Oe/23/201 0 10:3 3 FA X 202493514 2 FA A - ^ DM S 21001/02 7

UNnE D STATE S DEPARIMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D C I n th e Matte r

of : HUSTE D AN D HUSTE D AI RCHARTER . INC . FA A Orde r

No . 2010- 9 DocketNo . CPO8CE0OO

J FDM S No , FAA-2007-036 r Served ; Jun e 16,201 0 DECISIO N AN D ORDER S After atwo-da y hearing, ^ Administrativ u La w Judg e Richar dC . Goodwi n issue da wrinc n initia l decision, " findin g tha t Huslc dan dHuste dAir

Charter , Inc . Ci- [ & H" ) operate da

n aircraf t ihal wa s unairworlh y du e t o an improperl y repaire dradom e an d excessiv e oi l leak s o n fiv e flights unde r 1 4 C.F.R , Par

t 135 . H e als o foun dtha t require d entrie s in thi s aircraft' s maintenanc e logbook s hadno t bee n made . Base do n thes e findings , th e AI J hel dtha t H & H violate dth e followin g Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s (PAR) : 1 4 C.F.R . § § 91.7(a) , 91.405(b) , 135.65(c) , an d135.413(a)- *

' Generally , material s file

di n the FA A Hearing Docke

t (except fo r material s diedi

n .seciiril y cases ) ar e als o avnilable fo

r viewing a t hirp://www.re^ulat>ons:gov . See 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.210(e)(1) . Th u Administrator' s civil penalt y deci-sions , along wit

hindexe s o f

th e decisions , the nile. s o

f pmcfice , an

dothe r information , ar

e availabl e o

n the Interne

t a t the Tollowin

g address : irww./aa . gov/about/cfffice org/headquartersyj^ces/agc/poladJudicadoti/A GC400 / CivilJ'ertalTy . Se

u 1 4 CI-.R . ( j 13.2I0(eX2) , I

n addition , Thomso

n Reutcrs/Wes t

Publishing publishe s Federa

l Aviation Decisions . Finally , the decision.- ? ar c availabl e throug

hLtXI S (TRANS library ) an dWestLa w (FTRAN-PA

A database) . Fo

r additiona l information , sec th e We

b site , ' The hearin g was heldo

n Septembe

r 4 an d5 , 2008 . • * A copy o f

the ALJ' s initia

l decision is attached . Section 91.7(a) provides ; "N o person ma y operat e acivil aircraf

l unles s i t i s i n a n airworth y condition. "OG/23/201 0 10:3 3 FA X 202493514 2 FA A^ DM S 0002/02 7

Th e AL J hel dtha t

whil e asubstantia l civi l penall y wa s necessary du e t o th e seriousnes s o f

th e violations , H & H prove dtha t th e S i 1,000 civi l penalt y sough t b y Complainan t

wa s to o hig hdu e t o the company' s poo r financial condition . Th e AI J us.se3se da$7,50 0 civi l penall y agains t H & H , H & H appeale dfromth e initial decision , challengin g th e ALJ' s findin g tha i i l violate dth e regulation s an darguin g tha t i t canno t affor dt o pa y th e assesse dcivi l ]>enalty. * Th e Al,.r afindings o f violation s ar c affirme dt o th e exten t explaine di n thi s decision . The $7,50 0 civi l penalt y asses.se db y th e AL J wil l no t b e disturbed . Section 9l.'105{b ) provides : Rac howne r o r operator o f a naircrafl! ; (b ) Shall ensur

e tha t maintenanc e personne

l mak e appropriat

e entrie s i n the aircraf

t maintenanc e record s indicating the aircraf t ha s bee n approvedfo

r retur n t o service , Section !35.G5(c ) provides : Eac hperson wh

o take s con^ctiv e action o

r defers actio

n concerning areportedo

r observe dfailur

e o r mulfunctio

n o f a n airframe , powerplant , propeller , rotor , o r appliance , .s-hal l recordthe aciion take

n i n th e aircraf

t maintenanc e log unde

r the applicabl e maintenanc e nicjuirement

s of thi s chapter, Section 135.413(a

) provides : Eachcertificat

e holde r is primarily respon-sibl

e fo r the airworthines s o

f its aircraft , includin g airframes , aircraf t engines , propellers , rotors , appliances , an dparts , an dshal l hav e it s aircraf

t maintainedunde

r thi. s chapter , an

dshall have defect s repaire dbetwee n requiredmaintenanc e unde r par t 4.3 of thi s chapter . * H & I I filedamotion requesting tha t the Administrato

r reject Complainant' s reply brie f Amon g othe r thing.s , H & I I argue

di n the motion tha

t Complainan

t servedthe repl

y brief late . H & 1 1 wrot

e i n it s motion tha

t the agency attorne

y calledH <f

c H' s president

a t 7:4,' ) l* M o n Jun e 29 , th e date o

n whic hthe brie f was due , an

d.sai dtha t .sh e would.sen

dth e brief to H & H b

y facsimile the nex

t day . happear s tha

t agency counse

l providedacopy o

f he r brief b y facsimile a s D courtesy , a s sh e als o submiLie dacertificat

e o f servic e stating tha

t she servedth

e repl y brief by U.S , Mai

l o n th e du e date . Ph e Rule s o f Practic e provid

e fo r sei"vic c b y persona l deliver y o r b y mai l only . 14 C.F.R . § 13,211(h) , UndortheRulcKo f Practice , the dat

e o f servic e b y mai l se t fort hi n the ccrtificar

e o f servic e is controlling . 1 4 C.F.R, § H.210(b) . Consequently , H & H' s motion to rejec t

Complainant' s reply brie

f i s denied .OG/23/201 0 10:3 3 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S 0003/02 7

LTh e Fact s H & H , aKansa s corporation , hold s a n air carrie r eertificute , authorizin g i t t o operat e unde r

Pai t 13 5 an dit s operation s specifications , ( 1 Tr . 7 , 198. ) H & H carrie s bot hcarg o an dpassengers . Unde r it s operation s specifications , H & H i s authorize dto operat e aBeechcraf

t aircraft , Mode l RF-58 , rcgislralio n numbe r N6751C , in it s Part

13 5 operations . ( 1 I'r . 7-S. ) I I & H' s president , Joh n Husted , own s N6751 C an dlease s i t t o H & H . ( 1 Tr . 206 , 2 Tr . 271. ) In 2007 , whe n th e inciden t givin g rise t o thi s cas e occurred , 1 1 & H employe don e pilot , Jame s H , Jupe . O n Januar y 31 . 2007 , Jup e serve da s pilo t i n comman do f

N6751 C o n fiv e flight s conducte dunde r

Part 13 5 fo r H & H . Th e first

flight originate da

t Charle s D . Wheele r Downtow n Airport

i n Kansa s City , Missouri , an dth e fifthfligh t ende dat thai airport . ( I Tr . 8-9. ) A fe w day s befor e thes e flights , Jup e notice dsom e pinhole s i n th e aircraft' s nos e cone . Th e nos e con e i n thi s aircraf t i s als o th e radome , whic hi s th e par t o f th e airfram e ihat protect ? th e weathe r

radar antenna . (Tr . 182 , Exhibi t A'4, ) "Electrically , aradom e shoul dpermi t

th e passug e o f

th e radai' s iransmiue dsignal s an dreturn echoe s with minimu mdistortio n an dabsorption. " (Exhibi t A- 4 a t 1.) Du e t o hi s concer n tha t

moistur e woul daffec t

th e avionic s equipmen t

behin dthe radome , Jup e obtaine dacoupl e o f strip s of tap e fro mamechani c an dpu t th e tap e ove r part o f nos e con e t o cove r

th e pinholes , ( 1 Tr . 182-183, ) Jup e doe s no t hol damechani c certificate . ( 1 Tr . 84. ) Th e mechanic , .Tup e testified , wa s abou t

2 0 t o 2 5 fee t

away fro m hi mwhe n h e wa s doin g th e work , ( 1 Tr . 182. ) Jup e testifie dtha t a t th e tim e h e di dno t conside r th e applicatio n o f

tap e t o constitut e maintenance . ( 1 Tr . 194. )OG/23/201 0 10:3 3 FAX 202493514 2 FA A * DM S 2)004/02 7

FA A Airworthines s Inspecto r Thoma s Bartel s began aramp inspectio n o f th e aircraf l after i t returne dt o Downtow n Airport i n Kansa s City abou t

4:3 0 PM o n Januar y 31 , 2007 . Hartel s inspecte dN6751 C becaus e h e hadbee n tol dby anothe r FAA inspecto r th e previou s day , o n Januar y 30 , 2007 , that th e aircraf

t hadsignifican i oi l leakii an dtap e o n it s nos e cone , ( 1 Tr , 61. ) A s h e walke daroun dth e aircraft , Bartel s notice dsti^eaks o f oi l o n th e lef

t engin e nacell e Hap s an dthat

oi l wa s drippin g fro mth e lef t engin e nacell e itsel f

( 1 Tr . 64 ; se e Exhibit s A-l(A) , A-l(C ) - A-l(ll)) . H e als o observe dtap e o n th e radom e an dic e o n to p o f th e tape . ( 1 Tr . 64-65. ) Bartel s too k photograph s o f

th e nos e con e an do f

th e oi l o n th e airframe . (Exhibi t

A-1, ) Jup e informe dBartel s that h e hadapplie dth e tap e t o cove r pinhole s i n th e radom e t o preven t moistur e fro

mgettin g insid e th e radom e an don th e rada r antenna . ( 1 Tr . 67 , 68 , 133,185-186. ) Althoug hBartel s hadno t ye t complete dhi s inspection , h e prepare da n aircraf t conditio n notic e (FA A For m8620-1 ) an dgav e i t t o Jupe . Bartel s wrot e o n th e conditio n notic e tha t

th e nos e con e repai r

an dth e left: engin e oi l leak constitule ddiscrepancies. ' H e indicate dfiirther

o n th e for

mthat :

• thes e discrepancie s "ar e not " considere dt o presen t an imminen t

hazar dt o safety ;

