William A. Curtright 

Respondent 

PO Box 1350 

Jefferson, OR 97352 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax: (503) 485-0812 

In The Matter Of: 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

RECEI\!EO 

NOV 2 8 2016 

HEARING DOCKET 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

WILLIAM A. CURTRIGHT, DBA 

Case No. 2014NM090046 

Respondent 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

RESPONDENTS' RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO COMPLAINANT'S MOTION 

FOR PARTIAL DECISION (SUMMARY JUDGMENT) 

COMES NOW Respondent, William A. Curtright, DBA respectfully files and submits 

this Response and Objections to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary 

Judgment) Respondent would bring to the attention of this court that discovery has not ended 

and that Complainant has not answered Respondents Requests for Interrogatories and 

Production, along with Requests for Admissions. (Herein attached Respondent's Requests as 

Exhibit 1.) 

Factual background 

This matter arose when Aviation Safety Inspectors (ASis) from the Portland Flight Standards 

District Office (FSDO) investigated an incident that occurred on Respondent's property. 

Respondent objects to Complainant's Statement of Factual background that this matter arose 

from the investigation as an accident which has the definition of an unfortunate incident that 

Respondents Response and Objection to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary Judgment) William A. Curtright,DBA 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 Respondent 

Case No. 2014NM0046 Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 

Page 1 
happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury. There was 

no damage or injury in the Portland Flight Standards District Office investigation. There was an 

incident which has the definition of an unexpected and usually unpleasant thing that happens. 

Respondent responds that the FAA has never given an explanation of why they are proposing an 

$11,000.00 fine as the penalty, and further objects to such a fine and, what forms the basis for the 

maximum amount allowed. Respondent would further object to the amount of $11,000.00 fine as the 

penalty and state that it is unconstitutional under the Eight Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 

Respondent responds to the court that the FAA has not met the burden of proof as the moving party 

bringing this action before the court against Respondent because of lack of proving that the imposed fine 

of $11,000.00 truly reflects the magnitude and scope of time period where the records were lost and not 

available to the FAA for inspection. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is page 32 Lines 18-25 of the transcript 

of the telephone conference of August 9, 2016 before the Honorable J.E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative 

Law Judge.) 

Respondent objects to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision Summary Judgment in that the 

FAA hindered this case by not disclosing to Martin G. Conroy that the documents were produced on July 

7, 2014 as stated in the letter from Dr. W. Ames Curtright to Martin G. Conroy, dated September 9, 2014 

RE: EIR Number 2014NM090046 with attachments. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is the letter from Dr. 

W. Ames Curtright to Martin G. Conroy, dated September 9, 2014 with attached documents. 

Respondent objects to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision Summary Judgment for lack of 

evidence of violation of Section 14 C.F.R. 91.417(c) against Respondent. 

Respondent objects to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision Summary Judgment in that 

pursuant to the ALJ's rulings during the Prehearing Conference of September 20, 2016, the ALJ 

requested of Complainant to explain why he believed a civil penalty of the maximum amount of 

Respondents Response and Objection to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary Judgment) William A. Curtright,DBA 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 Respondent 

Case No. 2014NM0046 Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 

Page 2 
$11,000.00 was justifiable. To date, even in the Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision 

Summary Judgment he has not explained, or justified, the civil penalty. 

Respondent would show this court that according to the Federal Aviation Administration Cases 

by Regulation or Statute that there is no case that has been filed under Title 14 C.F.R. 91.417(c) 

since the last modification to the FAA web page of August 27, 2014. (Herein attached as Exhibit 

4 entitled FAA Cases by Regulation or Statute from the FAA web page.) 

Respondent would show the court that the only case in the FAA database that even comes 

remotely close to a violation under Title 14 C.F.R. 91.417 (c) is In the Matter of Scenic 

Mountain Air, Inc. FAA order No. 2001-5 Docket No. CP98AL0008 DMS No. F AA-1999-5568 

where in on page 5 Section Estates .... Although the complaint sought a $7,500.00 civil penalty, 

the law judge assessed Scenic.... Page 6 civil penalties of only $500 ..... per violation .... and 

would further the agency's policies of compliance and deterrence ..... (Initial Decision at 8.) 

(Herein attached as Exhibit 5 FAA Order No. 2001-5 Docket No CP98AL0008 DMS No. 1 FAA1999-5568.) 

Respondent would show the court and contests the allegations set forth in the Complainant, and 

Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary Judgment) of setting a precedence of a 

judicial decision that serves an authority for deciding a later case. Respondent would contest that 

litigating the amount of the sanction is unconstitutional under the eight amendment of the U.S. 

Constitution and burdensome for Respondent as Respondent is a pro se litigant. Respondent 

argues that pursuant to ORDER 2150.3B page 2-3g. Fairness states the following: 

Respondents Response and Objection to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary Judgment) William A. Curtright,DBA 

Docket No. FAA-2015·1319 Respondent 

Case No. 2014NM0046 Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 

Page 3 
"To be effective, the agency's compliance ond enforcement program must be fair and reasonable and 

should be perceived as fair by those subject to regulations ..... " It also requires good faith efforts to 

understand the apparent violator's position .... " 

On or about May 19,2015 the FAA through its attorney David J. Shayne filed a complaint; 

however, attorney David J. Shayne never signed the complaint, and did not list his attorney bar 

number to the complaint. 1 Respondent would request the court to impose sanctions against 

attorney David J. Shayne in the amount of$11,000.00 for failure to sign and include his state bar 

number on the complaint. 2 Respondent replies to the court according to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 11(a) (Fed.R.Civ. P. 1l(a) provides instructional guidance and Rule 11 (a) states, in 

part: "The court must strike an unsigned paper" ... i 

Elements that cannot be proven by the Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision Summary 

Judgment 

The Federal Aviation Administration Motion for Partial Summary Judgment cannot demonstrate 

a triable issue of fact as to Respondent being liable for a civil penalty of $11,000.00 as being 

appropriate for the alleged violation of Section 14. C.F.R. 91.417(c).4 

Complaint bears the burden of proving each element of his claims. Celotex Com. v. Catrett. 477 

U.S. 317. 323-24 (1986i Complainant fails to identifY specific facts, material to the elements of 

his claims, that are in dispute. Rather, he asserts conclusions he believes the court should reach 

1 FAA's Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R.§13.207(b) 2 FAA's Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R.§13.207(c) 3 FAA's Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R.§13.207(b) 

4

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett. 477 U.S. 317 323-24 (1986) 5 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986) 

Respondents Response and Objection to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision {Summary Judgment) William A. Curtright,DBA 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 Respondent 

Case No. 2014NM0046 Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 

Page 4 
based upon his twist of the facts. Complaint's twist, however, misrepresents the facts, takes 

them out of context or only provides half of the facts. Additionally, he attempts to present 

conclusory statements and immaterial matters that do not support the elements of his Complaint. 

Respondent again would state that the FAA attorney David Shayne ignored when documents 

were produced to him for compliance of production of Respondents log books. FAA attorney, 

David Shayne has ignored when local authorities in Oregon told him that Respondent was in 

compliance. 

Respondent further responds that Complainant is in violation of their own Rules and Regulations 

ORDER 2150.3B because Complainant failed to give proper notice to Respondent in 2014. The 

notice sent by Complainant was not signed by any one and is therefore not proper notice of an 

alleged violation. Further, the alleged violation was not signed by an attorney and no bar number 

was used in the Complaint filed with the United States of America Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearing in Washington, D.C., which is in violation of the FAA ORDER 2150.3B 

section 15 Legal Enforcement Actions. (Herein attached as Exhibit 6). 

Respondent hereby incorporates it's Motion for Summary Judgment, requires the Complainant 

to establish, by a preponderance of the evidences, a prima facie case that: (I) respondent did not 

produce or make the Log Books available for inspection by the Administrator or any authorized 

representative of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Respondent would state 

that the FAA has not identified grounds that will show a genuine issue of material fact 6 

6 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett. 477 U.S. 317. 323-24 (1986) 

Respondents Response and Objection to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary Judgment} William A. Curtright, DBA 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 Respondent 

Case No. 2014NM0046 Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 

Page 5 
Respondent responds to the court that the records themselves were produced to the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and that the records themselves do not need to, and 

arguably should not be, stored on the aircraft, but must be produced for inspection in a 

reasonable amount of time when requested by the FAA, NTSB or law enforcement. 

The Federal Aviation Administration Complaint cannot demonstrate a tribal issue of fact as to 

the allegations that Respondent is liable for a civil penalty of$11,000.00 as being appropriate for 

an alleged violation of Section 14. C.F.R. 91.417(c).7 

In addition, Respondent vindicating his Eight Amendment rights of the United States 

Constitution which is the part of the United States Bill of Rights prohibiting the federal 

government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment. 

Respondent moves for summary judgment on his claim that the Federal Aviation Administration 

failed to disclose the entire letter of investigation, dated September 4, 2014 to William Ames 

Curtright in its entirety. The FAA letter of Investigation has no signature page, or page 2. The 

document is page 1 and 3. The document is not an official letter, and is not authentic without a 

signature, or served and is not an entire document either served or produced by the FAA without 

the signature 8 

Respondent would argue and respond that because the FAA letter of investigation was unsigned 

and incomplete and was not produced or served in its entirety and therefor is not an authentic 

document. The FAA cannot rely on it for filing their initial Complaint and the entire Complaint 

filed by the FAA should be dismissed and Summary Judgment relief be granted to Respondent. 

7

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett. 477 U.S. 317.323-24 (1986) 8 FAA's Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R.§13.207(b) 

Respondents Response and Objection to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary Judgment) William A. Curtright,DBA 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 Respondent 

Case No. 2014NM0046 Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 

Page 6 
In addition, Respondent would argue that the FAA Letter, dated September 4, 2014 is for. ... 

"documentation of your compliance with the flight review requirement of 14 C.F .R. DOT 

61.56(c);" However, in the FAA's complaint that was filed with the Department of 

Transportation Office of Hearings in Washington, D.C. on or about May 19th 2015 the FAA 

alleges that Respondent was in violation of 14 CPR Section 91.417 (c) and does not include any 

allegations that Respondent was in violation of Section 14 C.P.R. DOT 61.56 (c), which has 

nothing to do with 14 CPR 91.417(c). Section 14 C.P.R. DOT 61.56(c) states the following: ... 

"Except as provided in paragraphs (d), (e) and (g) of this section, no person may act as pilot 

in command of an aircraft unless, since the beginning of the 241

h calendar month before the 

month in which that pilot acts as pilot in command, that person has ..... " 

On or about May 19,2015 the FAA through its attorney David J. Shayne filed a complaint; 

however, attorney David J. Shayne never signed the complaint, and did not list his attorney bar 

number to the complaint.9 Respondent would request the court to impose sanctions against 

attorney David J. Shayne in the amount of$11,000.00 for failure to sign and include his state bar 

number on the complaint. 10 Respondent replies to the court according to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure ll(a) (Fed.R.Civ. P. ll(a) provides instructional guidance and Rule 11 (a) states, in 

part: "The court must strike an unsigned paper" ... )

11 

Respondent replies the court that the FAA has never given an explanation of why they are proposing an 

$11,000.00 fine as the civil penalty, and what forms the basis for the maximum amount allowed. 

9 FAA's Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R.§13.207(b) 1

° FAA's Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R.§13.207(c) 11 FAA's Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R.§13.207(b) 

Respondents Response and Objection to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary Judgment) William A. Curtright, DBA 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 Respondent 

Case No. 2014NM0046 Telephone: (503} 209-7388 

Fax (503}485-0812 

Page 7 
Respondent would further show the court that in the Complaint that was filed the FAA alleges that 

respondent is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $11,000.00 pursuant to 49 U.S. C. Sections 46301 (a) 

and (d). (Hereto attached as Exhibit 6 is Title 49 U.S.C. Sections 46301 (a) and (d). Respondent replies 

this court that under Title 49 U.S.C. § 4630 ]-Civil penalties (A) states the following: "(1) A person is 

liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 (or $1,100 is the 

person is an individnal .... " The FAA did not bring the civil penalty allegation under the proper U.S.C. 

code oftitle 49 U.S.C.§ 46301 (d)(2), and (7)(a)) Respondent would request the court to grant summary 

judgment relief to Respondent on this matter for lack of explanation, jurisdiction, and incorrect citing of 

law for the maximum amount allowed in a civil penalty case. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is page 32 

lines 18-25 of the transcript of the telephone conference of August 9, 2016 before the Honorable J.E. 

Sullivan U.S. Administrative law Judge.) 

Respondent responds to the court that the FAA has not met the burden of proof as the moving party 

bringing this action before the court against Respondent because of Jack of proving that the imposed fme 

of $11,000.00 truly reflects the magnitude and scope of time period where the records were lost and not 

available to the FAA for inspection. Respondent replies to the court that in Complainant's Initial 

Disclosures Pursuant to the ALI's Order of August 10, 2016 and FRCP 26(l(a) that document 

2014NM090046 clearly states that on July 7, 2014 and August 28, 2014 Respondent sent copies of the 

documents that were requested of him to the FAA. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is document 

2014NM090046 with lines f, and h, j.) 

Respondent responds to the court that the FAA hindered this case by not disclosing to Martin G. Conroy 

that the documents were produced on July 7, 2014 as stated in the Jetter from Dr. W. Ames Curtright to 

Martin G. Conroy, dated September 9, 2014 herein attached as Exhibit 9 with attachments.) 

Respondents Response and Objection to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary Judgment) William A. Curtright,DBA 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 Respondent 

Case No. 2014NM0046 Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 

Page 8 
For the reasons stated above, Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary Judgment) 

should be denied. Furthermore, Respondent Motion for Summary Judgment filed on October 26, 

2016 be granted with prejudice. 

\ 1/J.J. \ '&0\\., 

Respectfully submitted this __ day of November 2016 

(,(J~ ~ ~------ Dr. Wm. Ames Curtright, DBA ----._ 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration (Fax and Certified First Class Mail) 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2Wl000 

Fax: (202) 267-1293 

ONE COPY 

Judge J.E. Sullivan (Fax, Email, and Certified First Class Mail) 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

David F. Shayne, FAA Attorney (Fax, Email, and Certified First Class Mail) 

Complainant's Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1847 

FAX: 425-227-1700 

Respondents Response and Objection to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary Judgment) William A. Curtright, DBA 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 Respondent 

Case No. 2014NM0046 Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 

Page 9 
I) 

William A. Curtright 

Respondent 

POBox 1350 

Jefferson, OR 97352 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax: (503) 485-0812 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In The Matter Of: 

WJLLJAM A. CURTRIGHT, DBA 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Respondent Case No. 2014NM090046 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

RESPONDENTS' REOUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF 

Avi2 I 

and) ' 

' 

Rul! 

Req 

wi~ 

obt 

yo! 

