### SERVE D JUN E4 , 201 0 UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D . C . FEDERA LAVIATIO NADMINISTRATION , Complainant ,

JOE Y D . WARDLE , Respondent . FA A DOCKE T No . CP09CE000 3 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) DMS No . FAA-2009-084 3

INITIA L DECISIO N O F ADMINISTRATIV E LA W JUDG E RICHAR D C . GOODWI N Found : Responden t

i s assesse dacivi l penalt y o f $3,000 . I . BACKGROUN D Joe yD . Wardl e ("Respondent " o r"Wardle") , of Burlington , I A , i s a pilo t an d a n ultraligh t vehicl e hobbyist . A n ultraligh t i s a recreationa l vehicl e an d i s considere d unde rth e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s ("FARs") , 1 4 C.F.R . §1. 1 e t seq. , t o b e a n aircraft. ^ Wardle' s ultraligh t i s powere d an d i s als o know n a s a paraglide r{se e Jr . 36) . A s a resul t o

f a fligh t Responden t undertoo k o n o rabou t Octobe r10 , 2008 , h e wa s cite d b yth e FAA , Centra l Regio n ("Complainant " o r"th e agency" ) fo r operatin g i n violatio n of 1 4 C.F.R . §§103.9(a) , 103.11(a) , 103.15 , an d 103.1 7 of th e FARs . Sectio n 103.9(a ) prohibit s anyon e fro m operatin g a n ultraligh t vehicl e "i n a Par t 10 3 o f the FARs i

n pertinen t par t define s a n ultraligh t as avehicle that : (a ) I s usedo r intendedt o b e use dfo r manne doperation s i

n the ai r b y asingl e occupant ; (b ) I s use do r intendedt o b e use dfo r recreatio n o

r spor t purpose s only ; (c ) Doe s not

have an y U.S . o r foreig n airworthines s certificate;.. . (e) I f powered : (1 ) Weigh s les s tha

n25 4 pound s empt

y weight , excluding floats an dsafet y device s whic

h ar e intendedfo

r deploymen

t i n apotentially catastrophi c situation ; (2) Has afue

l capacit y not exceeding 5 U.S . gallons; . . .manne rtha t create s a hazar d t o othe rperson s o rproperty. " Sectio n 103.1 1 (a )

prohibit s operatio n of a n ultraligh t "excep t betwee n th e hours o f sunris e an d sunset " (bu t make s a n exceptio n fo rsituation s inapplicabl e i n thi s case) . Sectio n 103.1 5 proscribe s ultraligh t operatio n "ove ran ycongeste d are a of a city , town , o r settlement , o rove ran yope n ai rassembl yo f persons. " Sectio n 103.17 , i n relevan t part , prohibit s an yperso n fro m operatin g a n ultraligh t "withi n th e latera l boundaries " o f th e surfac e are a of Clas s E airspac e designate d fo ra n airport " unles s th e operato r ha s prio rpermission . Th e agencyseeks a tota l civi l penaltyof $3,00 0 ( 1 Jr . 62) . Responden t di d no t counte rwit h hi s ow n figure . Wardl e neve ranswere d th e Complaint . Afte rth e agencymove d unde r §13.209(f ) of th e Rule s of Practic e t o dee m th e allegation s o f it s Complain t admitted , o n Februar

y18 , 201 0 I issue d a n Orde rspecificall ydirectin g Mr . Wardl e t o answe r bya dat e certain . Th e Orde rwarne d Responden t tha t a failur e t o answe rth e Orde r an d th e Complain t b yth e du e dat e coul d resul t i n a subsequen t orde rgrantin g th e relie f requeste d - - tha t is , deemin g th e allegation s o f th e Complain t admitted . Wardl e neithe rresponde d t o th e Orde rno ranswere d th e Complaint . O n Marc h 8 , 2010 , th e undersigne d issue d a n orde rdeemin g th e allegation s of th e Complain t admitted. ^

Th e orde rlimite d thi s proceedin g t o th e issu e of civi l penalty . Thu s th e sol e issu e i s th e amoun t of th e civi l penaltyt o b e levied . A n ora l evidentiar

yhearin g wa s hel d i n Davenport , l Ao n Marc h 11 , 2010 . Mr . Wardl e appeare d pr o se . Bot h partie s mad e closin g statements , an d th e matte r i s no wread yfo rdecision . 

