William A. Curtright 

Respondent 

PO Box 1350 

Jefferson, OR 97352 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax: (503) 485-0812 

In The Matter Of: 

WILLIAM A. CURTRIGHT, 

Respondent 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM090046 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

RESPONDENT'S ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO FRCP 2691(a) 

Included herewith please find copies of all of the documents in Respondent's possession relating to the 

above-captioned matter that may be offered in to evidence. 

In addition, Respondent would request of the FAA that they produce all documents showing the 

amount of the civil penalties assessed against a Respondent for producing Log records. 

Respondent would request again that the FAA produce the EIR Report in its entirety and label it as 

such. "FAA EIR Report. 

"Respondent has attached hereto a FAA Decision and Order in Docket no. Cp97NM0005 FAA order No. 

99-7 Served on August 31, 1999 wherein it was found that the Respondent was assessed a penalty for 

$375.00" page3 Count 2, The law judge concluded that the flight with questionable recordkeeping 

occurred .... And that the Complainant improperly drew up ..... as a result, the law judge dismissed the 

Count." (Herein attached is said Decision and Order) 

Respondent would request the FAA to produce documentation that explains the FAA's proposal of a 

civil penalty of $11,000.00 against Respondent. 
Respondent would request the FAA to produce documentation and/or an answer to the following: 

Provide evidence that forms the basis for the penalty of the maximum amount allowed of $11,000.00, 

against Respondent. 

Respondent would request the FAA to disclose under what F.R.C.P. code that they claim privilege to the 

redacted documents produced on August 10, 2016 numbered 2014NM090046 entitled Section B. 

(Herein attached.) 

Respectfully submitted this 20'h day of September, 2016. 

Dr. William A. Curtright, DBA 

Respondent 
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) 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 

Fax: (202) 267-1293 

ONE COPY 

Judge J.E. Sullivan (Fax 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 (Ell-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, WA 98057 

Fax (425)227-1007 
• 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

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

PREMIER JETS, INC. Served August 3 1, I 999 

Docket No. CP97NMOOOS 

DECISION AND ORDER' 

This appeal involves flight time recordkccping 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 violationsz This decision denies 

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

Premier is a Part !35 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 

'The Administrator's civil penalty decisions are available on LEXIS. WcstLaw, and other 

computer databases. They arc also available on CD-ROM through Aerofl1ght Publications. 

Finally. thev can be found m Hawkins ·s Civil Penalt\• Cases Digest Service and Clark Boardman 

Callaghan ·s Federal AviatiOn Decisions. For additional information, see 64 Fed. Reg. 43,236. 

43,250 (August 9, 1999) 

:A copy of the law judge's wntten initial deciswn IS attached. 
' 

• thmu~h \larch 29. 1996 .. ".t the :.tart of the inspection. Premier pnniJed FAA inspectors 

with its individual records of pilot t1ight time. which consisted solely of"crew duty time 

sheets."' A tier noticing that one pilot's record indicated that he had not logged Hight 

time since March}. 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 tlight 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: 

s 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 l1ight time in sufficient detail to determine 

compliance with the l1ight 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 

Yiolation on three oJthc four counts in the complaint. The law judge noted as follows: 

• Count l. 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, !light, crew-rest, and offduty time. 
SJgniticant time and resources that F.'\A inspectors were able to piece together the ptlms· 

!light and duty time). 

In conclusion. the law judge did not err in linding Premier's recordkeeping 

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

assessing a civil penalty of $1,125.' 

/ 

/] ' 

/~-{~r~u.u:· · . /fA 

/5ANE f. GARVEY, 1 

/ Federal Aviation};dminist 

( 

Issued this 23rd day of August. 1999. 

TOR 

5 LJnless 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 LJ.S.C. § 46110), this decision shall be 

considered an order assessing civil penalty. See 14 C.F.R §§ l3.16(b)(4) and l3.233(j)(2) 

( 1998). 
recorckd 2.4 hours !lying time on his ere\\ duty time sheet tor the 

wrong day- for l'vlarch l instead of March 2, 1996. RcJ<;arding 

Count !. the lawjudgejimnd a riulation oj"Section 135 fi3 (aiNJtviiJ. 

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

individual record of a pilot in sufticient detail regarding a January 14. 

!996, flight. At the hearing, however. the FAA inspector 

acknowledged that the pilot incorrectly \\TOte down the wrong date on 

the t1ighllog (January 14, I 996, instead of March I 4. I 996) and that 

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

1he flight with questionable rewrdkeeping occurred on March I { 

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

complaint by alleging a January 14, 1996, 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 (!VI arch 19 instead of March 18, 1996). 

The crew duty sheets were correct Regarding Counr 3. 1he lawjudge 

jimnd a violation tifSection 135.63(a)(4)(vii). 

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

for JV!arch 8, 1996, appeared to be incorrect. Regarding Count 4. the 

law judge found a violation ofSection 135. 63(a)(4)(vii) 

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

practices to eliminate 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 bas done so. The law judge concluded that Premier's 

rccordkeeping violated Section 1 35.63(a)(4)(vii) because it did not consist of both the 

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

rccordkeeping was inadequate both for containing inaccuracies and for necessitating 

cmss-chccking. The law judge assessed a $375 penalty for each of the three violations he 

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

In its appeal brief. Premier presents two mutually exclusive arguments. First, 
Premier argues that the FAA inspectors should not have examined the t1ight logs because 

thcv were not part of the "individual record" of each pilot. Without the t1ight logs. L\A 

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 oft he ··individual record" or each pilot's !light 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 Hight 

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 t1ight logs as part of the '"individual 

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

time sheets to schedule its pilots.' As the law judge noted, the t1ight 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 

pn" ision has a dual purpose- tirst. to ensure that in scheduling. an air carrier complies 

with the tlight time limits. and second. to ensure that the FAA can readily monitor the air 

canicr' s compliance with the tlight time limits. 

