08/2G/201 1 15:1 2 FA X 202493514 2 KAf t ^ DW S @|001/01 5



# ^.1:'-^ ' - :•-; ; f:^-, : Serve dAugus t 18 , 20 1 \

, . . U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N • 1 ^ OFFIC E O FHEARING S

WASHINGTON . D.C . I N TH E MAITE RO F Rushmor c Helkopters * Inc . FA A DOCKE T NO

- CP10GL000 2 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) DM S No . FAA-201(MM)2 3

Rnshmor e Helicoptere , Inc>* 3 Brie f o n Issu e o f

La w an dClogin g Argumftn t Rushmor e HelicoptCTs , Inc. » RcspoDdcnt,pr o se , hereb y submit s thi s Brie f o n Issu e o f La w an dClosin g Argumen t for th e hearin g hel do n Apri l 27 , 2011 , before Administrativ e Law Judg e Richar dGoodwi n o f th e Departmen t

o f Transportatio n i n Rapi dCity , Sout h Dakota . Fo r th e followin g reasons , Rushmor c Helicopters , Inc . respectfull y request s a n Initia l Decisio n finding n o violatio n o f

1 4 CF.R . 91.7(a ) an d1 4 C.F. R91.13(a) , or i n th e alternative , a significan t reductio n i n th e propose dcivi l penalty o f $25,000 . Pertinen t Fact s O f Thi s Cas e I t i s undispute dtha

t o n Augus t

6,2009 , commercia l pilo t Robert Lero y Leffer

t ("Pilo t Leffert'' ) discovere dtha t

th e fuel ca p o n th e Bel l 20 6 helicopte r that h e wa s i n comman do f

an d ha doperate dtha t

day ha damissin g fuel cap . Complaint; Answer . A t hi s ov minitiative . Pilo t Leffer t place dduc t

tap e ove r th e fuel filler

por t an dflew th e helicopte r

fromKeystone , Sout

h Dakot at o aheliport

near Custer , South Dakota , whic h i s approximatel y a10-mil e trip . Complaint ; Answer .08/26/201 1 15:1 2 FA X 202493514 2 FA A^ DM S 21002/01 5

In th e mornin g o f

th e foUowui g day , Augus t 7 , 2009 , a s th e pilot-in-comman do f th e helicopte r a t issue . Pilo t

Leffer t mad e th e decisio n tha t

th e helicopter

^ wit h duc t

tap e temporaril y ove r th e fuel filler

port , wa s airworth y i

n tha t slat e base do n infonnatio n fromth e manufacturer tha t th e fue l cap wa s no t

astructural componen t

o f th e helicopte r

an dbase do n th e lo w fue l level s maintained . HT , pp . 73-74 . Afte r makin g th e determinatio n tha t th e helicopte r

wa s airworthy . Pilo t

Leffer t proceede dt o operat e th e helicopter . HT , pg.74 . A . N o Sectio n 91.7(a ) Violatio n Followin g th e abov e describe devents , th e FAA initiate da n enforcement

actio n agains t Pilo t Le e Leffert' s Commercial Fixe dWing , Singl e Engin e Helicopte r Certificate allegin g violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . 91.7(a ) fo

r operatin g a n aircraf

t i n a n allegedl y un-airworth y condition . HT , pg . 76 . (I t

i s believe dtha t

th e FA A als o ha doriginall y charge dhi mwith operatin g a n aircraf t i n acareles s manne r

(1 4 C.F. R9L13(a) ) bu t

the n later droppe dth e careles s manne r violation. ) Pilo t

Leffer t wa s originall y give n a9 0 da y licens e suspensio n whic h wa s reduce dt o 3 0 day s an dthe n subsequentl y waive di n exchang e for submittin g arepor t

concernin g th e inciden t t o th e Aviatio n Safet

y Reportin g Programprio r t o th e penalty bein g imposed . 1 . Sectio n 91.7(a ) Violatio n i s No t Applicabl e t o Rushmor c Helicopters , Inc . Th e FAA i s no w als o allegin g Rushmore Helicopters , Inc . violate dthos e sam e section s a s the y allege dagains t

Pilo t Leffert . The y alleg e Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc . violate d1 4 C.F.R . 91.7(a ) du e t o Pilo t

