01-16-'17 08:41 FROM-AMES RESEARCH 5033642380 

William A. Curtright 

Respondent 

POBox 1350 

Jefferson~ OR 97352 

Telephone: {503) 209-7388 

Fax: {503) 485-0812 

In The Matter Of: 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFI(;,E OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

T-614 P0002/0022 F-580 

Docket No. F AA-2015-1319 

WILLIAM A. CURTRIGHT, DBA 

Case No. 2014NM090046 

Respondent 

Judge J.E. Sullivao 

RESPONDENTS SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY AND MOTION TO 

DISMISS 

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

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

and Respondents Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion and Memorand\l!ll for Summary 

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

aforementioned motions and adds the following: 

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

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

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

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

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

RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONALAUTHORilY William A. CUrtright,DBA 

Docket No. FM-2015-1319 Respondent 

Case No. 2014NM0046 Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
01-16-'17 08:41 FROM-AMES RESEARCH 5033642380 T-614 P0003/0022 F-580 

Respondent responds to this portion of the ORDER of December 14, 2016 that 14 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright, DBA 

R@spondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-Q812 
01-16-'17 08:42 FROM-AMES RESEARCH 5033642380 T-614 P0004/0022 F-580 

3. In addition, Respondent would argue that the aircraft and engine logbooks were made 

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

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

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

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

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

that case, the FAA "(T)his appeal involves flight time recordkeeping by Part 135 air 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESPONDENIS SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL AUTHORI"TY 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

case No. 2014NM0046 

Page£> ~5 

William A. Curtright.OSA 

Respondent 

Telephone; (503) 209·7388 

Fax (503)485·0812 

01-16-'17 08:42 FROM-AMES RESEARCH 5033642380 T-614 P0005/0022 F-580 

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

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

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

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

~1.9.92)1321. ln this cases, the Respondent refused to produce his logbooks, notfail~d to 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bears the burden of proof at trial. 

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

relief filed on October 26, 2016. 

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

Judgment. 

RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY 

Do<ket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

Page Lf llii 5 

William A. Curtright, DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485·0812 
01-16-'17 08:43 FROM-AMES RESEARCH 

Dated this_l3_day ofJanuary 2017 

Respectfully submitted, 

~·A('-:· ~······CU----e~ Dr. Wm. Ames Curtright, DBA 

5033642380 T-614 P0006/0022 F-580 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration (Fax and Certified First Class Mail) 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Wilbur Wright J3ui1ding, Suite 2Wl000 Fax: (202) 267-1293 

ONE COPY 

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

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

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

Complainant's Counsel · 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1847 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY 

Docket No. FAA-2015·1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

Pag~ 5vt5 

William A. CUrtright,DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485·0812 
01-16-'17 08:43 FROM-AMES RESEARCH 5033642380 T-614 P0007/0022 F-580 I'""" •' I _. ... I ' ) I ~ ..-

SERVED; December 14,2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT Ol" TRANSPOR"fA 1'ION 

OFFICE OF li'EARlNGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In The Matter Of: ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Wli..LIAM A. CURTRIGHT 

Case No. 20 14NM090046 

Respondent 

. ..-... ~ ........ ~- ... '· ,, .. .,..,, . .:' ........... . 

ORDER SETTING NEW TELEl•HONE CONFERENCE )!OR 

SUMMAl.lV .>'UDGMENT ARGUMENTS, 

SE'l'TING DEADLINE FOil SUPPLEMENTAL r.:IATERIALS, AND 

GRANTINGIDEN'lr'lNG OTHER RELIEF 

On November 18, 2016, an Orde1· Rese1·vlng the Respondent's Motion fo1· Sumnmy 

,Judgment, Setting Oeadlin~5. ;1nd Adding Ag1mda to tllr:l Tr:lepltone Confore~ce ("November 18. 

2016 Order") was filed. 1 Among otllCI' thinss, this Order cKpanded the Telephone Conferenc~ 

pt·oviously set on Thlu·sday, Deoembet• 8. 2016 (I :30 p.m.-3:00p.m. ET) to include vm·iou$ 

mattel'S a·aised by the partle$' s\lmm~t·y judgn1en1 co·oss-motions. (Nov. 18, 2016 Oi·do:l'. :; ,1112·4.) 

·On November 22,2016, the pro sc Rcs]'Oildent, Mr. William A. Curtright, filed the 

Respondents' (sioJ Response alld O~iection to ComplainMt's M'oti011 {'ell' PQI'tial Dccisioll 

(Stunrnru•y .r.,dgment). 

On Decemb<lr 6, 2016, the Re3pondc:nt filed Respoo1dent$ (sic] Motion to Compel. 

On Dcc:~mbcr 8, 2016 (1 :30 p.m. E'l), the P"rties convc11ed fo1· a Telephone Confct·ence 

~nd discussed various matte•'S mi$cd by the pmrtics' sunil11!ll')' juc;l~q11co11 mateo'ial$, ll:< well as 

other nu1tte1'S pe11dins in the p•·ooeeding. 

1 Tltis Novembco· 18, ZO 1 G Order Identifies the pt'lor suot1lllal'y judr:m~nt and ether n1o1ion tilinss by doe portico. 

duo•lns <ho P••lod of Octobeo·ll, 2016 to•·ooosJI Novoonbco· I G, 2016. 
01-16-'17 08:43 FROM-AMES RESEARCH 

2016-12·.14 09:11 

5033642380 

1 1 >> 

T-614 P0008/0022 F-580 

That stune dny, on Deccm.bct' 8, 2016 (2:58p.m. ET), the FAA filed 'Yith this COllrt by 

faxz a complete copy (i.e., with all attachments inch•ded) of the Complainant's Motion for Pa•·ti~l 

Decision (Su111mary .ludg•nent) ("Cross-Motion"), 

This Ord~;;r codifies and suppleml:lltli the oral mlings iss11Cd dllring the Dc:c~mbcr 8, 2016 

Telephone Cot1fere11ce. Cetiai11 matters regat·ding the pending summary judgement motion are 

also b•·iefly highlighted he1·ei11. 

