11/30/2012 08:35 4252271007 ANM7



## PORTIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT REFER

# TO' EVIDENCE UNDER SEAL PER ORDER OF NOVEMBER 2, 201.2.'fl 1 n**~** lJ JEFFREY HARPER FAA OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL 

### 1601 LIND AVE., SW RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 TELEPHONE: 

### (425) 227-2161 FACSIMILE: 

### (425) 227-1007 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, 

## D.C.

In the Matters of: SkyWestAirlincs, Inc.



### :1. Factual Background 

### FAA Case No. 20 11NM0600 11 DMS No.: FAA-2011-0485 FAA Case No. 2011NM060010 

### DMS No.: 

### FAA-2011-0486 FAA 

### Case No. 

### 2011NM060033 

### DMS No. FAA-2011-0680/0779 

### FAA Docket 

### No. CPl.lSWOOOO Honorable Richard C. Goodwin


### POST-TRIAL BRIEF PAGE 02/23



### These cases aU involve miscounting ofbaggage ofSkyWest flights and the subsequent operation ofthose flights with correspondingly inaccurate weight and balance data. The use ofcorrect weight and balance data is critical to flight safety, which Respondent 

### recognizes:

### ~WARNING- INACCURATE LOADING, REPORTING, OR FAILURE TO REPORT INFORMATION COULD CAUSE 

### ISSUES WITH AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCEAND**HAN~** 

### DUNG, RESULTING IN THE ENDANGERMENT OF HU

### MAN LIFE. Exhibit C-1

### 02. Complaints 

### Section I and Answers.

Complainant's Post-T:dal B:rief. In the Matters ofSkyWest Airlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA.-201l-048S, 0486,-0680,-0779 Page 1 of20 JEFFREY M. HARPER, F AAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2161 FAX: (425) 227-100711/30/2012 08:35 4252271007



### 1.1. Case No. 2011NM060011 OMS 

### No. FAA-2011-0485 This case involves three Sky West flights. ANM7 PAGE 03/23



### The first is SkyWestFlight 4659 on November 

### 22,2010, fmm Billings, Montana

### to Salt Lake City, Utah.**Complaint,~** 17-20. The second is SkyWest 

### Flight 6692 on December 14, 

### 2010 from LosAngeles, California to San Diegol California. Complaint,**~~** 21-24. 

### The third is SkyWest Flight 4800 on December 

### 15,2010 from Los Angeles, California to San Diego, California. Complaint,**~1** 25-28.
In its answer, SkyWe:st 

### admitted all the factual allegations with the exceptions ofnumbers 18, 22, and 

### 26 which 

### alleged the number of

### bags actually loaded on Flights 4569, 6692, and 4800, respectively. FirstAmendedAnswer.
On Flight4659 there were 38 standard checked bags on the aircraft. Transcript 65:21-66:1, 

### 66:20-22: There were two heavy bags on

### the aircraft. Transcript 65:21---{56;1., 67:

### l-3. The cargo loadreport (CLR) for the 

### flight listed 40 standard checked bags andno heavy bags on board the aircraft- two too many standard checked bags and two too 

### few heavy bags. Complaint**~** 

### 19; FirstAmended**Answer~** 

### FAA Case No. 20l.J.NM060011, 

### ljf JIL 19. 

### On Flight 

### 6692 there were 

### 19 standard checked 

### bags on the aircraft. Transcript 

### 45:14-16. There 

### was one 

### heavy bag on

### the aircraft. Transcript 45:**17~19.** The CLR 

### for the flight listed 20 standard checked bags and 5 heavy 

### bags o:o. board the 

### aircraft- one too many, 

### and four too man.y, respectively.**Complaint~** IV.23; FirstAmendedAnswer, FAA Case No. 2011NM060011,**~** 

### IV.23.
On 

### Flight4800 there were 

### 43 standard checked bags on

### the aircraft. 

### Transcript 49:11-13. There were 

### four 

### heavy bags on the aircraft. Transcript 49:14--16. 

### There were 

### 12 

### planeside valet/service items onthe aircraft. Transcript 49:20-50:2. 

### The CLR for the flight listed 59 standard checked 

### bags, no heavy bags, and no pl.aneside valet/service bags on board.**Complaint~** V.27, First AmendedAnswer, FAA Case No. 2011NM06001l,**~** V.27. Complainant seeks a total sanction of$99,000 

### i.o. this case, or $33,000 per

### flight. Complaint**~** VJ.3.


### 1.2. Case No. 2011NM060010 OMS No. 

### FAA-2011-0486 This case concerns 

### SkyWest Flight 6573 Oll November 17, 2010, from Denver, 

### Colorado to YampaValley. Hayden Colorado. On December 2, 2011, the Honorable Judge Goodwin granted 

### Compla1nau.t's Motion for Decision onthe qu.estion ofliability. Order Granting in Part Complainant's Motion for Decision in 

### FDMS No. FAA-2011-0486. The 

### flight was 

### operated with tbree heavy bags on board, when only 2 had been 

### accounted for inthe 

### flight's weight & 

### bal:mce iofor

### mation.Id. Complainant's Post-Trial Br:icf In the Matters ofSky West Airlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA-201 1-0485,0486,-0680,-0779 Page 2 of20 JEFFREYM- HARP!!R, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2161 FAX: (425)**227~1.007**11/30/2012 08:35 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 04/23



### Complainant seeks a sanction of$33,000 for this flight. Complaint

## 'if III.3.


### 1.3. Case 

### No. 2011NM060033 DMS 

### Nos. FAA-2011-0680/0779 This case concerns SkyWest 

### Flight 4451 

### on FebJUru;y 15) 2011, from Salt Lake 

### City to 

### Casper, Wyoming. Complaint, 

### ,-nj 10-13, Transcript 12:15-14:6. 

### Jn its answer, SkyWest admitted all the factual allegations 

### with the exception 

### ofnumber 

### 11, which alleged the number ofbags actually loaded on Flight 

### 4451. On Flight 

### 4451 there

### was one heavy 

### ba.g on the aircraft. Transcript 

### 30:18-21. Tile CLR :for the 

### flight listed no heavy bags on the aircraft. Complaint 

### 'if III.12, FirstAmendedAnswer**~** 

### III.l2. Complainant seeks a sanction of$33,000 for this flight.**Complaint~** 

### IV.3.


### 2. Argument 2.1. Double Docketing 

### On October 4, 2012, ALJ Yoder, noting the double-docketing ofFAA. Case No. 2011NM060033 ynder two DMS numbers, issued an Order ''closing" one ofthe**doc~ets. Du~:to<the** **un.ol~~:r, t~n**  

### gu,age used in that orper, Complainant andRespondent were ordered,on.**Octol!~r.2,** 

### 2014,.tq 

## brief the following issues:

.,: .· ... "

--,_., ;'

. 1. What authority, 

### ifany, is there for issuance of

### a. ••Notice ofAssignment" (NOA) 

### iri Fedcral Aviation Administration (FAA) cases which purportedly assign cases to anAdmini!:)trative Law Judge (ALJ)? 2. Are NO As required in FAA cases? 3. Are NOAs allowed jn 

### FAA cases? 4.- Is a fom1al NOAnecessary before au.ALJ can perfonn any function with respect to a case? 5. Does an AL.T havejurj.sdictiou over a case which is not assigned to him/her byJa.Ilguage**in~NOA?** 