Leffert' s above-describe dactions . Complaint . However , 1 4 C.F.R . 91.7(a ) i s no t applicabl e t o Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc . Sectio n 91.7(a ) state s i n full : "N o perso n ma y operat e acivi l aircraf

t unles s i t i s i n a n airworth y condition. " 1 4 C.F.R . 91.7(a ) {emphasi s added) .08/2G/2O1 1 15.1 2 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 0003/01 5

Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc . coul dno t "operate " th e helicopte r

a t issue . Accordin g t o MerriamWebster' s Collegiat e Dictionary , th e ter m"operate" , whe n use da s atransitiv e verb , mean s "t o caus e t o function : work. " See MerriamWebster' s Collegiate Dictionary , a t 81 3 (10 * cd . 2001) . Black' s Law Dictionar y echoe s thi s definition , definin g ^'operational " a s engage di n operation ; abl e t o function. " Se e Black' s La w Dictionary , a

t 111 9 (7 * ed . 1999) . Pilo t leffer t cause dth e helicopte r

t o fimction ; therefore , i

t wa s Pilo t Leffert , no t

Rushmore Helicopter , Inc . wh o operate dth e helicopte r i n a n allegedl y unairworth y conditio n i n violatio n o f

Sectio n 91.7(a) . I n sum , usin g th e plai n meanin g o f th e languag e L

n th e .<rtatute

, Rushmor e Helicopter , Inc . di dno t violat e Sectio n 9L7(a ) becaus e i t di dno t "operate^ ' acivi l aircraf

t i n a n imairworthy condition . Further , whe n Sectio n 91.7(a ) i s rea di n conjunctio n wit h Sectio n 9L7(b ) an dSectio n 91-3 , i t i s clear that th e responsibility fo

r makin g th e decisio n a s t o whethe r a n aircraf t i s airworthy lie s with th e pilo t i n command . Sectio n 91.7(b ) provide s i n full : Th e pilo t i n comman do f

acivi l aircraf

t i s responsibl e for

determinin g whethe r that aircraf t i s i n conditio n for

saf e flight . Th e pilo t

i n comman dshal l discontinu e th e flight whe n unairworth y mechanical , electrical , o r structural condition s occur . 1 4 C.F.R . 91(b) . Sectio n 91. 3 provide s i n fiiU: Th e pilo t i n comman do f

a n aircraf t i s directl y responsibl e for , an di s th e fina l authority a s to , th e operatio n o f that aircraft . Id . (Emphasi s added. ) Pilo t Leffer t wa s th e pilo t

i n comman do f

th e helicopter . It

wa s Pilo t Leffer t an donl y Pilo t Leffer t wh o coul d"operate " th e aircraf t imder th e clea r readin g o f

thes e provision s an dno t Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc . I t wa s Pilo t Leffer t wh o hadth e legal responsibility o f determinin g th e airworthines s o f

th e helicopte r

andallegedl y mad e a

n incorrec t

determinatio n that

th e helicopte r wa s airworthy an dsaf

e fo r flight , an dtherefore , i t

coul donl y hav e bee n Pilo t Leffer t08/26/201 1 15:1 2 FA X 202483514 2 FA A • » DM S lg|004/01 5

wh o woul db e abl e t o the n operat e any allegedl y unairworthl y helicopter . HT , pp . 73-74 . A s Pilo t Leffer t testifie do n cros s examination : Q : At an y tim e that

you ' v e bee n employe db y Blac k Hill s Aerial Adventure s o r Rushmor e Helicopters , hav e yo u eve r bee n ordere dt o fl

y a n aircraf t agains t you r will , for threat o f terminatio n o r

any othe r threat ? A Q A Q T hav e not . Hav e yo u alway s bee n allowe dth e latitud e t o ~ flyin g aircraft ? Yes , T have . Ar e yo u familia

r ~ or , I' msorry , d o yo u recal l atelephon e conversatio n tha t w e discusse do n th e mornin g o f Augus t 7th v prior t o yo u departin g Blac k

