request for produ~;tion. is per se evidence of the char~cd records violatioo'l. In a recent 

supplemental pleadinll.. the FAA also asserted that the alle~:ed violation of 14 C.F.R.. § 19.417(c) 

"commenced on orabout.h>ly 18. 2014."7 (Aug. 23,2016 FAA Statement. 1.) 

M1·. Curtright agreed that as of September 4, 2014, the FAA. had advised him, via a Lett~•· 

of Investigation ("LOI''), that his fail11i-e to p•·odl.•ce the t•equested "airc1·aft and engine 

maintenance locbooks" ofN949JP could be "contrary to the federal Aviation Reg.ulations:· 

(Mot., Ex. 5 at 1.) The FAA's September 4, 2014 LOI also advised Mr. Curtright that if he 

<· In its Answer. !he R.c.<pondcnt oS$~rtcd thoi these "losl" recon:l5 were \lltlmotely found nnd "presented" 10 the FAA one: month cnrlic1· vin t;mnil Ot) July IS, 2015. {Ar~a. l. 1 2.) Th~ PAA dbpvtcd rhi~ p~rtlculttr F~1t:t t1~crtion. 

1 The "violation elate" of July IS. 2014 immedimety Follows tile f•'AA 's t,OI demand deadline date of July 17. 2016. 

Page 5 of8 
2016·12·14 09:11 1 1 >:> p 6/9 

"fail[ed) to supply the requested informacion'' (Mot:., Ex. 7 at 1). the FAA would "make 

determinations about possible onforo<ilment action" without seeking any further participation 

ft'Om Mr. Curtright. (Mot .. Ex. 7 at 2.) 

However, in his Motion, Mr. Curtright asse!'tS that tile language of 14 C.F.R. § 91.417{c) 

docs not t'Cquirc owners to sto•·e maintenance rt:cords on the: ain:raft, and instead o!lly requires 

that the maintenance records "be pred.,ced for inspection ina reasonable amount of time when 

_____ requested_~:,-theFAA.l>JTSB or law Mforcen1Emt." (Mot., S.) Mr. Curtright explained that some 

ofhis reeot•ds, which the FAA had o-eque~ted in ,July 2014. had been "lost" for a time. (Ans. 1. 

'll'lf 1 and 3.) He also emphasized that these "lost" recoo·ds were ultimat-ely found and "presented" 

tO the FAA. (Ans. l. ~ 2,) 

Since it is undisp~ted that Mr. Curtright ultimately produced its aio·craft maintcnarocc 

logbooks for FAA inspection on A~•gust 13,2015 (i.e .. approximately thr00 (3) months a'ii¢r the 

FAA filed its Complaint), Mr. Curtright asserts that his actions were reasonable and in 

compllance with the regulatory requirements. r~us, as a mattel' of law, he caJ'l110t.be found to 

nave commi.tted a violation ofl4 C.F.R. § 9l.417(c). (Mot. 5: r::x. 2.) 

In essence, based on the undisputed facts, the iM~•e in dispute is a legal issue; specifically, 

whether the Respondent made the aircraft and engitle logbooks "available for inspection'' as 

required by 14 C.F.R. § 91.407(c). when he provided the logbooks thirteen (13) months after the 

FAA Invest! gator reqvested production of the logbooks. Neither the Respondent nor the FAA 

specifically addressed this narrow legal issue in their materials. 

F. Conclusion 

The parties are remi11dcd that each motion foo· summary judgment is reviewed sepamtely. 

Stc:v~n Baicker-McKee, et al., Fe®ral CIVIl Rules /1andboo/c, II 63·1)4 and 11 71 (Thomson 

Reuters 2016). In oonsidcl'ing each motioo1, the Court onay 'consid<:r not only the rcq\ocstcd relict: 

but also consider g.rantingjvdgment on behalf of the non-movin.g party, andJor pl'Ovide relief on 

gl'Ounds different from what the parties r!Cquested. See, Federal R\ole of Civil Procedure 56(t)( l ): 

and Steven Bnicker.McKee, et al.. supra 3! } 197-1198. 

