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 ofthe documents in Respondent's possession relating to the above-captioned matter that may be offered in to evidence.

In addition, Respondent would request ofthe FAA that they produce all documents showing the amount ofthe 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 lawjudge 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 ofthe 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 ofTransportation 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, I999 Docket No. CP97NMOOOS DECISION AND ORDER' This appeal involves flight time recordkccping by 

### Part 135 air carriers. It raises the issue ofwhich 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 lawjudge's decision finding that Premier committed three offour alleged recordkeeping violationsz This decision denies Premier's appeal and affirms the lawjudge'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 ofPremier'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 ofthe lawjudge's wntten initial deciswn IS attached.

## '

# •**thmu~h** \larch 29. 1996
.. ".t the :.tart ofthe inspection. Premier pnniJed FAA inspectors with its individual records ofpilot t1ight time. which consisted solely of"crew duty time sheets."' 

### Atier 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 ofthe 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 

### ofthe 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 ofeach 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 ofthis part. 14 C.F.R. 

### § 135.63(a)(4)(vii) ( 1996). After a hearing, the lawjudge found that the record supported 

### a finding of Yiolation on three oJthc four counts in the complaint. The lawjudge noted as follows:


### • Count l. Premier's chiefpilot conceded that one ofPremier's pilots 2 A copy ofthe lawjudge's written initial decision is attached. 3 A crew duty time sheet is a weekly compilation ofa 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 lawjudge did not err in linding Premier's recordkeeping inadequate. This decision denies 

### Premier·s appeal and affirms the lawjudge·s decision assessing a 

### civil penalty of$1,125.'



### / /] 

# '



# /~-{~r~u.u:· ·.

/fA 

### /5ANE 

### f. GARVEY, 1 / Federal 

### Aviation};dminist 

# ( Issued 

### this 23rd day 

### ofAugust. 

### 1999. TOR

5 LJnless Respondent files a petition for review with a Court ofAppeals ofthe United States within 60 days ofservice ofthis 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 ofMarch 2, 

### 1996. RcJ<;arding Count !. the lawjudgejimnda riulation oj"Section 135 fi3 (aiNJtviiJ.


### • Count 2. The complaint alleged that Premier failed to maintain an individual record ofa 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, I996, instead ofMarch I4. I996) and that the crew duty time sheet was correct. The lawjudge concluded that 

### 1he flight with questionable rewrdkeeping occurredon 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 chiefpilot conceded that its pilots entered the wrong date on the flight log (!VI

### arch 19 instead ofMarch 18, 1996). The crew duty sheets were correct Regarding Counr 

### 3. 1he lawjudge jimnda 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 judgefound a violation ofSection 135. 63(a)(4)(vii) 

### The lawjudge said that Premier must direct attention to its pilots' recordkecping practices to eliminate errors. He pointed out that accurate records must be kept ifthe operator is to know when to schedule pilots within the permissible limits and ifthe FAA is to know whether the operator bas done so. The lawjudge concluded that Premier's rccordkeeping violated Section 135.63(a)(4)(vii) because it did not consist ofboth the !light logs and the crew duty time sheets. According to the lawjudge, Premier's rccordkeeping was inadequate both for containing inaccuracies and for necessitating cmss-chccking. The lawjudge assessed a $375 penalty for each ofthe three violations he found. for a total of$!, 125. Premier has appealed the lawjudge'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 ofthe "individual record" ofeach 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 

### ofthe ··individual record"

# oreach 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 ofthe rule. Contrary to Premier's contentions. the inspectors acted appropriately when they examined the flight logs. Indeed, ifthe inspectors had chosen to ignore or overlook any compliance concerns raised by their examination ofthe crew duty time sheets, they would have been abrogating their critical safety duties. The inspectors acted appropriately in conducting a searching and thorough review ofPremier'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 ofthe ·'individual record'' ofeach pilot. The lawjudge found that Premier should have kept the t1ight logs as part ofthe '"individual record" ofeach pilot, because Premier was using the !light logs rather than the crew duty time sheets to schedule its pilots.' As the lawjudge noted, the t1ight time recordkeeping

4 Although the law judge's decision may suggest that ifPremier 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 ofrecords. 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 ofthe individual record of each pilot Instead:the !light logs tor all ofPremier'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 ofpilots used in air carrier operations in part so that FAA inspectors may determine, without an undue expenditure oftime and resources, whether an air canier is complying with the safety regulations. Sec 43 Fed. Reg. at 46.764, stating that "[a] primary ohjective ofthe mle is to produce the minimum records needed for the FAA to objectivelyjudge 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 ofSouth Aero. FAA Order No. 96-4 at ll (February 13, !996) (affirming the lawjudge's finding that South Aero's recordkecping
was inadequate. and noting that South Aero had conceded that it was only through
types ofdocuments as the individual pilot tlight time record may be too time-consuming, undermining one purpose ofthe 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 ofthe appropriateness ofkeeping 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 Statementof Case andFactorsAffectingSanction 1. STATEMENT.OF CASE

b. TheNorthwestMountain Regional Operations Center (ROC) contactedInspectorMartin Conroy on 6/16114 inforining him 