Hill s Aeria l Adventures ? A : No , I wa s rK>

t priv y t o aconversation . It wa s jus t aconversatio n abou t

a conversation . Q : Durin g whic h w e discusse dth e conversatio n tha t w e ha dha dwith th e Bel l Helicopte r

tec h representativ e that

morning ? A Yes . Q ; D o yo u recal l an y o f

th e detail s that

wer e expresse dt o yo u regardin g thi s conversation ? A : Th e basi c gis t

o f th e conversatio n wa s tha t th e Bel l tec h ha dbee n contacted , an dth e fue

l cap wa s no t

considere dt o b e astructura l componen t o f th e helicopter , an dthoug h no t

reconunended , base dupo n th e fuel load s tha t w e wer e doing , an d th e ne w fue l cap bein g ordered , tha t thoug h no t

recommende di t

wa s no t a violatio n o f

regulation s tha t

I fle w withou t

afuel cap . And , base dupo n tha t informatio n tha t

1 ha da t th e time , an dconversin g wit h som e o f th e othe r pilot s informall y that

wer e i n th e bay , w e decide dthat puttin g duc t

tap e ove r th e port wa s no t considere dt o b e asafet

y hazar do r

anon-airworth y condition , an dI flew . HT , pp . 81-82 . 2 , Th e FA A Faile dt o Meet s it s Burde n i n Provin g th e Helicopte r a t Issu e wa s No t Airworthy . Eve n i f ther e coul db e an

y findin g that

Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc . coul db e th e perso n wh o "operated' * th e aircraft , i t mus t stil l b e properl y prove n tha t i t wa s no t airworth y an dthat

di d no t happen . Th e definitio n o f

"airworthy " i s base do n Sectio n 603(c ) o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Ac t o f 195 8 an dimpose s atwo-pron g requirement : 1 ) tha t th e aircraf

t conform s t o th e typ e desig n approve dunde r

it s typ e certificate , an d2 ) that i t i s i n conditio n for

saf e operation . Copse y v

.06/26/201 1 15:1 2 FA X 202483514 2 FA A - » DM S 21005/01 5

Nationa l Transp . Safet

y Bd , 99 3 F.2 d736 , 73 8 n. l (10th Cir . 1993) . Th e burde n o f proo f b y a preponderanc e o f

th e evidenc e rest s with th e FAA . Administrato r v. Foster , 200 4 W L 1795341 , 5 (Jun e 29 , 2004) . Th e FA A mus t therefore sho w that

th e two-pron g tes t

coul dno t

b e me t an di t faile dt o mee t

thi s burden . First , th e *1yp

c design " for

th e helicopte r

a t issu e wa s no t

introduce dint o evidence . Further , ther e wa s n o evidenc e introduce dt o sho w that th e expert s calle db

y th e FA A ha d reviewe dth e typ e desig n for thi s particular

helicopte r

t o determin e i f

th e fuel c ^ wa s part

o f th e typ e design . Rushmore Helicopters , Inc . establishe dtha t i i ha dconsulte dwith Danie l Bias , a desig n enginee r

a t Bel l Tech , wh o state dth e fuel ca p wa s no t considere dastructura l componen t o f th e helicopter . HT . pg . 82 . Thi s wa s no t countere dbu t

mor e importantly , th e FAA' s feilure t o establis h whethe r

th e fue l cap wa s part

o f th e typ e desig n mean s tha t i t simpl y canno t

the n prov e afiailurc t o mee t

th e two-pron g requirement . Eve n i f th e firs t pron g ha dbee n establishe db y th e FAA , i t stil l faile dt o prov e th e secon d prong . O n th e contrary , th e evidenc e showe dtha t th e helicopte r

wa s indee dairworthy . Pilo t Leffert , apilo t

with extensiv e experienc e graduatin g firo mmilitary flight

schoo l i n 1968 , servin g a s acombat

pilo t i n Vietnam , an dthereafte r servin g i n th e Nationa l Guardfor ove r 2 0 year s a s a medica l evacuatio n pilo t

an da n instructo r

pilot , determine dth e helicopte r wa s i n aconditio n saf e for operation . HT , pp . 80-81 . H e testifie do n cross-examination : Q : Woul dyo u eve r

conside r operatin g a n aircraft , especiall y ahehcopter , i f yo u fel t i t wa s unsaf

e o r unairworthy ? A : I woul dnot . That

wa s on e o f

th e thing s that , especiall y bein g i n th e medica l evacuation , safet

y wa s drille dint o our

heads . Id . In addition , o n Augus t 7 , 2010 , th e FA A inspector s (Gar y F . Kwasniewski an d Barr y Dunmire ) wer e awar e th e complain t receive dwa s for