Page Iii of!! 
2016·12·14 09:12 1 1 >:> p 7/9 

The parties should be given ti111e to st•pplement their •••awials with legal al.lthority in 

support of their St~mmary judgment l'ositions, Oul'i11g the December 8, 2016 Telephone 

Conf<Wi:nce, M1·, Curtright orally provided the fol!owitlg authority: In 1he Mtillqr f!{Genqral 

Aviatlon, FAA Order 98-18 (October 8, 1998). The pa•·ties were also provided a Jam1a1')' 13, 

2017 deadline to me any further legal authority. with the summary judgment oral arguments 

continued to January 25, 20\7, In addition. during the Decem bet' 8. 2016 Telephone Conference. 

certain oral rulingo on Mr. Curtright's November 19, 2016 Motion to Dismiss were issued and 

'*Plainodri'hoseruli"SB a•·e also codified in this Ot'C!cr. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 1}.205, 13.218, a11d Rule 56, and after reviewing all relevont 

easelaw, regulations. statutory authority. and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORD.E.RED: 

l. The FAA's oral motion. to continue rhe summary judgment arguments and to allow lr ro 

S\lpplement its ct·oss·motio.~ materials to include missing attachments. is granted ovc•· the 

Respondent's objection. 

2. Thc{tcspol\dertt's rm1ltiple requests for Sllmmary judgment and other relict~ contained in 

theRQspondent's Octobe•• 26, 201 G Motion, are reserved. 

3. January 13, 2017 Supplement J)cadllne: On or before January 13, 2017, rhc parries 

may file supplemental matco·ial. specifically any legal authority and argument. in support 

of their positions regarding thf;) Respondent's Motion fo•· Sun; mary Judgme11t on the 

violation charged u11d0r 14 C.F.R. § 9l.417(c). 

4, Janunry 25, 2017 (I :30 p.m.-3:00p.m. ET): Motion Conference. Oral argumell\ will 

be heard on Wednesday. Ja,uary 25, 2017 (I :30 p.m.-3:00p.m. Eastern time) regarding 

both the Respondent's Motion for Summary Jt~dsment and th!lFAA 's Cross-Motion. 

Should tin1e permit, final $Latus of discovery as well as potentialltearing dates (in the 

event the matters herein are not fully resolved by sumrnary judgment) will also be 

addressed. To access the Courrs Conference line. the parties shall dial 888·278·0296 and 

enter code 5851842. 
2016·12·14 09:12 1 1 » p 8/9 

S. The Respond11nt's November 19, 2016 Motion to Dismiss, on the grovnds that the "actual 

date ofvioiQtion" in this case is 11ot identi'fied. is denied. 

6. The Novembet' 19. 2016 Motion to Dismiss, on th~ grounds thatth~ FAA's complete 

copy of its Enforcement li1VO$tisation Repot't has not been provided to the Respondent, i~ 

denied. 

7. The Respondent's November 19, ZO 1 G Motion to Dismiss. oo 'the: grounds that the FAA 

, --·~tllHlot-fully explained to the Respondent the b~sis for its proposc:d$11,000 civil· penalty.--'· 

is denied, 

8. The RespOI'Ide>,t' s November 19, 2016 Motion to Dismiss. on the grounds that the 

Respondent provided a majority of it~ t-ecords on or before .Tvly 7, 2014, i~ denied. 

9. The Respondent's November 19,. 2016 Motion to Dismiss', on tile !li'Ouncls that the fAA 

lacks evidence to pt·ove the alleged violation. is de11ied. 

J 0. The Respondent's November 19. 2016 Mmion 10 Dismiss, on the c,rounds ll1at he 

produced his aircraft records within a reasonable time, is reserved afi part of the pending 

sul'l'lma•-y judsment pl'OOeeding. 

II. The Respondent's November 19, 2016 Morion to Dismiss, on the c,rounds tllatthe FAA ·s 

proposed civil penalty of$) 1,000 violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against 

cruel ami unusual punishn\ent, is denied. 

I 2. l'or clarifications of this order or questions with resard to the procedures to be followed 

in this oase, ple<>sc contact Mr. Cody L. Smith. Attor11ey-Advisor at the Office of 

Hea,·ings (202-366-6941 ). 