• operatio n o f

th e aircraf

t prio r t o correctio n "wil l not " b e contrar y t o th e FAR; ' an d

• aSpecial Fligh t

Permit * "wil l not " b e require dprio r l o operatio n if

th e discrepancie s ar e no t

corrected . ^ Other discrepancie s not

pertinen t l o thi s eas e als o wer

e listedo n th e eondiiio n notice . g Tli e inspector

testifiedtha

t h e didnot conclud e tha t the aircraf t wa s unoirwonh

y until h e completedth e inspection th e nex t day , ( I Tr

. 176. ) 'Se e 1 4 C.F.R , § 21.197(a)(1) .06/23/201 0 10:3 3 FAX 202493514 2 FA A* DM S @l005/02 7

(Exhibi t R-l ; 1 Tr , 130-132. ) Th e nex t day , Bartel. s returne dt o th e airport an dcontinue dth e ram

p inspection . B y thi s time , th e ic e liadmelted . H e too k additiona l photographs , depictin g th e tap e on th e radom e an dwhat

h e calle d"significan t

erosion , eve n outsid e th e boundarie s o f th e tape. " ( 1 Tr . 77 , Exhibi t

A-2. ) H e notice dtha t

th e edge s o f

th e tap e wer e wrinkle dand liftin g fro mth e surface . ( 1 Tr . 77 , 79, ) H e leslifie dtha t h e di dno t

observ e an y pinhole s in tli e radom e becaus e h e di dno t remov e th e tape . ( 1 Tr. 78. ) Th e inspecto r testifie dtha t h e shoul dhav e re-marke dth e conditio n notice , after completin g tli e inspection , t o indicat e tha t

aferr y permi t wa s necessary t o fly N67S 1 t o anothe r locatio n for

repairs . ( 1 Tr . 178. ) Complainan t

introduce dExhibi t

A-4 , whic hi s Advisor y Circular (AC ) No . 43-14 , pertainin g l o th e maintenanc e o f weathe r radar rudomcs . Th e A C advi.se s that radomc s mus t hav e certai n physica l andelectrica l properties . Physically , aradom e shoul db e stron g enoug hto withstan dth e airloa dtha t i t wil l encounte r an dit shoul db e contoure dt o minimiz e drag . .. . Electrically , aradom e shoul dpermi t

th e passag e o f

th e radar' s transmitte dsignal s andretur n echoe s wit hminimu mdistortio n an dubsorption . In orde r t o d o this , it

shoul dhav e a certai n electrica l thickness . .. . Radar efficiency , definitio n an daccurac y o f displa y depen dupo n acleaj' , nondistorted , reflection-fre e antenn avie w throug h th e radome . Consequently , aradom e shoul db e precisel y buil t fo r optimu m performance , A C No . 43-1 4 ^ 3 (Exhibi t 4 at 1) , Paragrap h6 ao f

thi s A C state s tha t

"[a]l l repair s t o radomes , n o matte r ho w minor , shoul dreturn th e radom e t o it s origina l o r properl y altere dcondition , bot h electricall y an dslnicturally. " Furthe r paragrap h6 b provides ;OG/23/201 0 10:3 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S @l00G/02 7

Thes e electrica l propertie s [transmissivity , reflectio n an ddiffraction ] whe n altere d b y imprope r

repair , ma y caus e los s o f signal , distortio n an ddisplacemen t o f targets , an dca n dulle r

th e displa y t o obscur e th e target , Poo r radom e electrica l performanc e ca n produc e numerou s problem s whic hmay appear t o b e symptom s o f deficiencie s i n othe r

unit s o f th e radar system . The followin g ar e example s o f imprope r repair : + * * (8 ) Tap e (includin g electrica l tape ) ove r hol e o r crac k an dcovere dwit

h resin . (Exhibi t A- 4 a t 2-3 ) (Emphasi s added. ) Complainan t

als o introduce dExhibi t

A-5 , a n excerp t fro mth e Hawke r

Beechcraf

t Corporatio n Maintenanc e Manua l fo r thi s aircraf

t pertainin g t o repai r

o f fiberglass component s an dradom e protectiv e boo t maintenance , remova l an dinstallation . Th e instruction. s provide di n th e manua l di dno t includ e th e us e o f

abrasio n tape . ( 1 Tr . 92.)'* ' Th e inspecto r

testifie dtha t

placin g th e tap e o n th e radom e constitute d maintenanc e becaus e i t

wa s "a n attemp t

t o tak e acorrectiv e actio n b y applyin g material s t o aportio n o f

th e airplan e to overcom e a n unacceptabl e situation. " ( 1 Tr , 85. ) H e testifie do n cross-examinatio n that th e us e o f

tool s i s no t

necessar y for

acorrectiv e actio n t o con.stiU)t

e maintenance , ( I Tr . 162. ) Bartel s testifie dthat

th e us e o f

tap e ha dno t

returne dth e radom e t

o it s origina l o

r properl y altere do r

repaire dcondition . ( 1 Tr . 89-90. ) Th e tap e repair , h e testified , wa s inappropriat e becaus e i t

wa s no t a n approve do r

acceptabl e method . ( 1 Tr . 92 , 94-95. )

' " Bartel s als o testifiedabout a n excerpt fro mAdvisor y Circula r (AC ) No , 43,13-1B , entitle d "Acceptabl e Methods , Technique s an dPractice s fo r Aircraf t Inspectio n an dRepair. " Thi s excerp t describe s acceptabl e fiberglas s laminat e repairs , simila r t o thos e in Exhibi t

A-S . Th e repai r technique s describe din A C No , 43,13- 1 B d o no t includ e repair s usin g tape . Th e in.spcctor conclude dtl^a

t a.s aresult , tap e i s no t

appropriat e becaus e il i. s no t .specificall y provide dtha t lap c i s approprial c fo

r repai r o f fibcrglus.s laminates , fh e inspecto r pointe dout , i n addition , that thi s cKcerp t specifie s tha t

th e include dtechnique s fo r fiberglas s repair s shoul dno t b e use don radomes . ( 1 Tr . 94-95. )OG/23/201 0 10:3 4 FAX 202493514 2 FA A + DM S i007/02 7

Bartel s explaine dtha t

i t wa s possibl e that

moistur e o r

rai n woul dpenetrat e throug hth e pinhole s an dtape , whic hwa s liftin g andwrinkling , I f that occurred , h e explained , th e weathe r rada r woul dno t

operat e reliably , ( 1 Tr , 139 , 140-141, ) Accordin g t o Bartels , N6751 C wa s unairworlh y o n th e flights in questio n becaus e th e applicatio n o f

tap e wa s no t

a n approve do r

acceptabl e metho dfor

repairin g th e radom e an dbecaus e Jup e wa s no t authorize dt o performtli e maintenance . ( I Tr , 84 , 100. ) Th e inspecto r

explaine dthat

Jup e wa s no t

authorize dt o performmaintenanc e on N6751 C becaus e h e di dno t hol damechani c certificate . ( 1 Tr , 84 , 97-100 , 104, ) Bartel s als o testifie dthat th e oi l lea

k wa s excessiv e an dacaus e fo r concer n du e <

o th e potentia l for

fire an dbecaus e th e lea

k indicate s tha

t "somethin g i s no t

quil e right

i n Iha t engin e compartment. " ( 1 Tr . 65. ) H e explaine dtha t oi l leak s can resul t

i n oi l depletion , an di f

badenough , ih e engin e can run ou t o f oil . ( 1 Tr . 71. ) However , h e note do n cross-examinatio n tha t h e ha dno t

state ddurin g hi s direc t

testimon y tha t

th e oi l lea k alon e rendere dN6751 C unairworthy , ( 1 Tr , 160-161. ) Battel s testifie dthat

h e hadreviewe dthe maintenanc e record s bu t di dno t fin da n entr y regardin g th e applicatio n o f lap c to th e radome . ( 1 Ir . 101, ) H e testifie dtha t unde r th e FAR , it

i s th e responsibility o f

aproperl y certificate dperson , suc ha s th e mechani c wh o performe dth e repair , t o mak e maintenanc e entries , an dth e operato r i s responsibl e for ensurin g that

th e maintenanc e record s ar c accurate , ( I Tr , 102. ) Huste dicsfific da

t th e hearin g that

h e ha dno t know n tha t

Jup e hadapplie dth e tap e t o th e nos e con e prio r t o thes e flights. ( 1 Tr . 198. ) H e testifie dtha t h e kne w tha

t th e aircraf t wa s leakin g oil . H e explaine dthat N6751 C wa s dirty whe n th e FA A inspector s06/23/201 0 10:3 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A ^ DMS gl008/02 7

observe di t

becaus e h e ha dbee n usin g i t t o hau l freight

an dhadno t

bothere dto clean it . ( 2 Tr . 320. ) Regardin g sanction , Huste dtestifie dtha t th e corporatio n coul dno t affordt o pa

y th e propose dcivi l penalty . H e testifie dabou t th e corporation' s poo r

financial circumstance s an dstate dtha t Ihere wa s a"goo dpossibility " th e corporatio n woiiJdg o ou t o f business . ( 2 Tr , 315-316. ) H & H introduce ddocumentar y evidence , includin g it s ta x retiun s for

2003-2007 , regiirdin g it s financial situation . Ih e AL J hel dth e recor dope n fo r H & H t o submi t

additiona l financial information . Subsequently , H & H submitte dit s tax return s for

2000-2002 , a s well a s additiona l financial informatio n Th e FA A als o initiate dan enforcemen t actio n agains t

Jup e for hi s action s relate d l o thi s incident . After

ahearin g before aNationa l Transportatio n Safel y Board(NISB ) administrativ e la w judge , th e partie s settle dth e cas e wit hJup e agreein g t

o a150-da

y suspensio n o f

hi s airma n certificate , " Th e FA A issue da n amende dorde r o f suspensio n o f Jupe' s airma n certificat e o n Jul y 24 , 2008 , for violation s o f

1 4 C.F.R . § § 43.3(a) , 43.13(a) , 43.13(b) , 9I.7(u) . 91.9(a) . 91.13(a) . 135,227(a) , an d135.227(c)(1) . (Exhibit s A-1 0 an dA-I 2 at

168-169.) " If

, Th e Initia l Decisio n Th e ALJ foundtha t

H & ] 1 violate dth e regulation s a s allege di n th e complaint . (Initia l Decisio n at

4. ) H e rejecte dH & IT s arguments , a s follows .