are dhelicopter . Th e08/26/201 1 15:1 3 FA X 202483514 2 FA A ^ DM S 01006/01 5

Compan y onl y ha don e re dhelicopter . Th e inspectors approache dPilo t Leffer t minute s before h e pilote dapassenger-carryin g flight i n tha t re dhelicopte r

a t issue . HT , pgs . 1 9 - 24 . Pilo t Leffer t wa s no t stoppe db y th e inspectors eve n afte r th e helicopte r

wa s repositione dan dinspectors reali2ed » eve n whil e passenger s wer e stil l boarding , tha t i t wa s th e helicopte r

a t issue , HT , pg . 25 . Th e inspectors ^ despit e seein g thi s re dhelicopter , stil l allowe dPilo t

Leffer t t o procee dwith th e passenger-carryin g flight withou t directl y askin g whethe r

th e helicopte r

h e wa s pilotin g ha dduc t

lap e ove r th e fiiel filler

port . HT , pgs . 1 9 - 24 . The y als o di dno t as k hi mi f thi s wa s i n fac t th e helicopte r

the y receive dth e complain t abou t bu t tha t i s understandabl e a s i t

woul dhav e bee n th e onl y on e there . Th e inspectors ' absolut e lac k

o f concern abou t

th e fac t that Pilo t Leffer t wa s abou t

t o tak e off

, thei r lac k o f concer n abou t

stoppin g him , thei i lac k

o f concer n abou t

whethe r duc t tap e existe do r no t an dthei r obviou s permissio n for

hi mt o tak e of

f al l leadt o areasonabl e inferenc e tha t

th e inspector s di dno t

believ e th e situatio n warrante da n immediat e determinatio n an dtha t

the y fel t th e fligh t wa s saf e t o continue . Th e fact s o f

this cas e therefor e clearl y distinguis h this situatio n fro mthos e containe di n th e oase s cite db y th e FA A i n support o f it s argumen t

tha t th e helicopte r

wa s un-airworthy . I n th e Matte r

o f America n West

Airlines,' ? A h Ordtr^io.^-^ , 1 3 (Feb . 13 , 1996) , involve da n aircraf t that wa s damaged , i.e . ther e wa s a n actual delaminatio n o r

hol e i n th e aircraft . Id . Th e hol e wa s repaire dusin g spee dtap e whic h wa s no t i n complianc e with th e Structural Repai r Manual . Id . Ther e wa s n o damag e t o th e Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc . aircraft . Rushmor e HeUcopters , Inc . wa s no t

attemptin g t o cover

ahol e i n th e helicopte r

tha t wa s mad e afte

r th e manufacturin g o f

th e aircraft . Th e secon dcas e cite db y th e FAA » Administrato r

v , Foster , 200 4 WL 179534 1 (Jun e 29 , 2004) , unlik e th e cas e a t hand , involve dmultipl e deliberat e violation s08/2G/201 1 1 5 1 3 FA X 202493514 2 FA A ^ DM S 01007/01 5

an da n extensiv e modificatio n includin g modificatio n o f th e lef t wing , ahol e punche dthroug h th e fuselag e o f

th e aircraft , an dsom e sort o f tubin g runnin g u p t o th e vc msystem , unshielde d wiring , modificatio n t o th e fue l capacity , andplacemen t o f th e fue l tank i n th e passenge r compartment , n o flight

plan andn o authority t o penetrat e th e aid-ez , an dth e aircraf t wa s flown a

t nigh t withou t light s o r atransponde r

o r radio . Id . a t

3-4 . Th e case s cite db y th e FAA simpl y d o no t apply t o th e fact s i n this case . Th e fact s o f this cas e support

Pilo t Leffert' s determination . H e wa s an dremain s ahighl y qualifie dpilo t with extensiv e experienc e an dcertainl y qualifie dt o determin e airworthines s unde r this situatio n give n th e fact s h e wa s presented . In short , 91.7(a ) doe s no t

