# RECEIVE D

'EPARTMENTO F BEFOR E TH E 

### u.s . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N 

### ^^ 6 1 5 20) J • ASPORTATIO N Th e Honorabl e Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e Ronni e A I 

### - ' M OFERATIOM

S ii i I^E 3 2 2 P 2U ^

I n th e matte ro f BRENDA N AIRWAYS , LLC , d/b/ a USA300 0 Airline s Responden t 

# 'HgARIN G DOCKE T

DM S No. : FAA-2009-003 2 FA A Docke t No. : CP09EA000 7 FA A Cas e No. : 2008EA17003 8 ANSWE R t o th e COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N

FO R DECISIO N

Th e Respondent , Brenda n Airways , LL C d/b/ a USA300 0 Airline s [hereinafte r"USA3000" ] hereby respond s t o th e Motio n fo rDecisio n an d REQUEST S tha t th e Administrativ e Law Judg e DEN Y th e Administrator' s Motio n fo rDecision . 

## Tabl e o f Content s Tabl e o f Content s 1 Summary o f th e Case 3 Facts 4 1 . Th e Administrato rCanno t Dra w a Factual/Causa l Lin k Betwee n An y Imprope r Maintenanc e an d th e Deactivatio n o f th e Spoiler s 4 2 . Th e Administrator' s Ow n Investigatio n Showe d tha t Ther e Wa s N o Evidenc e o f Imprope r Maintenanc e 5 3 . Th e Part 9 1 Issue s Wer e Full y Litigate d b y th e Administrato ri n Babbit t v . Surratt , an d th e Boar d Rejecte d th e Administrator' s Claim s o f 91. 7 an d 91.1 3 Violation s 6 Standar d o f Proo f 7 Argumen t 8 I . Th e Administrato rFail s t o Mee t Hi s Burde n Concernin g th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91. 7 Allegations.. 8 a . Ther e i s a Knowledg e Elemen t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 91. 7 Cases 9 b . Th e Pilot s o f th e Fligh t Wer e th e Relevan t Agent s fo rPurpose s o f Testin g Knowledgel l c . I t Wa s Previousl y Decide d tha t ther e wa s Insufficien t Knowledg e t o Suppor t a 91. 7 Allegation , an d unde rth e Doctrin e o f Collatera l Estoppe l th e Lac k o f Knowledg e Supportin g a 91. 7 Allegatio n Applie s I n Ou rCase as Wel l 1 2 i . Th e Issu e Decide d i n th e Prio rProceedin g i s Identica l Wit h th e Issu e Presente d i n th e Secon d 1 3 RESPONDENT' S ANSWE Rt o th e Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO N Law Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei n Pag e 1 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6ii . Th e Part yAgains t Who m Collatera l Estoppe l i s Asserte d Wa s a Part y i n th e Prio r Litigatio n 1 4 iii . Th e Prio rAdjudicatio n Ende d i n a Fina l Judgmen t o n th e Merit s 1 4 iv . Th e Administrato r(th e Part y Agains t Who m th e Doctrin e i s Asserted ) Ha d a Fai r Opportunit y t o Litigat e th e Issu e Becaus e th e Administrato rwa s a Part y t o th e Prio r Litigatio n 1 5 V . Unde rth e Doctrin e o f Collatera l Estoppel , th e Administrato ri s Estoppe d fro m Relitigatin g th e Issu e o f Knowledg e i n th e 91. 7 Allegations , Becaus e th e NTS B Ha s Alread y Rejecte d thi s Argumen t i n a Prio rCase 1 5 d . Th e Administrato rHa s Faile d t o Addres s Othe rElement s o f th e Cas e 1 6 II . Th e Administrato rFail s t o Mee t Hi s Burde n Concernin g th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.1 3 Allegation s 1 6 a . Th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.1 3 Clai m Ha s Alread y Bee n Full y Litigate d an d th e Administrator' s Argument s Have Alread yBee n Preclusivel y Addresse d Unde rCollatera l Estoppe l 1 7 i . Th e Issu e Decide d i n th e Prio rProceedin g i s Identica l Wit h th e Issu e Presente d i n th e Secon d 1 7 ii . Th e Part y Agains t Who m Collatera l Estoppe l i s Asserte d Wa s a Part y i n th e Prio r Litigatio n 1 8 iii . Th e Prio rAdjudicatio n Ende d i n a Fina l Judgmen t o n th e Merit s 1 8 iv . Th e Administrato r(th e Part y Agains t Who m th e Doctrin e i s Asserted ) Ha d a Fai r Opportunit y t o Litigat e th e Issu e Becaus e th e Administrato rwa s a Part y t o th e Prio r Litigatio n 1 9 b . Th e 91.13(a ) Clai m Wa s Asserte d Contrar yt o Cour t Order , an d Afte rth e Statut e o f Limitation s Ha d Passe d 1 9 III . Th e Administrato rFail s t o Mee t Hi s Burde n Concernin g th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.1 3 Allegation s 2 0 a . Th e Administrator' s 43.1 3 Case Fail s t o Mak e a Connectio n t o An y Actua l Maintenanc e Fact s 2 0 1 . Ther e i s n o Evidenc e t o Sugges t Tha t An y Maintenance-Performin g Part y Move d th e Spoiler s int o Maintenanc e Mod e 2 1 2 . Th e Administrato rHa s N o Evidenc e tha t th e Spoiler s Wer e Place d i n Maintenanc e Mod e as a Consequenc e o f a Maintenanc e Activit y2 2 b . Th e Alaska Airline s Case i s Materiall yDifferen t fro m thi s Case , Becaus e Ther e i s N o Evidenc e o f a Maintenanc e Connectio n i n thi s Case 2 2 c . Th e Administrato ri s Tryin g t o Ski p Step s i n It s Causa l Argumen t 2 3 d . Th e Administrato ri s Offerin g Argument s That Ar e Inapplicabl e t o thi s Cas e 2 4 1 . Th e FA

A i s arguin g a violatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.363(a ) bu t th e FA A ha s neve rallege d violatio n o f thi s regulatio n 2 4 

### RESPONDENT' S ANSWE Rto the COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO

N Page 2 Washington Aviation Group , P C an dth e La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 62 . Th e Responden t Doe s No t Bea rth e Burde n o f Proof 2 4 Conclusio n 2 5 CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E 2 7 

## Summar y o f

th e Cas e Thi s matte rinvolve s a n aircraf t (N265AV ) tha t wa s th e subjec t o f heavy maintenanc e performe d b y AAR . Th e aircraf t wa s a t th e en d o f a lease , an d wa s bein g maintaine d s o i t coul d b e returne d t o th e owner , ILFC . Th e aircraf t wa s flow n o n a maintenanc e acceptanc e fligh t o n Ma y 17 , 2008 . See Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5514 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 a t * 1 n. 2 (Marc h 23 , 2010) . A maintenanc e acceptanc e fligh t i s a n operationa l tes t o f th e maintenanc e performed . 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.407(b) . Th e maintenanc e acceptanc e fligh t wa s flow n b y tw o pilot s - Captai n Ton y Sco t Surrat t an d Captai n Fran k

Willia m Walker . Th e pilot s discovere d durin g th e maintenanc e acceptanc e figh t tha t certai n spoiler s wer e inoperative , an d subsequen t analysi s afte rlandin g showe d tha t tw o spoiler s ha d bee n deactivated . Th e deactivate d mod e i s als o know n a s "maintenanc e mode. " Th e Administrator' s claim s ar e tha t (1 ) th e fligh t wa s unairworth y (violatin g 91. 7 an d 91.13) , an d (2 ) US

A 300 0 improperl y performe d maintenance , whic h le d t o th e spoile r deactivation . US A 3000' s respons e (i n summary ) i s tha t th e Par t 9 1 (airworthiness ) issue s hav e alread y bee n full y litigate d i n a prio rcas e befor e th e NTSB , an d th e Administrato rlos t thos e arguments . Unde rth e doctrin e o f collatera l estoppe l i t i s inappropriat e t o relitigat e them . US A 3000' s respons e (i n summary ) t o th e Part 4 3 claim s i s tha t the y canno t b e sustaine d becaus e th e Administrato rha s faile d t o identif y an y activit y regulate d b y Part 4 3 (maintenanc e activity ) tha t wa s no t properl y performed , an d ha s faile d t o dra w an y causa l connectio n betwee n a maintenanc e activit y an d th e deactivatio n o f th e spoilers . Instead , th e Administrato r i s workin g fro m th e fac t tha t th e spoiler s wer e deactivate d an d assumin g al l othe rfact s - an d th e fact s o f thi s cas e contraven e suc h a n induction . 

### RESPONDENT' S ANSWE Rt o the COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO

N Page 3 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dth e La w Office s o

f Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6

## Fact s

1 . Th e Administrato r

Canno t Dra w aFactual/Causa l Lin k Betwee n An y Imprope r

Maintenanc e an dth e Deactivatio n o f th e Spoiler s Maintenanc e i n thi s cas e wa s performe d b yAA R fo rUS A 3000 , bu t ther e wa s n o evidenc e o f imprope rmaintenance , an d ther e wa s als o n o evidence o f a lin k betwee n an y maintenanc e activit y an d th e deactivatio n o f th e spoilers . I n th e Complaint , th e Administrato rclaime d that : "Prio rt o th e flight , maintenanc e wa s performe d o n th e aircraf t i n whic h th e spoile r serv o actuator s fo rlef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an d fiv e wer e place d i n th e maintenanc e mode. " Complain t a t Allegatio n 4 o f Sectio n II . US A 300 0 sough t discover yo n thi s allegation , an d asked : "Interrogator y #1 : Allegatio n 4 o f sectio n I I o f th e Complain t contend s tha t th e spoile r serv o actuator s wer e place d i n th e maintenanc e mod e durin g maintenance . O n wha t dat e an d durin g wha t maintenanc e operatio n wer e th e spoile rserv o actuator s place d i n th e maintenanc e mode? " Respondent' s Firs t Se t o f Interrogatories . Request s fo r Productio n o f Documents , an d Request s fo rAdmissions . Interrogator y #1 . Th e Administrato ranswere d b y admittin g that : "th e Complainan t doe s no t kno w th e exac t dat e o f th e maintenanc e .. . th e Complainan t doe s no t kno w durin g wha t maintenanc e operatio n th e spoile rserv o actuator s wer e place d i n th e maintenanc e mode , howeve ri t appear s tha t th e maintenanc e wa s performe d b y AAR. " Complainant' s Firs t Respons e t o Respondent' s Firs t Se t o f Interrogatories . Request s fo rProductio n o f Documents , an d Request s fo rAdmissions . Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 . Th e Administrato rha s admitte d tha t h e doe s no t kno w o f an y maintenanc e tha t wa s improperl y performe d i n thi s case , an d tha t h e canno t dra w an y lin k betwee n an y maintenanc e activit y an d th e deactivatio n o f th e spoilers .



### RESPONDENT' S ANSWE Rto th e COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO

N Page 4 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dth e La w Office s of

Jason A . Dicksteu

i 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## 2 . Th e Administrator' s Ow n Investigatio n Showe dtha t Ther e Wa s N

o Evidenc e o f

Imprope r

Maintenanc e Th e FAA' s ow n dat a show s tha t the y hav e n o reaso n t o believ e tha t maintenanc e wa s improperl y performed . O n Jul y 7 , 2008 , th e FA A sen t t o AA R a lette rexplainin g tha t investigatio n o f th e inciden t i n questio n ha d reveale d n o violation s o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulations . Fil e Closur e Lette rfro m Reportin g Inspecto rLind a Burnet t t o AA R (Jul y 7 , 2008 ) (Appendi xA) . I n severa l FA

A Progra m Trackin g an d Reportin g Subsyste m (PTRS ) Dat a Sheet , provide d i n respons e t o US

A 3000' s discoveryrequest , th e Administrato radmit s tha t th e FAA' s ow n investigator s coul d no t determin e tha t an y AA R employe e pu t th e spoiler s i n maintenanc e mode : "05-20-200 8 T O 06-16-200 8 - CONDUCTE D INVESTIGATIO N REGARDIN G TH E ALLEGE D IMPROPE R MAINTENANCE . COUL D NO T PROVE THA

T AN Y AA R EMPLOYE E PERFORME D TH E IMPROPE R POSITIONIN G O F TH E LEF T WIN G SPOILER

S 3 AN D 5 T

O TH E MAINTENANC E MODE. " FA A PTR S recor d fro m Inspecto rLX C fo rEI R 2008SO19022 0 (al l capital s i n original ) (Appendi xG) . Th e discover y evidence show s tha t th e Administrato rdoe s no t kno w wh o place d th e spoiler s i n th e maintenanc e mode ; an d th e Administrato rcanno t sho w tha t an y AA R employe e place d th e spoiler s i n th e maintenanc e mode . Thi s i s a critica l evidentiar y failure , becaus e ther e i s als o n o evidence tha t an y maintenanc e wa s incorrectl y performed . Instead , th e Administrato r relie s o n th e propositio n tha t th e spoiler s wer e deactivated , an d work s backward s t o assum e al l o f th e othe rfact s abou t th e allegatio n - th e relationshi p betwee n performanc e o f som e maintenanc e an d th e deactivatio n o f th e spoiler s (causation ) i s assumed , an d als o th e propositio n tha t maintenanc e wa s improperl y performe d (th e allege d causa l act ) i s als o assumed . Th e Administrato rcanno t reasonabl y clai m tha t h e ha s foun d additiona l fact s t o suppor t th e allegatio n tha t US A 300 0 performe d maintenanc e incorrectl y (allegatio n fou ri n th e Complaint) , becaus e i n interrogator y#2 , US A 300 0 asked : Interrogator y #2 : Pleas e identif y al l o f th e fact s tha t yo u conten d suppor t Allegatio n 4 o f sectio n I I o f th e Complaint . Respondent' s Firs t Se t o f Interrogatories . Request s fo r Productio n o f Documents , an d Request s fo rAdmissions . Interrogator y #2 . 

### RESPONDENT' S ANSWE Rto the COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO

N Page 5 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dth e La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6I n respons e t o this , th e Administrato rexplained : Prio rt o th e fligh t ther e wer e severa l indication s i n th e cockpi t suggestin g tha t lef t an d righ t win g rol l spoiler s 3 an d 5 wer e no t operational , durin g th e fligh t thes e rol l spoiler s di d no t function , an d afte rth e fligh t i t wa s determine d throug h visua l inspectio n tha t th e spoile rserv o actuator s wer e place d i n th e maintenanc e mode . Complainant' s Firs t Respons e t o Respondent' s Firs t Se t o f Interrogatories . Request s fo rProductio n o f Documents , an d Request s fo rAdmissions , Respons e t o Interrogator y # 2 (Appendi xF) . I t i s clea rtha t th e Administrator' s positio n i s tha t th e onl y evidenc e o f an y imprope r maintenanc e i s th e fac t tha t th e spoiler s (i n som e unidentifie d way ) ende d u p deactivate d (i n "maintenanc e mode") . Nowher e i n thi s answe rdoe s th e Administrato rspecif y an y fact s t o suppor t th e allegatio n tha t US A 300 0 performe d maintenanc e incorrectly . An d as w e se e i n th e enforcemen t cas e agains t th e pilots . Judg e Fowle rdisagree d wit h th e Administrator' s contentio n concernin g pre-fligh t indication s o f failures , an d rule d tha t th e pre-fligh t indication s suggeste d n o spoile rproblems . 

## 3 . Th e Par t

9 1 Issue s Wer e Full y Litigate db y th e Administrato r i n Babbit t v . Surratt . an dth e Boar dRejecte dth e Administrator' s Claim s o f 91. 7 an d91.1 3 Violation s Th e Administrato rbrough t certificat e suspensio n actions , includin g 1 4 C.F.R . § § 91.7(a ) an d 91.13(a ) charges , agains t th e tw o pilot s o n thi s flight . Th e matte rwa s hear d befor e th e honorabl e Chie f Judg e Fowle ro f th e Nationa l Transportatio n Safet y Board . Judg e Fowle rfoun d tha t th e pilot s di d no t kno w tha t th e spoiler s wer e inoperativ e a t th e tim e o f take-off . Se e Babbit t v . Surratt . SE-18562 , 200 9 NTS B LEXI S 10 6 a t '*12 , *14 , +1 6 (Septembe r2 , 2009 ) (Appendi xC) . H e foun d tha t th e pilot s leane d tha t th e spoiler s wer e inoperativ e afte rtake-off . Id . a t '*13-*14 , '*17 . H e foun d tha t i t wa s reasonabl e fo rth e pilot s t o hav e continue d thei rmaintenanc e acceptanc e flight . Jc L a t *1A , '*17-18 . Judg e Fowle rnote d tha t th e pilot s di d no t hav e knowledg e o f a n unairworth y conditio n durin g th e flight , jd . a t *10 . Becaus e th e pilot s di d no t hav e knowledg e o f a n unairworth y conditio n a t th e tim e o f takeoff , ther e wa s n o violatio n o f 91.7(a ) a t th e tim e o f takeoff , jd . a t *14 . Th e pilot s referre d t o th e Quic k Referenc e Handboo k (QRH ) o n th e aircraft , whic h onl y require d confirmatio n o f th e lengt h o f th e landin g runway ; becaus e th e QR H permitte d continue d fligh t upo n learnin g o f RESPONDENT' S ANSWE Rt o th e Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO N La w Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei n Pag e 6 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6inoperativ e spoilers , an d n o othe rresourc e provide d contrar y guidance . Judg e Fowle rhel d tha t ther e wa s n o violatio n o f 91.7(a ) durin g th e flight . Id . a t '*14-'*15 . Judg e Fowle rspecificall y foun d tha t eac h pilo t di d no t operat e th e aircraf t i n a careles s manne rs o as t o endange rth e lif e o rpropert y o f anothe ran d therefor e di d no t violat e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.13(a) . Id . a t *1A , ^17-18 . O n appeal , th e Nationa l Transportatio n Safet y Boar d (NTSB ) affirme d Judg e Fowler' s rulings . Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5514 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 a t *26-'*2 7 (Marc h 23 , 2010 ) (Appendi x D) . Th e Boar d agree d tha t th e pilot s ha d th e discretio n t o continu e wit h th e flight , an d tha t th e decisio n wa s reasonable . Id . a t *26-*27 . Th e Administrato rpetitione d fo rreconsideratio n o f th e Board' s decision , an d th e Boar d affirme d thei row n decision . Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5527 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 (Jun e 25 , 2010 ) (Appendi xE) . O n reconsideration , th e Boar d clearlystate d tha t th e Administrato rha d faile d t o prov e tha t th e pilot s ha d knowledg e o f a n unairworth yconditio n prio rt o take-off . Jd . a t *2 . Th e Boar d explaine d tha t th e evidence showe d tha t th e pilot s ha d a "green " ECA M (fre e o f erro r messages ) prio rt o take-off . Id . a t *6-*7 . Th e Boar d state d tha t th e pilot s di d no t know , no r shoul d the y hav e reasonabl y known , tha t th e aircraf t wa s i n a n unairworth y condition , jd . a t '*9 - *10 . Th e Boar d conclude s tha t th e pilot s acte d reasonabl y i n thei rdecision s (the y di d no t ac t recklessl y no rcarelessly) . Id ^ a t *13 . 

## Standar do f

Proo f Th e applicabl e standar d state s tha t th e "Administrativ e Law Judg e shal l gran t a party' s motio n fo rdecisio n i f th e evidence show s tha t (1 ) ther e i s n o genuin e issu e o f materia l fac t an d (2 ) tha t th e part y makin g th e motio n i s entitle d t o a decisio n a s a matte ro f law. " 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(5) . I n thi s case , th e Administrato ri s no t entitle d t o a decisio n as a matte ro f law , an d therefor e i s no t entitle d t o hav e hi s Motio n fo rDecisio n granted . A Motio n fo rDecisio n i s adjudicate d unde rth e sam e standard s a s a motio n fo rsummar y judgment . Summary judgmen t i s appropriat e whe n ther e i s n o genuin e issu e o f materia l fac t an d th e movin g part yi s entitle d t o judgmen t as a matte ro f la w (Se e 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(5) ; cf . Fed . R. Civ . P . 56(c) ) o rwhe n n o reasonabl e decision-make rcoul d retur n a verdic t fo rth e nonmovin g party . Anderso n v . Libert y Lobby . Inc. . 47 7 U.S . 242 , 24 8 (1986) . RESPONDENT' S ANSWE Rt o th e Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO N Law Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei n Pag e 7 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6On e o f th e mai n purpose s o f a summar y judgmen t motio n i s t o dispos e o f factuall y unsupporte d claims . Se e Anderson . 47 7 U.S . a t 249 ; Celote xCorp . v . Catrett . 47 7 U.S . 317 , 323 - 2 4 (1986) . I n thi s motion , th e Administrato rha s th e burde n o f showin g tha t ther e i s n o genuin e issu e o f materia l fac t dispute d b yth e parties . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(5) . Fo rpurpose s o f thi s motion , th e cour t mus t examin e th e evidenc e i n th e ligh t mos t favorabl e t o th e non-movin g part y (US

A 3000 ) an d dra w al l reasonabl e inference s i n tha t party' s favor . A dispositiv e motio n ma y no t rel y o n a mer e assertion s o runsupporte d claims . I n R e Horizo n Ai rIndustries . Fed . Av . Dec . 1996-24 . I n thi s case , ther e ar e relevan t fact s missin g fro m th e Administrator' s Par t 4 3 claims , an d therefor e hi s Motio n fo rDecisio n mus t b e DENIE D a s t o thos e claims . Als o i n thi s case , ther e ar e relevan t fact s i n th e Part 9 1 claim s tha t hav e alread y bee n decide d agains t th e Administrato ri n a prio rmatte rtha t ha s collatera l estoppe l effect . Th e Administrator' s characterizatio n tha t ther e i s n o knowledg e elemen t t o a 91. 7 clai m i s contrar y t o existin g preceden t an d ther e i s n o soun d basi s offere d t o suppor t thi s contention . Therefor e hi s Motio n fo rDecisio n mus t b e DENIE D as t o thos e claims . 

## Argumen t L Th e Administrato r

Fail s t o Mee t

Hi s Burde n Concernin g th e 1 4 C.F.R. §91. 7 Allegation s Th e Administrato rclaim s tha t ther e i s n o knowledg e elemen t t o a 91. 7 allegatio n raise d agains t a n ai rcarrier . Th e argumen t fail s becaus e i t i s well-establishe d tha t ther e i s a knowledg e elemen t t o a 91. 7 allegation . Th e knowledg e o f a corporatio n i s th e knowledg e o f th e relevan t agent s - i n thi s cas e th e onl y relevan t agent s wer e th e pilot s tha t operate d th e flight . Knowledg e o f th e pilot s (an d thei rliabilit yunde r91.7 ) ha s alread y bee n litigate d i n a prio rcas e addressin g thes e sam e fact s an d therefor e canno t b e relitigate d unde rth e doctrin e o f collatera l estoppel . Becaus e th e prio rcas e foun d tha t ther e wa s n o knowledg e tha t gav e ris e t o 91. 7 liabilit y fo rth e agent s (th e pilots) , ther e i s likewis e n o knowledg e givin g ris e t o 91. 7 liabilit yfo r th e principa l (US

A 3000) .

RESPONDENT' S ANSWE Rt o th e COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO N Page s Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e Law Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , DC 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### a . Ther e i s aKnowledg e Elemen t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 91. 7 Case s Ther e i s a ric h histor y o f case s i n whic h th e court s hav e repeatedl y examine d th e knowledg e elemen t o f a 91. 7 (airworthiness ) allegation . E ^ Babbit t v . Haddock . 201 0 NTS B Lexi s 7 0 a t *1 3 (Aug . 18 , 2010 ) ("I n determinin g whethe ra n aircraf t i s airworthy.. . th e Boar d consider s whethe rth e operato rkne w o rshoul d hav e know n o f an y deviatio n i n th e aircraft' s conformanc e wit h it s typ e certificate") ; Babbit t v . Surratt , 201 0 NTS B Lexi s 5 6 a t '*1 0 (Jun e 25 , 2010 ) ("w e considere d thi s knowledg e elemen t i n reaching ou rconclusio n tha t respondent s di d no t violat e § 91.7(a)") ; Blake yv . Yialamas . 200 4 NTS B Lexi s 4 0 a t *9-'*1 0 (Sept . 20 , 2010 ) ("T o prov e a violatio n o f sectio n 91.7(a) , th e Administrato rmus t sho w tha t th e airma n operate d a n aircraf t tha t h e kne w o rreasonabl y shoul d hav e know n wa s no t airworthy") ; Garve vv . Frost . 199 8 NTS B LEXI S 7 6 a t '*5-'*6 , NTS B Orde rNo . EA-468 0 a t 2 (Jul y 1 , 1998 ) (Docke t SE-14781 ) (explainin g tha t th e standar d fo rairworthines s violation s i s on e o f reasonablenes s tha t examine s knowledge) ; Administrato rv . Parker . 198 0 NTS B LEXI S 2 1 a t '* 3 an d n.6 , 3 NTS B 2997 , 299 8 an d n. 6 (Oct . 24,1980 ) ("th e operato ri s chargeabl e i f h e wa s aware , o rshoul d hav e bee n aware , thoug h th e exercis e o f appropriat e prefligh t inspection , o f an y abnorma l conditio n whic h a reasonabl e an d pruden t pilo t woul d conclud e rendere d th e craf t unairworthy") . Ther e i s n o questio n tha t th e case s i n th e pas t hav e recognize d tha t 91. 7 allegation s hav e a knowledg e element . Th e Administrato rha s offere d n o reaso n t o doub t thos e pas t decisions , an d ha s mad e n o attemp t t o chang e th e pas t recogrtitio n o f thi s knowledg e element . Instead , th e Administrato rargue s tha t h e nee d NO T prov e tha t th e ai rcarrie rkne w o r reasonabl y shoul d hav e know n o f th e unairworth yconditio n i n allegin g a 91. 7 violation . FAA' s MS D a t 8 . Th e Administrato ri s arguin g tha t 91.7(a ) i s a a n offens e tha t include s n o inten t o r knowledg e elemen t whe n i t i s allege d agains t a n ai rcarrier , eve n thoug h i t include s a knowledg e elemen t whe n allege d agains t othe rparties . Th e Administrato roffer s nethe ra statutor y no ra regulator y basi s fo rthi s distinction . Ther e i s n o polic y reaso n fo rthi s distinction . B y applyin g differen t standard s fo rth e analysi s o f th e sam e regulatio n t o differen t parties , th e Administrato ri s raisin g a fundamenta l equa l protectio n issue , as wel l as ignorin g significan t precedent . Th e Administrato rcite s t o th e Alaska Airline s cas e t o suppor t it s clai m tha t tha t ther e i s n o knowledg e elemen t i n a 91. 7 cas e brough t agains t a n ai rcarrier . FAA' s MS D a t 8 . Firs t o f all . 

### RESPONDENT' S ANSWE

Rto the COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO

N Page 9 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dth e La w Office s o

f Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 691. 7 wa s neve rallege d i n th e Alask a Airline s case , an d ther e wa s n o findin g o f a 91. 7 violatio n i n th e Alaska Airline s case . Th e Alask a Airline s cas e foun d a violatio n o f th e dut y t o provid e oversigh t t o a maintenanc e contractor , an d impute d th e contractor' s misdeed s t o th e ai rcarrier . I t i s clea r tha t th e litigatio n positio n o f th e Administrato ri n th e cas e agains t US A 300 0 i s actuall y contrar y t o th e Alaska Airline s decision . I n th e Matte ro f Alaska Airlines . FA A Orde rNo . 2004-8 , 200 4 FA A LEXI S 90 5 (FA

A 2004) . That cas e hel d tha t th e ai rcarrie r"i s responsibl e fo rth e maintenanc e deficiencie s o f it s independen t contractors. " Jd . Tha t cas e specificall yrelie d o n th e fac t tha t th e maintenanc e contracto rha d committe d maintenanc e violations , fo rwhic h th e ai rcarrie rwa s responsibl e unde r1 4 C.F.R . §121.363 . I n Alask a Airlines , th e violatio n o f th e maintenanc e contracto rwa s impute d t o th e ai r carrie ran d therefor e th e knowledg e elemen t associate d wit h tha t violatio n wa s als o impute d t o th e ai rcarrie r(tha t cas e di d no t vitiat e th e knowledg e elemen t fo rth e ai rcarrier) . Id . Administrato rBlake yexplaine d tha t th e ai rcarrie rcanno t avoi d th e knowledg e elemen t by limitin g th e analysi s t o it s ow n knowledg e - thu s th e ai rcarrie rremain s responsibl e fo rth e knowledg e an d action s o f it s contractors , j^ . Thi s Alaska Airline s decisio n wa s consisten t wit h norm s o f agency law , i n whic h a principa l remain s responsibl e fo rth e knowledg e o f it s agents . See , e.g. . Restatemen t (Third ) o f Agency a t § 5.0 3 (2006 ) ("notic e o f a fac t tha t a n agen t know s o rha s reaso n t o kno w i s impute d t o th e principa l i f knowledg e o f th e fac t i s materia l t o th e agent' s dutie s t o th e principal") . Thus , ther e i s nothin g i n th e Alaska Airline s cas e tha t i s inconsisten t wit h th e propositio n tha t 1 4 C.F.R . § 91. 7 ha s a knowledg e element . Th e Administrato ri s tryin g t o overtur n well-establishe d preceden t tha t ha s foun d tha t h e mus t prov e knowledg e i n orde rt o sustai n a 1 4 C.F.R . § 91. 7 allegation . Th e Administrato r offer s n o soun d argumen t i n favo ro f a polic ychang e - instea d th e Administrato rdraw s comparison s t o a cas e i n whic h a 91. 7 clai m wa s no t eve n alleged . Th e Administrator' s Motio n fo rDecisio n wit h respec t t o th e 91. 7 allegatio n mus t b e denied .