.ludg 

u.s' A:Qij:l.I.!;Wil>'trti 

Attachment: Setviee List 

Page a of8 
2016·12·14 09:12 1 1 >> p 9/9 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Admlnlstt·tuion 

800 Independence Avenue, S. W, 

. Washington, DC 20591 

Atten<ion: Hearing Docket Clerk, AOC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building~Suite 2W I 000« 

Mr. David F. Shayne 

Complainant s Counsel 

l:ederal Aviation Administrmion 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM· 7 

160 I Lind Avenue S. W, 

Renton, WA 96057 

TEL: 425·227·1847 

FAX: 42S-227-1007 

Ot·. William Ames Cut'tt·lght. DBA 

Respondent 

P.O. Bo;.; 1350 

Jefferson. OR 97352 

TEL: 503-209·7388 

FAX: 503·485-0812 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administr«liWJ Law Judge 

U.S. Oeparcment ofTranspot·tation 

Oflice of Hearings, M-20 

1200NewJerseyAvenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington. DC 20590 

TEL; 202-366·6941 

FAX: 202·366-7536 

ONE COPY 

~ Servic:e was by U.S. M01iL Fol' service in f)\lf&.on or by eNpedit.$d oovrier1 use the fo!J.owin~ edd1·oss: !:'edcrtil 

Aviation ACitnlniwation, ooo Independence Aver1ue, s. w .. Wilbur Wt'i£;ht 6uilding-Sl!ite zw 1000. washington. 

DC 20591: Attention: Ho•u·ins Dookot Cl•l'l<. ACC-430. 
IJ (ht:ps:!/W'>WH.:t:lfrK!l' .ecv)Comolt Ur>ii-Y~r:;i;y Law Scncor (h!lp://www.!.•l.wscilool.ccrr:oH.edu!)Sea 'tl> Cornell {h!lrxr/i\'<WW.cornel' .$:tu/OOarchl_l 

CFR \/cfr/tcxl}' Trtle 14 (/cfrllaxtl14} • Charnor I (iOfriteX!!14!chaoter-l) • SubChapter F (/ctri1&Xtl14/chapcer-l!s:;behaptcr·F) • Part 91 !/c!rlt.ext!t4t'pa>t91} • Stbpart E (tcfr,~e;dl'!4/part·91fsubpart-E) • Sectlon 91.407 

14 CFR 91.407 - Operation after maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration. 

§ 91.407 Operation after maintenance (/definltionstmdex.php? 

wi~-=-~~~-~!.\Jmt::B~!f.!~~~tr~_e_~-~---oi~~~~?~~!!stt:!~~~f1~~d!~4._~~~.l!'-.,~~r_;:1_~!e!:_r!1=!p!~:'!~e:!~!~~~E!~~~!l-¥~.~~:~!1!!~~l£~~~~~-=~:~.:"!D21 

pr!_~"ti_'!:~_EI_!~!fl!!~!'l~.(!~_if!!!i5'-~~!~~P:?. 

wicHh=840&height=OOO&I1rame=true&def_kl=e18bca3f28d4d004ad67445c4f8f293f&term __ occur=1&term_src=rrtre:14:Chapter:I;SUbet'!apter:F:Part:91:Subpart:E:91.407}, 

rebUilding, or alteration. 

(11) No P&rsGr {hJetirrlkms!index.php? 

l<;l¢fl=B4V&hsight»SOO&iframe=uue&cal_kl~dee76naat32a61 Gt&cOJ34$e13~$& <crm_ OOOllr"" l&t;>rm_s= Tl!le: 14:Chap1or.t.Subel'lapter;F:f'an:91 :Svbtlart:E;(I1 AOl) 