" The AI J aKs

o hel dth e recor dope n fo r the agency attorney t

o submit acomplet e copy of the transcrip t of the NTS B hearing i

n Jupe' s suspension action , " • Agency counsel arguedmih e civil penalt

y hearing , tha

t a s Jupe' s employer , M &

• H was liabl e fo r Jupe' s violftTions , Sh

e argue dtha t .sh e shoul dnot hav e t o "rcliligate " the case , althoug has explainedabove , the NTS B di dno l i,ssu e adecision i

n Jupe', s ease , Tli c AL

J rejectedthi s argumen t an drequiredthe agency t

o pu t o n acas e l o demonstrat

e tha i H & H violatedrh

c regulation s allegedi

n th e complaint .OG/23/201 0 10:3 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 21009/02 7

1 . fh e AL J hel dtha

t i t wa s immateria l whethe r

th e applicatio n o f

th e tap e constitute dpreventiv e maintenance , rathe r tha n maintenance,'' ' becaus e 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.3(g ) prohibit s pilot s fromperformin g preventiv e maintenanc e o n aircraf t use di n Pa n 13 5 operation s (excep t i n circumstance s no t

involve di

n thi s case. ) (Initia l Decisio n a t 4-5. ) 2 . Th e ALJ hel dthat H «S : H faile dt o prov e tha

t Jup e ha dbee n supervise db y a mechani c whe n h e applie dth e tape , (Initia l Decisio n a t 5. ) 3 . Th e ALJ rejecte dH & H' s argumen t tha t it shoul dno t

b e hel drcspon.sibi c foi Jupe' s actions . Th e AL J base dhi s decisio n o n thi s issu e o n th e lega l principl e that employer s ar c vicariousl y liabl e for th e action s o f

thei r employee s actin g withi n th e scop e o f thei r employment . Th

e AL J foun dthat

Jup e acte dwithi n th e scop e o f hi s employmen t whil e pilotin g th e aircraf

t o n th e flights in questio n becaus e h e wa s "operatin g i n th e capacit y for

whic hh e wa s hired , an di n furtheranc e o f Respondent' s business, " (Initia l Decisio n at

5. ) 4 . Th e AL J hel dIha

t th e aircraf

t wa s imairworth y whe n Jup e operate dth e aircraf t o n th e fiv e flight s o n January 31 , 2007 . H e foundthai th e aircraf t wa s i n a n unsaf e conditio n fo r

flight becaus e th e "prospec t

o f fire an dpossibilit y o f

oi l depletion " wer e ''to o grea t t o b e consisten t

wit hminimu mlevel s o f

aircraf t safety. " (Initia l Decisio n a t 6. ) In addition , h e found , th e aircraf t wa s i n an unsaf

e conditio n for

flight becaus e "th e ris k o f moistur e penetratin g th e nos e con e an dcompromisin g th e system s insid e .. . violate dminimu msafet

y standards, " I l e note diha t "[tjapin g tli e radom e .. . wa s a n

" "Maintenance " i s define da s "inspection , overhaul , repair , preservatio n an dth e replaeemen i o f parts , bu t exclude s preventiv e maintenance . 1 4 C.F.R . § I.! . "Preventiv e maintenance " i s define da s "simpl e o r

mino r preservatio n operation s andth e replacemen t o f smal l .'itandar

dpart s no t involvin g comple x assembl y operations. " 1 4 CF.R . § 1.1 .06/23/201 0 10:3 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A ^ DM S iOlO/02 7

unaccepte dan dunapprove dsolution. " Consequently , h e held , th e aircraf t wa s no t i n a conditio n for

saf e operation , an dtherefore , wa s unairworthy . (Initia l Decisio n at 6. ) 5 , Th e AL

J hel dtha t

H & H violate dth e FAR , a s alleged , becaus e n o recor do f th e maintenanc e - th e applicatio n o f tap e t o th e nos e con e - ha dbee n made . (Initia l Decisio n at

6. ) 6 , Th e AL

J assesse da$7,50 0 civi l penalty , findin g that it "i s commensurat e with th e natur e an dexten t

o f th e violations , whil e accountin g i n suitabl e measur e fo

r Respondent' s financial circumstances, " (Initia l Decisio n at 9. ) 111 . Appea l H & H argue s o n appeal that th e AU' s initial decisio n shoul db e reverse dor modifie dbecause :

• th e oi l leak

an dth e conditio n o f

th e radom e di dno t

caus e th e aircraf

t t o b e in a n unsaf e conditio n durin g th e five flight s on Januar y 31 , 2007 ;

• applicatio n o f

tap e doe s no t

constitut e maintenance ;

• Jup e acte doutsid e hi s scop e o f employmen t

a s apilo t

whe n h e applie dth e tap e t o tli e radome , an da s aresult , H & H shoul dno t b e hel dliabl e fo r

hi s actions ;

• H&I I canno t

affor dt o pa y th e civi l penalty assesse db y th e ALJ . B y makin g thes e arguments , H &H , whic hi s pr o s e in thi s matter , appeal s th e ALJ' s findings that

i t violate dSectio n 135,413(a) , b y failin g t o repai r defect s betwee n require dmaintenanc e unde r Part 4 3 of th e FAR , an

dSectio n 91.7(a) , b y operatin g a n unairworth y aircraft . H&I I ha s no t challenge dth e ALJ' s findings regardin g th e recordkeepin g violations , 1 4 CF.R . § § 91.405(b ) an d135.65(c) , an da s arcsuft , th e recordkeepin g violation s ar e no t reviewe di n thi s decision .

1 0OG/23/201 0 10:3 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S 0011/02 7

A . 1 4 C.F. R§ 135.413(a ) Th e AL J correctl y hel dthat H & H violate d1 4 CF.R , § 135.413(a) , whic h provides : Eac hcertificat e holde r

i s primaril y responsibl e for th e airworthines s o f

it s aircraft , includin g airframes,.. . an dshal l hav e defect s repaire dbetwee n require d maintenanc e unde r

par t 4 3 o f thi s chapter . 1 4 C.F.R , § 135.413(a) . H & H di dno t properly repai r

th e deteriorate dradom e i n accordanc e wit

hth e regulation s pertaining t o maintenanc e ( 1 Tr . 108) , an da s aresult , i t violate dSectio n 135.413(a) , Th e applicatio n o f

tap e t o repai r

th e radom e wa s no t

aprope r repai r unde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13 , whic hrequire s tha t eac hperso n wh o perform s maintenanc e o r preventiv e maintenanc e o n a n aircraf t us e "methods , technique s an dpractice s prescribe d in th e curren t

manufacturer' s maintenanc e manual or Instruction s fo r

Continue d Airworthines s prepare db y it s manufacturer , o r othe r methods , techniques , andpractice s acceptabl e t o th e Administrator. " 1 4 C,F,R . § 43.13(tt) . A s th e inspecto r testified , th e applicatio n o f

tap e t o defect s in aradom e i s no t prescribe di n th e manufacturer' s maintenanc e manua l o r

i n A C No . 43-13 . Fo r

that matter , th e advisor y circula r pertainin g t o th e maintenanc e o f weathe r rada r radomes , A C No . 43-14 , specificall y state s tha t th e us e o f

lap e i s a n imprope r

repair . Jup e di dno t

testif y that h e relie dupo n an y doctunen t

describin g a

n approve do r

acceptabl e metho dfor

th e maintenanc e of

th e radome . Instead , h e testifie dtha t h e di di t o n hi s ow n an ddi dno t

consul t anyone . ( 1 Tr . 194, ) Jup e als o faile dt

o compl y with1 4 CF.R , § 43,13(b)'' ' whe n h e applie dth e tap e t o

'' ' Section 43,13(b ) provides : l^ac h perso n maintaining o

r altering , o r performin g preventive mQlntenanc

e shal l d o tha t wor k i n suc hamanne r an dus e mareriai s o

f suc haquality , tha

t the condition o

f the 1 1OG/23/201 0 10:3 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A• * DM S @]012/02 7

th e deteriorate dradom e because , a s th e inspecto r testified , tha t

work di dno l reiu mth e airfram e t o it s origina l o r properly altere dcondition . ( 1 Tr . 89-90. ) H & H di dno t introduc e an y dat al o support Jupe' s us e o f

tap e t o repai r

th e radome . Further , a s th e holde r

o f apilot , bu t

no t amechanic , certificate , Jup e wa s no t qualifie dunde r

Pari 4 3 t o perfor

mmaintenanc e o n N6751C , renderin g th e repai r a n imprope r repair . Eve n i f

th e applicatio n o f

tap e constitute d"preventiv e maintenance, " i t nonetheles s woul dhav e bee n imprope r becaus e Jup e wa s no t

authorize dunde r

th e FA R t o performpreventiv e maintenanc e o n thi s aircralt . Under 1 4 C.F.R . § '13.3(g) , apilo t may performpreventiv e maintenanc e o n an y aircraf t ovvne do r operate db y tha t

pilo t a s lon g a s tha t

aircraf t i s no t operate dunde r

1 4 C.F.R . Part s 121 , 129 o r 135 , In thi s case , th e aircraf

t wa s operate dunde r

Part 135 . Consequently , a s th e ALJ found , Jup e wa s no t qualifie dt o perfor mthi s work , whethe r it wa s considere dmaintenanc e o r preventiv e maintenance , H & I- I argue s that

i l wa s erro r

for th e .\I J to findi

t liabl e for aviolatio n o f Sectio n 135.41 3 becaus e it di dno t hire Jup e t o ac t

a s amechani c and , therefore , h e acte d outsid e o f

th e scop e o f

hi s employmen t

whe n h e attache dth e tap e t o th e radome , H & H' s argumen t

misse s th e mark . Th e questio n in thi s cas e i s no l whethe r Jup e wa s actin g withi n th e scop e o f hi s employmen t