### RESPONDENT' S ANSWE Rt o the COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO

N Page 1 0 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dth e La w Office s o f

Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6

### b . Th e Pilot s o f th e Fligh t

Wer e th e Relevan t

Agent s fo r

Purpose s o f Testin g Knowledg e US A 300 0 i s a corporat e entit y an d therefor e it s action s ar e th e action s o f it s agents ; it s knowledg e i s th e knowledg e o f it s agents . US A 300 0 ha d tw o agent s o n th e aircraf t wh o wer e operatin g th e aircraf t o n behal f o f th e company . The y wer e Captai n Surrat t an d Captai n Walker . Th e Administrato rha s alread y unsuccessfull y brough t certificatio n action s agains t thes e tw o pilot s wit h respec t t o th e fligh t tha t i s a t issu e i n thi s case . A s par t o f th e decisio n i n thos e actions , th e NTS B foun d tha t neithe r Captai n Surrat t no rCaptai n Walke rkne w tha t th e spoiler s wer e i n maintenanc e mode . Furthermore , th e NTS B foun d i t wa s reasonabl e tha t th e pilot s di d no t kno w o f th e spoiler s bein g i n maintenanc e mode . I n tha t case , th e NTS B specificall y dismisse d th e Administrator' s claim s o f 91.7(a ) an d (b ) violation s agains t th e pilots . Th e relevan t agent s i n thi s cas e ar e th e pilot s o f th e fligh t a t issu e i n thi s case . Captain s Surrat t an d Walker . I n it s respons e t o Interrogator y#1 9 i n thi s case , th e Administrato radmitte d tha t Captain s Surrat t an d Walke rwer e th e onl y relevan t agent s fo rpurpose s o f th e operatio n a t issu e i n th e 91. 7 allegation . Respondent' s Interrogator y #1 9 i n thi s matte raske d "I s i t th e Administrator' s contentio n tha t Responden t wa s aware , befor e take-of f an d durin g th e flight , tha t th e spoiler s wer e no t functionin g properl y ('aware') ? I f th e answe rt o thi s questio n i s 'yes, ' the n pleas e identif yeac h natura l perso n wh o wa s 'aware ' an d identif y an yfact s o revidence tha t support s th e Administrator' s clai m tha t th e individua l wa s 'aware.' " Th e Administrato rresponde d t o tha t interrogator y #1 9 wit h th e followin g statement : "Bot h o f th e pilot s wh o operate d th e aircraf t durin g th e fligh t eithe rwer e awar e tha t th e aircraft' s ECA M indicate d tha t lef t an d righ t win g rol l spoiler s 3 an d 5 wer e no t operational . Furthermor e i f th e pilot s actuall yperforme d a fligh t contro l chec k the y woul d hav e bee n awar e tha t th e spoiler s wer e no t functionin g properl y prio rt o takeoff . Th e fact s ar e tha t th e pilot s admi t the y saw th e ECA M indications , th e ECA M syste m wa s functionin g properly , i f th e ECA M syste m i s functionin g properl y th e ECA M wil l sho w tha t thes e spoiler s ar e no t operationa l i f the y ar e pu t i n th e maintenanc e mode , th e fligh t contro l chec k

require s th e pilot s t o tes t th e spoilers , an d i f th e spoiler s serv o actuator s fo rth e spoiler s ar e i n th e maintenanc e mod e the n th e spoiler s wil l no t functio n durin g th e fligh t contro l check. "



### RESPONDENT' S ANSWE Rto the COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO

N Page 1 1 Washington Aviation Group , P C an dthe La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstei

n 2233 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW, Suit e 503 Washington , D

C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6I t i s clea rfro m thi s respons e tha t th e Administrato ragree s tha t th e pilots ' knowledg e concernin g th e airworthines s issue s i n thi s cas e i s th e onl y knowledg e tha t i s relevan t i n thi s case . Th e Boar d foun d tha t th e tw o pilot s coul d no t hav e violate d 91.7(a ) o f (b ) becaus e the y di d no t kno w (o rreasonabl y shoul d hav e known ) o f th e spoile rissue s unti l the y wer e i n th e air , an d the y di d no t kno w tha t th e spoiler s wer e i n maintenanc e mod e unti l afte rth e fligh t wa s over . Thus , th e 91. 7 allegation s agains t th e pilot s wer e dismisse d b y th e Boar d fo rlac k o f knowledge . Whil e a n agent' s knowledg e an d action s ma y b e impute d t o th e principal , th e agen t mus t hav e knowledg e o ractio n t o b e imputed . I n ou rcase , th e agent s wh o operate d th e aircraf t (th e pilots ) di d no t violat e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7 , an d therefor e ther e i s n o underlyin g offens e tha t ca n b e impute d t o US A 3000 .

c . I t Wa s Previousl y Decide dtha t ther e wa s Insufficien t Knowledg e t o Suppor t a91. 7 Allegation , an dunde r th e Doctrin e o f

Collatera l Estoppe l th e Lac k

o f Knowledg e Supportin g a91, 7 Allegatio n Applie s I n Ou r Cas e a s Wel l Collatera l estoppe l prevent s a part y fro m relitigatin g a n issu e afte rth e part y ha s ha d a ful l an d fai ropportunit y t o presen t it s cas e i n a prio rproceeding . I t bar s re-litigatio n o f a n issu e o f fac t o rla w tha t wa s actuall y litigate d an d resolve d i n a prio rcour t determination , eve n i f th e issu e recur s i n th e contex t o f a differen t claim . Lg . Taylo rv . Sturgell . 55 3 U.S . 880 , 89 2 (2008) . Collatera l estoppe l ha s fou relements : 1 ) th e issu e decide d i n th e prio rproceedin g i s identica l wit h th e issu e presente d i n th e second ; 2 ) th e part y agains t who m collatera l estoppe l i s asserte d wa s a part y i n a prior , actual , litigation ; 3 ) th e prio radjudicatio n ende d i n a fina l judgmen t o n th e merits ; and , 4 ) th e part y agains t who m th e doctrin e i s asserte d ha d a fai ropportunit y t o litigat e th e issu e (e.g . i t wa s eithe ra part yt o th e litigatio n o ri n privit y t o a party) . E.g . Syverso n v . IBM . 47 2 F.3d 1072,107 8 (9t h Cir . 2007) ; se e als o Parklan e Hosiery Co . v . Shore . 43 9 U.S . 32 2 (1979) , Blonder-Tongu e Lab , v . Univ . o f 111 . Found. . 40 2 U.S . 313 , 323-32 4 (1971) . RESPONDENT S ANSWE Rt o the Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dthe COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO

N La

w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstein Page 1 2 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , DC 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### I , Th e Issu e Decide di n th e Prio r Proceedin g i s Identica l Wit h th e Issu e Presente di n th e Secon d I n thi s case , th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91. 7 allegatio n b yth e Administrato ri s identica l t o th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91. 7 issu e tha t wa s raise d i n th e prio rSurrat t an d Walke rcase . Se e Babbit t v . Surratt . 200 9 NTS B Lexi s 10 6 (Septembe r2 , 2009) , affirme d o n appea l EA-5514 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 (Marc h 23 , 2010) , motio n fo rreconsideratio n denie d EA-5527 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 (Jun e 25 , 2010) . Th e fina l decisio n o f th e tria l judge , as wel l as th e denia l o f th e Administrator' s appea l t o th e Boar d an d th e denia l o f th e Administrator' s motio n fo rreconsideratio n ar e attache d a s appendice s t o thi s Motion . I n bot h cases , th e allegation s ar e base d upo n a US A 300 0 maintenanc e acceptanc e fligh t o f a n Airbu s A32 0 o n Ma y 17 , 200 8 fro m Miam i Internationa l Airport . Compar e Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5514 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 a t * 1 (Marc h 23 , 2010 ) (identifyin g th e flight ) wit h I n th e matte ro f Brenda n Airways . LLC . FA A Docke t No . CP09EA0007 , Complain t a t paragrap h 11(3 ) (Januar y 14 , 2009 ) (identifyin g th e sam e fligh t i n th e cas e a t bar) . Bot h th e prio rcas e an d thi s cas e ar e dealin g wit h th e sam e flight . Bot h case s allege d tha t th e fligh t i n questio n wa s operate d i n a n unairworth y fashio n i n violatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(a) . Compar e Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5514 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 a t * 1 n. 2 (Marc h 23 , 2010 ) (explainin g tha t th e pilot s wer e charge d wit h violatin g sectio n 91.7(a ) wit h respec t t o th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight ) wit h I n th e matte ro f Brenda n Airways . LLC , FA A Docke t No . CP09EA0007 , Complain t a t paragrap h lll(e ) (Januar y 14 , 2009 ) (chargin g US A 300 0 wit h violatin g sectio n 91.7(a ) wit h respec t t o th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight) . Case la w ha s hel d tha t th e Administrato rmus t prov e knowledg e whe n i t allege s a sectio n 91.7(a ) violatio n (i t i s no t a stric t liabilit y offense) . See , e.g. . Administrato rv . Parker . 3 NTS B 2997 , 299 8 (1980) ; Garve vv . Frost . NTS B Orde rNo . EA-468 0 a t 2 (Jul y 01 , 1998 ) (Docke t SE-14781) ; Nun n v . Hinson . 199 4 W L 80807 6 (Novembe r07 , 1994 ) (NTS B Docke t 207-EAJA-SE 13563) . Th e behavio ro f person s charge d wit h airworthines s violation s shoul d b e measure d b y wha t th e person s kne w o rshoul d hav e know n abou t th e aircraft , wit h thi s standar d requirin g th e person s t o hav e reacte d reasonabl y an d prudentl y t o informatio n o f whic h the y ar e aware . Richard s v . Olsen . NTS B Orde rNo . EA-3743 , 199 2 W L 37135 9 a t 2 (NTS B Novembe r23 , 1992 ) (Docke t SE-10883) . 

### RESPONDENT' S ANSWE Rto the COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO

N Page 1 3 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dth e La w Office s o

f Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6I t ha s lon g bee n recognize d tha t a corporatio n ca n onl y ac t throug h it s officer s an d agents . Lg , Ne w Yor k C . & H . R. R. Co . v . Unite d States . 21 2 U.S . 481 , 49 5 (1909) ; Fidelit y& Deposi t Co . V . Courtney . 18 6 U.S . 342 , 36 1 (1902) . Th e longstandin g genera l rul e i s tha t a corporatio n i s charge d wit h th e knowledg e o f th e agen t acquire d b y th e agen t i n th e cours e o f th e principal' s business . Lg . Curtis . Collin s & Holbroo k Co . v . Unite d States . 26 2 U.S . 215 , 22 2 (1923) . Thus , i n orde rt o prov e tha t US A 300 0 ha s th e requisit e knowledg e i n orde rt o b e foun d culpabl e o f a violation , th e Administrato rmus t prov e tha t US A 3000' s agent s ha d th e requisit e knowledge . I n othe rwords , th e corporatio n ha s n o knowledg e fo rpurpose s o f thi s analysi s excep t th e knowledg e o f it s ow n employees , th e pilot s wh o operate d th e aircraft . Th e Administrato rha s admitte d tha t n o on e els e ha d relevan t knowledg e wit h respec t t o thi s flight , an d as discusse d i n sectio n l. b o f thi s Argument , Captai n Surrat t an d Captai n Walke rwer e th e pilot s o n boar d th e fligh t whos e knowledg e mus t b e use d a s th e corporat e knowledg e i n thi s case . Becaus e th e pilots ' knowledg e wa s a critica l decidin g elemen t o f th e prio rcase , an d i t i s als o a ke y elemen t o f th e cas e a t bar , th e knowledg e issu e decide d i n th e prio rproceedin g i s identica l wit h th e knowledg e issu e tha t i s presente d i n thi s matter .



### ii . Th e Part y Agains t

Who mCollatera l Estoppe l i s Asserte dWa s a Part y i n th e Prio r

Litigatio n Th e Administrato ro f th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , agains t who m thi s collatera l estoppe l i s asserted , wa s th e Complainan t i n th e Surrat t an d Walke rcase . Th e matte rwa s actuall y litigate d i n a two-da y trial . Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5514 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 a t * 1 (Marc h 23 , 2010) . 

### Ill" , Th e Prio r Adjudicatio n Ende di n aFina l Judgmen t o n th e Merit s Babbit t v . Surrat t an d Walke rende d i n a fina l judgmen t o n th e merits . Se e Babbit t v . Surratt . 200 9 NTS B Lexi s 10 6 (Septembe r2 , 2009) . Th e Boar d denie d bot h a n appea l an d a motio n fo rreconsideratio n o f th e appeal . See Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5514 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 

### RESPONDENT' S ANSWE

Rto the COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO

N Page 1 4 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dth e La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , DC 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6(Marc h 23 , 2010 ) (affirmin g o n appeal) , an d Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5527 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 (Jun e 25 , 2010 ) (motio n fo rreconsideratio n denied) . Th e fina l decisio n i n th e prio rcas e wa s tha t Surrat t an d Walke r- th e tw o pilot s flyin g th e aircraf t - di d no t hav e th e requisit e knowledg e t o suppor t th e contentio n tha t eithe rha d violate d 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(a ) b y flyin g a n unairworth y aircraft ; th e Boar d foun d tha t US A 3000' s agents , th e pilots , di d no t hav e th e requisit e leve l o f knowledg e t o violat e sectio n 91.7(a) . Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5527 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 a t "^l O (Jun e 25 , 2010 ) (explainin g tha t th e pilot s di d no t kno w tha t th e aircraf t wa s unairworthy , an d the y therefor e di d no t hav e th e requisit e knowledg e i n orde rt o satisf y th e knowledg e elemen t o f a sectio n 91.7(a ) allegation) .

IV. Th e Administrato r (th e Part y Agains t Who mth e Doctrin e i s Asserted ) Ha daFai r Opportunit y t o Litigat e th e Issu e Becaus e th e Administrato r

wa s aPart y t o th e Prio r Litigatio n Th e Administrato ro f th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , agains t who m thi s collatera l estoppe l i s asserted , vigorousl y argue d th e knowledg e issu e i n th e prio rcase . I n fact , th e Administrato rappeale d o n tha t issue , an d move d fo rreconsideratio n o n th e knowledg e issue . See , e.g. . Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5527 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 a t * 9 (Jun e 25 , 2010 ) (affirmin g tha t th e pilot s "di d no t know , no rshoul d hav e known , tha t th e aircraf t wa s n a n unairworth y condition") . Becaus e th e centra l issu e upo n whic h collatera l estoppe l i s founde d ha s bee n full y litigate d an d appealed , i t woul d no t b e a n injustic e t o rel y n th e prio rrulin g concernin g thi s issue .

V

. Unde r th e Doctrin e o f

Collatera l Estoppel , th e Administrato r i s Estoppe dfro mRelitigatin g th e Issu e o f Knowledg e i n th e 91. 7 Allegations , Becaus e th e NTS B Ha s Alread y Rejecte dthi s Argumen t

i n aPrio r

Cas e Jus t as i n th e Alask a Airline s case , w e ca n examin e th e knowledg e o f th e relevan t agent s (th e pilots ) an d imput e i t t o th e principa l (US A 3000) . Th e factua l issu e o f whethe rther e wa s knowledg e ha s alread y bee n decide d b y th e NTSB , an d i t ha s bee n decide d tha t ther e wa s n o knowledg e t o suppor t a 91. 7 allegation . Thus , ther e i s n o knowledg e t o imput e t o th e principal . RESPONDENT' S ANSWE Rto the COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO

N Page 1 5 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dth e La w Office s o f

Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6US A 3000 . Lackin g a necessar y elemen t o f a 91. 7 claim , th e Administrator' s 91. 7 clai m canno t b e sustained . I n summary , th e doctrin e o f collatera l estoppe l applie s i n thi s cas e becaus e i n a prio r adjudication , th e NTS B foun d tha t th e pilot s di d no t hav e th e requisit e knowledg e t o sustai n a n allegatio n o f a 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(a ) violatio n concernin g th e sam e fligh t tha t i s a t issu e i n thi s case . Th e Administrator' s answe rt o interrogator y 1 9 make s i t clea rtha t ther e ar e n o othe ragent s throug h who m US

A 300 0 coul d hav e acted , tha t woul d hav e ha d relevan t knowledg e relate d t o th e airworthines s o f th e aircraft . Consequently , US A 300 0 coul d no t possibl y hav e violate d sectio n 91.7(a ) becaus e non e o f it s relevan t agent s ha d th e requisit e knowledg e t o sustai n suc h a n allegatio n o f violation .



### d . Th e Administrato r Ha s Faile dt o Addres s Othe r Element s o f

th e Cas e Th e failur e t o b e abl e t o prov e knowledge , alone , make s i t impossibl e fo rth e Administrato rt o prevai l o n th e 91. 7 allegation ; however , ther e ar e othe rissue s i n th e cas e tha t th e Administrato rha s faile d t o address . Fo rexample , th e court s hav e state d tha t whe n small . Insignifican t deviation s are present , a n aircraft ma

y stil l substantiall y confor m t o Its typ e design . Se e Blake y v . Thibert . NTS

B Orde rNo . EA-5306 , 2007 WL 232071 0 a t * 2 (NTSB 2007) ; Administrato rv . Frost . NTS B Orde rNo . EA-4680 (1998) ; Administrato rv . Calavaero . Inc. , 5 NTS B 1099,110 1 (1986) . I n thi s case , th e spoilers wer e inoperative . A t th e tim e o f discover

y o f th e inoperativ e spoilers , durin g flight , th e documen t tha t controlle d th e pilots ' respons e wa

s th e Pilot' s Quic k

Referenc e Handboo k

(QRH) . Babbitt v . Surratt , 200 9 NTS B LEXI S 10 6 a t *5-* 6 (NTSB

) (Decisio n o f Judg e Fowler) . Th e Pilot s consulte d th e QR H an d i t permitte d the m t o continu e flyin g wit h th e inoperativ e spoilers , jd . I t i s clea rfro m thi s tha t th e impac t o f inoperativ e spoiler

s o n th e aircraft' s typ e desig n wa

s considere d t o b e insignificant , i n flight . 

## II . Th e Administrato r

Fail s t o Mee t

Hi s Burde n Concernin g th e 1 4 C.F.R. § 91.1 3 Allegation s A s wit h th e § 91. 7 claim s discusse d above , th e § 91.13(a ) clai m wa s full y litigate d i n th e prio rSurrat t an d Walke rcase . Se e Babbit t v . Surratt . 200 9 NTS B Lexi s 10 6 (Septembe r2 , 2009) , 

### RESPONDENT' S ANSWE Rt o the COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO

N Page 1 6 Washington Aviation Group , P C an dthe La w Office s o

f Jason A . Dickstei

n 2233 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW, Suite 503 Washington , D

C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6affirme d o n appea l EA-5514 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 (Marc h 23 , 2010) , motio n fo rreconsideratio n denie d ItK-SSll . 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 (Jun e 25 , 2010) . Th e collatera l estoppe l argumen t tha t applie s t o th e § 91. 7 clai m i s incorporate d b y reference , an d a n abbreviate d summar y o f th e argumen t a s i t applie s t o th e § 91.13(a ) clai m follows . 

### a . Th e 1 4 C.F.R. § 91.1 3 Clai mHas Alread y Bee n Full y Litigate dan dth e

Administrator' s Argument s Hav e Alread y Bee n Preclusivel y Addresse d Unde r Collatera l Estoppe l I . Th e Issu e Decide di n th e Prio r Proceedin g i s Identica l Wit h th e Issu e Presente di n th e Secon d I n thi s case , th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.13(a ) allegatio n b y th e Administrato ri s identica l t o th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.13(a ) issu e tha t wa s raise d i n th e prio rSurrat t an d Walke rcase . I n bot h cases , th e allegation s ar e base d upo n th e sam e US A 300 0 maintenanc e acceptanc e fligh t o f a n Airbu s A32 0 o n Ma y17 , 200 8 fro m Miam i Internationa l Airport . Bot h allegation s clai m tha t th e fligh t i n questio n wa s flow n i n a careles s o rreckles s manner . Compar e Babbit t v . Surratt , EA-5514 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 a t • I n. 2 (Marc h 23 , 2010 ) (explainin g tha t th e pilot s wer e charge d wit h violatin g sectio n 91.13(a ) wit h respec t t o th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight ) wit h I n th e matte ro f Brenda n Airways . LLC . FA A Docke t No . CP09EA0007 , Amende d Complain t a t paragrap h lll(d ) (Januar y 14 , 2009 ) (chargin g US A 300 0 wit h violatin g sectio n 91.13(a ) wit h respec t t o th e sam e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight) . I t ha s lon g bee n recognize d tha t a corporatio n ca n onl y ac t throug h it s officer s an d agents , g ^

Ne w Yor k

C . & H . R. R

. Co . v . Unite d States . 21 2 U.S . 481 , 49 5 (1909) ; Fidelit y& Deposi t Co . V . Courtney . 18 6 U.S . 342 , 36 1 (1902) . Th e longstandin g genera l rul e i s tha t a corporatio n i s charge d wit h th e knowledg e o f th e agen t acquire d b y th e agen t i n th e cours e o f th e principal' s business . Lg; . Curtis . Collin s & Holbroo k Co . v . Unite d States . 26 2 U.S . 215 , 22 2 (1923) . Thus , i n orde rt o prov e tha t US A 300 0 ha s th e requisit e knowledg e i n orde rt o b e foun d culpabl e o f a reckles s o rcareles s fligh t violation , th e Administrato rmus t prov e tha t US A 3000' s agent s ha d th e requisit e knowledge . I n othe rwords , th e corporatio n ha s n o knowledg e fo r 

### RESPONDENT' S ANSWE Rto the COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO

N Page 1 7 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dth e La w Office s o

f Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6purpose s o f thi s analysi s excep t th e knowledg e o f it s ow n employees , th e pilot s wh o operate d th e aircraft . Surrat t an d Walke rwer e th e pilot s o n boar d th e aircraf t s o thei rallege d reckles s o r careles s behavio rwoul d b e th e behavio rtha t mus t b e analyze d as th e corporat e behavior . I n Paragrap h 2 0 o f th e Complaint , th e Administrato rclaime d "Durin g th e flight , th e aircraf t wa s operate d i n a careles s o rreckles s manne rs o a s t o endange rth e lif e o rpropert yo f another. " Amende d Complain t a t 1 ) 2 0 (Octobe r19 , 2010) . I n orde rt o bette rgaug e th e scop e an d reaso n fo rth e factua l allegation , Respondent' s Interrogator y # 7 i n thi s matte raske d th e Administrato rt o "Pleas e identif yal l o f th e fact s tha t yo u conten d suppor t Allegatio n 2 0 o f sectio n I I o f th e Complaint. " Th e Administrato rresponde d t o tha t interrogator ywit h th e statement , "Se e th e abov e an d th e Complaint. " Neithe rth e complain t no rth e othe ranswer s t o th e interrogatorie s identif y an y perso n wh o acte d i n a careles s o rreckles s manner . Onl y th e pilot s action s ar e describe d "above " th e answe rt o interrogator y7 , s o ther e i s n o othe rperso n whos e behavio rcoul d reasonabl y b e withi n th e scop e o f wha t th e Administrato rclaim s t o hav e bee n reckles s o r careles s i n th e 91.13(a ) claim . Becaus e th e pilots ' behavio rwa s a critica l decidin g elemen t o f th e prio rcase , an d i s a ke y elemen t o f th e cas e a t bar , th e reckless/careles s behavio rissu e decide d i n th e prio r proceedin g i s identica l wit h th e reckless/careles s behavio rissu e tha t i s presente d i n thi s matter .



### i t Th e Part y Agains t

Who mCollatera l Estoppe l i s Asserte dWa s a Part y i n th e Prio r

Litigatio n Th e Administrato ro f th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , agains t who m thi s collatera l estoppe l i s asserted , wa s th e Complainan t i n th e Surrat t an d Walke rcase . Th e matte rwa s actuall y litigate d i n a two-da y trial . Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5514 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 a t * 1 (Marc h 23 , 2010) . 

### iii . Th e Prio r Adjudicatio n Ende di n aFina l Judgmen t o n th e Merit s Babbit t v . Surrat t an d Walke rende d i n a fina l judgmen t o n th e merits . Se e Babbit t v . Surratt . 200 9 NTS B Lexi s 10 6 (Septembe r2 , 2009) . Th e Boar d denie d bot h a n appea l an d a RESPONDENT' S ANSWE Rt o th e Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO N Law Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei n Pag e 1 8 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6motio n fo rreconsideratio n o f th e appeal . Se e Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5514 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 (Marc h 23 , 2010 ) (affirmin g o n appeal) , an d Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5527 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 (Jun e 25 , 2010 ) (motio n fo rreconsideratio n denied) . Th e fina l decisio n i n th e prio rcas e wa s tha t Surrat t an d Walke r- th e tw o pilot s flyin g th e aircraf t - di d no t ac t i n a reckles s o rcareles s manne ran d therefor e di d no t violat e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.13(a) . Babbit t v . Surratt . SE-18562 , 200 9 NTS B LEXI S 10 6 a t *1A , *17-1 8 (Septembe r2 , 2009 ) (specificall y findin g tha t eac h pilo t di d no t operat e th e aircraf t i n a careles s manne rs o a s t o endange rth e lif e o rpropert y o f another) ; se e als o Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5514 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 (Marc h 23 , 2010 ) (denyin g th e FAA' s appea l o f th e § 91.13(a ) charge) , an d Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5527 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 (Jun e 25 , 2010 ) (denyin g th e FAA' s motio n fo rreconsideratio n o f th e § 91.13(a ) charge) .

iv . Th e Administrato r (th e Part y Agains t Who mth e Doctrin e i s Asserted ) Ha daFai r Opportunit y t o Litigat e th e Issu e Becaus e th e Administrato r

wa s aPart y t o th e Prio r Litigatio n Th e Administrato ro f th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , agains t who m thi s collatera l estoppe l i s asserted , vigorousl yargue d th e knowledg e issu e i n th e prio rcase . I n fact , th e Administrato rappeale d o n tha t issue , an d move d fo rreconsideratio n o n th e knowledg e issue . See . Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5527 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 (Jun e 25 , 2010) . Becaus e th e centra l issu e upo n whic h collatera l estoppe l i s founde d ha s bee n full y litigate d an d appealed , i t woul d no t b e a n injustic e t o rel yn th e prio rrulin g concernin g thi s issue . I n summary , th e doctrin e o f collatera l estoppe l applie s i n thi s cas e becaus e i n a prio r adjudication , th e NTS B foun d tha t th e pilot s o n th e fligh t di d no t ac t recklessl y o rcarelessl yi n violatio n o f 1 4 CF

R 91.13(a) . Th e Administrator' s answe rt o interrogator y 7 make s i t clea rtha t ther e ar e n o othe ragent s throug h who m th e US A 300 0 coul d hav e acted , tha t th e Administrato r migh t clai m acte d recklessl y o rcarelessl y wit h respec t t o th e cas e a t bar . Consequently , US A 300 0 coul d no t possibl y hav e violate d sectio n 91.13(a ) becaus e non e o f it s agent s acte d i n violatio n o f tha t regulation .

b . Th e 91.13(a ) Clai mWa s Asserte dContrar y t o Cour t Order , an dAfte r th e Statut e o f

Limitation s Ha dPasse d RESPONDENT' S ANSWE Rto the COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO

N Page 1 9 Washington Aviation Group , P C an dth e La w Office s o

f Jaso n A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6Th e Responden t ha s file d a Motio n t o Dismis s wit h respec t t o th e 91.13(a ) claim , an d thi s Motio n i s stil l pending . Th e basi s o f th e Motio n t o Dismis s i s tha t th e Administrato rsough t t o amen d th e Complain t t o includ e a 91.13(a ) clai m o n Octobe r19 , 2010 ; however , th e Orde ro f Chie f Administrativ e Law Judge , serve d i n thi s cas e o n February 19 , 2009 , require d al l amendment s t o b e file d b y Apri l 20 , 2009 . Th e FAA' s amendmen t faile d t o mee t th e Apri l 20 , 200 9 deadline ; th e FA A ha s neithe r sough t leav e t o late-fil e th e amendmen t no roffere d goo d caus e fo rth e lat e filing . I t wa s therefor e a n amendmen t i n contraventio n o f th e Order . I n addition , th e 91.13(a ) allegatio n wa s firs t raise d afte rth e statur e o f limitation s ha d passe d (an d therefor e coul d no t hav e bee n raise d separately) . Thes e argument s wer e full ydevelope d i n th e Motio n t o Dismis s an d w e hereby incorporat e b y referenc e th e argument s o f th e Motio n t o Dismiss . 

## HI.Th e Administrato r

Fail s t o Mee t

Hi s Burde n Concernin g th e 1 4 C.F.R. § 43.1 3 Allegation s a . Th e Administrator' s 43.1 3 Cas e Fail s t o Mak e aConnectio n t o An y Actua l Maintenanc e Fact s I n arguin g th e Par

t 4 3 allegation , th e Administrato rcontend s tha t unde r1 4 C.F.R . 121.363(a) , US

A 300 0 i s responsibl e fo rmaintenanc e performe d b y an y part y - regardles s o f th e connectio n betwee n US A 300 0 an d th e part ywh o allegedl y performe d maintenance . FAA' s MS D a t 11 . Whethe rthi s clai m i s tru e o rnot , i t i s meaningles s i n th e contex t o f th e cas e a t bar . First , n o on e know s wh o place d th e spoiler s i n maintenanc e mode , bu t th e FAA' s ow n document s sugges t tha t i t wa s no t th e maintenanc e contractor . Second , th e FA A ha s n o evidenc e tha t th e spoiler s wer e deactivate d (place d i n maintenanc e mode ) as a consequenc e o f a maintenanc e activity . I n addition , thi s FA A theor yi s allegin g a violatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.363(a ) (th e rul e tha t make s th e carrie rresponsibl e fo rth e performanc e o f maintenance) , an d th e FA

A ha s neve rallege d violatio n o f thi s regulatio n (an d moreover , th e Administrato rha s faile d t o alleg e sufficien t fact s t o suppor t thi s claim , a s well) . RESPONDENT' S ANSWE Rt o th e COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO N Pag e 2 0 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e Law Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 'Tel : 202-628-677 6

### 1 , Ther e i s n o Evidenc e t o Sugges t Tha t An y Maintenance-Performin g Part y Move dth e Spoiler s int o Maintenanc e Mod e Th e Administrato rrelie s o n th e Alaska Airlin e cas e a s th e sol e cas e supportin g it s 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.1 3 allegations . Bu t ther e i s a ke ydifferenc e betwee n th e Alaska Airlin e cas e an d thi s case . I n th e Alaska Airlin e case , ther e seeme d t o hav e bee n n o disput e tha t th e maintenanc e contracto rdiverge d fro m Alaska Airline' s instruction s an d improperl y performe d maintenance . I n th e cas e a t bar , however , ther e i s n o allegatio n tha t th e maintenanc e contracto rdiverge d fro m US A 3000' s instruction s an d ther e i s n o allegatio n o f an y particula rimproperl y performe d maintenance . I n fact , th e Administrato rha s admitte d tha t i n thi s case , ther e i s n o evidenc e o f an y improperl yperforme d maintenanc e a t all . Th e FAA' s ow n investigator y note s tha t wer e reveale d i n discover y sho w tha t th e Administrator' s investigator s admitte d tha t ther e wa s n o evidenc e o f wrong-doin g b yth e maintenanc e contractor . Se e Fact s a t sectio n 2 . I t appear s tha t th e Administrato rha s n o evidenc e tha t US

A 300 0 pu t th e spoiler s i n maintenanc e mode , an d th e Administrato rha s n o evidenc e tha t US

A 3000' s maintenanc e contracto rpu t th e spoiler s i n maintenanc e mode . Wh o pu t th e spoiler s i n maintenanc e mode ? N o on e seem s t o know ; bu t w e d o kno w tha t th e Administrato rbear s th e burde n o f proo f a t tria l t o suppor t it s allegations . A ke y allegatio n i n th e Administrator' s clai m i s tha t th e spoiler s wer e deactivate d durin g a maintenanc e activit y- despit e th e fac t tha t thi s i s a ke y allegation , th e Administrato rcanno t dra w an y causa l relationshi p betwee n th e spoiler s deactivatio n an d a maintenanc e activity . I f th e Administrato rcanno t sa y wh o pu t th e spoiler s i n maintenanc e mode , the n i t seem s fundamentall y impossibl e fo rth e Administrato rt o mee t hi s burde n o f proo f a t tria l t o suppor t th e clai m tha t th e spoiler s wer e place d i n maintenanc e mod e durin g maintenance . Mor e t o th e point , th e Administrato rha s offere d n o evidenc e t o suppor t th e clai m tha t th e spoiler s wer e place d i n maintenanc e mod e b yan y part y wh o performe d maintenance . Thus , th e Administrato rcanno t hol d US A 300 0 responsibl e fo rthi s deactivatio n o f th e spoiler s unde ra maintenanc e oversigh t theory .



