SERVED: April22, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SKYWEST AIRLINES 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012- 0777 

INITIAL DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

I. Glossary 

AML 

FAA 

FAR 

MEL 

OpSpecs 

Sky West 

SP 

II. Introduction 

Aircraft Maintenance Log 

Federal Aviation Administration, Complainant 

Federal Aviation ;J3.-egulations 

Minirimm Equipment List 

Operations Specifications 

SkyWest Airlines, Inc., Respondent 

Standard Practice 

i: 

The parties submitted this matter on cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings 

representing there were no genuine factual issues in dispute. The only issue before us is 

the assessment of penalty. 

III. Procedural History 

On June 25, 2012, Sky West Airlines, Inc. (hereinafter "SkyWest") was advised 

through a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that the Federal Aviation 

Administration (hereinafter "FAA") proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of 

$142,500 for violation of Federal Aviation regulations. 

On June 29, 2012, SkyWest, through legal counsel, submitted a written request 

for a hearing. 

On July 13,2012, the FAA filed a Complainant against SkyWest. 

1 
On August 13, 2012, SkyWest filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses. 

On January 30, 2014, the FAA filed a Motion for Decision. 

On March 20, 2014, SkyWest filed its Rebuttal and Motion for Decision. 

On March 27,2014, the FAA filed its Rebuttal to SkyWest's Motion for Decision. 

On April11, 2014, SkyWest filed its Rebuttal to the FAA's March 27,2014 

Rebuttal. 

In their pleadings, both parties agreed: 

There was no genuine dispute as to any material fact on the question of 

either liability or sanction; 

Because there was no genuine factual dispute, the case could be decided 

on cross Motions for Decision. 

IV. Hearing 

The parties agreed to waive a hearing and submit issues on the pleadings. 1 

The FAA was represented by Jeffrey M, Harper. 

Sky West Airlines was represented by Todd C. Emerson. 

The matter is now ready for decision. 

V. Jurisdiction 

SkyWest was at all times material hereto the holder of Scheduled Air Carrier 

Certificate No. SW1A011A, and conducted its operations pursuant to Part 121 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). 2 

VI. Burden ofProof 

The FAA was the petitioning party with the initial burden of proof. 

VII. Allegations 

The FAA alleged SkyWest violated the following sections of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (hereinafter "F AR"s) (14 C. F. R.): 

1 FAA "Motion for Decision" dated January 30, 2014; SkyWest "Rebuttal" dated April 11, 2014. 2 FAA "Motion for Decision" dated January 30, 2014; SkyWest "Answer and Affirmative Defenses", 

August 13, 2014. 

2 
a. Section 119.5 (g), in that, as a direct air carrier, it operated in violation of an 

appropriate Operations Specification. 

b. Section 119.5 (1 ), in that it operated an aircraft under Part 121 in violation of 

its Operations Specifications. 

c. Section 121. 628(a)(5), in that it took off an airplane with inoperable 

equipment installed when the airplane was not operated under all applicable 

conditions and limitations contained in the MEL and the operations 

specifications authorizing use of the MEL. 

d. Section 121. 605, in that it dispatched or released an airplane that was 

unairworthy. 

e. Section 121.153(a)(2), in that it operated an aircraft that was unairworthy. 

SkyWest acknowledged violations as set forth in its Answer. 

VIII. Issue 

We address only the issue of the amount·ofpenalty appropriate to the violations. '\i • 

IX. Summary of Evidence and testimony 

No testimony was received. 

A. Agency's recitation of facts 

The FAA alleged: 

Paragraph D085 of SkyWest's Operations Specifications (OpSpecs) authorized 

SkyWest to use NS22SK, a Bombardier CL-600-2D24 civil aircraft, in the 

conduct of Sky West's Part 121 operations. 

Paragraph D095 of Sky West's OpSpecs allowed SkyWest to use an approved 

Minimum Equipment List (hereinafter "MEL") to defer maintenance provided 

certain conditions and limitations were met. 

SkyWest SP 8175, MEL CL600-2D24 was the approved MEL for SkyWest's 

Bombardier CL-600-2D24 aircraft. ;:-:. 

Procedures listed on the MEL for the discrepancy had to be completed in order to 

properly defer the discrepancy. 

3 
On October 18,2010, a flight crew reported an "A PACK FAULT STATUS 

MSG" as a mechanical irregularity in the Aircraft Maintenance Log (hereinafter 

"AML") ofN822SK. 

The "A PACK FAULT STATUS MSG" mechanical irregularity was properly 

deferred under SkyWest SP 8175, MEL 27-51-4a. 