On November 16, 2016, the FAA filed by fa~; a collrtesy copy of a four (4) page 

document titled Complainant;s Motion ibr Partial Decision (Sunimary Judgn1ent) ('"CrossMotion"), The cover sheet to the FAA's fa~>~d rnatcl'ial stated, ''Tbe attachment~ are voluminous, 

so they will be in the U.S. Mail." (Nov, 16, 20l6 FAA Fax Covel' Sheet). 

On November 21, 20 I 6, the FAA flied by U.S. Mail a four (4) page dLipllcate of i!s faxed 

Crosa·Motion. There we1•e no attaohn1cnt$ included in the n1allins. Neither the fMed CO\Irtcsy 

copy of the FAA's Ct·oss-MotiOI1, 1101' the mailed filil1g of the FAA's C•·oss·Motion. referenced 

a11y attachments Ol' exhibits withi11 the four-pae,e document, 

At the beginning of the Dece111bel' 8, 2016 Telephone ConfGrence, the FAA <tl¢rtcd thi~ 

Cou1t 1md Mr. Curtt•ight that its C1·oss-Motion acw!llly included npp1·oximntely 39 pase~ ol' 

attachments. Howev<:r, neither the Cou1't 1101' M1·. Clll'tl'ight had •·eceived any a.ttachme11ts. The 

FAA ·orally moved to continue the sull\lll!lry judg111ent a>'s:umen1s to allow it time<> to supplen1enl 

ilS eross-motion matel'ials to Include the missina attach111ents. The fAA's O>"alnlotion w~s 

sntntcd over Mr. Cw•triglu's obJection. 

n. Complaint and Proposed Civil Pcmllly 

011 Ol'about May 27,201 S, the l=AA Hearing· Docket filed witl1 the U.S. Department of 

Transportatlon"s Ofrice ofl-Iea,•ings a copy of the FAA's '"'sigi\~d Complaim (dat~d May 19. 

~The PAA ug1·ced dul'li\S the OUCO!ll!>el' 2. lO I G 'rel~phon~;~ C\)nf~rt:.llC~ to S~f\1¢ 11'11:0 Stlmc nult~1·ial~ on Mr', Curt1·igl11 

by uotll u.s. mail und ce111ned mail. 

Page 2 ofs 
01-16-'17 08:44 FROM-AMES RESEARCH 

Z016·12·J4 09:11 

5033642380 

·1 1 :>>' 

T-614 P0009/0022 F-580 

20 LS).J Accordh\g to the Comp1ai11t, the FAA had $ent the Respondent n Lcucr on o1· nbO\It July 

1, 2014. Qsking the Respondc•lt to provide it$ maintenance records for inspection. (Con1pl. 2·3 § 

ll112.) Although ~he Respondent aokl\owlcdged 1'eceipt of the Letto1·, he did Mt immediately 

produce all tl\e requested •-ecot•ds. (Compl. 3 §II~ 3.) 011 May 19, 2015. approxinmt0ly ci€ven 

(11) months after send ins the Letter, the FAA ch<n·ged the Respondent with a violation of 14 

C.P.R. § 91.417(c). rhe FAA's May 19. 2015 Complaint assel'tcd that tl\e Respondent "failed to 

make all maintenance records ,·equil'ed to be ket>t by this section [14 C.f.R. § 91 ,417(cl) 

=liv.rthifilii-roTIT1sp6cch.m" as i'Cq\iii'ed. (Coni pl. 3 § 111.11 1.) The FAA l'eq\Te~<e1t·;rtivil.t1ellalty in 

th¢ amou11t of$11,000 fo,· the violation. puts11ant to 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a) and (d). (Com pi, 3 § 

1Il,3.) 

C. Respondent's Motion for Summary .Judgment 

On October 26, 2016, th~ }Jro se Respondent. Ml'. William A. Ctu'tl'ight. filed multiple 

docum~:nts, including the Respondents' [slc].MotiOI1 and Memora11dum for Summary Judgment 

(''Motion").~ I11 essence, the Rcspo11dent SO\lfJht dismisS!II !U> a matter of law of th~ entire 

Complaint, on the grounds that he did p•·oduoe the doclu11en\S th¢ FAA had.rcqiiCStcd. In S\ippon 

of his Motion, the Respondent submitted twelve ( 12) Exhibits, ide~>li11ed as Exhibits I through 

12. The Respondent also p1•offe•·ed a11 additional three (3) Reply Exhibit$, ide"til1ed as Reply 

Exhibits I tlll'OUgh 3. 111~ FAA did not object to the ad111issibility of any of the Respondent's 

Exhibits. 

) On November: 17,20 IS. the RespolldCnt t'aised objections to tile validity of the ~nslgned compl~int, (Show Couse 

S101t I.) Sovontooo ( 17)· day• Inter, on Oocun1bo•· 4. 20 IS, the PAA 's Ro!ponso to Show Couse w~s filed. which 

included a signed version oF the Mny 19. 2015 COilllllninr. (FAA Res11. I. Attach.) On Mny IS. 2016 this Coutl 

found thor the f'AA ·~ oction to t'ilo n slsncd VCI'Iion ofitb Complaint eonslillllcd a prornpr corrective action, purAu~lll 

to Federal Rule or Civil Procedure II {o). <ill« tho •i~ned Colllplnint wn& Folcd prior ro the Oooomb<r IS, 20 IS d~odlino 'ct by the Com1 l'ortho PAA 10 nlc n RcsponN. (Muy 18. 2016 Oi11cl'7.} Tliu~. the FAA ·s Complnim i~ 

eons:idc•·cd to be vulidly filod with the f.' AA Hcm·in~ Dookol und l'tll'YI!d 011 lh~ llcspor'ldllnl Oil M"y 19.201 S. oven 

u•ougl\ it wns unsigned at the thn~ of filing ana SCNice. Cld.) 