DOCUMENTS 

l ~ ® :5 6 6 

~~~ .e.~!~ Sm~ a 'E'E:@: --~:2' '!i!m-ooc• ~"0¥ ~00 ,.,§,Q)~~Ii ~~~-- 'E.!!!!_ m ._.~::'Iii <tl1:: ifl·t§1liil 

DOD d DOj 

-~ ; Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal 

~ :") and/or its representative agent or agents, 

~ 

a: ,nd tbe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

;equests for Production of Documents, and 

~r information and/or documents not only 

tt also information in tbe possession of or 

~. employees, agents, or anyone acting on 

u.s. Rostal Service~. , 

' ' 

' ' 

GERiliiRIED M:t-\1[,. REQEIF!,ili , dij (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Ptol(ide'd) 

.. . . . .. . . ' l OFFICIAl u SE 

! 

atj 

I 

a!] . Postage $ 

: 

.Certified Fee 

Return Receipt Fee ~elma.k (Endorsement Required) He"' 

Restricted Delivery Fee 

(Endorsement Required) 

I 

I Pa 

RE/ 

oq 

Total Postage & Fees $ c~ 

' 

• ·r.:i 

' ' 

I 
- ' 

William A. Curtright 

Respondent 

POBox 1350 

Jefferson, OR 97352 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax: (503) 485-0812 

In The Matter Of: 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

WILLIAM A. CURTRIGHT, DBA 

Case No. 2014NM090046 

Respondent 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

RESPONDENTS' REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS 

To: Complainant, Complainant of FAA Administrator Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal 

Aviation Administration (the "Administrator" or Complainant") and/or its representatiw agent or agents, 

and/or employees In accordance with 14 CFR § 13.220 and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

Rule 33 please respond to the following Interrogatories, Requesls for Production of Documents, and 

Request for Admissions, separately and fully under oath. 

These discovery requests are intended to discover information and/or documents not only 

within your personal knowledge or obtainable by you, but also information in the possession of or 

obtainable by your attorneys, investigators, representatives, employees, agents, or anyone acting on 

your behalf or on their behalf. 

These discovery requests are continuing in nature and any information which may be 

discovered by you subsequent to the service and filing of yollf answers must be brought to the 

attention of the respondent through supplemental answers when it becomes available to you, 

and a reasonable time prior to the hearing in this matter. If there are any additions, deletions or 

Page 1 RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCfiON OF DOCUMENTS 

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright,DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
changes in the answers or information provided at any time prior to hearing the Complainant is 

specifically requested to so immediately inform the Respondent. If such information is not 

furnished, the Respondent at the time of the hearing will move to exclude from evidence such 

information requested and not furnished. 

The Respondent further requests that the Complainant produce, via mail or in person, the 

documents identified and designated herein for inspection and copying at the add r e s s of 

4135 Paradise Hill, S.E. Turner, Oregon 97392 

DEFINITIONS 

For purposes of these interrogatories the following abbreviations and definitions shall apply. 

1. The terms "you" and "your" mean the party to whom these interrogatories are 

addressed, and your attorneys, agents, employees, representatives, investigators, and 

any other person who is in possession of, or who has obtained information on your behalf. 

2. The term "document" means information stored in any form; any written, recorded or 

graphic matter, however produced or reproduced; and copies and drafts thereof. Without 

limiting the foregoing, "document" includes correspondence; telegrams; memoranda; 

reports; notes; drafts; minutes; contracts; agreements; books; records; vouchers; 

invoices; diaries; logs; calendar notes; computer printouts; memory programs; 

information stored in any data processing or word processing system, in whatever 

form; backup materials of any kind; card files; press clippings; newspapers or 

newsletters; sworn ·or unsworn statements or employees; lists; audits; tables of 

organization; deposit slips; monthly or other periodic statements; ledgers; journals; 

notices; affidavits; court papers; appointment books; minutes or records of conferences 

or telephone calls; brochures; receipts; written reports or opinions of investigators or 

experts; status reports; drawings; charts; photographs; negatives; or tape recordings 

within your possession, or subject to your control, of which you have knowledge, or 

Page 2 RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright, DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
to which you now have, or have had access, or of which any of your agents, attorneys, 

accountants, or consultants have knowledge. A comment or notation appearing on any 

document, not part of the original text, is to be considered as a separate 

"document" 

3. The term "identify" means: 

A. When referring to a natural person, state his/her full name, his/her present or last 

known business or home address ifthere is no business address. 

B. When referring to a document, state its title and date; identify the author or person 

who prepared it and any signatories to it; give the type of document (M, 

letter, memorandum, invoice); its present location and custodian; a snmmary of its 

contents, or principal terms and provisions; the identity of its addresses and all other 

persons receiving it or copies of it. If the document so identified was, but is not 

longer, in your possession, custody and control, state what disposition has been 

made of it. Attach a copy of it to your response to these interrogatories. 

PRIVILEGE 

If, in responding to, or failing to respond to these interrogatories and requests for production 

you invoke or rely upon any privilege of any kind, state specifically the nature of the privilege; the 

basis upon which you invoke, rely upon or claim it, including any statutory or decisional reference; 

and identify all documents or other information, including contacts and communications which you 

believe to be embraced by the privilege invoked. 

DATED this 31" day of October, 2016 

Lo ~ 0----e._..._ __ 

William Ames Curtright, DBA 

Page 3 RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright, DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: 1503) 209-7388 

Fax IS03)485-0812 
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

INTERROGATORY No. 1: Describe with specificity all of the facts and arguments which you 

anticipate presenting in the course ofthe Department of Transportation (DOT) hearing in this 

matter pertaining to the civil penalty amount that the FAA seeks in this case of action. 

INTERROGATORY No.2: Describe with specificity all of the facts and arguments which you 

anticipate presenting in the course of the Department of Transportation (DOT) hearing in this matter 

pertaining to the civil penalty amount sought by the FAA in the case of action. 

INTERROGATORY No.3: Describe with specificity all of the facts and arguments which you 

anticipate presenting in the course of the Department of Transportation (DOT) hearing in this matter 

identifying the grounds that will show a genuine issue of material fact. 

INTERROGATORY No. 4:Describe with specificity all of the facts and arguments which you 

anticipate presenting in the course of the Department of Transportation (DOT) hearing in this matter 

identifying why the FAA believes a civil penalty of $11,000.00 as being appropriate for the 

alleged violation of Section 14. C.F.R. 91.417(c). 

INTERROGATORY No. 5: Describe with specificity all of the facts and arguments which you anticipate 

presenting in the course of the Department of Transportation (DOT) hearing the FAA's explanation of 

why they are proposing an $11,000.00 fine as the civil penalty, and what fonns the basis for the maximum 

amount allowed. 

INTERROGATORY No.6: Describe with specificity all of the facts and arguments which you 

anticipate presenting in the course of the Department of Transportation (DOT) hearing in this matter 

identifying why the FAA had offered a settlement of $5,000.00. 

INTERROGATORY No.7: Describe with specificity all of the facts and arguments which you 

anticipate presenting in the course of the Department of Transportation (DOT) hearing in this matter 

identifying why the FAA had offered a settlement of $3,500.00 for full settlement of this case. 

INTERROGATORY No. 8: Identify by name, address and telephone number, all persons whom you 

discussed at your agency regarding the FAA offered settlement of $5,000.00. 

INTERROGATORY No.9: Identify by name, address and telephone number, all persons whom you 

discussed at your agency regarding the FAA offered settlement of $3,5000.00. 

INTERROGATORY No 10: Identify by name, address and telepl:tone number all persons whom you 

know to have personal knowledge of the matters alleged in the Complaint. 

INTERROGATORY N o . 1 1 : Identify by title, date, author, present custodian, and content, 

all documents, including correspondence, obtained by you or in your possession, relating to the 

Page 4 RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright, DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
assertions in the Complaint, and evidence that Respondent did not provide the documentation 

that was requested of him under Section 14 C.F.R. 91.417(c). 

INTERROGATORY No. 12: Identify by name, address and telephone number, all persons whom 

you intend to have testify as a factual or expert witness in support of your complaint at the hearing 

in this matter, and for factual witnesses, provide a detailed summary of each persons anticipated 

testimony. 

INTERROGATORY No. 13: Identify by title, date, author, present custodian, and content, all 

documents which you anticipate offering into evidence at the hearing in this matter, and through 

which witness or witnesses. 

INTERROGATORY No. 14: Withrespectto each expert witness identified in response to 

Interrogatory No.12, above, specify their specific area of expertise, and provide a synopsis of their 

credentials, background, training and experience. 

INTERROGATORY No. 15: With respect to each expert you expect to call as a witness, state the 

subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and state the substance of the facts and 

opinions to which the expert is expected to testify, and a summary of the grounds for each such 

opinion. 

INTERROGATORY No. 16: State by name, address, telephone number, date of conversation, and 

substance of conversation, all persons with whom you have discussed the matters alleged in the 

Complaint. 

INTERROGATORY No.17: If you deny any or an· of Requests for Admissions, please 

explain in detail the specific reason for each and every fact denied. 

INTERROGATORY No. 18: If you deny any or all of Request for Admissions please explain in 

detail the specific reason for each and every fact denied and sate specifically whether you had a 

conversation with ASI Comoy and, if so, what is your recollection of the conversation. 

INTERROGATORY No. 19: With respect to FAA attorney David F. Shayne, please describe if you 

are a permanent employee of the FAA or a contracted attorney with the FAA. 

INTERROGATORY No. 20: With respect to FAA attorney David F. Shayne, please describe if you 

are a contracted attorney with the FAA if you receive a percentage payment based on the amount of 

civil penalties are collected by you or the FAA. 

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Provide a copy of all documents referred to in your 

answer to the preceding interrogatories No. 1 through No. 20. 

Page 5 RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright, DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 

You are requested to admit the truth of the following matters. A matter is admitted unless 

responded to by November 30, 2016. A "response" includes serving an answer upon the agency 

attorney either admitting the matter, specifically denying the matter, stating why the matter cannot be 

admitted or denied, or objecting to the request, with reasons for the objection stated. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No 1. Admit that Attachment 1 is a true and correct copy of an 

electronic mail message (email) you sent to Wm. Ames Curtright, DBA on October 14, 2015 and 

an electronic mail message (email) Wm. Ames Curtright, DBA sent to you, David F. Shayne on 

October 14, 2015. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No 2. Admit that Attachment 2 is a true and correct copy of a 

speed memo that was attached to the October 14, 2015 electronic mail message (email) (document 

request for admission No. 1) from the FM in Hillsboro, Oregon to Marty G. Conroy cc: Bill 

McKibbon regarding INSPECTOR STATEMENT. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No 3. Admit that Attachment 3 is a true and correct copy of the 

Complaint that the FAA filed with the United States Of America Department of 

Transportation Office of Hearings Washington, D.C. by FAA attorney David F. 

Shayne against William A. Curtright with case no. FAA Case No. 2014NM090046. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No 4. Admit that Attachment 4 is a true and correct copy of a 

A SECTION B Statement of Case and Factors Affecting Sanction produced by the FAA in their 

initial disclosure statement in Case No. 2014NM090046. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No 5. Admit that Attachment 5 is a true and correct copy of a 

letter to Martin G. Conroy from Dr. W. Ames Curtright, dated September 9, 2014 re: 

EIR Number 2014NM090046 with attachments of Oregon Aircraft Registration 

Certificate; Memorandum from Ben W. Davidson to William Ames Curtright dated 

August 26, 2014;medical Certificate Third Class; electronic mail message (email) 

from William Ames Curtright to Marty Conroy dated July 7, 2014 with subject 

N949JP Information, The Standard Pilot Log book. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No 6. Admit that Attachment 6 is a true and correct copy of 

a electronic mail message (email) from William Ames Curtright to Marty Conroy 

dated August 28, 2014 subject N949JP Information. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No 7. Admit that Attachment 7 is a true and correct copy of a a 

Page 6 RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS 

Docket No. FAA-2015·1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright, DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209·7388 

Fax (503)485·0812 
Decision and Order in the matter of Premier Jets, Inc. with FAA Order No. 99-7 

Served August 31, 1999 with Docket No. CP97NM0005 that was sent to FAA 

attorney David F. Shayne with Respondent's additional disclosures pursuant to FRCP 

2691(a) on September 20'h 23016 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No 8. Admit that Attachment 8 is a true and correct copy of 

a photo's of N949JP log book 1, 2 and 2 produced to FAA attorney David F. 

Shayne with Respondent Initial Disclosures Pursuant to the ALJ'S Order of 

August 10, 2016 and FRCP 269(a) on September 9, 2016 by Respondent. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No.9. Admit that Attachment 9 is a true and correct copy of 

a email from Scott Myers of FAA to Patty Abel dated July 30, 2015 regarding 

that they are in receipt of Mr. Curtright's email dated July 27, 2015 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No 1 0. Admit that Attachment I 0 is a true and correct copy 

of a electronic mail message (email) from Dr. William A. Curtright, DBA to 

Judge Richard Goodwin cc: Patricia Matthew and David F. Shayne dated August 

11, 2015 re: Reply to FAA's Motion; with electronic mail message (email) from 

patty Abel to Bill McKibbon and Scott Myers of FAA dated July 30, 2015 

regarding if they had received the documents sent on July 27, 2015. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No 11. Admit that Attachment 11 is a true and correct copy 

of a electronic mail message (email) from Dr. William A. Curtright, DBA to 

David Shayne dated July 23, 2015 regarding flight logs, weight and balance with 

attachments of FAA Approved Airplane flight manual supplement 2 with a total 

of 4 pages; Supplemental Type Certificate dated March I, 2011. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 12 Admit that Attachment 12 is a true and 

correct copy of a letter dated July 22, 2015 from Dr. Wm. Ames Curtright, DBA 

to Bill McKibbon and Scott Myers of Flight Standards Dist. Office re: EIR 

number 2014 NM0900046 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 13 Admit that Attachment 13 is a true and 

correct copy of a letter dated May 11, 2015 from Dr. Wm. Ames Curtright, DBA 

to Martin Conroy Aviation Safety Inspector re: Case No. 201 '4NM090046 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 14 Admit that Attachment 14 is a true and 

correct copy of a letter dated May 11, 2015 from Dr. Wm. Ames Curtright, DBA 

to Scott Myers re: FAA Case No. 21014NM090046 

Page 7 RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS 

Docket No. FAA-2015·1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright,DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
The undersigned Complainant herein has read the foregoing answers to Respondent's Request 

for Interrogatories and Production of Documents and Request for Admissions, and they are in 

compliance with Rules 1 I and 26(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

DATED this_ day of ___ ~2016. 

David F. Shayne 

FAA Attorney 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing Respondents Request for Interrogatories and Production of 

Documents and Request for Admissions, has been served as designated by the recipient this date, to 

the following: 

David F. Shayne, FAA Attorney (Fax, Email, and Certified First Class Mail) 

Complainant's Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1847 

FALX:425-227-1007 

Email: David.F .Shavne@faa.gov 

William 

~~~ Ames Curtright, DBA Dated October 31, 2016 

Page 8 RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright, DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209·7388 

Fax (503)485·0812 
' ' 

ATTACHMENTNO. 1 
. _ _...,··· .. ··· 

. . 