### , . . . . ..· ... . . 6. Which. DMS case! ifany, was "closed" by the October 4, 2011**pleadi~g?** ·!..



### ·7. Is "closing a docket" the same as dismissing a docket/case?

8. Does closing a docket preclude the parties from 

### having the issues adjudic;ated? ·.

..••· 1 

### 9. Have either FAA-2011-0680 and/or FAA-2011-0779 been dismissed by the October 4, 2011 pleading? 10. Based on the actions ofthe October 4, 2011. pleading, have both cases been dismissed?
Contplai.n.ant's Post-Trial Brief In the Matters of Sky West Airlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0485, 0486, -0680,**~0779** Page 3 of20 JEFFREYM. HARPER, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2161 FAX: (425) 227-100711/30/2012 08:36 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 05/23



### 11. Any other 

### matter the parties feel should 

### be briefed with 

### respect to the Order ofOctober 

### 4, 2011.
2.1.1. NOAs are not required in FAA cases, although they are not prohibited, as they fall under the authority of an Administrative Law Judge to regulate the course of a proceeding. Section J.3.205(a) 

### ofthe Rules ofPractice describes the powers ofan Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Arnong those powers are the ability to "givenotice of, and hold, prehearing conference and hearings," ''regulate the course ofthe hearing,H and 

### "dispose of

### procedural motions and 

### requests." AlthoughNO 

### As are not

### listed specifically, they are also not specifically excluded from the

### powers ofALJs by 13.205(b). Arguably, the issuance ofa NOAfalls within the scope ofanALJ's authority to dispose of

### procedural requests 

### or to 

### regulate the 

### course ofa hearing. Certainly, 

### in. a forum with more than one ad

### judicator, as a practical 

### matter there needs to 

### be some method to designateALJs to handle 

### particular matters. Although Complainant is not 

### priv-y to the internal operating proced)ll'es ofthe Department of

### Transportation (DoT) Office ofHearings, it does appear that the NOA is the means ordinarily used to accomplish the task ofassociating a particular ALJ with a particular case. It seems 

### clear that thejurisdiction 

### ofan AL.T a1ises as a consequence 

### ofthe filing 

### ofa Complaint by an agency attorney. 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.208(a) (providing that the 

### agency attorney 

### should suggest a location for a hearing when filing a complaint) 

### and 13.205(a) (empoweringALJs to regulate the course ofthe hearing, which would presumably include the question ofwhere the hearing would be held). The use ofthe term 

### "an Administrative Law Judge•• [emphasis 

### added) in Rule 13.205(a)**indi~ c~tes,**  

### notwithstanding the existence·or absence ofan NOA, all DoTALJs have

### jurisdicti<:>,n over cases where a Complaint

### has been filed. 

### As previously discussed, 

### it wouJd 

### be pwdent 

### as a pra.ctical matter 

### to have some way offormalizing which specificALJ 

### will be handling a par:tic11lar.case.**2.1.~2.** The "closed" docket was OMS No. FAA"2011-0680, as the nearest pronoun antecedent to athat" is "DMS No. FAA"2011..0680;" this closure did not dismiss the underlying substantive case. As a general rule, the antecedent 

### to a 

### pronoun refers to the 

### most recently encountered noun. 1 The October 4. 20 11 orderreads:

1 "Unclear Pronouns and Antecedents," http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/gram_pronoun_unclear.html, last visited November 15, 2012 ("The convention is that [unclear pronouns] refer to the closest noun or pronoun."). The Little Brown H(lndbook. Sixth Edition, reference 12b ("Place a pronoun close enough to its antecedent to ensure clarity.").

. The Chicago**Ma~iual** ofSryle, Sixteenth .Edition, 'U 5.27 ("Apronoun typically refers to an**ailtecede~t_:** that .is, an earlier noun, pronoun. phrase or 

### clause in the same sentence or, ifthe-reference is unambiguous, in a previous sente.nce.'').
Coroplai.nan.t's Post-Trial Brief In the Matters ofSky West Airlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA-20ll**~0485,** 0486, -0680, -0779 Page 4 of20 .TEF'f'RF.YM. HARPER, FAAATIORNEY TEL: (425)**2:27~:2161** FAX: (425) 227-100711/30/2012 08:35 4252271007 ANM7



### TI1e same proceeding was previously docketed in FDMS 

### as FAA-2011-0680 but was not transmitted to this office. Accordingly, that docket is hereby closed. PAGE 05/23

Applying 

### the general rule, the nearest noun is**"FAA-2011-0680~"** which 

### was not transmitted 

### to the 

### DoT Office ofHeadngs 

### and had 

### not been assigned

### to a Judge. Thus, "that" refers to 

### "FAA-201.1.**~0680."** Also, as FAA-2011-0779 had already been in assigned, it is reasonable to conclude some substantive action

### had been taken case 

### -0779, making it 

### more logical 

### to close**~0680,** which, having not been**assigued~** 

### would not have had any substantive action taken. The conte:;rt ofthe 

### la.u.guage used in the October 4, 2011 

### Order makes 

### it clear 1hat the underlying action was not being dismissed; the October 4 Order reads "that docket" not "those dockets." Tims, the case is still viable lUlder at least one docket. Neither would the closure act to dismiss 

### the case in 

### such a manner 

### ihat the doctrine of

### resfudicata/claim preclusion would 

### be a defense in the other docket. For a claim to be precluded in a subsequent action, the earlier action must have resulted in a finaljudgment 

### on the merits. Restatement 2nd ofJudgments,§§ 17(3)2 alJd 27.3 Even if

### it were assumed the "closure" ofa docket acted to dismiss the 

### underlying case, Complainant would not 

### be barred from refiling 

### the Complaint. 

### In sum, tl1e 

### Order ofOctober 4, 2011. had the 

### effect of

### administratively closing DMS No. FA.A-2011-0680; it had absolutely no effect ofthe viability ofthe underlying substantive**c~c** which proceeded to hearing as DMS No. F AA-2011-0779. Even ifithad dismissed the underlying substantive case, 

### it am.ouuted to harmless error. Since there 

### was 

### nofmaljudgment on 

### the merits any dismissal could have been "cured" by the 

### refiling the Complaint. Since the case proceededto hearing, the necessity ofactually doing so is moot.


### 2.2. Merits- The record 

### in these cases 

### demonstrates Respondent operated 

### iJJrciaft with inaccurate loading data. Respondent has admitted all the material facts 

### alleged in the 

### Complai:o.t, with the exception ofthe number ofbags actually loa.ded onto the aircraft. Respondent is a direct air carrier. Answers_4 Respondent's Weight andBalance progran1 is incorporated into its operations specifications. AnGrammar Girl, "Pronouns and Antecedents," http://grammar_gulckanddirtyti.ps-com/**pronolll)s~aud"an.tecedents.aspx.** lastvisited November 15, 2012. ("Our ftrst antecedent problem concerns antecedents that are missing or very far away from thei.r corresponding pronouns."). 2 "Ajudgment ln favor ofeitherthe plaintifforthe defendant is conclusive, in a subsequent action between them on the same or a different claim, with respect to any issue actually litigated and determined ifits determination was essential to thatjudgm.en.t'' [emphasis added]. · 3 ''Whenan issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, andthe de**tcrminati~n** is essential to thejudgmen4 the determination is con.clusivc in a subsequent action between the farties, whether on the same or a different claim" [cmphasi.s added]. ·

Admitting Respondent holds ·a Scheduled Air Carrier Certificate and conducts its operations underPart 121. Complainant's Post-Trial Brief In the Matters of SkyWestAirlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA-20 11-0485, 0486,**~0680, ~0779**  Page 5 of20 JEFFREYM. HARPER, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2161. FAX: (425) 227-100711/30/2012 08:35 4252271007 ANtv17 PAGE 07/23

swers. 5 That program requires Respondent's personnel to mark the number ofstandard, heavy, and planeside loaded ba.gs 