1 Oo 0ctobcr26. ~0 16. the Ro~pondent olso 111od chc f'<)liowins: I l n [l'•·oposcd] Q,·de•· C•·unring Ro•poo1dcnrs [•ie) 

Moriool for Su"'"'"''Y Ju~S'"'"'; 2) ROSilOndems [sic] R~q11eS1 1'01· • RuliiiB 011 I'll orion Ma Moi1>0o'U•Iaum 1~1· 

Sumnuny J~!dstnoot: t\1\d 3) a (PrOj)OSfJcl) Ordel' Ct·~l\rins RMpond!olnl;; (~lie} Request ror {\ Rulin~ em Motion (OI' 

Slllmnm·y Judgment. 

01-16-'17 08:44 FROM-AMES RESEARCH 5033642380 T-614 P0010/0022 F-580 I I ,. " 

D. Undisputed Ml\terinl Fo\Ct$ Undc••lying the Allc~ed ViolllclOn 

Dul'ing th~ Dece111ber S, 2016 Telephone Conference, cl1c Utldisputcd faces underlying the 

Respondent's MOtioll for summ!ll'y jttdgment were bl'ictly reviewed, to help the parties prepw·e 

fo1' oral argmttent scheduled on Janu6ry 25, 2017. Based on the pmties' submissions, it appe~rcd 

thDt thlll'lil woo no gem1ine dispute~~~ to mo~l (if not all) of the material facts tmdel'lyil1g the 

alleged violation of 1.4 C.F.R. § 91.417(c). 

· ... · ·· ·"-· -·"···' ~''~'hl'bYief."acoording-to 14 C.l~. R. § 91 .41 'I( c), the owne•· O>' opet•ato•·of.an· ail'ernf• shall 

make all maintenance l'<)co••ds i·¢qui•·ed to bo kept by 14 CF R. * 91.417 uv:lilable loo· iMpection 

by the Ad.nit1iwator or My authorized •·cpt•esentative of the NMional T•·~~nsponation Safety 

Board. 

I" the i•1stMt 01180, as bl'iet)y sumn1ari2ad by this Cou11 dul'ing the December 8, 2016 

Conf(;)rence,S the par~ies ago·eed that Mo·. Curtright wa£ at all relevant times the owner of a Pip~r 

Model PA-18135 civil aircraft, with registration numb0t' N949JP ("N949Jl'"), (Com pl. 1 ,11; 

All$, 1 ~ 1 ,) On July \, 2014, 'FAA Inspectot• Marrin Conroy asl,ed M1', Cunright ro provide by 

July 17, 2014 "aircraft and engine maintenance logbooks" ofN949Jf' (among other documents) 

for the FAA's review. (Com)ll. 1-2,12: Ans. 1 ,12; E:x. 7 ~~ 3.) f11spcctor Con•·oy'~ •·equcst for 

inspection of M•·. Curtright's airot'£rft maintennnce logbooks wns pa1t of the I~AA's Portland 

Flight Standards District Office offi<1ial inve~tigetion of an e.il'Qt·al\: accide11t involving N949JP. 

(Compl. 1·2 ~ 2: Ans. 1 112; Bx. 7 111 3.) On .July 7. 201 <l, Inspector Conroy •·enewed hi$ •·eque~t. 

askins Mt·. C"rtright fot· a date ce••tain to "insll~Ct the ai•·cralt weic.hr!balance and alt'f1'3111CICll~ine 

maintenance logboo!cs." (Mot., Ex. 12 at 7.) That same day, 011 Jul)l7. 2014. Mr. C\lrtrit:ht told 

Inspector COJU'OY that the "[r)est of the docu1nents are north in Canacla" (Mot., Ex. 12 at 7), and 

Mr. Cun:rlght n~:cdcd "some time to get them." (M,) Approximl\tcly, seven (7) weeks l~tcr. on 

At.•s;t.•st 28, Z014, Mo·, Cumight advised l11~pector C01lrO)' viu email that ho w011ld not be 

traveling to Caned a fo•• the 1'Gi\lai11del' of the year. (/d. at 8.) 

~ Tlw ft~cts p•·ol'fcred in· the 11 AA 's C1·oss-Motion ""'~~ nor di~;\.l:;:tud dUI•in~ 1.h~ Dco~nlbOI' 8. 2.016 Te,lcpho•w 

Confol'ence, boca usc ~01\C or lhc FAA·~ CI'Oss-Motlon llllilthlnenl>. which ~··elUillabl~ prorrcred adl\lis~ibl~ 1\l~l). 

llltd be~n ret~lvcd by ~hhcr lhc Coon or Mr, Cmtrigl\1, '" nolcd onl'lior. d1orin~ 1hc O.cconbcr B. 2016 1'oiO:J)hq••< 

Con f~nnee, rho FA A wa~ gtunt"'d Lhu oppo•'t\.mily \O s~•ppl~ment h~> Ct'Oss .. Mo!ion +1nd file it" l~t:.t ~o~~hlbit!i.. a11d the 

s~mmary Judsmcot oro I m'll,lllll~nt w•~ rc~c110 Jn>tu31'Y 2~. J0l7. 

Page 4 of 8 
01-16-'17 08:45 FROM-AMES RESEARCH 

Z016·1Z•)4 0'1:11 

5033642380 

1 ·1 ;.;. 