.!A(jlliam Ames Curtright _"; 

·rom: 

.>ent: 

To: 

David.F.Shayne@faa.gov 

Wednesday, October 14, 2015 2:15 PM 

ames@amesresearch.com 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

RE: Docket No. FAA-2015-1319, Curtright 

document2015-08-16-071730.pdf 

Here is a copy of the email I received and the memo 

Sorry David, 

This is to confirm the records have now been provided and examined to our satisfaction. Attached is a speed memo from 

inspector Cowley regarding his examination of the records. 

Best regards, 

Billy J. McKibbon 

Front Line Manager- Heavy Helicopter Unit 

Portland Flight Standards 

Federal Aviation Administration 

(503) 615·3235 

),alue your feedback. 

;htStandards SeNice Quality Management System (QMS) Feedback 

ro rm :http://www. faa .gov I about/ office_ o rg/hea dqua rte rs _offices/ avs/ offices/ afs/ q ms/ 

From: William Ames Curtright [mailto:ames@amesresearch.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 1:58 PM 

To: Shayne, David F (FAA) 

Subject: Docket No. FAA-2015-1319, Curtright 

David, I note that this matter is still before the courts. I also note the Order for Reassigning the proceedings to a new Judge. 

Thus 1 note that this matter isn't dismissed as of yet. 

1 Could you send me a copy of your last letter to the court requesting the 

Dropping and closure of this matter. 

As you know Curt Cowley visited our offices and reviewed all documentation ofthe lost documents from Portland, Oregon 

, Wm. Ames Curtright, BS, DBA 

--'0/President 

Ames Research Laboratories, Inc. 

ames@amesresearch.com 

Phone: 503-588-7000 

1 
SPEED MEMO 

SUBJECT 

EIR No. 2014NM090046, Lost Logs 

TO: 

DATE OF REPLY 

Marty G Conroy 

cc Bill McKibbon SIGNATURE OF REPLIER 

TITLE I ROUTING SYM. 

INITIAL MESSAGE 

INSPECTOR STATEMENT 

On Thursday, 08,13,2015. AS/'s Curt Cowley and Terry Juran inspected the ~ircraft maintenance records of Supercub 

N949JP, at Mr Curtright's place of business in Salem, Or. Mr Curtright was pleasant and curteous. He allowed us 

unrestricted access to the aircraft logbooks without distraction. 

The records were well organized and complete, back to the birth of the aircraft. The records did not appear to the 

alterered or edited in anyway. No descrepantcies were noted, and the aircra~appears to have been airworthy at the time 

of the accident 

REPLY MESSAGE 

I 

FROM: 

DATE OF INITIAL MESSAGE 

~§lost 11'12015 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION SIGN~/..t: O~rN7'0~~ Flight Standards District Office /. 'A'J. boA ..rJ D· '- 'V"( 

3180 NW 2291

" Avenue TITLE 

ASI V 

ROUTIN(1 SYM. 

Hillsboro. OREGON 97124 NM09 
ATTACHMENT NO.2 
~~ S.PE.ED.,MEMO. ~· 

SUBJECT 

EIR No. 2014NM090046, Lost Logs 't 

TO: 

DATE OF REPLY 

Marty G Conroy 

cc Bill McKibbon 

SIGNATURE OF RS'I.IeR 

TITLE I ROUTING SYM. 

INITIAL MESSAGE 

INSPECTOR STATEMENT 

On ·Thursday, 08-13-2015, ASI's Curt Cowley and Terry Jurorn inspepted tmaireraft maintenance rec\)l'ds of Supercub 

N949Jf>, at Mr Curtright's place of business in Salem, Or. Mr Curtright waspl!!asant and curteous. He allowed us 

unrestricted access to the aircraft logbooks without distraction. 

The (ecords were well organized and .complete, back to the birth of the alrcl9fl. The records did not appear to the 

alterered or edited in anyway. No descrapantcies were noted, and the airc~fl appears to have been airworthy at tile time 

of the accident 

' 

REPLY MESSAGE 

FROM: 

DATE Of INITIAL MESSAGE 

~st 1j,2015 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION SI(;'J;dcf. R~! Flight Standards District Office 

3180 NW 22glh Avenue 

TITLE (I ROUTIN<1SYM. 

Hillsboro, OREGON 97124 

ASI NM09 
ATTACHMENT NO.3 
DAVID F. SHAYNE 

FAA OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL 

1601 LIND AVE., SW 

RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 

TELBPHONE:{425)227-216S 

FACSIMILE: ( 425) 227-1007 

UNlTEDSTATESOF~CA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOltTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, D.C 

In the Matter of: 

William A. Curtright 

JUDGE NOT ASSIGNED: 

FAA CaseNo. 2014NM090046 

Judge NotAssigned 

COMPLAINT 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counel, hereby files its Complaint, 

pursuant to Rule 208 of the Rules of Practice (14 Code ofFeoeral Regulations (C.F.R.) Section 

13 .208), and states as follows: 

I. 

On May 6, 2015, William A. Curtright was advised tlirough a Final Notice of Proposed 

Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $11,000. On May 

· 11, 2015, Mr. Curtright submitted a written request for a hearing. 

n. 

1. William A. Curtright was and at all times materillhereto was the oWner and/or 

operator of a Piper Model PA-18135, a U.S. registered civil aircraft, N949JP .. 

2. On or about July 1, 2014, an Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) from the Portlsnd Flight 

Standards District Office wrote Mr. Curtright a letter demanding that he provide 

. COMPLAINT 

FAA v. William A. Curtright 

FAA Case No. 20!4NM090046 

Da~~?. Of'S' 

DAVfD F. Sl!AYNE, FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2165; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
/ .. -· . ..... 

/ 

aircraft weight and balance, and aircraft and engine tnllintenance logbooks for 

N949JP. 

3. Mr. Curtright sent two emails and a letter acknowledging that he was aware of the 

demand. 

4. As of this time, Mr. Curtright has failed to provide th~ maintenance records 

referenced above. 

m. 

1. By reasgn of the foregoing facts and circumstances, Mr. Curtright violated Section 91.417 

(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 Code of Federal R~gulations (C.P.R.)) in that 

he owned or operated an aircraft for which he failed to make all maintenance records 

required to be kept by this section available for inspection by the Administrator. 

2. In accordance with Sections 46301(a) and (d) of Title 49ofthe United States Code 

(U.S.C.) (Transportation) (49 U.S. C. Sections 46301(a) an.d (d)J, Mr. Curtright is liable 

for a civil penalty not to exceed $11,000 for each of the violations not~d. 

3. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of$11,000 is appropriate. 

WHEREFORE, the Agency, by counsel, respectfully requests that the Administrative 

Law Judge enter an Order that William A. Curtright be assessed a. civil penalty in the amount of 

$11,000. 

Respectfully submitted this I 9th day of May 2015. 

David F. Shayne FMAttorney 

COMPLAINT 

FAA v. William A. Curtright 

FAA Case No. 2014NM090046 

Pa.ge3 ofS 

DAVID F. SI!AYNB.FMATIORNEY 

lEL: (425) 227·2165; FAX: (425) 227·1007 
./ ANSWER 

In accordance with Section 13.209 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations, William. A. Curtright, 

must answer this Complaint not later than thirty (30) days from 111e time it is served. Failure to 

file an Answer within thirty (30) days without good cause shall be deemed an admission of the 

truth of each allegation contained in the Complaint [14.C.F.R. § 13.209(£)]. 

COMPLA!NT 

FAA v. William A. Cll$igbt 

FAA Case No. 2014NM090046 

Page4 of5 

DAVID F. S!IAYNB, FMArroRNEY 

1EL: (425) 227·2165; FAX: (425) 2~7·1007 
.-:.11 

/ 

.. i 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby cert!fY that the fore&oing Complaint has been served via facsimile and/or certified mail· 

Return Recetpt Requested this date, to the following: 

Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) 

800 Independence Avel;lue SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

Fax: (202) 267-1293 

William A. Curtright 

P.O. Box 1350 

Jefferson, OR 97352 

Dated this 19th day ofMay2015. ,,•' 

T . Kirk 

0 ce ofRegional Couns~l (ANM-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

(425) 227-2007 

. COMPLAINT 

DAVID F. S!!AYNE, FAAATIOBNEY 

TBL: (425) 227-2165; FAX: (425) 227-1007 

FAA v. William A. Curtright 

FAA Case No. 2014NM090046 . 

PageS ofS 
ATTACHMENT NO.4 
. . . ' :' 

S}OCTIONB 

Statement of Case and Factors Affecting Sanction 

1. STATEME~.OFCASE 

. . 

b. The Northwest .Moun~ Regional Operations Center (ROC)coll1acted Inspector Martin 

Conroy on 6/16/14 informing him that N949JP a PA-18-13Sailplane, was involved in an 

accident. The ROC id~ed William Ames Cmt:n'ght, Certiffcafe NUmber 543487756, 

as the pilot in command and the owner ofN949JP, The Ioca1icn cfthe accident was at 

Mr. Curtright's private airport, Ames Airport, near Je:fferson,Oregon. The accident 

occurred on 6/15/14. (IOP 1, 2, 3) 

c .. IoSPector Coprciy conducted an onsite accident imrestigatlon it the Afll.es Airport on 

6/17/14. Inspector Conroy determined that the damage to N9f9JP was substantial and 

qualified as an accident. At that time, Jnspeotor Conroy aske! Mr. Curtright to prov:ide 

this office with the following documentation at bis earliest coavenience: aircraft weight 

and balance form, airftame and engine m~ce logbook.\ airworthiness and 

registration certificates, his endorsement demonstrating comJ!Iiance with the flight review 

requirement ofl4 CFR Part 61.56. (IOP4) 

d. This office mailed a letter to Mr. Curtright on 7/1114 again requesting the documents 

itemized.during the 6/17/14 site visit (IOP 5) 

e. That same day, Mr. Curtright contacted Inspector Conroy by mJail explaining that he 

needed more time to assemble the requested documents. (lOP 6) 

f On 717114, Mr. Curtright sent copies of the following documents by email: mcsimile 

used·as temporary registration for N949JP;· copy of a uniden1ilied pfiot logbook page 

with an entry for a pilot flight review dated 9/6/12 that lacked m instructor's 

endorsement; copy of third class medical certificate for Mr. C1irtright dated 6/26/2014; 

and copy of Oregon Aircraft Registration Certificate. (IOP 1) 

g. On 717/14, Inspector Conroy responded to this email correspondence again requesting the 

following missing docup1entation: a complete record of his jJjgltt review that included 

the illstructor's endorsement signature; aircraft weight and halmce record; airframe and 

engipe m!'Wt@I!Jmce logbo!!U. QO!! S} .. -... --

h. On 8{28/14, Mr. Curtright sent this office an email with copies of the following 

documen'ts: Weight and balance record; a Memorandum to Vtlliam Curtright from Ben 

W. Davidson, A&P 2855347IA, verizying that he completet au.nnual inspection of 

N949JP on 9/23/2013. In this email, Mr. Curtright inc!icatedtlal: "will not be able to go 

up this year" to Canada to retrieve the maintenance logbooks. (I<>P 9) 

i. This office sent a Letter oflnvestigation (101) to Mr. Curtliilt, recause he failed to 

present this office with the airframe and engine maintenanceloJ:IJooks for N949JP and a 

--- WJLLJAM.AMES..CUR-"J:RIGMT 

(Revis~d. 04/1612013) 

· . -20-14NM09DD46-

; 

' 

j 

j 
. ' 

. . 

complete record ofh.. QUIJ:ent flight review. The 101 was dalotJ :9/4/14 and sent 9/5/14. 

(lOP 10) · · . 

j. Mr. Cumight responded to th~ LOI with correspondence dated9/9/14. He exptained that 

the airframe and tnaintenance logbooks were located in Canada. Mr. Curtright did · enclose a complete copy of his current flight review that incl'l!d3d the instructor's 

endorsement. (lOP 11) · • . . 

k. On 9/24/14, Inspector Conroy con~ Mr. Curtright by telephone. Inspector Conroy 

asked him ifhe i!Uended to present thiS office With the airlh!meand engin~ logbooks for 

N949JP to allow the FAA to conclude if$ investigation into the accident of 6/15/14. Mr. 

Curtright responded that the logbooks were at his home in Canada and that he was not in 

a position to travel there and recover them. :Jilspector Conroy then askei1 Mr. Curtright if 

he could provide a future date when he would be able to "make 11lem available to this 

office for inspection. Mr. Curtright responded that he didnoteqJect to ~1 to Canada 

any time in the near :future. (lOP 12) 

-- -- - ----Wibb~AM-AME-S-GIJR-Y.RIGH:J: · 

(Revised· 0411612013) 

- · ----ZG'14NM090046 - ··-· · ···-·· · 

' 

i 

!" 
.. \ 

g. Use of certificate: Mt. Curlrlght is a Private Pilot operating~ m airoraftforreilreational 

putpOSjiS. 

L Decisional laW: Decisional Law issue will dete.rm.ined at the regiCll!a(J.ewl 

- - -· -WIWAM-AM&s-CUIURIGH+- · · - -·- ·· ····· · --- 2014NM090D46 

(Rmsect • 0411612013) 
• SECTION B (cont.) 

Statement of Case and Factor, 4f!ecting Sanction 

WILLIAM AMES CURTRIGHT 2014NM090046 

- (Revised -o~61Z013} 
ATTACHMENT NO.5 
'·. ,, ..... ' ...... .. 

September 9, Z014 

MartinG, conroy 

AviatlonSafelv fllspector 

Flight Still!darc!s .Dmt. Ofli~ 

3180 .NW 2l!9u. Ave. 

Hillsboro, OR 97!:24 

Re: EfR Nlll!lber Z014NM0900A6 

DftrSir: 

. ...... , . ~·· . ,. 

As ei!Plailied via email, the aiMft logs are not in the·Unitecf States; tlrlr are in Cil~ where I 

afso live. ram now awaitingtliitime to repair IllY aircraft repair. In crier to m-yqurrequest, 

I have emiiiled tlie te"mainillg docum.entlalld the Certifl~l!tio.n of Annm~II1SI!ectii!IJ as reqllested 

to the Portland o~. 

All ot~daeuments have been provided to you a~ requested •. Is it pcs.tfa vourpUple have 

net ope~ed your emalls te-t:hedlthe attachments? They were senttll ~Gr P~rtli!ldoffice, If 

vou are stUI missing~om.etllillg ret urknow. 

Wei h~ provided e (etterfivm the mechaniC who did the annual ce~n inspection. We 

recentlvemailed theweleht and balance but again we Will mail it to~'· 

'rhe event was on mv private pto~~erty. ft t<~ol< place after landing; !ben was~ $teedr!g problem 

because of a collapsed gear which caused a. hf•ng to tlie left. Tile ab'aft was not air&ome 

but inetfi\1 and the rail on tb' float$11!111¢ the aircraft to the left and lrlothegrast, thus, our 

tfescrip'lion oftlte evintwhlch damaged the aircraft. 

Your letters indicate you have never received anv oftllis information llilch isti'allbfillg. 