^pl y t o Rushmor e Helicopters ^ Inc . Eve n i f i t did , th e FAA faile dt o mee t

it s burde n o f

pn>ving tha t

th e aircraf

t di dno t confor mt o th e typ e desig n approve d unde r it s typ e certificate . Eve n i f i t did , i t als o faile dt o prov e that

th e aircraf

t wa s no t airworthy . Therefore , ther e wa s n o showin g o f aviolatio n o f

9 1 -7(a ) b y Rushmor c Helicopters , Inc . B . N o Sectio n 91.13(a ) Violatio n Th e FA A ha s faile dt o mee t it s burde n o f

provin g b y apreponderanc e o f th e evidenc e that Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc. , violate d1 4 C.F.R . 91.13(a) . Sectio n 91.13(a ) provide s i n full : N o perso n may operat e a n aircraf t i n acareles s o r

reckles s manne r

s o a s t o endange r th e lif e or property o f

another . Id . Pursuan t

t o FA A Orde r

2150.3B , i f

aperso n operate s a

n aircraf t tha t violate s anothe r FA A regulatio n othe r

tha n Sectio n 91.1 3 (a) , th e element s o f careles s an dreckles s foundi n Sectio n 91.13(a ) ar e deeme dautomaticall y satisfied , an dSectio n 91.13(a ) wil l b e deeme d violate di f

th e misconduc t

actuall y o r

potentiall y endanger s th e live s o r property o f

others . Id . I f08/2G/201 1 15:1 3 FA X 202493514 2 FA A+ QM S @1009/01 5

th e operato r

o f a n aircraf t ha s no t violate danothe r

FA A regulation , th e FA A mus t prov e th e operator' s action s wer e careles s an dreckles s i n orde r t o sho w Sectio n 91.13(a ) wa s violated . Id . FAA Orde r

2150.3 B define s '^carelessness* ' a s "conduc t tha t fall s belo w th e standar do f care o r prudenc e expecte do f

areasonabl e person , o r

holde r o f th e relevan t

certificate , actin g unde r

th e sam e o r simila r circumstances,* " an ddefine s "recklessness " a s "conduc t tha t demonstrate s a gross , or eve n callou s o r

flagrant, disregardfo

r safety. " Id . Th e FA A ha s allege dSectio n 91.13(a ) wa s technicall y violate db y Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc . becaus e th e element s o f reckles s an dcareles s ar e salisfle ddu e t o a n allege d violatio n o f

Sectio n 91.7(a) , an dbecaus e it s action s potentiall y endangere dth e live s o r property o f another . FA A Closin g Argument , pg . 10 . Th e FA A fiirther allege s that

eve n withou t

th e violatio n o f

91.7(a) , Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc . independentl y violate dSectio n 91.13(a ) becaus e it s action s were "no t

safe. " Id . A s state di n Sectio n A o f

thi s Brief , Sectio n 91,7(a ) i s no t

applicabl e t o Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc . becaus e i t wa s no t th e "operator " o f

th e helicopter . Furthe r

that even i f i t coul d hav e bee n regarde da s th e operator , ther e wa s stil l n o violatio n fo r th e reason s explaine dabove . Thu s i t i s clea r that ih e FA A mus t

prov e Rushmore Helicopters , Inc.' s action s were careles s o r reckles s (no t

merel y that

it s action s wer e "no t

safe" ) i n orde r

t o sho w a n independen t

violatio n o f Sectio n 91.1 3 (a) . Th e FA A ha s faile dt o mee t thi s burden . First , th e FA A faile dt o alleg e th e action s o f Rushmore Helicopters , Inc . wer e "careles s o r reckless." * Second , th e FA A di dno t introduc e any evidenc e a t th e hearin g t o .^ho

w Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc' s action s were "careles s o r reckless. " N o evidenc e wa s presente da t th e hearin g regardin g th e standar do f

care o f areasonabl e perso n o r

th e prudenc e expecte do f areasonabl e perso n actin g unde r

simila r circumstances , o r

that Rushmore Helicopters , Inc . fell belo w tha t08/28/201 1 15:1 3 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 0009/01 5

