### 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
InThe Matter Of: 

### UNITED STATES OFAMERICA DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION OFFI(;,E OFHEARINGS

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 ofMotion 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 

### "availablefor inspection' as required by 14 C.F.ll. § 

### 91.407(c).. ..page 6 of8 paragraph 4 ofthe ORDER". Herein Attached as (Exhibit "1" ) RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION OFADDITIONALAUTHORilY 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 courtthat 14 C.F.R. 

### § 91.407 (c) is regarding the Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, oralteration. Herein Attached as (Exhibit "2.") 2. Respondent would argue that after many hours ofresearch ofthe 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 pursuantto 14 C.F.R. 

### §91.417(c). Respondent would submit 

### to this courtthat 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 thiscourt 

### that Respondent made available for inspection the aircraft and engine logbooks ina reasonable amount oftime 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 ofthe crew..,..." The lawjudge 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 courtthatComplainant's Submission of Additional Authority ofcase

### In Re SchumanAviation 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 andAdministrator v. Weinstein, 

### NTSB Order EA-3675 (1992) do not have anything to do with aviolationunder 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 producehis logbooks,

**notfail~d**

### to produce as Complainant claims in his submission ofadditional authority. Respondent would argue that he didnotrefuse 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 ofAdditional Authority ofcase 

### In Re Schuman Aviation Co. LTD, 

### FAA Order 2016-2(2016). Inthat 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 inspectedpursuantto 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 ofproof

### attrial. 8. Respondentwould requestthis court grant Respondents Motion for Summary Judgment and other relieffiled 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

# llii5 William A. Curtright,DBA Respondent Telephone: (503) 209-7388 Fax (503)485·0812

### 01-16-'17 08:43 FROM-AMES RESEARCH
Dated this_l3_dayofJanuary 2017 Respectfully submitted,



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

### 5033642380 T-614 P0006/0022 F-580



### DocketNo. FAA-2015-1319 (Civil Penalty Action) 

## SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration (Fax and Certified FirstClass Mail) Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 WilburWrightJ3ui1ding, Suite 2Wl000 Fax: (202) 267-1293 ONE COPY Judge J.E. Sullivan (Fax, Email, and Certified FirstClass Mail) U.S. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New JerseyAvenue, SE (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 David F. Shayne, FAA Attorney (Fax, Email, and CertifiedFirstClass Mail) Complainant's Counsel · NorthwestMountain 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"fA1'ION OFFICE OFli'EARlNGS WASHINGTON, DC In The Matter Of: ) ) ) ) ) DocketNo. 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. 1Among 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.) ·OnNovember 

### 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· aTelephone 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.

1Tltis 

### Novembco· 18,ZO 

### 1 G

Order Identifies the pt'lorsuot1lllal'y

**judr:m~nt** andether n1o1ion tilinss by doe portico. duo•lns <ho P••lod ofOctobeo·ll, 2016 to•·ooosJI Novoonbco· IG, 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) 

### ofthe 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 summaryjudgement motion are also b•·iefly highlighted he1·ei11. OnNovember 16, 

### 2016, the FAA filed by

**fa~;** a collrtesy copy ofafour (4) page document titled Complainant;s Motion 

### ibr Partial Decision (Sunimary Judgn1ent) ('"CrossMotion"), The cover sheetto 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). OnNovember 21, 

### 20I6, the FAA flied by U.S. Mail afour (4) page dLipllcate ofi!s faxed Crosa·Motion. There we1•e no attaohn1cnt$ included in the n1allins. Neither the fMed CO\Irtcsy copy ofthe FAA's Ct·oss-MotiOI1, 

### 1101' the mailed 

### filil1g ofthe FAA's C•·oss·Motion. referenced a11y attachments Ol' exhibits withi11 the four-pae,e document, At the beginning ofthe 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!lryjudg111ent 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 overMr. 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 ofthe FAA's **'"'sigi\~d** Complaim

**(dat~d** May 19.

**~The** PAA ug1·ced dul'li\S the OUCO!ll!>el' 2. lO IG **'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 2ofs

### 01-16-'17 08:44 FROM-AMES RESEARCH Z016·12·J4 09:11 

### 5033642380 ·1 1 :>>' 

### T-614 P0009/0022 F-580 20LS).J Accordh\g to the Comp1ai11t, the FAA had $ent the Respondent nLcucr on o1· nbO\ItJuly 1, 2014. Qsking the Respondc•lt toprovideit$ maintenance records for inspection. (Con1pl. 2·3 § 