We have pl'iiVkled you the arrcraft weight and balance, ~irwortltlnessngts.tration certiltate, 

and decumentlltlon with the.f!lght raview requirements and all tftedCCJments VOII requested, 

. vet you people act as if you never received those items. 

We have provided to you the dacuments In a spiflt of cooperation. Alii~. we hope this meets 

your needs ~hd pray this bril!gS _clliS!JI'efor us both. 

Dr. w. Ames Curtrig~t 

.: ·-: iV' 

I 

I 

' 

' 

' 
FAA NO.:.N949JP 

Year: 1953 

' 

.' 

l 

Ce!tilicate:42l37 

EXpkatiOD:~Ol5 

i . 
1 

I 

Mem~randum 

Ta: WiUillliZ Ames Cul'lrigiJt 

Fwlm: JJen W. Dllvitlson 

D41e: 8121/2014 

Re: AlmllllllMpeC.IJtJnN949JP 

Bil~ 

TldlJ leiter is to velfP tluJt I campleted 1111 AnntiiJl!rlspeclion on N949JP 

aP4·18onS~r 23"'. 20/3. At t1vzt tr'ntelpovidedyouwith a~ lf8t tlvzt inclrided 1/Jf e;epiTerJ IJtltteryilr JONI' ELTthtll 

repired repl«t:ement. 

If 11/!.edfol'llter fJSGisklnae, pleflsr riu Mt heaitote II call anyti~ before 9pm,.. (541) 490-6980. 

Cfff-.~Pal 

Ben W. Davilson 

A&P2855341IA 

f 

I' 

I 

i 

I 

i 

! 
UNI1EUSTA'ISSGPMIIRIC\ 

iiWp:lll1rentefl!Drpllallan 

F«u.a!Aifd~nM'r.fi'J'mtesn" 

MI!DitW. CftftFIOA'I'I! 1ltfliD OLASS 

Wlti.IAM AMISC'liiiTRl'GHT 4135PARADIS£Ritt 

'l'URNSR OR 97.192 liSA 

OK 73121.§14 

WILLIAM AMES CURTRIGHT 

413:i PARADISE HILL 

TVRNBR OR 97392 USA 

DaarAinmn: 

DIVISION, AAM • 300 

A!Javo I• )'llUr OOW ntodical c<!lifiM. I! SUJ!II>•<I<t "'Y pAIViO!Il one YI"'II!DY haroiri<Jl il!lf4 

To vallda!e !&is certifteall, 11 is MC<IGSIIY rltar filii siJn k in die sp••• provi4t4 (Ai1111111~ Si&<~. 

ThiS .. lfificale IIW!t flo in your p....Won at alt tim., ~!lila exmising yo!Jf pR!II prM!e§t.•. 
-··-- ··-··--------·· . 

,..: 

Still: 

Jb: 

Suftect: 

A.tt\l~ts: 

Mlrtv. 

Pleas~ qe atb!lllted. As veu tn1gl\t Meal!VOO·tliok a (il«ure-oftlls afr·Wotthlnes~ 

cedicate when you cameollt, want 

me to. take another picture for9DU~ itthatwasllipe!f in t.lle ~O-(IIIl~!!wall. 

Ail'wqrt/linesr, wet damaged fe!lldeted~li On&. JJ~Ailm'l.S cti!Wfl'olii tog. 

IIJroV'i.ded i.t!te.dital certificate tovou at the time, and lltaw a b.sh New Medical m fast week. 

~~iill~ili'~~~--iiiiriliiimi'ififllilii~. 

"""--c.. ..... o~ • · &111 -"" ..... ,-·""'>il!"""ti~atilr"""" 

· L 

•••r"'~!-.,~~,~~!..,.-~~~~~~'!!l.~\lll!i~!l!!!!rM · . Jt\,,.• .. PI\l~''-'11~1 

1 l'ethad for tile People tltatd'e lostattlte t!last.lt'n. flan:f Job, your J4b. Tile plilrevS'ee 1 cailnot im~ne. Thaill!s 

for vourseiVIce an!! foryourpastervfce fn the mllitaly. 

As 1 S(OQCI 011 FIIV hill on tbe fmlrt/1 pf Jllll(watchiog the ~losions r.iffi'ri!!IIQr!ls frllmallsille~. It temfnded me of Vie! 

Naln ofSlteRs gOing off, of cannon fl~ andthii! I'Qiling thunder of Arml!geddon. 

It was different forme that nigh~ it gave me tlfQugl!ts. ofwbat was to come ifwl!d~IIOt change tlte cout'5e of our 

countrv, 

Good Luck to you and God blaSSt'ngs. 

• Ames 

'! I. 

"! 

I 

I 

' 

r 

(, 

,. 

I 

II 

I 

/. 

/' 

/, 

' 

' 

I. ' 

i; 

! ; i. 

I' 

i 

-

i

!

I 

I

! 

I 

I

I 

/
' ' 

'lite Stantfard Pilot Lag 

'jM ~y., ~ • f?\\1\1\.~~o~ c. \.!...~~'"";A-\ tl·~ f\- LttHalcrflllnht-

-~~~~~~ll'lallfiWMd'less li.C\\ \ \!3'!\ ~. ""G ,_ ___ _ 

;;...p.,\ .. '- q w9 ._ e . To----- J < 

Cellillllltes Herd lllllfqlleeolir 

=·=--

-· -lsslleil Clltft!OIIeN!nm . DlllftPlAN! t=\o~ ~\ 

(tee· e ,_ .... ,':!! &~,::!\~=t'\c: ... !MSi ,.lh,\i,w.. SJIIDENI' PILOT ..... iJ. --·~·~LEM!N!:' 9rRJ 

SPORT PILOT 0 MULlloEilSINE: ll~ CSEI hortM·· 

RECII5111QI'/AL PILOT amrlloi!NGIN!: Linilldtai!l~l.lne1ltmSI 

PRIVATE PILOT sl~tl~ . ~'?"C\9.:t)5 0 INSIIJUMENT 

COMMERCIAL PILar CGUDI!R IJA!!RO'RIII'I 0\\lNCHlllW 

Fl.ltllfi'INSIRUCTOR OPD~~~~e.~'TIFI':rcL qjRf.IN!li!ANSPORf PILOT 0 ROlliRC!IAFI' Olll!ll IJ aJ'PWIE 

IV!Al!ON'I'ECIINICIAN .0L!SHI'ERo111AIMIR IJ!IPlfliP IJIIAI.I.CION 

lROUND INSTRUCTOR 0 POWERED. LIFT 

Dlliii!ASIC IJGIAilVRIO!I CGIINQ!RUMM 

0 OlHI!R I!AllNGS (S,!Iilj) 

·~~._._ ........ 
' ·' 

!Conto,t; Mft G (fAAJ 

Ftom: 

S'eld: 

To.: 

Cc 

MJect: 

Mi. Ames Curtright: 

I do have a photog~pl! of !he airwortl!iness certifi'cate. and 1 do not l'tdd llinotfter. 

•l.drill'e!lf a.t~~ntp1ell!tseGrd 

tifyUiirll"tjlit~i!i~i\l:t!ilt'~lll•lfl!·iiiitt8i'st-!lldllf~ture. . ~ ........_ 

....----

:Pj$.!1 ~w~,me i! !file t~~at 1 :ean t~·.wo"t'alrcfilft:)i'iffi:l~iiii'·~'·"''·'~""-"irii'Riiintena~i~Biiii<•ts. 

Thant'{&G: .... ,., ... , .. . ... . .,.¥"'<""' .. ,. a"Y""'a ........ n .. a"""'~""''-a ·•-

-OrlginalMesJage--

. · From: Vliiii&:Aii18S)guttright lma1fto~m,searcl1.ml 

Sent: M'GR-~IU;l20J411.;;57 

AM 

To: COnroy, Marty G (FAA) 

Subject: N949JP Information 

Marty, 

P.lease tee attach!d. As you might recall you tGo!c • .Pictl!re eftlruir·wllrtlt!nesscellifiate when you came out, want 

me to take ano'tfler picture for VIlli? it that was •tf'in the c«lcpit on the waff. 

Airworthiness; Wef damaged teordered fresh one. Bi-Annual copy from fUJ. 

J provided a med"ICill cerijficate to you atflle time, and I havu freSh NE!w Medfcal!$ilastweek. 

R$fOftiW!!enttare.nor.tbflfCiallaila ~:w!ll~d·ml!'e'~iiHM.lm 

My travelillg$!:VIl! i!l ;·:&ff~l.iifieiffb'Ji.il'bili 

J\ivllllilii'lie'~e 

t.ti~'rest::Uftlilsw~f< 

I feel sad for the People that were lost at the coast •. It's a hard Job, yo.ur Job. The pal rw ml cannot imagine. Thanks 

for your~e and for your past service In the militlrv. 

As 1 stood on my hiU oo the fOurth of Julywatcltingtfleexplosionsoffireworl!sfiOIIItl 114es.lt reminded me of Viet 

Mlm of Sltells going oft of cannon file, and tile rolling·thundt~r of Armageddon. 

It was different for me that night, It gave me ti!OughtJ of what was to aome lfwe durot clw!ge the course of~ur 

country. 

Good Luck to you and God blessings. 

Ames 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I. 

' 
ATTACHMENT NO.6 
' 

. ' 

rram: 

Sanf: 

ro: 

Mject 

Atfacltmi!llfS: 

To: FAA 

Marty, 

. ·-· ·- ····· ·--·-·---·---··---·~-~ .. --.- .......... . 

!tWas a pleasure 111 me~tt Vtiu at Allies Rall(b, 

!:=~Woti~~~I\IT£111~wT6o~l~fl~'~~~~~:~:!~vear,. butasvou 

1. have been verv busy with tliepatdotie event I had fDttpr{feSIIen~m'es.*m/1; now that it is over, I ha~ had a 

lil;tle IIi!; ntqre time. Keeping Ameri!ia safefordemoc~cy.S'il!MJi!ISWe are &Villilto1U11etc) co'rltillUeilur batti: far 

freedom 'Will never end. The Silcrifice of our brotllers,-Vihll died. we must notfiJqEt iltus we continue for them. U 

Tubes are Oil line. Worth watchfng. · 

Warmestand best, 

Dr. W. Ames Curtright ilBA 

Ofib, 503-53t·700o 

Cell, 503-zog.7388 

I 

I 

! 

I 

i 

I 
2:i.7< Vil<lng Jr.irLfd • 

Sepbnftberii,J997 

iiiDWiagwD>lcwas-letecl-rW/O#l4603i 

i1Jre4BDO-89.:&JJOO,II'Ihsln 3594,11hafa3593 and illlllallell Wipaire 

ilotlaataalarlb 21Dil4,11h:il043. WIDalnOAmpldlttlp--illslallell in 

Mlislei'Drawinglisl:lbrPipor 

B•Il-lle12100.,__e46/.17/!17. 

D1IalfllaoF. J.al&ieanll.ll.tt'JnD. A\lvliiDJy ll!l&lam. in. 8CC11tlltm"" "With ST SA 

H-.-chee"ks IHirVII:eal>le. ''THE 

HAS ; 

·. • ·· . · • • ACCORDANCE 

"!d"'.'toeJSas liollows: STANDARD$ 

'N'.-r -

.. 

·:-
~ ·• :1 

L 

r 

I 

Memorandum 

To: WillidmA.mes~ 

FtOIII: Ben W. Davit/son 

Drlle: 812612014 

.Re: Anllrlllllnspretion.N949JP 

.1!iJt· 

mf&letNr-u.to wrW-IIiAt I t:fliiJ[Jie.ted m Allnttd{l!fPetliflll fill NI491P 

IIP.i.-J8rm$ejJ~f~Rfl;r23"', 

'21tl3 • .A#llllffillifJp?tiedyrJU~It· 

rz ~118t.tltiltincluriei /Jif ~ 6dM; fnYQlll' ELT.Ptttt 

reguil'eti~ 

If rwiforihu ~ p/etl$e 1/.o.not~/Qt:a_fttJfJPiilfJe !Jefore 

9pm ~. (S41) 491J..6980. 

(2L(Na_j 

Ben. F. Dfl'lidsdn 

A.&P28S$141M 

1 

,, 

l 

' 

! 

. ' 
ATTACHMENT NO.7 
• 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In the Matter of: FAA Order No. 99· 7 

PREMIER JETS, INC. SeiVed: August 31, 1999 

Docket No. CP97NM0005 

DECISION AND ORDER1 

This appeal involves flight time recordkeeping by Part 135 air carriers. It raises 

the issue of which records Federal Aviation Administration (FAA.) inspectors may use to 

determine compliance with the flight time limitations. This case does not involve any 

allegation that Premier violated the flight time limits themselves; only recordkeeping is at 

issue. 

Premier Jets, Inc. (Premier) has appealed the law judge's decision finding that 

Premier committed three of four alleged recordkeeping violatio1s. 2 This decision denies 

Premier's appeal and affirms the law judge's decision assessing 1 civil penalty of$1,125. 

Premier is a Part 13 5 operator located in Oregon that ernploys about 30 pilots. 

Premier transports transplant teams and donor organs for several hospitals. 

The FAA conducted an in-depth inspection of Premier'soperation from March 25 

1 The Administrator's civil penalty decisions are available on LEXIS, WestLaw, and other 

computer databases. They are also available on CD-ROM through Alroflight Publications. 

Finally, they can be found in Hawkins's Civil Penalty Cases Digest Service and Clark Boardman 

Callaghan's federal Aviation Decisions. for additional infunnation, 1e~ 64 Fed. Reg. 43,236, 

43,250 (August 9, 1999}. 

• 'A copy of the law judge's written initial decision is attached. 

\ 
• 

J 

• ! 

through March 29. 1996. At the start of the inspection. Premier l'rovided FAA inspectors 

with its individual records of pilot flight time. which consisted solely of··crew duty time 

sheets."' After noticing that one pilot's record indicated that he !tad not logged tlight 

time since March 3. 1996. the FAA inspectors requested Premier's flight logs to check 

the accuracy of the crew duty time sheets. 

The inspectors discovered discrepancies between the crew duty time sheets and 

the flight logs. Some errors were in the crew duty time sheets and some were in the flight 

logs. 

Complainant FAA initiated the instant civil penalty action, alleging that Premier 

committed several violations of the following regulation: 

§ 135.63 Recordkeeping requirements. 

·{a) Each certificate holder shall keep at its principal business office 

or at other places approved by the Administrator, and sha.ll make available 

for inspection by the Administrator, the following -

( 4) An individual record of each pilot used in operations under this 

part, including the following information: 

{vii) The pilot's flight time in sufficient detail to determine 

compliance with the flight time limitations of this part. 

14 C.F.R. § 135.63(a)(4)(vii) (1996). 

After a hearing, the law judge found that the record supported a finding of 

. 

• Count 1. Premier's chief pilot conceded that one ofl?remier's pilots 

2 A copy of the law judge's written initial decision is attached. 

3 A crew duty time sheet is a weekly compilation of a pilot's on-dutJ, night, crew-rest, and off· 

duty time . 
. 6 

significant time and resources that FAA inspectors were able t~ piece together the pilots· 

~ tlight and duty time). 

