William A. Curtright Respondent PO Box 1350 Jefferson, OR 97352 Telephone: (503) 209-7388 Fax: (503) 485-0812

In The Matter Of: 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

# RECEI\!EO NOV 

## 2 8

## 2016 HEARING DOCKET

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 WILLIAM A. CURTRIGHT, DBA Case No. 2014NM090046 Respondent Judge J.E. Sullivan 

### RESPONDENTS' RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL DECISION (SUMMARY JUDGMENT) 

### COMES NOW Respondent, William A. Curtright, DBA respectfully files and submits this Response and Objections to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary Judgment) Respondent would bring to the attention of this court that discovery has not ended and that Complainant has not answered Respondents Requests for Interrogatories and Production, along with Requests for Admissions. (Herein attached Respondent's Requests as Exhibit 1.) Factual background 

### This matter arose when Aviation Safety Inspectors (ASis) from the Portland Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) investigated an incident 

### that occurred on Respondent's property. Respondent objects to Complainant's Statement of Factual background that this matter arose from the investigation as an accident 

### which has the definition of an unfortunate incident that Respondents Response and Objection to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary Judgment) William A. Curtright,DBA Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 Respondent Case No. 2014NM0046 Telephone: (503) 209-7388 Fax (503)485-0812 Page 1happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, 

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

### incident which has the definition ofan unexpected and usually 

### unpleasant thing that happens. Respondent responds that the FAA has never given an explanation ofwhy they are proposing an $11,000.00 fine as the penalty, and further objects to such a fine and, what forms the basis for the maximum amount allowed. Respondent would further object to the amount of $11,000.00 fine as the penalty and state that it is unconstitutional under the Eight Amendment ofthe U.S. Constitution. Respondent responds to the court that the FAA has not met the burden ofproofas the moving party bringing this action before the court against Respondent because oflack ofproving that the imposed fine of $11,000.00 truly reflects the magnitude and scope oftime period where the records were lost and not available to the FAA for inspection. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is page 32 Lines 18-25 ofthe transcript ofthe telephone conference ofAugust 9, 2016 before the Honorable J.E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative Law Judge.) Respondent objects to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision Summary Judgment 

### in that the FAA hindered this case by not disclosing to Martin G. Conroy that the documents were produced on July 7, 2014 as stated in the letter from Dr. W. Ames Curtright to Martin G. Conroy, dated September 9, 2014 RE: EIR Number 2014NM090046 with attachments. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is the letter from Dr. W. Ames Curtright to Martin G. Conroy, dated September 9, 2014 with attached documents. Respondent objects to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision Summary Judgment for lack of evidence ofviolation of Section 14 C.F.R. 91.417(c) against Respondent. Respondent objects to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision Summary Judgment in that pursuant to the ALJ's rulings during the Prehearing Conference of September 20, 2016, the ALJ requested of Complainant to explain why he believed a civil penalty of the maximum amount of Respondents Response and Objection to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary Judgment) William A. Curtright,DBA Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 Respondent Case No. 2014NM0046 Telephone: (503) 209-7388 Fax (503)485-0812 Page 2

### $11,000.00 was justifiable. To date, even in the Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision Summary Judgment he has not explained, orjustified, the civil penalty. Respondent would show this court that according to the Federal Aviation Administration Cases by Regulation or Statute that there is no case that has been filed under Title 14 C.F.R. 91.417(c) since the last modification to the FAA web page ofAugust 27, 2014. (Herein attached as Exhibit 4 entitled FAA Cases by Regulation or Statute from the FAA web page.) Respondent would show the court that the only case in the FAA database that even comes remotely close to a violation under Title 14 C.F.R. 91.417 (c) is In the Matter of Scenic Mountain Air, Inc. FAA order No. 2001-5 Docket No. CP98AL0008 DMS No. FAA-1999-5568 where in on page 5 Section Estates ....Although the complaint sought a $7,500.00 civil penalty, the law judge assessed Scenic.... Page 6 civil penalties of only $500
..... per violation.... and would further the agency's policies of compliance and deterrence ..... (Initial Decision at 8.) (Herein attached as Exhibit 5 FAA Order No. 2001-5 Docket No CP98AL0008 DMS No. 1FAA1999-5568.) Respondent would show the court and contests the allegations set forth in the Complainant, and Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary Judgment) of setting a precedence of a judicial decision that serves an authority for deciding a later case. Respondent would contest that litigating the amount of the sanction is unconstitutional under the eight amendment of the U.S. Constitution and burdensome for Respondent as Respondent is a pro se litigant. Respondent argues that pursuant to ORDER 2150.3B page 2-3g. Fairness states the following: Respondents Response and Objection to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary Judgment) William A. Curtright,DBA Docket No. FAA-2015·1319 Respondent Case No. 2014NM0046 Telephone: (503) 209-7388 Fax (503)485-0812 Page 3"To be effective, the agency's compliance ond enforcementprogram must befair and reasonable and should be perceived asfair by those subject to regulations ..... " It also requires goodfaith efforts to understand the apparent violator's position.... " 

### On or about May 19,2015 the FAA through its attorney David J. Shayne filed a complaint; however, attorney David J. Shayne never signed the complaint, and did not list his attorney bar number to the complaint. 1 

### Respondent would request the court to impose sanctions against attorney David J. Shayne in the amount of$11,000.00 for failure to sign and include his state bar number on the complaint. 2 

### Respondent replies to the court according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) (Fed.R.Civ. P. 1l(a) provides instructional guidance and Rule 11 (a) states, in part: "The court must strike an unsigned paper" ...

# i Elements that cannot be proven by the Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision Summary Judgment The Federal Aviation Administration Motion for Partial Summary Judgment cannot demonstrate a triable issue of fact as to Respondent being liable for a civil penalty of $11,000.00 as being appropriate for the alleged violation of Section 14. C.F.R. 91.417(c). 4 

### Complaint bears the burden ofproving each element ofhis claims. Celotex Com. v. Catrett. 477 U.S. 317. 323-24 (1986i Complainant fails to identifY specific facts, material to the elements of his claims, that are in dispute. Rather, he asserts conclusions he believes the court should reach

1 FAA's Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R.§13.207(b) 2 FAA's Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R.§13.207(c) 3 FAA's Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R.§13.207(b) 4Celotex Corp. v. Catrett. 477 U.S. 317 323-24 (1986) 5 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986) Respondents Response and Objection to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision {Summary Judgment) William A. Curtright,DBA Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 Respondent Case No. 2014NM0046 Telephone: (503) 209-7388 Fax (503)485-0812 Page 4

### based upon his twist of the facts. Complaint's twist, however, misrepresents the facts, takes them out of context or only provides half of the facts. Additionally, he attempts to present conclusory statements and immaterial matters that do not support the elements ofhis Complaint. Respondent again would state that the FAA attorney David Shayne ignored when documents wereproduced to him for compliance of production of Respondents log books. 

### FAA attorney, David Shayne has ignored when local authorities in Oregon told him that Respondent was in compliance. 

### Respondent further responds that Complainant is in 

### violation oftheir own Rules and Regulations ORDER 2150.3B because Complainant failed to giveproper notice to Respondent in 2014. 

### The notice sent by Complainant was not signed by any one 

### and is therefore not proper notice of an alleged violation. Further, the alleged violation was not signed by an attorney and no bar number was used in the Complaint filed with the United States ofAmerica Department ofTransportation Office of Hearing in Washington, D.C., which is in violation of the FAA ORDER 2150.3B section 15 Legal Enforcement Actions. (Herein attached as Exhibit 6). Respondent hereby incorporates it's Motion for Summary Judgment, requires the Complainant to establish, by a preponderance of the evidences, a prima facie 

### case that: (I) respondent did not produce or make the Log Books available for inspection by the Administrator or any authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Respondent would state that the FAA has not identified grounds that will show a genuine issue ofmaterial fact 6

6 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett. 477 U.S. 317. 323-24 (1986) Respondents Response and Objection to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary Judgment} William A. Curtright, DBA Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 Respondent Case No. 2014NM0046 Telephone: (503) 209-7388 Fax (503)485-0812 Page 5

### Respondent responds to the court that the records themselves were produced to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and that the records themselves do not need to, and arguably should not be, stored on the aircraft, but must be produced for inspection in a reasonable amount of time when requested by the FAA, NTSB or law enforcement. 

### The Federal Aviation Administration Complaint cannot demonstrate a tribal issue of fact as to the allegations that Respondent is liable for a civil penalty of$11,000.00 as being appropriate for an alleged violation of Section 14. C.F.R. 91.417(c). 7 

### In addition, Respondent vindicating his Eight Amendment rights of the United States Constitution which is the part of the United States Bill of Rights prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment. Respondent moves for summary judgment on his claim that the Federal Aviation Administration failed to disclose the entire letter of investigation, dated September 4, 2014 to William Ames Curtright in its entirety. The FAA letter of Investigation has no signature page, or page 2. The document is page 1 and 3. The document is not an official letter, and is not authentic without a signature, or served and is not an entire document either served or produced by the FAA without the signature8 

### Respondent would argue and respond that because the FAA letter of investigation was unsigned and incomplete and was not produced or served in its entirety and therefor is not an authentic document. The FAA cannot rely on it for filing their initial Complaint and the entire Complaint filed by the FAA should be dismissed and Summary Judgment reliefbe granted to Respondent.

7Celotex Corp. v. Catrett. 477 U.S. 317.323-24 (1986) 8 FAA's Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R.§13.207(b) Respondents Response and Objection to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary Judgment) William A. Curtright,DBA Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 Respondent Case No. 2014NM0046 Telephone: (503) 209-7388 Fax (503)485-0812 Page 6

### In addition, Respondent would argue that the FAA Letter, dated September 4, 2014 is for. ... "documentation of your compliance with the flight review requirement of 14 C.F .R. DOT 61.56(c);" However, in the FAA's complaint that was filed with the Department of Transportation Office of Hearings in Washington, D.C. on or about May 19th 2015 the FAA alleges that Respondent was in violation of 14 CPR Section 91.417 (c) and does not include any allegations that Respondent was in violation of Section 14 C.P.R. DOT 61.56 (c), which has nothing to do with 14 CPR 91.417(c). Section 14 C.P.R. DOT 61.56(c) states the following: ... 

### "Except asprovided in paragraphs (d), (e) and (g) of this section, noperson may act aspilot in command of an aircraft unless, since the beginning of the 241 h 

### calendar month before the month in which thatpilot acts aspilot in command, thatperson has..... " On or about May 19,2015 the FAA through its attorney David 

### J. Shayne filed a complaint; however, attorney David J. Shayne never signed the complaint, and did not list his attorney bar number to the complaint. 9 

### Respondent would request the court to impose sanctions against attorney David 

### J. Shayne in the amount of$11,000.00 for failure to sign and include his state bar number on the complaint. 10 

### Respondent replies to the court according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ll(a) (Fed.R.Civ. P. ll(a) provides instructional guidance and Rule 11 (a) states, in part: "The court must strike an unsigned paper" ...) 11 

### Respondent replies the court that the FAA has never given an explanation ofwhy they are proposing an $11,000.00 fine as the civil penalty, and what forms the basis for the maximum amount allowed.

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

## °FAA's Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R.§13.207(c) 11 FAA's Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R.§13.207(b) Respondents Response and Objection to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary Judgment) William A. Curtright, DBA Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 Respondent Case No. 2014NM0046 Telephone: (503} 209-7388 Fax (503}485-0812 Page 7Respondent would further show the court that in the Complaint that was filed the FAA alleges that respondent is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $11,000.00 pursuant to 49 U.S. C. Sections 46301 (a) and (d). (Hereto attached as Exhibit 6 is Title 49 U.S.C. Sections 46301 (a) and (d). Respondent replies this court that under Title 49 U.S.C. § 4630 ]-Civil penalties (A) states the following: "(1) A person is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 (or $1,100 is the person is an individnal...." The FAA did not bring the civil penalty allegation under the proper U.S.C. code oftitle 49 U.S.C.§ 46301 (d)(2), and (7)(a)) Respondent would request the court to grant summary judgment reliefto Respondent on this matter for lack ofexplanation,jurisdiction, and incorrect citing of law for the maximum amount allowed in a civil penalty case. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is page 32 lines 18-25 ofthe transcript ofthe telephone conference ofAugust 9, 2016 before the Honorable J.E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative law Judge.) Respondent responds to the court that the FAA has not met the burden of proof as the moving party bringing this action before the court against Respondent because of Jack of proving that the imposed fme of $11,000.00 truly reflects the magnitude and scope of time period where the records were lost and not available to the FAA for inspection. Respondent replies to the court that in Complainant's Initial Disclosures Pursuant to the ALI's Order of August 10, 2016 and FRCP 26(l(a) that document 2014NM090046 clearly states that on July 7, 2014 and August 28, 2014 Respondent sent copies of the documents that were requested of him to the FAA. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is document 2014NM090046 with lines f, and h, j.) Respondent responds to the court that the FAA hindered this case by not disclosing to Martin G. Conroy that the documents were produced on July 7, 2014 as stated in the Jetter from Dr. W. Ames Curtright to Martin G. Conroy, dated September 9, 2014 herein attached as Exhibit 9 with attachments.)

Respondents Response and Objection to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary Judgment) William A. Curtright,DBA Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 Respondent Case No. 2014NM0046 Telephone: (503) 209-7388 Fax (503)485-0812 Page 8

### For the reasons stated above, Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary Judgment) should be denied. Furthermore, Respondent Motion for Summary Judgment filed on October 26, 2016 be granted with prejudice. 