The maintenance procedures for MEL 27-51-4a required maintenance or flight 

crew personnel to "verify operation of the pack discharge pressure sensor by 

interrogating the MDC" once per flight day, and that an entry be made in the 

AML indicating the actions taken. 

"Flight Day" was defined in SkyWest's SP 7555, Definitions and Acronyms for 

Standard Practices, as "a 24 hour period (from 3:00a.m. to 3:00a.m.) local time 

during which at least one flight is initiated for the affected aircraft." 

The pack discharge pressure sensor was not verified as operable on October 19, 

2010 and October 20, 2010. 

Between October 19,2010, and the completion of the check on October 21,2010, 

SkyWest released, dispatched, and operated N822SK in commercial service for 

seventeen (17) flight cycles. 

Deferral under MEL 27-51-4a for these flights was not authorized because the 

prescribed daily maintenance procedures had not been completed. 

At the time of the flights on October 19 and October 20, 2010, N728SK did not 

conform to all applicable conditions anq limitations contained in the MEL and 

operations specifications authorizing us~ "of the MEL. · 

At the time of the flights on October 19 and October 20, 2010, N728SK was not 

airworthy. 

B. Respondent's recitation of facts 

In response to Paragraph 2, SkyWest admitted that Paragraph D085 of Sky West's 

OpSpecs authorized SkyWest to use N822SK, a Bombardier CL-600- 2D24 civil 

aircraft, in the conduct of SkyWest's Part 121 operations. 

In response to Paragraph 3, SkyWest admitted that Paragraph D095 of Sky West's 

OpSpecs allowed SkyWest to use an approved MEL to defer maintenance, 

provided certain conditions and limitations were met. 

In response to Paragraph 4, SkyWest admitted that SkyWest SP 8175, MEL 

CL600-2D24 was the approved MEL for SkyWest's Bombardier CL-600-2D24 

aircraft. 

·4 
In response to Paragraph 5, SkyWest admitted that procedures listed on the MEL 

for the discrepancy must be completed in order to properly defer the discrepancy. 

In response to Paragraph 6, SkyWest admitted that on October 18, 2010, a flight 

crew reported an "A PACK FAULT STATUS MSG" as a mechanical irregularity 

in the AML ofN822SK. 

SkyWest admitted the allegations set forth in response to Paragraphs 7 and 8. 

In response to Paragraph 9, SkyWest admitted that a "Flight Day" was defined in 

SkyWest's SP7555, Definitions and Acronyms for Standard Practices, as "a 24 

hour period (from 3:00a.m. to 3:00a.m.) local time during which at least one 

flight is initiated for the affected aircraft". 

Sky West denied the allegations set forth in response to Paragraph 10, 11, 12, 13 

and 14. 

As an affirmative defense SkyWest alleg~d the proposed penalty was excessive 

and violated FAA policy. 

C. FAA Rebuttal to SkyWest's Motion 

The FAA acknowledged it considered the minimal safety risk posed by 

SkyWest's admitted regulatory violation in selecting a sanction in the minimum 

range. 

Responding to SkyWest's arguments on mitigation, the FAA argued a sanction of 

$142,500 was consistent with both the facts of this case and its published Sanction 

Guidance. 

D. SkyWest response to FAA Rebuttal 

SkyWest did not agree that the missed query on October 19 rendered the 

previously completed flights unairworthy. 

The totality of the circumstances mitigated for a proportionate penalty to the 

minor, non-safety lapse. 

SkyWest's prompt actions should warrant mitigation resulting in a minimal fine. 

X. Evidence 

We consider only the evidence set forth in the FAA's "Complaint"; SkyWest's 

"Answer and Affirmative Defenses"; the FAA's "Motion for Decision"; SkyWest's 

"Rebuttal and Motion for Decision"; the FAA's "Rebuttal to Respondent's (SkyWest's) 

5 
Motion for Decision" and SkyWest's "Rebuttal" to the FAA's March 27,2014 Rebuttal; 

"Respondent's (SkyWest's) Response to Complainant's Initial Discovery Request", dated 

October 17, 2012; and attachments thereto. 

All documentary evidence was reviewed and considered. 

XI. Analysis ofEvidence 

SkyWest held a Scheduled Air Carrier Certificate and operated under Part 121 of 

the F ARs during the time in question. 