) 

In conclusion, the law judge did not err in finding Premier's recordkeeping 

inadequate. This decision denies Premier's appeal and aftirmst~e law judge'sdecision 

assessing a civil penalty of$1,125.5 

~,~{f .. / /!ANEF.~ TOR 

( · Federal Kviation aminis 

Issued this 23rd day of August, 1999. 

5 Unless Respondent files a petition for review with a Court of Appet Is of the United States 

within 60 days of service of this decision {under 49 U.S.C. § 46110),this decision shall be 

considered an order assessing civil penalty. See 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.16{~ )( 4) and 13.233(j)(2) 

(1998). 
• 

• 

• 

3 

recorded 2.4 hours tlying time on his crew duty time sheet tor the 

wrong day -for March l instead of March 2. 1996. Regarding 

Count I. the law judge found a violation of Section !35.63(a)(4)(viij. 

• Count 2. The complaint alleged that Premier failed to maintain an 

individual record of a pilot in sufficient detail regarding a January 14. 

1996. flight. At the hearing, however, the FAA inspector 

acknowledged that the pilot incorrectly wrote down the wrong date on 

the fliglit log (January 14, 1996, instead of March 14, 1996) and that 

the crew duty time sheet was correct. The law judge concluded that 

the .flight with questionable recordkeeping occurred an March 14. 

1996, and that Complainant improperly drew up Co1mt 2 of the. 

complaint by alleging a January 14, 1996, flight. As a result, the law 

jllilge dismissed Count 2. 

• Count 3. Premier's chief pilot conceded that its pilots entered the 

wrong date on the flight log (March 19 instead of Much 18, 1996). 

The crew duty sheets were correct. Regarding Cotmr 3, the law judge 

found a violation of Section 135.63(a)(4)(vii). 

• Count 4. The flight time on the crew duty time sheets for two pilots 

for March 8, 1996, appeared to be incorrect. Regarding Count 4. the 

law judge found a violation a/Section I 35.63(a)(4}(1'ii). 

The law judge said that Premier must direct attention to its pilots' recordkeeping 

practices to elimina~e errors. He pointed out that accurate records must be kept if the 

operator is to know when to schedule pilots within the permissible limits and if the FAA 

is to know whether the operator has done so. The law judge co~tcluded that Premier's 

recordkeeping violated Section 135.63(a)(4)(vii) because it didmt consist ofboth the 

flight logs and the crew duty time sheets. According to the law judge, Premier's 

cross-checking. The law judge assessed a $375 penalty for eac~ofthe three violations he 

found. for a total of$!, 125. Premier has appealed the law judges initial decision. 

In its appeal brief, Premier presents two mutually exclu~ive arguments. First, 
•• 

Premier argues that the FAA inspectors should not have exami1ed the tlight logs because 

they were not part of the "indhidual record" of each pilot. Wil~out the !light logs. FAA 

inspectors would not have been able to determine conclusively that the crew duty time 

sheets contained errors. 

Second, Premier argues that it committed no violation tecause the flight logs we1·e 

part of the ·~ndividual record" of each pilot's flight time. Premier notes that the 

inspectors were able to determine the pilots' true flight time by comparing the crew duty 

time sheets with the flight logs. Thus, Premier contends, its recordkeeping met the 

requirements of the rule. 

Contrary to Premier's contentions, the inspectors actedappropriately when they 

examined the flight logs. Indeed, if the inspectors had chosen lc ignore or overlook any 

compliance concerns raised by their examination of the crew d~t:Y time sheets, they would 

have been abrogating their critical safety duties. The inspectoJsacted appropriately in 

conducting a searching and thorough review of Premier's recmds, including the flight 

logs. 

Nor does the record support Premier's other argument-i.e., that no violation 

occurred because the flight logs were part of the "individual r(CiJrd" of each pilot. The 

law judge found that Premier should have kept the flight logs 1:1 part of the ''individual 

time sheets to schedule its pilots.' As the law judge noted, the Jligltt time recordkeeping 

4 Although the law judge's decision may suggest that if Premier hl:llept the crew duty time 

sheets and the flight logs together as the individual pilot records, P~eiJlier would not have 

committed any violations, it is unclear that this is true. First, therel7iEire still errors in both types 

of records. Second. a record-keeping practice that requires inspecbrs routinely to review two 




ATTACHMENT NO.9 
Susan bird 

From: Scott. Myers@faa.gov 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Thursday, July 30, 2015 11:47 AM 

patty@amesresearch.com 

Biii.J.McKibbon@faa.gov 

Subject: RE: Curtright EIR No. 2014NM090046 

Ms. Abel, 

We are in receipt of Mr. Curtright's email dated July 27'h. That email will be forwarded to the investigating inspector for 

response. 

Regards, 

Scott R. Myers 

Manager, PDX FSDO 

503.615.3205 

From: Patty Abel [mailto:pattv@amesresearch.coml 

Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 11:22 AM 

To: McKibbon, Bill J (FAA); Myers, -scott (FAA) 

Subject: Curtright EIR No. 2014NM090046 

Mr. McKibbon and Mr. Myers, 

Mr. Curtright would like to know if the documents he sent to you in an email attachment on July 27 meets your 

requirements. 

Please call him should you have questions or comments. Cell503-209-7388 

Thank you. 

Patty Abel 

Admin. Asst. 

Patty Abel 

Ames Research Labora!!lries 

Admin. Assistant 

patty@amesresearch.com 

http://www.amesresearch.com 

HlSS-345-0809 Work 

(503) 364-2380 Fax 

Click here to subscribe to our newsletter! 

1 
ATTACHMENTNO. 10 
• .1 

Wi~liam Ames Curtright 

1om: 

.sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

Importance: 

Dear Judge Goodwin: 

William Ames Curtright <ames@amesresearch.com> 

Tuesday, August 11,2015 1:11PM · 

richard.goodwin@dot.gov 

patricia.matthews@dot.gov; david.f.shayne@faa.gov 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319, Curtright 

Reply to FAA's Motion-signed. pdf 

High 

Attached please find my Reply to Complainant FAA's Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted and to Dismiss Appeal. 

If I might acid: We have sent the FAA everything they have requested; a full notebook that has been completed sits here with 

what we believe to be all that they (FAA) need. They simply need to take a look at those documents. Most of the documents 

have been sent to the Flight Standards District Office as wen. We have received little acknowledgment of those documents, thus 

the need for this hearing. Hopefully this is resolved prior to the hearing. 

Regards, 

A. William A. Curtright, DBA 

Cell: 503-209-7388 

1 
' ' 

ATTACHMENTNO. 11 
JM!Uiam Ames Curtright 

) 

•,rcim: 

ant: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

David.F.Shayne@faa.gov 

Thursday, July 23,_2Qj5 3:49 PM 

Biii.J.McKibbbil@iaa.gov; Scott.Myers@faa.gov 

ames@amesresearch.coril 

FW: Ames- email addresses 

POHSA00997CH-L-2.pdf; STC SA00997CH 1 Mar2011.pdf 

Here you go, as you can see, I have forwarded the documents to them. 

From: William Ames Curtright [mailto:ames@amesresearch.coml 

Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 3:10 PM 

To: Shayne, David F (FAA) 

Subject: Ames - email addresses 

David, 

Thank you for the phone numbers of Bill McKibbon and Scott Myers in the Hillsboro office; do you have email addresses for 

them? I would like to send the below letter with the attachments above to them. Do these documents meet your needs? 

July 23, 2015 

·I McKibbon, Supervisor 

J~ott Myers, Office Manager 

Flight Standards Dist. Office 

3180 NW 229'h Ave. 

Hillsboro, OR 97124 

Re: EIR Number 2014NM090046, Lost Logs 

Dear Bill and Scott: 

I had informed Marty Conroy of our lost logs some time ago. 

I have instructed our people to follow up on the request for the flight logs. A weight and balance has been performed by Viking 

Air Ltd (see entry dated 11 September 1997). We are double-checking the history and have tracked down part STC's as well as a 

copy of the records from the FAA registry. More documents have been located; they may be presented to you as needed. 

If there is something else, please provide a punch list of what you need, and we will set about trying to get it or rebuild if 

necessary. 

I have included copies of logbook entries; I can provide the physical logs at your request. I apologize for any delay and we are 

taking steps to clarify this situation. 

t regards, 

1 
Wm. Ames Curtright, DBA 

ames@amesresearch.com 

Cell: 503-209-7388 

2 
• MANUFACTURERS OF WIPLINE FLOATS & SKIS 

• SPECIALISfS IN AIRCRAFT MODIFICATION 

\<'WW.Wipaire.com 

1700 Henry Avenue ~ Fleming Field 

ScnJth St Paul, MN 55075 

651-451-1205 

FAA APPROVED 

AIRPLANE FLIGHT MANUAL SUPPLEMENT 2 

LANDPLANE 

SUPER CUB MODELS PA-18-150, PA-18A-150, PA-188-150, & PA-18AS-150 

AT A GROSS WEIGHT OF 2000 POUNDS 

REG. NO: ___ _ 

SERIAL NO: ___ _ 

This Supplement must be attached to the FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual when the airplane is 

modified In accordance with STC SA00997CR The information contained herein supplements or 

supersedes the basic FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual only in those areas listed. For limitations, 

procedures, and performance information not contained in this Supplement, consult the basic airplane 

placards, markings, and the AFM as applicable. 

FAAAPPRJ>VI<Do~cd/' . 

m it•J'Pte Prather, Ma:.~· ...,.,=---Chicago Aircrall Certification Office 

!'A.A. Central Region 

l)ate: 
AIRCRAFT FLIGHT MANUAL SUPPLEMENT 2 

LOG OF REVISIONS 

REV. 

NO. PAGES DESCRIPTION 

* Approved by Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office. 

NOTE: Revised text is indicated by a vertical black line along right margin. 

2 

DATE 

LAND PLANE 

MODEL PA-18-150 

FAA APPROVED* 

FAA APPROVED 
AIRCRAFT FLIGHT MANUAL SUPPLEMENT 2 

OPERATING LIMITAT[ONS 

I. Airspeed Limitations (CAS): NO CHANGE 

SPEED 

Maneuvering Speed ('h) ............................................................................................ . 

Airspeed Indicator Markings 

MPH 

103 

LAND PLANE 

MODEL PA-18-150 

KNOTS 

89 

Green Arc- Normal Operating Range From Flaps Up Stall Speed to VNo······························· 52 to 121 mph 

White Arc- Flap operating Range From Flaps Down Stall Speed to VFE ................................. 50 to 85 mph 

2. Powerplant Limitations: NO CHANGE 

3. WeightLimitations 

1

Maximum Takeoff Weight ........................................................................................................................ 2000 pounds 

Maximum Landing Weight ........................................................................................................................ 1900 pounds 

4. Load Distribution Limitations 

Center of Gravity Limits (inches aft of wing leading edge) 

Nomtal Category 

16.2 to 20.0 inches at2000 pounds, 

10.5 to 20.0 inches at 1300 pounds or less, 

Straight line variation between points given above. 

Utility Category 

12.3 to 19.0 inches at 1500 pounds, 

10.5 to 19.0 inches at 1300 pounds or less, 

Straight line variation between points given above. 

2100 

2000 

1900 

1600 

APPROVED VVEIGHT I C.G. ENVELOPE 

i 1700 

,:. / I 1600 

1500 

1400 

1-+--¥-1 ~ --- --- --- --- -·· ---·-1--1'-+--1 

/ 

1300 H'+-++-+--f-1-H'---i---1-+--i 

1200 f++--+--+-++++++++-1 

1100 

1000 

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 

C.G. LOCATION ·INCHEES 

AFT OF WING LEADINGEOGE 

NORMAL CATEGORY --

UTILITY CATEGORY ·-·-·-

3 

FAA APPROVED 
AIRCRAFT FLIGHT MANUAL SUPPLEMENT 2 

5. Maneuvers: NO CHANGE 

6. Flight Load Factor: NO CHANGE 

7. Placards: 

In clear view of pilot: 

MANUEVERING SPEED 103 Mil! (89 K) 

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 

Perfonnance of the PA-!8-150 satisfies the requirements of CAR Part 3. 

4 

LAND PLANE 

MODEL PA.-18-150 

FAA APPROVED 
~iuifci) ~hd.ce of ,l\m~licu 

.!i!epnrhnent of W:rattspor!ntinu -- Jlf ellernl J\&i~tlttu J\llminhltrntiou 

~uppl.emeutnl W:up:.e @.ertifieaf.e 

./Jf;nufep SA00997CH 

Wipaire Inc. 

1700 Henry Avenue~ Fleming Field 

South St. Paul, MN 55075 

rl'.l"/¢';:..; /Ar,t dr ~/u/(?f' 1/1 lb (y/'t" rh-;ip/1 ftor 16 ~/lbrf'I~IJ' /lrl't~tt'l' ,,.,'d' lblhwrrr~h(>,,J r~.nr/. ('P.I'IrflY,f..I'IJ 

!.(;.,eft, rrJ 'VJ"c,Y:erl A'r-rrNII'IIFr/J dr- ,;,,.,..r/h"i/,,..JJ. rf'J'"';'r/Nm/J tJ/:'?ttrl 3 P/ !h Civil Air 

•. rt,p,/klt{l/t.J. (See Type Certificate Data Sheet No. IA2 for complete certification basis) 

(i;.~tHttf;?J'J.Nbrr./· ··J?/'P ~N'hlf't-ffk .... Ht~11hr .· IA2 

.d6n§.. .· Piper 

. .$6t,,4/.· PA-18"150"; PA-18A"i50"; PA-18S"I50"; PA-18AS"I50" 

f!b.Jr.~tljlltDn n/.~/le ~J~l/1 W.lfr.rr?N 

Installation of Gross Weight Increase Kit No. I 08 l ~6521, in accordance with Wlpairc [nc. hlstallation Drawing No. I 081-6521, no 

revision, dated December 17, 1998, or later FAA approved revisions. 

:lff;;ulnlrf..l'~oJ. hl'lrffrft,/11/tr;u",;: 

I. The installer must detennine whether this design change is compatible with preyiously approved modifications. 

2. Landplane: Ma.ximum gross weight is limited to 2,000 Ib~ for take oft' and 1,9~0 lbs. for landing. 

3. Floatplane: Maximum gmss weight is litnited to 2,000 lbs. for take off and lanCing. 

(See continuation sheet 3 of 3) 

.~;; Nd'~l-«h '"'d !A;. .J~¥V'"rlt~p rUtin ~,.&r./ ~-) tfr. /.U.;,:; ft~'· rvYJnmrl ,;..{t,/1 remur/1 rR t/fr~/. tmlrf 

.J/1'/',f'NifhPttt .Jtl>lpt"Rth.fL J'H'I'I~t/ t>r- a /f';-/~U0«/ri:JI'I tUik ,:J. ntfr~_,,,:;l' AJ/rr/./;'.;~r/1; &;. .. /ifb.Jif;lf:;/rrdoP o/ /A'f. 