# \ 1/J.J. \ '&0\\., Respectfully submitted this __ day ofNovember 2016



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

### Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 (Civil Penalty Action) 

## SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration (Fax and Certified First Class Mail) Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2Wl000 Fax: (202) 267-1293 ONE COPY Judge J.E. Sullivan (Fax, Email, and Certified First Class Mail) U.S. Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 David F. Shayne, FAA Attorney (Fax, Email, and Certified First Class Mail) Complainant's Counsel Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Ave. SW Renton, WA 98057 TEL: 425-227-1847 FAX: 425-227-1700 Respondents Response and Objection to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary Judgment) William A. Curtright, DBA Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 Respondent Case No. 2014NM0046 Telephone: (503) 209-7388 Fax (503)485-0812 Page 9

# I) William A. Curtright Respondent POBox 1350 Jefferson, OR 97352 Telephone: (503) 209-7388 Fax: (503) 485-0812 

## UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. In The Matter Of: WJLLJAM A. CURTRIGHT, DBA Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 Respondent Case No. 2014NM090046 Judge J.E. Sullivan 

### RESPONDENTS' REOUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF

Avi2 I and) ' ' Rul! Req

**wi~** obt yo! 

### DOCUMENTS 

### l

**~** ® 

### :5 6 6



## ~~~ **.e.~!~**

**Sm~** 

### a 'E'E:@:

**--~:2'** '!i!m-ooc•

**~"0¥ ~00** 

**,.,§,Q)~~Ii ~~~--**  'E.!!!!_ m

**._.~::'Iii** <tl1:: 

## ifl·t§1liil DOD d DO

# j **-~** ;Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal



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

**~** a: ,nd tbe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ;equests for Production of Documents, and

**~r** information and/or documents not only 

## tt also information 

### in tbe possession of or



### ~. employees, agents, or anyone acting on 

## u.s. Rostal

**Service~.** 

### , ' ' ' ' 

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


# .. . . 

# . .. . . ' 

# l OFFICIAl 

# u SE ! atj

I Postage $ 

### . a!]



### : .Certified Fee



## ~elma.k Return Receipt Fee He"' (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) I I 

# Pa RE/ 

## oq Total Postage & Fees 

### $ **c~**

'

• ·r.:i 

### ' ' 

# I- '
William A. Curtright Respondent POBox 1350 Jefferson, OR 97352 Telephone: (503) 209-7388 Fax: (503) 485-0812

In The Matter Of: 

## UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 WILLIAM A. CURTRIGHT, DBA Case No. 2014NM090046 Respondent Judge J.E. Sullivan 

### RESPONDENTS' REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS To: Complainant, Complainant ofFAA Administrator Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration (the "Administrator" or Complainant") and/or its representatiw agent or agents, and/or employees In accordance with 14 CFR § 13.220 and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 33 please respond to the following Interrogatories, Requesls for Production of Documents, and Request for Admissions, separately and fully under oath. These discovery requests are intended to discover information and/or documents not only within your personal knowledge or obtainable by you, but also information in the possession of or obtainable by your attorneys, investigators, representatives, employees, agents, or anyone acting on your behalf or on their behalf. These discovery requests are continuing in nature and any information which may be discovered by you subsequent to the service and filing of yollf answers must be brought to the attention of the respondent through supplemental answers when it becomes available to you, and a reasonable time prior to the hearing in this matter. If there are any additions, deletions or Page 1 RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCfiON OF DOCUMENTS REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 Case No. 2014NM0046 William A. Curtright,DBA Respondent Telephone: (503) 209-7388 Fax (503)485-0812changes in the answers or information provided at any time prior to hearing the Complainant is specifically requested to so immediately inform the Respondent. If such information is not furnished, the Respondent at the time ofthe hearing will move to exclude from evidence such information requested and not furnished. The Respondent further requests that the Complainant produce, via mail or in person, the documents identified and designated herein for inspection and copying at the addr e s s of 4135 Paradise Hill, S.E. Turner, Oregon 97392 

### DEFINITIONS For purposes ofthese interrogatories the following abbreviations and definitions shall apply. 

### 1. The terms "you" and "your" mean the party to whom these interrogatories are addressed, and your attorneys, agents, employees, representatives, investigators, and any other person who is in possession of, or who has obtained information on your behalf.
2. The term "document" means information stored in any form; any written, recorded or graphic matter, however produced or reproduced; and copies and drafts thereof. Without limiting the foregoing, "document" includes correspondence; telegrams; memoranda; reports; notes; drafts; minutes; contracts; agreements; books; records; vouchers; invoices; diaries; logs; calendar notes; computer printouts; memory programs; information stored in any data processing or word processing system, in whatever form; backup materials of any kind; card files; press clippings; newspapers or newsletters; sworn ·or unsworn statements or employees; lists; audits; tables of organization; deposit slips; monthly or other periodic statements; ledgers; journals; notices; affidavits; court papers; appointment books; minutes or records of conferences or telephone calls; brochures; receipts; written reports or opinions ofinvestigators or experts; status reports; drawings; charts; photographs; negatives; or tape recordings within your possession, or subject to your control, ofwhich you have knowledge, or Page 2 RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 case No. 2014NM0046 William A. Curtright, DBA Respondent Telephone: (503) 209-7388 Fax (503)485-0812

### to which you now have, or have had access, or ofwhich any ofyour agents, attorneys, accountants, or consultants have knowledge. A comment or notation appearing on any document, not part of the original text, is to be considered as a separate "document" 3. The term "identify" means: A. Whenreferring to a natural person, state his/her full name, his/her present or last knownbusiness or home address ifthere is no business address. B. 

### When referring to a document, state its title and date; identify the author or person who prepared it and any signatories to it; give the type of document (M, 

### letter, memorandum, invoice); its present location and custodian; a snmmary of its contents, or principal terms and provisions; the identity ofits addresses and all other persons receiving it or copies ofit. If the document so identified was, but is not longer, in your possession, custody and control, state what disposition has been made ofit. Attach a copy ofit to yourresponse to these interrogatories. PRIVILEGE 

### If, in

### responding to, or failing to respond to these interrogatories and requests for production you invoke or rely upon any privilege of any kind, state specifically the nature ofthe privilege; the basis upon which you invoke, rely upon or claim it, including any statutory or decisional reference; and identify all documents or other information, including contacts and communications which you believe to be embraced by the privilege invoked. DATED 

### this 31" 

### day of October, 2016 

# Lo

**~** 0---- 

# e._..._ __ William Ames Curtright, DBA

Page 3 RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 Case No. 2014NM0046 William A. Curtright,DBA Respondent Telephone: 1503) 209-7388 Fax IS03)485-0812INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

### INTERROGATORY No. 1: Describe with specificity all of the facts and arguments which you anticipate presenting in the course ofthe Department of Transportation (DOT) hearing in this matter pertaining to the civil penalty amount that the FAA seeks in this case ofaction. INTERROGATORY No.2: Describe with specificity all ofthe facts and arguments which you anticipate presenting in the course ofthe Department ofTransportation (DOT) hearing in this matter pertaining to the civil penalty amount sought by the FAA in the case ofaction. INTERROGATORY No.3: Describe with specificity all ofthe facts and arguments which you anticipate presenting in the course ofthe Department ofTransportation (DOT) hearing in this matter identifying the grounds that will show a genuine issue ofmaterial fact. INTERROGATORY No. 4:Describe with specificity all ofthe facts and arguments which you anticipate presenting in the course ofthe Department ofTransportation (DOT) hearing in this matter identifying why the FAA believes a civil penalty of $11,000.00 as being appropriate for the alleged violation ofSection 14. C.F.R. 91.417(c). INTERROGATORY No. 5: Describe with specificity all ofthe facts and arguments which you anticipate presenting in the course ofthe Department ofTransportation (DOT) hearing the FAA's explanation of why they are proposing an $11,000.00 fine as the civil penalty, and what fonns the basis for the maximum amount allowed. INTERROGATORY No.6: Describe with specificity all ofthe facts and arguments which you anticipate presenting in the course ofthe Department ofTransportation (DOT) hearing in this matter identifying why the FAA had offered a settlement of $5,000.00. INTERROGATORY No.7: Describe with specificity all ofthe facts and arguments which you anticipate presenting in the course ofthe Department ofTransportation (DOT) hearing in this matter identifying why the FAA had offered a settlement of$3,500.00 for full settlement ofthis case. INTERROGATORY No. 8: Identify by name, address and telephone number, all persons whom you discussed at your agency regarding the FAA offered settlement of $5,000.00. INTERROGATORY No.9: Identify by name, address and telephone number, all persons whom you discussed at your agency regarding the FAA offered settlement of $3,5000.00. INTERROGATORY No 10: Identify by name, address and telepl:tone number all persons whom you know to have personal knowledge ofthe matters alleged in the Complaint. INTERROGATORY N o . 1 1 : Identify by title, date, author, present custodian, and content, all documents, including correspondence, obtained by you or in your possession, relating to the Page 4 RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 Case No. 2014NM0046 William A. Curtright, DBA Respondent Telephone: (503) 209-7388 Fax (503)485-0812

### assertions in the Complaint, and evidence that Respondent did not provide the documentation that was requested ofhim under Section 14 C.F.R. 91.417(c). INTERROGATORY No. 12: Identify by name, address and telephone number, all persons whom you intend to have testify as a factual or expert witness in support ofyour complaint at the hearing in this matter, and for factual witnesses, provide a detailed summary ofeach persons anticipated testimony. INTERROGATORY No. 13: Identify by title, date, author, present custodian, and content, all documents which you anticipate offering into evidence at the hearing in this matter, and through which witness or witnesses. INTERROGATORY No. 14: Withrespectto each expert witness identified in response to Interrogatory No.12, above, specify their specific area of expertise, and provide a synopsis oftheir credentials, background, training and experience. INTERROGATORY No. 15: With respect to each expert you expect to call as a witness, state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify, and a summary of the grounds for each such opinion. INTERROGATORY No. 16: State by name, address, telephone number, date 

### of conversation, and substance of conversation, all persons with whom you have discussed the matters alleged in the Complaint. INTERROGATORY No.17: Ifyou deny any or an·ofRequests for Admissions, please explain in detail the specific reason for each and every fact denied. INTERROGATORY No. 18: Ifyou deny any or all ofRequest for Admissions please explain in detail the specific reason for each and every fact denied and sate specifically whether you had a conversation with ASI Comoy and, if so, what is your recollection ofthe conversation. INTERROGATORY No. 19: With respect to FAA attorney David F. Shayne, please describe ifyou are a permanent employee ofthe FAA or a contracted attorney with the FAA. INTERROGATORY No. 20: With respect to FAA attorney David F. Shayne, please describe ifyou are a contracted attorney with the FAA ifyou receive a percentage payment based on the amount of civil penalties are collected by you or the FAA.
REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Provide a copy of all documents referred to in your answer to the preceding interrogatories No. 1 through No. 20.

Page 5 RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 Case No. 2014NM0046 William A. Curtright,DBA Respondent Telephone: (503) 209-7388 Fax (503)485-0812

### REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS You are requested to admit the truth ofthe following matters. A matter is admitted unless responded to by November 30, 2016. A "response" includes serving an answer upon the agency attorney either admitting the matter, specifically denying the matter, stating why the matter cannot be admitted or denied, or objecting to the request, with reasons for the objection stated. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No 1. Admit that Attachment 1 is a true and correct copy of an electronic mail message (email) you sent to Wm. Ames Curtright, DBA on October 14, 2015 and an electronic mail message (email) Wm. Ames Curtright, DBA sent to you, David F. Shayne on October 14, 2015. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No 2. Admit that Attachment 2 is a true and correct copy of a speed memo that was attached to the October 14, 2015 electronic mail message (email) (document request for admission No. 1) from the FM in Hillsboro, Oregon to Marty G. Conroy cc: Bill McKibbon regarding INSPECTOR STATEMENT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No 3. Admit that Attachment 3 is a true and correct copy ofthe Complaint that the FAA filed with the United States Of America Department of Transportation Office of Hearings Washington, D.C. by FAA attorney David F. Shayne against William A. Curtright with case no. FAA Case No. 2014NM090046. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No 4. Admit that Attachment 4 is a true and correct copy of a A SECTION B Statement ofCase and Factors Affecting Sanction produced 

### by the FAA in their initial disclosure statement in Case No. 2014NM090046. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No 5. Admit that Attachment 5 is a true and correct copy of a letter to Martin G. Conroy from Dr. W. Ames Curtright, dated September 9, 2014 re: EIR Number 2014NM090046 with attachments of Oregon Aircraft Registration Certificate; Memorandum from Ben W. Davidson to William Ames Curtright dated August 26, 2014;medical Certificate Third Class; electronic mail message (email) from William Ames Curtright to Marty Conroy dated July 7, 2014 with subject N949JP Information, The Standard Pilot Log book. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No 6. Admit that Attachment 6 is a true and correct copy of a electronic mail message (email) from William Ames Curtright to Marty Conroy dated August 28, 2014 subject N949JP Information. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No 7. Admit that Attachment 7 is a true and correct copy of a a Page 6 RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Docket No. FAA-2015·1319 Case No. 2014NM0046 William A. Curtright, DBA Respondent Telephone: (503) 209·7388 Fax (503)485·0812

### Decision and Order in the matter of Premier Jets, Inc. with FAA Order No. 99-7 Served August 31, 1999 with Docket No. CP97NM0005 that was sent to FAA attorney David F. Shayne with Respondent's additional disclosures pursuant to FRCP 2691(a) on September 20'h 23016 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No 8. Admit that Attachment 8 is a true and correct copy of a photo's of N949JP log book 1, 2 and 2 produced to FAA attorney David F. Shayne with Respondent Initial Disclosures Pursuant to the ALJ'S Order of August 10, 2016 and FRCP 269(a) on September 9, 2016 by Respondent. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No.9. Admit that Attachment 9 is a true and correct copy of a email from Scott Myers of FAA to Patty Abel dated July 30, 2015 regarding that they are in receipt of Mr. Curtright's email dated July 27, 2015 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No 10. Admit that Attachment I 0 is a true and correct copy of a electronic mail message (email) from Dr. William A. Curtright, DBA to Judge Richard Goodwin cc: Patricia Matthew and David F. Shayne dated August 11, 2015 re: Reply to FAA's Motion; with electronic mail message (email) from patty Abel to Bill McKibbon and Scott Myers of FAA dated July 30, 2015 regarding if they had received the documents sent on July 27, 2015. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No 11. Admit that Attachment 11 is a true and correct copy of a electronic mail message (email) from Dr. William A. Curtright, DBA to David Shayne dated July 23, 2015 regarding flight logs, weight and balance with attachments of FAA Approved Airplane flight manual supplement 2 with a total of 4 pages; Supplemental Type Certificate dated March I, 2011. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 12 Admit that Attachment 12 is a true and correct copy of a letter dated July 22, 2015 from Dr. Wm. Ames Curtright, DBA to Bill McKibbon and Scott Myers of Flight Standards Dist. Office re: EIR number 2014 NM0900046 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 13 Admit that Attachment 13 is a true and correct copy of a letter dated May 11, 2015 from Dr. Wm. Ames Curtright, DBA to Martin Conroy Aviation Safety Inspector re: Case No. 201 '4NM090046 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. 14 Admit that Attachment 14 is a true and correct copy of a letter dated May 11, 2015 from Dr. Wm. Ames Curtright, DBA to Scott Myers re: FAA Case No. 21014NM090046

Page 7 RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Docket No. FAA-2015·1319 Case No. 2014NM0046 William A. Curtright,DBA Respondent Telephone: (503) 209-7388 Fax (503)485-0812

### The undersigned Complainant herein has read the foregoing answers to Respondent's Request for Interrogatories and Production ofDocuments and Request for Admissions, and they are in 

### compliance with Rules 1 I and 26(g) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure.
DATED 

### this_ day of___ **~2016.**


### David F. Shayne FAA Attorney CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### I hereby certifY that the foregoing Respondents Request for Interrogatories and Production of Documents and Request for Admissions, has been served as designated by the recipient this date, to the following: David F. Shayne, FAA Attorney (Fax, Email, and Certified First Class Mail) Complainant's Counsel Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Ave. SW Renton, W A 98057 TEL: 425-227-1847 FALX:425-227-1007 Email: David.F.Shavne@faa.gov



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

Page 8 RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 Case No. 2014NM0046 William A. Curtright, DBA Respondent Telephone: (503) 209·7388 Fax (503)485·0812' '



# ATTACHMENTNO. 1. 

### _ _...,··· .. ···



# . . .!A(jlliam Ames Curtright _"; ·rom: .>ent: 

### To: David.F.Shayne@faa.gov Wednesday, October 14, 2015 2:15 PM ames@amesresearch.com Subject: Attachments: 

### RE: Docket No. FAA-2015-1319, Curtright document2015-08-16-071730.pdf
Here is a copy ofthe email I received and the memo Sorry David, This is to confirm the records have now been provided and examined to our satisfaction. Attached is aspeed memo from inspector Cowley regarding his examination of the records. Best regards, Billy J. McKibbon Front Line Manager- Heavy Helicopter Unit Portland Flight Standards Federal Aviation Administration (503) 615·3235 ),alue your feedback. ;htStandards SeNice Quality Management System (QMS) Feedback ro rm :http://www.faa .gov

### Iabout/ office_ o

rg/headquarters_offices/ avs/ offices/afs/qms/


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

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

### To: Shayne, David F (FAA) 

### Subject: Docket No. FAA-2015-1319, Curtright David, I note that this matter is still before the courts. I also note the Order for Reassigning the proceedings to a new Judge. Thus 1note that this matter isn't dismissed as of yet. 1Could you send me a copy ofyour last letter to the court requesting the Dropping and closure of this matter. As you know Curt Cowley visited our offices and reviewed all documentation ofthe lost documents from Portland, Oregon

, Wm. Ames Curtright, BS, DBA --'0/President Ames Research Laboratories, Inc. ames@amesresearch.com Phone: 503-588-7000 1

## SPEED MEMO SUBJECT 

### EIR No. 2014NM090046, Lost Logs TO: DATE OF REPLY 

### Marty G Conroy cc Bill McKibbon SIGNATURE OF REPLIER TITLE 

# I ROUTING SYM. INITIAL MESSAGE INSPECTOR STATEMENT
On Thursday, 08,13,2015. AS/'s Curt Cowley and Terry Juran inspected the

**~ircraft** maintenance records of Supercub N949JP, at Mr Curtright's place of business in Salem, Or. Mr Curtright was pleasant and curteous. 