On October 18, 2010, a SkyWest flight crew reported a discrepancy in the AML 

ofN822SK. SkyWest's OpSpecs, paragraph D085 allowed SkyWest to defer 

maintenance, provided certain conditions and limitations were met. In this case, the 

relevant MEL conditions and limitations, found at SkyWest Standard Practice 

(hereinafter "SP") paragraphs 21-51-4a had two relevant conditions: 

1. SkyWest verify operations of the "pack discharge pressure sensor" and 

2. Make an entry in the AML. 

SkyWest operated N822SK in commercial service on a flight day beginning 3:00 

a.m. local time on October 19, 2010, October 20, 2010 and October 21, 2010. N822SK 

flew seventeen (17) cycles between October 19 and the completion ofthe MEL 27-51-4a 

procedure on October 21, 2010. SkyWest's AML for N822SK contained no entry 

demonstrating Sky West verified the operation of the "pack discharge pressure sensor" on 

October 19,2010, or October 20,2010. SkyWest admitted there was a failure to 

accomplish the required check. The required verifications were performed on October 18 

and 21, 2010 

SkyWest had operating revenues in excess of $100 million for the year 2011 and 

employed 1,500 people. 

While the evidence presented was that N822SK was flown a total of seventeen 

(17) flights on October 19 and 20, 2010, there was no evidence when the seventeen (17) 

cycles took place, i.e. whether the flights all occurred 18, 19 20 and/or 21, 2010 or some 

other combination of those dates. There was evidence the MEL was not completed on 

one of three days, but no evidence whether any of the cycles occurred on any of those 

dates. 

On October 18,2010, a fault message was received on one oftwo redundant air 

conditioner temperature sensors - operating in manual mode - on N822SK. The sensor 

corresponded to one of two air conditioners used for passenger comfort. Those air 

conditioners did not cool any avionic or flight control systems. The sensor was 

functional in automatic mode. The aircraft computer could adjust the cabin temperate, 

but the pilots could not do so manually. Upon further investigation, it was determined 

the sensor was functioning normally but not co~municating properly with the aircraft's . . . 

6 
computer. The air conditioning was always functioning on N822SK. If not, the 

computer would have latched a 'fail' message. The sensor fault was a category "C" 

according to the MEL and could have been deferred up to ten (1 0) days without receiving 

attention from maintenance.3 . 

The MEL required the N822SK crew interrogate the computer once a day which 

could occur after all flights for the day had been completed. Entries should have been 

made in the AML. The other sensor was working. 

Sky West acknowledged that a once-daily maintenance check- i.e., interrogation 

of the computer - that was required to be performed on N822SK as a result of the fault 

message on October 18,2010, was not completed on October 19 and 10,2010 and entries 

made in the AML. 

XII. Law 

14 C. F. R § 119. 5 provides in pertinent part: 

(g) No person may operate as a direct air carrier or as a 

commercial operator without, or in violation of, an appropriate certificate 

and appropriate operations specifications. No person may operate as a 

direct air carrier or as a commercial operator in violation of any deviation 

or exemption authority, if issued to that person or that person's 

representative. 

(1) No person may operate an aircraft under this part, part 121 of 

this chapter, or part 135 of this chapter in violation of an air carrier 

operating certificate, operating certificate, or appropriate operations 

specifications issued under this part. 

14 C.F.R § 121.153(a)(2) provides in pertinent part: 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no 

certificate holder may operate an aircraft unless that aircraft-

(2) Is in an airworthy condition and meets the applicable 

airworthiness requirements of this chapter, including those relating to 

identification and equipment. 

14 C.F.R § 121.605 provides in pertinent part: 

No person may dispatch or release an airplane unless it is 

3 SkyW est "Rebuttal and Motion for Decision", Exhibit A 

7 
airworthy and is equipped as prescribed in § 121.3 03.4 

14 C.F.R § 121.628 provides in pertinent part: 

(a) No person may take off an airplane with inoperable instruments 

or equipment installed unless the fqllowing conditions are met: 

(5) The airplane is operated under all applicable conditions and 

limitations contained in the Minimum Equipment List and the operations 

specifications authorizing use of the Minimum Equipment List. 

XIII. Findings of fact 

SkyWest held a Scheduled Air Carrier Certificate and operated under Part 121 of 

the Federal Aviation Regulations (hereinafter "FAR") during the time in question. 

On October 18,2010, a flight crew reported an "A PACK FAULT STATUS 

MSG" as a mechanical irregularity in the Aircraft Maintenance Log (hereinafter "AML") 

ofN822SK. The "A PACK FAULT STATUS MSG" mechanical irregularity was 

properly deferred under SkyWest SP 8175, MEL 27-51-4a. The maintenance procedures 

4 14 C.F.R §121.303 provides in pertinent part: (a) Unless otherwise specified, the 

instrument and equipment requirements of this subpart apply to all operations under this 

part. ,,; 

(b) Instruments and equipment required by §§121.305 through 121.359 and 121.803 must 

be approved and installed in accordance with the airworthiness requirements applicable 

to them. 