T-614 P0011/0022 F-580 

About one (I) week Ia!~•·, on S<ilptember 9. 2014, M1•• Ctlrtright ngai n i~fom,ed the FAA 

that the airoraft and ellsine losbool<s we1•a at his •·esiclencc in Canndn. (Gx. 12 at I.) 

Approximately eleven (ll) 1\\0nths late•·, on August 13, 201 S, 1l1e pa•·ties ag1'ecd that Mr. 

Curtright made the reCOfdS available to the FAA at Mr. Cmtrigbt's place of busin~ss in Salem. 

Oregon.• at which tilne 'fAA lnspectOl'S C1.1rt Cowley and Tei'I'Y Juran inspected the aircmfi 

maintenance records ofN949JP. (Mor, 5: Ex. z at 2.) The followi11g day, on August 14. 2015. 

Inspector Cowley reported that Mr. Cunrigh!'s "records were w~ll organized and complete. back 

· .. 'to=m~b'irth"oHhc ail'~•'i\ft;" (Mot., Ex.s at 2,) 

E. Disputed Issue. Time l(w n.cgulnfOr)l Con~pli,\nco 

Acco•·di•1S to the reeord herein. on Ma)' 6. 2'015, the FAA i9SLied a Final Nodce ot' 

PI'Oposed Civil Penalty ("FNPCP''), chUI'Ging Ml'. c~u·ll'ight witl1thc violatio~ of 14 C.f.R. 

§ lll.4l7(c). (Co,npl. 1. ~I,), On May 11,2015. M1·. Curtdglltcon[est~d the FNPCP by 

subn1itting a Request fo1• Hl.lal'ing. (Jd.) On May 19. 2015, the FAA filed its COI\lplaint, On 

August 13. 2015. the FAA inspected Mt', Curtl'lght's ail'craft rec:ords and found them to b~ 

sa~isfactory. 

As noted aupra, the FAA doO>s not dispute that M•·· Cu•·t,·isht ultimntely pt·oduced th0 

~eco.·d~ fo,• illsp0otion, on Ol' about Ausust 13, 2015. Rather. thQ FAA asserts that the ~llldisp~•ted 

fact timeline. which clemonst,·ates a delay of ove•· one (1) yeanfte1· the FAA's July I. 2014 

initial re.QlleSt for pi'Oduction. is per se evidence of the c11ar~ed records violation. fn a recent 

supplemental plead ins. the fAA also !1$SCI'led thauhe alle~;ed vlol~•rion ol' 14 C.F.R. * 19.417(c) 

"commenced on or about .1\•ly IS. 2.014."7 (Aug. 23,2016 FAA Stalclllent. I.) 

M•·. Cl.lrtright ngreed that as of September 4, 20l4, the FAA had advised hi"'• vin a L0tte•· 

of Investigation ("LO!"), that his failt1i·e to p•·od\•Ce the •·equesred "aire1·ail: and engine 

maintenance lo(:books'' ofN949.TP could be "contrary to the federal Aviation Reculations." 

(Mot., Ex. 5 at l.) The FAA'S September 4, 2014 LOI also advlb'ed Mr. Curtright rhat I'fhe 

' 111 its Answer, the R¢spond<mt B$Sct'lod rhollh~s" "losl" recordj were ultim~lely fmmd mld "prcscnlcd" 10 tile fAA 

o•lc month cal'li.:•• vio cmnll Oil hily IS, 2015. <An01. 1.112.) The FAA tli;or;l'(.ll.:d rhi:o punie~d;1r l\1~;t Zlll~cn.io,~. 

P~ge S of8 
01-16-'17 08:45 FROM-AMES RESEARCH 5033642380 T-614 P0012/0022 F-580 

"fail(ed) to ~upply the t•equested ir1forn1ation" (Mot., Ex. 7 at 1). the FAA wotild "make 

det•mninations about possible enforcement aotio11" witho11t seeking ~ny 't\n·thet· pat1ioip~tion 

fl'Om Mt. Curtl'ight. (Mot., Ex, 7 at 2.) 

Howc:ver, in his M1nion, Mr. Curtright asset·cs tllat t11e langttage of 14 C.F.R. § 91.417(c) 

docs 11ot require owners to sto•·e maintenan"e records on the air~Eaft, a11d instead:il~ly rcqulrcs 

that the niallltcnfi'riee record~ ''be_j'II'OdllCed fol' in$j)¢ction in Q )C03011Pblc amollnt of time wlicn 

. , ,,,., .i:eg•!ested b~~~-£'.'!'1.: -~'!'~!3 or lnw enfoo·cel\lenl." (Mot., S.) Mo·. Curtl:iJ!~.!J~plain~d th~t ~om~ ________ . 

of his records, which the FAA had •·equested in .~uly 2014, had been "lost" fot• a time. (Ans. 1, 

,~ 1 and 3.) He also canphasizect that these "lost" recoo·ds wer·e ultimately found and "presented" 

to the 1• AA. (Ans. I, 1 2.) 

Si11ee it i~ undispL•ted thac Mt·. Cumight ultimately pt·oducecl it~ ait'CI'«ft maintenance 

logbooks for FAA illspeotion on A\ISI•&t 13, 201 S (i.e .. lip proximately tho·cc (3) mmnhs after tho 

FAA filed its Complaitn), Mr. Clu·tright asse•·ts thM his sotionswet·e a·easonable and in 

compliance with tile regulatory requirelllents. i:[2~~~. ~s;a ti1!1.t\et ofla"-';-he c;a~tilot be founq it\ 

.!J.ave comnii.ned <IYi9l~tiolJgf 14 C,f:~. ·§ 91.417(o), (Mot. s: ex. 2.) 

In essence, b~U;ed on the undisputed facts, the iss\le ill dispute is a legal iss11e; specifically. 

whether the Respondellt made the air<waft and et\giM logbook! "available for inspectiotl'' as 

required by 14 C.F.R. § 91.407(c). when he provided the logboo~$ thil•teen (13) months uft~r the 

FAA lnvesti~:arot' requested production of the logbooks. Neither tile Respond ell( nor the FAA 

specifically acldt'essed this nm1·ow leg~ I Issue in theh· materials. 