### RESPONDENT' S ANSWE

Rto th e COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO

N Page 2 1 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dth e La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , DC 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## 2 . Th e Administrato r Has N o Evidenc e tha t

th e Spoiler s Were Place d i n Maintenanc e Mod

e a s aConsequenc e o

f aMaintenanc e Activit

y Th e Administrato rha s state d tha t US A 300 0 i s primaril yresponsibl e fo rth e performanc e o f th e maintenanc e o f it s aircraft . Thi s statemen t i s consisten t wit h th e obligatio n unde r1 4 C.F.R . § 121.363(a)(2) . Bu t i n orde rfo rthi s regulator yobligatio n t o b e relevan t t o th e cas e a t bar , ther e ha s t o b e maintenanc e tha t wa s performe d improperly . Th e Administrato rha s advance d n o theorie s suggestin g tha t an y particula rmaintenanc e wa s improperl y performed . Instead , th e Administrato rpoint s t o th e fac t tha t th e spoiler s wer e place d i n a non-operationa l mod e (know n a s maintenanc e mode ) as evidence o f imprope r behavior . A ke y fla w i n th e Administrator' s argumen t i s tha t th e Administrato rha s draw n N O connectio n betwee n th e fac t tha t th e spoiler s wer e place d i n a non-operationa l mode , an d an y maintenanc e activit y tha t coul d hav e cause d thi s phenomenon . Afte rth e fligh t landed , US A 300 0 wa s abl e t o discove rtha t th e spoiler s ha d bee n place d i n maintenanc e mode . Thi s mean s tha t the yha d bee n disable d fro m operationa l mode . Th e fac t tha t "maintenanc e mode " include s th e wor d "maintenance, " however , i s no t evidenc e tha t maintenanc e wa s performe d - i t i s a mer e semanti c coincidence . Th e fac t upo n whic h th e Administrato rrelie s i n suppor t o f thi s argumen t ar e no t fact s a t al l - the y ar e th e allegation s o f th e Complaint . I t i s a matte ro f well-settle d la w tha t th e Administrato rma y no t rel y o n th e allegation s o f th e Complaint , alone , t o suppor t it s motio n fo r summar y judgment . Th e Administrato rha s offere d n o evidenc e t o suppor t th e clai m tha t th e spoiler s wer e place d i n maintenanc e mod e durin g a maintenanc e activity . Thus , th e Administrato rcanno t hol d US A 300 0 responsibl e fo rthi s deactivatio n o f th e spoiler s unde ra maintenanc e oversigh t theory . 

## b . Th e Alask aAirline s Cas e i s Materiall y Differen t fro mthi s Case , Becaus e Ther e i s N o Evidenc e o f aMaintenanc e Connectio n i n thi s Cas e A n importan t distinctio n betwee n thi s cas e an d th e Alaska Airline s cas e i s tha t i n th e Alaska Airline s case , ther e wa s n o disput e tha t th e maintenanc e contractor s ha d RESPONDENT' S ANSWE Rt o th e COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO N Pag e 2 2 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e Law Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6violate d maintenanc e regulations . I n th e Matte ro f Alaska Airlines , FA A Orde rNo . 2004-8 , 200 4 FA A LEXI S 90 5 (FA

A 2004) . I n thi s case , o n th e othe rhand , th e Administrato rha s no t allege d tha t AA R (th e maintenanc e contractor ) violate d an ymaintenanc e regulation . I n fact , th e Administrator' s investigatio n note s mak e i t clea rtha t th e FA A ha s n o evidenc e o f wrongdoin g o n th e par t o f AAR . Thi s i s a critica l differenc e betwee n th e case s becaus e th e Administrato rha s mad e i t clea rtha t h e canno t poin t t o an y maintenanc e tha t wa s improperl y performe d i n thi s case . H e ha s mad e i t equall y clea rtha t h e canno t identif y an y perso n wh o improperl y performe d maintenanc e o n N265AV . Th e Administrato ri s stil l unabl e t o identif yan y improperly-performe d maintenance ; th e Administrato ri s als o unabl e t o dra w a causa l lin k betwee n an y maintenanc e an d th e spoile r issue . Thus , ther e i s n o factua l allegation s tha t an y maintenanc e faile d t o mee t th e 1 4 CF R 43.1 3 standard s cite d b yth e Administrato ri n th e Complaint . Therefor e th e Administrator' s claim s concernin g improperly-performe d maintenanc e mus t b e dismissed . 

## c . Th e Administrato r

i s Tryin g t o Ski p Step s i n It s Causa l Argumen t Th e Administrato rha s offere d a possibl e scenari o i n whic h th e paintin g o f th e nex t operator' s liver y wa s on e activit yi n whic h th e spoiler s migh t hav e bee n deactivated . Ther e ar e som e significan t problem s wit h thi s possibl e scenario . Th e firs t an d foremos t i s tha t i t i s merel ya possibl e scenari o - i n respons e t o discovery , th e Administrato rha s admitte d tha t ther e i s n o evidenc e t o suppor t thi s hypothesis . Se e Facts a t sectio n 1 . Responden t ha s admitte d thi s i s possibl e bu t ha s clearl y state d throughou t th e cas e tha t i t ha s n o evidenc e o f an yperso n causin g th e deactivatio n o f th e spoilers . Th e Administrato rma yno t prevai l o n a motio n fo rdecisio n base d o n mer e conjectura l hypothese s tha t ar e no t supporte d b y facts . Second , thi s possibl e scenari o seem s t o contradic t th e evidenc e tha t th e Administrato r ha s gathered . I n th e Administrator' s answer s t o interrogatorie s an d hi s document s produce d i n respons e t o discovery , h e ha s mad e i t clea rtha t h e doe s no t kno w wha t maintenanc e cause d



### RESPONDENT' S ANSWE Rto the COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO

N Page 2 3 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dthe La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6th e spoile rdeactivation , no rdoe s h e kno w whethe ran y maintenanc e activit y wa s th e caus e o f th e spoile rdeactivation . Se e Fact s a t section s 1 - 2 . I n addition , US

A 300 0 wa s no t responsibl e fo rth e wor k i n questio n - thi s i s wor k tha t wa s ordere d an d paid-fo rb y th e aircraf t owner , ILFC , wh o wa s retakin g possessio n o f th e aircraf t a t a tim e whe n th e aircraf t wa s neve rgoin g t o b e flow n agai n i n a Part 12 1 operation . Th e wor k

wa s performe d accordin g t o instruction s provide d b y ILFC , an d ove rwhic h ILF C exercise d control . Th e Administrato ri s relyin g o n th e languag e i n 121.36 3 tha t make s th e ai r carrie rresponsibl e fo rmaintenanc e o n it s aircraf t - bu t thi s languag e doe s no t mak e th e ai r carrie rresponsibl e fo rnon-maintenanc e activities , no rdoe s i t mak e th e ai rcarrie rresponsibl e fo rwor k don e fo r(an d unde rth e instruction s of ) th e nex t operator . Becaus e o f thes e fata l flaw s i n th e Administrator' s argument , th e argumen t mus t fail . 

## d . Th e Administrato r i s Offerin g Argument s Tha t Ar e Inapplicabl e t o thi s Cas e 1 , Th e FA A i s arguin g aviolatio n o

f 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.363(a ) bu t

th e FA A ha s neve r allege dviolatio n o

f thi s regulatio n Th e FAA' s theor y i s tha t unde r1 4 C.F.R . § 121.363(a) , US A 300 0 i s responsibl e fo rth e activitie s o f a n undisclose d part ytha t affecte d th e aircraf t i n a n undisclose d manne r- regardles s o f th e fac t tha t th e part y i s undisclose d an d th e causatio n i s undisclosed . Thi s theor y doe s no t mak e sense . Firs t o f all , th e Complain t doe s not , an d ha s never , allege d a violatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.363(a) . Therefore , a n allege d violatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.363(a ) i s no t applicabl e t o th e cas e a t bar . Second , 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.363(a) , i n relevan t part , say s tha t th e ai rcarrie ri s "primaril y responsibl e fo r.. . [t]h e performanc e o f th e maintenanc e .. . o f it s aircraft.. . i n accordanc e wit h it s manua l an d th e regulation s o f [chapte rI o f Titl e 1 4 C.F.R.]. " Ther e i s n o evidenc e o f maintenanc e havin g bee n performe d improperl y i n thi s case . Finally , th e charge d offens e arise s unde r1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13 . Thi s i s a maintenanc e rule , an d as previousl y mentioned , ther e i s n o evidenc e o f imprope rmaintenanc e i n thi s case . 

### RESPONDENT' S ANSWE Rto the COMPLAINANT S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO

N Page 2 4 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dth e La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6

### 2 . Th e Responden t Doe s No t

Bea r th e Burde n o f

Proo f Th e Administrato rcriticize s US A 300 0 fo rfailur e t o offe rproo f t o sho w wh o deactivate d th e spoilers . FAA' s MS D a t 11 . US A 300 0 ha s readil yadmitte d tha t w e d o no t kno w wh o deactivate d th e spoilers . FA A investigatio n an d US A 300 0 investigatio n hav e faile d t o revea l an y evidenc e tha t i t wa s don e durin g an y maintenance . FA A investigatio n an d US A 300 0 investigatio n hav e als o faile d t o revea l an yevidenc e o f wh o performe d th e deactivation . I n fact , as discusse d i n th e Statemen t o f Facts , th e FAA' s investigatio n specificall y showe d tha t the y coul d no t determin e th e caus e o f th e spoile rdeactivation , bu t tha t ther e wa s n o apparen t lin k betwee n th e deactivatio n an d an ymaintenance . Th e Administrator' s criticis m o f US A 300 0 improperl y suggest s tha t US A 300 0 bear s a burde n o f proo f i n thi s matter . Thi s i s no t tru e - th e Administrato rbear s th e burde n a t tria l (1 4 C.F.R . § 13.224(a) ) an d th e Administrato rbear s th e burde n o f proo f o n th e Motio n fo rDecisio n (1 4 C.F.R . § 13.224(c)) . Ther e i s n o obligatio n impose d o n th e Responden t t o prov e th e caus e o f th e deactivatio n whe n th e Administrato rha s faile d t o mee t it s ow n burden . Afte rinvestigatin g th e matter , an d afte rconductin g discovery , th e Administrato rstil l doe s no t hav e an y fact-base d theor y tha t connect s th e deactivatio n o f th e spoiler s t o an y maintenanc e activity . Therefore , th e Administrato rcanno t prevai l i n it s claim s tha t US A 300 0 i s responsibl e fo rimproperly-performe d maintenance , becaus e ther e i s n o evidence o f maintenanc e tha t wa s performe d improperly . 

## Conclusio n I n ligh t o f th e fac t tha t eac h o f th e element s o f collatera l estoppe l hav e bee n me t wit h respec t t o th e above-describe d Part 9 1 claims , th e cour t shoul d b e boun d b y th e prio rfactua l finding s o f th e NTS B wit h respec t t o thi s matter . • Th e Administrativ e La w Judg e shoul d fin d tha t th e knowledg e elemen t o f th e airworthines s claim , whic h wa s full ylitigate d i n th e Surrat t an d Walke rcase , ha s bee n show n t o b e missin g an d tha t therefor e th e airworthines s clai m unde r91.7(a ) mus t b e dismissed ; 

### RESPONDENT' S ANSWE Rto the COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO

N Page 2 5 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dth e La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6• Th e Administrativ e La w Judg e shoul d fin d tha t Th e Aircraf t wa s no t flow n recklessl yo r carelessly , base d o n th e ful l litigatio n o f tha t issu e i n th e Surrat t an d Walke rcase , an d tha t therefor e th e reckles s o rcareles s fligh t clai m unde r91.13(a ) mus t b e dismissed ; an d

• Th e Administrativ e Law Judg e shoul d hol d tha t therefor e th e claim s i n thi s cas e brough t unde rsection s 91.7(a ) an d 91.13(a ) shoul d b e dismissed . I n addition , th e Administrato rha s admitte d i n it s interna l investigatio n documents , an d i n it s respons e t o discover y tha t h e canno t poin t t o an y maintenanc e tha t wa s improperl y performed . Th e Administrato rha s als o faile d t o dra w a causa l lin k betwee n an y maintenanc e tha t wa s performe d an d th e deactivatio n o f th e spoilers . Fo rthes e reasons , th e Administrato r canno t sustai n a clai m tha t US A 300 0 ha s violate d th e maintenanc e standard s foun d i n 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.1 3 an d therefor e thes e claim s mus t b e dismissed. Thus , w e as k

tha t th e Administrator' s Motio n fo rDecisio n b e denied . RESPECTFULL

Y SUBMITTE D thi s 14t h da yo f February , 2011 . WASHINGTO N AVIATIO N GROUP , P C AN D TH E LA W OFFICE S O F JASO N A DICKSTEI N 

# 1 By . !i/7fry \ 

### i)i'ovy.&j^^i^~ ~ I . Jaso n Dickstei n Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e La w Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3

Washington , D

C 2000 7 

### Tel : (202 ) 628-677 6 Attorne yfo rResponden t Brenda n Airways , LL C d/b/ a USA300 0 Airline s



### RESPONDENT' S ANSWE

Rto the COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO

N Page 2 6 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dth e La w Office s o

f Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6BEFOR E TH E U S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N Th e Honorabl e Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e Ronni e A . Yode r I n th e matte ro f BRENDA N AIRWAYS , LLC , d/b/ a USA300 0 Airline s Responden t DM S No. : FAA-2009-003 2 FA A Docke t No. : CP09EA000 7 FAA Cas e No. : 2008EA17003 8

CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

Th e undersigne d hereb y certifie s tha t sh e cause d th e attache d

• ANSWE R t o th e COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO R DECISIO N t o b e file d a t th e addresse s liste d belo w b y two-da y FedE xservice , o n th e dat e indicate d below . Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Wilbu rWrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 An d t o b e serve d o n th e person s a t th e addresse s liste d belo w b y th e sam e metho d a s th e filin g method , o n th e dat e indicate d below . Davi d M . Cohen , Attorne y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counsel , EAL- 7 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 Tel : (718 ) 553-327 0 Fax : (718 ) 995-569 9 Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 Roo m E12-32 0 U S Departmen t o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse yAvenue , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Tel : (202 ) 366-214 2 Fax : (202 ) 366-753 6

February14 . 201 1 Dat e



### RESPONDENT' S ANSWE

Rto the COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO

N Pag e 2 7 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dth e La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstein 2233 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6

## APPENDI

X A : Closur e Lette r

Fro mInspecto r

Lind aBurnet t

APPENDI X A (Investigatio n Lette r Fro m Inspecto r Lind aBurnett ) Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 •Tel:202-628-677 6

# o MIAM I FL T STDS GIS

T OFFIC E U.S . Departmen t 8600 N W 36T H STREE

T o f Transportatio n ^,..»M'^2?IKl52 1 Federa l Aviatio n ^^^^til^^llt t Administratio n (305)716.3400 Jul y 07 , 200 8 AA RAIRCRAF

T SERVICES - MIAM

I IN C LOOMER , BRIA N V P GENERA

L MA N ACE R 5300NW36ST,BLDG85 0 PC BO X 52-2602 MIAMI , F L 33152-656 5 File Niimbei" . 2008SO190220 Reportin g Inspector : BURNETf , LIND A Th e Fedcrn l Aviatio n Admiiiistrntio n (FAA ) ha s investigate dan allege dviolatio n tha t reportedl y occurre d o n Saturday , May 17 , 200 8 i n th e vicinity o f MIAMI , FL . Thi s lette r

i s t o infor myo u tha t

th e investigatio n di dno t establis h aviolatio n of

th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulations , an dyo u ma y conside r th e matte r

closed . Shoul dyo u hav e an y questions , feel fre e t o contac t ou r office .

Additiona l Informatio n O n Bac k

## APPENDI

X B : Declaratio n o f

Josep h Mille r

APPENDI X B (Declaratio n o f Josep h Miller ) Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 •Tel:202-628-677 6

# RECEIVED BEFORE THE U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N ' - ^^^ ' Th e Honorabl e Chie f

Administrativ e La

w Judg e RonnTSiJ^fif/P^'^Mf l DOOICP T In th e matte r

o f BRENDA N AIRWAYS , LLC , d/b/aUSA300 0 Airline sResponden t DM S No. : FAA-2009-003 2 FA A Docket No. : CP09EA000 7 FAA Cas e No. : 2008EA17003 8 DECLARATIO N O FfOSEP H MILLE R

I , JOSPEP H MILLER , under penalt y o f perjury , declar e a s follows : 1 . I a ma n employe e o f

Brendan Airways , whic h doe s busines s unde r th e nam e US A 300 0 Airlines .

2 . I serv e a s th e Directo r o f Maintenanc e fo

r US A 3000 . 3 . Prio r to Apri l 2008 , US A 300 0 ha dbeen operatin g a

n A32 0 aircraf

t bearin g US registr y N265A V ("th e Aircraft " o r "N265AV") . 4 . Th e Aircraf

t wa s owne db

y Internationa l Leas e Financ e Corporatio n ("ILFC") . 5 . Th e Aircraf

t wa s lease dby ILF C t o US A 3000 . 6 . Durin g th e Sprin g o f 2008 , th e leas e on th e Aircraf t was comin g t o a

n end , s o US A 300 0 hire dAA RCor p t o perfor

mlease-en dheav y maintenanc e on th e aircraf t i n orde r to b e abl e t o return i t

t o th e lesso r

(ILFC ) a t th e en do f

th e lease . 7 . Th e maintenanc e o

n N265A V a

t AARtoo k

plac e durin g Apri l 200 8 an dMa y 2008 . 8 . Th e maintenanc e performe dby AARfo r US A 300 0 wa s performe daccordin g t o US A 3000' s writte n instruction s fo r completin g th e work . 9 . Ther e i s n o evidenc e tha t AA Rdiverge dfro

mth e wor

k instruction s provide dby US A 3000 , i n completin g th e US A 300 0 work .

APPENDIX B (Declaratio n o f Jo e Miller ) Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C andthe Law Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### 10 . At th e tim e that

th e Aircraf

t wa s provide dt o AA Rt o perfor mlease-en dheavy maintenance , US A 300 0 ha dn o furthe

r intent that th e aircraf

t woul dever

agai n b e operate dfo

r revenu e servic e b y US A 3000 , becaus e th e leas e wa s comin g t o a n end . 11 . O n Ma

y 15 , 2008 , w e move dth e aircraf t andperforme da

n engin e chec k

a s par t o f th e movement , becaus e tha t sor t o f chec k i s normal t o perfor

mbefore taxiing . 12 . Durin g th e Ma

y 15 , 200 8 engin e check , w e als o checke dth e contro l surfac e operatio n becaus e tha

t i s anormal pre-movemen t check . 13 . Th e Ma

y 15 , 200 8 contro l surfac e operatio n chec k include dachec k

o f th e spoiler s (a s wel l a s othe r

contro l surfaces) . 14 . Th e May 15 , 200 8 contro l surfac e operatio n check wa s successful , wit

h n o failure s andn o erro r

messages . I ca

n therefore verif

y that th e spoiler s were operational durin g thi s check . 15 . O n Ma

y 17 , 2008 , Captai n Frank WilliamWalker

an dCaptai n Tony Scot

Surrat t were taske dwit

h performin g amaintenanc e acceptanc e tes t fligh t o f th e Aircraft . 16 . Th e maintenanc e acceptanc e tes t fligh t o f th e Aircraf

t wa s operate dout

of Miam i International Airport

(MIA ) - it

departe dandreturne dt o MIA . 17 . Walker

an dSurratt

wer e bot

h employee s o f

Brenda n Airways , which doe s busines s under

th e nam e US A 300 0 Airlines . 18 . Captai n Surratt , Captai n Walker an dI reviewe dth e releas e to servic e documentation , andthe n th e tw o pilot s proceede dt o th e aircraft , where the y eac h performeda separate walk

aroun dt o ensur e that

th e aircraf

t wa s i n prope r conditio n 19 . It i s no t possibl e t o se e whethe r

th e spoiler s are i

n maintenanc e mod e fro

mth e ground . 20 . Afte

r th e walk-around , th e pilot s entere dth e cockpit . 21 . Durin g th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight , I wa s presen t i n th e cockpit . APPENDIX B (Declaratio n o f Jo e Miller ) Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C andthe Law Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suite 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6

### 22 . Durin g th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight , th e pilot s discovere dtha t tw o set s o f th e spoiler s wer e inoperative .

23 . Afte r discoverin g th e spoiler

malfunctio n durin g th e flight , th e pilot s consulte d th e guideline s foundi

n th e Quic k

Referenc e Handboo k

(QRH ) fo

r tw o set s o f

spoiler s inoperative .

24 . Th e QR

H manual calle dfo

r anorma l landin g a

t ful l flaps , wit

h n o spee dincrease , when tw o set s o f

spoiler s ar

e inoperative . I

t als o include s amultiplie r fo r minimu mrunwa

y length , whic h MIA easil y met . N o furthe r guidanc e i s provide di

n th e QR H fo r tw o set s of inoperativ e spoilers .

25 . Afte r landing , w e analyze dth e aircraf t andfoundthat

tw o o f th e spoiler s were i

n maintenanc e mode .

26 . We communicate dwit h AARabou t

thi s findin g (spoiler s foundi n maintenanc e mode) . 27 . AA

Rreporte dt o u s that

AA Rperforme dacomplet e revie w o f thei r documentatio n t o identif

y whe n th e spoiler s coul dhav e been place di n th e maintenanc e mode . 28 . Base do

n thei r review , AA Rconclude dtha t the y coul dfindn o circumstance s unde r whic h th e spoiler s coul dhav e bee n place di n th e maintenanc e mod e durin g a n AA R maintenanc e operation .

29 . AARinforme dUS A 300 0 that th e FA A haddroppe dth e investigatio n o f AA R whe n i t becam e clear

that ther e was n o evidenc e tha t anyon e fro

mAA Rplace dth e spoiler s i n maintenanc e mode .

30 . W e performe darevie w o f th e maintenanc e operation s performe db y AA Ro n N265AV , includin g arevie w o f th e maintenanc e records . 31 . W e coul dno t

findan y poin t

durin g th e maintenanc e i n whic h th e spoiler s coul d hav e bee n lef

t i n th e maintenanc e mode , becaus e operational check s o f th e spoiler s mad e i

t impossibl e fo

r th e spoiler s t o hav e bee n lef t i n th e maintenanc e mod e before Ma y 15 , 2008 . APPENDIX B (Declaratio n o f Jo e Miller ) Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dthe Law Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suite 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### 32 . Becaus e o f th e Ma y 15 , 200 8 successful contro l surfac e operatio n check , w e believ e that

it i s likel y tha

t th e spoiler s were place di n th e maintenanc e mod e betwee n tha t Ma y 15t h chec k an dth e Ma

y 17t h flight. 33 . N o US A 300 0 maintenanc e wa s schedule dt o b e performe don th e Aircraf t betwee n th e operationa l chec k o n May 15t

h andth e flight

o n Ma y 17th . 34 . Immediatel y befor

e th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight, ther e wa s evidenc e tha t AA Rha dperforme dwor

k o n th e Aircraf

t o n th e order s o f

ILFC , th e aircraf

t owner . 35 . Wor k performe db y AARfo

r ILFC wa s no t

performe dunder

US A 300 0 instructions , an dwa s no t

performe dunde r

US A 3000' s control . 36 . Throug h discovery , w e hav e obtaine dacop y o f th e Apri l 16 , 200 8 agreemen t betwee n AA Ran dILF C fo r th e wor k performe do n N265AV a t ILFC' s direction . Tha

t Agreement

i s attache da s a

n exhibi t t o thi s Declaration . 37 . Throug h discovery , w e hav e obtaine dacop y of th e Invoic e sent

b y AA Rt o ILFC fo r th e wor k performe do

n N265A V a

t ILFC' s direction . Tha

t Invoic e i s attache da s a

n exhibi t t o thi s Declaration .

38 . Throug h discovery , w e hav e obtaine dacop y o f th e Part s Consumptio n Repor t b y AA Rto ILF C fo

r th e wor k performe don N265A V a t ILFC' s direction . That

Part s Consumptio n Repor t list s part s consume ddurin g th e wor k performe do

n N265A V a

t ILFC' s direction , an

di t i s attache da s a

n exhibi t t o thi s Declaration . 39 . Th e Part s Consumptio n Report make s i t clea r that pain t wa s amon g th e supplier s bought an dconsume dfo

r N265A V unde r

ILFC' s direction . 40. 1 believe , bu t

I canno t prove , that

th e spoiler s were place di n th e maintenanc e mod e b y painter s wh o painte dth e liver y o f Stat e Transpor

t Russi ao n th e Aircraf

t betwee n Ma

y 15t h an dMa y 17th . 41 . US A 300 0 pai dfo

r th e fuselag e t o b e painted , bu t US A 300 0 was no t

responsibl e fo r paintin g th e wing s (an ddi dno t caus e th e wing s t o b e painted) . APPENDIX B (Declaratio n o f Jo e Miller ) Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dthe Law Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### 42 . It i s norma l fo

r th e leasin g compan y t o order wor k don e on thei r

own aircraf

t a t th e endo f alease , s o that

th e aircraf

t ca n b e mad e ready fo

r th e nex t lessee . 43 . Paintin g o f

th e nex t lessee' s liver

y on th e Aircraf

t wing s (where th e spoiler s ar e located ) wa s don e a

t ILFC' s expens e andaccordin g t o ILFC' s instructions . I declar e unde r

penalty o f

perjur y unde r th e law s o f

th e Unite dState s tha

t th e foregoin g i s tru e andcorrect . EXECUTE D on th e 22n dda y o f October , 2010 . 

# '-i^lflit k Jo e Miller USA^OOO Directo r

o f Maintenanc e

APPENDIX B (Declaratio n o f Jo e Miller ) Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C andth e Law Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suite 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### 42 , I t i s norma l fo r th e leasing company to orde r wor k don e o n thei r own aircraf

t a t th e en do f alease , s o tha

t th e aircraf

t ca n b e mad e read y fo r the nex t lessee . 43 . Paintin g o f

th e nex t lessee' s liver

y o n th e Aircraf t wing s (where th e spoiler s ar e located ) wa s don e a

t ILFC' s expens e an

daccordin g t o ILFC' s instructions . 1 declare unde

r penalt y o f perjur y unde r th e law s of

th e Unite dState s tha

t th e foregoing i s tru e an

dcorrect . EXECUTE D o n th e 22ndda

y o f October , 2010 .