may {lf;emm tiFf ~..!~l]!lJ.::~!lJir:.i'E~'!!:...~~.E2 

~~~~Jl~li!~~QQ~i![.9n'k~~~~~~~a~f!.:?.?~~~Q1_6~~.te_'[•,.2c..?Er"'1&!e~::1':Il\~~L1_4_:.~y~j;,~J:~p_t£,~f~f'~l.!~i..9J:§~:tE:Q:!}Q7] 

that has undergona !":l.!!i!!t'!'n~Jfdetirli!i£.n:!!:IJ.r!~l!-~P.~?. 

~dlh--840&t~9.':J':'.i0_9§.Jf~!:':::'~-u~~~*t::.~·!r~o~zqQQ!~~f.LeQfiJ!?.Z!P§.~~?!!r-2~~~~!~I~I~~1.;1'.ft:.~P!!I!EI&~§:ql_l\l.~:~~~!tl:.§\41P.!!I!:~:.~~.t\Ii''l: 

9-~J1'f....~~!Jil_n~~E<!.I?~!:!!I.?r:~r~p~p1, 

?:.:~~~il~l9.1!!"=-~JQ§.,'f~~;:1~~<!!1.lq.':'t:!.1~b_s:a~ll.§o~~§!~~~!~~~'!!1,.HE!?.~~2:~Ler~"'~·r~E~.~.:l~:;::t:?P~.!::§~~£1~if.:~!.._>lL .. ~~~:§:1_!:~9.?)1 

rebl.lilaing, or alt&ation unless. 

(1) It ~as 'Jeen appr;.wec for retum to sor.ice by a penon :tdetinitionsl'flti~php? 

~('!ti}~C~'!f9t:~§.tff!l!1JE!.';'.!!:..,~~...d~~..?§£.1¥!'L~~~!qs_~.?._~~~-~ ... 9-Cgi!r'::~~_t~~-TiQe:.!_4;~hi;!PJ~!;,§_f!~~f:f?!1;Q':!:§~.\:lp~!'l::.§.:_~!~?l 

autnorized t/l'ld(lr § 43.7 ;Mp:'l:/t;n,·w\•:.la"N_rome~!.etiutolrfttlxti14/4J.7) of111is chaprer; a11d 

(2) Th<;~ ~l~~JL~J!)-~Lo~s{i~~P~?. 

wh:lth--84{)&heightooSOO&ilrarn:;ztruc&def..]doac40e7c7oot7dd9c4d tf1e01ta37til84&ter~ _ oect.TooS&teiDLSf(i.>.;. Titlo:14:C~apler:I:Subchapk.lr:F; Part:S1 :Svboart:E:Gi .40/) 

tooon:i eotry ;eq~ired by § 43.9 or§ 43,11, a11 applicable,-~ tl>is chapklr has bean IT'ada. 

(b) No 2?~£.r:.£!:l.!!_~~~~I!_!__~..:£!!R~ 

~~~~!!l!!~!'."§.9.~i!@:!!:.~~;;i!f ... ~::5§!<!~7.§!1a.!!. ~.:t££!!~,:;!~~8_?§~§1£,'5_~~!f!!~=~.r,<::;!!.!l~t_1;!:c!~F!~F!l3'Y_~J:l!~,>r:.f~f!.J!_:Suhpa'!_Jt\!tl!Q?2 

may cany any !!'\l..~_..i:}L~~~r...~~~:J!:P_?. 

~~Q~~.I;!!Jl~t::\~~:t~~~~~~ ... ~::;_,cg~?'ffia&:1~!?NE.~£Q:?_~~E@3~~~~~:;:'!~t!"~'!~~": TJ~·1_1_:91!~~-=!:§_liJ;lS.'l~.P~:!:.:~a:t·nt§0?~r_:§:;§!L4QTI 

(ot'lertha.n crawmambors) in an ?Jr£~?~ .. ((C!~~.~!J!c::'!'~~:Pl:!?..'? 

width,540&ho~at>t~¥rarnl>4rue&deUd~9caato4fnJ2d93d0736o9d3200164o&Mrrn_oocc~r-,2&term_sm·.:.:Tltle:14:CI'aoter:I:Sl!bchapter:F:Part:91;St.OOartE~e1.407) 

ci)at has been maintained. :reouil!, or a~r<!KI m a ma11rn>r ~llat may f>ave tJWM>C!ably chan sed its flight eilam.c!etistlcs <:.r tit:bstardialfy a\Ti!cted lis cpera!klr: m flight 

until ar: aj:propriatety ra!OO pilot with at leM! a ptlva!e piklt e&rtificatef!~eslhe aireraft ~Ide!intuo11s/irn:lex.p'1p? 

wldti'."'t!40&hsight--SOO&iframe"'truG&deL~Sf'.aab04f79'2d93d0738c9d3?9016<\&&tll!rm. .• occur=4&term_s~ Trtlo: 14 :Chapter:I:Svbctmpter:F:Par::91 :Subp(l.rt;E:91 . 411ll, 

makes al'! cpe;auontJI cr.e.ck of thG malr!enanct~ {!de!in!ttons/h<dex.phn? 