(c) Each airspeed indicator must be calibrated in knots, and each airspeed limitation and 

item of related information in the Airplane Flight Manual and pertinent placards must be 

expressed in knots. 

(d) Except as provided in §§121.627(b) and 121.628, no person may take off any airplane 

unless the following instruments and equipment are in operable condition: 

(1) Instruments and equipment required to comply with airworthiness requirements under 

which the airplane is type certificated and as required by §§121.213 through 121.283 and 

121.289. 

(2) Instruments and equipment specified in §§121.305 through 121.321, 121.359, 

121. 3 60, and 121. 803 for all operations, and the instruments and equipment specified in 

§§121.323 through 121.351 for the l<ind of.operation indicated, wherever these items are 

not already required by paragraph ( d)(l) of this section. 

8 
for MEL 27-51-4a required maintenance or flight crew personnel to "verify operation of 

the pack discharge pressure sensor by interrogating the MDC" once per flight day, and 

make an entry in the AML indicating the actions taken. SkyWest operated N822SK in 

commercial service on flight days beginning 3:00a.m. local time on October 19,2010, 

October 20, 2010 and October 21, 2010. N822SK flew seventeen (17) cycles between 

October 19 and the completion ofthe MEL 27-51-4a procedure on October 21, 2010. 

SkyWest's AML for N822SK contained no entry demonstrating SkyWest verified the 

operation ofthe "pack discharge pressure sensor" on October 19,2010 or October 20, 

2010. 

The required verifications were performed on October 18 and 21,2010. 

There was no evidence when the seventeen (17) cycles took place, i.e. whether the 

flights all occurred 18, 19 20 and/or 21, 2010 or some other combination of those dates. 

There was no evidence the equipment was inoperable. In fact, later investigation 

determined the sensor was functioning normally but not communicating properly with the 

aircraft's computer. The air conditioning was always functioning on N822SK. If not, the 

computer would have latched a 'fail' message. 

The FAA correctly asserts an applicable condition of the MEL, which SkyWest 

was required to meet and failed to meet in order to operate N822SK, was that SkyWest 

verify operation of the pack discharge pressure sensor on N822SK by interrogating the 

MDC AND that this verification be done once per flight day with an appropriate AML 

entry. 

There was evidence the MEL requirement was not completed on October 19 

and/or 20, 2010. 

XIV. Conclusions 

14 C.F.R § 119.5 (g): "No person may operate as a direct air carrier or as a 

commercial operator without, or in violation of, an appropriate certificate and 

appropriate operations specifications. No person may operate as a direct air carrier 

or as a commercial operator in violation of any deviation or exemption authority, if 

issued to that person or that person's representative." 

The FAA, by a preponderance of the evidence standard, proved N822SK was 

operated as a direct air carrier or as a commercial operator without, or in violation of, an 

appropriate certificate and appropriate operations specifications because SkyWest failed 

to verify operation of the pack discharge pressure sensor on N822SK by interrogating the 

MDC AND that this verification was not done once per flight day with an appropriate 

AML entry on October 19 and/or 20,2010. 

14 C. F. R § 119. 5 (l): "No person may operate an aircraft under this part, 

part 121 of this chapter, or part 13 5 of this chapter in violation of an air 

9 
carrier operating certificate, operating certificate, or appropriate operations 

specifications issued under this part." 

The FAA, by a preponderance of the evid~nce standard, proved N822SK was 

operated in violation of an air carrier operating certificate, operating certificate, or 

appropriate operations specifications issued under this part because SkyWest failed to 

verify operation of the pack discharge pressure sensor on N822SK by interrogating the 

MDC AND that this verification was not done once per flight day with an appropriate 

AML entry on October 19 and/or20, 2010. · 

14 C.F.R § 121.153(a)(2): "Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no 

certificate holder may operate an aircraft unless that aircraft-

(2) Is in an airworthy condition and meets the applicable airworthiness 

requirements of this chapter, including those relating to identification and 

equipment." 

The FAA, by a preponderance of the evidence standard, proved N822SK was 

operated an unairworthy condition and failed to meet the applicable airworthiness 

requirements by operating N822SK on seventeen (17) flights without complying with the 

MEL in violation of its OpSpecs because SkyWest failed to verify operation of the pack 

discharge pressure sensor on N822~K by il)terr6gating the MDC AND that this 

verification was not done once per flight day with an appropriate AML entry on October 

19 and/or 20, 2010. 