### in the appropriate block ofthe CLR. 

### E.g. Answer, FAA Case No. 

### 2011NM060011**~1** 

### 11, 13, 14, and 15. Respondent's Weight 

### & 

### Balance Manual, in tum, re

### quires that the data from 

### the CLR be used to constructthe loadmanifest. 

### Exhibit C-102,**~** 12.A and 

### B.
In 

### each 

### flight in each**case~** 

### the 

### aircraft were operated with CLRs and load manifests which did not properly reflect the actual count ofbaggage loaded on the aircraft: Case No.- Flight CLRData 6 Actual Coullt 7**FAA~2011~0485-** 

### 4659 40 standard bags. 

### 38 standard bags. 8

2 heavy bags.9

............., ....,.•, ........................-..·-·------------··--·-----·----··--------·----·-··""''''"'''

....,...,........---·---·------·------..·---------·Tu·------ 

### FAA-2011-0485- 

### 6692 20 standard bags. 19 standard

### bags. 5 

### heavy bags. 1

### heavy bag. 11



### ·----..·----------·---.._ .._______. ______**,.,~ ··-·····~·~···-····-·-** 

### ..- ..--..·--·----·-..--..· ..---·--·--------·----rT-----·--··· FAA-2011-0485- 

### 4800 59 standard bags. 43 standard bags.·

.



### FAA-2011-0486- 6573 0 

### heavy bags. 

### 0 planesidebags. Motion for Decision granted 12/2/11 4 heavy 

### bags. 13 12 planeside bags. 14 Motion for Decisi.on. granted 12/2/11



### ---·-·-···-····-..·····-····-·······-----·--·..·-·-·-....__________.._..___________..___,._____.............____..........................._ ......--·------..··---·-r·-·-----·---....--.--..-· F



### AA-20 11-0680/0779- 4451 0 heavy bags. l heavy bag. :> In. every case, Respondent acknowledges that the CLR did not accurately reflect the baggage**~­** tually loaded onthe 

### aircraft Transcript 83:11-16. 16

5 Admitting its 

### operations specifications require aircraft loading be accomplished according to itsWeight & Balance Operations Manual (W &B Manual). 6 All CLR 

### figures were 

### admitted by Respondent in itsAnswers. 7 All testimony regarding the number ofbags actually onthe aircraft is 

### unrebutted. 8 

### Transcript 65:21-66:1, 66::20-22. 9 Transcript 65:21-66:1, 67:1-3. JOT • ranscnpt 45:14-16. JJ Transcript 45:17-19. 12 Transcript 49:il-13. 13 Transcript 49:14-16. J4 •

Transcnpt 49:20-50:2. 15 Transcript 30:1.8-21.

. . 16 Counsel for respondent: "

...there's no dispute that there was some disparity between the**nu~bcr** ofitems that were recorded onthe Cargo Load Report and the number ofitems that were observed by three FAA**in~** spectors as they were deplaned from the aircraft." See Footnote 2.
Complainant's Post-Trial Brief In the Matters ofSkyWestAirlines, Inc. DMS Nos.**FAA~20l.** J-0485, 0486, -0680, -0779 Pa2e 6 of20 JEFFREY M. FURPER, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227<2161 FAX: (425)227-100711/30/2012 08:36 4252271007 ANM7

2.2.:1.. Respondent operated as an air carrier under Part 121 in violation of its operations specifications. PAGE 08/23



### Section 119.5(g) ofthe Federal Avia:tion Regulations (FAR) prohibits a person. from operating as 

### an air carrier 

### in violation ofits operations specifications. Respondent is an 

### air carrier. Answers. 

### Its W &B Manual is incorporated into its operations specifications. Answers, 

### Exhibit C-103. The W&B Manual requires the number ofbags to be marked inthe appropriate block on the CLR. .Answers. As the table above indicates, Respondent failed to do this for eachflight in question, thereby violating its operations specifications.

2

..2.2. Respondent operated an aircraft under Part 121 in violation of its operations specifications. 

### Section 

### 119.5(1) ofthe FAR prohibits a 

### person from operating an aircraft tmder 

### Part 121 in. violations ofits operations specifications. 

### As discussed above, Respondent violated 

### its operations specifications by recording inaccurate information onthe 

### CLR for the flights in qu.estion. Respondent then 

### operated each 

### flight while in violation oftiJose operations specifications. 

### Answers.17
2.2,3, Re:.;pondent operated aircraft with inaccurate weight and balance data. 

### Section 121.693 requires that the load manifest contain. the total weightofthe**aircraft~** 

### fuel and oil, 

### cargo and**baggage~** 

### passengers and crcwmembers, as 

### computed under approved procedures. 

### 14 C.F.R. §§ l2L693(a) and 

### (c). Additionally; a properly calculated weight is required 

### to show 

### the aircraft 

### is loaded such thatthe center 

### ofgravity is within approved limits. 

### 14 C.F.R. 

### § 12l.693(d). Approved procedures, as applied to 

### tins**case~** 

### means the procedure found in Respondent's W&B Manual as incorporated into its operations specifications. Exhibit 

### C-103; Transcript 

### 133:17-19. Because the CLR for each flight inaccurately reflected the amount ofbaggage actually loaded 

### on the aircraft, it was not completed using approved procedures. The CLR data is, in 

### turn, used to complete the load manifest. Exhibit 

### C-1 02,**~~** 

### 12.A and B. Although Respondent implies that corrections to the load manifest 

### might have been m.ade to correctly reflect each aircrafts' loading, there is no substantiating evidence inthe record ofthis allegation. The sole evidence in 

### this case shows that Respondent uses the CLR datato generate the lgad manifest, in accordance with its weight and balance program. 

### !d. Although the weight and balance program allows for last minute changes to aircraft loading, Exhibit C-1**07~ ~**  

### ll.B de-

. scribes procedures 

### to be followed when aircraft loading changes. Changes

# are to be reflected on the CLR, made with the concurrence ofthe PIC, with notification to Station Operations. Exhibit**7**

### Admitting to allegations taking the general form of"SkyWest thereafter operated [N-numberJ 

### as Flight [FlightNumber] to {destination]."
Complainant's Post-Trial Brief In. tbe. Matters of SkyWestAirlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0485, 0486,-0680,-0779 Page 7 of20 JEFFREYM. HfJU>ER, E-\A.ATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2161 FAX: (425) 227-100711/30/2012 08:35 4252271007 ANt•17 PAGE 0'3/23

C-1

### 02,, ll.B; Transcript 147:16-18. The :record is devoid ofany evidence that any ofthese procedures took place on any ofthe flights at issue. The preponderance ofthe evidence indicates that Respondent completedthe CLRs with incorrect information, and used the CLRs to complete the load**manifests~** which would in tum be inaccurate. Thus, Respondent violated Section**121.693(a)~** 

### (c), and (d).


### 2.3. Sanction -The sanction 

### sought In these 

### cases is appropriate and 

### warranted by the 

### facts. · Contrary to Respondent's asserted affirmative defenses, the sanction sought in this case is neither "excessive''nor does it violate FAApolicy.