### He allowed us unrestricted access to the aircraft logbooks without distraction. The records were well organized and complete, back to the birth of the aircraft. The records did not appear to the alterered or edited in anyway. No descrepantcies were noted, and the
**aircra~appears** to have been airworthy at the time of the accident

REPLY MESSAGE



# I

FROM: DATE OF INITIAL MESSAGE

**~§lost** 11'12015 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION


### SIGN~/..t:**O~rN7'0~~** Flight Standards District Office 

## /. 'A'J. boA ..rJ 

# D· '- 'V"( 3180 NW 229 1" Avenue TITLE ASI V ROUTIN(1 SYM. Hillsboro. OREGON 97124 NM09

# ATTACHMENT NO.2**~~** 

## S.PE.ED.,MEMO.

**~·** SUBJECT 

### EIR No. 2014NM090046, Lost Logs 't 

### TO: DATE OF REPLY 

### Marty G Conroy cc Bill 

### McKibbon SIGNATURE OF RS'I.IeR TITLE 

# I ROUTING SYM.

INITIAL MESSAGE INSPECTOR STATEMENT
On ·Thursday, 

### 08-13-2015, ASI's Curt Cowley and TerryJurorn inspepted 

### tmaireraft maintenance rec\)l'ds ofSupercub N949Jf>, at MrCurtright's place of business in Salem, Or. Mr Curtright waspl!!asant and curteous. He allowed us unrestricted access to the aircraft logbooks without distraction. The (ecords were well organized and.complete, back to the birth of the alrcl9fl. The records did not appear to 

### the alterered or edited in anyway. No descrapantcies were noted, and the **airc~fl** appears to have been airworthyattile time
of the accident


### ' REPLY MESSAGE



### FROM: DATE OfINITIAL MESSAGE

**~st** 

### 1j,2015 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

# SI(;'J;dcf.

**R~!** Flight Standards District Office 3180 NW 22glh Avenue TITLE (I ROUTIN<1SYM. Hillsboro, OREGON 97124 ASI NM09

# ATTACHMENT NO.3DAVID F. SHAYNE 

### FAA OFFICEOF

### REGIONALCOUNSEL 

### 1601 LINDAVE., SW RENTON, WASHINGTON98057 TELBPHONE:{425)227-216S FACSIMILE: ( 

### 425) 227-1007 **UNlTEDSTATESOF~CA** 

## DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOltTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C
In the Matter of: WilliamA. Curtright
JUDGE 

### NOTASSIGNED: FAA CaseNo. 2014NM090046 Judge NotAssigned


### COMPLAINT The Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), by counel, herebyfiles 

### its Complaint, pursuant to Rule 208 of the Rules of Practice (14 Code ofFeoeral Regulations (C.F.R.) Section
13 

### .208), and states 

## as follows: 

### I. On May 6, 2015, William A. Curtrightwas advised tlirough aFinal Notice of Proposed Civil 

### Penaltythatthe FAAproposed to assess acivil penaltyin 

### the amountof$11,000. On

### May

· 11, 2015, Mr. Curtright 

### submitted awritten request for ahearing. 

# n. 1. William A. Curtright 

## was and at all times materillhereto 

## was the oWnerand/or operatorofaPiperModel PA-18135, aU.S. registered civil aircraft, N949JP.. 2. On or aboutJuly 1, 2014, an Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) from the PortlsndFlight Standards District Office wrote Mr. Curtright aletter

### demanding thatheprovide

. COMPLAINT

FAA

### v. William A. Curtright FAA Case No. 20!4NM090046

**Da~~?.** 

### Of'S' DAVfDF. Sl!AYNE, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2165;FAX: (425) 227-1007/ 

# ..-· 

## . ..... / 

### aircraftweight and 

### balance, and aircraft 

### and enginetnllintenance logbooks for N949JP. 3. Mr. Curtright senttwo emails and a

### letter acknowledging thathe was aware of the demand. 4. As of this time, 

## Mr. Curtrighthas failed to provide

**th~** 

### maintenancerecords referenced above. 

# m. 1. Byreasgn of the foregoing facts and circumstances, Mr. Curtright violated Section91.417 (c) of the Federal AviationRegulations (14 Code ofFederal **R~gulations** 

### (C.P.R.)) in 

### that 

## he owned or operated an aircraftfor which he failed to make all maintenance records required to be kept by 

### this section available for inspectionby

### the Administrator.
2. 

## In accordance with Sections 46301(a) and (d) ofTitle 49ofthe United States Code (U.S.C.) (Transportation) (49 U.S.C. 

### Sections 46301(a) an.d 

### (d)J, 

## Mr. Curtrightis liable for acivil penalty notto exceed $11,000 for 

### each ofthe violations
**not~d.** 

### 3. 

### Under the facts and circumstances ofthis case, acivil penalty of$11,000 is appropriate. WHEREFORE, the Agency, by 

### counsel, respectfully requests thatthe Administrative Law Judge enter an Order that William A. 

### Curtrightbe assesseda. 

### civil penalty in 

### the amount of $11,000. Respectfully submitted this I

### 9th day ofMay 2015.

David 

### F. Shayne FMAttorney
COMPLAINT FAA

### v. William A. Curtright FAA Case No. 2014NM090046 Pa.ge3 ofS DAVIDF. SI!AYNB.FMATIORNEY lEL: (425) 227·2165; FAX: (425) 227·1007

### ./ 

### ANSWER 

### In 

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

### Curtright, must answer this Complaintnot later than thirty 

### (30) days from 111e time it is served. Failure to file an Answer within thirty 

### (30) days without good cause shall be deemed an admission ofthe truth ofeach allegation contained in 

### the Complaint [14.C.F.R. §

### 13.209(£)].

COMPLA!NT FAA 

### v. William A. Cll$igbt FAA Case No. 2014NM090046 Page4 of5 DAVID F. S!IAYNB, FMArroRNEY 1EL: (425) 227·2165; FAX: (425)**2~7·1007**

# .-:.11 /

..i 

## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ihereby cert!fY that the fore&oing Complaint has 

### been served

## via facsimile and/or certified mail· Return Recetpt Requested this date, to the following: Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) 800 Independence Avel;lue SW Washington, D.C. 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- 

### Suite 2Wl000 Fax: (202) 267-1293 William A. 

### Curtright P.O. Box 1350 Jefferson, OR 97352 Dated this 19th day ofMay2015. ,,•'


## T . Kirk 0 ce ofRegional

**Couns~l** 

### (ANM-7) Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Ave. SW Renton, WA 98057 (425) 227-2007

. COMPLAINT DAVID F. S!!AYNE, FAAATIOBNEY TBL: (425) 227-2165; FAX: (425) 227-1007 FAA v. William A. Curtright FAA Case No. 2014NM090046 . PageS ofS

# ATTACHMENT NO.4. . 

### . 

## ' :' 

# S}OCTIONB Statementof Case and 

## FactorsAffectingSanction 1. **STATEME~.OFCASE**



# . . b. 

### TheNorthwest
**.Moun~**

### Regional Operations Center(ROC)coll1actedInspectorMartin Conroy on 6/16/14 informing

### him that 

### N949JP aPA-18-13Sailplane, was 

### involved in 

### an accident. The ROC


## id~ed William 

## Ames Cmt:n'ght, Certiffcafe NUmber 543487756, as 

### thepilot in 

### command 

### andthe owner ofN949JP, TheIoca1icncfthe accident was 

### at 

### Mr. Curtright's private airport, Ames 

### Airport, 

### nearJe:fferson,Oregon. The accident occurred on 6/15/14. (IOP 1, 2, 3)
c..

# IoSPector Coprciy 

### conducted an onsite accident imrestigatlon it 

### the Afll.es 

### Airport

### on 6/17/14. 

### Inspector Conroy determined that

### the damage toN9f9JP was substantial and qualified 

### as an accident. 

### At thattime, Jnspeotor Conroy aske! 

### Mr. Curtrightto prov:ide this office with the 

### following documentation at

### bis earliest coavenience: aircraftweight andbalance

## form, airftame 

### and engine **m~ce**

### logbook.\ airworthiness and 

### registration certificates, his endorsement demonstrating comJ!Iiance with the 

### flight review requirement ofl4 CFRPart 61.56. 

### (IOP4) d. 

### This office mailed 

### aletterto 

### Mr. Curtright on 7/1114 again

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


### e. That same day, 

### Mr. Curtright contactedInspector ConroybymJail 

### explaining that 

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

### On

### 717114, Mr. Curtright sent copies of the following 

### documents 

### by email: mcsimile 

### used·as temporaryregistration forN949JP;·copy ofauniden1iliedpfiot logbookpage 

### with an entryfor apilotflight review dated 9/6/12 that 

### lacked minstructor's endorsement; copy of third 

### class medical certificate for 

### Mr. C1irtrightdated 6/26/2014; and

### copy ofOregonAircraft 

### Registration Certificate. (IOP1) 

### g. On

### 717/14, Inspector 

### Conroyresponded to 

### this 

### email correspondence again 

### requesting the 

### following missing docup1entation: acomplete record of 

### his jJjglttreviewthat 

### included 

### the illstructor's endorsement signature; aircraft 

### weight and halmce

### record; airframe and engipe m!'Wt@I!Jmce 

### logbo!!U. QO!! 

### S}

.. -... -- 

### h. On 8{28/14, 

### Mr. Curtright 

### sentthis office an email 

### with copies of the following documen'ts: Weight and balance record; aMemorandumtoVtlliam

### Curtrightfrom Ben 

### W. Davidson, A&P 2855347IA, verizying that

### he completet

### au.nnual inspection of N949JP on 9/23/2013. In

### this email, Mr. Curtright 

### inc!icatedtlal: "will notbe able to go 

### up this year" to Canadato retrieve the 

### maintenance logbooks. (I<>P 9) i. 

### This office sent aLetter oflnvestigation (101) to 

### Mr. Curtliilt, recause he 

### failed to presentthis office withthe airframe and enginemaintenanceloJ:IJooks for N949JP and a



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

**(Revis~d.** 04/1612013) 

### ·. -20-14NM09DD46- ; ' 

### j 

## j

### . '

. . 

### complete record ofh.. QUIJ:entflight review. The 

### 101

## was dalotJ :9/4/14 and 

### sent 9/5/14. 

### (lOP 10) · · . j. 

### Mr. Cumight

### respondedto

**th~**

### LOI with 

### correspondence dated9/9/14. He 

### exptainedthat the 

### airframe andtnaintenance logbooks 

## werelocated in Canada. Mr. 

### Curtrightdid · enclose a complete copy of his 

### current

### flight reviewthat 

### incl'l!d3dthe instructor's endorsement. (lOP 11) · • . . k. On9/24/14, Inspector Conroy

**con~**

### Mr. Curtright

### bytelephone. InspectorConroy asked 

### him

### ifhe i!Uendedto present

## thiS officeWiththe 

### airlh!meand

**engin~** 

### logbooks for 

### N949JP to 

### allowthe 

### FAA to 

### conclude if$ 

### investigation into theaccident of6/15/14. 

## Mr. Curtrightresponded thatthe logbooks 

## were at

### his home in 

## Canadaandthathe

# wasnot in 

### aposition to 

### travel there 

### andrecover

### them. :JilspectorConroythen

### askei1

## Mr. Curtright if 

### he couldprovide afuture 

### date when

### he wouldbe able to 

### "make 11lemavailable to this 

### officefor inspection. Mr. 

### Curtrightrespondedthat

### he didnoteqJectto

**~1**

### to 

### Canada 

### any

### time in 

### the near :future. (lOP 12)



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

### · (Revised· 0411612013) 

### - · ----ZG'14NM090046 - ··-· ····-·· · ' i !"

# .. \



### g. 

### Use of certificate: Mt. Curlrlght

### is a

## PrivatePilot **operating~** 

## m airoraftforreilreational putpOSjiS.



### L

## DecisionallaW: DecisionalLaw

### issue will 

### dete.rm.ined 

### attheregiCll!a(J.ewl



## - - -· -WIWAM-AM&s-CUIURIGH+- · · - - ·- ·· ····· · --- 2014NM090D46 (Rmsect • 0411612013)

# •SECTION B(cont.) Statementof Case and

## Factor,4f!ectingSanction

WILLIAM AMES CURTRIGHT 2014NM090046

- (Revised **-o~61Z013}**

# ATTACHMENT NO.5'·. ,, 

## ..... ' 

# ........

September9, Z014 

### MartinG,

### conroy 

### AviatlonSafelvfllspector FlightStill!darc!s

### .Dmt. **Ofli~** 

### 3180.NW2l!9u.Ave. 

### Hillsboro,OR97!:24 Re: EfR Nlll!lberZ014NM0900A6 

### DftrSir: 

### . ......, . **~··** .,.



### Asei!Plailiedviaemail,

## theaiMftlogs

### arenotinthe·UnitecfStates;

### tlrlr

### arein **Cil~** 

### whereI 

## afso live. 

## ram now awaitingtliitime

## to repairIllY 

### aircraftrepair. 

## Incrierto m-yqurrequest, I

### have

### emiiiledtliete"mainillgdocum.entlalldthe **Certifl~l!tio.n** 

### of **Annm~II1SI!ectii!IJ**

### asreqllested 

## tothe 

## Portland **o~.** 

### All **ot~daeuments**

### have beenprovidedto you

**a~**

### requested•. Is it

### pcs.tfavourpUple have net **ope~ed**

### youremalls

### te-t:hedltheattachments? 

### Theyweresenttll

**~Gr P~rtli!ldoffice,**  

### If 

# vou are

### stUI **missing~om.etllillg**

## returknow. Wei
**h~**

### provided

## e(etterfivmthe

## mechaniCwho

## didtheannual **ce~n**

### inspection.We recentlvemailedthewelehtand

### balance but

### again 

### weWill mail it **to~'·** 

### 'rhe eventwas on

# mv private **pto~~erty.** 

### ft
**t<~ol<**

### place afterlanding; !ben
**was~** 

### $teedr!gproblem becauseofacollapsedgearwhichcaused

## a. hf•ng 

### totlieleft. Tile ab'aftwasnotair&ome but

### inetfi\1andthe 

### railontb'float$11!111¢the

### aircraft

### tothe

### left

### andlrlothegrast, thus,our tfescrip'lionoftlteevintwhlchdamagedthe aircraft. Your

### letters indicateyou have neverreceived

## anvoftllis information llilchisti'allbfillg. We 

### have pl'iiVkled

### youthe

### arrcraftweight

### andbalance, **~irwortltlnessngts.tration** 

### certiltate, and

### decumentlltlon withthe.f!lght

### raviewrequirements and 

### alltftedCCJments

### VOII

### requested,



# .vetyoupeople actas

### if you neverreceived those items. 

### We have providedtoyouthedacuments In 

### aspiflt

### ofcooperation.

**Alii~.** 

### wehopethis meets yourneeds

**~hd**

### praythis bril!gS_clliS!JI'eforus both. 

### Dr. 

# w. Ames **Curtrig~t** .: ·-: iV' 

# I 

# I

' ' '

### FAA NO.:.N949JP 

### Year: 1953 

## '

.' 