Standard . No r

wa s an y evidenc e presente dt o sho w that th e action s o f

Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc, wer e agross , callou s o r

flagrant disregar dfor

safety . On th e contrary , evidenc e wa s presente d tha t Rushmore Helicopter s contracte dwith pilot s with extensiv e experienc e wh o relie do n that experienc e an dth e opinio n o f Danie l Bias , adesig n enginee r a t Bel l Tech , whe n th e pilo t i n command , th e perso n legall y responsibl e for doin g so , determine dwhethe r th e helicopte r

wa s airworthy . HT . pg . 80-82 . Lastly , a s state di n Sectio n A o f

thi s Brief , Rushmor e Helicopter s di d no t "operate " th e aircraf

t a s require dfo r

aviolatio n o f

Section s 91.7(a ) an d91.13(a ) an d therefore , coul dno t

b e i n violatio n o f

either section . C

- Th e FFA' S Propose dSanctio n i s No t Appropriate . A s show n above , Rushmor e Hehcopters , Inc . ha s no t violate deithe r

Section s 91.7(a ) o r 91.13(a) . an dtherefore , n o monetary sanctio n i s appropriate . However , i f afindin g i s mad e that

i t di dviolate eithe r

o f suc h sections , variou s factor s mus t b e considere dwhe n determinin g th e appropriat e monetary sanction . Fo r instance , whe n calculatin g th e amoun t o f sanctio n base do n Sectio n 91.13(a) , adistinctio n i s draw n betwee n instance s wher e Sectio n 91.1 3 i s a n independen t violatio n ftndthos e wher e i t i s residua l t o another

violation . Whe n a1 4 CF.R . § 9 1 1 3 violatio n i s residual only , ahighe r

sanctio n generall y i s no t

warrante dunles s th e conduc t i s als o reckless . FAA Order

2150.3B . Whethe r

th e violatio n wa s deliberat e i s als o considered . Id . A non deliberat e ac t

lack s th e deliberatio n foundi n intentional misconduct . Id . In th e cas e a

t hand , th e FA A i s seekin g acivi l penalty o f $2,50 0 for

eac h o f th e allege d te n passenger-canyin g flights andtherefore seek s S25,000 . However , th e FA A ha s no t me t it s burde n o f provin g that

I D passenger-carryin g flights too k plac e o n Augus t

7 , 2009 . A s evidenc e o f th e passenger-carryin g flights, th e FA A introduce daflight log . HT , pp . 35-36 ; Agenc y Exhibi t 4 . However , th e flight

lo g introduce db y th e FA A i s date dAugus t

6 , 2009 , no t

Augus t 7 , 2009 . HT . p p 36-37 . Th e FAA contend s th e flight lo g wa s incortectl y date dan dwa s fo r Augus t08/26/201 1 15:1 3 FAX 202493514 2 FAA + DM S 0010/01 5

7 , 2009 . Th e lo g wa s give n t o th e inspecto r b y Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc . employe e Ms . Weller . HT , pg . 37 . However , th e FA A di dno t cal l Ms . Welle r

a s awitnes s t o establis h tha t th e lo g wa s i n fac t incorrecti y date di n order to prov e cha

t i t wa s th e lo g fo

r Augus t 7 , 2009 . No r

di dth e FAA questio n th e Presiden t

o f Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc. , Michae l Jacob , abou t whethe r th e lo g wa s for Augus t 7,2011 . Th e onl y evidenc e presente db y th e FAA i n regardt o th e flight lo g bein g incorrectl y date dwa s hearsay testimon y fromaFAA investigato r statin g what

Ms . Welle r

tol d hi mabou t th e lo g havin g a

n incorrec t

date . Notably , Pilo t

Leffer t testifie do n direc t

examinatio n tha t h e di dno t

recal l pilotin g 1 0 passenger-carryin g flights o n Augus t 7,2009 . Q : D o yo u kno w ho w many flight s yo u too k o n Augus t