2.3.1.. Factual Background Respondent is an air carrier. Answers. SkyWest is a large business, with operating revenues in excess of

### $1

### do million per

### year andmore

## than 1,500 employees. Respondent's Responses to Complainant's Discovery 

### Requests, Requests forAdmission Nos. 

### 1and 2. 18
It has the financial ability to 

### pay a $33,000penalty 

### in DMS No. FAA"2011-0486. Respondent's Response to Complainant's Discovery 

### Request, Request for AdmissionNo. 3. 19 

### Ithas the financial ability to 

### pay a 

### $99,000 pe11alty in 

### DMS No. 

### FAA-2011"0485. Respondent's Response to Complainant's Discovery 

### Request, Requ.est forAdmission. No. 4.2° It has the financial ability to pay 

### a $33,000 penalty 

### in DMS No. FAA-2011-0680/0779. Respondent's 

### Response to**Complain~** ant's Discovery Request, Request forAdmission No. 3.21 Respondent has paid 

### $243,000 in 

### civil penalties 

### over eight cases involving improperly documentedbaggage and cargo duriJ1g the time peliod December 2008 through September, 2010:n 

### FAA Case No. Penalty Paid FARs Violated Date ofViolations 2010NM060106 

### $24,000 119.5(g), 119.5(1), 121.693(a), September, 

### 2010 121.693(c), 121..693(d) 20IONM060068**$144~000** 

### 2010N1'v1060076 119.5(g), 119.5(1), 121.693(a), April-May, 2010 121.693(c), 121.693(d)

18 Docket lds. FAA-2011-0485-0013 and FAA-20ll-0779·0008. 19 Docket ld. FAA-2011-0485-0013. 20 Docket Id. FAA-2011-0485-0013. 11 Docket Id. FAA-2011-0779-0008. 22 Docket Id. FAA-2011-0485-0013, Requests for Admission 5-10; Docket Id. FAA-2011-0779-0008, Requests forAdmission 4-9.
Complainant's Post·Trial Brief 1n the Matters ofSkyWest Airlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0485, 0486, -0680, -0779 Page 8 of20 JEFFREYM. HM.PER,FAAATTORNEY 1EL: (425) 227"2161 FAX: (425) 227-100711/30/2012 08:35 4252271007



### 2010NM060020 $45,000 2009NM060124 2010NM060l00 $10,000 ANfv17



### 119.5(g), 119.5(1), 

### l21.693(a), August-November, 

### 121.693(c), 2009 119.5(g), 119.5(1), l21.693(a), August, 

### 2010 121.693(c), and 121.693(d) 

### 2009NM060050 $10,000 l19.5(g), 119.5(1), 121.693(a), March, 

### 2009 121.693(c), 2009NM060023 $10,000 119.5(g), involving**improper~** December, 

### 2008 

### ly documented baggage 

### loadmg. PAGE 10/23

A discussion of

### the aircraft perfonn.ance implications ofimproper loading 

### canbe found inthe FAAWeight & Balance Handbook, 

### FAA-H-8038-lA, Chapter 1 (Exhibit C-4).Amongth.e potential hw..ards listed ther.e are: 

### • Excessive Structural Loads • Degraded Climb 

### Performance
• · Reduced Range • Exceeding center-of-gra1iity 

### limits
• Higher takeoff speeds • Higher landing speeds
• .Longe.r 

### talceoffdistances • Longer landing 

### distan9es: ·. • Reduced service ceiling 

### Id.**Respo~dent** is aware ofthese hazards to 

### safe operation posed by inaccurate.loading- 

### its W&B Manual wams: 23

. 

# I!JWARNING- INACCURATE LOADING, REPORTING, OR FAILURE TO REPORT INFORMATION COULD CAUSE 

### ISSUES WITH AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCEAND**HANDLIN~** 

### RESULTING IN THE ENDANGERMENT OF HUMAN LIFE. (SEALED) 

### It has also issued a Customer Service Bulletinthat states "full cbnipliance" with its loadingprocedures is required to**~'mitigate** identified safety**risks~"** Exhibit R-11 (Under Seal) and Transcript Under Seal29:3-l8. (END SEALED PORTION) Respondent operates its aircraft with a 20-30 minute turnaround 

### time. Transcript 75:20-76:5, 

### 109:4-10, and 

### 145:11-22.**~J** Complaint in FAA-2011-0485,**~** II.16; Complaint in FAA-2011-0486, '11 U.9; Complaint in FAA-2011-0680/0779, '11 II.9; and Answers_
Complainant's Post-lrial Brief Jn the Matters ofSkyWestAJ:rU:nes, Inc. OMS Nos. FAA-2011-0485, 0486, -06&0, -0779 n .... ,.A o ,...;-.,n JEFFREYM. HARP£R., FAAAJTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2161 FA."'<: (425) 227-100711/30/2012 08:35 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 11/23

2.3.2. Standard '•An administrative agency is entitled to substantial deference 

### in assessing the civilpenalty ·appropriate 

### for a violation ofits regulations. 

### The Administrator's 

### choice ofa sanction is not to be overturned unless it is unwarranted 

### iJJ. law or withoutjustification in 

### fact "NL Industries, 

### lnc. v. 

### Dept. ofTransportation, 901 F.2d 141, 144 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Further, 

### 1J,te Administrator has the ability to impose 

### the FAA's 

### sanction policy on appeal ifthe assessed civil penalty is 

### not consistent with the policy. 

### In the matter**ofWarbelow~'i**

### Air Ventures, Inc., FAA. Order No. 2000-3 (February 3, 2000) at 20; 

### In the matter of NorthwestAirlines) FAA. OrderNo. 1990-37 (November.**7~** 1990) at 

### 8-9.
Under 49 U.S.C. 

### § 46301 (a)(l)) "aperson is liable to the United States Govenunent for a civil penalty ofnot more than $25,000 for violating

... (B) a regulation prescribed or order issued tmder 

### any provision to 

### which clause (A) ofthis 

### paragraph applies." The 

### authority for issuing 

### Parts 119 and 121 ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulation includes 49 U.S.C. Chapters 401, 441, and 447, all ofwhich are covered by clause (A). 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(l)(A), 14 C,F.R. Parts 119 and**12l(Preamble)~** 

### . In detennining an appropriate civil penalty, the Administrator considers a variety offactors: 

### 1. The nature and circumstances ofthe violation, c 2. The extent and gravity ofthe violation. 

### 3. The person's 

### degree ofculpability, 

### 4. The person's 

### history ofprior violations, 5. The person's ability to pay the civil penalty, 6. Tile effect on the person's ability to stay 

### in business, 

### and 7. Oilier matters asjustice may require. 

### In the 

### Matter ofWarbelow :s-

### Air Ventures, Inc., FAAOrder No. 2000-3 at 

### 16-17 

## n. 22 and 21 (February 3, 2000). TheAdministrator has the burden of 

### justif);ing the 

### an1ount ofcivil penalty sought. 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.224(a); 

### In the Matter of Luxemburg. FAA Order 1994-18 (June 22, 1994) at 4. To guide the FAA's 

### prosecutorial discretion, the FAA has promulgated penalty guidelines, which are found 

### in FAA Order 2150.3B Chapter 7 andAppendix B dated October 1, 2007 (Sanction Guidance). The San.ction Guidance contains tables that establish specific penalty ranges for different types ofviolations?4 The starting point for a sanction determination is the middle ofthe sanction. :r.ange.