### thatN949JP, aPA-18-135 airplane, 

### was involved in an accident. The ROC identified William Allies Curtright, CertificateNlimber 543487756, as thepilotin command andthe owner ofN949JP. The location ofthe accident was at 

### Mr. Curtright's private airport, Allies Allport, nearJefferson, Oregon. The 

### accident occurred on 6/15/14. (lOP 1, 2, 3)
c. hiSpeciorConroy conducted an onsite accidentinvestigation atthe 

### Ames Allport on 6/17/14. InspectorConroy determined that the damage to N949JP was substantial and qualified as an accident. Atthattime, Inspector Conroy asked Mr. Curtrightto

**pro~de** 

### this 

### office withthe following documentation athis earliest convenience: aircraft weight and balance form, airframe and engine maintenance logbooks, airworthiness and registrationcertificates, his 

### endorsement demonstrating compliance withthe flightreview requirement ofl4 CFRPart 61.56. (lOP 4) d. This qffice mailed aletterto Mr. Curtright on 7/1/14 again 

### requestingthe documents itemizedduring the 6/17/14 site visit. (lOP 5)
e. That same day, Mr. Curtrightcontacted Inspector Conroyby email explaining thathe needed more timeto assemble the requested documents. (lOP 6) 

### f. On7/7/14, Mr. Curtright sentcopies ofthe following documents by email: facsimile used·as temporaryregistration for N949JP; copy ofaunidentifiedpilot logbookpage with an entry for apilot flightreview dated 9/6112 that lacked an instructor's endorsement; copy ofthird class medical certificate for Mr. Clll1rightdated 6/26/2014; and copy ofOregon AircraftRegistration Certificate. (lOP7) 

### g. On7/7/14, Inspector Conroy responded to this email correspondence 

### againrequestingthe following missing dociJ!llentation: a complete record ofhis flight review thatincluded the instructor's endorsement signature; aircraft weight and balance record; airframe and engine maintenance logbooks. QOP 8) h. On 8/28/14, Mr. Curtright sentthis office an email with copies ofthe following documents: Weight and balance record; aMemorandumtoWilliam Curtrightfrom Ben W. Davidson, A&P 2855347IA, verifying that he 

### completed an annual inspection of N949JP on 9/23/2013. Inthis email, Mr. Curtright indicatedthat 

### "will notbe able to go up this year" to Canadato retrieve the maintenance logbooks. (IOP 9) i. 

### This office sent aLetter ofInvestigation (101) 

### to Mr. Curtright, because he failed to presentthis office withthe airframe and engine maintenanceLogbooks for N949JP and a



### .-· ---WILLIAM-AMES-CUR-l"RIGHT · **20~4NM090046** (Revised- 04/1612013)

### complete recordofh.,

### currentflight review. The LOI was datw

### 9/4/14 and sent 9/5/14. (lOP 10) . 

### j. Mr. 

### Curtrightresponded 

### to the LOI with correspondence 

### dated9/9/14. He explirinedthat the airframe andmaintenance logbooks were located in Canada. Mr. Curtrightdid enclose a complete copy ofhis currentflightreview thatincludedthe instructor's endorsement (lOP 11) k. 

### On 9/24/14, Inspector Comoy contacted

### Mr. Curtrightbytelephone. InspectorComoy asked 

### him if 

### he ir!.tended

### to presentthis office withthe airframe and engine logbooks for N949JP to allowthe FAAto conclude its investigation into the accident of6/15/14. 

### Mr. Curtrightrespondedthatthe logbooks were athis home in

### Canada andthathe 

### was not in 

### apositionto travel there and recoverthem. InspectorConroythen asked 

### Mr. Curtright if 

### he couldprovide afuture date whenhe would be ableto make them available to this office for inspection. 

### Mr. Curtrightrespondedthathe didnotexpect

### to travelto Canada anytime in the nearfuture. (IOP 12)

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

### ·· (ReVised. 04116/2013)

### g. Use ofcertificate: Mr. Curtrightis aPrivate Pilotoperatinghis ()WU

### aircraft

### forrecreational purpos_es.

LDecisional law: Decisional Law issue will

### determined atthe regi()nallevel.



## .. -WILLIAM-AMES-CUIURtGH+---
- -·· -- -- -- **----2044NM~9~046--** (Revised· 04/16/2013)

## SECTION B (cont.) Statement of Case andFactorsAffectingSanction

WILLIAM AMES CURTRIGHT 

### 2014NM090046 (Revised· 04116/2013)