bu t whethe r I T & H wa s responsibl e unde r Sectio n 135.41 3 for

th e failtu- c t o repai r

it s aircraf

t properl y betwee n require dinspections . Sectio n 135.41 3 make s th e holde r o f th e ai r carrie r certificat e primaril y re.sponsJbl e for th e airworthines s o f

th e aircraf

t an drequire s th e certificat e holde r t o hav e defect s aircraft , airframe , aircraf

t engine , propeller , or

applianc e worke

do n wil l b e at leas t equa l to its origina

l or properl y alteredcondition (wit

hregar dto aerodynami c function , structura l strength , rcsislanc o t

o vibration an

ddeterioration , an

dothe r qualitie s affectin

g airworthiness) . 1 20G/23/2D1 0 10:3 4 FAX 202493514 2 FA A ^ DMS 01013/02 7

repaire dbetwee n require dmaintenance . A s th e certificat e holder , H & H wa s responsibl e unde r Sectio n 135.41 3 for

th e imprope r

repai r o f it s aircraft . B , 1 4 CF.R . §91.7(a ) Tfic AL J foun dthat

th e aircraf

t wa s i n an unsaf

e conditio n du e to th e oi l lea k an d th e imprope r

repai r o f th e radome , an dconsequentiy , tha t N6751 C wa s unairworth y durin g th e five flights o n January 31 , 2007 . Th e Administrato r ha s hel dthat

a n aircraf t i s airworth y whe n i t

bot h(1 ) conform s t o it s typ e desig n approve dunde r atyp e certificat e o r supplementa l lyp e certificat e an dt o applicabl e Airworthines s Directives ; an d(2 ) i s i n aconditio n for

saf e operation . E.g. , Kilrain . FAA Order No . 1996-1 8 (May 3 . 1996) , petitio n fo r

reconsideratio n denied , FA A Orde r No , 1996-2 3 (Augus t

13 , \99C>

\peiiiio n fo r revie\ M denied , Kilrai n v , FAA . No . 96-358 7 (3'" ^ Cir . Ma y 1,1997) . Airworthines s i s no t synonymou s with"flyability. " USAir , FA A Order No . 96-2 5 at

1 3 (Augus t

13 , 1996) . I f th e aircraf

t doe s no t mee l it s typ e desig n o r

.supplementa

l typ e desig n - and therefor e doe s no t

mee t th e first pron g o f th e tes t for unairworthines s - the n th e aircraf l i s unairworthy . F.mcrv . FA A Order No . 1997-3 0 (Octobe r

8 , 1997) . Th e preponderanc e o f

th e evidenc e demonstrate dthat Jup e operate dth e aircraft " whe n i t di dno t mee t it s typ e design , an dtherefore , di dno t ."satisf y th e first pron g o f th e tes t fo r airworthiness , Jup e trie dt o repai r th e aircraf

t usin g ametho dthat

wa s neithe r approve dno r

accepte db y th e Admini.strator , Further , a s Bartel s testified , th e tap e di dno t return th e radom e t

o it s original or

properl y altere do r

repaire dcondition , ( I I r . 89-90, ) H e testifie dthat

th e aircraf

t wa s no t airworth y becaus e th e us e o f tap e wa s no t

a n approve do r

acceptabl e metho do f

repai r an dbecaus e Jup e wa s riot acertificate d Jupe , a s the AL

J held , wa s acting withi

n th e scop e o f hi s employmen

t whe n h e fle w the aircraft , an dtherefore , H & H wa. s vicariously liable fo r Jupe' s action s i

n violation of

Sectio n 91.7(a) , 1 3OG/23/201 0 10:3 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A 4 QM S 0014/02 7

mechanic . ( 1 Tr

. 84 , 100 , 104. ) llius , the aircraf t di dno t confor mt o it s typ e design , an d consequently , wa s flown i n a n unairworth y conditio n o n January 31 , 2007 . Americ a Wes t Airlines . FAA Orde r

No . 1996- 3 a

t 30-3 1 (February 13 , 1996 ) (aircraf t deUminatio n repaire dwithspee dtape ; aircraf t di dno l mee t

th e first pron g o f th e tes t fo r airworthines s becaus e us e o f spee dtap e wa s no t

a n approve dor

accepte dmethod. ) Th e aircraf

t wa, 3 als o unairworth y becaus e it wa s no t i n asaf e conditio n fo r

flight, an dtherefore , di dno t

mee t th e secon dpron g o f

th e tes t o f airworthiness." ^ Regardin g th e conditio n o f

th e nos e cone , Bartel s testifie dtha t ther e wa s tap e o n th e cente r o f th e nos e con e an dtlia t

paint , prime r

an dbas e maleria l ha derode di n th e are abeyon dth e tape . ( 1 Tr . 77-78 ; Exhibi t

A-2. ) Whe n aske do n cross-examinatio n whethe r th e tw o piece. s o f tap e coul dcaus e an advers e effect o n N675 1 C' s operation , Bartel s responded ; Th e conditio n o f

tli e nos e cone , th e radome , andth e applicatio n o f th e tap e coul d adversel y affec t

th e operatio n o f

th e radar andgive n that

ther e i s raise darea<; , bows , an dlifte dareas , thi s airplane , flov^r j i n moistur e o r

rain , th e potentia l fo

r rain , moistur e t o migrat e unde r th e tap e an dint o th e dom e o r eve n possibl y throug hth e dom e int o wher e th e radar i s locate dcoul daffec t

th e prope r

operatio n o f th e radar . ( I Tr . 139. ) H e explaine dfiirther that anomalie.s , suc ha s holes , pinholes , improperl y performe drepair s o n th e radome , o r moistur e o n th e antenn acoul dcaus e th e radar l o presen t erroneou s weathe r

informatio n l o th e pilot . It ma y say somethin g i s ou t ther e tha t

isn' t there . It ma y cloak

somethin g that' s ou t ther e an dno t

tel l yo u it' s ther e an di n th e doin g o f that , whe n th e pilo t

relie s o n th e radar

t o avoi dcertai n area s o f

weather , i f

th e reliabilit y o f

th e rada r i s degrade db y th e thing s I'v e mentione dalready , the n h e may - an dh e coul dfind

' * I n ligh t o f th e findin g tha i th e aircraf t di dno t mee t it s typ e desig n du e t o it s imprope r repairs , th e aircraf

t wa- s unairworth y an di l wa s flov»' n i n violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R , § 91.7(a ) o n tha t basi s alone . Th e finding o f

aviolatio n o f

Sectio n 91,7('d) doe s no t requir e afindin g tha i th e aircraf t al.5 0 wa s i

n a n unsaf

e conditio n durin g it s operation . However , for th e sak e o f

completeness , thi s decisio n als o consider s whethe r th e aircraf

l satisfie dth e secon dpron g o f th e tcs l fo

r airworthiness . 1 4OG/23/201 0 10:3 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S §1015/02 7

himsel f i n aplac e flying into .. . advers e weather , suc ha s athunderstorm , convectiv e activity an dsuc htha t coul dcompromis e th e safel y o f th e flight. ( I Tr . 141. ) H & H acknowledge s i n it.> ; appeal brie f

tha t i f ther e ha dbee n tiiundcrstorms i n th e are adurin g th e flights, moistur e coul dhav e leake dinto th e nos e con e an dcause d fals e rada r

readings , (Appea l Brie f a t 3, ) H & M argues , however , tha t th e flights wer e conducte di n col dandicin g conditions . When con.siderin g th e airworthines s o f an aircraft , th e Administrato r wil l evaluat e whethe r

th e aircraf

t i s i n asaf

e conditio n t o fly m an y o f tiie type s o f

weathe r for whic hth e aircraf

t wa s certificate db y ih e FAA , Th e focu s i s on whethe r

ther e i s th e potentia l for

harmt o th e aircraf

t o r injur y t o th e pilo t

an d passenger s du e t o th e degrade dconditio n o f th e radom e that

wa s improperl y repaired . Warbelow' s /Vi

r Ventures . Inc. . FA A Orde r No . 2000- 3 a

t 8 (Februar y 3 , 2W0) , petitio n fo r reconsideratio n denied , FA A Orde r No , 2000-1 4 (Jun e 8 , 2000) , [second ] petitio n fo r reconsideratio n dismissed , FAA Orde r No . 2000-1 6 (Augus t

8 , 2000) . Suc hpotentia l existe do n Januar y 31 , 2007 . Moreover , failure l o repai r th e damage dradom e coul dhav e le dt o further , m<.)r c extensiv e damage . A s explaine din th e FA A advisory circular

pertainin g l o maintenanc e o f weathe r radomes : An y hole , regardles s o f

si7£ , ca n caus e majo r

damag e 1

0 aradom e sinc e moistur e ca n ente r th e radom e wall an dcaus e interna l delamination . I f th e moistur e freezes , mor e seriou s damag e ma y occur . A C No . 43-1 4 a

t \5 (Exhibi t

A- 4 a t 2. ) I n ligh t o f ih e foregoing , th e Administrato r finds that

du e t o th e conditio n o f

th e radome , tli e aircraf

t wa s unairworlh y unde r

bot hprong s o f

th e tes t for airworthiness , i.e. , di dno t conformt o it s typ e desig n an dwa s i n lui unsaf e conditio n for

flight. Hence , 1 5OG/23/201 0 10:3 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S 0016/02 7

H & H violate d1 4 C.F.R , § 91. 7 o n Januar y 31 , 2007. " C . Civi l Penalt y O n appeal , H & H argue s tha t i l doe s no t

hav e th e operatin g capita l t o pa y th e $7,50 0 civi l penalt y assesse db y th e ALJ . I n suppor t o f thi s argument , H & H attache dl o it s appea l brie f

th e followin g documents : (1 ) copie s o f it s ledger s for

2008 ; (2 ) th e 200 8 year-en dstatemen t

tha t i t submitte dt o it s accountant ; an d(3 ) it s Ban k o f Americ a slalemcn t for th e perio dendin g Apri l 6 , 2009 , showin g it s lin e o f credit , H & H argue s tha t if th e AL J ha daccepte dth e company' s Augus t 200 8 ledgers , a s well a s th e January Jul y 200 8 ledgers , th e AL J woul dhav e gotte n adifferen t impressio n o f

th e company' s finances becaus e th e lodge r documents th e expense s incuirc di n Jul y an dpai din August . Preliminarily , th e Administrato r wil l no t conside r th e document s attache dto T I & H' s appea l brie f