24 Sanction Guidance,Appendix B. Complainant's Post-Tr.Jal Brief In the Matters ofSky West Airlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0485, .0486,-0680,-0779 Page l 0 of20 JEFFREY M. ff.t..RPBR, FAAATIDRNEY TEL: (425) 227-2161 FAX: (425)227-100711/30/2012 08:35 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 12/23

Sanction Guidance, Appendix B,**~** 3.c. The Complainant's sanction detenni.nati.on does not, however, reflect a fixed mathematical computation; in addition to the published penalty ranges, it takes into account thirteen factors set forth 

### in Chapter 7, paragraph 4 ofthe sanction gnidance, wblch address the issues set forth in 

### Warbelow. 25
TI1ese fa.ctors are used to adjust the sanction up or down. from the middle ofthe recommended range. The FAA Order reflects the Administrator's general views about appropriate civil**penal~** ties; civil penalties must reflect the totality ofthe circumstances surrounding the violations. 

### Folsom

# sAir Service, 

### Inc., FAA Order No.**2008~** 11 (November**6~** 2008). 

### Th.e weight to be given 

### to each ofthese factors is withinthe discretion ofthe Complainant; '<the Complainant maintains relative prosecutorial discretion 

### in determining the case's fmal aggregate weight in proposing the level ofcivil penalty." 

### In the Matte-r of William A. Luker, 

### Jr., FAA DocketNo. CP09SW0008, · 

### 2010 WL 1989430 (May 

### 13, 2010) (Order Granting Complainant's Motion for Summary Judg

### m.e:ot).

•
... > '**-~-·~** - •••**-~** : • 2.3.3: Respondemt's.Affirmative Defenses lack merit. Respondent

# raises**~even** affmnative defenses: 26 ' • '' •' •• ; '-l ;·,'**~** . •

. .''.,.:· ··.·.

:1'

....

1

.. The sanction squght is 

### unwarranted.



### ·2. The case 

### is 1Ulwarranted.

3. Aircraft perform.a.uce 

### was not actually affected 

### by the errant weight and 

### balance infonnation. 4. Respondent has taken subsequent reme-



### . dial measures.

25 Those factors are: a.. Nature ofthe violation; b: Whetherthe violation was inadvertent and not deliberate; c. The certificate holder's level ofexperience; d. The attitude oftbe violator.; e. The degree ofhazard; f. Whether there was action. taken by the employer or other authority againstthe em.- ployee that committed the violation(s);

26 Answers.
Complainant's Post-Trial Brief In the Matters ofSky West A.i.rJ.ioes, Jnc. DMS Nos. FAA-201 l-0485, 0486, -0680, -0779 Page ll of20 5. The average weightprogram, by ,its na-. · ture, pennits use ofweight ao.d balance

. information at odds with th.e actual weight ofthe aircraft. 6. Respondent's actions**we~·e** an honest mistake. 

### 7. Respondent has taken all

### ~~tion reg,uircd 

### to prevent future weight and balance issues..

g. Use ofthe certificate; h. Violation history; i. Decisional law; j. Ability to absorb the sanction; k. Consistency ofSanction; L Whetherthe violation

# wasreported vohmtariIy; and · m. CorrectiveAction.

.TEFFREYM.HARPER, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2161 FAX (425)**227~1007**11/30/2012 08:36 4252271007 ANM7

2,3.3.1. Affirmative Defenses 1 and2 are merit/ess- Both the merits ofthe cases and the proposed sanctions are warranted by the facts. PAGE 13/23



### The fJrst two 

### defenses are 

### without merit. As 

### discussed above, the case is 

### warranted; even Respondent effectively admits 

### the violations occurred. As discussed below, 

### the sanction 

### is appropri

### ate and comports 

### with the Administrator's sanction. guidance.
2.3.3.2. Affirmative Defense 

### 3 is merftless- Actual harm need not be shown to prove a violation and impose a penalty. The third defense amounts to a "no harm, no foul" exculpatory theory. 

### This defense is meri.tl.ess; Complainant 

### does not 

### need to show 

### actual harm to prove a violation and impose a 

### penalty. Complainant concedes 

### that there were no 

### actual safety consequences to Respondent's operation 

### ofaircraft with inaccurate loading data. Complaint does not allege 

### that some actual harm 

### occurred as a 

### result ofRespondent's 

### actions, orthat the operating limitations ofthe aircraft 

### were actually 

### exceeded. Had some actual harm**occurred~** 

### that would 

### have been an aggravating factor. 

### FAA Order 2150.3B, 

### Chapter 7,

### ~ 4.e.l ;27 

### In the Matter of Stebbins

### Aviation, Inc., FAA

### O~derNo. 2006-3 

### at**5~** 2006 WL 465373; 

### In the Matter of Aero National, Inc., FAA Order No. 2000-26 at 4, 

### 2000 VVL 1874245; 

### CfFAA 

### v. TeasArmyNational**Guard~** 2011 WL2001829 a:t 4; 

### FAA v. 

### Fe,deral Express, 

### Inc., 2011 WL 1206090 

### at 7 

### (absence ofactual harm 

### in HAZMAT proceedings is**for~** 

### tuitous) not 

### exculpatory). Instead, the absence 

### ofharm is "merely fortuitous." 

### ld
2.3.3.3. Affirmative Defense 4 fs merittess- Respondent's corrective actions have been ineffectual atpreventing further violations. 

### Respondent presented extensive evidence of"corrective action" 

### ithas 

### taken to prevent further 

### violations. Transcript 152:5-158:16, Sealed Transcript**13:18~32:8,** Exhibit R-8. (SEALED) 

### The earliest violation 

### in these cases occurred on November 10,_201

### 0; the latest on February 

### 15, 2011. 

### Exhibit R-8 helpfully lays out a 

### tim.eline of

### the 

### purported

### correcti~e**a~tion.** TIJ.e first seven occurred 

### before the earliest violation inthese cases andthus were 

### not e<ffective in 

### preventing further 

### violations:

. 1. CST 

### Conference Weight 

### & 

### BalanceWorkshops (July 2009) 2. 

### Flight Operations W&BAnalysis (February 20 1 0) 

### 3. Cargo Load Report Online Trai.ning 

### Course (April2010) 4. CST 

### Conference Weight & BalanceWorkshops 

### (July 2010) 5. 

### Load Audit Observations 

### (July 2010) 

### 6. Aircraft 

### Loading Focus Groups (August 2010)

27 "And it is not mitigating when a violation does not result in actual ham:J.; that is simply fortuitous.''

. Complainant's P.ost-Trial Brief ln the Matters ofSkyWestAirli.n.es, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0485, 0486,-0680, -0779 Page 12 of20 JEFFREYM. HARPER., FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2161 FAX: (425) 227-1.00711/30/2012 08:35 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 14/23



### 7. Basic Station Training (BST) Initial Classroom

### Weight & Balance 

### Trrunin,g (September 

### 2010) The next two measurers began in November 

### 2010, around the time the earliest violation inth.ese cases 

### occurred, Wld were clearly not 

### effective 

### in preventing the later 

### violations: 1. Designated LoadingAgent Observations (November

- December 

### 201 0) 2. Communication 

### from. CS Compliance & 

### Training (November 

### 2010 -April2011)
Additional measures were completed or begunbefore the latest violation inthese 

### cases - again 

### demonstrating the ineffectual nature oftbe "corrective action:"
L Flight Operations W&BAnalysis 

### (January 2011) 

### 2. CS Regional 

### Meetings (February 

### 2011) 3. 

### Flight Operations W&B Project (February 2011) 

### 4. Aircraft Loading 

### Procedures Development (January- March 

### 2011) 5. LAR Classroom 

### Training & OJT (February- Apri12011) Ofthe 21 listed ro.easures, 14 

### didn't work. Of

### the remaining seven, 

### some rehash previous efforts

. ···.. - ..,., 

### known to be ineffectual, or 

### are not 

### actually remedial 

### measures: ·; ''
1. CSTWeight & Balance

### Training (March 

### 2011) [Similar 

### :measures taken at 

### CST workshops in 

### July 2009 and July 

### 2010] 

## 2. Load

### Audit Report (LAR) Surveillance 

### (lVfay 2011) [Similar measure taken 

### in 

### July**2010~** 

### results not offered 

### as evidence.]**~.** ' ' . 

### 3. Flight Operations

### Analysis (September 2011):**'~analysis** 

### ofn.i.ne FAAWeight 

### and Balance LOis 

### for Todd Emerson." [Not remedial, but prepared in anticipation oflitigation.] (EN9 SEALED PORTION) 

### To be mitigating, remedial 

### actions must 

### "exceedO the 

### minimum regu

### latory or statutory requirements

... 