)..', Conclu$iOn 

The P<ll1ies are reminded that each, moclon for $ummary judgment is reviewed separately. 

Steven Baicker-McKcc, et ~1., F"rtural C11!ll Rules Handbook, 1163-64 and 1171 (Thomson 

Reuters 2016). {11 co11sicloa•ins each motio11, the Co .. tt may ~Onlidt•·not l)nly eh~ rt<qucstcd relict: 

but also considea• S''antlnsjudgn.1em on b~hc\lfofthe non-moviras party, andlor p•·ovide relidoo1 

grounds different from what the p:uties req11e$ted. See, Fedet·al Rtole of Civil l>rooedure S6(t)( I): 

and Steven Baicker-McKee, et a1., supra at H 97-1198. 

Page6ofS 
01-16-'17 08:46 FROM-AMES RESEARCH 

C:VlO" IC:" 1'1 uy;" 

5033642380 

I I '' 

T-614 P0013/0022 F-580 

i 

The J)O.t'!ies should be given time to supplement thei•· n1ate••ials with legal authority in 

suppon of theh· $ummal)' judgment positions. During the Oecell1bet' 8, 20 16· T elephon~ 

Confe&·ence, Mr. Curt••ight O!'ally provided the followins authority: In tho /VJ(IIIor ofGiinorctl 

A11iotian, FAA O&·det• 98-18 (October 8, 1998). The pal-ties were also provided • .lanu~ry 13, 

2017 deadlil1C to me any further legal authority. wirh the summary judgment oral at'gumenls 

continued to January 25, 20 l7. In addition. during the December 8. 2016 Telephone Co11ference. 

ccrcain o.-al rulings on Mr. Cwtright's November 19, 2016 Motion to Dismiss were issued and 

.. ··• ··"''-'""'Pllli'll"eclFl'hose··ruHngs a•·e· alao codified in this Ordct·. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 1}.205, 13.218, and R\1le 56, ~11d after •·eviewing ullrelevst1l 

caselaw, regulations. statutO!)' authority, and being fully advised; 

rr fS HEREBY ORO.E.REO: 

1, The 'PAA 's oral motion.1o continue the summary judgmenl arguments and to allow it to 

supplement its <ll'OSS•motio" t11ate•·i~l3 to include mis~i11g attachmcn~. is gr~nt~d over the 

Respondent's objection. 

2. 'Th~,'j¥spOr\d•:n:n~s-.m\l~ip.le.~ques.ts for 3\&111&n~ryjudgm~:nt ~nd other rcli~f. con mined i"n 

·;he•Re·spond.en(s Ooto9e•·-26, 20i.6 Motion, Dro reset•ved .. 

3. Janunry 13, 2017 Supplement )),clldlinc: On or befol'c January 13, 2017, tl1o parries 

111ay ·tile supplcmcntalm~tcrial. specifically ~ny legal authority and argument. in support 

of their position~ &-esardi11g· the Respond11nt's Motion fo1· S~&n1nlat·y Judgn1ent 011 the 

violation oharsed Ltllde•· 14 C.F.R. § 91.417(o), 

4. Jnnunr'y 25, 2017 (l :30 p.m.-3:00p.m. ET): Morion Conference, OnJ.I nq;unlClll will 

be heard on Wednesday. J'a11uary 25, 2017 (I :30 p.m. -3:00 p.1)1, Ea~lel'll time) ••eg~t·ding 

both the Respondent's Motion fo&· Sumnla,·y h•dgn1enc a11d th<J FAA·~ Cross-Motion. 

Should tin1e permit, final status of discovery us well as potential heal'illg dates (ill the 

event tile mattet·s herein ru·c not fully resolvecl by stm1t11at'Y juclg111ei\t) will also be 

addressed. To access the CoU&'t's Conference lin~. the parties shall dial 888-278·0296 and 

enli:t' cod~ 5851842. 

Pase 7 ofS 
01-16-'17 08:46 FROM-AMES RESEARCH 

1016·12·14 09:1Z 

5033642380 

·1 I >'>' 

T-614 P0014/0022 F-580 

5. The Reaponde11t's Novembe,·l9,.2016 Motion to Dis mil!, on the gro(u1d8 that th~ "act••PI 

date ofviolatioll" in thi_s <.~ase is tlot identi·f-iad, is denied. 

6. The Novembet· 19. 2016 Motion to Dismiss, on the ground~ that the I' AA 's complc::tc 

copy of its Enfol·oement Investigation Repo••t has not beeu provided to the Re$ponde11t. i.• 

denied. 

7. The Respondent's Novet\\bel' 19, 2016 Motion to Dismiss, on 'the:: grounds that the fAA 

·· ·· . .:...::::li'iiS:iioFfi\lly ei<plained to the Rl)!ip6ndcnt the b~sis fOI' its proposed· $11;000·civil-penalty, .... 

is denied. 

S. The Respondent's Novembt:r 19,2016 Motion to Disl\liss. on the srounds that the 

Respondent provided a nmjority of its I'Coo,·ds on o•· be!o1-e J\lly 7, 2014, is denied. 

9. The: Respondent's November 19, 2016 MotiOiliO Dismiss: on the grounds that the J'AA 

lucks l)videncc to pi'OVc the alleged violatiOt1, i~ dclltc(l, 

l 0. The Respondent's Novembe1· 19. 2016 Motion to Dismiss, on the grounds that 11e 

ptod\ICCd hi~ aircraft records within n r<i:asonable tim~. is reserved as part of the pending 

su111nuuy judsrnent p•·oceeding. 