Thes e document s wer e no t authenticate do r

subjec t t o cross examination . Regardin g financia l hardship , th e A T J wrote : Responden t

showe dthat

it s financial conditio n i s somewha t precarious . Whil e generall y healthy , it ha s suffere dsignifican t

reverses . I t

di dno t sho w taxabl e incom e i n thre e o f th e las t five year s for

whic hfull-yea

r ta x return s had bee n prepare d(Exh , R-4. ) Eve n i n bette r years , th e company' s financia l pictur e compelle dit s principal , Mr . Husted , t o tak e ou t onl y modes t

amount s a s salary , Du e consideratio n o f

th e effec t o f th e civi l penalt y o n arespondent' s ability l o continu e i n business , whil e accountin g fo r th e exten t

an dgiavit y o f

ih c violations , warrant s alesse r

lev y than th e amoun t

propose db y Complainant . Th e assessmen t

determined , $7,500 . nonetheless , i s .sub-stantial , a s wel l a s appropriate . I

t remain s withi n th e Sanctio n Guidanc e Table' s "maximum " rang e o f suggeste dpenalty amounts. . 1 fm J als o that

th e penall y ha s sufficien t "bite, " o r

" Havin g alread y foun daviolatio n o f thi s section , resolutio n o f thi s appeal doe s no t

requir e a revie w o f th e ALJ' s findin g tha t

th e oi l lea

k rendere dth e aircraf

t unairworthy . Accordingly , th e Administrato r

v^il l no t decid e tha t

issu e i n thi s appeal . N o adjustmen t o f th e sanctio n i s necessary . 1 6OG/23/201 0 10:3 5 FAX 202493514 2 FA A • > DM S @]017/02 7



### deterren t effec t (see Toyot

aMoto r Sales , Inc. , FA

A Orde r No . 94-2 8 (Septembe r 30 , 1994) , (p . 11) . (Initia l Decision a

t 9. ) The ALJ' s assessmen

t of a$7,500 civil pena.lt

y i s reasonabl e base

dupo n th e recor din thi s matter . H & H has show n n o rea.'jo n t o distur b th e ALJ' s assessment . IV . Conclusio n I n ligh t of the foregoing , H & H' s appea l i s grantedi

n par t t o th e exten

t explained in thi s decision , A $7,50 0 civil penalt y i s assessed.' * 

# ^^«A>te c 'RANDOLPH BABBllT " ADMINISTRATOR Federa l Aviation Administration

' Thi s orde r

shal l b e considere da

n orde r assessin g civi l penalty unles s Responden t file s a petitio n fo

r revie w withi n 6 0 day s o f servic e o f

(hi s decisio n wit

h th e U.S , Cour t

o f Appeal." : for th e Distric t

o f Columbi aCircui t

or th e U.-S , court

o f appeal s fo

r th e circui t

i n whic h th e responden t

reside." ! o r

ha s it s principa l plac e o f business . 1 4 C.F.R . § § 13.16(d)(4) , 13.233(i)(2) , 13.23 5 (2009) , Se e 7 1 Fed . Reg . 7046 0 (Dcecinbc r 5 , 2006 ) (regardin g petition s fo r revie w o f final agenc y decision s in civi l penall y eases) . 

### 1 7OG/23/201 0 10:3 5 FAX 202493514 2 FA A ^ DM S @l018/02 7 

## RVED FEBRUAR Y 24,2ub . UNITE D STATES DEPARTMEN T OFTRANSPOR ' OFFICE O

FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . 

# t^eCEIVE D

FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATION ,

Complainant , v , HUSTE D AN D HUSTE D AI R CHARTER , IN C

Respondent . 

### FE B 2 5 

# HEARIN G DOCKE T FA ADOCKE T NO . CP06CE000 1 (Civi l Penalt

yAction ) DM S No . FAA-2007-036 1 INITIA L DECISIO N O F ADMINISTRATIV E LA W JUDG E RICHAR D C . GOODWI N Found : 1 ) Responden t

violate d1 4 CF R§§yj.7(a) , 91.405(1)) , ]35.<)5(c) , an d13S.4i3(a ) a s charjircd ; an d 2 ) Responden t

i s hereb y assesse dacivi l penall y o f $7,500 . 

### I . Backgromi d Responden t Huste d an d Huste d Ai rCharter , Inc . ("Responden f o r "Husted") , i s a corporatio n locate d i n Olathe , KS . I t hold s a n ai rcarrie rcertificat e permittin g i t t o operat e unde rPar t 13 5 o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s ("FARs") . I t carrie s bot h carg o an d passenger s ( 2 Tr . 277) . Th e partie s agre e tha t o n Januar y31 , 2007 , a pilo t I n Respondent' s employ , Jame s H . Jupe , operate d fiv e Par t 13 5 flight s i n a Beechcraf t Baro n 5 8 aircraft , N6751C , betwee n an d amon g point s i n Kansa s an d neighborin g states. ' Followin g th e las t flight, a n inspecto ro f th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("FAA, " "agency, " o r"Complainant" ) conducte d a ram p inspectio n ove rtw o days . Th e Inspectio n reveale d oi l deposit s i n severa l place s o n th e lef t sid e o f th e lef t engine . Additionally , Jup e ha d place d tap e o n th e nosecone , o rradom e (Exh . A 11 ; 1 Tr . 10-11,27-29,40,48) . Th e conteste d portio n o f th e Complain t charge s tha t Mr . Jupe , b yapplyin g th e tap e t o th e nosecone , ha d performe d maintenance . Jup e i s no t qualifie d t o accomplis h tha i task , th e Complain t charges . No rha d h e acte d unde rth e

' Exh . A- J I ; I Tr . K-9 . Th e flight.^ i n sequence , wer e between ; 1 ) Kaass s City , M O an dWichita , K5 ; 2 ) Wichitii , K S fin

dOklahoaw i City , OK ; 3 ) OUaliom aCity , O K an dWichita , KS ; 4 ) Wichita , K S an d ItvJepcodence , KS ; an d5 ) Indepeodeijcc , K S an dKansa s City , MO . Ibid .06/23/201 0 10:3 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A' QM S 1^019/02 7

supervisio n o f a n authorize d mechanic . Th e tapin g wa s no t a permissibl e repai r o ralteratio n and , a s such , rendere d th e aircraf t unalnworthy . Additionally , n o recor d o f th e actio n coul d b e locate d (Exh . A-11 ; 1 Tr . 27-28) . Thus , Complainan t charges . Responden t violate d th e followin g FAR s (al l i n 1 4 CFR) ; sectio n 136.66(c) , whic h require s eac h perso n wh o take s a maintenanc e actio n t o recor d it ; sectio n 91,405(b) , whic h obligate s aircraf t operator s t o ensur e tha t maintenanc e personne l mak e appropriat e entrie s i n maintenanc e record s followin g maintenance ; sectio n 135.413(a) , statin g tha t eac h certificat e holde ri s "primaril yresponsible " fo rth e airworthines s o f It s aircraft , an d mus t hav e defect s repaire d betwee n require d maintenanc e actions ; an d sectio n 91.7(a) , whic h prohibit s th e operatio n o f a civi l aircraf t unles s I t i s ainvorthy . Th e agenc yseek s a civi l penalt yo f $11,00 0 (Exh . A-11) . Respondent , whic h appeare d throug h it s President , Joh n Huste d ("Mr , Husted") , denie d liabilit y( 1 Tr . 17 , 27-29 , 206 ; 2 Tr . 319-320) . Ahearin g wa s hel d o n Septembe r4 an d 5 , 2008 , I n Kansa s City , MO . I determine d tha t a writte n decisio n wa s reasonabl e an d appropriat e unde rth e circumstance s ( 2 Tr . 326) . Th e partie s file d post-hearin g exhibit s an d brief s an d th e matte rno wi s read yfo rdecision . I hol d tha t th e fact s an d circumstance s o f thi s cas e justif yfinding s o f violation s o n al l count s and , allowin g fo rmitigatin g factors , warran t a n assessmen t agains t Responden t o f $7,500 , 

### n . Finding s an dConclusion s A . Th e Agency' s Testimon v Inspecto rThoma s Bartel s o f FAA' s Kansa s Cit y(MO ) Fligh t Standard s Distric t Offic e wa s on e o f th e agenc yofficial s conductin g th e inspection . H e testifie d that , havin g learne d o f possibl e problem s wit h th e aircraft , h e me t I t a s i t lande d a t th e Charle s B . Wheele rDowntow n Airpor t i n Kansa s Cit yo n Januar y 31 , 200 7 ( 1 Tr . 60-63 ; se e als o Exh . A-15) . Mr . Jupe , a n employe e o f Respondent , wa s th e pilot , Inspector s Bartel s performe d a ram p inspection . H e observed , amon g othe rthings , engin e oi l leakag e an d tap e o n th e nosecone . H e the n issue d a documen t know n a s a n Aircraf t Conditio n Notice , i n whic h h e note d tha t hi s "limite d inspection " di d no t sugges t tha t continue d operatio n o f th e aircraf t woul d b e contrar yt o pertinen t FARs , o rtha t a ferr ypermit , know n a s a Specia l Fligh t Permit , woul d b e neede d t o enabl e th e aircraf t t o b e flow n t o a sit e fo rrepair s (Exh , R-1 ; 1 Tr . 131-32 , 145,185 , 193-94 ; Exh . A-15) . H e ha d no t foun d FA R violation s l o tha t point . Inspecto rBartel s tol d Mr . Jup e tha t h e woul d retur n th e nex t da yt o conduc t additiona l examinatio n ( 1 Tr , 75,175 ; Exh . A-15) .OG/23/201 0 10:3 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S @l020/02 7