### ll112.) Although

**~he** Respondent aokl\owlcdged 1'eceipt oftheLetto1·, 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 aviolation 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. (Conipl. 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). (Compi, 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> amatter oflaw of

**th~** entire Complaint, on the grounds that he did p•·oduoe the doclu11en\S th¢ FAA 

### had.rcqiiCStcd. In 

### S\ippon ofhis 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 ad111issibilityofany 

### ofthe Respondent's Exhibits. ) OnNovember: 17,20IS. the RespolldCnt t'aised objections to tile validityofthe **~nslgned compl~int,**  (Show Couse S101t I.) Sovontooo ( 17)·day• Inter, on Oocun1bo•·4. 20IS, the PAA's Ro!ponso to Show Couse

**w~s** filed. which included asigned version oFthe Mny 19. 2015 COilllllninr. (FAA Res11. I. Attach.) On Mny IS. 2016 this Coutl found thor the f'AA

**·~** oction to t'ilo nslsncd VCI'Iion ofitb Complaint eonslillllcd aprornprcorrective action, **purAu~lll** to Federal Rule orCivil Procedure II{o). <ill«tho
**•i~ned** Colllplnint wn& Folcd prior ro the Oooomb<r IS, 20IS

**d~odlino** 'ctby the Com1 l'ortho PAA 10 nlc nRcsponN. (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~** offiling ana SCNice. Cld.) 1 Oo 0ctobcr26.

**~0** 16. the **Ro~pondent** olso 111od chc f'<)liowins: Il 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'llorion 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'yjttdgmentwere 

### 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** (ifnot all) ofthe 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 

### CFR.

# * 91.417 uv:lilable loo· iMpection by the Ad.nit1iwator or

### My authorized •·cpt•esentative ofthe 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 ofa
**Pip~r** Model PA-18135 civil aircraft, with registration numb0t' N949JP ("N949Jl'"), (Compl. 1 ,11; 

### All$, 1

**~** 1 ,) On 

### July \, 2014, 'FAA 

### Inspectot•Marrin Conroy asl,ed 

### M1', Cunrightro 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 ofthe

**I~AA's** Portland Flight Standards District Office offi<1ial **inve~tigetion** ofan e.il'Qt·al\: accide11t involving N949JP. (Compl. 1·2

**~** 2: Ans. 1

### 112; Bx. 7 111 3.) On .July 7. 201 <l, InspectorConroy •·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 

### thatthe "[r)est 

### ofthe 

### docu1nents are north inCanacla" (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 Caneda fo•• the 1'Gi\lai11del' ofthe 

### year. (/d. at 8.)

**~** Tlw

**ft~cts** p•·ol'fcred in·the 11AA 's C1·oss-Motion

**""'~~** nor **di~;\.l:;:tud dUI•in~**  **1.h~ Dco~nlbOI'**  8. 2.016 Te,lcpho•w Confol'ence, bocausc

**~01\C** orlhc

**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**JudsmcotoroI **m'll,lllll~nt w•~**  **rc~c110** Jn>tu31'Y

**2~.** J0l7. Page 4 of8

### 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 •• Ctlrtrightngain **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 FAAat

### Mr. Cmtrigbt's place of**busin~ss** 

### in Salem. 

### Oregon.• at which tilne 'fAA lnspectOl'S 

### C1.1rt Cowley 

### and Tei'I'YJuran inspected 

### the 

### aircmfi maintenance records ofN949JP. (Mor, 5: Ex.

# zat 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 ofove•· one (1) yeanfte1· the FAA's July I. 2014 initial re.QlleSt for pi'Oduction. is perse evidence ofthe **c11ar~ed**records violation. fn a recent supplemental pleadins. 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 ofSeptember 4, 20l4, the FAA had advised hi"'• vin a L0tte•· ofInvestigation ("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 September4, 2014 LOI also advlb'ed 

### Mr. Curtright rhat I'fhe ' 111 its Answer, the R¢spond<mtB$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 oftime wlicn



### ., ,,,., .i:eg•!ested

**b~~~-£'.'!'1.: -~'!'~!3**  or lnw enfoo·cel\lenl." (Mot., 

### S.) Mo·.
**Curtl:iJ!~.!J~plain~d th~t**  **~om~**________ . 

### ofhis 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, 

### 12.) 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.. lipproximately 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 ofthe logbooks. Neither tile Respondell( 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 $ummaryjudgment is reviewed separately. Steven Baicker-McKcc, et

**~1.,** 

### F"rtural C11!ll RulesHandbook, 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·alRtole ofCivil 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 oftheh· $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, 20l7. 