### l 

### Ce!tilicate:42l37 **EXpkatiOD:~Ol5** 

### i .



# I I I I I I I I I I I 'I

# 1 

# I

**Mem~randum** Ta: WiUillliZ 

## Ames

## Cul'lrigiJt Fwlm: JJen 

## W. Dllvitlson 

## D41e: 

## 8121/2014 Re: AlmllllllMpeC.IJtJnN949JP

**Bil~** 

## TldlJ

## leiter

## is

## to velfP

## tluJt

## Icampleted1111

## AnntiiJl!rlspecliononN949JP
**aP4·18onS~r**

## 23"'. 20/3. Att1vzt

## tr'ntelpovidedyouwith

**a~**

## lf8t

## tlvztinclrided 1/Jf

### e;epiTerJ IJtltteryilr JONI'

## ELTthtll 

## repiredrepl«t:ement. 

# If 11/!.edfol'llter fJSGisklnae,pleflsrriu Mt 

## heaitote II

## call**anyti~**

## before 

# 9pm,.. (541) 490-6980.



# Cfff-.~Pal Ben 

## W. Davilson A&P2855341IA

f 

# I' 

# I i 

# I i !UNI1EUSTA'ISSGPMIIRIC\ iiWp:lll1rentefl!Drpllallan **F«u.a!Aifd~nM'r.fi'J'mtesn"** MI!DitW. CftftFIOA'I'I!

### 1ltfliD OLASS Wlti.IAMAMISC'liiiTRl'GHT 4135PARADIS£Ritt 'l'URNSR OR 97.192 liSA

OK 73121.§14 WILLIAMAMES CURTRIGHT 413:iPARADISEHILL TVRNBR OR 97392 USA
DaarAinmn: DIVISION, AAM •300

A!Javo I• )'llUrOOWntodical c<!lifiM. I!SUJ!II>•<I<t"'Y pAIViO!Il one YI"'II!DY haroiri<Jl il!lf4 To vallda!e !&iscertifteall, 11isMC<IGSIIYrltarfiliisiJn k

### in die

# sp••• provi4t4 **(Ai1111111~ Si&<~.**  ThiS .. lfificale IIW!tflo in yourp....Won atalt tim., **~!lila** exmisingyo!JfpR!IIprM!e§t.•. 

# I

### -··-- 

# ··-··--------·· . 

# ,..: Still: Jb: 

# Suftect: **A.tt\l~ts:** 

## Mlrtv.

**Pleas~**qe

### atb!lllted. As

### veu tn1gl\t

### Meal!VOO·tlioka(il«ure-oftlls**afr·Wotthlnes~**

### cedicate when

### youcameollt,

## want

meto.

### takeanotherpicture **for9DU~**

### itthatwasllipe!fin

### t.lle **~O-(IIIl~!!wall.** 

### Ail'wqrt/linesr, 

## wetdamaged **fe!lldeted~li**

### On&. **JJ~Ailm'l.S**

### cti!Wfl'olii

### tog. IIJroV'i.dedi.t!te.ditalcertificate

### tovouatthe

### time,andlltaw a

## b.sh New

### Medical

## m fast

### week. 

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

# """--c.......**o~** 

### •· &111 -"".....,- **·""'>il!"""ti~atilr""""** 

## · L **•••r"'~!-.,~~,~~!..,.-~~~~~~'!!l.~\lll!i~!l!!!!rM** · .Jt\,,.•.. 

### PI\l~''-'11~1 

### 1 l'ethad

## fortile People

### tltatd'elostattlte

### t!last.lt'n.flan:fJob,

### your J4b. TileplilrevS'ee 1 cailnot**im~ne.**

### Thaill!s forvourseiVIce an!!foryourpastervfcefn

### the

### mllitaly. As 

### 1 S(OQCI011

### FIIV 

### hill

## ontbe

### fmlrt/1pf Jllll(watchiog the **~losions**r.iffi'ri!!IIQr!ls

### frllmallsille~. 

### Ittemfndedmeof Vie! Naln 

### ofSlteRsgOing

### off,ofcannon **fl~**

### andthii! I'Qiling

### thunderof

### Arml!geddon. Itwasdifferent forme that **nigh~** 

### itgave

### metlfQugl!ts.

### ofwbat

## wastocome **ifwl!d~IIOt**

### changetltecout'5eof

### our countrv, 

### Good Luckto 

### youandGod

### blaSSt'ngs.

• Ames 

# '! I. "! 

# I I

' 

## r (, 

## ,. 

# I
II I 

### /. 

# /' /, ' 

### ' 

## ' I. i; ! ; i. I' i



# I 

# I I 

# I -

I I 

# il !I I 

## II ! I 

## II 

# I

/1' 

## ' 'lite

### Stantfard 

## Pilot Lag



### 'jM



# ~y., **~** • 

# f?\\1\1\.~~o~ 

# c.

**\.!...~~'"";A-\ tl·~**  

# f\- LttHalcrflllnht-



### -~~~~~~ll'lallfiWMd'less 

## li.C\\ \ 

## \!3'!\

**~.** 

## ""G ,_ ___ _ ;;...p.,\ .. '- q 

# w9 ._ e . 

# To----- J < Cellillllltes 

### Herd lllllfqlleeolir 

# =·=-- 

# -· -lsslleil Clltft!OIIeN!nm 

### . DlllftPlAN!



## t=\o~ **~\** (tee· e 

# ,_ .... ,':!!

**&~,::!\~=t'\c:** 

# ... !MSi 

## ,.lh,\i,w.. SJIIDENI'PILOT

**--·~·~LEM!N!:'** 

### 9rRJ
.....iJ. 

# hortM·· SPORTPILOT 0 MULlloEilSINE:

**ll~** CSEI RECII5111QI'/AL PILOT amrlloi!NGIN!:

**Linilldtai!l~l.lne1ltmSI** PRIVATE PILOT



# sl~tl~ .**~'?"C\9.:t)5** 0 INSIIJUMENT COMMERCIAL PILar CGUDI!R IJA!!RO'RIII'I 0\\lNCHlllW Fl.ltllfi'INSIRUCTOR


### OPD~~~~e.~'TIFI':rcL qjRf.IN!li!ANSPORf PILOT 0 ROlliRC!IAFI' Olll!ll IJ aJ'PWIE IV!Al!ON'I'ECIINICIAN .0L!SHI'ERo111AIMIR IJ!IPlfliP IJIIAI.I.CION lROUND INSTRUCTOR 0 POWERED.LIFT Dlliii!ASIC IJGIAilVRIO!I CGIINQ!RUMM 0 OlHI!R I!AllNGS (S,!Iilj)

**·~~._._**

### ........' 

# ·' !Conto,t;

# MftG 

## (fAAJ Ftom: 

### S'eld: 

### To.: Cc 

# MJect: Mi. Ames Curtright: I

### do

# have a**photog~pl!**

### of

### !heairwortl!inesscertifi'cate. 

### and 1 do not l'tdd

### llinotfter. 

### •l.drill'e!lf**a.t~~ntp1ell!tseGrd tifyUiirll"tjlit~i!i~i\l:t!ilt'~lll•lfl!·iiiitt8i'st-!lldllf~ture.** 



### . **~** 

### ........_ 

# ....---- :Pj$.!1 **~w~,me**i! 

### !file**t~~at**

### 1 

## :ean **t~·.wo"t'alrcfilft:)i'iffi:l~iiii'·~'·"''·'~""-"irii'Riiintena~i~Biiii<•ts.** 

# Thant'{&G: ....,., ...,.. . ... . .,.¥"'<""' ..,. 

### a"Y""'a........ n

.. **a"""'~""''-a** 

## ·•- -OrlginalMesJage--

. · From:

### Vliiii&:Aii18S)guttright**lma1fto~m,searcl1.ml**



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

### AM To:

## COnroy,MartyG (FAA) Subject: N949JP Information 

## Marty, P.leasetee attach!d. Asyou

### might

### recallyou

### tGo!c •.Pictl!reeftlruir·wllrtlt!nesscellifiatewhenyoucameout,want

me

### totakeano'tflerpictureforVIlli? it 

### that

## was•tf'in the

### c«lcpiton

### thewaff. 

### Airworthiness;Wef

### damagedteorderedfresh 

### one.Bi-Annualcopyfrom 

### fUJ.
J



### provided

## a med"ICill

### cerijficate

### to

### youatflle

## time,and I

### havufreSh NE!w

### Medfcal!$ilastweek. 

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

### travelillg$!:VIl! i!l**;·:&ff~l.iifieiffb'Ji.il'bili J\ivllllilii'lie'~e** **t.ti~'rest::Uftlilsw~f<**
I 

### feel sad for

### the People

# thatwerelostat

### thecoast • . It's

### ahard

### Job,yo.urJob.The

### pal 

# rw ml 

### cannotimagine.Thanks for **your~e** 

### andforyourpastserviceInthemilitlrv. As 

### 1 stood on my 

### hiUoothefOurthof Julywatcltingtfleexplosionsoffireworl!sfiOIIItl 114es.lt

### remindedmeof Viet Mlm 

### of Sltellsgoing 

## oftof cannonfile, 

### andtile **rolling·thundt~r**

### ofArmageddon.
It

## wasdifferent

### for me

### thatnight, It

### gavemeti!OughtJofwhat

### was

### to aomelfwe

### durot clw!ge

### the course **of~ur** 

### country. Good Luckto youandGodblessings. 

### Ames 

### I I 

# I I 

# I I. '



# I I I I

# ATTACHMENT NO.6

# '

. '

rram: Sanf: 

# ro: Mject Atfacltmi!llfS: To: FAA 

### Marty, 

### . ·-· 

### ·- ····· **·--·-·---·---··---·~-~**

### ..

## --.- .......... .



### !tWas apleasure 111

**me~tt**

## Vtiu atAllies Rall(b, 

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

## 1.havebeen verv busywithtliepatdotieeventI had **fDttpr{feSIIen~m'es.*m/1;**

## nowthatitisover,

## I

**ha~**

### had 

## a lil;tle IIi!;

### ntqretime. KeepingAmeri!ia **safefordemoc~cy.S'il!MJi!ISWe** 

### are &Villilto1U11etc)

### co'rltillUeilurbatti:far 

### freedom

## 'Will never

### end. The 

### Silcrifice

## ofourbrotllers,-Vihll 

### died. 

## we mustnotfiJqEt

### iltus we 

### continueforthem. U Tubesare Oil 

### line. Worth 

### watchfng. · 

## Warmestand best,


### Dr. W.Ames 

### CurtrightilBA Ofib, 503-53t·700o Cell, 503-zog.7388 

# I I ! 

# I i I..,.,-b'IID52:i.7<Vil<lngJr.irLfd•Sepbnftberii,J997ThefiiiiDWiagwD>lcwas-letecl-rW/O#l4603i•rpmii1Jre4BDO-89.:&JJOO,II'Ihsln3594,11hafa3593andilllllallellWipaireAinpbilotlaataalarlb21Dil4,11h:il043.WIDalnOAmpldlttlp--illslallellinMlislei'Drawinglisl:lbrPiporPAIB•Il-lle12100.,__e46/.17/!17.•iD"tiD1IalfllaoF.J.al&ieanll.ll.tt'JnD.A\lvliiDJyll!l&lam.in.8CC11tlltm"""WithSTSA;HCH-.-chee"ksIHirVII:eal>le.''THE-----·HAS;.··.•··.·••ACCORDANCE-----"!d"'.'toeJSasliollows:STANDARD$":::••::-"C••:::"•......,_,..,__,__"'--....'N'.-r-..·:-**~** ·• :1 

# L

r 

# I Memorandum To: **WillidmA.mes~** 

## FtOIII: Ben 

# W. Davit/son Drlle: 

## 812612014 .Re: 

## Anllrlllllnspretion.N949JP 

# .1!iJt· mf&letNr-u.to

# wrW-IIiAt It:fliiJ[Jie.ted 

## mAllnttd{l!fPetliflllfill

## NI491P **IIP.i.-J8rm$ejJ~f~Rfl;r23"',** 

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

## rz**~118t.tltiltincluriei** /Jif

### ~

## 6dM;fnYQlll'

## ELT.Ptttt
**reguil'eti~** 

# If rwiforihu **~**

### p/etl$e**1/.o.not~/Qt:a_fttJfJPiilfJe**

## !Jefore 

## 9pm **~.** 

## (S41) 491J..6980. 

# (2L(Na_j Ben.

## F.Dfl'lidsdn A.&P28S$141M

1 

## ,, l 

## ' !

. 

### '

# ATTACHMENT NO.7

# • UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

## FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC



### In the Matter of: FAA 

### Order No. 99· 7 

### PREMIER 

### JETS, INC. SeiVed: August 31, 1999 

### Docket No. CP97NM0005 DECISION AND ORDER1 

### This appeal involves flight time recordkeeping by 

### Part 135 

### air carriers. It 

### raises the issue ofwhich records Federal Aviation Administration (FAA.) inspectors may use to determine compliance with the flight time limitations. This casedoes not involve any allegation that Premier violated the flight time limits themselves; only recordkeeping 

### is at issue. Premier Jets, Inc. (Premier) has appealed the lawjudge'sdecision finding that Premier committed three offour alleged recordkeeping violatio1s. 2 

### This decision denies Premier's appeal and 

### affirms the lawjudge's decision assessing 1

### civil penalty of$1,125. 

### Premier is aPart 135 

### operator located in Oregon that ernploys about 30 pilots. Premier transports transplant teams and donor organs for several hospitals. The FAA 

### conducted an in-depth inspection ofPremier'soperation from March 25

1

### The Administrator's civil penalty decisions are available on LEXIS,WestLaw, and other computer databases. They are also available on CD-ROM through 

### Alroflight Publications. Finally, they can be found in 

### Hawkins's Civil Penalty Cases Digest Service and Clark Boardman Callaghan's federal Aviation Decisions. for additional infunnation,

**1e~** 

### 64 Fed. 

### Reg. 43,236, 43,250 (August 9, 1999}.


### • 'A 

### copy ofthe lawjudge's written initial decision is attached.
\

# •



# J



# • ! 

### through March 29. 1996. At the start ofthe inspection. Premier l'rovided FAA inspectors with its individual records ofpilot flight time. which consistedsolely of··crew duty time sheets."' After noticing that one pilot's record indicated that he 

### !tad not logged tlight time since March 3. 1996. the FAA inspectors requested Premier's flight logs to check the accuracy ofthe crew duty time sheets. The 

### inspectors discovered discrepancies between the crew duty time sheets and the flight logs. Some errors were in the crew duty time sheets and some were in the flight logs. Complainant FAA initiated the instant civil penalty action, alleging that Premier committed several violations of the following regulation: § 

### 135.63 

### Recordkeeping requirements. ·{a) Each certificate holder shall keep at its principal business office or at other places approved by the Administrator, and sha.ll make available for inspection by the Administrator, the following
- ( 4) 

### An individual record ofeach pilot used in operations under this part, including the following information: {vii) The 

### pilot's flight time in 

### sufficient detail to determine compliance with the flight time limitations ofthis part. 14 C.F.R. § 

### 135.63(a)(4)(vii) (1996). 

### After a hearing, the lawjudge found that the record supported 

### afinding of

. 