Th e nex t day, , Februar y1 , 2007 , inspecto rBartel s returne d a s promised . H e brough t a secon d inspector , Gre g Shutteriee , an d togethe rthe yperforme d a mor e detailg d inspection . Bartel s testifie d tha t th e inspector s foun d oi l o n th e left-han d engin e nacell e flap s I n significan t amounts . The yobserve d dar k streak s o n th e nacelle , cowling , an d th e mai n gea rdoor . Th e amoun t o f oi l showin g an d th e for m o f it s presenc e - streakin g an d runnin g dow n ~ Indicate d t o the m oi l leak s whic h wer e excessive . Th e circumstance s wer e a concern , Inspecto rBartel s said , fo rtw o reasons . Th e firs t wa s tha t the ypresente d a fir e hazard . Materia l oi l leak s ca n resul t i n engin e compartmen t fires . Th e secon d reaso n wa s tha t th e circumstance s suggeste d a n abnormalit yi n th e engin e compartment . Oi l leak s ca n lea d t o depletio n substantia l enoug h t o caus e th e engin e t o ru n ou t o f oll. ^ Inspecto rBartel s als o scrutinize d th e placemen t o f tap e o n th e aircraft' s nosecon e ( 1 Tr . 64-65 , 75-79 , 128 , 160 ; Exhs . A- 1 (A) , an d A-1(C ) throug h A 1 (H) ; Exhs . A-2(B ) an d (C)) . Jupe , th e pilot , tol d Bartel s tha t th e taping , performe d wit h a materia l know n a s abrasio n tape , wa s a n attemp t t o preven t moistur e fro m gettin g throug h pinhole s i n th e aircraf t skin . Moistur e penetratio n coul d damag e th e rada rinsid e ( 1 Tr . 66-68 , 182) . Inspecto rBartel s testifie d tha t th e tapin g constitute d maintenance . Suc h maintenanc e wa s no t a n authorize d metho d o f repair , h e continued . Th e agenc y neithe rapprove s no raccept s i t ( 1 Tr . 94-97) . Th e pertinen t Advisor yCircula ri n fac t state s tha t th e us e o f tap e I s a n imprope rmetho d o f repai r( 1 Tr . 87-89 , 92 : Exh . A-4) . Thi s aircraf t i n an ycas e ha d bee n operatin g unde rPart 135 , an d Mr . Jup e wa s no t authorize d t o perton n a Par t 13 5 aircraf t repair . H e lacke d th e certificatio n require d ( 1 Tr . 66 , 74-75 , 83-85 , 98-99) . Th e characte ro f th e maintenanc e itsel f constitute d a furthe rproblem . Bartel s observe d tha t th e tap e wa s wrinklin g an d comin g undone . Th e repair , suc h a s i t was , woul d no t hav e prevente d moistur e fro m gettin g int o th e radome , h e said . An d onc e inside , Bartel s added , moistur e coul d adversel yaffec t fligh t safety . I t potentiall ywoul d compromis e th e functio n o f th e rada requipmen t an d avionic s within . Inspecto r Bartel s conclude d that , o n accoun t of a n unauthorize d an d imprope rrepai rwhic h di d no t cur e a potentiall yunsaf e condition , th e aircraf t durin g th e fiv e name d flight s ha d bee n unalnworthy. ^

^ I Tr . 65 , 70-74 . Inspector Bartel s testifiedtha

t cogin e leaks occasionally occur . Thty sometime s ar e minor an dd o not neces.<:aril y rende r a n aircraf t unairworthy . He stresstd , however , dia l in flii.'i cas e th e streakin g an

dothe r evidenc e o

f leakin g tha

t th e inspector s observed."lugge.'iiei l leak s whic

h wer e "excessiv e an dacaus e for

conceni. " 1 Tr . 160-61 , ^ 1 Tr . 79 . 99-UK) , 104 , 128 , 139-41 . 160 , 175-76 , 182 ; Hxh.-; . A-2(B ) an d(C) . Whil e inspector

Bartel.- : neve r retracte dthe Aircraf

t CondiUo u Noric c .statemen

t tha t afciiy permi t

wouldno t

b e neededt

o move rhc aircraf t fo r repair.^ , h e stiittdtha

t h e regrette dhi s inaction . I Tr . 178 . Bartel-i ' failur e t o retrac t doc s no l i n an y wa y undermine th e funding s the in.speccor s jointly mad

e following th e secondda

y o f inspection ,

;- i06/23/201 0 10:3 6 FA X 202433514 2 FA A ^ QM S @l021/02 7

B . Husted' s Respons e Responden t raise d severa l objection s t o Complainant' s evidenc e an d conclusions . Husted' s pilot , Jupe , wa s a witnes s fo rRespondent . H e contende d tha t th e tap e applicatio n wa s no t maintenance , bu t preventiv e maintenanc e (se e 1 Tr . 133) . Th e FAR s defin e "maintenance " an d "preventiv e maintenance " i n a mutuall yexclusiv e fashion ; "maintenance " exclude s "preventiv e maintenance " (1 4 CF R §1.1) . Pilot s operatin g aircraf t ar e permitte d t o perfor m preventiv e maintenance , whic h I s define d i n pertinen t part a s "simpl e o rmino rpresen/atio n operations, " Genera l Aviation , Inc. , FAAOrde rNo . 98-1 8 (Octobe r9.1998) . Responden t seeme d t o tak e th e positio n tha t Jupe' s actio n wa s tha t typ e o f preventiv e maintenance . I t referre d t o th e tapin g a s "puttin g a piec e o f tap e tha t weighe d 1 gra m o n th e aircraft " (Resp . Pos t Hearing s Br, , p . 3) . Responden t als o asserte d that , eve n i f Mr . Jupe' s action s wer e i n fac t "maintenance " a s defined , h e ha d bee n supervise d b ya propert ycertificate d mechanic , thu s legitimatin g th e repai runde rth e FAR s ( 1 Tr . 133 ; Resp . Pos t Hearing s Br. , p . 2) . I n suppor t o f thi s contention , Jup e testifie d tha t h e ha d performe d th e repai ro n th e recommendatio n o f an d instruction s fro m a certificate d mechanic . Thi s mechani cha d bee n standin g nearb ywhe n Jup e applie d th e tap e ( 1 Tr . 182-83.194-95) . Mr . Huste d als o contende d tha t Responden t shoul d no t b e liabl e fo ran y violatio n becaus e Jup e ha d performe d th e tapin g withou t Mr . Husted' s knowledg e ( 1 Tr . 195) , Mr . Huste d adde d tha t h e ha d n o knowledg e o f an yo f th e violation s wit h whic h hi s compan ywa s charge d ( 1 Tr . 198) . H e contende d tha t Jup e ha d bee n actin g outsid e th e scop e of hi s employmen t whe n h e performe d th e act s complaine d o f (Resp , Pos t Hearing s Br. , p . 2) . Mr . Huste d als o suggeste d tha t th e oi l lea k wa s no t a caus e fo rconcern . H e kne wabou t it , stresse d tha t th e aircraf t wa s bein g operate d fo rfreigh t only , an d state d tha t th e "dirty " aircraf t neede d onl yt o b e "cleane d up " ( 2 Tr . 320) . Rnally , Mr . Huste d objecte d t o Complainant' s assertio n tha t th e aircraf t wa s unainvorth y( 1 Tr . 17 , 206) .

C . Conclusion s Complainant' s contention s essentiall yar e adopted . Respondent' s argument s uniforml yar e rejected . I fin d eac h o f th e violation s alleged . Firstly , Respondent' s contentio n tha t Mr , Jup e ha d performe d simple , lightweigh t "preventiv e maintenance " I s rejecte d a s irrelevant . Th e argumen t assume s tha t th e pilo t wa s permitte d t o perfor m suc h a task . H e wa s not . Th e06/23/201 0 10:3 G FAX 202433514 2 FA A+ DMS 0022/02 7

FAR s di d no t allo wMr . Jup e t o perfor m preventiv e maintenance . Th e regulation s stat e tha t (othe rtha n i n situation s inapplicabl e here ) pilot s ma yno t perfor m preventiv e maintenanc e o n Part 13 5 aircraf t (1 4 CF R §43(g) ; Exh . A-7 ; 1 Tr . 96 - 99) . Sinc e th e aircraf t a t issu e wa s flow n unde rPart 135 , Jup e wa s no t permitte d t o perfor m preventiv e maintenanc e becaus e h e lacke d th e requisit e pilo t status . S o whethe rth e typ e o f tas k Mr . Jup e performe d ca n propert yb e considere d a s fallin g withi n th e definitio n o f "preventiv e maintenance " i s besid e th e point . Respondent' s conclusio n tha t Mr , Jupe' s repai rwa s sufficientl ysupervise d t o immuniz e i l fro m violatio n als o doe s no t withstan d examination . Jupe' s unsupporte d statements , eve n i f take n a s true , fai l t o demonstrat e supervision . Tha t th e mechani cinitiate d Instmction s an d wa s i n th e immediat e are a fail s t o demonstrat e eithe ractiv e guidanc e o rcontro l o f th e outcom e ~ bot h crifica i component s o f supervision . Jupe , moreover , himsel f undermine d Respondent' s contention . H e testified , " I didn' t consul t anybod yels e befor e I di d it , I di d i t o n m yown ' ( l Tr . 194) . Responden t simpl yfaile d t o sho wsupervision . Respondent' s additiona l contentio n tha t i t cannot , o rshoul d not , b e hel d liabl e fo raction s o f it s pilo t becaus e i t ha d n o knowledg e of the m als o i s rejected . Responden t i s legall yobligate d t o answe rfo rth e conduc t of it s pilot . Mr . Jup e wa s a n employe e of Huste d an d Huste d Ai rCharter . Employer s ar e vicariousl y liabl e fo rth e action s o f thei remployee s actin g withi n th e scop e o f thei r employmen t (See , e.g. , Warbelow' s Ai rVentures , Inc. , FAA Orde rNo , 2000- 3 (Febmar y3 , 2000) , p . 5 , reconsid . den. , FAAOrde rNo . 2000-14 , Jun e 8 , 2000 , pe t den . 1 9 Fed.Appx . 60 6 (unpublishe d opn. , Septembe r20 , 2001)) . I n pilotin g th e aircraft , Jupe , a compan ypilot , plainl ywa s actin g withi n th e scop e o f hi s employment . H e wa s operatin g i n th e capacit yfo rwhic h h e wa s hired , an d i n furtheranc e of Respondent' s business . Responden t thu s i s responsibl e fo r Jupe' s actions. * Th e principl e o f vicariou s liabilit yi s integra l t o aviatio n la w an d policy . Ai r carrier s ow e th e flyin g publi ca dut yo f performanc e a t th e highes t standar d of car e [WestAi rCommute rAirlines , FA AOrde rNo . 1996-1 6 (Ma y13,1996) , pp . 6 - 7) . Holdin g ai rcarrier s responsibl e fo remploye e violation s assure s th e publi c tha t th e carrier s wil l attemp t t o confor m t o thi s standard . Wh o bette rt o pressur e thei remployee s t o perfor m a t th e highes t leve l tha n th e ai rcarrier s themselves ? Se e Warbelow's , pp . 5-6 . Respondent' s contentio n tha t th e aircraf t wa s ainworth ydurin g th e flight s I n questio n als o mus t b e rejected . T o b e ainworthy , a n aircraf t must : (1 ) confor m t o a typ e desig n approve d unde ra typ e certificat e o rsupplementa l typ e certificat e an d t o applicabl e A\n^forthines s Directives , an d (2 ) b e i n a conditio n fo r