### 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 summaryjudgmenl 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.** 

### conmined 

### 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 ofdiscovery us well as potential heal'illg dates (ill the 

### eventtile mattet·s herein ru·c 

### not fully 

### resolvecl by stm1t11at'Yjuclg111ei\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 Dismil!, 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'scomplc::tc copy ofits 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 

### tothe Rl)!ip6ndcnt the **b~sis** fOI' its proposed·$11;000·civil-penalty, .... is denied. S. The Respondent's Novembt:r 

### 19,2016Motion to Disl\liss. on the srounds that the Respondent provided a nmjority ofits 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, l0. The Respondent's Novembe1· 19. 2016 Motion to Dismiss, on the grounds that 11e ptod\ICCd

**hi~** aircraft records 

### within nr<i:asonable **tim~.** is 

### reserved as part ofthe 

### pending su111nuuyjudsrnentp•·oceeding. I\, "l'lou Rc•p<mdont'a **!'lovem~OI'** 10, 2016 Modon "' nioo"i·K Oil tile crounds thatlhe FAA'$ proposed civilpenalty qf$)1,000 violates the Eighth Arncndmcl1! pl'ohibition against 

### Cl'uel ond um1sual plmishment, i$ 

### denied. 12. Pot· clarifications ofthi:; 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·2WIOOON 

### 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, WA 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 ofTmnsportatiM Office ofHearings, 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)., Svbpane: (/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:st.-40/') m<W i · II, ·1: 1: J: (1) II h<ll<i b111!ln epprovfld lor

**~!vm te~**  **!:l~>rvica** bya **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$rh;:ilii been m:l.de. (I>) No p9ryon (fdd11nnlon5/lnd0X.php? **W1d!tl=649&hclshi-'600&Jrra.me=tnro<~t.daUd-G61dfi57Saaa132<1.61**0()9.:0<1'348t!a5Sa9&tarm **(IOOV~,jl.lorm uc,..Tltl~:14:00;;~pt~;~r:I:SuOcMpler:l":P~rMl1**  ;$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£tuta9tAW:

**(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** apnvale Pilotco11ific: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** oftho **m.s!ol~:~nl!.neil** (!O'eflnmol\s/indllrlt.php? Wldll'l=840&holght..:SOO&Uiilm0-=ll\!l/&dt()d...ae-40tl7c700!'7ddgQ4d71feol1a37dl'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, orboth **showcQn~~!y** lhatlhe 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;$':!~...2!PS££~9-!l~!!"IW.'!oft~~:g1.407l**  relNllding. oranarauon fla:; JlQ\ appr!:dl!.bt)' ehangecl the fngM ..Mraelall$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<IAOS8074!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 OrderNo. 99-7



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

### DocketNo. CP97NMOOOS DECISION ANn ORDER1 

### T-614 P0017/0022 F-580

This appeal involves flight time recordkeeping by 

### Part 13

### 5aircarriers_ It 

### raises the issue ofwhichrecords Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

### inspectors may use to determine compliance with the flight time limitations. This case does not involve any allegation that Premierviolated the flight time limits themselves; only recordkeeping is at ISSUe. 

### Premier Jets, 

### Inc. (Premier) has appealed the lawjudge's decision finding that Premier committedthree offour alleged recordkeeping violations.2 

### This decision denies Premier's appeal and affirms the lawjudge's decision assessing a civil penalty of$1,125. Premier is 

### aPart 135 operator located in Oregon that employs about 30 pilots. Premier transports transplant teams and donor organs for severalhospitals. The 

### FAA conducted an in-depth inspection ofPremier's operationfrom March 25 1 The 

### Administrator's civilpenalty decisions are available onLEXIS, 

### WestLaw, andother computerdatabases. They 

### are also availableon CD-ROMthroughAeroflightPublications. Finally, they can be 

### found in Hawkins's Civil Penaltv 

### Cases DigestService and 

### Clark Boardman 

### Callaghan's Federal AviationDecisions. Foradditional infonnation, see 64 

### Fed. Reg. 43,236, 43,250 

### (August 9, 1999). 'A

### copy ofthe lawjudge's writteninitial 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 ofthe inspection, Premier provided fAA inspectors with its individual records ofpilot 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 ofthe 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 ofthe following regulation: § 13S .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 inspectionby the Administrator, the following - ( 4) An individual record ofeach 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 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 violation on three ofthe four counts in the complaint The lawjudge noted as follows: • Count 1. Premier's chiefpilotconceded that oneofl'remier'spilots 2 Acopy ofthe lawjudge's written initial decision is attached. 3 Acrew duty time sheet is aweekly compilation ofapilot's on-duty, ftight, crew-rest, and offdutytime.