Jo e Mille r USA/OOO Directo r

o f Maintenanc e

APPENDI X B (Declaratio n o f

Jo e Miller ) Washington Aviatio n Group . P C an dthe La w OfJice s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsin Avenue , NW . Suite 50 3 Washington . DC 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6

## Josep h Mille r Exhibit s

APPENDI X B (Declaratio n o f

Jo e Miller) Washington Aviation Group , PC an dth e La w Office s o

f Jaso n A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 503 Washington , D

C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6EXHLBtT K : STATKMKNTQFWOR K Thi s AIRCRAF T STATEMHNI " 01 - WOR K i s ciucre dint o b y an dbetwee n AA R AIRCRAF T SERVICE S - MIAMI . INC . (Formerl y AVBORN E HliAV Y MAINTENANCE , INC. ) :m dINTERNATIONA L LEASl i EINANC E CORPORATION . Tli c term s o f th e Genera l Tcnn s Agreemen t date dFebruar y 17 , 200 6 ar c hereb y incorpornlc dherei n b y reference . Cnpilalizo dterm s use dherei n shal l hav e Ih c nicaninK s give n l o Ihc min ih c Cicncial Toinii ? Agreement . SI:CTIO N I : DF-SCRIPTIONOI-AIRCRAFIVEQUIPMIIN T Model : A32 0 Seria l Number : J?f/

tA$N^2 1 ^^ ^ Registration : N2fi5A

V SECTIO N 2 : DESCRIPTIO N O r WOR K 1. 1 Th e servliic s t o b e proviilot i b y Avboni c fu r lli c Customer' s A32 0 nircrii H wit h .«ria l numbe r M'Sf^ l ar e n s follows : A . Accomplis h tli c Aiworiliiucs s Dircciivcs/Scrvic c ntillctins , ;iloii g with miscclliincoii s inoilinciuioi»s/iiiswl)aiion. s (Ciibli i Siirvcillniic c Sysioin , n.vc dELT , KPf. , Interio r itcconrij^iiraiio n niu l Sctii f & I'iiiii i o f

th e AifcniO'i t

\viiig$ , horixonta l Kiabilixc r an d fusclagi : logo/llvcr) ' .stripes) , pe r ib c Wor k I'mifciiij c supplie dl o Avbornc . PIcn.s c .sec ili c followiii e pnu w fo r

tall y iiicc l o f

;ill th e Item s tiicliulc di n th e Wor k P;iclcii{;c . nloiij j will ) (tctnil s O H th e nircr;i A pai mlivery . 1. 2 Al l nssocifiic dnon-roinin c findings ueiicmtc db y cricl i Alr^^'orthulc.s s Dircciivc/Scr\'ic c Biillciiii s :iii dniodiricnii«nS''insliill»iion s wil l b e porfomic do n i \tim o an dninlcrin l biuis . I. J Al l pntis , malerisls . kit s .in drotabl e requirement s associate dwit h thi s work.scop o ar c exclude d fron t th e fi.xc dbi dpric e an dwil l b e hniidtc dmatim e am i rnnicrin l b;i.sis . I A An y Jiddiiionu l jieni s adde dt o th e wor k scop e that

ar e no t liiilc di n tli c wor k

piickagt i a s SIIOM D i n Tollowin g page s ()rilii.< ; Agreement , wil l b e .ivcoiiipli.s'he do n thne-aiiil^inalcrla l basis . 1. 5 Al l Hon-romin o NO T work , SI D niappiiig/rep.iir.s , pnrt. s fabiicaiioi w pe r ciiginccrini ; ilrawings , pain t loiieb-np , .\-rays , fue l tan k work , wcUlini; , miK-hliiitii; , specialize dtooling , aircrn O polishini; , alon g wit h ni l DM J an dinhoinu l lo ^ item!. , ar c no t include di n lli o n.ve dbi dpric e niu l wil l b e pcrromio do n alim e an dmateria l bn.'ii.s . SECTIO N 3 : FIXE D BI D PRICIN G Th e n.xe dl)i dpric e l o cove r Ih c Wor k I'aekajj e a s show n i n th e followin g page s |ic r th e icrni s am i coiidilloi)! ; a s state dabov e i n Sectio n 2 o f ilii.< : Agrcemcn i wil l b e $91,440 . SI:CTI0N4 : STRAIGH T TIMI E HOURL Y RATI Tli c Straigh t

Tim e hourl y lalio r

rol e fo r thi $ projec t

wil l li e S'lS.O O pe r

ma n hour , A

M othe r hourl y charge s an dniiirkup * wil l b e pe r th e Genera l Term s ABreeincn i daic dPebrtiar y 17,2006 .SECTIO N 5 : SCHIiDULE D REDELIVER Y DAT E Avttoni c estimate s iha

i th e dumtio n of ilii s workscop

e an d.scrvice i wil l lak e 5 day s t o complete . Al

l spaiiliaic s quote dli y Avbonie , whcilic

r ornll y o r i n wriling , shal

l b e cstimnies fo

r lim e o f eompletlon . I N Wl'l"NKSS WMERHOI'

, th e panic s liiiv

c oausci l thi s Agreemen

t t o b e execute db y tiici r dul y authorize d rcpicsemalivex . AA RAlrcrar t

Services - Miiuni.Uic . Iiiterniilioiiii l Len.s c Kiimnc e Corporatio n Signature : J ^ y^-''"' ^ Signature : Name : /^.^^/i^^^ ^ Name : ^-^.^^^^l/frC e Title : ^j^

_

^^ ^ Title : ^/f^c/e>r-^7~2^^''^-C<=^ (

# OAA R

Aircraf t Service s —Miam i FA A Repai rStatio n I t XE4R645 M 530 0 N W 36t h Stree t P O Bo x52-260 2 Miami , F L 3315 2 www.aarcorp.co m TelephonB : (305 ) 871-210 4 Accountin g Fax : (786 ) 265-436 0 Purchasin g Fax : (786 ) 266-436 2 

# INVOIC E No . : 00374 1 Pg: 1 Bil l T o Sol d To ; Accoun t No . [6 ] Attn : Mr . Richard Poutier , Senio rV P - Technica l Internationa l Leas e Finance Corporatio n 1025 0 Constellatio n Blvd , Suit e 340 0 Lo s Angelas , C

A 9006 7 UNITE D STATE S Tel.-.310-788-199 9 Fax:310-788-199 0 Attn : Mr . Richard Poutier , Senio rV P - Technica l Internationa l Leas e Financ e Corporatio n 1025 0 Conslellalio n Blvd , Suit e 340 0 Lo s Angelas , CA 9006 7 UNITE D STATE S Tel. : 310788-199 9 Fax:310.788-199 0 Shippe d To ; Remi t Paymen t To : Attn : Mr . Richar d Poutier , Senio rV P • Technica l Internationa l Leas e Finance Corporatio n 1025 0 Constellatio n Blvd . Suit e 340 0 Lo s Angelas , C

A 9006 7 UNITE D STATE S Tel. : 310-788-199 9 Fax:310-788-199 0 AARCor o 530 0 N W36thStree t P O Bo x 52-260 2 Miami, , F L 3315 2 Tel. : Telephone ; (305 ) 871-210 4 Fax ; Accountin g Fax : (786 ) 265-436 0 MNTW/ONo . 28108- 4 Projec t g : W.0.28108- 4 Domesti c AW B Custome r P.O . Contrac t # : ILF

C RESPONSIBILIT

Y InflAW B Invoic e Dat e Jul-17-2008 Release d :YE S Origi n Du e Dat e AU9-16-200 8 C . Labe l 4 : AIRCRAF T N265A V Transpor t Shi p Vi a Licens e No . ;N/ A Nationality F.O.B . ORIGI N Expire s ;N/ A Tflp/Fllgh t Shippe d Dat e Jul-17-200 8 Term s ; NET 30 Ou rContac t Alic

e J Cafpanell i Lin e Detai l o f Charge s Cn d Qt y Ordere d Shippe d Uni t Pric e Amoun t Car dNo . (F-FINAL3 } ACCOMPLIS H MISC . CUSTpME R REQUES T O N A/C j N265A V 1.0 0 E A Car d No . F-FINAL3 ACCOMPLIS H MISC . CUSTOME R REQUES T O N W p N26BA V NOTE : SE E BREAKDOW N O F CHARGE S O N ATTACHE D SHEET . ADDITIONA L FREIGH T CHARGE S MA

Y FOLLOW . Charge s Summar

v A32 1 Labo r 1.0 0 $ 144,216.190 0 E A $ 144,216.1 9

% 144,216.1 9 Su b Total : $ 144.216.19 1

Bret t Kooi* , sui t AcnunUn l Total : mSD l $ 144.216.1 9 Copyrigh t (c ) PENTAGO N KO O Seltwin.lnc . ORIGINA LAA R AIRCRAF T SERVICE S MIAM I W O 28108- 4 A/ C N26SA V PART S CONSUMPTIO N REPOR T ILF C RESPONSIBILITY 6/25/200 8

PAR T NUMBE R ITE M NUMBE R iTii^fi-ri'r'ir.-iii-r-T ' 

### 1405 6 NR586 6 DESCRIPTIO N RT V WHIT E "ORG " QTY U M '^ri^^^^ i E A UNI T COS T 

# ii^^BI^ ^ 12.7 0 EX

T COS T 

# mm m 12.7 0 622-5222-02 0 NR586 6 RECEIVER-AD F E A 5,800.0 0 5,800.0 0 CS3204B2. T NR586 6 SEALAN T E A 14.7 0 58.8 0 A4031PR W NR587 2 PLACAR D - EXI T SIG N 1 2 E A 9.9 0 

# iiliiii ^ 

# m mm m 116.8 0 238 0 SS I OI L ENGIN E (Q ) 2 4 E A 9.42 226.0 8 PITOT.COVER S SS I PITOT . COVE R E A 

### 10.00 40.0 0



# mmmmmmmms

^ ^« 1 m ;51if

a i ^ S-10002-130 0 SS I LIF E VES T 2 0 E A 40.0 0 800.0 0 NSA938152SA200 0 NR501 1 SOCKE T AIRBU S STANAR D P 5 E A 10.0 0 50.0 0 D925112280120 0 NR501 5 PLAT E ASSY , BLANKIN G E A 210.0 0 420.0 0 TT^Eir i F ^ •i3t S 

# mmmm ' EPOXO.88T1 0 NR501 5 EPOX Y ADHESIV E E A 10.0 1 10.0 1 FASTWELD10D. S NR501 5 FASTWEL D 1 0 E A 

### 17.7 7 17.7 7 NSA935805-2 0 NR501 5 CONDUI T F T 32.9 5 98.8 5 NSA935805-2 4 NR501 5 CONDUI T 1 0 FT 23.3 2 233.2 0 10P20-44M-F/K4 G NR301 6 PRIME R 1 0 K T 483.4 0 4,834.0 0 7i39VYY-POCCN R (A32 0 NR301 6 DECA L E A 240.0 0 240.0 0 7139VYY-ROSSIYA (A32 C NR301 6 DECA L E A 240.0 0 240.0 0 ECL-G-1116 1 NR301 6 PAPYRU S WHIT E K T 411.8 5 823.7 0 ECL-G-1116 1 NR301 6 PAPYRU S WHIT E K T 411.8 5 2,471.1 0 / 411.8 5 ECL-G-1116 1 NR301 6 PAPYRU S WHIT E 

### K T 2,882.9 5 ECL-G-164 9 NR301 6 PAINT , SIGNA L WHIT E KT 669.5 0 1,339.0 0 ECL-G-2622 9 NR301 6 PAINT , SIGNA L BLU E K T 767.3 5 1,534.7 0 ECL-G-363 7 NR301 6 PAINT , TRAFFI C RE D K T 987.7 5 1,975.5 0 ECL-G-688 8 NR301 6 SIGNA L ORANG E K T 327.0 2 327.0 2 • ECL-G-9 2 

### NR301 6 PAINT , TRAFFI C BLAC K K T 213.3 0 426.6 0 PACKAGING , HAZMA

T NR301 6 HAZMAT PACKAGIN G 3 2 E A 22.5 0 720.0 0 ABS0305KA2-1 1 NR501 6 SECTION-HOS E 111897IT L 3 0 F T 15.0 0 450.0 0 MS20006-2 0 NR501 6 BOL T E A 7.5 1 15.0 2 MS20006-2 2 NR501 6 BUSHIN G E A 6.8 9 17.7 8 NSA936830-2 2 NR601 7 SPLIC E 

### 1 0 E A 47.0 3 470.3 0 1405 5 NR501 8 CLEAR.RT V E A 11.9 5 11.9 5 DP10 0 NR501 8 ADHESIV E E A 8.9 0 8.9 0 E0404-0 2 NR501 8 LAM P 2 5 E A 

### 5.3 9 134.7 5 P I 0 8 NR501 8 TAPE , DOUBL E SID E CLOT H 2 4 E A 13.9 9 335.7 6 RDAX493 1 NR501 8 SE B TERMINA L P L E A 

### 75.0 0 600.0 0



# ima^Mmi ^ 

# mm& i .jm^mmmmm^ m W i-lf-^ { •^''••^•'••^^"^ ^ 

# lai i

m ^ 1405 5 NR503 6 CLEAR.RT V E A 11.9 5 11.9 5 

### D252732670020 0 NR503 6 FOR KASSY252 4 E A 

### 164.00 328.0 0 

### D252732670020 0 NR503 6 FORKASSY252 4 E A 164.0 0 

### 164.0 0AA R AIRCRAF T SERVICE S MIAM I W O 28108- 4 A^

C N26SAV PART S CONSUMPTIO N REPOR T ILF C RESPONSIBILITY 6/25/200 8

TOTA L 34,129.1 9 MATERIAL S 28,249.1 9

## APPENDI X C : Judg e Fowler' s Decisio n i n Babbit t v . Surrat t

APPENDI X C (Judg e Fowler' s Decisio n i n Babbit t v . Washington Aviatio n Group , P

C an dth e Surratt ) La w Office s o

f Jason A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 503 Washington , D

C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6Pag e 1

^

# I n LexisNexi s

3 o f 3 DOCUMENT S J . RANDOLP H BABBITT , ADMINISTRATOR , Federal Aviatio n Administration , Complainant , v . TON Y SCO T SURRATT an dFRAN K WILLIAM WALKER , Respondent s NUMBER : Docket

SE-18562 , SE-1856 3 National Transportatio n Safet y Boar d 200 9 NTS B LEXI S 10 6 DATE : September

2 , 200 9 ACTION : [*1 ] ORAL INITIA L DECISIO N ISSUEDBY : Willia

mE . Fowler , Jr. , Chie f

Administrativ e La

w Judg e JUDGE FOWLE R 20 0 Chestnu t

Stree t Courtroo m30 0 Philadelphia , Pennsylvani a Wednesday , Augus t 12,200 9 The above-entitle dmatte r cam e o n fo

r hearing , pursuan t

to notice , a

t 10:0 0 a.m . BEFORE : WILLIAM E . FOWLER , JR. , Chie f Administrativ e Law Judge APPEARANCES : On behal f of th e Administrator : RUSSEL L CHRISTENSEN , ESQ . Federa l Aviatio n Administratio nPag e 2 200 9 NTS B LEXI S 106 , * I 170 1 Columbi aAvenu e Colleg e Park , Georgi a3003 7 On behal f o f th e Respondents : JASO N DICKSTEIN , ESQ . Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P.C . an dth e La w Offic e o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 2123 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , N.W . Suite 50 3 Washington , D.C . 2000 7 202-628-677 6 JESSIC A STUBBS , ESQ . Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P.C . an dth e La w Offic e o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 2123 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , N.W . Suite 50 3 Washington , D.C . 2000 7 202-628-894 7 Thi s ha s been aproceedin g before th e National Transportatio n Safet y Boardhel dpursuan t

to th e provisio n of

the Federal Aviatio n Ac t

o f 195 8 a s tha

t Ac t wa s subsequentl y amende do n th e appeal s o f Tony Sco t

Surrat t andFran k Willia mWalker fro mOrder s o f

Suspensio n date dApri l 8 , 2009 , issue db y th e Regional Counsel , Souther n Regio n of th e Federa

l Aviatio n [*2 ] Administration , whic h purport s to suspen dRespondent Surratt' s airlin e transpor

t pilo t certificate number

(omitted ) fo

r aperio do f

18 0 days , an dals o Responden t Walker' s airlin e transport pilo t certificat e number (omitted ) fo

r aperio do f

18 0 days . Thi s ha s bee n aconsolidate dproceedin g on th e appeal s o f Respondent s Surrat

t an dWalker . Th e Administrator' s Order s o f Suspensio n a s dul y promulgated , pursuan t to th e National Transportatio n Safet y Board' s Rule s o f

Practic e i n Ai r

Safet y Proceedings , a s I mentione dearlier , wa s issue db y th e Regiona l Counse l o f th e Souther n Regio n o f

th e Federal Aviatio n Administration . Thi s matter

ha s bee n hear dbefore thi s Unite dState s Administrativ e La w Judg e an di s provide db y th e Board' s Rule s o f Practice , specificall y Sectio n 821.4 2 o f thos e rules , whil e i

t i s no t mandatory , accordin g t o that sectio n o f the rules , tha t a s th e Judg e i

n thi s proceedin g I issu e a n Oral Initial Decision . I'mgoin g t o d o tha t at thi s time . Followin g notic e to th e parties , thi s matte r cam e o n for

trial o n Augus t

11t h and12t h i n Philadelphia , Pennsylvania . Th e Complainant

in thi s proceedin g wa s ver y abl y represente db y Counselo r Christensen , Esquire , o f

th e Regiona

l [*3 ] Counsel' s Office , Southern Regio n o f th e Federal Aviatio n Administration . Th e Respondent s wer e represente db y Counselor s Dickstei n an dStubbs , Esquire , an dbot h hav e don e avery admirabl e job , I might add . Bot h partie s hav e bee n afforde dth e opportunity t o offe r evidence , to call , examine , an dcross-examin e witnesses . I n addition , th e partie s wer e afforde dth e opportunity t o mak e final argumen t

i n suppor t o f thei r respectiv e positions .Pag e 3 200 9 NTS B LEXI S 106 , * 3 I hav e reviewe dth e testimon y an dth e documentar y exhibit s adduce db y counsel . Th e Administrato r ha s had2 1 Exhibits . Th e Responden t

ha s had1 1 Exhibits . The Administrato r ha s hadth e testimon y o f

fou r witnesses . The Respondent

ha s hadth e testimon y o f

thre e witnesses . Tw o o f

thos e witnesse s o f

th e Responden t

were th e tw o Respondents , themselves . Responden t Surrat t andRespondent

Walker . I hav e reviewe dth e totality o f th e testimon y andth e documentar y exhibits , anda s you kno w th e burde n o f proo f in aproceedin g o f

thi s typ e i s o n th e Administrator . Th e Administrato r

ha s set fort h tw o Order s o f

Suspensio n here wit

h 2 1 specifi c paragraph s set in th e Order s agains t Captai n Tony Sco t

Surratt , an dagains t

Captai n Fran

k Willia mWalker ther e were 1 2 paragraphs . ['*4 ] I'mgoin g to try t o b e a s brie f an da s concis e a s I can . Thi s cas e i

n m y humbl e estimatio n rise s o r fall s on wha

t th e tw o Respondent s knew , wha t knowledg e they possesse dprio r

t o takeof f o n Ma y 17th , 2008 , fi-omMiam

i International Airport . W e hav e the testimon y o f

fou r witnesse s on behal f

of th e Administrator , Witnes s Laurenc e Johnson , Principal Operation s Inspector ; Witnes s Phili p Stauffe r i s als o aPrincipal Operation s Inspector , Witnes s Thoma s W . Welsh , wh o i s a n Inspecto r

a t USA300 0 Airlines , th e compan y we'r e dealin g wit h in thi s proceedin g andwitnes s Frank Miller . All fou r o f thes e gentleme n are exceedingl y experienced . Inspecto r Stauffe r wa s declare dt o b e a

n expert , particularl y in maintenance , maintenanc e engineering . Andto mak e alon g stor

y short , th e witnesse s o f

th e Administrato r

all testifie dvalidl y an dsubstantiate dmany o f th e numbere d paragraph s se t

fort h in bot h Order s o f

Suspensio n agains t

Responden t

Surrat t andResponden t

Walker . Respondent

hadthre e witnesses . Responden t Surratt , Respondent

Walker , an dWitnes s Pau l O . Dow , Jr. , wh o wa s qualifie da s a

n expert . Witnes s Do w ha s 4,30 0 hour s in the A32 0 an dha s 11,00 0 hour s a s a n airlin e transpor

t certificate dpilot . [*5 ] I hav e reviewe dth e testimon y i n thi s case . Th e tw o Respondent s hav e testifie dandon e o f th e Administrator' s witnesses , Mr . Frank

Miller , ha s testifie dtha

t prio r t o takeoff , even thoug h th e Respondent s i n thi s aircraf

t kne w ther

e were spoiler

difficulties , spoiler s 3 an d5 were , a s counse l fo r th e Administrato r

ha s abl y stated , locke dout . Respondent s an dothe r

member s presen t

i n th e aircraf

t includin g Witnes s Miller wh o ha s testifie don behal f o f th e Administrator , tha

t compute r button s wer e rese t

an dtha t th e ECA M pane l prio r

t o takeof f wa s green . Th e pilots . Respondent

Walke r wa s th e flyin g pilot , Responden t Surrat t wa s tendin g t o th e othe r

dutie s o f aFirs t Officer . The evidenc e her e i

n my determinatio n i s persuasive , logical , an dcompellin g tha t th e ECA M pane l prio r

to takeof f o r jus t befor e takeof f wa s gree n o r

clear , howeve r

yo u want to dee mi t whe n thi s flight

took of f fro mMiam i Intemational Airport . Som e 10 , 15 , 2 0 minute s later , message s cam e on th e ECA M o f th e spoiler

problems . The flying pilot , o r

I shoul dsay pilots , converse dabou t thi s problem , referre dt o th e QRH , Quic k Referenc e Handbook , whic h i s th e Nationa l Operatio n Manual referenc e boo k an ddecide dsinc e ['*6

] the y hadn o prio r knowledg e befor

e the y too k

of f with thes e spoile r

difficulties ; tha

t eve n sinc e the y the n hadknowledg e o f th e spoiler difficulties , tha

t the y woul dprocee dwith thei r flight, a s the y did , approximatel y tw o hour s o r more before the y attempte dthei r

first landing , whic h ha dt o b e aborte dbecaus e a s yo u hav e hearddurin g th e testimon y in thi s proceeding , th e lef

t win g fenc e a s th e testimon y ha s stated , a s oppose dt o th e Administrator' s Order whic h say s th e lef

t wingtip , scrape dth e runway . So , th e first attemp t a t landin g wa s aborte dandther e wa s asecon duneventfu l landing . I hav e heardanumbe r

o f thes e cases , no t

simila r t o thi s one , bu t

my poin t i n raisin g thi s i s ther e wa s n o accident , n o damage , n o injuries , n o fatalities , an dtha t t o me i s alway s abi t

refreshin g t o hav e acas e like thi s becaus e s o man y time s the y are jus t

th e opposite .Pag e 4 200 9 NTS B LEXI S 106 , * 6 Th e burde n o f

proof , a s I state dearlier , i s o n th e Administrato r to prov e b y afai

r an dreasonabl e preponderanc e o f th e probative , reliable , an dsubstantial evidence , th e charge s andallegation s a s set fort h i n thes e Order s o f

Suspension . It i s m y determinatio n th e Administrator' s evidenc e as t o wha t th e Respondent s kne w prio r [*7 ] to takeoff

, th e Administrator' s evidenc e i s lackin g base don th e totality of wha t we'v e ha ddurin g th e cours e o f

thi s tw o da

y proceeding . We'v e hadth e testimon y o f bot h Respondents , a s wel l a s th e las t witnes s o f

th e Administrator , Mr . Frederic k Miller , wh o i s th e Directo r o f Maintenanc e fo

r USA300 0 Airlines , wh o concurre dwit h th e tw o Respondents ' testimony tha t immediatel y prio r

to takeof f th e ECA M pane l wa s clear , i f

no t green . There wa s som e testimon y that it wa s green . An dthereb y an dthereupo n th e flight too k of f Administrator' s witnesse s hav e testifie dt o th e opposit e resul t concernin g th e ECAM pane l prio r t o takeof f an d notic e to th e pilots , bu t

I don' t believe , andit

i s m y determinatio n tha

t th e Administrator' s cas e i s persuasiv e and compellin g enoug h t o rebu t th e total testimon y adduce do n th e Respondent s sid e o f

th e case . W e ca n look a t thi s case , I believ e in anothe r way . Bot h Respondent s are airlin e transport rate dcertificate dpilot s wh o are hel dt o th e highes t degre e o f care , judgment , an dresponsibility . Now , th e evidenc e i s o n th e Respondents ' side , I believe , in thi s cas e tha

t th e Respondent s di dno t

kno w whe n they took

of f th e ful l situatio n o f

th e spoilers . [*8 ] Thre e witnesses , a s I mentioned , hav e testifie dth e ECA M pane l wa s clear , indicate dgreen , an dthe y too k of f Now , th e questio n afte

r tha t come s dow n t o what

di dRespondent s Surrat

t an dWalker

do whe n the y go t

the messag e durin g th e flight

som e 20 , 2 5 minute s later abou t th e inoperabl e spoilers . Responden t Surrat t i s th e Pilot-in-Comman do f

thi s flight . Responden t

Walke r wa s th e flying pilot . A s Pilot-in-Command , Captai n Surrat t withi n th e real mo f

hi s authority a s Pilot-in-Command , continue dth e flight a s oppose dt o th e contentio n o f th e Federa

l Aviatio n Administration , tha t whe n the y wer e afforde dthi s messag e durin g th e flight abou t th e spoile r

situatio n tha

t the y immediatel y en dan dabor t th e flight. Administrator' s A-7 , whic h i s alette r January 11 , 2008 , to Inspecto r Laurenc e Johnso n issue db y Josep h Guhin , Directo r o f Safet y an dRegulatory Complianc e fo r USA300 0 Airlines , andI wil l readacertai n portio n o f tha t letter . The fourt h paragrap h o n th e first

pag e o f thi s Exhibi t

A- 7 sai ddurin g th e flight contro l check , durin g th e tax i checklis t the cre w note dther e wa s a

n ECAM cautio n o f

LAFdegrader . It

wa s cleare db y resettin g th e spoile r elevate dcompute

r SE C pus h buttons . Accordin g ['*9] to bot h Captai n Surrat

t andJo e Miller , thi s cautio n i s no t uncommon , an dwa s quickl y cleared . Th e aircraf

t hadaclean uppe r

ECAM pag e prio r

to the uneventfu l takeof

f Whil e airborne , durin g routin e pag e call-up s th e ECA M pane l displaye dsymmetrical spoile r 3 , 5 Lef t Rspoiler amber indications . Durin g th e flight apilo t lef t th e cockpi t

an dreturne dnotin g tw o spoiler s o n th e lef t win g were floating. A USA300 0 Airlin e Inspector' s employe e too k som e picture s o f

thos e spoilers , note dthat

th e rudde r

trimgoin g ou

t o f limits , an dCaptai n Walke r disengage dth e autopilo t

andmanuall y trimme dth e aircraft . Th e paragrap h goe s o n t o sa y abou t somewhat

difficult y there wa s i

n landin g th e aircraf

t an dwit h th e scrap e o f

th e runwa y b y th e lef

t win g fence . A s I mentioned , th e totality o f th e seve n witnesse s tha

t hav e testifie din thi s proceeding , amon g th e four , on e wa s designate dan expert . Inspecto r Johnson , an dther e wa s on e exper t witness , Pau l O . Dow , o n behal f o f th e Respondent . You ma y recal l Witnes s Dow , wh o wa s presen t durin g th e cours e o f

thi s proceeding , sai dtha

t h e concurre d wholeheartedl y wit

h th e action s o f

Respondent s Surrat

t an dWalker

andhi s testimon y als o encompasse dth e ['*10 ] situatio n tha

t ha s ofte n occurre do n amaintenanc e acceptanc e tes t flight whic h ha s th e aircraf

t involved , which ha s been lai du p fo r quit e awhile , tha t

i t i s no t uncommo n for

th e thing s tha

t occur in th e flight

we'r e concerne dwit

h here tha tPag e 5 200 9 NTS B LEXI S 106,-^1 0 di doccur , anda s bot

h th e Respondent s andWitnes s Mille r testified , thi s cautio n a s the y exercise db y resettin g th e computer button s whic h cleare dth e ECA M pane l andallowe dthe mt o takeof f i n a n uneventfu l takeof

f wit h no problem s i

n thei r mind . An da s the y hav e bot h testifie dto , both Respondent s were no t cognizan t

o f aseriou s spoiler proble munti l durin g th e flight, the y were late r notifie dan dthe y mad e thei r decisions , particularl y Respondent Surrat t a s Pilot-in-Command , to continu e th e flight, whic h the y did . Andother tha n th e win g fenc e scrapin g th e runwa y on th e secon dlandin g attempt , th e landin g wa s uneventfu l an da s I said , fortunately , thi s wa s merel y a n inciden t andno t a n accident . S o that , ladie s an dgentlemen , a s I sai dI thought th e Respondents ' cas e successfull y rebutte dth e Administrator' s case . Muc h ha s bee n mad e o f

th e utilizatio n o r

non-utilizatio n o f

th e minimu mequipment

lis t prio r t o takeof f I thin k th e Respondent s [*11 ] successfull y wer e persuasiv e an dcompellin g in thei r evidenc e tha

t th e minimu mequipment

lis t wa s no t applicabl e o r

apropo s sinc e th e ECA

M pane l wa s cleare dandth e Respondent s too k of f accordingly . S o that , ladie s an dgentlemen , I' msur e yo u get th e drif t o f m y decisio n here no w whic h to us e acolloquialism , Respondent s hav e carrie dth e day . An dI wil l make m y specifi c followin g Finding s o f Fac t an dConclusion s o f

La w accordingly . Takin g up first

Captai n Ton y Sco t

Surratt , hi s Order

o f Suspension . 1 ) Responden t

Surrat t admit s an di

t i s foundtha

t h e wa s andi s th e holder

of airlin e transpor

t pilo t certificat e numbe r (omitted) . 2 ) The Responden t

admit s an di t

i s foundtha

t all time s relevan t

herei n h e wa s employe da s apilo t fo r Brenda n Airways , LLC . The remainin g Paragraph s 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , and7, 1 wil l no t spel l thos e out

becaus e th e Responden t

ha s admitte dal l o f thos e allegation s a s se t

fort h i n Paragraph s 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , an d7 . AndI wil l findan dadmi t accordingl y wher e thos e numbere dparagraph s are concerned . 8 ) I t i s foundthat

th e ambe r

LA Fdegrade dmessag e on th e aircraft' s ECA M pane l come s on whe n there i s afailur e o f on e o f the aircraft s spoile r

serv o jacks . 9 ) I t i s foundtha

t [""12 ] durin g th e flight

bu t prio r t o takeof f th e ECA M pane l indicate dtha

t th e followin g win g rol l spoiler s were no t

operationa l and/o r

locke dout . I

t i s m y determinatio n tha

t designate dParagraph s C an dD dealin g wit h th e right win g spoiler s numbe r

3 an d5 were foun

daccordingly . 10 ) It i s foun dthat

durin g th e flight

bu t prio r to takeof f Responden t

Surrat t wa s no t aware tha t th e aircraft' s ECA

M indicate dtha

t th e followin g win g rol l spoiler s wer e no t operational an dwere blocke dout , bu t tha t th e righ t win g spoiler number 3 andrigh t

win g spoile r

number 5 were indicate daccordingly . It i s m y determinatio n tha

t appropriate actio n wa s take n to clear

th e ECA M pane l an dth e takeof f quickl y followe dthereafter . 11 ) I t i s foun dtha t

pursuan t to th e aircraft' s minimu mequipmen t list , th e aircraf

t canno t b e dispatche dwhen tw o o r more spoiler s on eithe r

win g are in a

n inoperabl e condition . Bu t base don th e totalit

y o f th e evidenc e an

dth e fact s and circumstance s we'v e hadadduce ddurin g th e cours e o f thi s proceeding , th e minimumequipment lis t immediatel y prio r to takeof f wa s no t operabl e an dshoul dno t

hav e bee n invoke da

t th e tim e prio r

to takeoff , an dwa s no t

invoked . 12 ) The Respondent s admi t

[*13 ] an dit

i s foun dthat

notwithstandin g th e above , durin g th e flight th e Respondent Surrat t operate dth e aircraf

t durin g th e takeof

f wit h n o knowledg e o f

th e followin g inoperativ e instruments : C andD o f Paragrap h 12 , whic h i s th e righ t win g rol l spoile r

numbe r 3 , andD , th e righ t

win g rol l spoiler

number 5 . 13 ) I t i s foun dthat

durin g th e flight

andafte r 2 0 minute s afte

r takeoff , th e ECA M pane l onc e agai n indicate dtha t th e followin g win g spoiler s wer e no t operational and/o r

wer e locke dout : C an dD a s se t fort h in Paragrap h 1 3 o f

tha tPag e 6 200 9 NTS B LEXI S 106 , * 1 3 Order . 14 ) I t i s foundtha

t durin g th e flight

th e flying pilot , Fran

k Willia mWalker , disconnecte dth e autopilo t becaus e the rudder tri mwa s no t

operatin g properl y an dwa s out o f range . 15 ) I t i s foundan dth e Responden t admit s tha

t durin g th e flight

Responden t

wa s informe dthat

tw o flights [sic ] on th e lef t win g were floating b y aperso n wh o hadvisuall y inspecte dth e lef t win g whil e o n boardth e aircraft . 16 ) It i s foundthat

durin g th e flight

whe n Respondent

first attempte dt o lan dth e aircraf t a t Miam i Intemational Airport , th e aircraft' s lef

t win g fenc e contacte dth e runwa y causin g damag e to th e lef t win g fence . 17) Th e Responden t

admit s an di t

[" * 14 ] i s foundtha

t durin g th e abov e reference dinoperabl e rin g roll spoiler s durin g th e flight

you r first landin g attemp t

wa s aborted . 18 ) Durin g th e flight

i t i s foun dtha

t th e Respondent s operate dth e aircraf t whic h the n wa s in a

n unairworthy conditio n but

th e Respondent s ha dn o notic e unti l tha t time tha t th e aircraf

t wa s in a n unairworth y condition . 19) It i s foun dthat durin g th e flight

th e Responden t

Surrat t failedto discontinu e th e flight afte r th e unairworthy mechanical , electrical , o r

structural conditio n occurre dwit h referenc e t o th e conditio n o f th e spoilers . 20 ) I t i s foundtha

t durin g th e flight

th e Responden t

di dno t operate th e aircraf

t i n acareles s manner

s o a s to endanger th e lif e o r property o f

another . 21 ) It i s foundb y reason s o f

th e foregoing , th e Responden t di dno t violat e th e followin g aviatio n regulation s an d I'mincorporatin g b y referenc e a s set fort h in Paragraph s A , B , C , an dD o f Paragrap h 2 1 o f

th e aforesai dOrde

r of Suspensio n a s i

t wa s base don th e totality o f th e evidence , couple dwit h th e documentar

y exhibits , tha

t there wa s a non-violatio n o f

Sectio n 91.23(a) , Sectio n 91.213(a) , andSectio n 91.7(a) , andSectio n 91.7(b ) o f th e aforesai dFedera

l Aviatio n [•

* 15 ] Regulations . 22 ) Thi s Judg e finds that

safet y i n ai r commerc e o

r air transportatio n andth e publi c interes t doe s no t require th e affirmatio n o f

th e Administrator' s Orde r o f Suspensio n a s to Captai n Ton y Scot t Surratt , date dApri l 8th , 2009 , becaus e o f th e previousl y allude dt o non-violation s o f th e fou r PAR S section s mentione dearher . ORDE R I T I S ORDERED AN D ADJUDGE D THA T the Administrator' s Order o f Suspensio n a s to Captai n Ton y Scot Surratt , date dApri l 8th , 2009 , be , an dth e same , hereb y i s dismisse dan dreversed . Thi s order i s issue db y WilliamE . Fowler , Jr. , aUnite dState s Administrativ e La w Judge . ADMINISTRATIV E LA