### • Count 1. 

### Premier's chiefpilot conceded that one ofl?remier's pilots 2 Acopy ofthe lawjudge's written initial decision is attached. 3 A 

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

### duty time.

# . 6 

### significant time and resources that FAA inspectors were able



### t~ piece together the pilots·



# ~ tlight and 

### duty time).



# ) In conclusion, the lawjudge did not err in finding Premier's recordkeeping inadequate. This decision denies Premier's appeal and



### aftirmst~e lawjudge'sdecision assessing a civil penalty of$1,125. 5



# ~,~{f

.. /



# /!ANEF.~ TOR ( · Federal Kviation aminis
Issued this 23rd 

### day ofAugust, 

### 1999.



### 5 Unless Respondent files a 

### petition for review with a Court ofAppet Is 

### ofthe 

### United States within 60 days ofservice ofthis decision {under 49 U.S.C. § 46110),this decision shall be considered an order assessing civil penalty. 

### See 14 C.F.R. §§

**13.16{~**

### )(4) and 13.233(j)(2) (1998).

# •
•



# • 3 recorded 2.4 hours tlying time on his crew duty time sheet tor the wrong day -forMarch l instead ofMarch 2. 1996. Regarding Count I. the law judge found a violation of Section !35.63(a)(4)(viij.


### • Count 2. The complaint alleged that Premier failed to maintain an individual record ofapilot in sufficient detail regarding aJanuary 14. 1996. flight. At the hearing, however, the FAA inspector acknowledged that the pilot incorrectly wrote downthe wrong date on the fliglit log (January 14, 1996, instead ofMarch 14, 

### 1996) and that the crew duty time sheet was correct. The law judge concluded that the.flight with questionable recordkeeping occurredan March 14. 1996, andthat Complainant improperly drew up Co1mt 2of the. complaint by 

### alleging aJanuary 14, 1996,flight. As 

### aresult, the law jllilge dismissed Count 2.


### • Count 3. Premier's chiefpilot conceded that its pilots entered the wrong date on the flight log (March 19 instead ofMuch 18, 1996). The crew duty sheets were correct. Regarding 

### Cotmr3, the law judge found a violation of Section 135.63(a)(4)(vii).


### • Count 4. The flight time on the crew duty time sheets for two pilots for March 8, 1996, appeared to be 

### incorrect. Regarding Count 4. the law judgefound a violation a/Section I 35.63(a)(4}(1'ii). 

### The lawjudge said that Premier must direct attention to its pilots' recordkeeping practices to **elimina~e** 

### errors. He 

### pointed out that accurate records must be kept ifthe operator is to know when to schedule pilots within the 

### permissible limits and ifthe FAA is to know whether the operator has done so. The lawjudge
**co~tcluded** 

### that Premier's recordkeeping violated Section 135.63(a)(4)(vii) because it didmt consist ofboth the flight logs and the crew duty time sheets. According to the law judge, Premier's cross-checking. The lawjudge assessed a $375 penalty for
**eac~ofthe** 

### three violations he found. for atotal of$!, 125. Premier has appealed the lawjudges initial decision. In its appeal brief, Premier presents two mutually
**exclu~ive** 

### arguments. First,

# •• Premier argues that the FAA inspectors should not 

### have exami1ed the tlight logs because they were not part ofthe "indhidual record" ofeach pilot.

**Wil~out** 

### the !light logs. FAA inspectors would not have been able to determine conclusivelythat the crew duty time sheets contained errors. Second, Premier argues that it committed no violation tecause the flight logs we1·e 

### part ofthe
**·~ndividual** 

### record" ofeach pilot's flight time. Premier notes that the inspectors 

### were able to determine the pilots' true flight time by comparing the crew duty time sheets with the flight logs. Thus, Premier contends, its recordkeeping met the requirements ofthe rule. Contrary to Premier's contentions, the inspectors actedappropriately when they examined the flight logs. Indeed, ifthe inspectors had chosenlc ignore or overlook any compliance concerns raised by 

### their examination ofthe crew

**d~t:Y** 

### time sheets, they would have been abrogating their critical safety duties. The inspectoJsacted appropriately in conducting a searching and thorough review ofPremier's recmds, including the flight logs. Nor does the record support Premier's other argument-i.e., that no violation occurred because the flight logs 

### were part ofthe "individual r(CiJrd" ofeach pilot. The lawjudge found that Premier should

### have kept the flight logs 1:1 

### part ofthe ''individual

time sheets to schedule its pilots.' As the lawjudge noted, the Jligltt time recordkeeping
4 Although the lawjudge's decision may suggest that ifPremier hl:llept the crew duty time sheets and the flight logs together as the individual pilot records,

**P~eiJlier** 

### would not have committed any violations, it is unclear that this is true. First, therel7iEire still errors in both types ofrecords. Second. arecord-keeping practice that requires inspecbrs routinely to review two

# ATTACHMENT NO.9

### Susan bird From: Scott. Myers@faa.gov Sent: To: 

### Cc: Thursday, July 30, 2015 11:47 AM patty@amesresearch.com Biii.J.McKibbon@faa.gov Subject: RE: Curtright EIR No. 2014NM090046 Ms. Abel, We are in receipt of Mr. Curtright's email dated July 27'h. That email will be forwarded to the investigating inspector for response. Regards, Scott R. Myers Manager, PDX FSDO 503.615.3205 

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

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

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

### Subject: Curtright EIR No. 2014NM090046 Mr. McKibbon and Mr. Myers, Mr. Curtright would like to know if the documents he sent to you in an email attachment on July 27 meets your requirements. Please call him should you have questions or comments. Cell503-209-7388 Thank you. Patty Abel Admin. Asst.

Patty Abel Ames Research Labora!!lries Admin. Assistant patty@amesresearch.com http://www.amesresearch.com HlSS-345-0809 Work (503) 364-2380 Fax

Click here to subscribe to our newsletter! 1

# ATTACHMENTNO. 10

## • .1

**Wi~liam** 

### Ames Curtright

1om: 

### .sent: 

### To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Importance: Dear Judge Goodwin: William Ames Curtright <ames@amesresearch.com> Tuesday, August 11,2015 1:11PM · richard.goodwin@dot.gov patricia.matthews@dot.gov; david.f.shayne@faa.gov Docket No. FAA-2015-1319, Curtright Reply to FAA's Motion-signed. pdf High

Attached please find my Reply to Complainant FAA's Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted and to Dismiss Appeal. If I might acid: We have sent the FAA everything they have requested; afull notebook that has been completed sits here with what we believe to be all that they (FAA) need. They simply need to take a lookat those documents. Most of the documents have been sent to the Flight Standards District Office as wen. We have received little acknowledgment of those documents, thus the need for this hearing. Hopefully this is resolved prior to the hearing. Regards,

A. William A. Curtright, DBA Cell: 503-209-7388

1' '



# ATTACHMENTNO. 11

### JM!Uiam Ames Curtright ) 

### •,rcim:

ant: 

### To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: David.F.Shayne@faa.gov Thursday, July 23,_2Qj5 3:49 PM Biii.J.McKibbbil@iaa.gov; Scott.Myers@faa.gov ames@amesresearch.coril FW: Ames- email addresses POHSA00997CH-L-2.pdf; STC SA00997CH 1 Mar2011.pdf Here you go, as you can see, I have forwarded the documents to them. 

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

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

### To: Shayne, David F (FAA) 

### Subject: Ames - email addresses David, Thank you for the phone numbers of Bill McKibbon and Scott Myers in the Hillsboro office; do you have email addresses for them? I would like to send the below letter with the attachments above to them. Do these documents meet your needs? July 23, 2015

·I McKibbon, Supervisor

**J~ott** Myers, Office Manager Flight Standards Dist. Office 3180 NW 229'h Ave. Hillsboro, OR 97124 Re: EIR Number 2014NM090046, Lost Logs Dear Bill and Scott: I had informed Marty Conroy of our lost logs some time ago. I have instructed our people to follow up on the request for the flight logs. Aweight and balance has been performed by Viking Air Ltd (see entry dated 11 September 1997). We are double-checking the history and have tracked down part STC's as well as a copy ofthe records from the FAA registry. More documents have been located; they may be presented to you as needed. If there is something else, please provide a punch list of what you need, and we will set about trying to get it or rebuild if necessary. I have included copies of logbook entries; I can provide the physical logs at your request. I apologize for any delay and we are taking steps to clarify this situation. t regards,

1Wm. Ames Curtright, DBA ames@amesresearch.com Cell: 503-209-7388

2• MANUFACTURERS OF WIPLINE FLOATS & SKIS • SPECIALISfS IN AIRCRAFTMODIFICATION \<'WW.Wipaire.com 1700 HenryAvenue

**~** Fleming Field ScnJth St Paul, MN 55075 651-451-1205 

# FAA APPROVED AIRPLANE FLIGHT MANUAL SUPPLEMENT 2 LANDPLANE SUPER CUB MODELS PA-18-150, PA-18A-150, PA-188-150, & PA-18AS-150 AT A GROSS WEIGHT OF 2000 POUNDS

REG. NO:___ _ SERIAL NO:___ _
This Supplement must be attached to the FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual when the airplane is modified In accordance with STC SA00997CR The information contained herein supplements or supersedes the basic FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual only in those areas listed. For limitations, procedures, and performance information not contained in this Supplement, consult the basic airplane placards, markings, and the AFM as applicable.



# FAAAPPRJ>VI<Do~cd/' . 

## m it•J'Pte Prather, 

# Ma:.~· ...,.,=---Chicago Aircrall Certification Office !'A.A. Central Region

l)ate:AIRCRAFT FLIGHT MANUAL SUPPLEMENT 2 LOG OF REVISIONS REV. NO. PAGES DESCRIPTION



### *Approved by Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office. NOTE: Revised text is indicated by a vertical black line along right margin.

2 DATE LANDPLANE MODEL PA-18-150
FAA APPROVED*



### FAA APPROVEDAIRCRAFT FLIGHT MANUAL SUPPLEMENT 2 OPERATING LIMITAT[ONS I. Airspeed Limitations (CAS): NO CHANGE SPEED Maneuvering Speed ('h) ............................................................................................ . Airspeed Indicator Markings 

### MPH 103 LANDPLANE MODEL PA-18-150

KNOTS

89
Green Arc- Normal Operating Range From Flaps Up Stall Speed to 

### VNo······························· 52 to 121 mph White Arc- Flap operating Range From Flaps Down Stall Speed to VFE ................................. 50 to 85 mph 2. Powerplant Limitations: NO CHANGE 3. WeightLimitations

1 Maximum TakeoffWeight ........................................................................................................................ 2000 pounds Maximum Landing Weight ........................................................................................................................ 1900 pounds 4. Load Distribution Limitations

Center ofGravity Limits (inches aft ofwing leading edge) Nomtal Category 16.2 to 20.0 inches at2000 pounds, 10.5 to 20.0 inches at 1300 pounds or less, Straight line variation between points given above. Utility Category 12.3 to 19.0 inches at 1500 pounds, 10.5 to 19.0 inches at 1300 pounds or less, Straight line variation between points given above.
2100 2000 1900 1600 APPROVED VVEIGHT I C.G. ENVELOPE


### i 1700 ,:. / 

# I 1600 1500 1400 1-+--¥-1

### ~ --- --- --- --- -·· ---·-1--1'-+--1 

### / 1300 H'+-++-+--f-1-H'---i---1-+--i 1200 

## f++--+--+-++++++++-1 1100 1000 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 C.G. LOCATION ·INCHEES AFT OF WING LEADINGEOGE NORMAL CATEGORY -- UTILITY CATEGORY ·-·-·-


### 3 FAA APPROVEDAIRCRAFT FLIGHT MANUAL SUPPLEMENT 2
5. Maneuvers: NO CHANGE
6. Flight Load Factor: NO CHANGE 7. Placards: In clear view ofpilot: MANUEVERING SPEED 103 Mil! (89 K) PERFORMANCE INFORMATION Perfonnance ofthe PA-!8-150 satisfies the requirements ofCAR Part 3.

4 LANDPLANE MODEL PA.-18-150

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

### .!i!epnrhnent of

### W:rattspor!ntinu -- 

# Jlfellernl
**J\&i~tlttu** 

### J\llminhltrntiou



# ~uppl.emeutnl 

# W:up:.e @.ertifieaf.e ./Jf;nufep SA00997CH Wipaire Inc. 1700 Henry
**Avenue~** Fleming Field South St. Paul, MN 55075 rl'.l"/¢';:..; /Ar,t

### dr

**~/u/(?f'** 1/1 lb (y/'t" rh-;ip/1 ftor 16 **~/lbrf'I~IJ' /lrl't~tt'l'** 

## ,,.,'d'
**lblhwrrr~h(>,,J r~.nr/.** ('P.I'IrflY,f..I'IJ 

### !.(;.,eft, rrJ 'VJ"c,Y:erl A'r-rrNII'IIFr/J 

### dr- ,;,,.,..r/h"i/,,..JJ. rf'J'"';'r/Nm/J tJ/:'?ttrl 3 P/ 

### !h Civil Air
•.rt,p,/klt{l/t.J. (See Type Certificate Data SheetNo. IA2 for complete certification basis)

**(i;.~tHttf;?J'J.Nbrr./·** 

## ··J?/'P

**~N'hlf't-ffk** .... **Ht~11hr** .· IA2 

### .d6n§.. .· Piper

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

**f!b.Jr.~tljlltDn n/.~/le**  **~J~l/1** W.lfr.rr?N Installation ofGross Weight Increase Kit No. I 08 l

**~6521,** in accordance with Wlpairc [nc. hlstallation Drawing No. I 081-6521, no revision, dated December 17, 1998, or later FAA approved revisions.