widlh~l)&heigh'""eoO&itrame=tr Je&def_~.ac4007r70017 dd9c4d7f'! eofta37df84&lerm_occu•oo4&tarm~ sr<>o Tt:'e:14:Chap1.er:LS!Jbcl;ap!M:F. Part:81 :Si.!bpar.:E:91 .407) 

ps!fotri'ICt! or a!toralk>n made, a•td 'ogs ttJe '~'lght l11tho alrornft (!de!mitiof\&!index.php? 

wi.:ft!;..""'a4o&halghtoc800&lfrafl1&'"tr<*&tief __ ldoo8e9caab04f7G2d93d0738tfld329016l!e&lerm._eccu•""J&tamu~ro:;.. Tttte: 14:Criapter:!:Sobchapter:F:Part:91 :<M::partE:S\1 .407j 

,_,., 

(c) ~he aircraft (/OOiiJ]itk;m$/index.ph!)1 

widtl\•we840&heigt>t;SOO&ifram!J=ltful'l&deUd~e9Clm'J04792ti93d0738c9d3200164e&!.ef!t> ~CCC~Jr=5&term_src>o T1le:14:CI>aQICJ":I:Subchapler:F:Part:9i:Subpart:E:91.407) 

does not have to be flown as reQUired by paragraph (b) cl th's seciion II, prw l-0 !light grouwllests, inspection, o; balh show ooncluslva1y11"ai:the 121~~-~~.~. 

i:lt~h'~~.i.P!'~sflt~J~~£1 

~LdtJ:.':'~jQ§..t~Ji~Q~lfr~.J:::;!r_w_~!!<,?<>,L.i~~?YZ!lQ:J~~.~ic!?!_~~~~~~~rrr\,.qg;_l!_"':':~~Jif'~!t-!t.S:~i:.0'!P..~.r~U3~..b~t?-~-~E:.:;~rt"9...1~§!J~Nr.t:~:lJ:J-O]) .. 

J.!!~~l!y_e"'~!~~ 1[~~~~o_r0~~·f!!:l£? 

Y'.~l:~§~;l!!!lll~~~J,!!!~!!Jl:l~!.f'_Cf_~~def~id-~-~~bgJ~f£~~!?:~~14:?~~§.r:_f!1.=~~-~~f:'..?At'ftl!\,&!£"'JJ~~,:1:qha,p~:l_c~~h<!l!'~£:El!.rtl!'.t:§uppii_r:!:g_~1--'-~n. 

raWidlng, Qr al!orabor. has net appreciably chaf'ged tho /light Omramensttts cr substantially aflectodtt<e ffighl ooaration oftf>e ~i~ft.Q.d_!l!Qttj~lQ~~x~'!!?1 

\-'L'<tl!l=:~~J::.S_Q9_8.!fr~_<;'!~,3<~~~~~1ti:~~~~?Q:!~At.~.I'!'.1.='?~-<:.~I_€_!1!'<_~~I~l£!1.1~9!!~.:~r.!S~er:f:_:E!!rt.!l.t~.b~t:·91.1f!?J. 

{Approved bytha Office of Mare.gomcnt end dudget under :::::mtro! m1mbor 2120.0005) 

Download This To PDF 

Free to Download and Convert. Get It Jnstartly, Download Now. 

Sc ~o i'rorndoctc.pdf.corr 

CFR Toolbox 

Ul on your phone: 

('t\tfn /!lt,.wwE ,apple.OO!l1/ws/app:laY.fireld4ll3807 492) 

lal>,' aOOuL Ar'Fcle11 from wox (/Wex!wex_aricles) 

View eCFR (hf!p-:!Mww .ectr.gt;v/cgi-biril:f!xHt'x?e=eclr&lpl~/aclrbm•Nt:«lTitle 14/14clr91_mair_02Jpf) 

T.ab!e cf Papu'ar f\lamO$ ~'lopn) 

Para!Wi T&bre at AJttoorttics (!ptoa; (I 
' 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In the Matter of: FAA Order No, 99-7 

PREMIER JETS, INC. Served: August 31, 1999 

Docket No. CP97NM0005 

DECISION AND ORDER1 

This appeal involves flight time recordkeeping by Part 135 air carriers. It raises 

the issue of which records Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspectors may use to 

determine compliance with the flight time limitations. This case does not involve any 

allegation that Premier violated the flight time limits themselves; only recordkeeping is at 

ISSUe. 