W JUDG E FOWLER : A s to Captai n Fran k Willia mWalker I wil l no w procee dto mak e th e followin g specifi c Finding s o f Fac t an dConclusion s o f

Law . 1 ) Tha t Responden t

Walke r admit s Paragraph s 1 , 2 , 3,4 , 5 , 6 , an d7 , andI incorporat e thos e admission s o f the Respondent

Walker b y referenc e a s thos e numbere dparagraph s 1 throug h 7 , pertainin g to th e Administrator' s Orde r o f Suspensio n are set

fort h regardin g Responden t

Walker . 8 ) It i s foun dtha t th e ambe r

LA Fdegrade dmessag e o n th e aircraft' s ECA

M pane l cam e on a s i t

di dwhen there wa s afailur e o f on e o f th e aircraf

t [" * 16 ] spoile r

serv o jacks . 9 ) Durin g th e flight

bu t prio r to takeof f i t i s foun dtha

t th e ECAM pane l indicate dtha t i t wa s clea r an dgreen even thoug h th e right

win g spoile r

numbe r 3 an dright

win g spoile r

number 5 hadbee n locke dou t

andbot h Respondent s a s the y hav e testified , th e ECA M pane l wa s subsequentl y cleare dwit h th e aforementione dfou

r green indicator s an

dth ePag e 7 200 9 NTS B LEXI S 106 , "^1 6 takeof f proceeded . 10 ) I t i s foun dthat

durin g th e flight

bu t prio r t o takeoff

. Responden t

Walker wa s no t aware tha t

th e ECA M pane l hadindicate dthat

th e rol l spoiler s wer e no t

operational and/o r

were locke dou

t becaus e computer s wer e rese t clearin g th e aforesai dECAM pane l enablin g th e Respondent s t o takeof f wit h apparentl y th e spoiler s proble mno t bein g problematica l a

t that time . 11 ) I t i s foundtha

t pursuan t t o th e aircraft' s minimu mequipmen t lis t whic h i s acknowledge db y it s pilot s tha t the aircraf t canno t b e dispatche dwhe n tw o o r more spoiler s on either

win g are i

n a n inoperabl e condition , th e Respondents , bot h Surrat t an dWalker , wer e no t

knowledgeabl e becaus e th e ECA M pane l state dclearanc e o r it wa s gree n fo

r the mto make th e takeof

f a s the y did . 12 ) Th e Responden t

admit s notwithstandin g th e above , that durin g [• * 17 ] th e flight

Responden t

Walke r operate d th e aircraf t durin g takeof

f an dthereafter

wit h th e followin g inoperativ e instrument s an dI' mincorporatin g b y referenc e under Paragrap h 12 , Paragrap h C an dD right win g rolle r

andth e right

win g rol l spoiler s number 3 an d5 . 13 ) It i s foundthat

durin g th e flight

an dwithi n 2 0 minute s afte r takeof f th e ECA M pane l onc e agai n indicate dtha t th e followin g righ t

win g spoiler s wer e no t

operational and/o r

wer e locke dou

t ~ right win g spoile r

numbe r 3 an dright win g spoile r

numbe r 5 . A s th e evidenc e woul dindicate , thi s i s th e first knowledg e tha

t bot h Respondent s ha

dwhere the ECA M pane l wer e concerne dtha t the y hadan

y knowledg e o f

th e spoile r

problem . 14) It i s foundthat

durin g th e flight

whe n Respondent s first

attempte dto lan dth e aircraf t a t Miami Airport , th e aircraft' s lef

t fenc e connecte dwit

h th e runwa

y causin g damag e t

o th e lef t win g fence . 15 ) I t i s foundtha

t du e to th e abov e reference dinoperabl e wingti p spoiler s durin g th e flight you r first landin g attemp t wa s aborted . 16 ) Th e Responden t

operate dth e aircraf

t i n a n unairworth y condition , bu t ha dno knowledg e at

th e time whe

n i t first becam e unairworth y tha

t i t wa s unairworthy . 17 ) Durin g [•

* 18 ] th e flight

th e Responden t

di dno t operate th e aircraf

t i n acareles s manne r

s o a s t o potentiall y endanger th e lif e o r property o f

another . B y reaso n o f

th e foregoing , ther e wa s anon-violatio n o f th e Federal Aviatio n Regulation s an dI' mincorporatin g by referenc e thos e section s withou t spellin g the mout , Sectio n 91.13(a) , Sectio n 91.213(a) , an dSectio n 91.7(a ) a s ther e wa s anon-violatio n o f

thes e section s b y Responden t Walker . 18 ) Thi s Judg e finds that

safet y i n ai r commerc e o r

ai r transportatio n andth e publi c interes t doe s no t require th e affirmatio n o f

th e Administrator' s Orde r o f Suspensio n date dApri l 8th , 2009 , a s i t applie s to Responden t

Walke r due to th e non-violatio n b y Responden t Walke r o n th e aforesai dmentione dregulation s allude dt o tha t wer e no t violate dby Responden t

Walker base do n th e totality o f

th e evidence , couple dwit h th e I documentar

y exhibit s a s afforde ddurin g th e cours e o f

thi s proceeding . ORDER IT I S ORDERE D AND DECREE D THA T th e Administrator' s Orde r o f Suspensio n a s to Captai n Fran k Willia m Walker i s hereb y reverse dan ddismisse dbecaus e o f th e non-violation s o f

th e aforementione dFedera l Aviatio n Regulations . Thi s Orde r

i s issue db y WilliamE . Fowler , [*19 ] Jr. , Unite dState s Administrativ e La w Judge . EDITED O N Septembe r

2 , 200 9Pag e 8 200 9 NTS B LEXI S 106 , * 1 9 WILLIAM E . FOWLER , JR . Chie f Administrativ e La

w Judg e APPEAL JUDG E FOWLER : Wher e bot

h Respondent s are concemed . Captai n Surrat t an dCaptai n Walker , o n th e issu e o f appeal , eithe r

party may appeal th e Judge' s Ora l Initial Decision . The Notic e o f

Appeal , i f

there i s one , ha s to b e filedwithi n ten day s followin g th e issuanc e o f the Judge' s Ora

l Initial Decisio n whic h wa s issue don Augus t 12th , 2009 . I n order t o perfec t th e appeal , th e Appellan t mus t file abrie f

withi n 5 0 day s o f

th e Judge' s Ora

l Initial Decisio n settin g fort

h th e Appellant' s objection s t o th e Judge' s Ora l Initia l Decision . The Notic e o f

Appeal an dth e brie f

shal l b e filedwit

h the National Transportatio n Safet y Board , Offic e of

Judges , 49 0 L'Enfan

t Plaza , Eas t

Southwest , Washington , D.C , 20594 . If no appeal t o th e Boardfro meithe r part y i s received , o r

if th e Nationa l Transportatio n Safet y Boardo f

it s own volitio n doe s no t

file amotio n to revie w th e Judge' s decisio n withi n th e tim e allowed , the n th e Judge' s decisio n shal l become final. Timely filing o f

suc h a n appeal , however , shal l sta y th e order

a s set fort h in th e Judge' s decision . Off[*20 ] th e record . (Of f th e record. ) JUDGE FOWLER : Le t

th e recordindicat e tha

t counse l fo

r th e Administrato r

ha s state dtha

t th e Administrato r

will b e filing aNotic e o f

Appeal fro

mth e Judge' s Ora

l Initia l Decision . If there' s nothin g further , at thi s tim e I woul ddeclar e th e hearin g closed . Bu t before w e g o of

f th e record , I woul d lik e to than k counse l for

th e Administrator , a s wel l a s counse l fo r th e Respondent s fo

r thei r ver y able , industrious , and erudite effort s on behal f

o f thei r respectiv e clients . 1 woul dals o like t o expres s m y thank s to all th e witnesse s fo r thei r help , assistance , an dcooperatio n durin g th e cours e o f thi s proceeding . Thank

yo u all ver

y much . W e stan dadjourned . (Whereupon , th e hearin g i n th e above-entitle dmatter wa s closed. ) CERTIFICAT E Thi s i s to certif

y that th e attache dproceedin g befor e th e NATIONAL TRANSPORTATIO N SAFET Y BOAR D I N TH E MATTE ROF : Ton y Sco t Surratt an d Fran k Willia mWalker DOCKE T NUMBER : SE-18562 ; SE-1856 3 PLACE : Philadelphia ; Pennsylvani aPag e 9 200 9 NTS B LEXI S 106 , *20 DATE : Augus t

12 , 200 9 wa s hel daccordin g to th e record , an dtha t thi s i s th e original , complete , tru e an daccurat e transcrip t whic h ha s been compare dto th e recordin g accomplishe da t th e hearing . Timothy [*21 ] J . Atkinson , J r Officia l Reporte r Lega l Topics : For relate dresearc h an dpractic e materials , se e th e followin g lega l topics : Transportatio n LawAi r

TransportationCertificatesAirman CertificatesTransportatio n LawAi r TransportationPersonnelGeneral OverviewTransportatio n LawAir TransportationU.S . Nationa l Transportatio n Safet y Boar dProcedure s

## APPENDI X D : NTSB' s Decisio n Affirmin g Babbit t v . Surrat t

(o n appeal )

APPENDI X D (NTSB' s Decisio n i

n Babbit t v . Surratt ) Washingto

n Aviation Group , P

C an dth e La w Office s of

Jaso n A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 503 Washington , D

C 20007 -Tel : 202-628-677 6Pag e I



# LexisNexi s

2 of 3 DOCUMENT S J . RANDOLP H BABBITT , Administrator , Federal Aviatio n Administration , Complainant , v . TON Y SCO T SURRATT an dFRAN K WILLIAM WALKER , Respondent s NUMBER : Order

No . EA-5514 ; Docket s SE-1856 2 andSE-1856 3 National Transportatio n Safet y Board 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 DATE : March 23 , 2010 , Adopte d ACTION : ['*l ] OPINIO N AND ORDE R ISSUEDBY : National Transportatio n Safet y Board SERVED : Marc h 24 , 201 0 The Administrato r

an drespondent s hav e appeale dfro mth e ora l initial decisio n o f

Chie f Administrativ e La

w Judg e Willia mE . Fowler , Jr. , issue don Augus t 12 , 2009 , followin g a2-da y evidentiar

y hearing , n l Th e la

w judg e foun

dtha t th e Administrato r

di dno t prov e th e allegation s i

n th e complaint , i

n whic h th e Administrato r charge drespondent s wit

h operatin g a

n Airbu s A32 0 whil e i t

wa s i n a n unairworth y condition . n2 Th e Administrato r allege dtha

t respondent s committe dth e regulator

y violation s whe n the y operate dth e A32 0 on Ma y 17 , 2008 , o n amaintenanc e acceptanc e flight tha t departe dfro

man dretume dt o Miam

i Intemationa l Airport , in whic h tw o spoiler s on each win g o f th e aircraf

t wer e inoperative . Th e Administrator' s complain t ordere dasuspensio n o f

respondents ' airlin e transpor t pilo t (ATP ) certificate s fo

r aperio do f

18 0 day s each . We den y th e Administrator' s appeal , anddismis s respondents ' appeal , base d on thei r lack o f timelines s i n filing th e appeal brie f [*2 ] n l A cop y o f

th e initial decision , an excerp t fro mth e hearin g transcript , i s attached .

n2 Th e Administrato r

charge dboth respondent s wit h violatin g 1 4 C.F.R . § § 91.7(a) , whic h prohibit s operatio n o f acivi l aircraf

t tha t i s no t in a n airworth y condition ; 91.13(a) , whic h prohibit s careles s o r reckles s operation s s o a s to endanger

th e lif e o r property o f

another ; an d91.213(a) , whic h state s that , excep t a s otherwis e provided , n o perso n ma

y tak e of f an aircraf t with inoperativ e instrument s o r equipmen t

installe dwithou t

meetin g th ePag e 2 2010NTS B LEXI S 31,'^ 2 requirement s o f

§ 91.213 . Th e Administrato r als o charge dResponden t

Surrat t wit h violatin g § 91.7(b) , whic h state s tha t th e pilot-in-comman d(PIC ) of acivi l aircraf

t shal l discontinu e th e flight whe n unairworth y mechanical , electrical , o

r structural condition s occur . I n th e order s o f

suspension , whic h th e Administrato r issue don Apri l 8 , 2009 , an dsubmitte da s th e complaint s in thi s case , th e Administrato r allege dthat , prio r

to takin g off

, a n amber "LA FDEGRADED " n 3 messag e appeare don th e aircraft' s Electroni c Centralize dMonito r (ECAM ) in th e cockpit , andtha t such amessag e appear s whe n afailur e o f one o f th e aircraft' s spoile r

servojack s ha s occurred . [*3 ] The complaint s fiirthe r state dthat , als o prio r

to takeoff , th e ECA M indicate dthat

spoile r Nos . 3 an d5 o n bot

h th e lef t an dright wing s wer e no t

operational and/o r

were locke dout , andthat respondent s were aware o f thi s indication . Th e complaint s allege dtha t th e aircraft' s Minimu mEquipment Lis t (MEL ) doe s no t

allo w operatio n o f

th e aircraf

t whe n tw o o r

more spoiler s on eithe r

win g are i n a

n inoperabl e condition . Th e complaint s als o allege dthat , notwithstandin g th e indication s on th e ECAM , respondent s too k off , an dthat , withi n 2 0 minute s o f

takin g of f th e ECA M onc e agai n indicate dtha t th e spoiler s a

t issu e wer e no t

operational and/o r

were locke dout . Th e complaint s state dthat , durin g th e flight, aperso n wh o hadvisuall y inspecte dth e lef t win g whil e onboardth e aircraf

t informe drespondent s that tw o spoiler s on th e lef

t win g were "floating, " an dthat respondent s aborte dthei r

first landin g attemp t

at Miam i afte r th e aircraft' s lef

t win g tip contacte dth e runway an dcause ddamag e t o th e lef t win g tip .

n 3 Th e evidenc e in th e recordprovide s tha t th e acrony m"LAF " indicate s "loadalleviatio n function. " [*4] A t th e hearing , n 4 th e Administrato r calle dfou

r witnesse s t o testif

y andpresente dnumerou s exhibits . Th e FA A principal operation s inspecto r fo r respondents ' employer , US A 300 0 Airways , Laurenc e Johnson , a s wel l a s a n FA A principal avionic s inspecto r fo r general aviatio n repai r

stations , Phili p Stauffer , bot h testified . Inspecto r

Johnso n identifie da

n FAA-approve dchecklis t applicabl e t o US A 3000' s operatio n o f A320s , a s wel l a s aportio n o f the FAA-approve dflight

cre w operatin g manual that applie s t o US A 3000' s operatio n o f A320s . Exhs . A- 2 andA-3 . Inspecto r Johnso n testifie dtha

t bot h checklist s requir e checkin g th e flight control s prio r

t o takeoff

, andtha t checkin g th e spoiler s involve s th e captai n movin g th e stic k i n th e cockpi t

whil e th e copilo t

observe s th e ECAM fo

r indication s tha t th e spoiler s move di

n respons e t o th e captain' s inpu t o n th e stick . Inspecto r

Johnso n state dtha

t th e flight control s tha t th e pilot s mus t

chec k includ e th e spoilers , an dtha t Airbu s define s spoiler s a s aprimar y flight control . Tr . a

t 44 . Inspecto r Johnso n testifie dtha

t th e ECAM shoul ddisplay fou r green arrow s on eac h side , indicatin g tha t all spoiler s ar

e workin g normally . Inspecto r Johnso n [*5 ] opine dthat , i f th e ECA M indicate s a

n abnormalit

y wit h th e spoilers , th e pilo t shoul drefe

r t o th e manual s t o interpre t what h e o r sh e observe s o

n th e ECAM , an dcontac t

th e maintenanc e departmen t

abou t th e abnormality . Inspecto r Johnso n state dthat

apilo t ca n re-se t th e ECA M b y pressin g abutton . Inspecto r Stauffe r testifie dtha

t th e ECAM shoul dno t

display gree n unles s th e spoiler s hav e a"health y hydrauli c pressure. " Tr . a

t 96 .

n 4 Prio r t o hearing , th e law judg e consolidate dth e cases , andbot h partie s filedmotion s fo

r summar y judgmen t under our Rule s o f Practice . Th e law judg e denie dbot h motions , base don hi s determinatio n tha t genuin e issue s o f material fac t

existe dconcernin g whethe r respondent s kne w tha

t th e aircraf

t wa s i n a n unairworthy conditio n prio r t o an ddurin g th e flight

a t issue . A s such , th e la

w judg e ordere dahearin g fo r th e case . Inspecto r Johnso n furthe

r testifie dthat , i f

aspoile r i s in "maintenanc e mode " i n a n A320 , the n i t

wil l not respon dto inpu t fro mth e cockpi t

becaus e it

wil l no t hav e [""6 ] hydrauli c pressure ; similarly . Inspecto r Stauffe r state dtha

t aspoile rPag e 3 2010NTS B LEXI S 31,'* 6

canno t respon dt o input s fro

mth e cockpi t

whe n it i s i n suc h amanua

l position . Inspecto r

Stauffe r testifie dtha

t a n aircraft' s spoiler s shoul dneve r b e i n maintenanc e mod e fo

r flight, accordin g t o th e US A 300 0 Airbu s Manual . Tr . a t 94 ; Exh . A-9 . Inspecto r

Johnso n state dthat , if

th e spoiler s on a

n A32 0 are no t

functioning , then thi s circumstanc e change s th e lif t anddra g component s o f

th e wing . Therefore , Inspecto r Johnso n testifie dtha

t apilot' s discover

y tha t spoiler s are no t functionin g shoul dcaus e th e pilo t t o consider

immediatel y returnin g to asuitabl e locatio n fo r landing . Inspector s Johnso n andStauffe

r bot h testifie dtha

t respondent s shoul dno t

hav e take n of

f in th e A32 0 afte

r receivin g th e ECA

M warning , becaus e the y coul dno t kno w ho w th e aircraf

t woul dfly an

dlandin suc h aconfiguration . Inspecto r Stauffe r state dtha t th e FAA receive dastatement fro mUS A 300 0 indicatin g that , afte r th e Ma y 17 , 200 8 flight, the y foun dth e spoiler s i n amanual position . n 5

n5 T r a t 96 , 100 , 102 ; Exh . A-1 0 (e-mai l messag e fro mJo e Miller , directo r

o f maintenanc e an dengineerin g fo r US A 3000 , statin g that

employee s fro

mUS A 300 0 discovere dth e spoiler s i n "maintenanc e mode " afte r th e flight). [*7 ] Inspecto r

Stauffer identifie dtabula

r dat afro mth e flight

datarecorder

(FDR ) o n th e A32 0 a

t issue . Exh . A-11 . Inspecto r Stauffe r testifie dtha

t th e dat aindicate s that

th e pilot s performe dth e flight contro l check s prio r

to takeoff , an d that , durin g th e checks , hal f th e spoiler s responde dt o input s fro mth e cockpi t

normally , whil e th e othe r hal f didnot . Base don thi s FD Rdata . Inspecto r Stauffe r opine dthat

th e flight contro l chec k

wa s unsuccessful , an dtha t the ECA M mus t hav e show n spoile r

number s i

n amber , rathe r

tha n green , an dindicate dthat th e spoiler s were inoperative . Inspecto r Stauffe r als o state dtha

t th e FD Rdat aindicate s tha t respondent s continue dwit h th e flight, rather

tha n takin g th e aircraf t bac k t o th e gate fo

r maintenance . Inspecto r

Stauffe r als o identifie dexcerpt s fro mth e MEL applicabl e t o th e A32 0 a t issue , an dtestifie dtha

t th e ME L require s eigh t

operativ e spoiler s fo

r flight, an ddoe s no t

allo w spoiler

Nos . 3 and5 t o b e inoperative . O n cross-examination . Inspecto r Stauffe r identifie dacop y o f

a197 6 airframe andpowerplant manual , whic h categorize s spoiler s withi n asecondar y group o f

contro l surfaces . The Administrato r

als o calle dThoma s Welsh , aquality [*S ] inspecto r o f aircraf t fo r US A 300 0 wh o wa s o n th e Ma y 17 , 200 8 flight, to testify . Inspecto r Wels h state dtha

t h e sa w spoiler Nos . 3 and5 floating u

p approximatel y 8 to 1 0 inche s o

n th e lef t win g abou t

1 5 t o 2 0 minute s int o th e flight. Inspecto r Wels h testifie dthat , base don ho w hig h he observe dth e spoiler s floating, h e kne w tha t the y di dno t

hav e hydrauli c fluid. Inspecto r Wels h als o state dthat , afte r they were on th e ground , h e checke dth e aircraft' s actuato r andsa w spoiler Nos . 3 and5 in "M " mode , which indicate d tha t th e pilo t coul dno t contro l the mwit

h input s fromth e cockpit . The Administrato r

conclude dth e case-in-chie f b y callin g Jo e Miller , wh o wa s i n th e cockpi t

wit h respondent s on th e flight in question , t o testify . Mr . Mille r confirme dtha

t h e an dth e pilot s sa

w th e "LAFDEGRADED " messag e o n th e ECA M prio r t o takeoff

, bu t tha t thi s messag e di dno t

indicat e aseriou s proble mt o stop the mfro mtakin g off

. Mr . Mille r furthe r state dthat

h e rese t th e spoile r

elevato r computer s (SEC ) i n a

n attemp t t o clea r th e "LAFDEGRADED " message , andthat , whe n h e an drespondent s di dno t se e an y amber

warning s appea

r o n th e ECAM , the y proceede dwit h th e takeoff

. Mr . Mille r

recalle d[*9 ] that , durin g th e flight, th e aircraf t "[had ] some yaw to it, " s o the y turne dth e autopilo t of f an dre-trimme dth e aircraft . Tr . at 223 . Mr . Mille r

als o recalle dthat , onc e the y hadreache da n altitud e o f abou t 39,00 0 feet , a

n observe r

informe dthe mthat

h e sa w tw o spoiler s floating on th e lef t wing . Mr . Miller

testifie dtha

t Respondent

Surrat t consulte dth e Quic k

Referenc e Handboo k

(QRH ) i n th e cockpit , anddetermine dtha t they coul d continu e wit

h th e flight, bu t

woul dnee dt o increas e thei r landin g distance . Mr . Miller describe dth e first

attempte d landin g a s "unnerving " (Tr . at 226) , an drecalle dthat , afte r landing , a

n inspectio n group tha

t h e directe dinformedhim tha t tw o o f th e spoiler s wer e in "M " mod e (Tr . a t 228) . Mr . Mille r

opine dtha

t th e ECA M wa s fault

y in tha t i t di dno t register th e spoiler s a s inoperative , an dthat i t wa s reasonabl e fo

r respondent s t

o think tha t i t wa s aspuriou s message . Mr . Miller

state dthat

h e di dno t

believ e respondent s reacte di n a n unreasonabl e manner

under th e circumstances .Pag e 4 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 31,'* 9 I n respons e to th e Administrator' s case , respondent s bot h testifie don thei r

ow n behalf

. Bot h respondent s state dtha

t the y hadconducte dseveral previou s maintenanc e acceptanc e ['*10 ] flights, andthe y bot

h hav e hel dAT P certificate s wit h typ e rating s in A320 s for alengthy perio do f

time . Responden t

Surrat t recalle dthat , durin g th e flight contro l check s tha

t they performe dprio r

t o takin g off

, the y notice dseveral warning s on th e ECAM , includin g a n audibl e chime an dmessag e indicatin g that spoile r Nos . 3 an d5 were inoperative . Afte r resettin g th e SEC , Responden t Surrat t state d tha t the y agai n "go t

multipl e warnings, " andthen rese t a n additiona

l se t o f computers . Finally , Respondent Surrat t recalle dtha

t the y "hadnothin g lef

t excep t fo r LA Fdegraded, " whic h h e describe da s no t unusual . Tr . at

287 . n 6 Bot

h respondent s testifie dthat

an A32 0 ca

n safely take of

f whil e thi s messag e i s on , andthat the y hadseen th e messag e o n other flights. Bot

h respondent s als o state dtha t the y believe dthey only sa w th e "LAFDEGRADED " messag e prio r to takin g off , an dtha t the y di dno t

kno w tha t spoile r Nos . 3 and5 were in maintenanc e mod e unti l afte r th e flight.

n 6 Respondent

Surratt testifie dtha

t Airbu s originall y intende dth e "LA FDEGRADED " messag e to eas e turbulence , but

tha t it hadneve r

successfull y functione dt o d o so . Tr . a t 287 . [*ll ] Approximatel y 2 0 to 2 5 minute s into th e flight. Responden t Surrat t testified , a

n ECAM messag e appeare d indicatin g tha

t spoiler Nos . 3 an d5 wer e inoperative , andthat he cleare dth e ECA

M whil e Responden t

Walke r operate d th e aircraft . Respondent

Surrat t recalle dreferencin g th e QRH , whic h h e describe da s indicatin g tha t thi s wa s "no problem, " andtha

t h e nee dno t

lan dth e aircraf

t immediately , but

tha t the y shoul dus e a"1.1 5 .. . runwa y multiplier. " Tr . at 290 . n 7 Respondent

Walke r state dthat

th e ECAM als o di dno t

direc t the mto lan dimmediately ; Respondent Walker opine dtha

t landin g earlie r

woul dno t

hav e mad e adifferenc e wit h regardt o th e spoile r

issue . Responden t

Surrat t testifie dtha

t they continue dth e flight, bu t tha t th e warnin g remaine don . n 8 Responden t Surrat t als o state dtha

t he did no t consul t th e ME L durin g th e flight, bu t

that , hadh e know n tha

t spoiler Nos . 3 and5 wer e inoperativ e prio r t o th e flight, h e woul dhav e reference dth e MEL an dno t take n off .

n7 On cross-examination . Responden t Surrat t acknowledge dtha

t th e QR H doe s no t

addres s th e specifi c situatio n i n whic h spoile r

Nos . 3 and5 are i

n maintenanc e mod e durin g aflight. [*12]

n 8 Respondent

Surratt opine dtha

t continuin g th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight hadothe r benefits , such a s burnin g of f fue l an dprovidin g th e opportunity to identif y other potential problem s wit

h th e aircraf

t afte r it ha d undergon e maintenance . Wit h regar dt o th e landing . Responden t Surrat t recalle dtha

t th e aircraf

t "seeme dt o bounce " o n thei r first approach , an dtha t it "har droll[ed ] left, " s o h e firewalledth e throttle s an dinitiate dago-around , afte r whic h the y hadasuccessful approach . Tr . a

t 291 . Responden t

Surratt testifie dthat

th e aircraf

t sustaine ddamag e t o it s vertical win g tip vents . A t th e conclusio n o f

hi s testimony . Responden t Surratt identifie danewslette r

that Airbu s release d2 month s afte r the flight a t issue , whic h instruct s pilot s t o performane w flight contro l chec k

if the y hav e an

y indicatio n o f

spoile r problems . Exh . R-7 . Bot h respondent s als o identifie dcopie s o f report s an dth e National Aeronautic s an dSpac e Administratio n (NASA ) receipt s tha

t they submitte dunde r

th e Aviatio n Safet

y Reportin g Progra

m(ASRP ) followin g th e flight a t issue . n 9

n 9 Unde r th e ASRP , th e Administrato r ma y waiv e th e impositio n of asanction , despit e th e findin g of aPag e 5 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 31, * 1 2 regulator y violation , a s lon g a s certai n othe r requirement s are satisfied . Aviatio n Safet y Reportin g Program , Advisor y Circula r 00-46 D at