7th o f '0 9 with duc t

tap e ove r th e fiiel port ? A : Accordin g t o th e records , ther e wa s abou t te n flights. I don' t

remembe r

doin g tha t many , bu t

tha t was , apparently , th e case . HT , pp . 76-77 . Th e onl y admitabl e proo f entere dint o evidenc e i n regar dt o th e numbe r o f passenger-carryin g flights o n Augus t 7 , 2009 , wa s th e on e flight witnesse db y th e inspectors . Thus , i f

ther e i s indee dafinding o f aviolation , the n this shoul db e th e onl y evidenc e considere di n detenniain g th e numbe r o f flights an di n considerin g whethe r an y penalty a t al l shoul db e imposed , eve n i f aviolatio n coul db e foun da s agains t Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc. , i t

i s critica l t o consider , i n tryin g t o determin e th e leve l t o whic h conduc t may b e viewe da s intentional o r reckless , that

th e inspectors , despit e seein g thi s re dhelicopter , stil l allowe dPilo t Leffer t t o procee dwith th e passenger-carryin g flight an dshowe daclea

r lac k o f concern abou t

whethe r duc t tap e ewste do r

no t an dthei r obviou s permissio n fo

r hi mt o take of

f wit h passengers . Thi s certainl y allow s on e t o reasonabl y conclud e tha t

th e inspector s di dno t

believ e th e situatio n warrante dan y

1 008/28/201 1 15:1 3 FAX 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 0011/01 5

immediac y an dshow s n o intentional misconduc t o r recklessnes s o n th e part

o f Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc . Therefore , n o penalty shoul db e imposed , CONCLUSIO N In this case , n o penalty i s appropriat e becaus e 1 4 C.F.R . 91.7(a ) an d1 4 C.F.R . 91.13(a ) wer e no t

violate db y Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc . sinc e i t di dno t operat e th e helicopte r an dn o evidenc e wa s presente dt o sho w that any action s take n wer e reckles s an dcareless . Further , th e FA A ha s faile dt o mee t it s burde n o f

provin g that

th e helicopte r

a t issu e wa s imairworthy . T o prov e a n aircraf t i s unairworthy , th e FA A mus t sho w th e helicopte r di dno t confor mt o it s specifi c typ e design . However , th e typ e desig n for th e helicopte r wa s no t introduce dint o evidenc e b y th e FAA , no r di dth e FAA' s witnesse s revie w th e specifi c typ e desig n o f th e helicopte r

whe n determinin g whethe r th e helicopte r wa s airworthy . O n th e contrary . Pilo t Leffer t mad e th e determinatio n th e helicopte r wa s i n aconditio n for

saf e operatio n base do n hi s extensiv e experienc e an dth e Bel l Tec h enginee r opinio n an dthi s wa s no t

refute db y th e evidenc e fromth e FAA . Even i n th e even t

th e abov e section s o r

eithe r o f the mwere t o b e deeme dviolated , th e propose dcivi l penalt

y i s no t appropriat e becaus e th e evidenc e presente db y th e FA A prove s onl y on e passenger-carryin g tri p an dno t te n passenger-carryin g trip s a s alleged . Further , th e propose d$2,50 0 for this on e passenger-canyin g tri p shoul db e reduce ddu e t o th e actio n b y Pilo t

Leffer t no t bein g i n deliberat e violatio n o f th e C.F.R. , an ddu e t o th e fac t tha t Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc . reasonabl y relie do n th e opinion s o f Pilo t leffer t and Bel l Tec h desig n enginee r Danie l Bias . 1 108/26/201 1 15:1 3 FA X 202493514 2 FA A •* • DM S 012/01 5

Fo r th e abov e state dreasons , Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc . res-pectfuU y requests th e Administrativ e Law Judg e issu e a n Initia l Decisio n finding n o violatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . 91.7(a ) an d1 4 C.F.R . 91.13(a) , an di n th e even t ther e ma y b e suc h afinding, the n a significant reductio n i n th e propose dcivi l penalty (nominal onl y ) woul dclearl y b e warrante di n thi s case . Date dthi s , RespcctfiiUiJ'^utpnitted , I S case . li s l o da

y oir^^yS r

, 2011 .

Mich^en«ob , Presiden t

Rushmore Helicopters , In c 2456 4 Highway 16/38 5 Custer , S D 5773 0 605-673-216 3 (office ) 605-673-216 3 (fax ) micheaIjj@goldenwest.ne t CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E I hereb y certif

y tha t I have , thi s date , serve dth e forgoin g Respondent' s Brie f o n Issu e o f La w an dClosin g Argumen t b y mailin g copie s t o th e followin g addresse s a s follows : Origina l an dOn e Cop y (Facsimil e an dRegula r Mail ) Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S,W . Washington , S D 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC'43 0 WUbc r Wrigh t Building , Suite 2W100 0 Fax : 202^93-514 1 On e Cop y Brian aMartin o Attorney , Federal Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f th e Regional Counse l Great Lake s Regio n 230 0 Eas t Devo n Avenu e DesPlaines,I L 6001 8 (Regula r an dCertifie dMail )