### Couective action taken by 

### an aJ.leged violat9r that 

### simply brings thatperson into compliance with the statutory orregulatory 

### requirements is 

### not considered in mitigation of

### sanction." FAA Order 2150.3B 1 

### Chapter 7,**~** 

### 4.m. Here, the "corrective action;' has not even served to 

### bring Respondent into compliance with regulatory or 

### statutory requirements, as Respondent committed the 

### same**reg~ato:ry** 

### violations even after 

### the purported 

### corrective action. Thus, 

### those actions cannot serve to mitigate the proposed sanction.

Complainant's Post-Trial Brief In the Matters ofSkyWest.Airlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA-2011-04&5, 0486, -Q680, -0779 Pa_ge 13 of20 JEFFREY M. HARPER, F AAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2161 FAX: (425) 227·100711/30/2012 08:35 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 15/23

2.3.3.4. Affirmative Defense 5 is meritless-Although the average weightprogram permits use ofapproximate weights, use ofan average weight program requires operators to be particularly vtgllant that aircraft loading is calculated using approved procedures. ·· Advisory Circular 120-27E provides a way for an air carrier to use average weights in the air carrier's W&B program. However, in order to use average weights, 

### an "operator must be vigilant to ensure that the weight and balance control programreflects the reality ofaircraft loading.':28Applyingthat requirement to this case, an operator must .make sure the weight and balance ofthe aircraft is calculated using the actual number ofbags loaded onto the aircraft. Additionally, for medium-cabin aircraft, as here, theAC120-27E considers weight variations as small as five poW1ds as being significant enough to be doctunented.l9To use average weights, an operator must develop a loading schedule that is typically more restrictive than the manufacturer's limits -because it must account for variations in weight and balance.30 The loading schedule is the «method for

... documenting aircraft weight and balance

... to ensure the aircraft will remain 

### within all required 

### weight and balance Hmitations

..." 31 Without an accurate baggage count, this 

### insurance 

### islost. In sum, whileAC120"27E may aJlow the use ofaverage weights,.the baggagv,

. . . ' .···- :•' count 

### must beaccurate- which simply did not occur in this case. Respondent also argues that the discrepancies were within the two-percent

### tolerance:.permitted in 

### theAC for. carriers with 

### abag survey program. Transcript**109:16~112:l5.Tbis** argument

### is mer;- itless- Respondent docs not have a bag sur.vey program. Transcript 

### 127:8'""10:**Even'.ifRe~** 

### , spondent had a bag survey program, Respondentwould have been in violatioo:'dfthatprogram as not all ofthe flights were 

### v.rithin the tolerance permitted under a bag survey program."Ttanscript 

### 109:16-112:15.32

, I 2.3.3.5. Affirmative Defenses 

### 6 and 

### 7 are merit/ess. (SEALED) The sixth and seventh defenses asserted are irrelevant. A:ffirrnative Defense 6 claims 

### the "inte:mal audits have sho'Wll adequate compliance levels [have] 

### beenreached." Answers; 

### Respondent's Trial Brief, Page 8. Althongh there was evidence that audits had taken place, nowhere in fue record do we learn 1he results ofthose audits. Sealed Transcript 14-23, Exhibit R-8- The sixth defense also claims the discrepancies are <'the product ofsimple

### human arithmetic error and in no way are indicative of SKYWEST's regulatory compliance disposition.'' Answers; Respondent's Trial**Brief~** Page 

### 8. Much 

### ofthe "corrective actions" taken involye providing training

28**ACl20~27E**•.**~** 4.b. 29 AC120-27E,**~** 101 (Table 1-1), Exhibit C-103 (Establishing the aircraft types at issue in these cases were medium-cabin). 30 AC120-27E,**~** I05.b 31 AC120-27E, Appendix 1,**~** 12. n Flight 4800 was outside the tolerance. Flight 6573 may have been outside the tolerance. Complainant's Post-Tria.! Brief In the Matters ofSkyWest Airlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FM-20ll-0485, 0486, -0680, -0779 Page 14 of20 JE:F.FREY M. HA'RPER, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2161 FAX: (425) 227-100711/30/2012 08:35 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 15/23

or changes to procedures. Exhibit R-8. 33 The lack ofeffectiveness 

### ofthese efforts indicates the problem isn't 

### with training orprocedures, but a deeper structural 

### issue. Respondentls aircraft operate 

### with a 20- to 30-r:o.inute turnaround time, which makes more precise weight and balance accounting "impractical." Transcript 76:2-4, Transcript 109:4-10l34 Transcript

### 145:11~15.**35** These cases are not the :result of some inevitable, unavoidable human 

### error that will never be eliminated as Respondent's sixth defense indicates. Rather, they are the 

### result ofan unwillingness to address what appears to be the fundamental underlying problem

- shortturnarounds that ]eave insufficient 

### time for accurate baggage couu.tin.g.

. Respondent further claims it has "taken all necessru:y corrective actions to avoid repeated mishaps suchthat additional penalties are redundaJlt and will not result in 

### any increase in safety." Answers; Respo:o.denfs Trial Brief, Page 9. Respondent claims to have spent $400,00036 on corrective actions over a**two~and-a-half**year period, an assertion that should be given. little or no weight considering there was no 

### evidence ofhowthat fi.gure was calculated and which was presentedthrough the testimony ofan employee who does not workjn accounting for Respondent. Sealed Transcript 24:10-22, 32:11-13. 

### (END SEALED PORTION) Respondent does not ''get a pass'' simply because 

### the violations were a result ofa mistake**("sim~** pl.e human arithmetic error"), the regulations prove difficult to comply with, orRespondent believes ithas**don~** everytlring possible to ensure compliance. Compliance with the FARs is mandatory, not precatory. Respondent asserts their actions have shown "adequate compliance levels 1 ' and that all steps have beentaken to "avoid repeated**mishaps.'~** The 

### only acceptable ''adequate compliance lever' is total compliance37

- Respondent fell short ofthat standard here,**::~:.** T

.. · rammg: Listing multiple CST Conference Weight and Balance Workshops, a Cargo Load Report OnUnc Training Course, Basic StationTraining Initial Classroom Weight & BalanceTraining, LAR Classroom Training & OJT, Aircraft Loading Online Training Course.
Procedural changes: Aircraft Loading Procedures Development, Designated LoadingAgentArmband · ·**4** 

### "'Q Well, to 

### actually use actual weight would be a little bit impractical when you're tryingto move arourid a number ofpeople and all their bags within, you know, short flights an.d 20- to 30-minute turnaround times. A I believe so." 35 "Q Now, oftentimes because ofthe n.atUre of'the regional airline business there are some very, very quick turnarounds, are there not? A There are." 36 Over the same period., Respondent would have had gross operating revenues ofat least $250 million. 37 See FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 1.4, Chapter 1, Section 1,**~** 14-3.B. "The ultimate goal, ofcourse, is total compliance. The FAA and the public can accept nothing less."
Complainant's Post-Trial Brief In the Matters ofSky WestAirlines, lnc. DMS Nos. FAA-:201 J.-0485, 0486, -0680, -0779 JEFFREYM. :F.iARPER, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-21.61. FAX: (425) 227-100711/30/2012 08:35 4252271007 

### ANM7 PAGE 17/23

2.3.4. 