Premier Jets, Inc. (Premier) has appealed the law judge's decision finding that 

Premier committed three offour alleged recordkeeping violations• This decision denies 

Premier's appeal and affirms the law judge's decision assessing a civil penalty of$1, 125. 

Premier is a Part 13 5 operator located in Oregon that employs about 30 pilots, 

Premier transports transplant teams and donor organs for several hospitals. 

The FAA conducted an in-depth inspection of Premier's operation from March 25 

1 The Administrator's civil penalty decisions are available on LEXIS, WestLaw, and other 

computer databases. They are also avai!abl~: on CD-ROM through A&oflight Publications. 

Finally, they can be found in Hawkins's Civil Penalty Cases Digest Sllfvice and Clark Boardman 

Callaghan's Federal Aviation Decisions. For additional information, see 64 Fed. Reg. 43,236, 

43,250 (August 9, 1999). 

2 A copy of the law judge's written initial decision is attached. 

tl G h~bit 5 i/ 
2 

through March 29. 1996. At the start of the inspection, Premier provided FAA inspectors 

with its individual records of pilot flight time, which consisted solely of"crew duty time 

sheets. "3 After noticing that one pilot's record indicated that he had not logged flight 

time since March 3. 1996, the FAA inspectors requested Premier's flight logs to check 

the accuracy of the crew duty time sheets. 

The inspectors discovered discrepancies between the crew duty time sheets and 

the flight logs. Some errors were in the crew duty time sheets and some were in the flight 

logs. 

Complainant FAA initiated the instant civil penalty action, alleging that Premier 

committed several violations of the following regulation: 

§ 135.63 Recordkeeping requirements. 

(a) Each certificate holder shall keep at its principal business office 

or at other places approved by the Administrator, and shall make available 

for inspection by the Administrator, the following-

(4} An individual record of each pilot used in operations under this 

part, including the following information: 

(vii) The pilot's flight time in sufficient detail to determine 

compliance with the flight time limitations of this part. 

14 C.F.R. § 135.63(a)(4)(vii) (1996). 

After a hearing, the law judge found that the record supported a finding of 

violation on three of the four counts in the complaint. The law judge noted as follows: 

• Count 1. Premier's chief pilot conceded that one of Premier's pilots 

2 A copy of the law judge's written initial decision is attached. 

3 A crew duty time sheet is a weekly compilation of a pilot's on-duty, flight, crew-rest, and offduty time. 
3 

recorded 2A hours flying time on his crew duty time sheet for the 

wrong day for March 1 instead of March 2, 1996. Regarding 

Count I. the law judge found a violation of Section 135. 63(a)(4)(viij. 

• Count 2. The complaint alleged that Premier failed to maintain an 

individual record of a pilot in sufficient detail regarding a January 14, 

1996, flight At the hearing, however, the FAA inspector 

acknowledged that the pilot incorrectly wrote down the wrong date on 

the flight log (January 14, 1996, instead of March 14, 1996) and that 

the crew duty time sheet was correct. The law judge concluded that 

the flight with questionable recordkeeping occurred on March 14, 

1996, and that Complainant improperly drew up Count 2 of the 

complaint by alleging a January I 4, I 996, flight. As a result, the law 

judge dismissed Count 2. 

• Count 3. Premier's chief pilot conceded that its pilots entered the 

wrong date on the flight log (March 19 instead of March 18, 1996). 

The crew duty sheets were correct. Regarding Count 3, the law judge 

found a violation of Section 135.63(a){4)(vii). 

• Count 4. The flight time on the crew duty time sheets for two pilots 

for March 8, 1996, appeared to be incorrect Regarding Count 4, the 

law judge found a violation of Section 135.63 (a)( 4)(vii). 

The law judge said that Premier must direct attention to its pilots' recordkeeping 

practices to elimina~e errors. He pointed out that accurate records must be kept if the 

operator is to know when to schedule pilots within the permissible limits and if the FAA 

is to know whether the operator has done so. The law judge concluded that Premier's 

recordkeeping violated Section !35.63(a)(4)(vii) because it did not consist of both the 

flight logs and the crew duty time sheets. According to the law judge, Premier's 

recordkeeping was inadequate both for containing inaccuracies and for necessitating 

cross-checking, The law judge assessed a $375 penalty for each of the three violations he 

found, for a total of$1,125. Premier has appealed the law judge's initial decision. 