**:lff;;ulnlrf..l'~oJ.** hl'lrffrft,/11/tr;u",;: I. The installer must detennine whether this design change is compatible with preyiously approved modifications. 2. Landplane: Ma.ximum gross weight is limited to 2,000

**Ib~** for take oft' and

**1,9~0** lbs. for landing. 3. Floatplane: Maximum gmss weight is litnited to 2,000 lbs. for take offand lanCing. (See continuation sheet 3 of 3)

**.~;; Nd'~l-«h**  '"'d !A;. **.J~¥V'"rlt~p** rUtin

**~,.&r./ ~-)**  tfr. 

### /.U.;,:;

**ft~'·** rvYJnmrl ,;..{t,/1 remur/1 rR

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

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

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

(Sig11a1ure) Grcgmy J.
**M1~halik,** Senior Aerospace Engineer Airframe & Atuinis:trative Branch Chicago Aircraft Certification Office (7!1/e)
A.!ly alteration o£ this certificate J.s ptul.:ishable by il fine ot not exceeding $l,OOO, or .Lmpr.lsonm!lnt nat exceedillg 3 yeal's, or both.
I'M FoRM euo-2!1o-li8) PAGS 1 of 3 PAGSS. **~nUeb** .J$hdes of **~mcdcu** ·



### ~epudml!lt± of W:ranspoduthm
- 

## J1f eberul 

### J\fti~lilllt ,?.biniuistrati!ltt



# ~uppltmental. 

# Wupt at:trtifi:catt (<lrnutinua:tinn

**~!rut)**

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

# JIGnth SA00997CH

Date ofIssuance: March OJ, 1999. Date Amended: March 01,2011

4. FAA Approv.ed Airplane flight Manual Supplement I, Landplane, dated January 25, 1999, or laterFAA appiove.drevision, is required with this installation on PiperModel PA-18"150" or PA-18A"I50" modified per STC No. SA682AL (160BHP). S. FAA .APProved Airplane Flight Manual Supplement 2, Landplane, dated January25, 1999, or later FAA
**appr~ved**revision, is required with this installation on Piper Model PA-18"150", PA-18A"150", PA-J8S"I50", PA-JSAS"\50". 6. FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual Supplement 3, Floatplane Operation, dated February 28, 2011, or later FAA approved revision, is required with this installation on Piper Model PA-188"1 SO" orPA-l8AS"l 50" modified per STC No. SA682AL (l60BHP) & EDO Model 89-2000 Straiglll Floats. 7. FAA Approved Airplane FlightManual Supplement 4, Floatplane Operation, dated February 28, 2011, or laterFAA approved revision, is required with this installation on Piper Model PA-188"1 SO" or PA-lBAS"lSO"witb EDO Model 89-2000 Straight Floats. 8. Ifthe bolder agrees to pennit another person tO use this certificate to alter aproduct, the holder must give the other person written evidence ofthat pennission. --END--

AnY alteration of this certificate Js punishable by a fine Of not **e~c~edi.ng** $1,000, Or U!lp.rJsorwent not excaeding 3 years, or: bol:h. J?AG& 3 of 3 PAGBS '1']115 certifics.te Ill!)' be transferred in **a~ordal:lca** with FAA 21.47.

# ATTACHMENT NO. 12July 22, 2015

Bill McKibbon, Supervisor Scott Myers, Office Manager Flight Standards Dist. Office 3180 NW 229'h Ave. Hillsboro, OR 97124 Re: EIR Number 2014NM090046 Dear Bill and Scott: I have hired a mechanic to follow up on the request for the flight logs. Aweight and balance has been performed by Viking Air Ltd (see entry dated 11 September 1997). He is double-checking the history and is in the process of tracking down part STC's as well as ordering a copy of the records from the FAA registry. I have copies of logbook entries I can provide as well as the physical logs at your request. I apologize for any delay and we are taking steps to clarify this situation. Best regards,

Dr. Wm. Ames Curtright, DBA ames@amesresearch.com Cell: 503-209-7388" 1



# ATTACHMENT NO. 13May 11,2015
Martin Conroy Aviation Safety Inspector Flight Standards District Office 3180 NW 229'h Ave. Hillsboro, OR 97124 Re: FAA Case No. 2104NMD90046 Dear Mr. Conroy: As you know, I had advised you in the past that I had lost the flight logs. I am providing you a copy of the logs that go up to about 2005. I had made copies ofthem in case of this kind of situation. Loss was not intentional. I acted in good faith by providing you with these copies and other documents, with weight and balance. Therefore, this is as much as we can do at this time. Possibly I am incorrect. Am I incorrect? With all due respect to you, and all past deserved respect without any insult intended, is it not true? Is it not illegal to impose a fine if I have acted in good faith? I have advised you verbally, and now I again advise you in writing that logs have been lost. I feel I have given as much as possible in response to your requests. I am not sure how to reconstruct what is not available or not possible. Ifthis is not acceptable, then consider this as my formal request for a hearing. Best regards,

Dr. Wm. Ames Curtright, DBA PO Box 1350 Jefferson, OR 97352 EnclosureMay 11,2015
Scott Myers Flight Standards District Office 3180 NW 229'h Ave. Hillsboro, OR 97124 Re: FAA Case No. 2104NM090046
Dear Sir, .. Scott I have communicated to Martin Conroy regarding my lost flight logs. I reminded Mr. Conroy that I had advised him in the past that the flight logs had been lost. I am providing you a copy (made for emergencies such as this) of the logs that go up to about 2005 that were made some time ago, just in case a situation like this might occur. Obviously it did. Possibly these old copies might suffice. 

### I request your help and assistance in resolving this matter. The loss of course would1Je unintentional. We acted in good faith by providing these copies and other documents. Therefore, this is as much as we can do. We hope this is acceptable, if not, then consider this as my formal request for a hearing. Respectfully Yours

Dr. Wm. Ames Curtright, DBA PO Box 1350 Jefferson, OR 973521 2 

### 3 

### 4 5 

### FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

In the Matter of: ), Docket No. WILLIAM A. CURTRIGHT, DBA ) FAA-2015-1319 6 Respondent. 7 

### 8 9 

### 10 The litigation scheduling conference 11 

### via telephone in the above-entitled matter 12 commenced on Tuesday, August 9, 2016, at 1:34 13 p.m. 14 15 16 17 

### 18 

### 19 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE J.E. SULLIVAN U.S. Administrative Law Judge

20 Reported by: Melissa G. Fleming 21 22 23 24 25 ' '

## William A Curtright, DBA 1 and the initial disclosures that I'm talking 2 about are outlined in Rule 26 of the Federal 3 Rules of Civil Procedure and that's something 4 you can find on line if you type in Rules of 5 Civil Procedure, Rule 26.

**--6~---~----But**

### .. just so you know, when you do 7 initial disclosures, and I'm going to give you 8 both a deadline to exchange information of 9 

### this type, you give the name, address and 10 phone number of each individual that you know 11 that's likely to have discoverable information 12 about the charge involved in.this case. 13 You give a copy or a description of 14 the document of anything that you have in your 15 possession, custody or control that haa 16 anything to do with this particular charge and 17 the proposed fine. 18 And for the FAA, they also should be

· 19 

### giving you an explanation of why they are

20 proposing $11,000 as the penalty, what forms 21 the basis for 

### that. 22 Those a;['e the initial dis.cl9sures to 23



# g~t the


# J;>~fi.j_ ·toilirlg so 

# t~at you 

## h<lv'e an idea 24 of who is involved or who might be inVolVed as 2.5 a Witne(>S for the opposing side arid What they 

## For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net- {800) 921-5555 32 

## 8/9/2016



# {3-vf!Mn.- 

# t J- If), 

# '1 f) /9, 

# rf-rJ)()--

### September9, 2014
Martin G,COnroy 

### Aviation Safety Inspector FlightStaQdardsJli5t.

**Offi~e** 

### 3180 NW 229thAve. 

### HDisboro, OR 97124 Re: EI'R Number2014NMD90046 

### DE!ar Sir: As explainedvia emaa,

### the aircraft lo!.5 

### are not in the United 

### States;tfleyare in canada 

### where r alSo live, Iam now awaitingtlietimeto 

### repairmy aircraft repair. Inerderto **meetyq~r**

### reqqest, Ihave emailed tlie remaining **dQcu~nts.** 

### a.M the Certlfi!:atio.n of**Ann~allnspecti~~** 

### as requested to the Portland

**offi~.** 

### All

**o~r**

### documents have been providedto you as requested.. Is it 

### pc>SiJie 

### yourpeeple have natopenedyour **ema~s** to 

### Check

### the attachments? They were sentto yourPortland office, 

### If 

### you are 

## stm missing

### $01itethi" let u!rknow. 

## we hav.e provided 

## atetterfi'Qm the meehanic who did the .annualcertitation inspection.

# we recently emaill!d the weightand balam:e but 

### again we will 

### mail it

### to

**y~u** 

### ihe 

### eventwas on my private 

### ptoperty. Ittllok

### place after landing; therewas 

## a stee!il!g problem because ofa

### collapsed gearwhichcaused a.lm!aking to the left. The 

### aircraftwas not 

### afrborne but 

### inertiaand the rail

### on

## t\11! float$

**~II¢**

### the aircraftto

### the left

### andintothe grass-, thus, our description ofthe eventwhich damagedthe aircraft. Your letters indicate you have neverreceived any ofthis information 

### which istroubling. 

### We have provided you the aircraftweight and balance, **~irworthiness**

### registration certificate, and documentation with 

### the flight

### raview requirements and all thedocuments you requested,

. yet

### you people aetas If

### you neverreceived those 

### items.

We have provided to

### you the documents in aspiritofcooperation. 

### Again, we 

### hope this meets 

## i 

# r 

# I
' ;



### your needs and pray this bri11gs cloS!lre

### for us both. 

# t::)(~0~?r) IB:b



# ~.~

**r~~,** . 

### Dr. 

# w. Ames CUrtright 

## .: .: i"'

-

**~.** 

### :

**:~** 

### :: ·••· i

**~·~~!itt.**

## ·sli. satem. **.;;.-;,~liiA**

### -g7302 · · -

### FAA NO.: NSI49JP Year: 1953 i

. ---- **~-------. ~-**  

### Cel'lificate:42137 **EXpkadDn:~lS** 

# I I

# .,

I 

# I

**Mem~randum** To: WilliamAmes Cf/l'tright From: 

## Ben 

## W. Davit/son Date: 8/2612014 Re: AnnualInspectionN949JP Bil( 

## This letter is 

## to vertfjl that

## I completedanAnnualli1Spection onN949JP aP 4·1B on September23rtl, 2013. Atthat

## timel provided you with adiscreprmcy list that

## inclr«ledan expiredbatteryin

## yourELTthat requiredreplacement. Jf

## needfurtherassistance,please do nothesitate to callanytime before 9pm anyday. (541) 490-6980. 

# C2f-tvo..J Ben 

## W. Davidaon A&P28553471A.

1 

### r· 1· 

# I l I 

## i 

# I i )UNIIEDSTATSSOFAM!Rlt=A **~~epomoAtaf'llalujlaltation Fa'lluaiAMan;~**  MEDICAL CERTIFICATE THIRD CLASS
'IIIIo -liD!(FIIU .. moandaddlrso): WILI.IAM AMES CURTllfGIIT 41lSPARADISEHILL TtJRNER OR 97!91 USA

Must :WeSt_cone:ctiw tenses.

WILLIAM AMES CURTRIGHT 4135 PARADISE HILL TURNER OR 97392 USA

Dear Airman: lnsfituflo confer COIIIrnONS OF ISSUE Tho halder

**oflh~** .,tfti<afe must. • Kava ftin 1\fS orl!l **~-narp......ran** aTa!Tiinles

whiTe oxenoisiJIIi111TI90Sofan annan cellllit:ate. (14CFRS 81.1) • Undemll!ldtllltht i'1s<ia11ce ala medicalteltilicate

by an AvJalmM!d'=l E'llamlnermay ba llller.led by lfleFMwlllln61ia)s. (14CFR §
**67JII~** • Camplywi1/lwTml! $1/llfanls spJCII'edfOr

**filS~.**

se<a11chand **~i!Uass** med!caiCOIII!icates. (14CFR §&I.!J)

.. CompiY1AfltlQdl.hmentofftlnclfonal, operalional,

anlflartimtlil!it!i<•lssueilas acandillon of CiiOUI!t:al!ln. (14CFR§ li7A11l (NII!e: ATII!Otofalllilolfzal!on (orSODA) describing any «UGhITm!ll1iMSmust lla kepiwlll11111s celtilicate at all tTmtswll!e11121Cfslngthe prMisgea alan airman Ciilli!ll:ale.l • Caii!IIIYwilhlle llalldanlslllaling to pnlhlbllions on

**apen~llon**dlllintmedloaldllillen"J. · (t4CFR§§&1.53.63.19, and &5.49) Forlntemal!onalOpe!ll!ons Onlf, Same

**~-** msy be alt'eclell byce!lait inllmaUonal ntea'iea1 sllnftnls. Consult UteU.S.A!nlnalllioallnllnmal!on Publ'callan for U.S. dittllmnCO$ wiTh

**I~AO** Annex t miHilcal sranlfanls.

DIVISION, AAM • 3UU

Above is your newmedical certificale. lt supersedes any pn:vlous one you may ha\'e been Hs11« To valida!e Ibis certificaro, it is necessiiiY that you sign 1\ in !he space provid<d (Ainman's Sign*!). ThiS certi(lCale must be in your possession at aU times while **et~.'ercising** your pilol privilego:s.