Premier. however. did nor keep the !light logs as part of the individual record of 

each pilot Instead: the !light logs tor all of Premier's pilots for a single month were kept 

in the same tile. Where there was more than one pilot for a !light, multiple pilots 

appeared on a single tlight 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 !35.63 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 canier is complying with the safety 

regulations. Sec 43 Fed. Reg. at 46.764, stating that "[a] primary ohjective of the mle is 

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

and thus insure safety .. , fThe 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 canier's 

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

(February 13, !996) (affirming the law judge's finding that South Aero's recordkecping 

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

types of documents as the individual pilot tlight 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. 
'\ ; ' 

SECTIONB 

Statement of Case and Factors Affecting Sanction 

1. STATEMENT. OF CASE 

b. The Northwest Mountain Regional Operations Center (ROC) contacted Inspector Martin 

Conroy on 6/16114 inforining him thatN949JP, a PA-18-135 airplane, was involved in an 

accident. The ROC identified William Allies Curtright, Certificate Nlimber 543487756, 

as the pilot in command and the owner ofN949JP. The location of the accident was at 

Mr. Curtright's private airport, Allies Allport, near Jefferson, Oregon. The accident 

occurred on 6/15/14. (lOP 1, 2, 3) 

c. hiSpecior Conroy conducted an onsite accident investigation at the Ames Allport on 

6/17/14. Inspector Conroy determined that the damage to N949JP was substantial and 

qualified as an accident. At that time, Inspector Conroy asked Mr. Curtright to pro~de 

this office with the following documentation at his earliest convenience: aircraft weight 

and balance form, airframe and engine maintenance logbooks, airworthiness and 

registration certificates, his endorsement demonstrating compliance with the flight review 

requirement ofl4 CFR Part 61.56. (lOP 4) 

d. This qffice mailed a letter to Mr. Curtright on 7/1/14 again requesting the documents 

itemized during the 6/17/14 site visit. (lOP 5) 

e. That same day, Mr. Curtright contacted Inspector Conroy by email explaining that he 

needed more time to assemble the requested documents. (lOP 6) 

f. On 7/7/14, Mr. Curtright sent copies of the following documents by email: facsimile 

used·as temporary registration for N949JP; copy of a unidentified pilot logbook page 

with an entry for a pilot flight review dated 9/6112 that lacked an instructor's 

endorsement; copy of third class medical certificate for Mr. Clll1right dated 6/26/2014; 

and copy of Oregon Aircraft Registration Certificate. (lOP 7) 

g. On 7/7/14, Inspector Conroy responded to this email correspondence again requesting the 

following missing dociJ!llentation: a complete record of his flight review that included 

the instructor's endorsement signature; aircraft weight and balance record; airframe and 

engine maintenance logbooks. QOP 8) 

h. On 8/28/14, Mr. Curtright sent this office an email with copies of the following 

documents: Weight and balance record; a Memorandum to William Curtright from Ben 

W. Davidson, A&P 2855347IA, verifying that he completed an annual inspection of 

N949JP on 9/23/2013. In this email, Mr. Curtright indicated that "will not be able to go 

up this year" to Canada to retrieve the maintenance logbooks. (IOP 9) 

i. This office sent a Letter of Investigation (101) to Mr. Curtright, because he failed to 

present this office with the airframe and engine maintenance Logbooks for N949JP and a 

. -· ---WILLIAM-AMES-CUR-l"RIGHT · 20~4NM090046 

(Revised- 04/1612013) 
complete record of h., current flight review. The LOI was datw 9/4/14 and sent 9/5/14. 

(lOP 10) . 

j. Mr. Curtright responded to the LOI with correspondence dated 9/9/14. He explirined that 

the airframe and maintenance logbooks were located in Canada. Mr. Curtright did 

enclose a complete copy of his current flight review that included the instructor's 

endorsement (lOP 11) 

k. On 9/24/14, Inspector Comoy contacted Mr. Curtright by telephone. Inspector Comoy 

asked him if he ir!.tended to present this office with the airframe and engine logbooks for 

N949JP to allow the FAA to conclude its investigation into the accident of 6/15/14. Mr. 

Curtright responded that the logbooks were at his home in Canada and that he was not in 

a position to travel there and recover them. Inspector Conroy then asked Mr. Curtright if 

he could provide a future date when he would be able to make them available to this 

office for inspection. Mr. Curtright responded that he did not expect to travel to Canada 

any time in the near future. (IOP 12) 

. ---WibbiAM-AMES-CIJRlRIGI-If · · -· -20'14NM09004~ ·· 

(ReVised. 04116/2013) 
g. Use of certificate: Mr. Curtright is a Private Pilot operating his ()WU aircraft for recreational 

purpos_es. 

L Decisional law: Decisional Law issue will determined at the regi()nallevel. 

.. -WILLIAM-AMES-CUIURtGH+--- - -·· -- ---- ----2044NM~9~046--

(Revised· 04/16/2013) 
SECTION B (cont.) 

Statement of Case and Factors Affecting Sanction 

WILLIAM AMES CURTRIGHT 2014NM090046 

(Revised· 04116/2013)