I\, "l'lou Rc•p<mdont'a !'lovem~OI' 10, 2016 Modon "' nioo"i·K Oil tile crounds thatlhe FAA'$ 

proposed civil penalty qf$)1 ,000 violates the Eighth Arncndmcl1! pl'ohibition against 

Cl'uel ond um1sual plmishment, i$ denied. 

12. Pot· clarifications of thi:; order or que$tion~ with regard to tile procedures to be followed 

i11 this case, please cot1ta" Mr. Cody L. Smith, Attomey-Advisor at lh¢ Offic~ of 

Heal'i11gs (202-366·6941). 

.lud~ 

u.s."~""-"'...-~" 

Attachment: Se,vice List 

PageS of8 

01-16-'17 08:46 FROM-AMES RESEARCH 5033642380 T-614 P0015/0022 F-580 

Docket No. FAA·201 5-1 j 19 

(Civil PenaltY Action) 

SERVICE LIST- B)' U.S. !VIAlL 

ORIGINA-L & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administmtioo1 

800 TndependenoeAvenlle, S.W . 

. Wa$hington, DC 20591 

Attenti011: Heari11g Docket Cleo•k, AOC-430 

........ :::·~-~:.:::.::.::~::·:.· .... ::·~Wilbur. Wxight Buildio1s-.-S.,i.te·2W I OOON 

Ml'. David F. Sll!l)'ne 

Comp/alnom ·s Counsel l~ederal Aviation Administratiotl 

Nonhwest Moumain R~gion .• ANM·7 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, W A 96057 

TEL: 425-227·1847 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

Do·. William Ames Cumight, DBA 

Respondent 

P.O. Box 1350 

,Teffea·son. OR 97352 

TEL: 503-209·7388 

FAX: 503-485-0812 

Judge .T.E. S~ollivan 

U.S. Admini;'ll·otiva Lmi' Judge 

U.S. 00)>ao·tment of TmnsportatiM 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (F.Il-310) 

Washington. DC 20590 

TEL: 202·366-69'l I 

l'AX; 202-366-7536 

ONECOl'Y 

ON 

ON 

ON 

ON 

ON 

ON 

ON 

ON 

tc Service was by U.S. Milil, Fol' aervic~ II' p(!1'&.on or by Cl!X)Jedited CQUI'ICY,Uf'le the followhlG l'ddi'C!IG: ):'odc,,.d ON 

Avln!ion . · ·. · . s.w .. Wilb<ll' 2Wl.OOO. WashingtoBIIi JQ saA 

·(.\:,a II'•' !! (o)/,l'llll•l".l '-' (•ll) 

,ll~HUtl:llrD),)) I·!Hllij~Xa~{~i (~l~W.:~ ~ · 

--i7W'i!;n;~~r--~-N· 

01-16-'17 02:d7 FROM-AMES RESEARCH 50336d2320 

, (kl1p&:ltwww.come!l.ad'!l)Com~rr UniVcrs!ly Law 6c"oo' (tlttp:llwww.tawscl'loor,oomell,a\fuJ)Se<trcl'l • CorneD (hnplil~llwww.eomen.aaU/sDarclV) 

CFR {/clrltexl) • Title. 14 (/cfr/textf14) • Ch~plor I (/cTr/te.lCl/14/ch;;~.pt~r-1) , S\.lbo!'laplar F (forr/taxt/14/chapter-lfsubchaptar-F) • Pan Ill Ucfr/ta>;!/14/pan91)., Svbpan e: (/cfr/te;W14/Dart-91/subpa11.·E) • Section 91.401 

14 CFR 91.407 - Operation after maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration. eCFA (/c:ft/ ..... X't./l.4/'J1,4Qnqt.dt_CIIb~=Unqt-cl"r_b:lb!<) 

Rultrr\dkfng (/ cfr/tcXt/14/')1 ,4 D71qbod'r .. c.D~=2#Qt-dr_t>:lb,) 

B10tal (11lllacfr._b10ta) ThD \(lx\ on ll'le eCFA lilb roJpro~<\lan\1:1 tho Ul1cffieial t!CfR tt.ldl:l.t eclt.9ov, 

T-61d P0016/0022 F-520 

§ 91.407 Operation alter maintenance (/dellnh.lons/lndaX.php? 

Wldth•840&helghi~OO&Itr~me=true&def_Jd=tli040e7c700t7dd9t:'ld7f1~QffaS7df84&terllt..oecur=1&term._src-:Ti11e:14:Chapler:I:S"'b"haptar:F:Pe.rl:9t:Subpart:e:91A07.}, 

preventive malntenef\ee (!deflnltlonsllrHlox.php? 

wldth-840&he1ght=8DO&Iframc~:Ztrue&defJd=e18bcaSI28d4dbc4ad67445c4f8f293f&term_occur.=1&term_src:~lhle:14:Chapler:I:SubCihapter:F!Par1:91:Subpart:E:91.407), 

· tctlulrdlng,-or-aUerauon,-----·.. · -·----.. -

(o) No p~rc;ol\ {/d.olll\!llonslmdflx,php?-

Wldil'l=040&hll\ght=8QO&rl'r1.1.meo:>~wQ&deol_kf-'c81d6676aaa13<!:a51 OoiC00346o(l6!1ll9.!1.!crm_occur=1 &lelffi_SIQ: 1111~;14:C~pM:I:Subdl~pt<or.~Pall:91 :Subpnti:G:s t.-40/') 

m<W i · 

II, ·1: 

1: J: 

(1) II h<ll<i b111!ln epprovfld lor ~!vm te~ !:l~>rvica by a pa~on (/dellnhion<il'ind~.php? 