### I LDISCUSSIO N AN

D FINDING S I fin d an d conclud e tha t a civi l penaltyof $3,00 0 fo rth e violation s foun d i s warranted . I t i s appropriat e t o th e natur e an d exten t of Respondent' s conduct . FA Aoperation s safet yinspecto rDonal d Wood , of th e De s Moine s (lA ) Fligh t Standard s District Office , testifie d fo rComplainant . H e provide d backgroun d an d context t o th e charge s i n explainin g th e agency' s rational e fo rth e fin e i t proposed . Inspecto rWoo d testifie d tha t Mr . Wardl e fle whi s ultraligh t aircraft fo rabou t 3 0 minutes . H e operate d i t throug h clas s E airspac e withou t permission . H e operate d ver ynea rth e departur e pat h o n on e of th e runway s i n th e loca l airport . Mr . Wardl e als o fle wove ra congeste d area . H e fle wto o lowove ra Walmart store . An d h e fle w afte rsunse t (Tr . 22-24 , 37-38) . Althoug h th e charge s themselve s canno t nowb e contested . Respondent' s explanatio n of th e inciden t i s weighe d i n th e determinatio n of a prope rpenalty . Mr . Wardl e acknowledge d tha t h e lande d afte rdark . H e calle d i t a n unintentiona l "mistake. " H e blame d i t o n a headwin d whic h delaye d hi s retur n (Tr . 44-46 , 65) . Mr . Wardl e als o acknowledge d flyin g to o lo wove rth e Walmar t stor e (Tr . 50-51) . ^ A t the hearing Complainan

t wa s permittedt

o amen dParagraphni. 2 o

f th e Complain

t t o stat e tha t Responden

t i s subject t o acivil penalt

y o f u p t o $ 1,10 0 - not $ 11,00 0 as statedi

n the origina

l Complain

t - o n eac ho f the fou r violation s alleged . Tr . 5-7 .However , h e denie d tha t hi s fligh t wa s i n th e pat h of eithe rof th e tw o runway s (Tr .

65) . I n hi s defens e Wardl e als o claime d tha t on e o f th e polic e officer s wh o questione d an d detaine d hi m ha d habituall y"harassed " hi m an d ha d a "vendetta " agains t hi m (Tr . 44) . Inspecto rWoo d explaine d th e risks t o safetypresente d b yRespondent' s ' " operation . Ultraligh t flyin g afte rsunse t i s prohibite d becaus e of th e inabilit yt o se e an d b e seen . Mr . Wardle' s craft ha d n o light s whic h migh t hav e enable d hi m t o se e othe raircraft o rwhic h migh t hav e assiste d othe raircraft i n seein g hi m (Tr . 24-25) . Respondent' s flyin g ove rcongeste d areas , further , compromise d safety . Thi s actio n needlessl yendangere d peopl e an d structure s o n th e groun d - a dange rwhic h wa s compounde d b yflyin g afte rdar k (Tr . 27-28) . Operatin g clos e t o a departur e pat h als o undermine d safet ybecause , whil e n o departure s ha d bee n scheduled , Respondent' s action s imperile d th e possibilit yof a n emergencytakeoff . Finally , Complainan t showe d tha t Responden t shoul d hav e know n better . Ultraligh t operators ar e no t require d t o hol d a certificat e (Se e n . 1) . Bu t Mr . Wardl e i s a license d pilot . H e hold s a privat e pilo t certificate . A s such , h e i s wel l awar e tha t detaile d regulation s gover n th e us e o f aircraft an d th e utilizatio n o f airspace . Further , h e knows (o rshoul d know) tha t thes e regulation s an d restriction s ar e designe d abov e al l fo rth e safet yo f th e public . Wardle' s impute d knowledg e a s a certificate d pilo t require s tha t h e b e hel d t o a standar d of conduct highe rtha n warrante d fo rth e genera l publi c(Tr . 19-22 , 26) . Thes e consideration s poin t t o a civi l penaltynea rth e hig h en d of possibilities . Th e agencynote s tha t i t coul d hav e requeste d a fin e o f u p t o $4,40 0 fo rth e fou r violation s deeme d admitted . I agre e wit h th e agencytha t i t suggeste d civi l penaltyof $3,00 0 i s appropriat e t o th e circumstance s of thi s case . Respondent' s actio n i n operatin g a n ultraligh t vehicl e ove ra congeste d are a expose d th e publi ct o a n unreasonabl e ris k o f danger . Th e inten t of th e regulatio n involved , §103.15 , i s t o "preven t an yhar m t o peopl e o n th e ground " ( 1 Tr . 162 ; Jame s B . McCullough , 2 NTS B 1034 , 1036 , Orde rNo . EA-61 4 (1974)) . Respondent' s action s create d a n unacceptabl e hazar d t o peopl e an d propertyo n th e ground . Amalfunctio n coul d hav e resulte d i n th e ultraligh t droppin g toward s th e groun d - eve n plungin g straigh t dow n - an d causin g har m t o anyon e an d anythin g i n it s way . Mr . Wardl e appears t o sugges t i n hi s defens e tha t h e i s a n experience d an d responsibl e aviato rwh o coul d skillfull yhandl e advers e situations . H e argue s tha t h e i s a license d privat e pilo t wit h 1,60 0 fligh t hours , an d tha t hi s regula raircraft , eve n whe n it s engin e ha s seized , neve rha s falle n fro m th e sk y(Tr . 41 , 45) . Bu t thes e contention s d o no t spea k t o th e agency' s allegations . Th e FAR s hav e draw n th e boundarie s of acceptabl e risk , an d Respondent' s operatio n crosse d them . Th e exten t of th e ris k