In its appeal brief, Premier presents two mutually exclusive arguments. First, 
• 

• 

4 

Premier argues that the FAA inspectors should not have examined the flight logs because 

they were not part of the "individual record" of each pilot. Without the flight logs, FAA 

inspectors would not have been able to determine conclusively that the crew duty time 

sheets contained errors. 

Second, Premier argues that it committed no violation because the flight logs were 

part of the "individual record" of each pilot's flight time. Premier notes that the 

inspectors were able to determine the pilots' true flight time by comparing the crew duty 

time sheets with the flight logs. Thus, Premier contends, its recordkeeping met the 

requirements of the rule. 

Contrary to Premier's contentions, the inspectors acted appropriately when they 

examined the flight logs. Indeed, if the inspectors had chosen to ignore or overlook any 

compliance concerns raised by their examination of the crew duty time sheets, they would 

have been abrogating their critical safety duties. The inspectors acted appropriately in 

conducting a searching and thorough review of Premier's records, including the flight 

logs. 

Nor does the record support Premier's other argument- i.e., that no violation 

occurred because the flight logs were part of the "individual record" of each pilot. The 

law judge found that Premier should have kept the flight logs as part of the "individual 

record" of each pilot, because Premier was using the flight logs rather than the crew duty 

time sheets to schedule its pilots.' As the law judge noted, the flight time recordkeeping 

4 Although the law judge's decision may suggest that if Premier had kept the crew duty time 

sheets and the flight logs together as the individual pilot records, Premier would not have 

committed any violations, it is unclear that this is true. First, there were still errors in both types 

of records. Second, a record-keeping practice that requires inspectors routinely to review two 
.. 

• 

5 

provision has a dual purpose first, to ensure that in scheduling, an air carrier complies 

with the flight time limits, and second, to ensure that the FAA can readily monitor the air 

carrier's compliance with the flight time limits. 

Premier. however, did not keep the flight logs as part of the individual record of 

each pilot. Instead: the flight logs for all of Premier's pilots for a single month were kept 

in the same file. \Vhere there was more than one pilot for a flight, multiple pilots 

appeared on a single flight log. Moreover, when Premier gave the inspectors its 

individual records, it gave them only the crew duty time sheets and not the flight logs. 

Section 135.63 requires air carriers to keep individual records of pilots used in air 

carrier operations in part so that FAA inspectors may determine, without an undue 

expenditure of time and resources, whether an air carrier is complying with the safety 

regulations. See 43 Fed. Reg. at 46,764, stating that "[a] primary objective of the rule is 

to produce the minimum records needed for the FAA to objectively judge compliance ... 

and thus insure safety .... [fhe rule] is necessary for operators to maintain a safe 

operation and for the FAA to monitor the operator.~ When an air carrier has failed to 

keep records that are accurate and that are by individual pilot, then an air carrier's 

recordkeeping is inadequate. See In the Matter of South Aero, FAA Order No. 96-4 at 11 

(February 13, 1996) (affirming the law judge's finding that South Aero's recordkeeping 

was inadequate, and noting that South Aero had conceded that it was only through 

types of documents as the individual pilot flight time record may be too time-consuming, 

undermining one purpose of the rule, which is to facilitate and speed safety oversight by 

consolidating the relevant information in one record for each pilot. It is unnecessary to reach the 

issue of the appropriateness of keeping the crew duty time sheets and flight logs together as the 

individual pilot record because the record indicates that Premier did not do so. 
• 

. 6 

signitlcant time and resoun:es that FAA inspectors were able to piece together the pilots' 

flight and duty time}. 

In conclusion, the law judge did not err in finding Premier's recordkeeping 

inadequate. This decision denies Premier's appeal and affirms the law judge's decision 

assessing a civil penalty of$1,125.' 

Issued this 23rd day of August, 1999. 

5 Unless Respondent files a petition for review with a Court of Appeals of the United States 

within 60 days of service of this decision {under 49 U.S.C. § 46110), this decision shall be 

considered an order assessing civil penalty. See 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.16{b)(4) and 13.233(i)(2) 

(1998).