P 9 c (Feb . 26 , 1997) . Th e Progra minvolve s filing arepor

t wit h NASA , whic h ma

y obviate th e impositio n o f

asanctio n where (1 ) th e violatio n wa s inadvertent an dno t deliberate ; (2 ) the violatio n di dno t involv e acriminal offense , accident , o r actio n founda

t 4 9 U.S.C . § 44709 ; (3 ) th e perso n ha s no t been foun din an y prio r

FAA enforcement

actio n t o hav e committe daregulator y violatio n fo

r th e pas t 5 years ; an

d (4 ) th e perso n complete s an dmail s awritte n repor t o f th e inciden t

to NAS A withi n 1 0 day s o f th e violation . [*13 ] Respondent s als o calle dPau l Do w to provid e exper t testimon y on th e subjec t

o f A32 0 operations . Mr . Dow state d tha t Airbu s aircraf

t are know n fo

r bein g subjec t

t o spuriou s message s afte r undergoin g heav y maintenance , a s the aircraf t a t issu e hadundergone . Mr . Do w opine dtha t respondent' s belie f

tha t th e aircraf

t wa s fit fo r takeof f wa s reasonable , an dtha t

th e QRH doe s no t

advis e pilot s to lan da

n aircraf t whe n tw o set s o f

spoiler s are inoperative , bu t instea donl y provide s a

n increase dfactor

fo r landin g distance . Mr . Do w fiirther testifie dtha

t th e MEL i s no t

applicabl e durin g flight. At the conclusio n o f

th e hearing , th e la

w judg e issue da

n oral initial decision , i

n whic h h e determine dtha t th e Administrator' s evidenc e that respondent s kne w tha

t spoile r Nos . 3 and5 were inoperativ e prio r t o flight wa s "lacking. " Initial Decisio n a

t 523-24 . Th e la

w judg e hel dtha

t th e testimon y a

t th e hearin g establishe dtha t th e ECAM pane l wa s "clear , i f no t green, " prio r

t o takeof f (id . a t 524) , andtha

t respondents ' testimon y tha t th e "LAFDEGRADED " warnin g i s no t areaso n fo

r concern wa s persuasive . Th e la w judg e als o mentione dtha t Mr . Do w hadtestifie dtha t h e concurre d wit h th e action s respondent s ['*14 ] too k unde r th e circumstances . Th e la w judg e conclude dtha

t th e MEL wa s no t applicabl e to th e aircraf

t a t issue , becaus e respondent s cleare dth e ECA M panel . Th e la

w judg e di dno t

findtha t Respondent

Surrat t haderre di

n choosin g to continu e wit h th e flight, a s th e secon dlandin g di dno t resul t i n substantia

l damag e o r

seriou s injury . Th e la

w judg e determine dtha

t respondent s ha

doperate dth e aircraf

t whil e it wa s i n a n unairworth y condition , bu t tha t the y di dno t

kno w that

i t wa s unairworthy , andtherefore di dno t violat e th e regulations , a s charged . Respondents ' Appeal Respondent s fileda

n appeal brief

, i n whic h the y argu e tha

t th e la w judg e erre di n no t

grantin g thei r

motio n fo r summar y judgmen t

prio r t o th e hearing . Th e Administrato r submitte damotio n to dismis s respondents ' appeal , o n th e basi s tha t thei r appeal brie f

wa s untimely . Th e certificate o f servic e attache dt

o respondents ' appeal brie f indicate s tha

t the y serve dth e brie f

o n Octobe r

8 , 2009 . Afte

r filing th e notic e o f

appeal , our

Rule s o f Practic e stat e tha

t a n appealin g part y mus t perfec t th e appeal b y filing a

n appeal brie f

withi n 5 0 day s afte

r th e date o f

th e initial decision . 4 9 C.F.R . § 821.48(a) . I

n th e cas e at

["^15] issue , th e law judg e issue dth e ora l initial decisio n on Augus t 12 , 2009 . Therefore , the parties ' deadlin e fo

r perfectin g thei r

appeal s b y filing thei r

brief s wa s October

1 , 2009 . Respondent s hav e no t filed a motio n fo r leav e t o submi t

thei r appea l brie f

late , base don goo dcause , andthe y d o no t mentio n thei r

lac k o f timelines s in thei r appeal brie f

Respondent s di dno t

repl y to th e Administrator' s motio n t o dismis s thei r appeal . Under

ou r Rule s o f Practice , w e gran t

th e Administrator' s motio n an dthereb y dismis s respondents ' appeal . nl O nl O See , e.g. . Administrato r v . Hooper , 6 NTS B 55 9 (1988) . Th e Administrator' s Appea l O n appeal , th e Administrato r argue s that

several aspect s o f

th e la w judge' s decisio n are erroneous . The Administrato r

first contend s that

th e la w judg e di dno t

explai n what

evidenc e h e accepte do r

rejected , an dfailedt

o addres s th e issu e tha

t respondent s di dno t

successfull y complet e aflight contro l chec k

becaus e th e ECAM didnotPag e 6 2010NTS B LEXI S 31 , *1 5 displa y fou r green arrows ; i n thi s regard , ["^16 ] the Administrato r

argue s tha

t th e la w judge' s finding tha

t n o ECA M warning s displaye dprio r

t o flight i s contrary to th e overwhelmin g weigh t o f th e evidence . The Administrato r als o assert s tha t th e evidenc e establishe s that respondent s ha

dsufficien t knowledg e o f

th e inoperabl e spoiler s prio r to takin g of f Th e Administrato r

point s out

tha t neithe r respondent

testifie dtha

t the y observe dagreen ECA M display upo n manipulatin g th e sidestic k in th e cockpit , bu t

tha t they testifie dtha

t the y sa w gree n display s only afte r Mr . Miller complete dmultipl e reset s o f th e computer s in th e cockpit . The Administrato r

furthe r argue s tha

t th e la w judg e erre dwhe n h e faile dto explai n why h e believe dth e MEL wa s inapplicable , an dthat

thi s interpretatio n i s contrar y to § 91.213(a) , whic h prohibit s operatio n of a n aircraf t wit h inoperativ e equipment , unles s th e equipmen t appear s o n the MEL . Th e Administrato r als o challenge s th e la

w judge' s determinatio n tha

t Responden t

Surratt' s decisio n t

o continu e wit

h th e flight

wa s reasonabl e under

th e circumstances , a s Respondent

Surrat t becam e cognizan t

o f aseriou s spoiler

proble mdurin g th e flight, andbecaus e respondent s provide d n o suppor t fo r thei r contentio n [*17 ] that

th e QR H permitte dcontinue doperatio n wit h floating spoilers . Th e Administrato r

contend s that

respondent s hav e acavalier attitud e concernin g aviatio n safety , andtha t Respondent Surratt' s continuatio n o f

th e flight fo r 3 hour s afte

r h e learne dtha

t th e spoiler s wer e malfunctionin g i s indicativ e o f thi s attitude . Lastly , th e Administrato r assert s tha

t th e circumstance s warran t a180-da y suspensio n o f

respondents ' ATP certificates . Respondent s contes t eac h o f th e Administrator' s arguments , an durg e u s t o affir mth e la w judge' s decision . Wit h regardto th e Administrator' s appeal , w e agre e tha t th e la w judg e di dno t

fiill y explai n th e fundamenta

l reason s fo r som e o f th e conclusion s h e made . Th e la w judg e di dno t

exphcitl y discus s whethe r he foun drespondents ' testimony more credibl e tha

n th e Administrator' s witnesses ' testimony , bu t hi s decisio n seem s t o indicate tha t respondent' s andMr . Dow' s testimon y forme dth e basi s fo r hi s decision . W

e hav e lon g hel dtha

t w e defe r to la w judges ' credibilit

y determinations , absen t

ashowin g tha

t th e determination s were arbitrary , capricious , o r contrar y to th e weigh t

o f the evidence , n l 1 I

n th e cas e at

hand , th e ke y determinatio n tha t th e la w [*18 ] judg e articulate dwa s hi s belie f tha t respondent s sa

w gree n o n th e ECAM , an dtherefore believe dtha t th e previou s warning s on th e ECAM , includin g th e "LA FDEGRADED " warning , wer e spurious .

n l I Administrato r

v . Nickl , NTS B Orde r

No . EA-528 7 a

t 6 (2007 ) (citin g Administrato r v. Kocsis . 4 NTSB 461 , 46 5 n.2 3 (1982) : se e als o Administrato r v . Smith . 5 NTS B 1560 , 156 3 (1986) : Administrato r v. Sanders . 4 NTSB 106 2 (1983)) . Section s 91.7(a) , 91.13(a) , and91.213(a ) I n reviewin g th e law judge' s decisio n an dconsiderin g respondent' s appeal , w e are mindful o f th e fac t tha t th e Administrato r

ha s th e burde n o f

provin g that

th e aircraf

t wa s unairworth y b y apreponderanc e o f th e evidence . nl 2 I

n case s i n whic h th e Administrato r allege s that

a n operato r ha s violate d1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(a) , w e hav e lon g hel dtha t th e standardfo

r airworthines s consist s o f tw o prongs : (1 ) whether

th e aircraf

t conform s t o it s typ e certificate andapplicabl e Airworthines s Directives ; ["'19 ] an d(2 ) whethe r th e aircraf

t i s i n aconditio n fo

r saf e operation . nl 3 Wit

h regardto the first pron g o f th e test , w e recogniz e tha t operator s ma

y chec k th e aircraf

t fo r conformanc e wit

h it s typ e desig n and , where i t doe s no t conform , th e ME L ma

y nevertheles s permi t

operatio n o f

th e aircraft . nl 4 We hav e als o concluded , however , tha

t whe n small , insignifican t deviation s are present , a

n aircraf t ma y stil l substantiall y confor mt o it s typ e design . nl 5 Wit

h regardt o whethe r

a n aircraf t i s in aconditio n fo

r saf e operation , w e hav e recognize dthat , "[t]h e ter m 'airworthiness ' i s no t

synonymou s wit

h flyability." nl 6 Moreover , in determinin g whether a n aircraf t i s airworthy i

n accordanc e wit

h th e aforementione dstandard , th e Boardconsider s whethe r th e operato r

kne w o r shoul dhav e know n of an y deviatio n i

n th e aircraft' s conformanc e with it s typ e certificate . nl 7Pag e 7 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 31 , *1 9 nl 2 Administrato r

v . Va n Der Horst , NTS B Order

No . EA-517 9 a

t 3 (2005) ; se e als o Administrato r v . Schwandt , NTS B Order

No . EA-522 6 a

t 2 (2006 ) (i t

i s th e Board' s rol e t o determine , afte r reviewin g the evidenc e th e Administrato r presents , whethe r

th e Administrato r

ha s met th e requisit e burde n o f

proof) . [*20] n\ 2 Administrato r

v . Doppes , 5 NTS B 50 , 5 2 n. 6 (1985 ) (citin g 4 9 U.S.C . § 1423(c)) ; se e als o Administrato r v . Anderson , NTS B Order

No . EA-397 6 at

2 (1993) ; Administrato r

v . Nielsen , NTS B Orde r

No . EA-375 5 a t

4 (1992) ; Administrato r

V . Copsey , 7 NTS B 1316 , 131 7 (1991) . nl 4 Se e generall y Anderson , supr anot e 13 , a t 4 n. 5 (statin g that , "[t]h e MEL contain s item s tha t ma y b e inoperativ e withou t

renderin g th e aircraf

t unairworthy") . n l 5 Administrato r

v . Frost , NTS B Orde r

No . EA-468 0 (1998) ; Administrato r v . Calavaero , Inc. . 5 NTSB 1099 , 110 1 (1986) . nl 6 Doppes , supr anot e 13 , a t 5 2 n.6 . nl 7 See , e.g. . Administrato r v . Yialamas , NTS B Order No . EA-511 1 (2004) ; Administrato r v . Bemstein , NTS B Order No . EA-412 0 a

t 5 (1994) ; se e als o Administrato r v . Easton , NTS B Orde r

No . EA-473 2 a

t 2 (1998 ) (acknowledgin g tha t

significant

risk s exis t

whe n apilo t

fail s t o confir

mtha t a n aircraf t i s airworth y following maintenance) . I n th e cas e a

t hand , th e Administrato r

di dno t [*21 ] introduc e th e typ e certificate dat ashee t int o evidence , but

di d provid e relevan t

excerpt s fro

mth e MEL , whic h establis h tha t th e aircraf

t di dno t confor mt o th e applicabl e airworthines s standards . I

n an y event , give n tha

t bot h prong s o f

th e airworthines s standar dare required , th e Administrato r

may prevai l in airworthines s case s withou t introducin g the typ e certificate , bu t b y provin g tha

t th e aircraf t wa s no t in aconditio n fo

r saf e operation . Th e evidenc e i n thi s cas e establishe s that th e A32 0 wa s no t

performin g in asaf e manner . nl 8 I

n addition , a

t th e hearing , bot

h respondent s acknowledge dtha t Airbu s di dno t

inten dfo r th e aircraf t to fly wit h tw o pair s o f

spoiler s in "M " mode , andtha t suc h aconditio n rendere dth e aircraf t unairworthy . nl 9 Overall , th e evidenc e i n thi s recor destablishe s that th e aircraf

t di dno t fulfill bot h prong s o f

th e airworthines s test . nl 8 See , e.g. , Tr . a

t 223-26 , 291 , 372 ; Exh . R- 8 a t 2 (Respondent

Walker' s narrativ e descriptio n o f flight i n ASRP report , in whic h h e stated , " 1 wa s th e flying pilo t an dnotice dseveral time s durin g th e flight the rudder tri mwa s goin g out

o f rang e makin g th e autopilo t hav e troubl e holdin g th e aircraf t stabl e .. . Durin g approac h I notice dth e aircraf

t wa s slopp y andsluggis h o n th e controls") . [*22 ] nl 9 Tr . a

t 32 8 (discussio n o f

MEL requirements), 378-7 9 (Responden t Walker' s statement s tha

t respondent s discovere dthat

aircraf t ha dbee n unairworth y durin g th e flight); se e als o Exhs . A-1 2 (relevan t excerpt s fro

m MEL) , R- 7 (Airbu s newslette r warnin g abou t

spoiler issues) . A s discusse dabove , w e hav e previousl y hel dthat w e wil l als o consider

whethe r aresponden t

kne w tha t a n aircraf t wa s i n a n unairworth y conditio n whe n h e o r sh e operate dth e aircraft . I n Administrato r

v . Thibert , NTS B Orde

r No . EA-530 6 (2007) , w e hel dtha t th e Administrato r

faile dto prov e tha

t th e responden t

kne w o r shoul dhav e know n tha

t th e Bel l helicopter

h e operate dhadabroke n lateral cycli c contro l serv o mount bracke t an dacor k inserte di n th e engin e oil quic k drai n i n lieu o f

a n approve dpart . W e determine dtha t th e Administrato r

di dno t prov e tha t th e respondent

knew o r shoul dhav e know n abou t

thes e discrepancies , becaus e th e perso n wh o performe dmaintenanc e on th e aircraf t ha dno t informe dth e responden t

o f any discrepancies , an dbecaus e many flight student s wh o wer e mechanic s accompanyin g th e responden t

performe d[""23 ] pre-fligh t inspection s an ddi dno t

discover th e discrepancies . I

n Thibert , w e cite dPage s 2010NTS B LEXI S 31 , *2 3 Yialamas , supr anot e 17 , fo r th e "kne w o

r shoul dhav e known " standard ; i n Yialamas , w e determine dthat th e respondent' s relianc e o n maintenanc e certification s indicatin g tha t th e aircraf

t wa s airworth y an dsaf

e t o fly wa s reasonabl e an dshowe dtha t th e responden t

di dno t kno w o f th e discrepancie s a

t issu e i n tha

t case . n2 0

n2 0 Id . a t 6- 7 (citin g Bemstein , supranote 17 , a t 5 , an dstatin g that , to prov e aviolatio n o f § 91.7(a) , "the Administrato r

mus t sho w tha t th e airma n operate da

n aircraf t tha t h e kne w o r

reasonabl y shoul dhav e known wa s no t airworthy") . I n hi s oral initial decisio n i n thi s case , th e la

w judg e indicate dtha

t h e believe dth e Administrato r neede dto prov e tha t respondent s ha dactua l knowledg e o f th e fac t tha t th e spoiler s wer e malfunctioning . Initial Decisio n a t 523-24 . However , our

preceden t establishe s tha

t w e d o no t

determin e onl y whether

a n airma n ha dactual knowledg e o

f a discrepancy , bu t

tha t w e als o conside r

[*24 ] whether

th e airman shoul dhav e know n o f th e discrepancy . Eve

n base don thi s standard , th e Administrato r ha s no t provide dsufficient

evidenc e t o compe l u s to findtha t respondent s shoul dhav e know n tha

t th e spoiler s wer e malfunctioning . The Administrator' s evidenc e consist s o f indication s tha

t th e ECA M displaye dsevera

l warning s prio r

t o takeof f However , respondent s an dMr . Miller testifie dtha

t resettin g th e SE

C cause d thes e waming s t o clear . In addition , th e Administrato r presente dn o evidenc e t o refut e respondents ' assertio n tha t A320 s are subjec t

t o spuriou s wamings , suc h a s th e "LAFDEGRADED " messag e tha t th e ECA M displayed , followin g heav y maintenance . Th e Administrato r als o didno t

provid e evidenc e t

o establis h tha

t th e ECA M wa s functionin g properly ; given tha t th e FD Rdat ashowe dtha t respondent s performe dth e flight contro l check s wherei n the y move dthe sidestic k t o check th e spoilers , an dthat

some o f th e spoiler s di dnot

respon dappropriately , th e Administrato r shoul dhav e provide devidenc e t o sho w conclusivel y that th e ECA M displaye dvali dmessage s a t al l times . n2 1 Whil e Inspector Stauffe r explaine dho w th e ECAM works , an dth e photograph s o f th e re-creatio n o f

th e ['^25 ] flight

indicate dtha

t a fiinctionin g ECAM woul ddisplay appropriat e message s whe n th e spoiler s ar e malfunctioning , n o on e coul destablis h tha t the ECA M functione da s intende do n thi s particula

r flight. Thi s lack

o f evidence , combine dwit

h th e la w judge' s assessment

tha t respondents ' testimon y tha t the y neve r

sa w amber number s on th e ECA

M prio r t o takeof f wa s credible , lead s u s to conclud e that

th e Administrato r

di dno t sho w tha t respondent s kne w o r

shoul dhav e know n tha

t the spoiler s wer e i n "M " mod e prio r

t o takin g of

f

n2 1 Th e Administrato r

di dno t provid e evidenc e t o explai n ho w respondent s andMr . Mille r onl y sa w th e "LA

F DEGRADED " warning . Accordin g t o th e evidenc e i n the record , th e ECA

M shoul dhav e displaye d amber-colore dnumber s indicatin g exactl y whic h spoiler s wer e malfunctioning . Instead , however , al l thre e witnesse s i n th e cockpi t

consistentl y testifie dthat th e ECAM onl y displaye dth e "LAFDEGRADED " warning . Th e Administrato r

di dno t challeng e respondents ' testimon y tha t thi s warnin g i s know n a s a n advisor y message , rather tha n amessag e indicatin g tha t th e aircraf

t i s unairworthy . [*26 ] A t severa l point s i n th e appeal brief , th e Administrato r

emphasize s tha

t respondent s coul dno t

hav e ha dasuccessful flight contro l chec k

in accordanc e wit

h th e mandatory checklists , becaus e i t wa s impossibl e fo

r th e spoiler s t

o hav e reacte din respons e t o input s fromth e cockpit . Th e Administrator' s evidenc e o n thi s issu e i s persuasive . See , e.g. , Tr . a t 56-57 , 96 , 103-104 ; Exhs . A-2 , A-3 . However , th e Administrato r ha s no t charge drespondent s wit

h violatin g an

y regulatio n that

require s adherenc e t o suc h checklists . Instead , th e Administrato r charge drespondent s wit

h operatin g a

n aircraf t whil e i t wa s i n a n unairworth y condition , an dwhil e i t hadamechanical , electrical o r structural problem . I

n thi s case , the Administrato r

faile dt o establis h anexu s betwee n th e checklis t requirement s an dth e regulation s charged . Sectio n 91.7(b )Pag e 9 2010NTS B LEXI S 31 , *2 6 Wit h regardt o th e Administrator' s § 91.7(b ) charg e agains t Responden t

Surratt , w e agre e wit

h th e la w judge' s determinatio n tha

t Responden t

Surratt , a s PI C o

n the flight

a t issue , ha dth e discretio n to continu e wit h th e flight. Unde

r th e circumstance s o f

thi s flight. Responden t

Surratt' s decisio n to continu e wit h th e flight

wa s no t unreasonable , i

n ligh t [•*27 ] o f th e fact tha t i t behoove dhi mt o landth e aircraf t wit h les s fue l tha n th e amoun t

th e aircraf

t carrie donly 2 0 minute s into th e flight. Moreover , th e Administrato r di dno t introduc e evidenc e t o sho w tha t th e QR H o r an y other record s functione dto prohibi t continuatio n o f

th e flight. We als o note tha t i t woul db e unreasonabl e to consider th e MEL a s mandator

y durin g th e flight, andth e Administrato r ha s provide dn o authority establishin g otherwise . ACCORDINGLY , I T I S ORDERE D THAT : 1 . Respondents ' appeal i s dismissed ; 2 . The Administrator' s appeal i s denied ; and 3 . The la w judge' s decision , reversin g an ddismissin g th e Administrator' s order s o f suspension , i s affirmed . HERSMAN , Chairman , HART , Vic e Chairman , an dSU M WALT , Member

o f th e Board , concurre di

n the abov e opinio n an

dorder . JUDG E FOWLERSE-1856 3 20 0 Chestnu t

Stree t Coiulroo m30 0 Philadelphia , Pennsylvani a Wednesday , Augus t 12 , 200 9 The above-entitle dmatte r

cam e o n fo

r hearing , pursuan t

t o notice , a

t 10:00 a.m . BEFORE : WILLIAM E . FOWLER , JR. , Chie f Administrativ e La

w Judg e APPEARANCES : On behal f o f th e Administrator : RUSSEL L CHRISTENSEN , ESQ . Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 170 1 Columbi aAvenu e Colleg e Park , Georgi a3003 7 [*28 ] O n behal f o f th e Respondents : JASON DICKSTEIN , ESQ . Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P.C . andth e La w Offic e o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei nPag e 1 0 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 31,+2 8 2123 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , N.W . Suite 50 3 Washington , D.C . 2000 7 202-628-677 6 JESSIC A STUBBS , ESQ . Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P.C . andth e La

w Offic e o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 2123 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , N.W . Suite 50 3 Washington , D.C . 2000 7 202-628-894 7 ORAL INITIA L DECISIO N Thi s ha s bee n aproceedin g before th e National Transportatio n Safet y Boar dhel dpursuan t

t o th e provisio n o f

th e Federal Aviatio n Ac t

o f 195 8 a s that

Ac t wa s subsequentl y amende don th e appeal s o f Tony Sco t

Surrat t an dFran k Willia mWalker fro mOrder s o f

Suspensio n date dApri l 8 , 2009 , issue db y th e Regional Counsel , Souther n Regio n o f th e Federal Aviatio n Administration , whic h purport s to suspen dResponden t Surratt' s airlin e transport

pilo t certificat e number (omitted ) fo

r aperio do f

18 0 days , an dals o Responden t Walker' s airlin e transpor

t pilo t certificate numbe

r (omitted ) fo

r aperio do f

18 0 days . Thi s ha s bee n aconsolidate dproceedin g on th e appeal s o f Respondent s Surrat

t andWalker . Th e Administrator' s Order s o f Suspensio n a s dul y promulgated , pursuan t to th e National Transportatio n Safet y [*29 ] Board' s Rule s o f

Practic e i n Ai r Safet y Proceedings , a s I mentione dearlier , wa s issue db y th e Regional Counsel o f th e Souther

n Regio n o f

th e Federal Aviatio n Administration . Thi s matte r

ha s bee n heardbefore thi s Unite dState s Administrativ e La w Judg e an di s provide db y th e Board' s Rule s o f Practice , specificall y Sectio n 821.4 2 o f thos e rules , whil e i

t i s no t mandatory , accordin g t o tha t sectio n o f

th e rules , tha t a s th e Judg e i n thi s proceedin g I issu e a n Oral Initial Decision . I'mgoin g t o do tha t at thi s time . Followin g notic e to th e parties , thi s matte r cam e on fo

r trial on Augus t

11t h an d12t h in Philadelphia , Pennsylvania . Th e Complainan t

i n thi s proceedin g wa s very abl y represente db y Counselo r Christensen , Esquire , o f

th e Regiona

l Counsel' s Office , Souther

n Regio n o f

th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration . Th e Respondent s wer e represente dby Counselor s Dickstei n an dStubbs , Esquire , an dbot h hav e don e aver

y admirabl e job , I might

add . Bot h partie s hav e bee n afforde dth e opportunity t o offe r evidence , to call , examine , andcross-examin e witnesses . I n addition , th e partie s were afforde dth e opportunity t o mak e final argumen t in suppor t o f thei r respectiv e positions . I hav e reviewe d[*30 ] th e testimon y an dth e documentary exhibit s adduce db y counsel . Th e Administrato r ha s ha d 2 1 Exhibits . Th e Responden t ha s ha d1 1 Exhibits . Th e Administrato r ha s ha dth e testimon y o f

fou r witnesses . The Responden t

ha s hadth e testimon y o f

thre e witnesses . Tw o o f

thos e witnesse s o f

th e Responden t

wer e th e tw o Respondents , themselves . Responden t Surratt an dResponden t

Walker .Pag e 1 1 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 31 , *3 0 I hav e reviewe dth e totality o f th e testimon y an dth e documentar y exhibits , an da s yo u kno w th e burde n of proo f i n aproceedin g o f

thi s typ e i s on th e Administrator , Th e Administrato r

ha s se t fort h tw o Order s of

Suspensio n here wit

h 2 1 specifi c paragraph s set i n th e Order s agains t Captai n Ton y Sco t

Surratt , an dagains t

Captai n Fran

k Willia mWalker ther e wer e 1 2 paragraphs . I'mgoin g t o tr

y t o b e a s brie f

anda s concis e a s I can . Thi s cas e i n my humbl e estimatio n rises o r fall s o n wha

t th e tw o Respondent s knew , wha t knowledg e the y possesse dprio r

t o takeof f o n Ma y 17th , 2008 , fro

mMiam i Intemational Airport . We hav e th e testimon y o f fou r witnesse s o n behal f

of th e Administrator , Witnes s Laurenc e Johnson , Principal Operation s Inspector ; Witnes s Phili p Stauffe r i s als o aPrincipal Operation s Inspector , Witnes s Thoma s ['*31 ] W . Welsh , wh o i s a

n Inspecto r

a t USA300 0 Airlines , th e company we'r e dealin g wit h in thi s proceedin g an dwitnes s Fran k Miller . Al l fou

r o f thes e gentleme n are exceedingl y experienced . Inspecto r Stauffe r wa s declare dto b e a

n expert , particularl y i

n maintenance , maintenanc e engineering . An dt o mak e alon g stor

y short , th e witnesse s o f

th e Administrato r

al l testifie dvalidl y an dsubstantiate dmany o f th e numbere d paragraph s set

fort h in bot h Order s o f

Suspensio n agains t

Respondent

Surrat t an dRespondent

Walker . Respondent

hadthre e witnesses . Responden t Surratt , Respondent

Walker , an dWitnes s Paul O . Dow , Jr. , wh o wa s qualifie da s a

n expert . Witnes s Do w ha s 4,30 0 hour s i n th e A32 0 an dha s 11,00 0 hour s a s a n airlin e transpor

t certificate dpilot . I hav e reviewe dth e testimon y in thi s case . Th e tw o Respondent s hav e testifie dan don e o f th e Administrator' s witnesses , Mr . Frank

Miller , ha s testifie dtha

t prio r t o takeof f even thoug h th e Respondent s i n thi s aircraf

t kne w there were spoiler

difficulties , spoiler s 3 and5 were , a s counse l fo r th e Administrato r

ha s ably stated , locke dout . Respondent s an dothe r

member s presen t

i n th e aircraf

t includin g Witnes s Mille r wh o ha s testifie don behal f [*32] o f th e Administrator , that

compute r button s wer e rese t

an dtha t th e ECAM pane l prio r

to takeof f wa s green . The pilots . Respondent

Walker wa s th e flying pilot . Responden t Surrat t wa s tendin g to th e othe r

dutie s o f aFirs t Officer . The evidenc e her e in my determinatio n i s persuasive , logical , an dcompellin g tha t th e ECA M pane l prio r

to takeof f o r jus t befor e takeof f wa s gree n o

r clear , howeve r

yo u wan t t o dee mi t whe n thi s flight

too k of f fro mMiam i Intemational Airport . Som e 10 , 15 , 2 0 minute s later , message s cam e on th e ECA M o f th e spoiler

problems . The flying pilot , o r

I shoul dsa

y pilots , converse dabou t

thi s problem , referre dto th e QRH , Quic k Referenc e Handbook , whic h i s th e National Operatio n Manual referenc e boo k anddecide dsinc e the y hadn o prio r knowledg e befor e they too k

of f with thes e spoile r

difficulties ; that

eve n sinc e the y the n hadknowledg e o f th e spoiler

difficulties , tha t the y woul dprocee dwit

h thei r flight, a s the y did , approximatel y tw o hour s o r more befor

e the y attempte dthei r

first landing , whic h hadt o b e aborte dbecaus e a s yo u hav e hearddurin g th e testimon y i n thi s proceeding , th e lef

t win g fenc e a s th e testimon y ha s stated , a s oppose dto th e Administrator' s [*33 ] Orde r whic h say s th e lef

t wingtip , scrape dth e runway . So , th e first

attemp t a t landin g wa s aborte dan dthere wa s asecon duneventfu l landing , I hav e heardanumbe r

o f thes e cases , no t

simila r t o thi s one , bu t

m y poin t in raisin g thi s i s ther e wa s n o accident , n o damage , n o injuries , n o fatalities , an dtha t t o m e i s alway s abi t

refreshin g t o hav e acas e lik e thi s becaus e s o man

y time s the y are jus t

th e opposite . Th e burde n o f

proo f a s 1 state dearlier , i s o n th e Administrato r to prov e b y afai

r andreasonabl e preponderanc e of th e probative , reliable , andsubstantia l evidence , th e charge s andallegation s a s set fort h i n thes e Order s o f

Suspension . I t i s m y determinatio n th e Administrator' s evidenc e a s t o what th e Respondent s kne w prio r t o takeoff

, thePag e 1 2 2010NTS B LEXI S 31 , *3 3 Administrator' s evidenc e i s lackin g base don th e totality o f wha t we'v e haddurin g th e cours e o f thi s tw o da

y proceeding . We'v e hadth e testimon y of bot h Respondents , a s wel l a s th e las t witnes s o f

th e Administrator , Mr . Frederick Miller , wh o i s the Directo r o f Maintenanc e fo

r USA300 0 Airlines , who concurre dwit h th e tw o Respondents ' testimony tha t immediatel y prio r

t o takeof f th e ECA M pane l wa s clear , if

not green . There wa s som e testimon y [*34 ] tha t i t wa s green . An dthereb y an dthereupo n th e flight took of f Administrator' s witnesse s hav e testifie dt o th e opposit e resul t concernin g th e ECA