^ Mr . .lupe , a

n aresul t of thi s incident , wa

s th e subject o f adisciplinar

y proceeding brough

t by th e PAA befor e the Nationa

l Transportatio n Safet

y Boar d(NTSB) . The partie s seule ddie matte r b y Jupe' s agreemen t t o asuspension o

f hi s airma n cerilficale fo

r aperio do

f l.'Kiday. s beginning Jul

y 17 , 2008 . lixh . JN-l;E3th , A-13,pp.4-5 .06/23/201 0 10:3 6 FAX 202493514 2 FA A. DMS @023/02 7

saf e operation . Delawar e Skyway s LLC , FA AOrde rNo . 2005- 6 (Marc h 8 , 2005) , p . 2 ; Californi a Helitech , FA AOrde rNo . 2000-1 8 (Augus t 11 , 2000) , p . 3 n . 7 . Inspecto rBartel s conclude d tha t th e aircraf t wa s no t ainworth ybecaus e th e maintenanc e shortfall s h e discovere d compelle d hi m t o fin d tha t th e aircraf t ha d no t bee n I n a conditio n fo rsaf e operation , 1 agree . Inspecto rBartels ' testimon y demonstrate d tha t th e oi l leak s wer e mor e tha n evidenc e o f a "dirty " aircraf t (a s Responden t woul d hav e it) ; the ywer e significan t enoug h t o compromis e saf e operatio n t o a n unacceptabl e degree . Th e prospec t o f fir e an d th e possibilit yo f oi l depletio n wer e to o grea t t o b e consisten t wit h minimu m level s o f aircraf t safety . Additionally , th e ris k o f moistur e penetratin g th e nosecon e an d compromisin g th e system s insid e als o violate d minimu m safet ystandards . Tapin g th e radome , whil e well-intentioned , wa s a n unaccepte d an d unapprove d solution . I n sum , th e matter s uncovere d b yth e inspector s - th e oi l leakag e an d th e prospec t o f moistur e penetratin g interio rsystem s - eac h demonstrate d a n impermissibl e leve l o f potentia l fo rhazard . Eac h independentl yshowe d tha t th e aircraf t ha d no t bee n i n a conditio n fo rsaf e operation. ^ Eac h situation , then , violate d th e secon d pron g o f th e airworthines s test . Thes e matter s requir e a findin g tha t th e aircraf t wa s no t airworth ywhe n operate d o n th e fiv e flight s liste d i n th e Complaint. * Finally , inspecto rBartel s testifie d tha t th e maintenanc e performe d ha d no t bee n recorde d I n an yaircraf t recor d ( 1 Tr . 101,107) . Thi s contentio n wa s no t me t b yRespondent . I fin d th e testimon ycredible . Th e regulation s requir e tha t maintenanc e action s b e se t dow n i n writing . Entrie s ar e th e responsibilit yo f a properl ycertificate d perso n (§135.65(c) ) a s wel l a s o f th e certificat e holde r (§91.405(b) ; 1 Tr . 102,106-07) . Failur e t o mak e a recor d o f th e maintenanc e accomplished , then , violate d th e state d FARs . Agains t thi s background , I fin d an d conclud e tha t Responden t violate d FA R § § 91.7(a) , 91.405(b) , 135.65(c) , an d 135.413(a) , a s se t ou t i n th e Complaint . 

### i n . PenaltT Th e agenc yha s aske d fo ra tota l civi l penalt yo f $11,00 0 (Agency' s Post Hearin g Brief , p . 9) . Mr . Huste d take s exception , callin g tha t amoun t "excessive " (Resp . Pos t Hearing s Br. , p . 4) . H e believe s that , i n vie wo f Respondent' s financia l condition , i t coul d no t bea ra civi l penalt ywithou t a sever e advers e effec t o n it s business . Mr . Huste d ha s submitte d financia l document s i n suppor t o f hi s contention , Financia l fiardship , whe n proven , ma yconstitut e ground s fo r

^ Complainim

t was not require dto show tha

t th e deijcribcdcondiiio mwer e unsaf e i n fact . It wa s enough t

o demonstrat

e tha t eac h carrie dth e polcntii dfo r harm . Polynesia

n Airways , FA

A Orde r No , 1994-40 pccciube r

9 , 199-1) ; Davi dH . Mayer , P/W V Orde r No , 1997-1 2 (Februar

y 20 , 1997) . Se- K ah o Delaware Skyway s JJ,C , FA A (irdc r No . 2005- 6 (MarchIH

, 2005) , n . 7 ("Whe

n a n aircraf l ha s unresolve ddiscrepancies , i t i s »ot airworthy.") , I hflv c considere dal

l other arguments advancedb y Responden t an drejec t the mwithou t comment .06/23/201 0 10:3 6 FA X 202483514 2 FA A+ DM S 1024/02 7

reductio n o f a n othenvis e appropriat e civi l penalty . See , e.g. , Blu e Hidg e Airlines , FA AOrde rNo . 1999-1 5 (Decembe r22 , 1999) . p . 10 . Complainan t bear s th e burde n o f justifyin g th e amoun t o f th e civi l penall y i t seeks . Phylli s Jone s Luxemburg , FA AOrde rNo . 1994-1 8 (Jun e 22,1994) , p . 6 . However , i t I s Respondent' s burde n t o plea d an d prov e financia l hardshi p sufficien t t o warran t mitigatio n o f th e civi l penalt yamount . Conques t Helicopters , FAAOrde rNo . 1994-2 0 (Jun e 20,1994) , p . 3 ; Salvator e Giuffrida , FAAOrde r No , 92-7 2 (Decembe r21,1992) , p . 2 , I conclud e tha t a civi l penalt yi n th e amoun t o f $7,50 0 i s warrante d an d i s appropriat e t o th e circumstances . Complainan t i s obligate d t o conside rth e followin g factor s whe n determinin g th e civi l penalt yamoun t (1 ) th e natur e an d circumstance s o f th e violation ; (2 ) th e exten t an d gravit yo f Ih e violation ; (3 ) th e respondent' s degre e o f culpability ; (4 ) th e respondent' s histor yo f prio rviolations , i f any ; (5 ) th e respondent s abilit yt o pa yth e civi l penalty ; (6 ) th e effec t o n th e entity' s abilit yl o sta yi n business ; an d (7 ) othe rmatter s a s justic e ma yrequire . See , e.g. , Folsom' s Ai rService , Inc. , FAAOrde rNo . 2008-1 1 (Novembe r6 , 2008) , p . 11 . Th e determinatio n weigh s whethe rth e violatio n wa s inadverten t o rdeliberate , th e privat e o rpubli ccharacte ro f th e violation , an d th e attitud e o f th e violator . Th e agenc yals o consider s th e respondent' s size , particularl yI n determinin g th e offender' s abilit yt o absori D th e sanction . A n appropriat e civi l penalt ymus t reflec t th e totalit yo f th e circumstance s surroundin g th e violation s (Tr . 110-11 , 117 ; Folsom' s Ai rService , Inc. , FA AOrde rNo . 2008-1 1 (Novembe r6 . 2008) . p , 12 ; Easter n Ai rCenter , Inc. , FA AOrde rNo . 2008- 3 (January28 , 2008) . Finally , th e civi l penalt yshoul d provid e sufficien t Incentiv e t o dete rth e responden t an d similariy-sltuate d entitie s fro m futur e violations . Folsom' s Ai rService , Inc. , Id. , p . 20 . Th e agenc yha s issue d enforcemen t guidelines , FAAOrde rNo . 2160.3 A (judiciall ynotice d a s Exhibi t A-8 , an d als o foun d a t www.airweb,faa.qov) . fo rit s employee s t o respec t i n determinin g appropriat e sanctions . Th e guideline s als o advis e th e publi co f th e sanctio n polic ytha t th e Administrato rintend s t o follo w throug h th e adjudicatio n o f individua l cases . Folsom' s Ai rService , Inc. , FA A Onje rNo . 2008-1 1 (Novembe r6,2008) , p . 13 . Th e Sanctio n Guidanc e Table , containe d i n Appendi x4 o f Orde rNo , 2160.3A , an d a s amende d b yCompliance / Enforcemen t Bulleti n No . 92- 1 (include d i n Appendi x1) , set s ou t penall y recommendation s withi n thre e range s o f amount s - designate d minimum , moderate , an d maximu m - t o bes t reflec t th e natur e an d circumstance s o f eac h violation . Mitigatin g and/o raggravatin g factor s ar e par t o f th e calculus . Fo rai r carriers , th e Sanctio n Guidanc e Tabl e set s bu t th e civi l penalt yrange s pe r06/23/201 0 10:3 6 FA X 202433514 2 FA A* DM S 0025/02 7