# •

.. 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 ofMarch 2, 1996. Regarding Count/, the law judge founda violation of Section I 35.6J(a)(4)(vii). • Count

# z. The complaint alleged that Premier failed to maintain an individual record ofapilot in sufficient detail regarding aJanuary 14, !996, flight. At the hearing, however, the FAA inspector acknowledged that

### the pilot incorrectly wrote downthe wrong date on the flight log (January 14, 1996, instead ofMarch 14, 1996) and that the-ore·W·dutytime sheet was correct. The lawjudge concludedrhat theflight with questionable recordkeeping occurredon March I 4, 1996, andthat Complainant improperly drew up Count 2of the complaint by alleging aJanuaty 14, 1996,flight. As aresult, rhe law judge dismissed Count2. • Count3. 

### Premier's chiefpilot conceded thatits pilots enteredthe wrong date on the flight log (March 19 instead ofMarch 18, 1996). The crew duty sheets were correct. Regarding Count3, the lawjudge founda 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 foundaviolation of Section 135.63(a}(4)(viQ. The lawjudge said that Premier mustdirect attentionto its pilots' recordkeeping practices to **elimina~e** 

### errors. He pointed out that accurate records mustbe kept ifthe operator is to know when to schedule pilots within the permissible limits and ifthe FAA is to know whetherthe operatorhas done so. The lawjudgeconcludedthat Premier's recordkeeping violated Section 135.63(a)(4)(vii) because it did not collllist ofboththe flight logs and the crew duty time sheets. According to the lawjudge, Premier's recordkeeping was inadequate both for containing inaccuracies and for necessitating cross-checking. The lawjudge assessed a $375 penalty for eachofthe three violations he found, for atotal of$1, 125. Premier has appealedthe lawjudge'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 notpartofthe "individual record" ofeach 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 violationbecause the flight logs 

### were part ofthe "individual record" ofeach pilot's flight time. Premier notes thatthe inspectors 

### were able to determine the pilots' true flight time by comparingthe 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 actedappropriately whenthey examined the flight logs. Indeed, ifthe inspectors had chosento ignore oroverlook any compliance concerns raised 

### by their examination ofthe crew dutytime sheets, they would have been abrogating their critical safety duties. The inspectors acted appropriately in conducting a searching andthoroughreview ofPremier'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 partofthe "individualrecord'' ofeach pilot. The lawjudge found that Premier should

### have kept the flight logs as part ofthe ''individual record" ofeachpilot, because Premier was using the flight logs ratherthan the crew duty time sheets to schedule its pilots.' As the lawjudge noted, th.e flight time recordkeeping 4Although the lawjudge's decision may suggest that ifPremierhad keptthe crew duty time sheets and the flight logs together as the individual pilotrecords, Premierwould not have committed any violations, it is unclearthatthis is true. 

### First, therewere still errors inboth types ofrecords. Second, arecord-keeping practicethatrequires 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 canreadily monitorthe air carrier's compliance with the flight time limits. Premier, however, did 

### notkeep the flight logs as part ofthe individual record of each pilot. Instead,'

### the flight logs for all ofPremier'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 notthe flight logs. Section 135.63 requires air carriers to keep individual records ofpilots used in air carrier operations in part so that FM inspectors may determine, without an undue expenditure oftime and resources, whether an air carrier is complying with the safety regulations. 

### See 43 Fed. Reg. at 46,764, stating that "[a] primary objective ofthe rule is ·. to produce the minimum records needed for the F

### M to objectivelyjudge 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 aircarrier 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 ofSouth Aem. FAA OrderNo. 96-4 at 11 (February 13, 1996) (affirming the lawjudge'sfinding that SouthAero's recordkeeping was inadequate, and noting that SouthAero had conceded thatitwas only through types ofdocuments as the individual pilotflight time record may betoo time-consuming, undermining one purpose ofthe rule, which is to facilitate and speed safety oversightby consolidating the relevant information in one record for each pilot. Itis unnecessary to reach the issue ofthe appropriateness ofkeeping the crew duty time sheets and flight logs together as the individual pilotrecord **beca~se**the record indicatesthat Premierdid 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 ableto piece togetherthe pilots' flight 

### and duty time). In conclusion, the 

### lawjudge did not 

### errin 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 ofAugust, 1999.

S<IA SflA SSA S8A 58



### A S<IA S<JA 

### SaA S8A

# 1_. C. 01-16-'17 08:41 FROM-AMES RESEARCH 

# 1-.

**:~** 5033642380 T-614 P0001/0022 F-580

0 URGENT OFORREYlllW 

### 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 -