.-h,Upfl/,/&t•I'UiiQ/1 ,./l~,b;u;,:;trtdll'/t, 

@(,~e 1~/JII',mfr.d.· March 0 I, 2011 

(Sig11a1ure) 

Grcgmy J. M1~halik, Senior Aerospace Engineer 

Airframe & Atuinis:trative Branch 

Chicago Aircraft Certification Office 

(7!1/e) 

A.!ly alteration o£ this certificate J.s ptul.:ishable by il fine ot not exceeding $l,OOO, or .Lmpr.lsonm!lnt nat exceedillg 3 yeal's, or both. 

I'M FoRM euo-2!1o-li8) PAGS 1 of 3 PAGSS 
. ~nUeb .J$hdes of ~mcdcu · 

~epudml!lt± of W:ranspoduthm - J1f eberul J\fti~lilllt ,?.biniuistrati!ltt 

~uppltmental. Wupt at:trtifi:catt 

(<lrnutinua:tinn ~!rut) 

.~fnuf'n4~nJ t'utr# ~.~,,-6,;;.,-hJ (Continued): 

JIGnth SA00997CH 

Date of Issuance: March OJ, 1999. 

Date Amended: March 01,2011 

4. FAA Approv.ed Airplane flight Manual Supplement I, Landplane, dated January 25, 1999, or later FAA appiove.d revision, is 

required with this installation on Piper Model PA-18"150" or PA-18A"I50" modified per STC No. SA682AL (160BHP). 

S. FAA .APProved Airplane Flight Manual Supplement 2, Landplane, dated January25, 1999, or later FAA appr~ved revision, is 

required with this installation on Piper Model PA-18"150", PA-18A"150", PA-J8S"I50", PA-JSAS"\50". 

6. FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual Supplement 3, Floatplane Operation, dated February 28, 2011, or later FAA approved 

revision, is required with this installation on Piper Model PA-188"1 SO" or PA-l8AS"l 50" modified per STC No. SA682AL 

(l60BHP) & EDO Model 89-2000 Straiglll Floats. 

7. FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual Supplement 4, Floatplane Operation, dated February 28, 2011, or later FAA approved 

revision, is required with this installation on Piper Model PA-188"1 SO" or PA-lBAS"lSO"witb EDO Model 89-2000 Straight 

Floats. 

8. If the bolder agrees to pennit another person tO use this certificate to alter a product, the holder must give the other person 

written evidence of that pennission. 

--END--

AnY alteration of this certificate Js punishable by a fine Of not e~c~edi.ng $1,000, Or U!lp.rJsorwent not excaeding 3 years, or: bol:h. 

J?AG& 3 of 3 PAGBS '1']115 certifics.te Ill!)' be transferred in a~ordal:lca with FAA 21.47. 
ATTACHMENT NO. 12 
July 22, 2015 

Bill McKibbon, Supervisor 

Scott Myers, Office Manager 

Flight Standards Dist. Office 

3180 NW 229'h Ave. 

Hillsboro, OR 97124 

Re: EIR Number 2014NM090046 

Dear Bill and Scott: 

I have hired a mechanic to follow up on the request for the flight logs. A weight and balance has 

been performed by Viking Air Ltd (see entry dated 11 September 1997). He is double-checking 

the history and is in the process of tracking down part STC's as well as ordering a copy of the 

records from the FAA registry. 

I have copies of logbook entries I can provide as well as the physical logs at your request. I 

apologize for any delay and we are taking steps to clarify this situation. 

Best regards, 

Dr. Wm. Ames Curtright, DBA 

ames@amesresearch.com 

Cell: 503-209-7388 
" 1 

ATTACHMENT NO. 13 
May 11,2015 

Martin Conroy 

Aviation Safety Inspector 

Flight Standards District Office 

3180 NW 229'h Ave. 

Hillsboro, OR 97124 

Re: FAA Case No. 2104NMD90046 

Dear Mr. Conroy: 

As you know, I had advised you in the past that I had lost the flight logs. I am providing 

you a copy of the logs that go up to about 2005. I had made copies of them in case of 

this kind of situation. Loss was not intentional. I acted in good faith by providing you 

with these copies and other documents, with weight and balance. Therefore, this is as 

much as we can do at this time. 

Possibly I am incorrect. Am I incorrect? With all due respect to you, and all past 

deserved respect without any insult intended, is it not true? Is it not illegal to impose a 

fine if I have acted in good faith? I have advised you verbally, and now I again advise 

you in writing that logs have been lost. 

I feel I have given as much as possible in response to your requests. I am not sure how 

to reconstruct what is not available or not possible. 

If this is not acceptable, then consider this as my formal request for a hearing. 

Best regards, 

Dr. Wm. Ames Curtright, DBA 

PO Box 1350 

Jefferson, OR 97352 

Enclosure 
May 11,2015 

Scott Myers 

Flight Standards District Office 

3180 NW 229'h Ave. 

Hillsboro, OR 97124 

Re: FAA Case No. 2104NM090046 

Dear Sir, .. Scott 

I have communicated to Martin Conroy regarding my lost flight logs. I reminded Mr. 

Conroy that I had advised him in the past that the flight logs had been lost. I am 

providing you a copy (made for emergencies such as this) of the logs that go up to about 

2005 that were made some time ago, just in case a situation like this might occur. 

Obviously it did. Possibly these old copies might suffice. I request your help and 

assistance in resolving this matter. The loss of course would1Je unintentional. We 

acted in good faith by providing these copies and other documents. Therefore, this is as 

much as we can do. 

We hope this is acceptable, if not, then consider this as my formal request for a hearing. 

Respectfully Yours 

Dr. Wm. Ames Curtright, DBA 

PO Box 1350 

Jefferson, OR 97352 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

In the Matter of: ), Docket No. 

WILLIAM A. CURTRIGHT, DBA ) FAA-2015-1319 

6 Respondent. 

7 

8 

9 

10 The litigation scheduling conference 

11 via telephone in the above-entitled matter 

12 commenced on Tuesday, August 9, 2016, at 1:34 

13 p.m. 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE J.E. SULLIVAN 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

20 Reported by: Melissa G. Fleming 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

' ' 
William A Curtright, DBA 

1 and the initial disclosures that I'm talking 

2 about are outlined in Rule 26 of the Federal 

3 Rules of Civil Procedure and that's something 

4 you can find on line if you type in Rules of 

5 Civil Procedure, Rule 26. 

--6~---~----But .. just so you know, when you do 

7 initial disclosures, and I'm going to give you 

8 both a deadline to exchange information of 

9 this type, you give the name, address and 

10 phone number of each individual that you know 

11 that's likely to have discoverable information 

12 about the charge involved in.this case. 

13 You give a copy or a description of 

14 the document of anything that you have in your 

15 possession, custody or control that haa 

16 anything to do with this particular charge and 

17 the proposed fine. 

18 And for the FAA, they also should be 

· 19 giving you an explanation of why they are 

20 proposing $11,000 as the penalty, what forms 

21 the basis for that. 

22 Those a;['e the initial dis.cl9sures to 

23 g~t the J;>~fi.j_ ·toilirlg so t~at you h<lv'e an idea 

24 of who is involved or who might be inVolVed as 

2.5 a Witne(>S for the opposing side arid What they 

For The Record, Inc. 

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net- {800) 921-5555 

32 

8/9/2016 

{3-vf!Mn.-t J- If), '1 

f) /9, rf-rJ)()--
September 9, 2014 

Martin G, COnroy 

Aviation Safety Inspector 

Flight StaQdards Jli5t. Offi~e 

3180 NW 229th Ave. 

HDisboro, OR 97124 

Re: EI'R Number 2014NMD90046 

DE!ar Sir: 

As explained via emaa, the aircraft lo!.5 are not in the United States;tfley are in canada where r 

alSo live, I am now awaiting tlie time to repair my aircraft repair. In erderto meetyq~r reqqest, 

I have emailed tlie remaining dQcu~nts. a.M the Certlfi!:atio.n of Ann~allnspecti~~ as requested 

to the Portland offi~. 

All o~r documents have been provided to you as requested .. Is it pc>SiJie your peeple have 

nat opened your ema~s to Check the attachments? They were sent to your Portland office, If 

you are stm missing $01itethi" let u!rknow. 

we hav.e provided a tetter fi'Qm the meehanic who did the .annual certitation inspection. we 

recently emaill!d the weight and balam:e but again we will mail it to y~u 

ihe event was on my private ptoperty. It tllok place after landing; there was a stee!il!g problem 

because of a collapsed gear which caused a.lm!aking to the left. The aircraft was not afrborne 

but inertia and the rail on t\11! float$ ~II¢ the aircraft to the left and into the grass-, thus, our 

description of the event which damaged the aircraft. 

Your letters indicate you have never received any of this information which is troubling. 

We have provided you the aircraft weight and balance, ~irworthiness registration certificate, 

and documentation with the flight raview requirements and all the documents you requested, 

. yet you people aetas If you never received those items. 

We have provided to you the documents in a spirit of cooperation. Again, we hope this meets 

i 

r 

I ; ' 

your needs and pray this bri11gs cloS!lre for us both. 

t::)(~0~?r) 

IB:b ~.~ r~~, 

Dr. w. 

. 

Ames CUrtright 

.: . : i"' - 

: :~ :: ·••· i ~·~~!itt. ·sli. satem. .;;.-;,~liiA -g7302 · · -
FAA NO.: NSI49JP 

Year: 1953 

i 

. ---- ~-------. ~-

Cel'lificate: 42137 

EXpkadDn:~lS 
., 

I 

I 

Mem~randum 

To: William Ames Cf/l'tright 

From: Ben W. Davit/son 

Date: 8/2612014 

Re: Annual Inspection N949JP 

Bil( 

This letter is to vertfjl that I completed an Annual li1Spection on N949JP 

a P 4·1 B on September 23rtl, 2013. At that timel provided you with 

a discreprmcy list that inclr«led an expired battery in your ELT that 

required replacement. 

Jf needfurther assistance, please do not hesitate to call anytime before 

9pm anyday. (541) 490-6980. 

C2f-tvo..J 

Ben W. Davidaon 

A&P28553471A. 

1 

r· 

1· 

I 

l 

I 

i 

I 

i 

) 
UNIIEDSTATSSOFAM!Rlt=A 

~~epomoAtaf'llalujlaltation 

Fa'lluaiAMan;~ 

MEDICAL CERTIFICATE THIRD CLASS 

'IIIIo -liD! (FIIU .. moandaddlrso): 

WILI.IAM AMES CURTllfGIIT 

41lSPARADISE HILL 

TtJRNER OR 97!91 USA 

Must :WeSt _cone:ctiw tenses. 

WILLIAM AMES CURTRIGHT 

4135 PARADISE HILL 

TURNER OR 97392 USA 

Dear Airman: 

lnsfituflo 

confer 

COIIIrnONS OF ISSUE 

Tho halder oflh~ .,tfti<afe must. 

• Kava ftin 1\fS orl!l ~-narp......ran aTa!Tiinles 

whiTe oxenoisiJIIi111TI90S of an annan cellllit:ate. 

(14CFR S 81.1) • Undemll!ldtllltht i'1s<ia11ce ala medical teltilicate 

by an AvJalmM!d'=l E'llamlnermay ba llller.led by 

lfleFMwlllln61ia)s. 

(14CFR § 67JII~ 

• Camplywi1/l wTml! $1/llfanls spJCII'ed fOr filS~. 

se<a11chand ~i!Uass med!caiCOIII!icates. 

(14CFR § &I.!J) .. CompiY1Afltl Qdl.hment of ftlnclfonal, operalional, 

anlflartimtlil!it!i<•lssueilas a candillon of 

CiiOUI!t:al!ln. 

(14CFR§ li7A11l 

(NII!e: ATII!Otofalllilolfzal!on (or SODA) describing 

any «UGh ITm!ll1iMS must lla kepi wlll11111s celtilicate 

at all tTmtswll!e11121Cfslng the prMisgea alan airman 

Ciilli!ll:ale.l 

• Caii!IIIYwilhlle llalldanlslllaling to pnlhlbllions on apen~llon dlllint medloal dllillen"J. · (t4CFR §§ &1.53.63. 19, and &5.49) 

For lntemal!onal Ope!ll!ons Onlf, Same ~-msy be 

alt'eclell by ce!lait inllmaUonal ntea'iea1 sllnftnls. 

Consult Ute U.S.A!nlnalllioallnllnmal!on Publ'callan for 

U.S. dittllmnCO$ wiTh I~AO Annex t miHilcal sranlfanls. 

DIVISION, AAM • 3UU 

Above is your new medical certificale. lt supersedes any pn:vlous one you may ha\'e been Hs11« 

To valida!e Ibis certificaro, it is necessiiiY that you sign 1\ in !he space provid<d (Ainman's Sign*!). 

ThiS certi(lCale must be in your possession at aU times while et~.'ercising your pilol privilego:s. 

~ted an Thursdby. June 26. Z0t4 
Ftott'l: 

SeRf: 

To: 

Sutgect: 

1\tt!ldrme.nts: 

Marty, 

Pleasu~e attallhed. As vou might recall yotHooka pitfllreoftbnlr·worthilless certificate when you t~~me out, want 

me to take another picture for you? it that was tape!! in t"' ~;o~kpit on \~e wall . 

Airwqrthin~. Wet damaged fel)tdered 'l'l$lf I)II&.IJf:.AnnOal c!ipyfr'om log. 

I proVided a Jiledital certifiCate to you atthe time, and 1 have a fresh New Medical exam laS!: we$11. 

Restllf.~aii'llcittfirri~'l~wli!MidiiWi'i!fimi!'·fd~filn. 

M ., · · • &It d J:o;·· ""'"'"' 1"0it.""' .. ie!it">~'-'i!~. · · · k 

'I til.~~~-,!~; it "·. -~~ll,!,;,n"r:;;r:;.,.o;,'I1_.Mt• Wi~m~~~pf,f11~ 'II!_! • 

I feel sad fortbe People that were lostattlte t6i!St.lt's a hard Job, your Job. Tile pain yeill see 1 cannot liniglrle. Thallks 

for your service and for your past service in the military. 

As 1 stood on my hiD an the worth i;Jf July watching the e.xplosiPns £~ffire.wo.rksfroilufl side,s. It reminded me of Viet 

Natn of Shells going aff, of cannon~. and the raRing thunder of Annageddon. 

It was differentfor me that night, it gave m.e thoughts of What was to come if we do not change the course of our 

country, 

Good Luck to you and God bles5ings. 

·Ames 

,, 'l

"! 

t 

.I 

~ ' 

1' 

!: 

.. 

II 

!i 

!' 

