SERVED JUNE 4, 2010 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

JOEY D. WARDLE, 

Respondent. 

FAA DOCKET No. CP09CE0003 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0843 

INITIAL DECISION 

OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RICHARD C. GOODWIN 

Found: Respondent is assessed a civil penalty of $3,000. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Joey D. Wardle ("Respondent" or "Wardle"), of Burlington, I A, is a pilot and 

an ultralight vehicle hobbyist. An ultralight is a recreational vehicle and is considered 

under the Federal Aviation Regulations ("FARs"), 14 C.F.R. §1.1 et seq., to be an 

aircraft.^ Wardle's ultralight is powered and is also known as a paraglider {see Jr. 

36). 

As a result of a flight Respondent undertook on or about October 10, 2008, 

he was cited by the FAA, Central Region ("Complainant" or "the agency") for 

operating in violation of 14 C.F.R. §§103.9(a), 103.11(a), 103.15, and 103.17 of the 

FARs. Section 103.9(a) prohibits anyone from operating an ultralight vehicle "in a 

Part 103 of the FARs in pertinent part defines an ultralight as a vehicle that: 

(a) Is used or intended to be used for manned operations in the air by a single occupant; 

(b) Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only; 

(c) Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate;... 

(e) If powered: 

(1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which 

are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation; 

(2) Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons;. .. 
manner that creates a hazard to other persons or property." Section 103.11 (a) 

prohibits operation of an ultralight "except between the hours of sunrise and sunset" 

(but makes an exception for situations inapplicable in this case). Section 103.15 

proscribes ultralight operation "over any congested area of a city, town, or 

settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons." Section 103.17, in relevant 

part, prohibits any person from operating an ultralight "within the lateral boundaries" 

of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport" unless the operator 

has prior permission. The agency seeks a total civil penalty of $3,000 (1 Jr. 62). 

Respondent did not counter with his own figure. 

Wardle never answered the Complaint. After the agency moved under 

§13.209(f) of the Rules of Practice to deem the allegations of its Complaint admitted, 

on February 18, 2010 I issued an Order specifically directing Mr. Wardle to answer 

by a date certain. The Order warned Respondent that a failure to answer the Order 

and the Complaint by the due date could result in a subsequent order granting the 

relief requested -- that is, deeming the allegations of the Complaint admitted. 

Wardle neither responded to the Order nor answered the Complaint. On March 8, 

2010, the undersigned issued an order deeming the allegations of the Complaint 

admitted.^ The order limited this proceeding to the issue of civil penalty. 

Thus the sole issue is the amount of the civil penalty to be levied. 

An oral evidentiary hearing was held in Davenport, lA on March 11, 2010. 

Mr. Wardle appeared pro se. Both parties made closing statements, and the matter 

is now ready for decision. 

IL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS 

I find and conclude that a civil penalty of $3,000 for the violations found is 

warranted. It is appropriate to the nature and extent of Respondent's conduct. 

FAA operations safety inspector Donald Wood, of the Des Moines (lA) Flight 

Standards District Office, testified for Complainant. He provided background and 

context to the charges in explaining the agency's rationale for the fine it proposed. 

Inspector Wood testified that Mr. Wardle flew his ultralight aircraft for about 30 

minutes. He operated it through class E airspace without permission. He operated 

very near the departure path on one of the runways in the local airport. Mr. Wardle 

also flew over a congested area. He flew too low over a Walmart store. And he flew 

after sunset (Tr. 22-24, 37-38). 

Although the charges themselves cannot now be contested. Respondent's 

explanation of the incident is weighed in the determination of a proper penalty. Mr. 

Wardle acknowledged that he landed after dark. He called it an unintentional 

"mistake." He blamed it on a headwind which delayed his return (Tr. 44-46, 65). Mr. 

Wardle also acknowledged flying too low over the Walmart store (Tr. 50-51). 

^ At the hearing Complainant was permitted to amend Paragraph ni.2 of the Complaint to state that 

Respondent is subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,100 - not $ 11,000 as stated in the original Complaint -

on each of the four violations alleged. Tr. 5-7. 
However, he denied that his flight was in the path of either of the two runways (Tr. 

65). In his defense Wardle also claimed that one of the police officers who 

questioned and detained him had habitually "harassed" him and had a "vendetta" 

against him (Tr. 44). 

Inspector Wood explained the risks to safety presented by Respondent's '" 

operation. Ultralight flying after sunset is prohibited because of the inability to see 

and be seen. Mr. Wardle's craft had no lights which might have enabled him to see 

other aircraft or which might have assisted other aircraft in seeing him (Tr. 24-25). 