create d b yWardle' s action s warrant s a significan t fine . Additionally , a s noted , Complainan t operate d i n Clas s E airspac e withou t permission . Thi s actio n presente d a peri l of unknow n magnitud e t o pilot s operatin go rpreparin g t o operat e legall yi n suc h space . Flyin g afte rsunset , finally , create d it s

ow n significan t hazard , a s ha s bee n seen . I hav e considere d al l othe rargument s mad e b yResponden t an d reject the m withou t furthe rcomment. ^ I n weighin g al l th e relevan t factors , I conclud e tha t a civi l penaltyassessmen t of $3,00 0 i s warranted . Th e amoun t appropriatel yaccount s fo rth e numbe ran d characte ro

f th e violations . Respondent' s action s create d discret e materia l risks t o th e safet yo

f individuals , othe raircraft , an d structures . Whil e th e fin e i s les s tha n th e maximu m assessable , i t nonetheles s constitute s a significan t lev yt o a n individual . I fin d tha t th e civi l penaltyassesse d wil l ac t a s a n appropriat e deterren t t o Responden t an d t o curren t an d would-b e ultraligh t flyers . I t wil l promot e adherenc e t o th e FARs . I hereb yasses s agains t Responden t Joe yD . Wardl e a civi l penaltyof $3,00 0 forviolationso f 14C.F.R . §§103.9(a) , 103.11(a) , an d 103.1 5 an d 103.1 7 a s se t ou t i n thi s Initia l Decision. "

lichar d C rGoodv 'Administrativ e La

wJudg e Attachmen t - Servic e Lis t

^ Whethe r

apolic e officer

involve din th e questionin g o f Mr . Wardl e ha s a"vendetta " agains t hi mi s irrelevan t t o th e charge s o r

t o Respondent' s behavior . " Thi s decisio n may b e appeale dt o th e Administrato r o f th e FAA . Th e notic e o f

appeal mus t

conformt o section s 13.210 , 13.211(e ) an d13.23 3 o f th e Rule s o f

Practice , whic hrequir e tha t anotic e o f

appeal l)b e file dno t late r tha n 1 0 day s (plu s a nadditiona l fiv e day s i f mailed ) fromth e servic e dat e o f thi s decision , an d2 ) b e perfecte dwit

hawritte nbrie f

o r memorandu mno t

late r than5 0 day s (plu s a nadditiona l five , if mailed ) fro mth e servic e dat e o f thi s decision . Th e notic e o f appeal an dbrie f

o r memorandu mmus t

eithe r b e a ) maile dt o th e Federa l Aviatio nAdministration , 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Washington , D C 20591 , Attn : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 , o r b ) delivere d personall y o r

vi aexpedite dcourie r

servic e t o th e Federa l Aviatio nAdministration , 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r

Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 , Washington , D.C . 20591 , Attn : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 . A cop y o f th e notic e o f

appea l an dbrie f

o r memorandu mals o mus t

b e sen t t o agenc y counsel . Servic e upo nth e presidin g judg e i s optional .^ FA A Docke t No . CP09CE000 3 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC^S G Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 ' ON ECOP Y Joe y D . Wardle , Responden t 130 1 S . 15' " Stree t Burlington , l A 5260 1 TEL : 309-299-750 2 Mar k G . Camacho , Claimant' s Counse l Offic e o f Regiona l Counse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 90 1 Locust , Roo m50 6 Kansa s City , M O 64106-264 1 TEL : 816-329-3765 FAX : 816-329-377 1 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Advisor : 202-366-213 9 Lega l Assistant : 202-366-512 1 FAX : 202-366-753 6

Service was b

y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n person o r b y expeditedcourier , us e the followin g address : Federa l AviationAdministration , 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D

C 20591 ; Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 .