M pane l prio r

to takeof f and notic e to th e pilots , bu t

I don' t believe , an di

t i s m y determinatio n tha

t th e Administrator' s cas e i s persuasiv e an d compellin g enoug h t o rebu t th e tota l testimon y adduce do n the Respondent s side o f th e case . W e ca n loo k a t thi s case , I believ e i

n another way . Bot h Respondent s are airlin e transport rate dcertificate dpilot s wh o ar e hel dto th e highes t

degre e of care , judgment , an dresponsibility . Now , th e evidenc e i s o n th e Respondents ' side , I believe , i

n thi s cas e that

th e Respondent s di dno t

kno w whe n the y too k

of f th e ful l situatio n o f

th e spoilers . Thre e witnesses , a s I mentioned , hav e testifie dth e ECAM pane l wa s clear , indicate dgreen , an dthe y too k of f Now , th e questio n afte

r tha t come s dow n to wha

t di dRespondent s Surrat

t an dWalke r

do whe n the y go t

the messag e durin g th e flight

som e 20 , 2 5 minute s later abou t th e inoperabl e spoilers . Responden t Surrat t i s th e Pilot-in-Comman do f

thi s flight. Responden t

Walker wa s th e flying pilot . A s Pilot-in-Command , Captai n Surrat t withi n th e realmo f

hi s authority [*35 ] a s Pilot-in-Command , continue dth e flight a s oppose dt o th e contentio n o f the Federa

l Aviatio n Administration , tha t whe n the y wer e afforde dthi s messag e durin g th e flight abou t th e spoile r

situatio n tha

t the y immediatel y en dandabor t th e flight. Administrator' s A-7 , whic h i s aletter January 11 , 2008 , to Inspecto r Laurenc e Johnso n issue db y Josep h Guhin , Directo r of Safet y andRegulatory Complianc e fo r USA300 0 Airlines , and1 wil l rea dacertai n portio n o f tha t letter . Th e fourt h paragrap h o n th e first

pag e o f thi s Exhibi t

A- 7 sai ddurin g th e flight contro l check , durin g th e tax i checklis t th e cre w note dthere wa s a

n ECAM cautio n o f

LAFdegrader . I

t wa s cleare db y resettin g th e spoile r elevate dcompute

r SEC pus h buttons . Accordin g t o bot h Captai n Surrat

t an dJo e Miller , thi s cautio n i s no t uncommon , an dwa s quickly cleared . The aircraf

t ha daclean uppe r

ECAM pag e prio r

t o th e uneventfii l takeof

f Whil e airborne , durin g routin e pag e call-up s th e ECAM pane l displaye dsymmetrical spoile r 3 , 5 Lef t Rspoile r amber indications . Durin g th e flight apilo t lef t th e cockpi t

andretume dnotin g tw o spoiler s on th e lef t win g wer e floating. A USA300 0 Airlin e Inspector' s employe e too k some picture s [*36 ] o f

thos e spoilers , note dtha

t th e rudde r trim goin g out of limits , an dCaptai n Walke r disengage dth e autopilo t

andmanuall y trimme dth e aircraft . The paragrap h goe s o n t o sa y abou t somewhat

difficult y there wa s i

n landin g th e aircraf

t an dwit h th e scrap e of

th e runwa y b y th e lef

t win g fence . A s I mentioned , th e totality o f th e seve n witnesse s that

hav e testifie din thi s proceeding , amon g th e four , one wa s designate da

n expert . Inspecto r

Johnson , an dther e wa s on e exper t witness , Pau l O . Dow , on behal f o f th e Respondent . You ma y recal l Witnes s Dow , wh o wa s presen t durin g th e cours e o f

thi s proceeding , sai dtha

t h e concurre d wholeheartedl y wit

h th e action s o f

Respondent s Surratt

an dWalker

andhi s testimon y als o encompasse dth e situatio n tha t ha s ofte n occurre do n amaintenanc e acceptanc e tes t flight whic h ha s th e aircraf

t involved , whic h ha s bee

n lai du p fo r quite awhile , that

it i s no t uncommo n fo

r th e thing s tha

t occur i n th e flight

we'r e conceme dwit

h here tha t di doccur , anda s bot h th e Respondent s andWitnes s Mille r testified , thi s cautio n a s the y exercise db y resettin g th e compute r button s whic h cleare dth e ECAM pane l an dallowe dthe mt o takeof f in a n uneventfu l takeof

f wit h [*37 ] n o problem s in thei r mind . Anda s the y hav e bot h testifie dto , bot

h Respondent s were no t

cognizan t

o f aseriou s spoile r

problemunti l durin g th e flight, the y wer e late r notifie dan dthe y mad e thei r decisions , particularl y Responden t Surrat t a sPag e 1 3 2010NTS B LEXI S 31 , *3 7 Pilot-in-Command , t o continu e th e flight, whic h the y did . An dothe r tha n th e win g fenc e scrapin g th e runwa y o n th e secon dlandin g attempt , th e landin g wa s uneventful anda s I said , fortunately , thi s wa s merel y a n inciden t an dno t a n accident . S o that , ladie s an dgentlemen , a s I sai dI thought th e Respondents ' cas e successfully rebutte dth e Administrator' s case . Muc h ha s bee n mad e o f th e utilizatio n o

r non-utilizatio n o f

th e minimu mequipmen t

lis t prio r t o takeof f I thin k th e Respondent s successfiill y wer e persuasiv e andcompellin g i n thei r evidenc e tha

t th e minimu mequipmen t

lis t wa s no t applicabl e o r

apropo s sinc e th e ECA

M pane l wa s cleare dan dth e Respondent s took of f accordingly . S o that , ladie s an dgentlemen , I'msure yo u get th e drif t o f m y decisio n here no w whic h to us e acolloquialism . Respondent s hav e carrie dth e day . An dI wil l mak e m y specifi c followin g Finding s o f Fac t an dConclusion s o f

La w accordingly . Takin g up first

Captai n Ton y [*38 ] Sco t Surratt , hi s Order

o f Suspension . 1 ) Responden t

Surratt admit s an di

t i s foun dtha t h e wa s andi s th e holder

o f airlin e transpor

t pilo t certificat e number (omitted) . 2 ) The Responden t

admit s an di t

i s foun dtha t all time s relevan t

herei n h e wa s employe da s apilo t fo r Brenda n Airways , LLC . Th e remainin g Paragraph s 3,4 , 5 , 6 , an d7, 1 wil l no t spel l thos e ou t

becaus e th e Responden t

ha s admitte dall o f thos e allegation s a s set

fort h in Paragraph s 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , an d7 . An dI wil l findan dadmit accordingl y wher e thos e numbere dparagraph s are concemed . 8 ) I t i s foundtha

t th e ambe r

LAFdegrade dmessag e on th e aircraft' s ECA M pane l come s o n whe n there i s afailur e o f on e o f th e aircraft s spoile r

servojacks . 9 ) I t i s foundthat

durin g th e flight

bu t prio r t o takeof f th e ECA M pane l indicate dtha

t th e followin g win g roll spoiler s were no t

operationa l and/o r

locke dout . I

t i s my determinatio n tha

t designate dParagraph s C an dD dealin g wit h th e right win g spoiler s numbe r

3 and5 were foundaccordingly . 10 ) It i s foundthat

durin g th e flight

but prio r to takeof f Responden t

Surrat t wa s no t aware tha

t th e aircraft' s ECA

M indicate dtha

t the followin g win g rol l spoiler s were no t operational [*39 ] andwere blocke dout , bu t that th e right win g spoiler number 3 an dright

win g spoile r

number 5 were indicate daccordingly . I t i s m y determinatio n tha

t appropriat

e actio n wa s take n t o clea

r th e ECAM pane l an dth e takeof f quickl y followe dthereafter . 11 ) It i s foun dtha

t pursuan t t o th e aircraft' s minimu mequipmen t list , th e aircraf

t canno t b e dispatche dwhen tw o o r more spoiler s on eithe r

win g are i n a

n inoperabl e condition . Bu t base don th e totalit

y o f th e evidenc e an dth e fact s an d circumstance s we'v e hadadduce ddurin g th e cours e o f thi s proceeding , th e minimumequipmen t lis t immediatel y prio r to takeof f wa s no t operabl e an dshoul dno t

hav e bee n invoke da

t th e time prio r

to takeoff , an dwa s no t

invoked . 12 ) Th e Respondent s admit

an di t i s foun dtha t

notwithstandin g th e above , durin g th e flight th e Respondent

Surrat t operate dth e aircraf

t durin g th e takeof

f wit h n o knowledg e o f

th e followin g inoperativ e instruments : C an dD o f Paragrap h 12 , whic h i s th e righ t win g rol l spoile r

numbe r 3 , an dD , th e right

win g rol l spoile r

number 5 . 13 ) It i s foun dthat

durin g th e flight

an dafte r 2 0 minute s after

takeoff , th e ECAM pane l onc e agai n indicate dtha t th e followin g win g spoiler s wer e no t [*40 ] operationa l and/o r wer e locke dout : C an dD a s set fort h in Paragraph 1 3 o f tha t Order . 14) It i s foun dtha

t durin g th e flight

th e flying pilot , Frank

Willia mWalker , disconnecte dth e autopilo t becaus e th e rudder tri mwa s no t

operatin g properl y an dwa s ou t o f range .Pag e 1 4 2010NTS B LEXI S 31 , *4 0 15 ) It i s foundandth e Responden t admit s tha

t durin g th e flight

Responden t

wa s informe dtha

t tw o flights [sic ] o

n th e lef t win g were floating b y aperso n wh o hadvisuall y inspecte dth e lef t win g whil e o n boardth e aircraft . 16 ) I t i s foundtha

t durin g th e flight

whe n Respondent

first attempte dt o lan dth e aircraf t a t Miam i Intemational Airport , th e aircraft' s lef

t win g fenc e contacte dth e runwa y causin g damag e t o th e lef t win g fence . 17 ) Th e Respondent

admit s an di t

i s foundtha

t durin g the abov e reference dinoperabl e rin g rol l spoiler s durin g the flight you r first landin g attemp t

wa s aborted . 18 ) Durin g th e flight

i t i s foundthat

th e Respondent s operate dth e aircraf t whic h the n wa s i

n a n unairworthy conditio n bu t

th e Respondent s hadn o notic e unti l tha t tim e tha t th e aircraf

t wa s in a n unairworthy condition . 19) I t i s foun dtha

t durin g th e flight

th e Respondent

Surrat t faile dt o discontinu e th e flight afte r th e unairworthy ['*41 ] mechanical , electrical , o r structura l conditio n occurre dwit h referenc e to th e conditio n o f th e spoilers . 20 ) I t i s foundtha

t durin g th e flight

th e Respondent

di dno t operat e th e aircraf

t in acareles s manner

s o a s to endanger th e lif e o r property o f

another . 21 ) It i s foundb y reason s o f

th e foregoing , th e Respondent di dno t violat e th e followin g aviatio n regulation s and I'mincorporatin g b y referenc e a s se t fort h i n Paragraph s A , B , C , an dD o f Paragrap h 2 1 o f

th e aforesai dOrde

r o f Suspensio n a s i

t wa s base do n th e totality o f th e evidence , couple dwit h th e documentar

y exhibits , tha

t there wa s a non-violatio n of

Sectio n 91.23(a) , Sectio n 91.213(a) , andSectio n 91.7(a) , andSectio n 91.7(b ) o f th e aforesai dFedera

l Aviatio n Regulations . 22 ) Thi s Judg e finds tha

t safet y i n ai r commerc e o

r ai r transportatio n an dth e publi c interes t doe s no t requir e th e affirmatio n o f

th e Administrator' s Orde r o f Suspensio n a s t o Captai n Ton y Scot t Surratt , date dApri l 8th , 2009 , becaus e o f th e previousl y allude dt o non-violation s o f th e fou r PAR S section s mentione dearlier . ORDE R IT I S ORDERED AN D ADJUDGE D THAT th e Administrator' s Orde r o f Suspensio n a s t

o Captai n Ton

y Scot Surratt , date dApri l 8th , [*42 ] 2009 , be , an dth e same , hereb y i s dismisse dandreversed . Thi s order i s issue db y WilliamE . Fowler , Jr. , aUnite dState s Administrativ e La w Judge . ADMINISTRATIV E LA

W JUDG E FOWLER : A s t o Captai n Frank Willia mWalker I wil l no w procee dt o mak e th e followin g specifi c Finding s o f Fac t an dConclusion s o f

Law . 1 ) Tha t Responden t

Walke r admit s Paragraph s 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , an d7 , an dI incorporate thos e admission s of th e Respondent

Walker b y referenc e a s thos e numbere dparagraph s 1 throug h 7 , pertainin g to th e Administrator' s Orde r o f Suspensio n are se t

fort h regardin g Responden t

Walker . 8 ) I t i s foundtha

t th e ambe r

LAFdegrade dmessag e on th e aircraft' s ECAM pane l cam e on a s i t di dwhe n there wa s afailur e o f on e o f th e aircraf

t spoile r servojacks . 9 ) Durin g th e flight

bu t prio r t o takeof f i t i s foundtha

t th e ECA M pane l indicate dtha

t i t wa s clea r andgreen eve

n thoug h th e right

win g spoile r

numbe r 3 an dright

win g spoiler

number 5 hadbee n locke dout

andbot h Respondent s a s the y hav e testified , th e ECA M pane l wa s subsequentl y cleare dwit h th e aforementione dfou

r green indicator s an

dth e takeof f proceeded . 10 ) It i s foundtha

t durin g th e flight

bu t prio r to takeoff

. Responden t

Walker [""43 ] wa s no t

aware tha

t the ECA M pane l hadindicate dthat

th e rol l spoiler s wer e no t operational and/o r

wer e locke dou t

becaus e computer s wer

e reset clearin g th e aforesai dECA M pane l enablin g th e Respondent s to takeof f wit h apparentl y th e spoiler s proble mno t bein gPag e 1 5 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 31 , *4 3 problematical a

t tha t time . 11 ) It i s foundtha

t pursuan t to the aircraft' s minimu mequipment lis t whic h i s acknowledge db y it s pilot s tha t th e aircraf t canno t b e dispatche dwhen tw o o r mor e spoiler s on either

win g are i n a

n inoperabl e condition , th e Respondents , bot h Surrat t an dWalker , wer e no t

knowledgeabl e becaus e th e ECA M pane l state dclearanc e o r it wa s gree n fo

r the mt o make th e takeof

f a s the y did . 12 ) Th e Responden t

admit s notwithstandin g th e above , tha t durin g th e flight

Responden t

Walker operate dth e aircraf t durin g takeof

f an dthereafter

wit h th e followin g inoperativ e instrument s andI' mincorporatin g b y referenc e under Paragrap h 12 , Paragrap h C andD right win g rolle r

andth e right

win g rol l spoiler s numbe r 3 and5 . 13 ) It i s foun dtha

t durin g th e flight

an dwithi n 2 0 minute s afte r takeof f th e ECA M pane l onc e agai n indicate dtha t th e followin g righ t

win g spoiler s were no t

operational and/o r

were locke dou t

—right [*44 ] win g spoile r

number 3 and right win g spoile r

number 5 . A s th e evidenc e woul dindicate , thi s i s th e first knowledg e tha

t bot h Respondent s had where th e ECAM pane l wer e conceme dthat the y hadany knowledg e o f th e spoile r

problem . 14) It i s foundtha

t durin g th e flight

whe n Respondent s first

attempte dto lan dth e aircraf t a t Miam i Airport , th e aircraft' s lef

t fenc e connecte dwit

h th e runway causin g damag e to th e lef t win g fence . 15 ) I t i s foundtha

t du e to th e abov e reference dinoperabl e wingti p spoiler s durin g th e flight you r first landin g attemp t wa s aborted . 16 ) Th e Responden t

operate dth e aircraf

t i n a n unairworth y condition , bu t hadn o knowledg e at

th e time when i

t first becam e unairworth y tha

t i t wa s unairworthy . 17 ) Durin g th e flight

th e Responden t

di dno t operat e th e aircraf

t i n acareles s manne r

s o a s t o potentiall y endanger th e lif e o r property o f

another . B y reaso n o f

th e foregoing , there wa s anon-violatio n o f th e Federa

l Aviatio n Regulation s an dI' mincorporatin g by referenc e thos e section s withou t spellin g the mout . Sectio n 91.13(a) , Sectio n 91.213(a) , an dSectio n 91.7(a ) a s there wa s anon-violatio n o f

thes e section s b y Responden t Walker . 18 ) Thi s Judg e finds that

safet y [*45 ] in ai r

commerc e o

r ai r transportatio n andth e publi c interes t doe s not require th e affirmatio n o f

th e Administrator' s Orde r o f Suspensio n date dApri l 8th , 2009 , a s i t applie s to Responden t

Walke r du e t o th e non-violatio n b y Responden t Walke r on th e aforesai dmentione dregulation s allude dto tha t were no t violate d b y Respondent

Walker base do n th e totality o f

th e evidence , couple dwit h th e documentar

y exhibit s a s affordeddurin g th e cours e o f

thi s proceeding . ORDER IT I S ORDERE D AN D DECREE D THA T th e Administrator' s Order o f Suspensio n a s t o Captai n Fran k Willia m Walker i s hereb y reverse dan ddismisse dbecaus e o f th e non-violation s o f

th e aforementione dFederal Aviatio n Regulations . Thi s Order

i s issue db y WilliamE . Fowler , Jr. , Unite dState s Administrativ e La w Judge . EDITED O N Septembe r

2 , 200 9 WILLIAM E . FOWLER , JR . Chie f Administrativ e Law Judg e Lega l Topics :Pag e 1 6 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 31 , *4 5 For relate dresearc h an dpractic e materials , se e the followin g lega l topics : Transportatio n LawAi r

TransportationCertificatesAirworthines s CertificatesTransportatio n LawAir TransportationU.S . Nationa l Transportatio n Safet

y BoardProceduresTransportatio n LawAir TransportationU.S . National Transportatio n Safet y BoardReport s

## APPENDI X E : NTSB' s Decisio n Affirmin g Babbit t v . Surrat t

(o n reconsideration )

APPENDI X E (NTSB' s Reconsideratio n Decisio n i n Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e Babbitt v . Surratt ) Law Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6Pag e 1



# LexisNexi s

1 o f 3 DOCUMENT S J . RANDOLPH BABBITT , Administrator , Federal Aviatio n Administration , Complainant , v . TON Y SCO T SURRAT T an dFRAN K WILLIAM WALKER , Respondent s NUMBER : Order

EA-5527 ; Docket s SE-1856 2 andSE-1856 3 National Transportatio n Safet y Boar d 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 DATE : Jun e 25 , 2010 , Adopte d ACTION : [*1 ] ORDE RDENYIN G RECONSIDERATIO N ISSUEDBY : National Transportatio n Safet y Board SERVED : Jun e 28 , 201 0 Th e Administrato r

seek s reconsideratio n o f

ou r opinio n andorder

i n thi s case , NTS B Order

No . EA-5514 , serve d Marc h 24 , 2010 . In that

decision , w e affirme dth e la w judge' s order , in whic h h e grante drespondents ' appeal . The la w judg e determine dtha

t th e Administrato r

faile dto prov e bot

h tha t respondent s operate da

n Airbu s A32 0 whil e i

t wa s in a n unairworth y condition , n l an dthat Responden t

Surrat t violate d1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(b ) when , a s pilot-in-comman d (PIC) , h e di dno t

discontinu e th e flight

afte r learnin g tha

t tw o set s o f

th e aircraft' s spoiler s wer e "floating. "

n l Th e Administrato r

charge dbot

h respondent s wit

h violatin g 1 4 C.F.R . § § 91.7(a) , whic h prohibit s operatio n o f

acivi l aircraf

t that i s no t i n a n airworth y condition ; 91.13(a) , whic h prohibit s careles s o r reckles s operation s s o a s to endange r th e lif e o r propert y o f another ; and91.213(a) , whic h state s that , excep t a s otherwis e provided , n o perso n ma

y tak e of f a n aircraf t wit h inoperativ e instrument s o r equipmen t

installe dwithou t meetin g th e requirement s o f § 91.213 . [*2 ] I n particular , th e la

w judg e determined , an dw e affirmed , tha t th e Administrato r

di dno t adequatel y rebu t

th e testimon y o f

bot h respondent s an dJo e Miller , amechani c i n th e cockpi t wit h respondents , tha

t the y believe dth e Electroni c Centralize dMonito r (ECAM ) i

n th e cockpi t

onl y displaye daLA

FDEGRADED messag e afte r respondent s andMr . Mille r

rese t th e spoile r

elevato r computer s (SEC) . We determine dtha t th e LA FDEGRADE D messag e di dno t functio n t o advis e respondent s that tw o set s o f

spoiler s hadbee n lef

t in "maintenance " (o r

"manual" ) mod e prio r

t o th ePag e 2 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 56 , * 2 flight. n 2 Therefore , w e conclude dtha t th e Administrato r

hadno t prove dthat

respondent s kne w o r

shoul dhav e know n tha t th e aircraf

t wa s in a n unairworth y conditio n prio r t o takin g of

f

n 2 Se e NTS B Order

No . EA-551 4 a

t 9 n.6 , an dsurroundin g text . We als o rejecte dth e Administrator' s argumen t tha t Respondent

Surrat t shoul dhav e lande dth e aircraf t a s soo n a s he leame dtha

t tw o set s o f

spoiler s were "floating. " Becaus e th e flight wa s amaintenanc e acceptanc e flight, [*3 ] w e found reasonabl e respondents ' argument s tha t there were benefit s to continuin g th e flight, suc h a s identifyin g other potential maintenanc e issue s an dburnin g of f fuel . W e base dthi s determinatio n largel y on our readin g o f

th e definitio n o f

PI C in 1 4 C.F.R . § 1.1 , n 3 finding tha t th e PI C ha s significant

discretio n to choos e whethe r t o continu e aflight

whe n faced wit h circumstance s o f

thi s nature . n 3 Titl e 1 4 C.F.R . § l. l define s "pilot-in-command " a s aperso n who , "(1 ) Ha s final authorit y and responsibility for

th e operatio n andsafet

y o f th e flight; (2 ) Ha s bee n designate da s pilo t in comman dbefor

e o r durin g th e flight; an d(3 ) Hold s th e appropriat e category , class , an dtyp e rating , i f appropriate , fo

r the conduc t

of th e flight." Se e generall y Administrato r v . Jeffreys , 4 NTS B 681 , 68 2 (1982 ) (statin g tha t aPI C i s th e pilo t

wh o possesse s ultimat e decisional authority regardin g th e flight). The Administrato r

no w petition s u s t o reconside r ou r original decision , on several bases . Th e Administrato r [*4 ] argue s tha t ou r "factua l findings" i n th e origina l opinio n ar e inconsisten t

wit h th e evidenc e i n th e record , particularl y wit h regardto our

assessmen t

tha t th e evidenc e indicate dtha t th e ECAM ultimatel y displaye donly aLAFDEGRADE D warnin g an dtha

t th e LA FDEGRADE D warnin g di dno t clearl y indicate aproble mwit h th e spoilers . Th e Administrato r furthe r assert s that

respondents ' failure to complet e asuccessfu l flight contro l chec k

demonstrate dthei r

failur e t o ac t reasonabl y an dprudently , an dtha t th e Airbu s newslette r

tha t came int o evidence , whic h concern s ECAM wamings , furthe r indicate dtha

t respondent s shoul dhav e successfiill y complete daflight contro l chec k

prio r to takin g of

f The Administrato r

als o contend s tha

t w e erre din findin g that

th e Administrato r

shoul dhav e "conclusively " establishe dtha t th e ECA M wa s fiinctionin g properl y prio r t o an ddurin g th e flight, an dthat w e erre di

n determinin g that

Respondent Surrat t ha dth e discretio n t o continu e wit h th e flight. Respondent s oppos e th e Administrator' s arguments , an durg e u s t o rejec t th e petition . Sectio n 821.50(c ) o f

ou r Rule s o f Practic e require s tha

t petition s fo

r reconsideratio n "state briefl y an dspecifically th e [*5 ] matter s o f

recordallege dt o hav e bee n erroneousl y decided , an dth e groun do r ground s relie dupon. " Furthermore , § 821.50(d ) provide s that th e Boardwil l no t

consider , andwil l summaril y dismiss , repetitiou s petition s fo r reconsideration . Th e argument s that th e Administrato r

raise s in th e petitio n a

t issu e here are no t

base do n new matter , bu t consis t o f assertion s tha

t ou r original decisio n containe dincorrec t factua l an dlega l conclusions . Althoug h th e petitio n appear s somewhat repetitiou s o f

th e argument s th e Administrato r mad e on appeal , w e wil l addres s th e assertions , in th e interes t

o f ensurin g tha

t our decisio n on thi s reconsideratio n reques t i s clear . We first note tha t th e centra l issu e in thi s cas e revolve daroun dwhat th e ECAM displaye dprio r to takeoff

. The Administrator' s petitio n state s that respondents ' an dMr . Miller' s testimon y wa s contradictory , becaus e the y didno t consistentl y testif

y tha t th e ECAM displaye donl y th e LAFDEGRADE D messag e immediatel y prio r t o flight. I

n suppor t o f thi s argument , th e Administrato r cite s several portion s o f

th e record . Thos e citations , however , refe r to testimony concernin g variou s waming s tha t occurre dwhe n Responden t Walke r and[*6] Mr . Mille r

rese t the SEC . The testimony indicate dthat , whe n re-bootin g th e SEC , certai n wamings woul dflash an dthe n clear . Al l waming s cleare d excep t th e LAFDEGRADE D warning , whic h respondent s an dMr . Mille r determine dt o b e spurious , give n tha t th e aircraf t hadrecentl y undergon e heav y maintenance . A s w e state din ou r original opinion , bot

h respondent s an

dMr . Miller testifie dthat

th e ECAM displaye dgree n message s afte r the y rese t

th e SEC , other

tha n th e LAFDEGRADE

DPag e 3 2010NTS B LEXI S 56 , * 6 message , indicatin g t o the mtha t th e aircraf

t wa s in a n airworthy condition . Th e Administrator , on th e other hand , argue s tha t respondent s shoul dhav e bee n aware o f amechanical proble mwit h th e aircraf

t becaus e o f

th e cleare dwaming s on th e ECA M an dth e LA FDEGRADED message . A s w e discusse di n ou r

original opinion , th e la

w judg e determine dtha

t respondents ' an dMr . Miller' s testimony concernin g th e green message s on th e ECA M wa s credible . NTS B Order No . EA-551 4 a

t 15 . Th e Administrato r

di dno t convinc e u s tha

t thi s determinatio n wa s arbitrary , capricious , o r contrar y to th e weigh t

o f th e evidence . Therefore , w e deferre dto th e la

w judge' s determinatio n tha t respondent s an dMr . Miller observe dgree n message s appea r [*7 ] on th e ECA M prio r to takeoff

. Th e Administrato r

no w appear s to asser

t a s wel l tha

t respondent s shoul dno t

hav e taken of

f wit h th e LA FDEGRADE D messag e displayin g o n th e ECAM . However , th e onl y evidenc e th e Administrato r presente da

t th e hearin g concemin g th e impor t o f th e LA FDEGRADED messag e wa s th e opinio n o f FAA principal avionic s inspecto r fo r general aviatio n repai r

stations , Phili p Stauffer , wh o state dtha t th e purpos e o f

th e ECA M i s to displa

y informatio n concemin g variou s flight controls . n4 Inspecto r

Stauffe r di dno t state tha t th e LA FDEGRADED messag e mean t tha t spoiler s wer e locke ddow n o r inoperative . O n th e contrary , bot h respondent s an dMr . Miller , wh o i s th e directo r of maintenanc e fo

r respondents ' employer , USA3000 , testifie dtha t receivin g aspuriou s LA

FDEGRADE

D messag e wa s no t

uncommo n afte

r a n aircraf t hadundergon e heav y maintenance . A s w e state di n th e original opinion . Respondent

Surrat t als o testifie dtha

t Airbu s originall y intende dth e LA FDEGRADE D messag e t o assis t in easin g turbulence , bu t

tha t i t hadneve r

successfull y functione dto do so . W e do no t believ e that

w e erre din determinin g tha t th e evidenc e wa s insufficient to sho w tha

t th e LAFDEGRADED messag e [*8 ] informe drespondent s th e aircraf t wa s i n a n unairworthy condition . n4 Inspecto r

Stauffer' s testimon y concemin g th e ECA M include dth e following : Q . Wha t i s th e purpos e o f

th e ECAM ? A . It' s go t tw o purposes . It

ha s tw o display s there . The upper on e i s primaril y th e on e tha t display s engin e informatio n t o th e upper , th e centra l tw o displays . It

woul db e tha

t one . Th e botto mon e i s use dt o cal l u p different syste mpages , either

manuall y o r

automaticall y b y th e aircraf t whe n fault s occur . Q . Now , whe n yo u sa

y syste mpages , what

do you mea

n b y syste mpages ? A . Th e lowe r

scree n ca n display an

y number o f page s liste dfro

mhydraulics , wheels , doors , oxyge n pressure . I

n thi s cas e what' s relevan t fo r u s i s th e flight

contro l pag e whic h i s automaticall y calle dwhe n yo u hav e afault relevan t t o i t o r whe n th e flight

cre w doe s thei r

flight contro l check . ADMINISTRATIV E LA

W JUDG E FOWLER : Thi s woul dinclud e th e spoilers , con-ect ? THE WITNESS : That

woul ddisplay th e spoilers , yes . ADMINISTRATIV E LA W JUDGE FOWLER : Al l right. THE WITNESS : That

woul ddisplay al l th e flight controls . Your

Honor . Tr . a t 88-89 . [*9 ] The Administrator' s petitio n als o include s th e argumen t tha t w e hav e inconsistentl y applie dou r cas e la w concemin g 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(a) . I n thi s regard , a s w e state di n th e original opinion , w e hav e lon g hel dtha t the standard fo r airworthines s consist s o f

tw o prongs : (1 ) whethe r

th e aircraf

t conform s t o it s typ e certificate an dapplicabl e Airworthines s Directives ; an d(2 ) whethe r th e aircraf

t i s i n aconditio n fo

r saf e operation . I

n determinin g whether

a n aircraf t i s airworth y i

n accordanc e wit

h th e aforementione dstandard , w e wil l conside r whethe r th e operato r

knew o r shoul dhav e know n o f

an y deviatio n i n th e aircraft' s conformanc e wit h it s typ e certificate . Se e case s cite da t NTS B OrderNo . EA-551 4 a

t 1 7 n . 17 . In thi s case , w e affirme dth e law judge' s conclusio n tha t respondent s di dno t

know , no r

shoul dhav e known , tha

t th e aircraf t wa s i n a n unairworth y condition . Th e law judg e foundrespondents ' andMr . Miller' s testimony , tha t they allPag e 4 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 56 , * 9 believe dtha

t th e LA FDEGRADE D messag e wa s a n ordinary spuriou s message , t o b e credible . I n addition , Mr . Miller , a s th e directo r

o f maintenanc e wit

h many year s experienc e concemin g maintenanc e issue s i n a n Airbu s A320 , wa s i

n th e cockpi t

an d[*10 ] di dno t

believ e th e LA

FDEGRADED messag e wa s acaus e fo r concern . Base do n thes e facts , w e agree dtha t respondent s di dno t

kno w tha t th e aircraf

t wa s unairworthy , andw e considere dthi s knowledg e elemen t i n reachin g our

conclusio n that

respondent s di dnot

violate § 91.7(a) . The Administrator' s relianc e on Administrato r v . Olsen , NTS B Order

No . EA-374 3 (1992) , concemin g the knowledg e elemen t

i s misplaced . I

n Olsen , th e responden t

wa s i n th e uniqu e positio n o f

havin g bee n th e pilo t

o f the aircraf t a t issu e a s wel l a s performin g maintenanc e on th e aircraf t a s it s mechani c shortl y before th e flight at issue . Wit h regar dt o th e knowledg e element , w e state da s follows : We are no t

imposin g astandar do f

stric t liabilit y whe n w e hol dtha

t respondent' s behavio r

i s t o b e measure dagains t

what h e personall y kne w o

r shoul dhav e know n abou t th e aircraft , bot

h a s it s pilo t

an d a s amechani c wh o hadrecentl y bee n involve di n it s maintenance . Such astandardmerel y expect s responden t

t o reac t reasonabl y andpmdentl y t o informatio n o f whic h h e i s o

r shoul dhav e bee n awar

e (fromwhateve r

source) . Id . a t 5-6 . Th e Administrato r

argue s tha

t respondent s di dno t

ac t reasonabl y andpmdentl y becaus e [• * 11 ] they di dnot complete asuccessfu l flight check . However , respondent s conten dtha t Respondent