**~ted** an Thursdby. June 26. Z0t4

### Ftott'l: SeRf: To: 

### Sutgect: 

### 1\tt!ldrme.nts: Marty,

**Pleasu~e**

### attallhed. As 

### vou might

### recallyotHookapitfllreoftbnlr·worthilless certificate 

### when

### you **t~~me**

### out, want
me to

### take anotherpictureforyou? it

### thatwastape!! in

# t"'

**~;o~kpit**

### on **\~e**

### wall .

**Airwqrthin~.** 

### Wetdamaged 

### fel)tdered

### 'l'l$lfI)II&.IJf:.AnnOal

### c!ipyfr'om log. 

### I

proVidedaJiledital

### certifiCate

### toyou atthe

### time, and 1 have a

### fresh New

### Medicalexam laS!:we$11. 

### Restllf.~aii'llcittfirri~'l~wli!MidiiWi'i!fimi!'·fd~filn. M ., ·· • 

### &It d J:o;·· ""'"'"' 1

### "0it.""'..**ie!it">~'-'i!~.** 

## ·· · k 

### 'I**til.~~~-,!~;**

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

### I feel sadfortbe Peoplethatwere lostattlte t6i!St.lt's ahardJob, yourJob.Tile pain yeillsee 

### 1 cannotliniglrle.

### Thallks foryour

### service and foryour

### pastservice in 

### the military. As 

### 1 stoodon myhiD

## anthe

## worthi;Jf 

### Julywatchingthe e.xplosiPns **£~ffire.wo.rksfroilufl** 

### side,s. It

### reminded meof Viet Natn of Shellsgoing aff, 

### of**cannon~.** 

### and the raRing

### thunder of 

### Annageddon. 

### Itwas 

### differentformethatnight, it

### gave

## m.ethoughts of

### Whatwas to 

### come if

### we

### donotchangethe courseofour country, Good Luck 

### to you and God bles5ings. ·Ames 

### 'l 

# ,, "! 

### t



# ~ .I ' 

### 1' 

## !:


## .. II !i 

### !' (i 

## '

**I~** 

# I' I 

## I ' i i )i



# 3



# £f.~btt4'fj 

# b



# ~iO **~** 

# I ,I i 

# II II
/1 i

### Tile 

### Standard Pilot Log 

# '\" i\
...... \.,.) • f\\1\1\ C2.



# ~ 

# c::. \.)..."-.\'\r(,<';ltJ.-\

**~·~fl.** Lagllaakfftnnbr- 

### ...m..aneat Mailing Address 

### \9..'\\, \ \['S"5rr.



### ~ . "0::. 

## G 

# Fnlm----

**--------~~~~~~w4~~~-~1~l)~.~~o=tt~~~~,~~· ---------------~---------**  \) ez::: tesHefd 'lftle SIUDIOO' PILOT SPORTPILOT ECRI1AnQNAL PILOT R p RIVAlE PILOT 

### co FU

**~** IV!Ji

MMERCIALPILQT GHTINSTRUCTOR RLINE'Il!ANSPORTPILOT

ii'IDNlECHNICIAN l RDLIND INSTRUCTOR

··"="---"'-'"·· 

# -- Oerllllcalelf1lnlllu 

# d:··· t I 

# s;

**'·-~ !:T.~';-~~:J'\C:** 



# sbtl~~ **S~":>::3t.:t:J::il** Riding Reconl Aircndl 

### 'IDe llllfllss J::kiiRMNE 

## A..e.k;

**2~** 5atmsLEENGINE:'



## tltllli~ I!J.eSi



### :r~'l~·""-"'- C MIJLTI.ENGINE: il!At{D OSISI 

## W.EN'!j
..

**~n-ENGINE:** l.l!nil!dtaCe<le! Lin•111rusl C INSTI!UMENT IJGUDER

**IJAEIIO~II'I** OWINCHTDW



### IJPOWR~~~'!t:.~'TIFT:roL C ROTORCI!AFI' COI'IEil 0



## G~PI.ANE CL!GHIER-llfAN·AIR Cl.aJR!HIP ClSAL!.CON C POWERE!ILIFI" IJGI !ASIC

**IJGIAD~Cil** 0 Gl INSTRUMENT IJ OlHER RAnNGS (Speollj)

### Fram: Sellt: 

### To.:' 

### CC: 

### Sll&ject: 

## Mr. Ames 

### Curtright: I

### do 

### have aphotograpll ofthe 

### airworthiness certilicate, 

### and 1 do 

### not 

### need another.

**~dci** 

### «ead **u:omJ)Ie~.etetotd** 

### of**\i'iiiilr:ftt1it'tll~w.:tll~tmd~lie·iiistril•~s ~mcon«ment~fi$.ture.**  .-:..:...... 

# - ..-- 

### __. -Originaii'III!S$age-- From: **~P.mes~rtright**

### fmaBto:ames@amesrprch.coml Sent: **Mlliilla)iillfii~.D7;;20.14** 

### 11;57AM 

### To: Conroy, l'llartv G 

## fFAAJ Subject: 

### lii949J.P 

### Information 

### Marty, Please see 

### attached. As

### you 

### mightrecall 

### you took 

### a.PietJ,Ireoft11tair·worthinesscer!ificate 

### when you came 

### out, want
me

### to take another picture

### foryo11? it

### thatwas tapett·inthe 

### c.otllpit

### onthe wall. 

### Airworthiness; Wet damaged 

### reordered fresh 

### one. Bi-Annual

**c~py**

### from 

### fog. J

### pr())lided a

### medical certificate toyou at

### the time, 

### and I

### have dfresh NE!w Medical e!a'mlastweek.



### R~Of

### Di:ieuments ale.nor.tbirtGaoda **fo'gt.W!III!.SOiilli'ttJii&tfipttft~!n•** 

### My**traveb~g~le** 

### is

## a:Olfiiiaiiipea

**ftir~**

### bit

## fWili lltit'lle'iWalliilitetlie're5tol'iffisweek. I

### feel sad forthe People 

### thatwere lostatthe coast •.lt'sa

### hardJob, yo.urJob. Tilepain VCJU 

### see I

### cannotlmagine. Thanks for

### your **s~ice** 

### and for 

### your

### past service inthe military. As 1 

### stood on mv

### hill on 

### the fourth of July watching

### tlie explosions offireworksfiom

### all sides. 

### It reminded 

### me ofViet Nam ofShellsgoing

**~ff.** 

### ofcanf'IOII file, 

### andthe rolling

### thun•rofArmageddon. 

### It was differentfor

### me thatnight, itgave me thougltts of

### what was to aome If

### we doniJt changethe 

### course of {)ur country. 

### Good Luck

### to you and

### God 

### blessings.

. Ames 

# I 

# I I I 

# I

, I. 

### ,

### From: 

### Sent: To: SUbject 

### Attachments: To: FAA 

### Marty, . 

### -.

**·~** .... 

## ·--·-···--·---·---.---. ···--·- .. ·········



### PM 

### N949JP tnfonnation



## ~~--~f, **~~l!!il~;\l'!1~~~§i.il!ri:~il1f~'J1df**

Itwas a pleasure to meet yo.u atArties Rant.b. 1 

### ha~"l,~;!I'Pu,~~~~~.~~~~~!,\~~~~.~!,~,~'-~\R<~!i~~~~~1~~~~.~~rl~,!9·49!iii'ihisvear,. but asvau suggested 1 did lili:atl§'illi(lo'a.Iil 

### tM

### iiiiiiuat**·aiiil~\i'f~lftrto'meeff.ii't.l:f**

### needs 

### asvau req1.1ested. I have 

### been very busy with tliepatrlotit: event 

### Ihad 

### fhttp:/ltWberiggpfthe,eag/es.rornJI; nowthat itis 

### over, I have had a

**l~le** 

### bitntQretime. Keeping Amerita 

### safe for

**democ~acy** 

### •. Sel!mU$ 

### we are

**gc~i~gto** 

### ltiVeta

**continttet~ur** 

### battlefor freedom wiU never

### end. The sacnlice Of

### outbrothers, .who died, we must notforgEt. 

### Thus 

### we continue 

### forthem. U 

### Tubes are on line. 

### Worth watching. Warmestand best,


### Dr. W. Ames Curtri!lht OBA Office, 503-58!-7000 Cell, 503-209-7388 .--y;·_: !

# i I 

# IBabbs 527.7"
Viloing Air Ltd. September 11. 1997 The f'oliDWiugwork was campletecl Under W/0 #14603: **-~BDOflaats** 89-lZOOO, **~lh** sfa 3594,1/h sin 3593 and inlltallod Wlpaire Aiaphib flllliiB oln **~lh** 21044,1/h it043. Wipala> Amphib fi!Jats"Wereinslalled

in 8llCIItl!lanae wiJh STC SAI!07lliCH an4 V'lpllire Mu!BrDmwing list filr **Pip~** PA 18 and DUido12100 :11oatB l8ilsued6/.17/97. •laadlna&ear..,...... wolliltq:normaJJ,y andchoclcedsorvicoahle. -lnslallatlonot. Lake an4Ait'IDD. Ad.vlt!cn:y &y&tem in accotdenee with ST SA **~!lr;:H** -SJ.IIbmlcheclc& **~ble.**
"THE f,f.;!;li'IT ... ------ -t{te:w.lind'balaneehadbocnamonded

to show this change. ABOVE !-li'<.S

; ·

·
• ·· .

· · ACCORDANCE .. **~ ·~**  "' The""ww".i!!''tand balance ts as tbllows; $TANDARDS **~~em.l\W~jght.~lS~.O**
'Nen;v C..G.

= ?'3.08 M.cunent:""""

1. 1.400'1._51.-_ . -

. ..

<:I -- **~ ~**  **~ ~~**  -__}_ c.U ·:-J 

# :t



# ' . emorandum
To: WilliamAmes **C~trtght** 

### From: 

## Ben 

# W. Davidson 

## D(lle: 812612014 Re: 

## Annuallnspectfon.N949JP 

# iJIIL Thi$./etter fs.to 1U!rf/j! tliaJ

## IcompletedQR

### Annru.l{ 

## lll,rpectitm. O'il

## N949:JP .a

## PA.-Ihn9ep"Nm!Jer23"". 2013.. A.t.tiu.lf tinielfH'iJ'Ilded Y9U witll· 

## a

## ir!.cre/ll!li"Cyli8t:rluitIncluded1211 **~'ir.e.d**

### fmtt;JJ

## InyfJ!II' 

## ELt:th4t requil'edrep/llcement 

# If need fortlterfJRisltDtce, pletllle do 

## nothuito.te JQ

## ca{ta;,ptiifle IMJ01e 9pm (llfJillay. 

## ($41) 490-6980. 

# C2f-tvaJ Ben W: DlJll{datJn 

## A&P28SSJ47/A

1UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 

### In the Matter of: SCENIC MOUNTAIN AIR, INC.

Served: May 16,2001 FAA Order No. 2001-5 Docket No. CP98AL0008 DMS No. FAA-1999-5568 1

DECISION AND ORDER' Respondent Scenic Mountain Air (Scenic) has appealed the lawjudge's initial decision, which found that Scenic violated 14 C.F.R. 

### § 39.3 by failing to comply with three airworthiness directives. 3 Airworthiness directives, which are issued by the FAA, prescribe corrective action when an unsafe condition exists or is likely to exist or develop. The law judge assessed Scenic a $2,500 civil penalty. This decision denies Scenic's appeal and affirms the lawjudge's initial decision.'

I Materials filed in the FAA Hearing Docket (except for materials filed in security cases) are also available for viewing through the Department ofTransportation's Docket Management System (DMS). Access may be obtained through the following Internet address: http://dms.dot.gov. 2 The Administrator's civil penalty decisions are available on LEXIS and WestLaw. They can also be found in Hawkins's Civil Penalty Cases Digest Service and Clark Boardman Callaghan's Federal Aviation Decisions. For additional information, see 66 Fed. Reg. 7532, 7532 (January 21, 2001). 3 14 C.F.R. § 39.3 provides: "No person may operate a product to which an airworthiness directive applies except in accordance with the requirements ofthat airworthiness directive." 4 A copy ofthe lawjudge's written initial decision is attached.2 I. Background Scenic is a small air taxi operator that conducts sightseeing flights and offers flight instruction. Scenic is based in Moose Pass, Alaska. In July 1997, at the FAA's request, Scenic's Director ofMaintenance brought Scenic's maintenance records to the FAA in Anchorage, Alaska for inspection. (I Tr. 30-31.) This inspection of Scenic's maintenance records led to the instant civil penalty action. In the complaint, Complainant alleged that Scenic:
• operated a Piper Model PA-18 aircraft during three separate periods for a total of 136 hours when an inspection ofthe exhaust muffler required by Airworthiness Directive 68-05-0l was due but had not been performed;
• operated the same Piper Model PA-18 aircraft during two separate periods for a total of 119.2 hours when the inspection ofthe fuel selector valve required by Airworthiness Directive 60-10-08 was due but had

**~ot** been performed; and
• operated a Cessna Model CE-172-I aircraft during two separate periods for a total of 11.8 hours when the inspection ofthe air filter assembly required by Airworthiness Directive 96-09-06 was due but had not been performed. Complainant alleged that Scenic had violated 14 C.F.R. 

### § 39.3 and requested that a $7,500 civil penalty be assessed. II. The Law Judge's Initial Decjsjon After a hearing,' the lawjudge issued a written initial decision holding that Scenic violated 14 C.F.R. 

### § 39.3. The lawjudge's specific findings are described below. A. The Exhaust Muffler. The lawjudge found that Scenic failed, on three separate occasions, to comply with Airworthiness Directive 68-05-01,' which required

5 References to the transcript ofthe first day ofthe hearing, on Apri121, 1999, are as follows: "I Tr. _." References to the transcript ofthe second day ofthe hearing, on August 16, 1999, are as follows: "II Tr. "

-

### 3 that Scenic inspect its Piper Model PA-IS's exhaust muffier every 100 hours.' The law judge rejected Scenic's defense that on two ofthree occasions it simply failed to record the inspections, although it had performed them. According to the lawjudge, Scenic's "bare word" without a written record lacked "the requisite indicia oftrustworthiness." (Initial Decision at 3.) Further, the law judge stated that a finding for Scenic "would eviscerate the ... requirement [in 14 C.F.R. 

### § 91.417] that all inspections be duly recorded." (Id.) The lawjudge also rejected Scenic's defense that it performed the last ofthe three inspections, but simply recorded it in the engine logbook instead ofthe aircraft logbook. According to the lawjudge, [ e]ven ifthe carrier could lawfully have placed this entry in a logbook different from the logbook in which all other A[airworthiness] D[irective]-mandated exhaust-muffler inspections had been recorded- a doubtful proposition
- Scenic failed in its duty to so inform agency representatives . . . . FAA inspectors are not required to hunt through ali of[Scenic's] records in order to piece together pertinent records. Plainly, that is an unreasonable burden to place on them. (Initial Decision at 3.) B. The Fuel Selector Valve. The law judge found that on two separate occasions, Scenic operated its Piper Model PA-18 aircraft past the 1 00-hour deadline specified in Airworthiness Directive 60-10-08' for checking the fuel selector valve.' The

6 (Complainant's Exhibit 2.) 7 On the first occasion, Scenic operated the Piper aircraft for 17.5 hours in violation ofthe airworthiness directive. On the second, it operated the aircraft for 99.3 hours after the deadline. On the third and final occasion, it operated the aircraft in violation ofthe airworthiness directive for 19.2 hours, yielding a total of 136 hours. '(Complainant's Exhibit 1.)4 lawjudge rejected Scenic's defense that the aircraft had a different type ofvalve than the
one specified in the airworthiness directive, one that could not be taken apart and checked. The lawjudge reasoned that the airworthiness directive applied to all Piper Model PA-18 aircraft equipped with two fuel or wing tanks, which fit Scenic's aircraft, so Scenic could not simply ignore the airworthiness directive. The lawjudge stated that the airworthiness directive was applicable to Scenic "unless and until Scenic showed that the directive's provisions were inapposite and that the carrier had been released from its requirements," 10 which did not occur until Scenic received a letter from the FAA Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, well after the inspection.'' The lawjudge noted that the letter did not have retroactive effect. According to the lawjudge, Scenic had a responsibility to record or otherwise communicate to the FAA that it installed a fuel selector valve that made the "otherwise governing" airworthiness directive inapplicable, but Scenic failed to do so. (Initial Decision at 6.) C. The Air Filter. The lawjudge found that on two separate occasions, Scenic operated its Cessna Model CE-172-I aircraft past the 1 00-hour deadline specified in Airworthiness Directive 96-09-06 12 for inspecting the air filter assembly." Although Scenic had replaced the air filter assembly, which ordinarily ends the 100-hour inspection

9 On one occasion, Scenic operated the Piper 99.3 hours after the deadline for the check; on the other occasion, the overflight was 19.2 hours, yielding a total overflight of 118.5 hours of operation. 10 (Initial Decision at 5.) "The letter was dated almost 21 months after the inspection. (Initial Decision at 5.) 12 (Complainant's Exhibit 4.) 13 On one occasion, Scenic was out oftime for only 0.3 hours, while on the other, Scenic's inspection was 11.5 hours overdue, yielding a total of 11.8 hours ofoperation past the deadline.5 requirement, the lawjudge determined that the inspections were still required because Scenic had not yet obtained approval ofthe alternative method ofcompliance from the Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office. (Initial Decision at 6.) According to the law judge, "a mere recital" in the logbook ofthe replacement ofthe air filter assembly "was not enough." 