(i 

' 

I~ 

I' 

I 

I 

' i 

i 

)i 

3 

£f.~btt4' fj b ~iO 

~ 

,

i 

I

I

/1 

i 
Tile Standard Pilot Log 

'\" i\ ...... \.,.) • f\\1\1\ C2. ~ c::. \.)... "-.\'\r(,<';ltJ.-\ ~·~fl. Lagllaakfftnnbr-

...m..aneat Mailing Address \9..'\\, \ \['S"5rr. ~ . "0::. G Fnlm---- --------~~~~~~w4~~~-~1~l)~.~~o=tt~~~~,~~· \) ez::: ---------------~---------

tesHefd 

'lftle 

SIUDIOO' PILOT 

SPORT PILOT 

R ECRI1AnQNAL PILOT 

p RIVAlE PILOT 

co 

FU 

~ 

IV!Ji 

MMERCIALPILQT 

GHTINSTRUCTOR 

RLINE'Il!ANSPORTPILOT 

ii'IDNlECHNICIAN 

l RDLIND INSTRUCTOR 

··"="---"'-'"·· 

-- Oerllllcalelf1lnlllu d:··· t I s; '·-~ !:T.~';-~~:J'\C: 

sbtl~~ S~":>::3t.:t:J::il 

Riding Reconl Aircndl 'IDe llllfllss 

J::kiiRMNE A..e.k; 2~ 

5atmsLEENGINE:' tltllli~ I!J.eSi :r~'l~·""-"'-

C MIJLTI.ENGINE: il!At{D OSISI W.EN'!j .. 

~n-ENGINE: l.l!nil!dtaCe<le! Lin•111rusl 

C INSTI!UMENT 

IJGUDER IJAEIIO~II'I OWINCHTDW 

IJPOWR~~~'!t:.~'TIFT:roL 

C ROTORCI!AFI' COI'IEil 0 G~PI.ANE 

CL!GHIER-llfAN·AIR Cl.aJR!HIP ClSAL!.CON 

C POWERE!ILIFI" 

IJGI !ASIC IJGIAD~Cil 0 Gl INSTRUMENT 

IJ OlHER RAnNGS (Speollj) 
Fram: 

Sellt: 

To.:' 

CC: 

Sll&ject: 

Mr. Ames Curtright: 

I do have a photograpll ofthe airworthiness certilicate, and 1 do not need another. 

~dci «ead u:omJ)Ie~.etetotd of \i'iiiilr:ftt1it'tll~w.:tll~tmd~lie·iiistril•~s ~mcon«ment~fi$.ture. .-:..:...... - ..-- __. 

-Originaii'III!S$age--

From: ~P.mes~rtright fmaBto:ames@amesrprch.coml 

Sent: Mlliilla)iillfii~.D7;;20.14 11;57 AM 

To: Conroy, l'llartv G fFAAJ 

Subject: lii949J.P Information 

Marty, 

Please see attached. As you might recall you took a .PietJ,Ire oft11t air·worthinesscer!ificate when you came out, want 

me to take another picture for yo11? it that was tapett·in the c.otllpit on the wall. 

Airworthiness; Wet damaged reordered fresh one. Bi-Annual c~py from fog. 

J pr())lided a medical certificate to you at the time, and I have d fresh NE!w Medical e!a'mlastweek. 

R~Of Di:ieuments ale.nor.tb irtGaoda fo'gt.W!III!.SOiilli'ttJii&tfipttft~!n• 

My traveb~g~le is a:Olfiiiaiiipea ftir~ bit fWili lltit'lle'iWalliilite tlie're5tol'iffisweek. 

I feel sad for the People that were lost atthe coast •. lt'sa hard Job, yo.ur Job. Tile pain VCJU see I cannotlmagine. Thanks 

for your s~ice and for your past service in the military. 

As 1 stood on mv hill on the fourth of July watching tlie explosions offireworksfiom all sides. It reminded me of Viet 

Nam of Shells going ~ff. ofcanf'IOII file, and the rolling thun•r of Armageddon. 

It was differentfor me that night, it gave me thougltts of what was to aome If we doniJt change the course of {)ur 

country. 

Good Luck to you and God blessings . 

. Ames 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I , 

I. 

, 
From: 

Sent: 

To: 

SUbject 

Attachments: 

To: FAA 

Marty, 

. -. ·~ .... ·--·-···--·---·---.---. ···--·- .. ········· 

PM 

N949JP tnfonnation 

~~--~f, ~~l!!il~;\l'!1~~~§i.il!ri:~il1f~'J1df 

It was a pleasure to meet yo.u at Arties Rant.b. 

1 ha~"l,~;!I'Pu,~~~~~.~~~~~!,\~~~~.~!,~,~'-~\R<~!i~~~~~1~~~~.~~rl~,!9·49!iii'ihisvear,. but asvau 

suggested 1 did lili:atl§'illi(lo'a.Iil tM iiiiiiuat ·aiiil~\i'f~lftrto'meeff.ii't.l:f needs asvau req1.1ested. 

I have been very busy with tliepatrlotit: event I had fhttp:/ltWberiggpfthe,eag/es.rornJI; now that it is over, I have had a 

l~le bit ntQre time. Keeping Amerita safe for democ~acy •. Sel!mU$ we are gc~i~gto ltiVeta continttet~ur battle for 

freedom wiU never end. The sacnlice Of out brothers, .who died, we must not forgEt. Thus we continue for them. U 

Tubes are on line. Worth watching. 

Warmestand best, 

Dr. W. Ames Curtri!lht OBA 

Office, 503-58!-7000 

Cell, 503-209-7388 

. --y;·_: 

! 

i 

I 

I 
bs 527.7" Viloing Air Ltd. September 11. 1997 

f'oliDWiugwork was campletecl Under W/0 #14603: 

BDOflaats 89-lZOOO, ~lh sfa 3594,1/h sin 3593 and inlltallod Wlpaire 

hib flllliiB oln ~lh 21044,1/h it043. Wipala> Amphib fi!Jats"Wereinslalled in 

tl!lanae wiJh STC SAI!07lliCH an4 V'lpllire Mu!BrDmwing list filr Pip~ 

18 and DUido12100 :11oatB l8ilsued6/.17/97. 

dlna&ear..,...... wolliltq:normaJJ,y andchoclcedsorvicoahle. 

allatlonot. Lake an4Ait'IDD. Ad.vlt!cn:y &y&tem in accotdenee with ST SA 

:H -SJ.IIbmlcheclc& ~ble. "THE f,f.;!;li'IT ... 

e:w.lind'balaneehadbocnamonded to show this change. ABOVE !-li'<.S ; 

· • ·· . · · ACCORDANCE 

""ww".i!!''tand balance ts as tbllows; $TANDARDS 

m.l\W~jght.~lS~.O 'Nen;v C..G. = ?'3.08 M.cunent:"""" 1. 1.400'1._51.-_ . - . 

.. 

<:I 

~ 

--

~ 

~ 

~~ 

-__}_ 

c.U 

·:-
J 

:t 

' 

. emorandum 

To: William Ames C~trtght 

From: Ben W. Davidson 

D(lle: 812612014 

Re: Annual lnspectfon.N949JP 

iJIIL 

Thi$./etter fs.to 1U!rf/j! tliaJ I completed QR Annru.l{ lll,rpectitm. O'il N949:JP 

.a PA.-Ihn9ep"Nm!Jer 23"". 2013.. A.t.tiu.lf tinielfH'iJ'Ilded Y9U witll· 

a ir!.cre/ll!li"Cyli8t:rluit Included 1211 ~'ir.e.d fmtt;JJ In yfJ!II' ELt:th4t 

requil'ed rep/llcement 

If need fortlter fJRisltDtce, pletllle do not huito.te JQ ca{t a;,ptiifle IMJ01e 

9pm (llfJillay. ($41) 490-6980. 

C2f-tvaJ 

Ben W: DlJll{datJn 

A&P28SSJ47/A 

1 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In the Matter of: SCENIC MOUNTAIN AIR, INC. 

Served: May 16,2001 

FAA Order No. 2001-5 

Docket No. CP98AL0008 

DMS No. FAA-1999-5568 1 

DECISION AND ORDER' 

Respondent Scenic Mountain Air (Scenic) has appealed the law judge's initial 

decision, which found that Scenic violated 14 C.F.R. § 39.3 by failing to comply with 

three airworthiness directives. 3 Airworthiness directives, which are issued by the FAA, 

prescribe corrective action when an unsafe condition exists or is likely to exist or 

develop. The law judge assessed Scenic a $2,500 civil penalty. This decision denies 

Scenic's appeal and affirms the law judge's initial decision.' 

I Materials filed in the FAA Hearing Docket (except for materials filed in security cases) are 

also available for viewing through the Department of Transportation's Docket Management 

System (DMS). Access may be obtained through the following Internet address: 

http://dms.dot.gov. 

2 The Administrator's civil penalty decisions are available on LEXIS and WestLaw. They can 

also be found in Hawkins's Civil Penalty Cases Digest Service and Clark Boardman Callaghan's 

Federal Aviation Decisions. For additional information, see 66 Fed. Reg. 7532, 7532 

(January 21, 2001). 

3 14 C.F.R. § 39.3 provides: "No person may operate a product to which an airworthiness 

directive applies except in accordance with the requirements of that airworthiness directive." 

4 A copy of the law judge's written initial decision is attached. 
2 

I. Background 

Scenic is a small air taxi operator that conducts sightseeing flights and offers 

flight instruction. Scenic is based in Moose Pass, Alaska. 

In July 1997, at the FAA's request, Scenic's Director of Maintenance brought 

Scenic's maintenance records to the FAA in Anchorage, Alaska for inspection. 

(I Tr. 30-31.) This inspection of Scenic's maintenance records led to the instant civil 

penalty action. 

In the complaint, Complainant alleged that Scenic: 

• operated a Piper Model P A -18 aircraft during three separate periods for a 

total of 136 hours when an inspection of the exhaust muffler required by 

Airworthiness Directive 68-05-0l was due but had not been performed; 

• operated the same Piper Model PA-18 aircraft during two separate periods 

for a total of 119.2 hours when the inspection of the fuel selector valve 

required by Airworthiness Directive 60-10-08 was due but had ~ot been 

performed; and 

• operated a Cessna Model CE-172-I aircraft during two separate periods for 

a total of 11.8 hours when the inspection of the air filter assembly required 

by Airworthiness Directive 96-09-06 was due but had not been performed. 

Complainant alleged that Scenic had violated 14 C.F.R. § 39.3 and requested that a 

$7,500 civil penalty be assessed. 

II. The Law Judge's Initial Decjsjon 

After a hearing,' the law judge issued a written initial decision holding that Scenic 

violated 14 C.F.R. § 39.3. The law judge's specific findings are described below. 

A. The Exhaust Muffler. The law judge found that Scenic failed, on three 

separate occasions, to comply with Airworthiness Directive 68-05-01,' which required 

5 References to the transcript of the first day of the hearing, on Apri121, 1999, are as follows: 

"I Tr. _." References to the transcript of the second day of the hearing, on August 16, 1999, are 

as follows: "II Tr. " -
3 

that Scenic inspect its Piper Model PA-IS's exhaust muffier every 100 hours.' The law 

judge rejected Scenic's defense that on two of three occasions it simply failed to record 

the inspections, although it had performed them. According to the law judge, Scenic's 

"bare word" without a written record lacked "the requisite indicia of trustworthiness." 

(Initial Decision at 3.) Further, the law judge stated that a finding for Scenic "would 

eviscerate the ... requirement [in 14 C.F.R. § 91.417] that all inspections be duly 

recorded." (Id.) 

The law judge also rejected Scenic's defense that it performed the last of the three 

inspections, but simply recorded it in the engine logbook instead of the aircraft logbook. 

According to the law judge, 

[ e ]ven if the carrier could lawfully have placed this entry in a 

logbook different from the logbook in which all other 

A[ airworthiness] D[irective]-mandated exhaust-muffler inspections 

had been recorded- a doubtful proposition - Scenic failed in its 

duty to so inform agency representatives . . . . FAA inspectors are 

not required to hunt through ali of[Scenic's] records in order to 

piece together pertinent records. Plainly, that is an unreasonable 

burden to place on them. 

(Initial Decision at 3.) 

B. The Fuel Selector Valve. The law judge found that on two separate 

occasions, Scenic operated its Piper Model P A-18 aircraft past the 1 00-hour deadline 

specified in Airworthiness Directive 60-10-08' for checking the fuel selector valve.' The 

6 (Complainant's Exhibit 2.) 

7 On the first occasion, Scenic operated the Piper aircraft for 17.5 hours in violation of the 

airworthiness directive. On the second, it operated the aircraft for 99.3 hours after the deadline. 

On the third and final occasion, it operated the aircraft in violation of the airworthiness directive 

for 19.2 hours, yielding a total of 136 hours. 

'(Complainant's Exhibit 1.) 
4 

law judge rejected Scenic's defense that the aircraft had a different type of valve than the 

one specified in the airworthiness directive, one that could not be taken apart and 

checked. The law judge reasoned that the airworthiness directive applied to all Piper 

Model PA-18 aircraft equipped with two fuel or wing tanks, which fit Scenic's aircraft, so 

Scenic could not simply ignore the airworthiness directive. The law judge stated that the 

airworthiness directive was applicable to Scenic "unless and until Scenic showed that the 

directive's provisions were inapposite and that the carrier had been released from its 

requirements,"10 which did not occur until Scenic received a letter from the FAA Atlanta 

Aircraft Certification Office, well after the inspection.'' The law judge noted that the 

letter did not have retroactive effect. According to the law judge, Scenic had a 

responsibility to record or otherwise communicate to the FAA that it installed a fuel 

selector valve that made the "otherwise governing" airworthiness directive inapplicable, 

but Scenic failed to do so. (Initial Decision at 6.) 

C. The Air Filter. The law judge found that on two separate occasions, Scenic 

operated its Cessna Model CE-172-I aircraft past the 1 00-hour deadline specified in 

Airworthiness Directive 96-09-0612 for inspecting the air filter assembly." Although 

Scenic had replaced the air filter assembly, which ordinarily ends the 100-hour inspection 

9 On one occasion, Scenic operated the Piper 99.3 hours after the deadline for the check; on the 

other occasion, the overflight was 19.2 hours, yielding a total overflight of 118.5 hours of 

operation. 

10 (Initial Decision at 5.) 

"The letter was dated almost 21 months after the inspection. (Initial Decision at 5.) 

12 (Complainant's Exhibit 4.) 

13 On one occasion, Scenic was out of time for only 0.3 hours, while on the other, Scenic's 

inspection was 11.5 hours overdue, yielding a total of 11.8 hours of operation past the deadline. 
5 

requirement, the law judge determined that the inspections were still required because 

Scenic had not yet obtained approval of the alternative method of compliance from the 

Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office. (Initial Decision at 6.) According to the law 

judge, "a mere recital" in the logbook of the replacement of the air filter assembly "was 

not enough." (Id.) Instead, Scenic "was obligated to make an entry containing the part 

number of the new filter and a notation that the change terminated the inspection 

requirements" of the airworthiness directive." (ld.) Since Scenic did not, it "remained 

subject to the requirements of the [airworthiness directive]." (!d.) The law judge also 

noted that Scenic had continued to sign off on the airworthiness directive at "more or less 

regular intervals," which, in the law judge's view, led the FAA inspector reasonably to ~ 

believe that the airworthiness directive remained applicable. (Initial Decision at 6.) 