### Multiplicity Complainanthas charged respondent with 

### violating 14 C.F.R. 

### §§ 119.5(g), 119.5(1), l21.693(a), 12l.693(c), and 121.693(d). Complainant concedes, however, that the conceptofmultiplicity limits the number 

### ofthose violations which 

### may be 

### considered 

### in detennining 

### an appropriate sanction.. Thi.s case 

### involves at least two separate violations. The test is "whether each [vjoJ.ation] requires proofofa fact which the other does not." 

### Ball v. 

### U.S., 470 U.S. 856, 861 (1985); Block

### burger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932); 

### In the Matter of 

### James Walshl 2008 WL 926620 at 

### 9 (March 31, 

### 2008); 

### In the Mauer 

### of**Folsom~~**

### Air Service, 

### Inc., 2006 WL 

### 1316970 at 11 (May 3, 2006) 

### (stating that one violation that 

### incorporates the 

### others may not be considered as a separate violation for determining the amount ofthe 

### sanction). Sections 119.5(g) 

### and 119.5(1) are separate violations, as each requires proofofa fact the other does 

### not. Section 119.5(g) provides that "'[n]o person may operate as a 

### direct air 

### carrier or as 

### a commercial operator V\lithout, or in 

### violation of, an 

### appropriate certificate and 

### appropriate operations specifications

..." Section 119.5(1) states "[n]o person may operate an aircraft under this part, 

### Part 121 ofthis chapter, or Part 135 ofthis chapter in violation of

### an air carriel" operating

.. certificate, operating certificate, or appropriate operations specifications

....**'~** 

### The _critical distinction is that 119.5(g) regulates operations as an air**car.rier~** 

### 119.5(1) regulates the operation ofan aircraft. Thus, under

# the Blockburger test, 14 C.F.R. §§ 

### 119.5(g) and 119.5(1) are considered separate violations for sanctionpurposes. This case therefore, for sanction purposes, involves at least two violations, each ofwhich is subject to the maximum $25,000 civil penalty. The Administrator seeks a total penalty of

### $33,000- the equivalent of

### $16,500 per violation.

2.3.5. Ability to Absorb Sanction 

### The size ofan air canier is a relevant consideration 

### i.n detemrining the canier's ability to absorb a sanction; the size ofthe carrier goes to that ability. Sanction Guidance, Chapter 7, 

### 'U 4.j. 38 

### The Sanction Guidance table accounts for the size ofthe air carrier by establishing general sanction ranges for different sized air 

### carriers. Sanction Guidance, Appendix B,**~** 

### 3.c.(l). Respondent holds a Part 121 operating**certificate~** 

### has operating revenues ofmore than $1 00 million, and employs more than 1,

## ·soo employees. Respondent's Response to Complainant's Discovery Request, Requests for Admission. Tims, Respondent is a Group I air carrier. 

### Id. For Group I air**carriers~** 

### published sanction ranges are: Minimum Sanction 

### $2,000- $9,999 Moderate Sanction 

### $10,000-$18,749

sa Paragraph 4.j. reads, in part: "Therefore, the FAA uses air carrier size as one means ofensuring a relatively equivalent deterrent effect on eacb air carrier that vi.olates the same FAA regulation."
Complainant's Post-Trial Brief Inthe Matters ofSkyWest Airlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA-201 ]..()485, 0486, "0680, -0779 Page 16 of20 JEFFREY M. HARPER, FAAATTORNEY

. TEL: (425) 227-2161

FAX: (425) 227-100711/30/2012 08:35 4252271007 ANtv17 PAGE 18/23



### Ma'rimum Sanction 

### $18,750- $25,000 

### !d. Further, Respondent 

### has admitted that 

### it has the financial ability to pay the proposed sanctions in these cases. Respondent's Response to Complainanfs Discovery Req,uest, Requests for 

### Admission.

2.3.6. Degree of Hazard 

### The Sanction Guidan.ce Table B-1 in Appendix B ofthe sanction guidance provides guideline 

### civil penalties 

### for 

### U.S. Air Carriers. For "operation. contrary to ops specs,'' two guidelines ar.e given, one for violations amoWJting 

### to "technical noncompliance," 

### a second 

### :for "likely potential or actual adverse effect on safe operation." There is a difference because Chapter 7, Paragraph 4.e ofthe Sanction Guidance states that the degree ofhazard presented 

### by a violation is a factor in selecting 

### an appropriate sanction.
A discussion ofthe aircraft performance implications ofimproper loading canbe found in the 

### FAA \Veight & 

### Balance Handbook. 

### Exhibit**C~4. 39**  

### Among the potential hazards listed there are:
• Excessive 

### Structural Loads • Degraded 

### Climb Perlormance
• Reduced Range 

### • Exceeding center-of-gravity 

### liJnits
• Higher takeoff speeds • Higher landing speeds
• Longer takeoffdistances • Longer landing distances
• Reduced service ceiling 

### See also Exhibit R-3, Pages 

### 1-2.40 

### The safety implications where 

### aircraft performance is worse than expected are clear. Respondent is aware ofthe effect inaccurate aircraft loading can have on safe**operation~** 

### as shown

### by the paragraph from the 

### W&B Manual which wams ofthe possibility of"the endangerment ofhuman life" as a result of"issues with aircraft performance and handling." Exhibit C-102. Although Complainaut acknowledges that there was no 

### actual harm 

### for the flights in question here, these types ofviolations unquestionably have the potential for an**ad~** 

### verse effect on safe operation. That none ofthe flights in question was operated over maximum allowable gross weight is merely fortuitous; the record demonstrates Flight 4451 

### was operated with a calculated weight a mere 270 pounds under the maximum gross weight-just**4~** 

### heavy bags, a munber not that far removed from the number ofbags counted in error onthese flights.

39 The complete 

### manual is 

### publica.lly available: athttp://www.faa.gov/librazy/manuals!aircraftl media/faa-h-8083-l a.pdf. last visitedAugust 3, 2011. 40 Sta.tiug "It is important that the aircraft remain within [tbe center ofgravity envelope] during all pbases of flight

.... As aircraft weight increases, enroute climb performance and maximum operating altitude decrease

.