Wldlh"'!HO&Migiii=£00S.I(rwo<!=W~&d~l id-c6fdafl76aii<!132>~6iOc9c0a.Mfle8S3i19&term occvr=-2!11\Q'm 21e-Til!a:H~~w:~~.n.Ei~!!:~!!~P.l!£6:61 A07) 

autl\<lrl~ud und<~r § -4:1.7 (fltt~;lfflw\\l,l;:.:w.oornii!Leduk:lfltext/14/43, '1) of lh!.s d\apl8r, and 

(2.) Tha malnk!niJ"cl:l (fdatlniUon'OI!fldQ)t,2!'!2! 

W!(llh--tWO&heolgh!~OO&lltame=\fUQ&dafjd ... ~~:~7G 700!7dd!I04iflf1 OOfla37dfll.~&\6tnLOC.CUI=3&1ar~rc-Titlo:14:CI'Iapter:!:Sr..Wl8phlt:F:Par1:91;Sut:lpart;S:~1.407) 

tecorCI c;:ntry required by§ 43.9 ori-43.11, ::t!i !!.ppliGsbltl, ol\1'118 cllapl$r h;:ilii been m:l.de. 

(I>) No p9ryon (fdd11nnlon5/lnd0X.php? 

W1d!tl=649&hclshi-'600&Jrra.me=tnro<~t.daUd-G61dfi57Saaa132<1.61 0()9.:0<1'348t!a5Sa9&tarm (IOOV~,jl.lorm uc,..Tltl~:14:00;;~pt~;~r:I:SuOcMpler:l":P~rMl1 ;$vbpart:t=':!l1 AOD 

may carry any por:;oll Vd~linition8111\dex.Mp7 

widii\=MO&Miaht..$OO&ifmma=lnu:&cref jd=C.Sfd8B7611all132a610CSc031'411cW3~9&1t11ffl occur=4&lell!Ujt,.._ Ti)le:f ~:Chaptsr,•l,·S~o\:lpler:F: Pi111.'91:Sub£tuta9t AW: (o~<:!t\1\an crowJJlqmbe>ll:l) in an iilrctall(/(f~t'lnl\'lonslindcx.ghEO 

w!dth--MO&.h$lQhi=60W.IfrOl!ll\e'-llutl&deUd=60900at:I04f'l92d9Sd0736e!ld3~01 $4e<i/ILOGGUI=Z&term..)Oic.. Trtlo:14:Ct\ap\ar.l:S\10r.Mpl~r:F:Pari:91:Subpan:e.'if ,407) 

thath.s!:l b~an mtunuoi!'led, rabuill, or altQ/9d In a rnanno;~rlhal m;syi\IO.ve ~fii&Ciably clumgo:!d ItS ffighl cllaraoteri,;~lozor ~ubataf"l\!>ll!y il~ectGd~~ op~ra~·oo In ffiQf\1 

until <lin ::~pploprlatetv rat~d pl!o1 wi"lh ut lo:s::t~t a pnvale Pilot co11ific:slt1 flia8'11\a alfcraft (/d~~.nnilionS.-'lndex..pl'\p? 

Wldtk.,s40&halght::SOO&Ifrarne:.,lrue&doUd-SeSeaa.tJ0411ll2d9Sd07aSc90'3Z90164fl&lorm._octuf~\erm_erccl"~lo:14;Chapl<lf:I:SubtMp\sr.F:Pli11:91:Subpar1:E:91.407), 

makes .,n opoiiAIIona! cl'l~k of tho m.s!ol~:~nl!.neil (!O'eflnmol\s/indllrlt.php? 

Wldll'l=840&holght..:SOO&Uiilm0-=ll\!l/&dt()d ... ae-40tl7c700!'7ddgQ4d71f eol1a37dl'tH&term-Oacu!'-4&1etrn_arc::::Tit!a:14:Chaptar.I:Subdl~ptei:F:FOII1:!11 :Subp!!.n:E:91.407) 

performoO' or alkuallon mada, 01nd r~ the. f!ighl!n 1M .slfcr<lfl (/dGfl"ltionWfldtllf.php? 

Wla'lh=tl4~~1ght-:800&.ill&me=tNoad'af_ld.,S~>9E;ir..sb04ri92G93d013Sii!d3290164e&tef'fl'l_u<l<>Ur~&.ltornurc=TIIIe:14:Chap!ei:I:Subdldplsr.f":P;ut:Ql:Svbp~rt:E:61.407) 

facoras. 

(c) Tha aircraft (/do:~linlil~;~nalindex.pnp? 

width-E!<IO&hei!Jill=600~ffo:~m~:-4fL/.a&da.tJd=S&9caabel4Na2d93d0736119d3a9o164e&tercn _oceoJ~&term_t;re:.:: 1111e: 14!CI'lapl~r:I:Sllbcl'lil.pl~:F :Pa.I'I:91:Sub~an;E:91 .401) 

do;~c!:l no\ halls to be flown ;JI!i reqvllad b>r lhUit£lfi.I.Ph(t:l) of 1hi~ sac1lon 11, pnor to;~ Oishi. ground test~ ln:s;pco:olio:>n, or both showcQn~~!y lhat lhe mall\lenaMe 

!fdo11nili~;~nSJlfld&X.php'l 

wi(!lh..,f!~O&h1:11ghl=6006-.lrr.uno~tzuo&del 1d::ac40e7o70(lrldd!k.4c0111lQtfa37\#114&t<~~r=S.S.\Gil:1) .src,... Tj)l<~: t4:Chapter.I:S,,bch~plgr:F:P~:~.r1:91:Subpan:E:a1 ,407), 

provon\ivl!l f'l\iliillarmru~!..Y.1.Jtll'Jtti~~£1.Q1. 

wl\1ltl .. !l40&h.!!Q.ht.=tiOO&lf!![!!~"ltU"&clel !d·~_e16bca31!!:]il;!!!~~45c4!ru_~.~Ul!....~.!!El@~!!.\:d'!5=1111o~.~~.t!.apter;I;$':!~...2!PS££~9-!l~!!"IW.'!oft~~:g1.407lrelNllding. oranarauon fla:; JlQ\ appr!:dl!.bt)' ehangecl the fngM ..Mraelall$trcs or ~b~Jantially ar£9CIM ti1G lllght op~>talion 01 \he iJir~ra.ftVO'WII!onSiindt>~.pl'lp1 

v.rlatl'1"'64£1&.hl!l!g!\t:=600&11raf1W·"trua&d~:>l 1tf-"8a9caab04179Zd9ad0738clld32901S4e&ler!!!..9.f1cUr=6&l9rJn. .$fe-Td18it!'9~1Gr.I."Svbd'lllplor.F:Part:91:SubDart:E:91. 40n. 