Respondent's flying over congested areas, further, compromised safety. This action 

needlessly endangered people and structures on the ground - a danger which was 

compounded by flying after dark (Tr. 27-28). Operating close to a departure path 

also undermined safety because, while no departures had been scheduled, 

Respondent's actions imperiled the possibility of an emergency takeoff. 

Finally, Complainant showed that Respondent should have known better. 

Ultralight operators are not required to hold a certificate (See n. 1). But Mr. Wardle 

is a licensed pilot. He holds a private pilot certificate. As such, he is well aware that 

detailed regulations govern the use of aircraft and the utilization of airspace. 

Further, he knows (or should know) that these regulations and restrictions are 

designed above all for the safety of the public. Wardle's imputed knowledge as a 

certificated pilot requires that he be held to a standard of conduct higher than 

warranted for the general public (Tr. 19-22, 26). 

These considerations point to a civil penalty near the high end of possibilities. 

The agency notes that it could have requested a fine of up to $4,400 for the four 

violations deemed admitted. I agree with the agency that it suggested civil penalty of 

$3,000 is appropriate to the circumstances of this case. 

Respondent's action in operating an ultralight vehicle over a congested area 

exposed the public to an unreasonable risk of danger. The intent of the regulation 

involved, §103.15, is to "prevent any harm to people on the ground" (1 Tr. 162; 

James B. McCullough, 2 NTSB 1034, 1036, Order No. EA-614 (1974)). 

Respondent's actions created an unacceptable hazard to people and property on the 

ground. A malfunction could have resulted in the ultralight dropping towards the 

ground - even plunging straight down - and causing harm to anyone and anything 

in its way. 

Mr. Wardle appears to suggest in his defense that he is an experienced and 

responsible aviator who could skillfully handle adverse situations. He argues that he 

is a licensed private pilot with 1,600 flight hours, and that his regular aircraft, even 

when its engine has seized, never has fallen from the sky (Tr. 41, 45). But these 

contentions do not speak to the agency's allegations. The FARs have drawn the 

boundaries of acceptable risk, and Respondent's operation crossed them. The 

extent of the risk created by Wardle's actions warrants a significant fine. 

Additionally, as noted, Complainant operated in Class E airspace without 

permission. This action presented a peril of unknown magnitude to pilots operating 
or preparing to operate legally in such space. Flying after sunset, finally, created its 

own significant hazard, as has been seen. 

I have considered all other arguments made by Respondent and reject them 

without further comment.^ 

In weighing all the relevant factors, I conclude that a civil penalty assessment 

of $3,000 is warranted. The amount appropriately accounts for the number and 

character of the violations. Respondent's actions created discrete material risks to 

the safety of individuals, other aircraft, and structures. While the fine is less than the 

maximum assessable, it nonetheless constitutes a significant levy to an individual. I 

find that the civil penalty assessed will act as an appropriate deterrent to 

Respondent and to current and would-be ultralight flyers. It will promote adherence 

to the FARs. 

I hereby assess against Respondent Joey D. Wardle a civil penalty of $3,000 

forviolationsof 14C.F.R. §§103.9(a), 103.11(a), and 103.15 and 103.17 as set out 

in this Initial Decision." 

lichard Cr Goodv 

'Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

^ Whether a police officer involved in the questioning of Mr. Wardle has a "vendetta" against him is 

irrelevant to the charges or to Respondent's behavior. 

" This decision may be appealed to the Administrator of the FAA. The notice of appeal must conform to 

sections 13.210, 13.211(e) and 13.233 of the Rules of Practice, which require that a notice of appeal l)be 

filed not later than 10 days (plus an additional five days if mailed) from the service date of this decision, 

and 2) be perfected with a written brief or memorandum not later than 50 days (plus an additional five, if 

mailed) from the service date of this decision. The notice of appeal and brief or memorandum must either 

be a) mailed to the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 

20591, Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, or b) delivered 

personally or via expedited courier service to the Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, D.C. 20591, Attn: Hearing Docket 

Clerk, AGC-430. A copy of the notice of appeal and brief or memorandum also must be sent to agency 

counsel. Service upon the presiding judge is optional. 
^ 

FAA Docket No. CP09CE0003 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC^SG 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Joey D. Wardle, Respondent 

1301 S. 15'" Street 

Burlington, lA 52601 

TEL: 309-299-7502 

Mark G. Camacho, Claimant's Counsel 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

901 Locust, Room 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

TEL: 816-329-3765 

FAX: 816-329-3771 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor: 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant: 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

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 

2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.