SERVED: August 26, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

AERO MICRONESIA 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012- 0469 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

INITIAL DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

I. Introductory Comment 

On or about December 8, 2010, the current versions of Aero Micronesia's (hereinafter 

"Aero") "Flight Operations Training Manual" and "General Operations Manual", contained up 

through revision 9, and revision 22, respectively. 

On or about December 8, 2010, the latest revisions contained in Aero's "Flight Operations 

Training Manual" and "General Operations Manual", were revision 5, and revision 21, 

respectively. 

II. Procedural History 

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "FAA") filed its Amended Complaint 

on June 25, 2012. Aero filed a Request for Hearing dated May 4, 2013. 

III. Hearing 

A hearing was held on December 2, 2014, in Honolulu, HI. 

The matter is now ready for decision. 

1 
IV. Jurisdiction 

Aero dba "Asia Pacific Airlines" was at all times mentioned herein was, the holder of Air 

Carrier Certificate No. I5PA4001, authorized to conduct flight operations, cargo only, under part 

121 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (hereinafter "F ARs") and was subject to those 

regulations. 

V. Burden of Proof 

The FAA is the petitioning party with the initial burden of proof. (14 C.F.R. § 13.224) 

VI. Allegations 

1. FAA's recitation of facts 

Aero was at all times mentioned herein was, the holder of Air Carrier Certificate No. 

I5PA4001, and authorized to conduct flight operations, cargo only, under part 121 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations ("F ARs"). On or about December 8, 2010, the current versions of Aero 

Micronesia's "Flight Operations Training Manual" and "General Operations Manual", contained 

up through revision 9, and revision 22, respectively. Mr. Richard Gaza was the manager of 

Aero Micronesia's flight crewmember training at Sanford International Airport, Sanford, Florida. 

Mr. Richard Gaza was furnished with copies of Aero Micronesia's "Flight Operations Training 

Manual" and "General Operations Manual", revision 9, and revision 22, respectively. On or 

about December 8, 2010, the latest revisions contained in Mr. Gaza's Aero Micronesia's "Flight 

Operations Training Manual" and "General Operations Manual", were revision 5, and revision 

21. 

VII. Issues 

Did Aero violate 14 C.F.R. §121.137(a) .. 

VIII. Summary of Testimony and Evidence 

2 
All admitted testimonial and documentary evidence was reviewed and considered. Only 

brief highlights are summarized herein. 

1. FAA's Case 

Clarence Kanae1 

Clarence K.anae (hereinafter "Kanae") incorporated by reference and agreement of the 

parties the foundational testimony presented on December 1, 2012 in Matter of Aero Micronesia, 

FAA-2012- 0468, on December 1, 2014. 

Kanae testified at the time of the alleged incident he had FAA oversight of Aero as the 

Principal Operations Inspector (hereinafter "POI"). 

On December 8, 2010, Kanae conducted a scheduled Air Transportation Oversight 

System (hereinafter "ATOS") inspection of Aero in Sanford, FL. The FAA used this inspection 

tool to do surveillance on an air carrier, to measure the operator's compliance of the regulations, 

to measure the performance of the operator, the certificate holder's operations as well. He met 

with Mr. Gazda, the manager of the Sanford, FL facility for Aero. The facility was used to train 

pilots and other crew. 

Upon reviewing the manuals Kanae noticed that the revision for the Flight 

Training Manual was at five (5), when really it should have been at nine (9). Kanae identified 

several manual updates which should have been inserted in the manuals, but were not. 

Apparently Gazda had the revisions at his garage, but they were not inserted in the manuals. 

Kanae identified several outdated manuals during his inspection. 

2. Aero's Case 

Michael Quinn2 

1 Tr. p. 11, 1. 19 top. 131, 1. 8. 

3 
Michael Quinn (hereinafter "Quinn") testified he founded Aero, was heavily involved in 

writing the manuals for Aero, including the load planning and weight manifest. 

The company was in a process of switching over its training program in the fourth quarter 

of 2010, and our Vice President of Operations, a former FAA inspector, passed away suddenly in 

the middle of that. Quinn admitted Aero may have been a little lax in keeping its manuals up to 

date. Aero employees FORTY-FIVE (45) people. 

Credibility determinations 

All witnesses were found to be credible. 

IX. Law 

14 C.F.R. §121.137, states: 

(a) Each certificate holder shall furnish copies ofthe manual required by §121.133 (and 

the changes and additions thereto) or appropriate parts of the manual to-

(1) Its appropriate ground operations and maintenance personnel; 

(2) Crewmembers; and 

(3) Representatives of the Administrator assigned to it. 

(b) Each person to whom a manual or appropriate parts of it are furnished under 

paragraph (a) of this section shall keep it up-to-date with the changes and additions 

furnished to that person and shall have the manual or appropriate parts of it accessible 

when performing assigned duties. 

(c) For the purpose of complying with paragraph (a) of this section, a certificate holder 

may furnish the persons listed therein the maintenance part of the manual in printed form 

or other form, acceptable to the Administrator, that is retrievable in the English language. 

X. Findings of Fact 

We find that the evidentiary facts, by a preponderance of the evidence standard, do 

support a fmding that Aero violated 14 C. F. R. § 121.13 7 (a). 

XI. Penalty and Mitigation Considerations 

Aero admitted one allegation set forth in the complaint. 

We found the violation alleged. 

2 Tr. p. 131, l. 9 top. 194, 1. 19. 

4 
The FAA argued that the penalty requested of$$6,600.00.was appropriate. 

The FAA failed to prove by testimony and/or evidence of how it arrived at the figure of 

$19,250. We are left to speculate how the figure was determined. 

Aero failed to present any evidence and/or testimony in mitigation other than the number 

of employees. 

While a penalty calculated in accordance with the FAA's policy guidance should stand, 

absent a showing of the Aero's inability to pay, the evidence and testimony did not support the 

penalty requested. While the FAA was entitled to substantial deference in establishing an 

appropriate civil penalty, we cannot ignore our role to evaluate the testimony and evidence. 

The ultimate weight discrepancy was well within the performance parameters of the 

aircraft. 

Taking the totality of the testimony and evidence into consideration we nonetheless find 

a penalty in the amount of $6,600 is appropriate under the circumstances. 

WHEREFORE, evidence and testimony having been heard and considered it be and is 

hereby ORDERED as follows: 

a. The FAA proved the violation of 14 C.F.R. § 121.137 (a); and 

b. Aero be and is hereby assessed a penalty in the amount of $6,600 for violation 

14 C.F.R. §121.665. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment- Service List 

5 
CORRECTED SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

David M. Kirstein 

Lyndsey M. Grunewald 

ONE COPY 

Kirstein & Young, PLLC, Respondent's Counsel 

1750 K Street, N.W., Suite 200 

Washington, DC 20006 

TEL: 202-331-3348 

Fax: 202-331-3933 

Michael R. Quinn, President 

Aero Micronesia, Inc. dba Asia Pacific Airlines, Inc., Respondent 

156 Diablo Road, Suite 203 · 

Danville, CA 94526 

TEL: 925-362-4430 

FAJ(: 925-362-4432 

Don Bobertz, Complainant's Counsel 

Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AWP-7 

POBox 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-3454 

FAJ(: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAJ(: 202-366-7536 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0469 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

6