1 208/26/201 1 15:1 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A+ DM S 01013/01 5

Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwi n (Facsimil e an dRegular Mail ) Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearing , M-2 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloo r RoomE12-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 FAX : 202-366-753 6 2011 . Date dthi s lo * da

y o i JTUC^^TT , Miche l Jape^ , Presiden t Rushmor e Helicopters , In c 2456 4 Highway 16/38 5 Custer , S D 5773 0

1 308/2G/20 n 15:1 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 014/01 5

Serve dAugus t

18 , 201 1 V S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFnC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D*c . INTHEMATIBRO F Rnftkmor t

Helicopfert , Inc . FA A DOCKE T NO . CP10GL000 2 (Crri l Vtmskt

y Action ) DM S No . FAA-201O-002 3 RiMli^^ptH*JicoBttrg . Inc' s Brie f o n la— e o f

La w an dClo«ta f

Ar|pMm<«t Rushmor e Helicf^Aets , Inc. , Respondent^^ o ^e, . hcRihy svteut s thi s Brie f o n Issu e o f Lo w an dClosin g Ar;gtunent for th e bearin g hel do aApri l 27,201 U befor e Administrativ e La w Judg e Richar dGoodwi n o f th e Deparoment

o f Transportatio n i n Rapi dCity , Sout h Dakota . Fo r th e following reasons , Rtishntor c Hdicopceis , Inc . leqtcctfiiU y request s a n InitiB l Decisio n fmdni g n o violatio n o f

1 4 C J.R . 9L7(a ) an d1 4 CF. R91.13(a) , o t i n ftie alternative ^ a Ki^ifican i reductio n i n th e nroDosc dcivi l penalty o f $25,000 . 08/18/201 1 12:0 5 605673216 3 BHA A P.00 1 * » * ERRO

RT I REPORT »* * JO B NO . 026 6 MOD E T I G 3 NO . 00 1 DESTINATIO N TEL/I D 1202493514 1 STAk T TIM E Oa/I Q 12:0 4 00FF:RED1A L ALL FAI L PAG E 00 0 RKSUL T N O ANSWE

R0 0 0 0 

# D OTT : 

# Ai r ^-fe^Sk^ ^ ^ P< ^ L^t:>SHcC'^ ^ 

# A /08/2G/201 1 15:1 4 FA K 202493514 2 FA A • ^ DM S 121015/01 5



### ServedAugus t

18 , ^01 1 VS . DH^ARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . IN TH E MATTE RO F Rashioor e Hellcopten , Ine . FAA DOCKE T NO . CP10GLOOO( 2 (Ovf l PeaaUy Action ) DM S No . FAA-2010-002 3 Rnakmap aHdHcopteK , IBC.* « 

### Brie f ot t Jssm t o f La w an dflft«ftf

f A^y^y^^ t Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc. , Respondent,/in> se , hereby submit s thi s Brief o n Issue o f La w an dClosing Argumen

t fo r th e hearin g hel do n Apri l 27 » 2011 , befor

e Administratrv e La

w Jijd$ c Richar

dGoodwin o f

th e Depaitmen

t of Tiansportatio n i n R^ dCity , Sout h Dakota , For th e followin

g reasons , Rushmoi e Helicopteis , Inc . req»ectfUU y request s a

n Initia l Decisio a finding n o violaiion o f

1 4 C J.R , 91.7(a) an

d1 4 CF. R91.13(a) . o r

i n th e altemativc , a frienifican t reductio n i n th e 08/18/201 1 11:5 9 805673216 3 

### wooose dcivi l penalt y o f S25.000 . BHA A P.00 1 *« « ERRO

RT X REPOR T ** » ***«»» « ««3:4:s« « »««««« « »*««(***« * ««»«:!(« * JO B NO . 026 5 MODE

T X G 3 NO . 00 1 DESTINATIO N TEL/T D 1202493514 1 STAR T TIM E 08/1 3 11:5 8 PAG E 00 0 00FF;REDIA L AL

L FAI L RESUL T N O ANSWE

R0 0 0 0