.. . Due 1o decreased climb performance and lower operating altitudes, a higher than planned aircraft weight may result in a higherthan planned fuel usage for the fight [sic]." Complainant's .Post-trial Brief In the Matters ofSkyVITest Airlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA-2011.-0485, 0486, -0680, "0779 Page 17 of20 JEFFREYM. HARPER, FAAAITORNEY 1EL: (425) 227-2161 FAX: (425) 227-100711/30/2012 08:35 4252271007 ANiv17 PAGE 19/23

ExJ1ibit R-3, Page 11. Thus, the second guideline (applying to matters with "likely

### potential or actual adverse effect on safe operation" [Emphasis added]) is the appropriate sanction guideliJJe to follow. The sanction. range provided for '¢Operation contrary to ops**specs~** likely potential or actual adverse effect on safe operation" is listed as "Moderate to Maximum. Sanction Guidance, Appendix**B~** 

### Figure B-1-c(3). The middle ofthis range, which provides the starting point for 

### determining 

## an appropriate sanction, is 

### $17,500 per violation.41 Sanction Guidance, Appendix B,**~** 

### 3.c.

2.3.7. Violation History As described above, Respondent has a substantial violation history for violations relating to 

### improperly loaded aircraft. A history ofviolations is among the factors examined 

### by theAgency in determining whether a given violation. should be aggravated or mitigated for sanction purposes is the Respondent's violation history. Sanction Guidance, Chapter 7, 

## 14.h. A violation history is considered to be aggravating. particularly where, as here, the violations involve the same or similar regulations and are factually similar.ld.**at~** 4.h.(a). A short period oftime between the violations 

### is also aggravating.Jd. Respondent has paid civil penalties in eight FAAcases involvmg improperly documented baggage and cargo for flight :relating to flights conductedbetween December 2008 and September 2009. However, only two ofthe previous Orders may be used to establish a violation history as an aggravating matter in determining an appropriate sanction. 42 Although the other civil penalties may not be considered as establishing an aggravating. violation history, they do demonstrate the ineffectiveness ofthe pUiported corrective action taken

### by Respondent, as discussed 

### in. Section 2.3.3.3 above. 43
The repeated and ongoing natu.re ofthe violations is evidence that the sanctions historically 

### im.- posed have not had a deterrent effect. Subsequent sanctions shouldbe a deterrent to future violations; a penalty should represent a sanction greater than simply a cost ofdoingbusiness.

41 The bottom ofthe moderate range for a Group I air carrier is $10,000, the top ofthe maximum range for a Group I air carrier is $25,000, the middle ofthe range is found by ($10,000 

### +$25,000)/2:::::; $17,500. Sanction Guidance, AppendixB,**~** 3.c.(l). 42 The Orders in the other cases were not issued until after November 17, 2010 (when the flight in question in this case took place). Chapter 7, -,r 4.h(2) ofthe Sanction Guidance provides that a case must be finalized**be~** fore 

### it can be considered as a violation history. Thus, those flights were not consideredto be aggravating in these cases. 43 Corrective action is a factor used in determining au. appTOpr.i.ate sanction. FAA Order 2150.3B, Chapter 7,**~** 

### 4.m.
Complainant's Post-Trial Brief In tbe Matters ofSkyWestAirlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0485, 0486,-0680,-0779 Page 18 of20 JEFFREYM. HATU'ER, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2161 FAX: (425)227-100711/30/2012 08:36 4252271007 ANfv17 PAGE 20/23

2.3.8. Sanction-Conclusion The Administrator's requested sanction in this case is neither arbitrary nor capricious. It is within the range publisbed by theAdministrator in the Sanction Guidance. In fact, 

### it is less thanthe middle ofthat range, which is taken to be the starting point ofany determination. o:fsanction and indicative ofthe mitigating factors taken into consideration by theAgency. 

### It is neither unwarranted 

### in law nor \:vi.thoutjustification. 

### i.n fact. Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge should deferto theAdministrator's selection ofsanction under 

### NLindustries, Inc., 901 F.2d at 144, and enter an Order assessing the full penalties sought in the Complaints.


### 3. Conclusion The violations alleged in 1hese cases occurred. Respondent did not know how muchbaggage was loaded on 

### its aircraft. 

### The requested sanction is neither arbitrary nor capricious; it comports with the Administrator's Sanction Guidance. Complainant asks that

### the Administrative Law Judge find the violations occurred and affirm the sanctions sought in these cases. Respectfully submitted this 30th day ofNovember, 2012.

1\A.Attomey 

### JMR/ds

Complainant's Post-Triall3rief Inthe Matters of SkyWest AirJines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA-20ll-0485, 0486,-0680, ·0779 Page 19 of20 JEFFREYM. HARPER, FAAATTORNBY TEL: (42.5) 227-2161 FAX: (425) 227-100711/30/2012 08:35 4252271007 ANt·,.17 PAGE 21/23



### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Post-Trial Br.iefhas been served via facsimile an.d Certified Mail- Retum ReceiptRequested this date, to the following: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. East

### Building Ground Floor., 

### Rr.n El2-320 Washington, D.C. 20590 

### TEL: (202) 366-2139 FAX: (202) 366-7536 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur 

### Wright Building- Suite 

### 2Wl 000 FederalAviationAdministration 800 IndependenceAve. SW. Washington, 

### DC 20591 

### FAX: (202) 493-5142 Todd Emerson, Esq. Sky West 

### Air.lines · 444 

### S. River Road 

### St. George, UT 84790 

### TEL: (435)**634~3530** 

### FAX: (435) 634-3505 Michael Dworkin, Esq. Michael 

### L. Dworkin andAssociates 

### 465 California Street SanFrancisco, CA 941 04 

### TEL: (415) 421-2500 FAX: (435) 421-2560 DATED this 

### 30th day ofNovember, 2012.

Complainant's Post-Trial Bri.ef

# [)AI~ DanastepbellS011 Office ofRegional Counsel (ANM-7) FederalAviationAdministration 

### 1601 LindAve. SW**Renton.~** 

### WA 98057 (425) 227-2164

Jn tbe Matters ofSky West Airlines, Iuc. JEffMYM. HARPER, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227"2161 FAX: (425) .227**~**l 007 DMS Nos. FAA-201.1-0485, 0486, -0680, -0779 Pasz:e 20 of2011/30/2012 08:35 4252271007

JEFFREY HARPER FAA OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL 1601 LIND AVENUE SOUTHWEST RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 TELEPHONE: (425) 227-2161 FACSIMILE: (425) 227·1007 ANM7



### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

ln. the Matters of: FAA Case No. 2011NM060011 

### DMS No.: FAA-2011-0485 FAA Case No. 2011NM060010 DMS No.: FAA-2011-0486 SkyWest 

### Airlines, Inc. 

### FAA Case No. 2011NM060033 DMS No. 

### FAA-2011-0779 FAA Docket No. CPllSWOOOO Honorable Richard 

### C. Goodwin



### Declaration (Confidential Order)
I have read the administrative lawjudge's Order ofAugust 10, 2012, granting Respondent a Confidential Order. Per paragraph 3(d) ofthat Order, I agree to be abide by

### its terms. 

# Jk t . 4

# :ud~~
. ana Stephenson PAGE 22/23

# • 11/30/2012 08:35 4252271007 ANM7



### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing Declaration has been served via facsimile and Certified Mail

- Return Receipt Requested this date, to the follo'Wing:

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. East Building Ground**Floor~** 

### Rm E12-320 Washington, D.C. 20590 

### TEL: (202) 366-2139 FAX: (202) 366-7536 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

### Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave, SW. Washington, 

### DC 20591 FAX: (202)**493~5142** 

### Todd Emerson., Esq. SkyWest Airlines 444 S. River Road 

### St. George, UT 84790 TEL: (435) 634-3530 FAX: (435) 634-3505 Michael. 

### Dworkin, Esq. Michael L. Dwor!Gn and Associates 465 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 

### TEL: (415) 421-2500 

### FA..-'X: (435) 421-2560 DATED this 30th day ofNovember, 2012.

# ci!li{g~df27;~ Dana Stephenson Office ofRegional Counsel (ANM-7) Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Ave. SW Renton, WA 98057 (425) 227-2164 PAGE 23/23**:O~claration** .TEFFR.EY M. HARPER, FAA AJ:TORJ:'mY. SkyWest Airlines DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0485, FAA-201 l-0486, FAA-20ll-0779 Pagc2 of2 TEL; 425.227.1417; FAX: 425.227.1007