Walker complete daflight

check n 5 andtha t they believe dtha

t th e aircraf

t wa s i n a n airworth y conditio n prio r to takin g of

f Th e Administrato r

attempt s to prov e tha t respondent s violate d§ 91.7(a ) becaus e the y di dno t complete aflight

contro l chec k

subsequen t

to clearin g the ECA M wamings , an dtherefore di dno t ac t reasonabl y an dprudently . Thi s argument i s inconsequential , however , becaus e th e reasonabl e an dpmden t standard , a s articulate di

n Olsen , i s merel y aconsideratio n i n th e overal l "kne

w o r shoul dhav e known " analysis . Th e Administrator' s petitio n doe s no t overcome ou

r conclusio n tha

t respondents ' testimony tha

t the y di dno t

know , no r

hav e reaso n t

o believe , tha

t th e spoiler s were inoperativ e prio r t o takeof f wa s credible . A s w e state din ou r original opinion , w e hav e lon g hel dtha t w e wil l consider

whethe r aresponden t

kne w o r shoul dhav e know n o f

th e unairworth y conditio n o f a n aircraf t i n determinin g whether

h e o r sh e ha s violate d§ 91.7(a) . The Olsen opinio n di dno t chang e thi s standard , bu t instea dexplicitl y rejecte dth e applicatio n o f astric t liabilit y standard . n 5 On thi s issue , th e recordcontain s th e followin g colloqu y betwee n Responden t Walker an dhi s attorney : Q . Okay . Di dyo u perfor

many flight

contro l checks ? A . Yes . Q . An ddi danythin g unusual occu r durin g you r

flight contro l check ? A . No . Tr . a t 366 . Responden t

Walke r the n testifie dtha

t Responden t

Surrat t complete daflight

contro l check

tha t indicate daproble mwit

h spoile r nos . 3 an d5 , but

that Responden t

Surrat t andMr . Mille r

wer e abl e to clea

r the wamin g that

displaye don th e ECAM b y resettin g th e SEC . Tr . a t 366-67 . [*12] The Administrato r

als o argue s that , i n ou r

opinio n below , w e impose daburde n tha t i s impossibl e fo

r th e Administrato r

t o fulfill whe n w e state dthat th e Administrato r

faile dt o establis h tha

t th e ECAM worke dproperly . W e disagre e wit

h thi s assertion . Th e burde n i s on th e Administrato r t o prov e eac h element

o f eac h offens e charged . I

n th e cas e a t hand , th e Administrato r

wa s awar e that

respondent s an dMr . Mille r testifie dthat

the y believe dth e aircraf

t wa s airworthy becaus e th e ECA M onl y displaye dth e LA FDEGRADE D wamin g prio r to takeoff

, afte r the y reset

th e SEC . In rejectin g th e Administrator' s argument s o n appeal , w e indicate dtha t th e Administrato r

coul dhav e strengthene dhi s cas e b y establishin g tha

t th e ECAM properl y displaye dmessages . Thi s lack o f evidenc e wa s on e o f

what w e believe dto b e severa l shortcoming s i n th e Administrator' s case . W e specificall y rejec t th e Administrator' s notio n tha t w e ar e imposin g a

n unreasonabl e burde n o n th e Administrato r to presen t

evidenc e tha

t th e equipmen t

in questio n operate dPag e 5 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 56 , * 1 2 properl y throughou t

th e flight. I

n th e contex t

o f thi s case , w e believ e evidenc e alon g suc h line s woul dhav e been necessar y to rebu t adequatel y th e testimon y o f respondent s [*13 ] an dMr . Miller concemin g wha

t the y observe do n th e ECAM . The Administrator' s final argument , tha t Respondent

Surrat t di dno t hav e th e discretio n t o continu e wit h th e flight, i s als o withou t

merit . W e state din ou r

original opinio n tha

t Responden t

Surratt , a s PIC , acte dreasonabl y i n continuin g th e flight, a s h e too k

advantag e o f

th e opportunit

y to landwit

h les s fuel , an dh e utilize dth e Quic k Referenc e Handbook on th e aircraft , whic h allow s landin g th e aircraf t wit h inoperativ e spoiler s afte r applyin g amultiplicatio n facto r to calculat e th e necessar

y lengt h o f mnway . The Administrato r provide s n o new evidenc e concemin g thi s conclusion , bu t insteadagai n simpl y argue s tha t Responden t

Surrat t acte dunreasonably . We disagree dwit h thi s contentio n i

n our original opinion , andw e likewis e rejec t i t now . ACCORDINGLY , I T I S ORDERE D THAT : The Administrator' s petitio n fo r reconsideratio n i s denied . HERSMAN , Chairman , HART , Vic e Chairman , andSU M WALT , Member

o f th e Board , concurre di

n the abov e order . Lega l Topics : For relate dresearc h an dpractic e materials , se e th e followin g lega l topics : Transportatio n LawAir

TransportationCertificatesAirworthines s CertificatesTransportatio n LawAir TransportationChartersTransportatio n LawAi r TransportationMaintenanc e & Safet y

## APPENDI X F : Complainant' s Firs t Respons e t o Respondent' s Firs t Set of Interrogatories . Request s fo r Productio n of

Documents , an dRequest s fo r Admissions . Respons e t o Interrogatorie s #1-1 3 (page s 1-4) .

APPENDI X F(FA A Response s t o Interrogatorie s #1 - Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e 1 3 (page s 1-4) ) Law Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERAL AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . I n th e Matte r

o f Brenda n Airways , LL C FAA Docke t

No . CP09EA000 7 DM S No . FAA-FAA-2009-003 2 Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e Yode r COMPLAINANT' S FIRS T RESPONS E T O RESPONDENT' S FIRS T SE T O F INTERROGATORIES . REQUEST S FO RPRODUCTIO N O FDOCUMENTS . AN D REQUEST S FO RADMISSION S Th e Complainan t

reserve s th e righ t

t o supplemen t

th e followin g responses : RESPONS E T O INTERROGATORIE S Interrogator y # 1 Allegatio n 4 o f

sectio n II o f

th e Complain t

contend s tha t

th e spoile r

serv o actuator s were place di n th e maintenanc e mod e durin g maintenance . O n wha t dat e an ddurin g wha t maintenanc e operatio n wer e th e spoile r serv o actuator s place di n th e maintenanc e mode ? Respons e t o Interrogator y # 1 Th e Complainan t

doe s no t kno w th e exac t

dat e o f th e maintenanc e at

thi s time , however , i t i s clear tha t th e spoile r

serv o actuator s wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mod e prio r to th e flight . Th e Complainan t doe s no t kno w durin g wha t

maintenanc e operatio n th e spoile r serv o actuator s wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mode , however , i t appear s that

th e maintenanc e wa s performe db y AAR . Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . §121.36 3 Brenda n Airway s i s responsibl e fo r

thi s maintenance . Interrogator y # 2 Pleas e identif

y all o f th e fact s tha t

yo u conten dsuppor t

Allegatio n 4 o f

sectio n I I o f th e Complaint . Respons e t o Interrogator y # 2 Prio r t o th e flight

ther e wer e severa l indication s i n th e cockpi t suggestin g tha t

lef t an d righ t win g rol l spoiler s 3 an d5 wer e no t operational , durin g th e fligh t thes e rol l spoiler s di dno t function , an dafter

th e fligh t

i t wa s determine dthroug h visua l inspectio n that th e spoile r serv o actuator s wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mode . Interrogator y # 3 Allegatio n 7 o f

sectio n I I o f

th e Complain t

contend s tha t

USA300 0 performe d maintenanc e o n th e aircraft' s lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive . Pleas e identif y th e maintenanc e performe do n eac h o f thos e lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive (limite dt o onl y th e maintenanc e tha t i s reference db y th e Complaint) , an dstat e th e dat e o r date s o n whic h thi s maintenanc e wa s performed .

### Respons e t o Interrogator y # 3

Se e th e Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 . Interrogator y # 4 Pleas e identif

y al l o f th e fact s that

yo u conten dsuppor t

Allegatio n 1 2 o f

sectio n I I o f

th e Complaint . Respons e t o Interrogator y # 4 Th e pilot s witnesse dth e ECA M indicat e thi s prio r t o takeoff

, th e ECA M was no t malftinctionin g durin g th e flight, i f th e ECA M i s functionin g properl y i t wil l indicat e that win g rol l spoiler s ar e not operationa l whe n the y ar e i n th e maintenanc e mode , th e spoile r serv o actuator s fo r

th e win g rol l spoiler s i n questio n wer e i n th e maintenanc e mod e durin g th e flight . Interrogator y # 5 Pleas e identif

y al l o f th e fact s tha t

yo u conten dsuppor t

Allegatio n 1 3 o f

sectio n II o f

th e Complaint . Respons e t o Interrogator y # 5 Se e th e Respons e t o Interrogator y #4 . Interrogator y # 6 Pleas e identif

y al l o f th e fact s tha t

yo u conten dsuppor t

Allegatio n 1 9 o f

sectio n II o f

th e Complaint . Respons e t o Interrogator y # 6 Lef t an drigh t win g rol l spoiler s No . 3 an dNo . 5 wer e not operabl e durin g th e flight an d pursuan t t o th e aircraft' s ME L ther e i s n o circumstanc e i n whic h th e aircraf t can b e dispatche dfor

flight whe n thes e spoiler s ar e inoperable , an dwhe n th e spoiler s ar e lef t in th e maintenanc e mod e aerodynami c force s caus e unwante dmovemen t o f th e spoilers . Als o th e first

landin g attemp t

wa s aborte dan dth e aircraf t was damage ddu e t o th e inoperabl e win g rol l spoilers . Interrogator y # 7 Pleas e identif

y all o f th e facts tha t

yo u conten dsuppor t

Allegatio n 2 0 o f

sectio n II o f

th e Complaint . Respons e t o Interrogator y # 7 Se e th e abov e an dth e Complaint . Interrogator y # 8 I s i t th e Administrator' s contentio n tha t th e flight was an operatio n tha t fall s withi n th e scop e o f Part 121 ? Respons e t o Interrogator y # 8

### Objection . Vague .

Interrogator y # 9 I f i t i s th e Administrator' s contentio n tha t th e flight was a

n operatio n tha t

fall s withi n th e scop e o f Par t 121 , the n pleas e identif

y al l fact s tha t

support thi s contentio n an dspecif y ho w tha t operatio n fall s withi n th e scop e o f Par t 121 . Respons e t o Interrogator y # 9 Objection . Vague . Interrogator y #1 0 I s i t th e Administrator' s contentio n tha t th e aircraft' s lef

t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mod e durin g maintenanc e performe db y US A 3000 . Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 0 Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . §121.36 3 i t i s th e Administrator' s contentio n tha t Brenda n Airway s i s responsibl e for

all maintenanc e performe do n th e aircraft . Th e Administrato r doe s no t kno w wha t

individual s place dth e aircraft' s lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive i n th e maintenanc e mod e prio r

t o th e flight, however , i t i s th e Administrator' s contentio n that Brenda n Airway s i s responsibl e for thi s maintenance . Interrogator y #1 1 I f i t i s th e Administrator' s contentio n tha t th e aircraft' s lef

t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an d five wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mod e durin g maintenanc e performe db y USA3000 , the n pleas e identif

y al l facts tha t

suppor t thi s contentio n an dspecif y whic h maintenanc e wa s bein g performe dwhe n thes e spoiler s wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mode . Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 1 Se e th e Respons e t o Interrogatorie s No . 1 , 2 , an d10 . Interrogator y #1 2 I f i t i s th e Administrator' s contentio n tha t th e aircraft' s lef

t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an d five wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mod e durin g maintenanc e performe db y USA3000 , the n pleas e identif

y al l facts tha t

suppor t th e contentio n tha t

th e maintenanc e identifie di n INTERROGATOR Y #1 1 wa s performe db y USA3000 . Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 2 Se e th e Respons e t o Interrogatorie s No . 1 , 2 , an d10 . Interrogator y #1 3 I f i t i s th e Administrator' s contentio n tha t an y othe r

maintenanc e operatio n wa s improperl y performe do n th e aircraft-asid e fro mth e aircraft' s lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive bein g place di n (and/o r lef t in ) th e maintenanc e mode-the n pleas e identif y thi s othe r maintenance . Respons e t o Intenogator y #1 3

### Th e Complainant' s onl y contention s abou t imprope r maintenanc e ar e foun di n th e Complaint . Interrogator y #1 4 Th e Responden t

ha s asserte dt o th e Administrato r tha t th e Responden t

wa s no t awar e o f th e spoile r

issu e unti l th e aircraf

t was i n th e air . Assumin g onl y for th e purpos e o f

thi s interrogator y tha t

th e Respondent' s assertio n i s correct , (a ) doe s th e FA A conten dtha t th e Responden t

shoul dhav e don e anythin g differentl y upo n discover y o f th e inoperabl e spoilers , an di f

s o (b ) wha t

shoul dh e hav e don e differentl y an d(c ) wha t i s th e objectiv e standar dupo n whic h thi s contentio n o f th e Administrato r

i s based . Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 4 Objection . Thi s Interrogator y seek s informatio n tha t woul dno t

lea dt o th e admissio n o f relevan t o r discoverabl e evidence . Interrogator y #1 5 Pleas e provid e th e identit y an dtelephon e numbe r (busines s o r

personal ) o f

eac h perso n th e FA A intend s t o cal l a s awitnes s i n thi s matter . Pleas e als o provid e asummar y o f th e substanc e o f

th e expecte dtestimon y o f eac h perso n identifie di n respons e t o thi s interrogatory . Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 5 Th e identit y o f

an y witnesse s i s amatte r o f tria l strategy tha t

ha s no t ye t bee n decided . Th e Complainan t

reserve s th e righ t

t o amen dthi s answe r

a s tria l witnesse s ar e identified . Interrogator y #1 6 Pleas e provid e th e identit y an dtelephon e numbe r (busines s o r

personal ) o f

eac h perso n th e FA A believe s ha s informatio n o r knowledg e relevan t

t o thi s matter . Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 6 Objection . Overbroad . Undul y burdensome . Furthe r thi s Interrogator y request s informatio n tha t

woul dno t

lea dt o th e discover y o f

relevan t o r admissibl e evidence . Notwithstandin g th e objectio n all witnesse s wh o testifie di n th e cas e o f Administrato r

v . Surrat t an dWalke r

woul dhav e knowledg e relevan t t o thi s matter . Th e telephon e numbe r o f Aviatio n Safety Inspector s Laurenc e Johnson , Constantin e Karamargin , Erni e Scardecchio , an dPhili p Stauffe r i s 610-595-1500 . Interrogator y #1 7 Pleas e identif

y an dprovid e th e telephon e numbe r for eac h exper t

witnes s th e FA A ma

y cal l t o testif

y i n thi s proceeding . Fo r eac h exper t

witnes s identified , pleas e stat e th e subjec t matte r upo n whic h eac h i s expecte dt o testify , summariz e th e substanc e o f suc h expecte dtestimon y (including , withou t limitation , identificatio n o f al l facts , treatises , report s an drecord s tha t

formth e basi s fo r

suc h opinion) . Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 7

## APPENDI X G: Complainant' s Secon dRespons e t o Respondent' s Firs t Set o f Interrogatories . Request s fo r Productio n o f

Documents , an dRequest s fo r Admissions . Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 8 an dReques t fo r Productio n #11 .

APPENDI X G (FA A Response s t

o Interrogator

y #1 8 Washington Aviation Group , P C an dth e an dRF P 11 ) La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 503 Washington , D

C 20007 -Tel : 202-628-677 6/ / 

# o P " r U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . In th e Matte r

o f Brenda n Airways , LL C FA A Docke t

No . CP09EA000 7 DM S No . FAA-FAA-2009-003 2 Chie f Administrativ e Law Judg e Yode r COMPLAINANT' S SECON D RESPONS E T O RESPONDENT' S FIRS T SE T O F INTERROGATORIES . REQUEST S FO RPRODUCTIO N O FDOCUMENTS . AND REQUEST S FO RADMISSION S Th e Complainan t

reserve s th e righ t

t o supplemen t

th e followin g responses : RESPONS E T O REQUES T FO RINTERROGATORIE S Interrogator y #1 8 Pleas e identif

y an ddocument s an dexhibit s th e FA A intend s t o introduc e int o evidenc e i n th e proceeding . Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 8 In additio n t o wha t

wa s previousl y submitte dpleas e se e th e document s liste dbelow : 1 . FA A N O Actio n Documen t for AA RAircraf

t Service s for

th e inciden t

occurrin g 5/17/0 8 2 . PTR S recor dfro minspecto r LA B fo r EI R20 0 8 S O 19022 0 3 . PTR S recor dfro minspecto r LX C fo r EI R2008SO19022 0

### RESPONS E T O REQUES T FO RPRODUCTIO N O FDOCUMENT S

Productio n Reques t

#1 1 Pleas e provid e th e entiret y o f eac h EI Ran dal l othe r

investigativ e record s associate dwith th e investigatio n o f

AA Ri n relatio n t o th e incident s describe di n th e Complaint . Fo r you r referenc e (bu t

no t t o b e construe da s alimitation ) on e relevan t FA A investigatio n file numbe r

ma y b e 2008SQ190220 . Respons e t o Productio n Reques t #1 1 Th e attache ddocument s (reference dabove ) mak e u p th e entir e file o f cas e numbe r 2008SQ190220 . Respectfially submitted , Alfre dR . Johnson , Jr . Regiona l Counse l

By : '^"^^^^i...^.-^

^ .g ^ 4= ^ Date : 

### Davi dM . Cohe n Attorne y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 Telephone : 71 8 553-327 0 Facsimile : (718)995-569 9

### CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y tha t o n thi s day copies o f

th e foregoin g Complainant' s Secon dRespons e t o Respondent' s Firs t

Set O f Interrogatories , Request s Fo r Productio n o f

Documents , an d Request s Fo r

Admissions , wer e sen t

b y Federal Expres s Mai l addresse da s follows : Hearin g Docke t Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 (Origina l an dOn e Copy ) Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 RoomE12-32 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 (FAX ) 202-366-753 6 Jaso n Dickstei n Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C & La w Office s o f Jaso n Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 (FAX ) 202-628-894 8 

## D,te : SE P- 7 201 0 ,/yy ^ sJ^i-^ C y ysaHook s Paralega l Specialis t Offic e o f Actin g Regiona l Counse l 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4

# e

e e f ^ U.S . Oepartmen t o f Transportatio n 

### Federa l Aviatio n AdministtraEBor t 

# •WARNIN G NOTIC E DLETTE R O F CORRECTIO N IZIN O ACTIO N

r(PICAT E NO . (ItAPPLCAflljE i _1 TYP B H U CER T O B t D , J " 

### DENTIFICATIO N ! OTHE R t o NUt.tBE R (DRr\ / LlC . SSAN . ETC

) 

# 1 NAME ' LAS

T n F«S T INITU L ADDRES S . » . ^ . _

_y crry T ' STAT E T T 3P C 

# '/^/^/7?/ . F / SE X 

### I ^ 

# t

r ZI P COD E OATeOFSIRri H I AVUTlt w EMPtOYERlI F BELATE D TOAQ-EGEDVICJUrOM l PHOH E NO . ocsteiMTOfl

XE4 R 

### AIRCRAFT . ENGINE . PROPELLER . NtAK E " i MODE L 

### CQMPOMEivS T O R APPLIANC E INVOLVED ^ N NUt.lBE B [ SERIAL MO . CiVME B ADDRES S CO Y STAT E ZI P COD E



### 1*^^^^^'=^' " MIAMI , F

L ALLEGE D ViOLATIQN(S ? OCCURRE D .^j^^Q g

I.OHT H DA

y YEA R TIM E (2

4 HOUR l DATE UCNT M DA Y •rEA H REGIC N OIS^OTERE D 

### S O 5/19/0 8 [ AIRPOR T DESICmrO R 

### MI A

CORRECTA/

C ACTIO H - MA

YB E CC^ITttlUE D O

M RC/CRS E 

### N O ACTIO N

NSPECTOB ; 

### BURNET T LIND A 817 1 7/1/0 8 LAS T mu s rtnS T NAM E M n o pcrio i ifflTiAL S nCA « DAT E CERT . COD E TYP E SU 9 TYP E CATEGOB Y SOUWT

E ACCIDEN T ACTIC N SANCTIO M 

# oEEBID E 0 2 

## 0 2 5 M \ 

### 1 4 PTRSACrrvflTYCOD E Pn S H3PSCTO H COCC I t.W<S t REVIEW DATE 

# SIEllIlli ] nf^FI I / C 7A^nM ^ 73- ^ ADMIN . DAT E EIHNUr.eC R 

# EE1EHEDEQ0QB0E ]

^:• • '/" ^PROGRA M TRACKIN G AN D REPORTIN G SUBSYSTE M DATASHEE T (On a PTR S Recor d Require d fo rEac h Uni t o f Wor k a s define d i n th e PPM ) SECTIO N l-Transmttla l (nspecto rNam e Code : L,\ B Recor d 10 : SO1920082107 2 NPG ; Star t Date : 05/19/200 8 Designator : XE4 R Airaaf t Re g # : Fligh t ft : Activit y Number : 373 3 Statu s (POC) : C Result s (ACEFISTX) : C Affiliate d Designator . Loc/Departur e Point : Complain t # : Make-Model-Series : A-320-21 2 Simulator/Devic e ID : Mon-Cer t Activit y Name/Company : RE F S O 1920081926 4 Airma n Cer t # ; Examine rCer t # : Applican t Cer t # : Re o Instructo rCer t if : Pass/Fail : Tracking : Loca l Use : Activit y Time : Trigger s Activit y Number : FAR : 145 Callu p Date : Close d Date : 06/17/200 8 OTNA : Loc/Anriva l Point# : Occurrenc e # : Inciden t # : EIR# : 200asoi9022 0 Accidents . Name : Name : Name ; Name : Exa m Kind : Miscellaneous : Regiona l Use : /Assessment : 0. 0 Repea t Numbe r Geographic ? Ye s C 8430-1 3 # ; Numeri c Misc. ; Nationa l Use ; Trave l Cost : N o S Foreign ? Ye s D N o S SECTIO N 1 1 • Personne l {unUmited ) Personne l Nam e Positio n Bas e Remark s (2 3 Characters )

SECTIO N ti l - Ecjuipnnsn t (unlimited ) j Manufacture r Moda l Seria l # Remark s (2 3 Characters )

SECTIO N I V - COMMEN T (unlimited ) Primar y Are a K Ke

y Wor d 80 2 Opinio n

Cod e P Commen t Text (unlinnite d length )

RF KPTR< ; sni07rwMiiQV. 4 n p t v r LMVPSTIO A riO N INCIDBN T WIT H AA R WHKR E IHK Y r<l-TURNE D T O .SKRVICP . A:i2 0 TOOM USAJOOO . ATl^VSTCI(ECKSPOILrrttSWERf vI N O P POSITION . 05/15/07 . DURIN G CHECKFLIGH T O N 05/17/0 7 SPOILE R WA S I N LOCKU D POSITION . IKVESnCATIN O T O DETERMIN E WHER E THI S ADJUSTMEN T I N TH E SPOILE R OCCURRED . WEE KAFTE R INCIDEN T (WEE KO F 5/19/2008 ) WEN T T O AA R T O TAIJ < T O MGM T AN D Dat e Originato rOffice : Inspecto rSignaiura : Superviso rInilialt : FA A For m 8000.3 6 {i^Si )Inspecto r Nam e Code : LA

B Recor

dID : SO1920082107 2 Paee 2 Section I V - Commen

t (cont'd ) Primary Are a Ke

y Wor d Opinio n Cod e Commen

t Tex t 80 2 INTERVIE W 6 TECHNICIAN S WH O WER E WORKIN

G O N TH E SPOILER S O FTHI S AIRCRAFT , DISCUSSED WORK

ORDER S AN D CHECKED T O .SE E i S AN Y DISCREPANCIE S OCCURRED . POUN D AIRCRAFT WEN

T I N T O B E PAINTE

D AFTE RMAINTENANCE- VU

E ARE A O FTH E SPOILER S WOUL

D NO T B E DISTURBE

D FRO M ni E PAINTING . AFTE RCHECKIN G .MAN

Y /\A RWOR

K TAS K CARDS . INTERVIEWIN G SEVERAL AA

R TECHNICIAN S WH O WORKE D I N TH E ARE A O FTH E SPOILER S O FTHE AIRCRAFT AND WITNESSE

D THE SPOILE

RCHECK . AN

D AITUNDiN O SEVERA L MEETING S WIT

H AA RMGM T AND SUi'F.RVISORS . THI S OFFICE HA S ISSUE D AA RA LETTE

RO FWARNING . THI S OFFIC E CANNO T FIN

D WHO O RWHE

N THE ALLEGE

D NON-COMPLIAN

T MAINTENANC E OCCURRED . AGAIN , P.Vt

l CARMON

A CHECKED WIT

H CHIE FINSPECTORO FAA

RAN D SUPERVl.SOR S T O SEP . WHAT TAS K

CARDS , ! FAN

Y WER E PRODUCE

D B Y AA RBETWEE

N 5/1 5 - 5/19/2008 , THERF . WF.R

E NONE . AS THI S INVESTIGATIO N DI D NO T PRODUC: E EVIDENCE O FAN Y WRONGDOIN G O

N THE PAR

T O FAA RMAINTENANCE , W

E CANNO T INITIAT

E A CIVI L PENALT

Y VIOlJVTION , WIL

L INITIAT E N O .-SCTIO

N FO RAA RT O ENSUR

E FUTUR E INCIDENT S D

O NO T OC;CU

RAITE R THE MAINTENANC E HAS liEE N PEiy'OR.MED . N O ACTIO N SNAA

P ISSUE D O N 7/01.'2008 .PROGRA M TRACKIN G AN D REPORTIN G SUBSYSTE M DATASHEE T (On e PTR S Recor d Require d fo rEac h Uni t o f Wor k a s define d i n th e PPM ) SECTIO N 1 - Transmitta l Inspecto rNam e Code : LX C Recor d iO : S O 1920081926 4 NPG : Star t Date : 05/19/200 8 Designator ; XE4 R Aircraf t Re g # : N265A V Fligh t # : Activit y Numbe r373 3 Statu s (POC) : C Result s (ACEFISTX) : C Affiliate d Designator : Loc/Departur e Point : ,MI A Complain t # ; Make-Modal-Series : A-320-21 2 Simulator/Devic e ID : Non-Cer t Actiwt y Natne/Company : S O 1920082107 2 Airma n Cer t # ; Examine rCer t # : Applican t Cer t # : Re c Instructo rCer t # : Pass/Fail : Tracking ; Loca l Use ; Activit y Time : Trigger s Activit y Number : FAR : 145 Callu p Date : Close d Date : 07/01/200 8 OTNA : Loc/Arriva l Point* : Occurrenc e # : Inciden t # : EIR# ; 20085019022 0 Acciden t it : Name : Name : Name : Name : Exa m Kind : Miscellaneous : Regiona l Use : Assessment : 0. 0 Repea t Number : Geographic ? Ye s C 8430-1 3 # : Numeri c Misc. ; Nationa l Use : OFFHOU R Trave l Cost ; N o S Foreign ? Ye s D N o H SECTIO N i i - Personne f (unlimited ) Personne l Nam e Positio n Bas e Remark s (2 3 Characters )

SECTIO N I K- Equipmen t (unlimited ) Manufacture r Mode l Seria l # Remark s (2 3 Characters )

SECTIO N t V - COMMEN T (unlimited ) Primar y Are a E Key

Wor d 61 7 Opir*> n

Cod s 1 Commsn l Text (unlimite d length )

nS-IIJI R STAUTr- n lNvr:<;TIGAT10 N RPGARniN G .\ l 1 PGF n IMPROPP R MAirvlTI^NANC P n vAA R .AIRCRAF T SHRVICFS-MIAM I (AARm N N^ft-iAV . 05-20-0 8 - PREPARE D AN D SEN T LETTE R O F INVESTIGATIO N T O AA R 05-20-200 8 T O 06-16-200 8 - CONDUC 1 l. D INVESTIGATIO N REGARDIN G ni E ALLEGE D IMPROPE R MAINTENA.NCE . COUL D NO T PROV E THA T AN Y AA R EMPIJOYE E PERFORME D TH E IMPROPE R POSITIONIN G O F 'DI E LEI T WIN G SPOILER S 3 AN D 5 T O TH E MAINTENANC E Dat e Originator . Offica ; Inspecto rSignatuna : Superviso rInitials : FAf t Foni l 8000-3 6 (6-95 )Inspecto r Nain c Code : LX

C Recor

dID : S O 1920081926

4 Paae 2 Sectio n I V - Commen

t (cont'd ) Commen t Tex t Primary Are a Ke

y Wor d Opinion Cod e 61 7 MOD E

05-15-200 8 - A

N AlRCRAl T ENGINE S AN D SYSTEM S OPERATIO N TES T WA S COMPLETED BY US A 30 O PERSONNEL . SPOILER S OPER A I'lONA L TES T WA S COMPLETE D WIT

H SATISF.ACTOR

Y RESULT . FO ROTHE RIHA N A VV. W MINORCORRECTIO

N ITEMS AN

D TOUC H PAINTING (NON E O F WHIC H WA

S PERFOR.ME

D NF-ARTlI E LEFI ' WIN G SPOILER S NO i AND5) , NOOIHE R MAINTENANC E WA S DOCUMENTED AS BEIN G PERFORMED B Y AA

RDURING 05-1 5 AN

D 05-17-2008 . O N OS-15-200 8 -THE AIRCRAl- T WAS PARKE D AN D RELEASE

D TO TH E CUSTOMER , 05-17-2008 , n i E USA300 0 FLIGHT CRE W AN D MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL DI D A PREFLIGHI' . (A S PART O FTHE FLIGH T PREFLIGH

T CHECKLIST) , TKE

Y NOTED TH

E LF.1 T WING SPOILER S N O 3 AN D 5 WER E INOPERATIV

E AN D THE RIGHT WING NO i AN D 5 SPOILER S LOCKED . KNOWIN G TH E EXISTIN

G MALFUNCTION , TH E FLIGH T CRE W ELECTE

D T O TAK E TH E .MRCRAF

T AND FLE

W TH E AIRCRAF I FO

ROVERTHRE

E HOURS . UPON LANDIN

G AFTE RFLYING FO

ROVE RTHRE E HOURS . AA

RPE1«;0NNE L INSPECTE D THE LEF T WIN G SP01LBR. S AN D DETERMINE D THA T TH E LEF T WING NO 3 AN D 5 SPOILER S WER E I N THE MAINTENANC E POSITION . TH E INVESTIGATION DI

D NO T REVEALE

D WHi^ , WHO . WH

Y O RHO W WERE THE SPOILER S POSITIONE D T O I'H E MAINTENANC E MODE . DU E T O T l I E LAC K O FDOCUMENTATION REGARDIN G WHEN . WHO , WH

Y AN D HO W WER E TH E SPOILER S POSITIONE D I N TH E MAINTENANCE MODE , I T I S NO T POSSIIiLE TO

RTHI S INSPECTO RT O BLAME ANYONE FO RTH E IMPROPE

RPOSITIONIN G O FTH E SPOILERS . 07-0 1 -0 8 - A LETTE

RO FN O .ACTIO

N WA S ISSUE D TO AA RAND THE CAS E CLOSED .