violatio n a s follows : minimum , $1,00 0 t o $3,999 ; moderate , $4,00 0 t o $7,499 ; an d maximum , $7,50 0 t o $11,000. ^ Complainan t state s tha t i t followe d th e guideline s i n It s civi l penalt y detemninatio n ( 1 Tr . 117) . APart 13 5 ai rcarrier' s unauthorize d maintenance , an d imprope rmaintenance , ead i ar e violation s warrantin g a civi l penalt yi n th e maximu m rang e (Exh . A-8 , pp . 7 , 9 ; 1 Tr . 113-16) . Fo rfailur e t o mak e a require d entr yi n a n aircraf t log , th e guideline s advis e a civi l penalt yi n th e moderat e t o maximu m range . A n unalnworth yaircraf t havin g a n actua l o rpotentia l advers e effec t o n saf e operatio n warrant s a civi l penalt yi n th e maximu m rang e (Exh . A-8 , p . 8 ; 1 Tr . 116-17) . Complainan t conclude d that , i n vie wo f th e table s an d al l th e pertinen t factor s i n thi s case , a n appropriat e civi l penalt ywa s $11,000 , I t point s ou t that , ha d i t followe d th e guideline s strictly , i t coul d hav e requeste d a civi l penalt yi n a n amoun t a s hig h a s $83,00 0 ( 1 Tr . 117-18 ; Compl . Post-Hearin g Br. , pp . 8-9) . Th e recor d show s tha t Responden t operate d aircraf t i n derogatio n o f safety . Th e Beechcraf t wa s flow n bot h wit h clea rsign s o f a n oi l lea k significan t enoug h t o requir e furthe rinvestigatio n an d th e prospec t o f moistur e penetratio n o f vita l aircraf t systems . Th e latte rsituatio n continue d followin g a slapdas h repai r performe d b ya n individua l lackin g th e qualification s t o accomplis h it . Th e aircraf t wa s operate d i n thi s conditio n fiv e times , Th e maintenance , moreover , wen t unrecorded . Thes e circumstance s warran t a substantia l penalty . Responden t i n it s cas e fo rmitigatio n submitte d ta xreturn s fo rth e year s 2003-2007 , supplemente d b yrevenu e an d expens e accoun t ledger s fo rth e perio d January-Jul y2008. ' Th e document s indicat e tha t th e compan yha s suffere d som e financia l reverse s recently . Mr , Husle d emphasize d tha t th e company' s gros s sale s fo rth e fou rmonth s immediatel yprecedin g th e hearing , May-Augus t 2008 , wer e jus t one-thir d o f it s gros s sale s fo rth e nex t precedin g four-mont h period , th e firs t fou rmonth s o f 200 8 ( 2 Tr . 275-76 , 292-93) . Mr . Huste d take s onl ya smal l salary . I n 2007 , tha t amoun t wa s $4,200 . I n 2008 . h e tesffied , i t wa s jus t $80 0 (t o th e poin t o f th e Septembe rhearing) , o n accoun t o f th e company' s straitene d circumstance s (Exh . R-4 , p . 1 . lin e 12 ; Exh . A-16(c) ; 2 Tr . 280-83 , 316-17) , Mr . Huste d claime d tha t Responden t "can' t pa yth e bills" ( 2

' The guidelines ' table s show th e maximu mranfe e a s $7,.^0 0 t o $10,000 . Se

e Exh . A-8 , p . 5 . Th e uppe r limit , however , was adjustedl o Sll.OO O by regulation effective Januar y 21 . 1997 . Se e H CF

R§305(d) ; 6 2 Fed.Reg , 413 4 (Janijaiy29 , 1997) ; ExJi, A-8 , p . 9 ; 1 Tr . 113-14 , FA A OrderMo . 2150.3 B updatedthe guideline s effective Octobe r l ; 2007 fo

r violation s occurring o

n o r afte r tha t dttc . .Sinc

e th e instan

t violation s occurre dn o late r tha n Januar y 31 , 2007 , Orde

r No . 2 1 .'50,3

B doe s not apply . See 7 2 Fed.Reg . 5585 3 (Octobe r I , 2007) ; Foliom' i Air

Service , Ibid . p . 12 , n . 26 . ' Exhs . R- 4 (ta

x returns ) an

dA-16(a) through(I

) (ledgers) , Th e PosllHearin g Orde r o f Septembe r 10 , 2008 , a s amendedb

y th e AmendedPos t

jfearin g Orde

r o f Septembe r 25 , 2008 , ha

dheldthe recor

dope n until Octobe r 10 , 2008 , fo

r th e purpos e o f

enabling Responden

t lo suppl y financial record s up to Jul y 31 , 2008 , The ledger s v/cr

e amon g tli c document s submine di n rMponse . Responden

t als o file dta x return s fo

r th e year s 200 0 through200 2 (Exhs . A-J 7 throughA-19 ) an dsupplement s to its 2003-0 7 tax return s (Exhs . A2 0 through A-24) . The post-hearin g exhibits , A-1 6 throug h A-24 , ar c all hereby admitte dint

o evidence .OG/23/201 0 10:3 7 FAX 202493514 2 FA A* DM S 21026/02 7

Tr . 315 ) an d "[t]here' s a goo d possibilit ytha t I'l l hav e t o shu t th e door. " ( 2 Tr . 316) . Complainan t countere d tha t Responden t faile d t o prov e financia l hardship . I n support , i t note d tha i Huste d an d Huste d Ai rCharter , a s Mr . Huste d himsel f testified , ha s alway s bee n abl e t o mee t it s financia l obligation s (se e 2 Tr . 309) . Th e company' s ta xreturn s als o demonstrat e that . I n spit e o f a zer o o rnegativ e taxabl e incom e fo rthre e of th e fiv e year s submitted , Responden t wa s abl e t o recove ran d continu e a s a viable , health yconcer n (Exh . R-4 ; Compl . Pos t Hearin g Br. , p . 10) . Additionally , th e 200 8 ledger s sho wtha t th e compan yha s a mor e positiv e financia l pictur e tha n Mr . Huste d suggeste d i n hi s testimony , havin g a ne t revenu e o f ove r$17,00 0 durin g th e firs t seve n month s o f tha t yea r (Exh , A-16 ; Compl . Pos t Hearin g Br. , p . 10) . I n weighin g al l th e fact s an d circumstances , I fin d an d conclud e tha t a civi l penalt yassessmen t o f $7,50 0 i s appropriate . I t i s commensurat e wit h th e natur e an d exten t o f th e violations , whil e accountin g i n suitabl e measur e fo r Respondent' s financia l circumstances . Responden t showe d tha t it s financia l conditio n i s somewha t precarious . Whil e generall yhealthy , i t ha s suffere d significan t reverses . I t di d no t sho w taxabl e incom e i n ttire e o f th e las t fiv e year s fo rwhic h full-yea rta xreturn s ha d bee n prepare d (Exh . R-4) . Eve n i n bette ryears , th e company' s financia l pictur e compelle d it s principal , Mr . Husted , t o tak e ou t onl ymodes t amount s a s salary . Du e consideratio n o f th e effec t o f th e civi l penalt yo n a respondent' s abilit yt o continu e i n business , whil e accountin g fo rth e exten t an d gravit yo f th e violations , warrant s a lesse rlevytha n th e amoun t propose d b yComplainant . Th e assessmentdetenmlned , $7,500 , nonetheles s i s substantial , a s wel l a s appropriate . I t remain s withi n th e Sanctio n Guidanc e Tables ' "maximum " rang e o f suggeste d penalt yamounts . I fin d als o tha t th e penalt yha s sufficien t "bite, " o rdeterren t effec t {se e Toyot a Moto rSales , Inc. , FAAOrde rNo . 94-2 6 (Septembe r30,1994) , p . 11) . I n sum, ! fin d an d conclud e tha t a sanctio n amoun t o f $7,50 0 suitabl y account s fo rth e totalit yo f th e circumstance s o f thi s case. *

' Respondent'.' ! brief

, filed.Tanuar

y 11 , 2009 , add s tha

t "(he las t fe w month s o

f busines s has been adisaster " (Pos t Hearing s Br. , pp . 3-4) . Thi s statement i s insofficiea

t evidenc e o

f mabilU y to pay , however , A

S unswor n an dunsubstantiated . Conques t Airlines , PA

A Orde r No . 1994-20 (June 22 , 1994) , p . 3 . Al l othe r argument s Responden

t ha s offere drespectin g penalt

y hav e bee

n considere dan

drejected . In particular , it." : pleai

n mitigatio at

o coiisiJer it s "los t revenue " resultin g fro

mengine repair s undertaken a t th o behes t o f flic FA A {see, e.g. , Exh . R-5 ; 2 Tr . 311-14 ) is discounte da s irrelevant .06/23/201 0 10:3 7 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S @|027/02 7

1 0 Huste d an d Huste d Ai rCharter , Inc . i s hereb yassesse d a civi l penalt yof $7,50 0 fo rviolation s o f FA R §§91.7(a) , 91.405(b) , 135.65(c) , an d 135.413(a).' °



### ichardC . Cioodwi

n Administrativ e I^ w Judg e Attachmen

t - Servic e Lis t

y



### H

I : '"An y appea l fiomth e Initial Decisio n t

o tho Administrator

must b e in accordanc e wit

h sectio n 13.23 3 of th e Rule s o

f Practice , whic h require s i ) tha t anotic e o f appea l b e filedn o Iftte

r tha n ] 0 day s (plu s H

n addiriona l 5 fo r mailine ) fro

mthe dat e o f thi s order and2 ) tha t th e appea l b e perfecte dwit

h awritten brie

f o r memorandumno t

later tha n 5 0 day s (plu s 5 fo

r mailing ) fro

mthe date o

f thi s order . IJac

b is to be sen

t t o the Appellat

e Docke t Cleric , Room924-A . Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 800 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Washmglon , D C 20591 , an dt o agenc y counsel . Servic e upo

n tl\ e presidin g judg e i s optional .