D. Logbook Entrjes. The law judge rejected Scenic's argument that only 

"current" logbook entries may be considered. (Initial Decision at 7.) The law judge 

characterized this argument as "absurd." (!d.) According to the law judge, earlier entries 

are just as much a part of the logbook as later entries, and FAA inspectors need earlier 

entries to form a complete picture of the a carrier's maintenance practices. (ld.) The law 

judge also rejected the implication of Scenic's argument- i.e., that the FAA must 

uncover violations prior to entry of the next notation in the logbook or forfeit any action 

against the alleged offender. (!d.) According to the law judge, accepting Scenic's 

argument would defeat the civil penalty program's goals of compliance and deterrence. 

E. Penalty. Although the complaint sought a $7,500 civil penalty, the law judge 

assessed Scenic a $2,500 civil penalty-- $1,500 for the exhaust muffler violation, $500 

for the fuel selector valve, and $500 for the air filter. (Initial Decision at 8.) 
6 

Regarding the exhaust muffler, the law judge said that Scenic failed to inspect it 

on three occasions, creating an unreasonable risk to air safety. The law judge found that 

$1,500 appropriately reflected the scale of Scenic's transgression and would best 

effectuate the agency's policies of compliance and deterrence. (Initial Decision at 8.) 

As for the fuel selector valve and the air filter, the law judge found they were less 

serious in that they were essentially recordkeeping problems. Although he recognized 

that recordkeeping is the "linchpin" behind the FAA's regulatory scheme, the law judge 

nevertheless found that these violations deserved smaller civil penalties than if 

airworthiness violations had been alleged. (Initial Decision at 8.) In each case, Scenic 

had installed a part not governed by the airworthiness directive. Although the 

airworthiness directives technically applied until Scenic either notified the agency of the 

change, obtained a waiver, or both, the law judge stated that the airworthiness directives 

did not apply as a practical matter. For this reason, the law judge assessed civil penalties 

of only $500 each for the fuel selector valve and air filter violations. (!d. at 9.) In the law 

judge's view, $500 per violation was a significant amount to a small company Scenic and 

would further the agency's policies of compliance and deterrence. 

III. Briefs 

Before addressing the merits of Scenic's appeal, it is necessary to address a few 

preliminary matters regarding the briefs. 

A. Extra-Record Material. Scenic's 95-page appeal brief contains a great deal 

of information that is not part of the record, including documents that the law judge 

excluded. The Rules of Practice, like other rules of procedure, prohibit basing a decision 

on material outside the record. In the Matter ofHereth, FAA Order No. 1995-26 at 8 
7 

(December 19, 1995). For this reason, the extra-record material in Scenic's appeal brief 

was not considered in deciding this appeal. 

B. Unsigned Amicus Brief. Scenic submitted an unsigned amicus brief 

purporting to contain comments of Lawrence W. Havard, Sr., Scenic's Director of 

Maintenance. Although the omission of the signature was called to Scenic's attention, 

Scenic failed to correct the problem. As a result, the unsigned amicus brief is stricken. 

IV. Logbook Entries 

Scenic argues on appeal, as it did before the law judge, that the FAA has no right 

to require operators to produce anything other than the most current entry in its 

maintenance records at the time of the inspection. According to Scenic, the law judge 

erred in admitting Scenic's airworthiness directive records because they contain not just 

the latest entry, but earlier entries as well. (Appeal Brief at 61.) Complainant used these 

records to show the violations. For example, regarding the exhaust muffler, Scenic 

argues that there was no violation if the FAA was limited to looking at "current" records, 

because by the time the FAA found the problem, "several inspections had been recorded 

since the time [Scenic] overflew the inspection." (Appeal Brief at 28.) 

Scenic bases its argument on several regulations. First, Scenic argues that 

14 C.F.R. § 13.7 permits only those records and documents that the Federal Aviation 

Regulations require to be maintained to be used in FAA civil penalty actions. " Second, 

14 Section 13.7 provides as follows: 

§ 13.7 Records, documents and reports. . 

Each record, document and report that the Federal Aviation Regulations requires 

to be maintained, exhibited or submitted to the Administrator may be used in any 

investigation conducted by the Administrator; and, except to the extent the use 

may be specifically limited or prohibited by the section which imposes the 

requirement, the records, documents and reports may be used in any civil penalty 

action, certificate action, or other legal proceeding. 
8 

Scenic contends that under 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.41715 and 135.439," Scenic was not required 

to retain the entries that showed the violations. 

Scenic has misinterpreted 14 C.F.R. § 13.7. Scenic's airworthiness directive 

records were each clearly a "record, document, and report that the Federal Aviation 

Regulations require to be maintained, exhibited or submitted to the Administrator" within 

15 Section 91.417 provides, in relevant part, as follows: 

§ 91.417 Maintenance records. 

(a) ... [E]ach registered owner or operator shall keep the following 

records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) of this section: 

(2) Records containing the following information: 

(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) 

including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD number, and revision 

date. If the AD involves recurring action, the time and date when the next action 

is required. 

(b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the 

periods prescribed: 

(2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be 

retained and transferred with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold. 

(c) The owner or operator shall make all maintenance records required to 

be kept by this section available for inspection by the Administrator .... 

16 Section 135.439 provides, in relevant part, as follows: 

§ 135.439 Maintenance recording requirements. 

(a) Each certificate holder shall keep ... the following records for the 

periods specified in paragraph (b) of this section: 

(2) Records containing the following information: 

(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives, including 

the date and methods of compliance, and, if the airworthiness directive involves 

recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required. 

(b) Each certificate holder shall retain the records required to be kept by 

this section for the following periods: 

(3) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be 

retained and transferred with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold. 

(c) The certificate holder shall make all maintenance records required to 

be kept by this section available for inspection by the Administrator .... 

' 
9 

the meaning of14 C.F.R. § 13.7. These records conformed with 14 C.F.R. 

§§ 91.417(a)(2)(v) and 135.439(a)(2)(v) by containing information regarding ''the current 

status of applicable airworthiness directives, including the date and methods of 

compliance and the time and date when the next action is required." Thus, the records 

contained information Scenic was required to keep, and the law judge properly admitted 

them. Nor was the law judge wrong in declining to exclude particular entries. Each entry 

on the form indicates the current status of Scenic's compliance with the airworthiness 

directive at the time Scenic completed the entry. 

Section 13.7 was not intended to restrict the agency; it was not intended to prevent 

the agency from taking enforcement action when an operator's maintenance records show ' 

violations ofthe safety regulations. Section 13.7 is written in a permissive sense- it 

provides that records required to be kept may be used. It does not provide that only the 

particular records required to be maintained may be used, or that older entries in the 

records may not be used. Note that there are any number of other records, documents, 

and reports not mentioned in the regulation that parties use without objection in legal and 

administrative proceedings- e.g., air carrier and manufacturer maintenance and operating 

manuals, FAA advisory circulars, and FAA orders." Further, as the law judge pointed 

17 Scenic notes that the law judge did not provide any case Jaw to support his determination that 

all the entries on each of Scenic's airworthiness directive records were admissible, rather than 

just the most recent entry. In contrast, Scenic argues that United States v. Evaschuck, 

65 F. Supp. 2d 1360 (M.D. Fl. 1999), supports its position. However, Evaschuk is 

distinguishable in several respects. First, it was a criminal case. Second, Evaschuk involved a 

different regulatory provision because airworthiness directives were not at issue- Evaschuk 

discussed 14 C.F .R. § 91.41 7(b )( 1 ), which requires maintenance records to be kept for a year -

rather than § 91.417(b )(3), which requires records containing the current status of airworthiness 

directives to be retained and transferred with the aircraft when it is sold. Third, the Evaschuk 

court did not suppress all maintenance records which were older than I year and therefore no 

longer required to be kept. Fourth, the court declined to suppress documents contained in the 

same logbooks as those within the search warrant's parameters. In contrast, the entries that 
10 

out, it would be both unreasonable and detrimental to safety to require the FAA to 

uncover violations prior to entry of the next notation in the logbook under penalty of 

forfeiting any enforcement action against the alleged offender. 

When the regulations intend that a certain type of record may not be used in a 

civil penalty action, they state so explicitly. For example, 14 C.F.R. §§ 121.359(h) and 

135.15l(c) state, in pertinent part, as follows: "Information obtained from the record 

(produced by the cockpit voice recorder) is used ... in determining the cause of accidents 

.... The Administrator does not use the record in any civil penalty ... action." Notably 

absent from 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.417 and 135.439 are statements to the effect that only the 

latest entry in maintenance records involving maintenance records may be used. For all ' 

ofthese reasons, the law judge correctly admitted Scenic's airworthiness directive 

records. 

V. Exhaust Muffier Vjo!atjon 

Scenic states in its appeal brief that it did "make a little mistake" and forget to 

write down the inspections of its exhaust muffler, but its owner and operator, Vernon 

Kingsford, "was not too worried" because he always uses a carbon monoxide indicator in 

the cockpit. (Appeal Brief at 28.) According to Scenic, the carbon monoxide indicator is 

a much more accurate indicator of whether the muffler is leaking than a visual inspection 

because it detects carbon monoxide long before the human eye can detect small cracks in 

the muffler. (Id.) 

The law judge, however, rejected Scenic's defense that it performed the 

inspections ofthe exhaust muffler and simply failed to record them. According to the law 

Scenic seeks to exclude are contained not just in the same logbooks but also in the same 

documents as the entries that Scenic agrees are admissible. 
II 

judge, Scenic's word without a written record of the inspection lacked "the requisite 

indicia of trustworthiness." (Initial Decision at 3.) 

Further, Scenic's claims regarding the carbon monoxide indicator are 

unsubstantiated. Even if the record did contain evidence that: (I) Scenic had installed a 

carbon monoxide indicator; and (2) a carbon monoxide indicator is better from a safety 

standpoint than a visual examination of the exhaust muffler, it still would be contrary to 

the interest of public safety to permit operators to decide for themselves whether and 

when to comply with airworthiness directives. Operators may not simply disregard an 

airworthiness directive; instead, they must obtain a waiver from the FAA." 

VI. Fuel Selector Valve and Air Filter Violations 

Scenic argues that it could not have violated two of the three airworthiness 

directives, given that the law judge expressly stated that Scenic had installed parts not 

governed by the directives. (Initial Decision at 8.) Scenic had replaced the fuel selector 

valve with a new type of valve on which it was impossible to perform the check required 

"One of the exhibits Scenic introduced at the hearing was Advisory Circular 39-7C, entitled 

"Airworthiness Directives." It provides as follows: 

Every AD applies to each product identified in the applicability statement, 

regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject 

to the requirements of the AD. For products that have been modified, altered, or 

repaired so that performance of the requirements of the AD is affected, the 

owner/operator must use the authority provided in the alternative methods of 

compliance provision of the AD (see paragraph 12) to request approval from the 

FAA. This approval may address either no action, if the current configuration 

eliminates the unsafe condition; or different actions necessary to address the 

unsafe condition described in the AD. In no case, does the presence of any 

alteration, modification, or repair remove any product from the applicability of 

this AD. 

(Respondent's Exhibit 1.) 
12 

by the airworthiness directive. Similarly, it had replaced the air filter with a new type of 

filter that did not need such frequent inspections. 

As the law judge noted, the problem was with SceniC's recordkeeping. Scenic's 

entries in its maintenance records that documented the change in parts did not indicate in 

any way that the changes were terminating actions for the airworthiness directives. 

Scenic's principal maintenance inspector testified that as a mechanic, he would expect to 

see a specific entry indicating that it was a terminating action. I Tr. 46-48. 19 

VII. Letter from FAA Employee 

Scenic argues that the law judge erred in excluding a letter from an FAA engineer 

stating that Airworthiness Directive 60-10-08 did not apply to the fuel valve at issue in 

this case. (Appeal Brief at 85.) The law judge properly excluded the letter given that it 

was not authenticated. The law judge stated, "We have an authentication problem .... 

We don't know the circumstances under which this was produced .... " I Tr. 77. It is 

standard practice to require documents to be authenticated before admitting them. See, 

e.g., Rule 901 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 

VIII. Constitutional Claims 

Scenic has many complaints about the behavior of the FAA inspectors and 

counsel in this case, including the following: 

• FAA inspectors and counsel in this case allegedly conspired to offer 

fraudulent testimony and evidence. (Appeal Brief at 89.) 

19 Scenic is correct that the law judge was wrong when he said that no record existed informing 

agency officials that the new fuel selector valve had been installed. Actually, as Complainant's 

Exhibit 3 at 2, shows, Scenic did log the change in valves. But as with the air filters, Scenic was 

obligated to make an entry indicating that the change terminated the inspection requirements of 

the airworthiness directive. 
• 

13 

• FAA inspectors photocopied Scenic's aircraft records against the wishes of 

Scenic's owner, Vernon Kingsford, and refused to return the photocopies to 

him. (Appeal Brief at 10.) They allegedly trespassed on Mr. Kingsford's 

property after he told them to leave and stole the electricity used to power 

their copier. (Appeal Brief at 12.) The inspectors allegedly failed to show 

official identification badges. (Appeal Brief at 13.) 

• The inspectors allegedly harassed Mr. Kingsford during his busy season, 

causing him stress and anxiety that affected the safety of his operation. 

(Appeal Brief at 14.) 

According to Scenic, these complaints rise to the level of constitutional violations. The 

record simply does not contain evidence regarding these claims. As a result, they are 

rejected as unsubstantiated. 

IX. Financial Hardship 

While Scenic argues that it cannot afford to pay a civil penalty (Appeal Brief at 

4), it did not raise the issue of financial hardship at the hearing, and thus failed to 

preserve the issue for appeal. In the Matter of Northwest Aircraft Rental, FAA Order 

No. 1994-4 at 9 (March 10, 1994). The record contains no evidence of Scenic's financial 

hardship or inability to pay. 

The Administrator has held numerous times that financial hardship, when proven, 

may constitute grounds for reduction of an otherwise appropriate civil penalty. In the 

Matter of Blue Ridge Airlines, FAA Order No. 1999-15 at 10 (December 22, 1999). 

However, unsworn and unsubstantiated statements by alleged violators are insufficient 

evidence of inability to pay. In the Matter of Conquest Airlines, FAA Order No. 1994-20 

at 3 (June 22, 1994), citing In the Matter ofGiuffrid!!, FAA Order No. 1992-72 at 3 

(December 21, 1992). Scenic bore the burden of proving its claim of financial hardship, 

' 
14 

In the Matter of Conquest Helicopters, FAA Order No. 1994-20 at 3 (June 20, 1994), but 

failed to substantiate its claim. 20 

X. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, the law judge's initial decision is affirmed and a civil 

penalty of $2,500 is assessed. 21 

Issued this 15th day of----"-Ma=.y __ , 2001. 

20 The other arguments contained in Scenic's appeal brief have been considered, rejected, and 

determined to be unworthy of discussion. 

21 Unless Respondent files a petition for review with a Court of Appeals of the United States 

under 49 U.S.C. § 46110 within 60 days of service of this decision, this decision shall be 

considered an order assessing civil penalty. See 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.16(b)(4) and 13.2330)(2) 

(2000.)