### (Id.) Instead, Scenic "was obligated to make an entry containing the part number ofthe new filter and a notation that the change terminated the inspection requirements" ofthe airworthiness directive." 

### (ld.) Since Scenic did not, it "remained subject to the requirements ofthe [airworthiness directive]." (!d.) The lawjudge also noted that Scenic had continued to sign offon the airworthiness directive at "more or less regular intervals," which, in the lawjudge's view, led the FAA inspector reasonably to

**~** believe that the airworthiness directive remained applicable. (Initial Decision at 6.) 

### D. Logbook Entrjes. The lawjudge rejected Scenic's argument that only "current" logbook entries may be considered. (Initial Decision at 7.) The lawjudge characterized this argument as "absurd." (!d.) According to the lawjudge, earlier entries
are just as much a part ofthe logbook as later entries, and FAA inspectors need earlier entries to form a complete picture ofthe a carrier's maintenance practices. 

### (ld.) The law judge also rejected the implication ofScenic's argument- 

### i.e., that the FAA must uncover violations prior to entry ofthe next notation in the logbook or forfeit any action against the alleged offender. (!d.) According to the law judge, accepting Scenic's argument would defeat the civil penalty program's goals ofcompliance and deterrence. 

### E. Penalty. Although the complaint sought a $7,500 civil penalty, the lawjudge assessed Scenic a $2,500 civil penalty-- $1,500 for the exhaust muffler violation, $500 for the fuel selector valve, and $500 for the air filter. (Initial Decision at 8.)

### 6 Regarding the exhaust muffler, the lawjudge said that Scenic failed to inspect it
on three occasions, creating an unreasonable risk to air safety. The lawjudge found that $1,500 appropriately reflected the scale ofScenic's transgression and would best effectuate the agency's policies ofcompliance and deterrence. (Initial Decision at 8.) As for the fuel selector valve and the air filter, the law judge found they were less serious in that they were essentially recordkeeping problems. Although he recognized that recordkeeping is the "linchpin" behind the FAA's regulatory scheme, the lawjudge nevertheless found that these violations deserved smaller civil penalties than if airworthiness violations had been alleged. (Initial Decision at 8.) In each case, Scenic had installed a part not governed by the airworthiness directive. Although the airworthiness directives technically applied until Scenic either notified the agency ofthe change, obtained a waiver, or both, the lawjudge stated that the airworthiness directives did not apply as a practical matter. For this reason, the lawjudge assessed civil penalties ofonly $500 each for the fuel selector valve and air filter violations. (!d. at 9.) In the law judge's view, $500 per violation was a significant amount to a small company Scenic and would further the agency's policies ofcompliance and deterrence. III. Briefs Before addressing the merits ofScenic's appeal, it is necessary to address a few preliminary matters regarding the briefs. A. Extra-Record Material. Scenic's 95-page appeal briefcontains a great deal ofinformation that is not part ofthe record, including documents that the lawjudge excluded. The Rules ofPractice, like other rules ofprocedure, prohibit basing a decision
on material outside the record. 

### In the Matter ofHereth, FAA Order No. 1995-26 at 87 (December 19, 1995). For this reason, the extra-record material in Scenic's appeal brief
was not considered in deciding this appeal. B. Unsigned Amicus Brief. Scenic submitted an unsigned amicus brief purporting to contain comments ofLawrence W. Havard, Sr., Scenic's Director of Maintenance. Although the omission ofthe signature was called to Scenic's attention, Scenic failed to correct the problem. As a result, the unsigned amicus briefis stricken. 

### IV. Logbook Entries Scenic argues on appeal, as it did before the lawjudge, that the FAA has no right to require operators to produce anything other than the most current entry in its maintenance records at the time ofthe inspection. According to Scenic, the lawjudge erred in admitting Scenic's airworthiness directive records because they contain notjust the latest entry, but earlier entries as well. (Appeal Briefat 61.) Complainant used these records to show the violations. For example, regarding the exhaust muffler, Scenic argues that there was no violation ifthe FAA was limited to looking at "current" records, because by the time the FAA found the problem, "several inspections had been recorded since the time [Scenic] overflew the inspection." (Appeal Brief at 28.) Scenic bases its argument on several regulations. First, Scenic argues that 14 C.F.R. § 13.7 permits only those records and documents that the Federal Aviation Regulations require to be maintained to be used in FAA civil penalty actions. " Second,

14 Section 13.7 provides as follows: § 13.7 Records, documents and reports. . Each record, document and report that the Federal Aviation Regulations requires to be maintained, exhibited or submitted to the Administrator may be used in any investigation conducted by the Administrator; and, except to the extent the use may be specifically limited or prohibited by the section which imposes the requirement, the records, documents and reports may be used in any civil penalty action, certificate action, or other legal proceeding.8 Scenic contends that under 14 C.F.R. 

### §§ 91.417 15 and 135.439," Scenic was not required to retain the entries that showed the violations. Scenic has misinterpreted 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.7. Scenic's airworthiness directive records were each clearly a "record, document, and report that the Federal Aviation Regulations require to be maintained, exhibited or submitted to the Administrator" within

15 Section 91.417 provides, in relevant part, as follows: § 91.417 Maintenance records. (a) ... [E]ach registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) ofthis section: (2) Records containing the following information: (v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) including, for each, the method ofcompliance, the AD number, and revision date. Ifthe AD involves recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required. (b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the periods prescribed: (2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) ofthis section shall be retained and transferred with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold. (c) The owner or operator shall make all maintenance records required to be kept by this section available for inspection by the Administrator .... 16 Section 135.439 provides, in relevant part, as follows: § 135.439 Maintenance recording requirements. (a) Each certificate holder shall keep ... the following records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) ofthis section: (2) Records containing the following information: (v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives, including the date and methods ofcompliance, and, ifthe airworthiness directive involves recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required. (b) Each certificate holder shall retain the records required to be kept by this section for the following periods: (3) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) ofthis section shall be retained and transferred with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold. (c) The certificate holder shall make all maintenance records required to be kept by this section available for inspection by the Administrator .... 

### '9 the meaning of14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.7. These records conformed with 14 C.F.R. 

### §§ 91.417(a)(2)(v) and 135.439(a)(2)(v) by containing information regarding ''the current status ofapplicable airworthiness directives, including the date and methods of compliance and the time and date when the next action is required." Thus, the records contained information Scenic was required to keep, and the lawjudge properly admitted them. Nor was the lawjudge wrong in declining to exclude particular entries. Each entry
on the form indicates the current status ofScenic's compliance with the airworthiness directive at the time Scenic completed the entry. Section 13.7 was not intended to restrict the agency; it was not intended to prevent the agency from taking enforcement action when an operator's maintenance records show ' violations ofthe safety regulations. Section 13.7 is written in a permissive sense- it provides that records required to be kept may be used. It does not provide that only the particular records required to be maintained may be used, or that older entries in the records may not be used. Note that there are any number ofother records, documents, and reports not mentioned in the regulation that parties use without objection in legal and administrative proceedings- 

### e.g., air carrier and manufacturer maintenance and operating manuals, FAA advisory circulars, and FAA orders." Further, as the lawjudge pointed

17 Scenic notes that the lawjudge did not provide any case Jaw to support his determination that all the entries on each ofScenic's airworthiness directive records were admissible, rather than just the most recent entry. In contrast, Scenic argues that United States v. Evaschuck, 65 F. Supp. 2d 1360 (M.D. Fl. 1999), supports its position. However, Evaschuk is distinguishable in several respects. First, it was a criminal case. Second, Evaschuk involved a different regulatory provision because airworthiness directives were not at issue- Evaschuk discussed 14 C.F.R. § 91.41 7(b)( 1 ), which requires maintenance records to be kept for a year - rather than § 91.417(b)(3), which requires records containing the current status ofairworthiness directives to be retained and transferred with the aircraft when it is sold. Third, the Evaschuk court did not suppress all maintenance records which were older than I year and therefore no longer required to be kept. Fourth, the court declined to suppress documents contained in the same logbooks as those within the search warrant's parameters. In contrast, the entries that10 out, it would be both unreasonable and detrimental to safety to require the FAA to uncover violations prior to entry ofthe next notation in the logbook under penalty of forfeiting any enforcement action against the alleged offender. When the regulations intend that a certain type ofrecord may not be used in a civil penalty action, they state so explicitly. For example, 14 C.F.R. §§ 121.359(h) and 135.15l(c) state, in pertinent part, as follows: "Information obtained from the record (produced by the cockpit voice recorder) is used ... in determining the cause ofaccidents

.... The Administrator does not use the record in any civil penalty ... action." Notably absent from 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.417 and 135.439 are statements to the effect that only the latest entry in maintenance records involving maintenance records may be used. For all ' ofthese reasons, the lawjudge correctly admitted Scenic's airworthiness directive records. V. Exhaust Muffier Vjo!atjon Scenic states in its appeal briefthat it did "make a little mistake" and forget to write down the inspections ofits exhaust muffler, but its owner and operator, Vernon Kingsford, "was not too worried" because he always uses a carbon monoxide indicator in the cockpit. (Appeal Briefat 28.) According to Scenic, the carbon monoxide indicator is
a much more accurate indicator ofwhether the muffler is leaking than a visual inspection because it detects carbon monoxide long before the human eye can detect small cracks in the muffler. (Id.) The law judge, however, rejected Scenic's defense that it performed the inspections ofthe exhaust muffler and simply failed to record them. According to the law Scenic seeks to exclude are contained notjust in the same logbooks but also in the same documents as the entries that Scenic agrees are admissible.II judge, Scenic's word without a written record ofthe inspection lacked "the requisite indicia oftrustworthiness." (Initial Decision at 3.) Further, Scenic's claims regarding the carbon monoxide indicator are unsubstantiated. Even ifthe record did contain evidence that: (I) Scenic had installed a carbon monoxide indicator; and (2) a carbon monoxide indicator is better from a safety standpoint than a visual examination ofthe exhaust muffler, it still would be contrary to the interest ofpublic safety to permit operators to decide for themselves whether and when to comply with airworthiness directives. Operators may not simply disregard an airworthiness directive; instead, they must obtain a waiver from the FAA." VI. Fuel Selector Valve and Air Filter Violations Scenic argues that it could not have violated two ofthe three airworthiness directives, given that the lawjudge expressly stated that Scenic had installed parts not governed by the directives. (Initial Decision at 8.) Scenic had replaced the fuel selector valve with a new type ofvalve on which it was impossible to perform the check required

"One ofthe exhibits Scenic introduced at the hearing was Advisory Circular 39-7C, entitled "Airworthiness Directives." It provides as follows: Every AD applies to each product identified in the applicability statement, regardless ofwhether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements ofthe AD. For products that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that performance ofthe requirements ofthe AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority provided in the alternative methods of compliance provision ofthe AD (see paragraph 12) to request approval from the FAA. This approval may address either no action, ifthe current configuration eliminates the unsafe condition; or different actions necessary to address the unsafe condition described in the AD. In no case, does the presence of any alteration, modification, or repair remove any product from the applicability of this AD. (Respondent's Exhibit 1.)

### 12 by the airworthiness directive. Similarly, it had replaced the air filter with a new type of filter that did not need such frequent inspections. As the lawjudge noted, the problem was with SceniC's recordkeeping. Scenic's entries in its maintenance records that documented the change in parts did not indicate in any way that the changes were terminating actions for the airworthiness directives. Scenic's principal maintenance inspector testified that as a mechanic, he would expect to see a specific entry indicating that it was a terminating action. I Tr. 46-48. 19 VII. Letter from FAA Employee Scenic argues that the lawjudge erred in excluding a letter from an FAA engineer stating that Airworthiness Directive 60-10-08 did not apply to the fuel valve at issue in this case. (Appeal Briefat 85.) The lawjudge properly excluded the letter given that it
was not authenticated. The law judge stated, "We have an authentication problem .... We don't know the circumstances under which this was produced ...." I Tr. 77. It is standard practice to require documents to be authenticated before admitting them. See, e.g., Rule 901 ofthe Federal Rules ofEvidence. VIII. Constitutional Claims Scenic has many complaints about the behavior of the FAA inspectors and counsel in this case, including the following:
• FAA inspectors and counsel in this case allegedly conspired to offer fraudulent testimony and evidence. (Appeal Briefat 89.)

19 Scenic is correct that the lawjudge was wrong when he said that no record existed informing agency officials that the new fuel selector valve had been installed. Actually, as Complainant's Exhibit 3 at 2, shows, Scenic did log the change in valves. But as with the air filters, Scenic was obligated to make an entry indicating that the change terminated the inspection requirements of the airworthiness directive.

## • 13
• FAA inspectors photocopied Scenic's aircraft records against the wishes of Scenic's owner, Vernon Kingsford, and refused to return the photocopies to him. (Appeal Brief at 10.) They allegedly trespassed on Mr. Kingsford's property after he told them to leave and stole the electricity used to power their copier. (Appeal Briefat 12.) The inspectors allegedly failed to show official identification badges. (Appeal Briefat 13.)
• The inspectors allegedly harassed Mr. Kingsford during his busy season, causing him stress and anxiety that affected the safety ofhis operation. (Appeal Briefat 14.) According to Scenic, these complaints rise to the level ofconstitutional violations. The record simply does not contain evidence regarding these claims. As a result, they are rejected as unsubstantiated. 

### IX. 

### Financial Hardship While Scenic argues that it cannot afford to pay a civil penalty (Appeal Briefat 4), it did not raise the issue of financial hardship at the hearing, and thus failed to preserve the issue for appeal. In the Matter ofNorthwest Aircraft Rental, FAA Order No. 1994-4 at 9 (March 10, 1994). The record contains no evidence ofScenic's financial hardship or inability to pay. The Administrator has held numerous times that financial hardship, when proven, may constitute grounds for reduction ofan otherwise appropriate civil penalty. In the Matter ofBlue Ridge Airlines, FAA Order No. 1999-15 at 10 (December 22, 1999). However, unsworn and unsubstantiated statements by alleged violators are insufficient evidence ofinability to pay. In the Matter ofConquest Airlines, FAA Order No. 1994-20 at 3 (June 22, 1994), citing In the Matter ofGiuffrid!!, FAA Order No. 1992-72 at 3 (December 21, 1992). Scenic bore the burden ofproving its claim of financial hardship, 

### '14 In the Matter ofConquest Helicopters, FAA Order No. 1994-20 at 3 (June 20, 1994), but failed to substantiate its claim. 20 X. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the lawjudge's initial decision is affirmed and a civil penalty of$2,500 is assessed.21

Issued this 15th day of----"-Ma=.y__ , 2001.

20 The other arguments contained in Scenic's appeal briefhave been considered, rejected, and determined to be unworthy ofdiscussion. 21 Unless Respondent files a petition for review with a Court ofAppeals ofthe United States under 49 U.S.C. § 46110 within 60 days of service ofthis decision, this decision shall be considered an order assessing civil penalty. See 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.16(b)(4) and 13.2330)(2) (2000.)