### 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 ofAero 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 inAero'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 onDecember 2, 2014, in Honolulu, HI. The matter is nowready for decision.
1IV. Jurisdiction Aero dba "AsiaPacific Airlines" was at all times mentioned herein was, the holder ofAir Carrier Certificate No. I5PA4001, authorized to conduct flight operations, cargo only, underpart 121 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (hereinafter "FARs") and was subject to those regulations. V. Burden ofProof The FAA is the petitioningparty with the initial burden ofproof. (14 C.F.R. § 13.224) VI. Allegations 1. FAA's recitation offacts Aero was at all times mentioned herein was, the holder ofAir Carrier Certificate No. I5PA4001, and authorized to conduct flight operations, cargo only, under part 121 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations ("F ARs"). On or about December 8, 2010, the current versions ofAero 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 crewmembertraining at Sanford International Airport, Sanford, Florida. 

### Mr. Richard Gazawas furnished with copies ofAero 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, andrevision 21. VII. Issues DidAero violate 14 C.F.R. §121.137(a)
.. VIII. Summary ofTestimony and Evidence
2All admittedtestimonial and documentary evidence was reviewed and considered. Only briefhighlights are summarizedherein.



### 1. FAA's Case 

### Clarence Kanae1 Clarence K.anae (hereinafter "Kanae") incorporatedby reference and agreement ofthe parties the foundational testimony presented on December 1, 2012 in

### Matter of AeroMicronesia, FAA-2012- 0468, onDecember 1, 2014. Kanae testified atthe time ofthe alleged incident he had FAA oversight ofAero as the Principal Operations Inspector (hereinafter "POI"). OnDecember 8, 2010, Kanae conducted a scheduled Air Transportation Oversight System (hereinafter "ATOS") inspection ofAero in Sanford, FL. The FAAusedthis inspection tool to do surveillance on an air carrier, to measure the operator's compliance ofthe regulations, to measure the performance ofthe operator, the certificate holder's operations as well. He met with 

### Mr. Gazda, the manager ofthe Sanford, FL facility for Aero. The facility was used to 

### train pilots and other crew. Uponreviewing the manuals Kanae noticed that the revision for the Flight Training Manual was atfive (5), when really it should have been atnine (9). Kanae identified several manual updates which should have been inserted inthe manuals, but were not. Apparently Gazdahadthe revisions at his garage, butthey were not inserted inthe 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. 

### 3Michael 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 ofswitching over its training program inthe fourth quarter of2010, and ourVice President ofOperations, a former FAA inspector, passed away suddenly in the middle ofthat. Quinn admitted Aero may have been a little lax inkeeping 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 ofthe manual to- (1) Its appropriate ground operations and maintenance personnel; (2) Crewmembers; and (3) Representatives ofthe Administrator assignedto it. (b) Eachpersonto whom a manual or appropriate parts ofit are furnished under paragraph (a) ofthis section shall keep it up-to-date with the changes and additions furnished to that person and shall have the manual or appropriate parts ofit accessible whenperforming assigned duties. (c) Forthe purpose ofcomplying with paragraph (a) ofthis section, a certificate holder may furnish the persons listed therein the maintenance part ofthe manual in printed form or other form, acceptable to the Administrator, that is retrievable inthe English language. X. Findings ofFact We find thatthe evidentiary facts, by a preponderance ofthe evidence standard, do support a fmding that Aero violated 14 C. F.R. § 121.137 (a). XI. Penalty and Mitigation Considerations Aero admitted one allegation set forth inthe complaint. We found the violation alleged.

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

### 4The FAA argued that the penalty requested of$$6,600.00.was appropriate. The FAA failed to prove bytestimony and/or evidence ofhowit arrived atthe figure of $19,250. We are leftto speculate howthe figure was determined. Aero failed to present any evidence and/or testimony 

### inmitigation otherthanthe number ofemployees. While a penalty calculated 

### in accordance with the FAA's policy guidance should stand, absent a showing ofthe Aero's inability to pay, the evidence and testimony did not support the penaltyrequested. While the FAA was entitled to substantial deference in establishing an appropriate civil penalty, we cannot ignore ourrole to evaluate the testimony and evidence. The ultimate weight discrepancy was well within the performance parameters ofthe aircraft. Taking the totality ofthe testimony and evidence into consideration we nonetheless find
a penalty inthe amount of$6,600 is appropriate underthe circumstances. WHEREFORE, evidence and testimony having beenheard and considered itbe and is hereby ORDERED as follows:

a. The FAAproved the violation of14 C.F.R. § 121.137 (a); and 

### b. Aero be and is hereby assessed a penalty inthe amount of$6,600 for violation 14 C.F.R. §121.665.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative LawJudge Attachment- Service List

5CORRECTED 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 2W1000 1



### 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 DonBobertz, 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 LawJudge 

### U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 NewJersey 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 byU.S. Mail. For service inperson orby 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