(Approved by th11 Offieo of Manaaemenl and evdgot Ulldo>fC'OflltOI nvmbt~r212.G-00051 

Download This To PDF 

Free to Download Md CQnven. Get It ln$tantly, oownloHd NQw. 

Go co rromQoctopdf.com 

CFRToolbox 

(h!lpll:llduti6S.aDPle.oolll/'lll11)ppfla.Wfibaii<IAOS807 4!12) 

l..OIW abouL •• At11cJBs from Wrn. (lwO#well..:t.rtlcles) 

vraw ACFA {fltfP'/NIWW,Gcfr,gcv/i;91-b!r\ltext·ldJ:?e=scfr&lp\../eo;l,browa:erfnlfl14f14o::fr9t_ma!n _02 ,tpij 

TabfQ ol Popvlat Name& (/\o;~pn) 

Parallel T~blo of Autl'lonlles. (/p10o3.) 

(I 
01-16-'17 08:47 FROM-AMES RESEARCH 5033642380 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

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

-PREMIElfJE'ts, INC. Served: August 31, 1999 

Docket No. CP97NMOOOS 

DECISION ANn ORDER1 

T-614 P0017/0022 F-580 

This appeal involves flight time recordkeeping by Part 13 5 air carriers_ It raises 

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

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

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

ISSUe. 

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

Premier committed three offour alleged recordkeeping violations.2 This decision denies 

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

Premier is a Part 135 operator located in Oregon that employs about 30 pilots. 

Premier transports transplant teams and donor organs for several hospitals. 

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

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

computer databases. They are also available on CD-ROM throughAeroflight Publications. 

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

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

43,250 (August 9, 1999). 

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

01-16-'17 08:48 FROM-AMES RESEARCH 5033642380 T-614 P0018/0022 F-580 

• 

2 

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

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

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

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

the accuracy of the crew duty time sheets. 

The inspectors discovered discrepancies between the crew duty time sheets and 

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

logs. 

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

committed several violations of the following regulation: 

§ 13 S .63 Recordkeeping requirements. 

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

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

for inspection by the Administrator, the following -

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

part, including the following information: 

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

compliance with the flight time limitations of this part. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 

.. 

01-16-'17 08:48 FROM-AMES RESEARCH 5033642380 T-614 P0019/0022 F-580 

3 

recorded 2.4 hours flying time on his crew duty time sheet for the 

wrong day- for March I instead of March 2, 1996. Regarding 

Count/, the law judge found a violation of Section I 35.6J(a)(4)(vii). 

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

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

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

acknowledged that the pilot incorrectly wrote down the wrong date on 

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

the-ore·W· duty time sheet was correct. The law judge concluded rhat 

the flight with questionable recordkeeping occurred on March I 4, 

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

complaint by alleging a Januaty 14, 1996, flight. As a result, rhe law 

judge dismissed Count 2. 

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

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

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

found a violation of Section 135. 63(a)(4)(vii). 

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

for March 8, 1996, appeared to be incorrect. Regarding Counr4, the 

law judge found a violation of Section 135. 63(a}(4)(viQ. 

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

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

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

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

recordkeeping violated Section 135.63(a)(4)(vii) because it did not collllist of both the 

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

recordkeeping was inadequate both for containing inaccuracies and for necessitating 

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

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

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

01-16-'17 08:48 FROM-AMES RESEARCH 5033642380 T-614 P0020/0022 F-580 

• 

. 4 

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

they were not part of the "individual record" of each pilot. Witlwut the flight logs, FAA 

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

sheets contained errors. 

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

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

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

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

requirements of the rule. 

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

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

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

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

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

logs. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of records. Second, a record-keeping practice that requires inspectors routinely to review two 
01-16-'17 08:49 FROM-AMES RESEARCH 5033642380 T-614 P0021/0022 F-580 

• 

5 

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

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

carrier's compliance with the flight time limits. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

·. to produce the minimum records needed for the F M to objectively judge compliance ... 

and thus insure safety .... [The 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, tnen an air carrier's 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

individual pilot record beca~se the record indicates that Premier did not do so. 
01-16-'17 08:49 FROM-AMES RESEARCH 5033642380 T-614 P0022/0022 F-580 

• 

6 

significant time and resources that FAA inspectors were able to piece together the pilots' 

flight and duty time). 

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

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

assessing a civil penalty of$1,125.5 

Issued this Z3~d day of August, 1999. 

S<IA 

SflA 

SSA 

S8A 

58 A 

S<IA 

S<JA 

Sa A 

S8A 
1_. 

C. 01-16-'17 08:41 FROM-AMES RESEARCH 

1-. 

:~ 

5033642380 T-614 P0001/0022 F-580 

0 URGENT OFOR REYlllW 0 AS REQUESTllD 

Toll-Free: 888-345·0809 Ph oratones,lnc. • 1891 16 St SE S • one: 503-588-3330 • Fax· 503 364 alem, OR 97302 - - ·2380 •• rnesstaff@amesresearch .com 

Ames Research Lab -