14 C.F.R § 121.605: ''No person may dispatch or release an airplane unless it is 

airworthy and is equipped as prescribed in § 121.3 03." 

The FAA, by a preponderance of the evidence standard, proved N822SK was 

dispatched or released in an unairworthy condition because SkyWest failed to verify 

operation of the pack discharge pressure sensor on N822SK by interrogating the MDC 

AND that this verification was not done once per flight day with an appropriate AML 

entry on October 19 and/or 20, 2010. · 

14 C.F.R § 121.628 (a): "No person may take off an airplane with inoperable 

instruments or equipment installed unless the following conditions are met" 

There was no evidence that any instrument or equipment was inoperable 

on N822SK on either October 18, 19,20 and/or 21,2010. The uncontroverted 

facts were that the sensor was functional in automatic mode but not 

communicating with the aircraft computer. The.f AA failed to prove a prima facie 

case that Sky West take off an airplane with' inoperable instruments or equipment 

installed. 

14 C.F.R § 121.628 (5): "The airplane is operated under all applicable 

10 
conditions and limitations contained in the Minimum Equipment List and 

the operations specifications authorizing use of the Minimum Equipment 

List." 

The FAA, by a preponderance of the evidence standard, proved N822SK was not 

operated under all applicable conditions and limitations contained in the MEL and the 

OpSpecs authorizing use of the MEL because SkyWest failed to verify operation of the 

pack discharge pressure sensor on N822SK by interrogating the MDC AND that this 

verification was not done once per flight day with an appropriate AML entry on October 

19 and/or 20,2010. 

After consideration and review of all the evidentiary facts, testimony and 

evidence herein, by a preponderance of the evicl,ence standard, we make the following 

findings: · ' · · 

1. We find the FAA proved a prima facie case that SkyWest committed 

violations of the following provisions of 14 C.F.R.: 

a. 14 C. F. R § 119. 5 (g): "No person may operate as a direct air 

carrier or as a commercial operator without, or in violation of, an 

appropriate certificate and appropriate operations specifications. 

No person may operate as a direct air carrier or as a commercial 

operator in violation of any deviation or exemption authority, if 

issued to that person or that person's representative." 

b. 14 C.F.R § 119.5(1): "No person may operate an aircraft 

under this part, part 121 of this chapter, or part 135 ofthis 

chapter in violation of an air carrier operating certificate, 

operating certificate, or appropriate operations 

specifications issued under this part." 

c. 14 C.F.R § 121.153(a)(2): "Except as provided in paragraph (c) of 

this section, no certificate holder may operate an aircraft unless 

that aircraft- , . 

d. 14 C.F.R § 121.605: ''No''person may dispatch or release an 

airplane unless it is airworthy and is equipped as prescribed in 

§121.303." 

(2) Is in an airworthy condition and meets the applicable 

airworthiness requirements of this chapter, including those relating 

to identification and equipment." 

e. We find the FAA failed to carry its burden ofproofthat SkyWest 

violated 14 C.F.R § 121.628 (a): "No person may take off an airplane with 

inoperable instruments or equipment installed unless the following 

conditions are met". Therefore the FAA failed to prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that Sky West violated 14 C.F.R § 121.628 

(5): "The airplane is operated under all applicable conditions and 

11 
limitations contained in the Minimum Equipment List and the operations 

specifications authorizing use of the Minimum Equipment List." 

XV. Penalty and Mitigation Considerations 

SkyWest admitted the allegations as set forth hereinabove. 

We found the violations as set forth above. 

The FAA argued this case involved two (2) instances ofSkyWest operating 

contrary to its OpSpecs (failing to interrogate the MDC and that this verification was 

not done once per flight day with an appropriate AML entry on October 19 and 20, 

201 0) and the resultant operation of an unairworthy aircraft seventeen times during the 

period of October 18 to 21,2010. We agree that this case involved two (2) instances of 

SkyWest operating contrary to its OpSpecs. 

The FAA alleged Sky West operated seventeen (17) flights during the period of 

October 18 to 21, 2010. We are left to speculate on which of the four days one or more 

of those flights took place. We decline to do so. 

The evidence was that Sky West's AML\tor N822SK contained no entries 

demonstrating SkyWest verified the operation ofthe "pack discharge pressure sensor" 

on October 19,2010 or October 20,2010 as required by the OpSpecs and MEL. Those 

are the two (2) violations we find. 

Under 49 US. C. § 46301 (a)(J)) "A person is liable to the United States 

Government for a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 (or $1,100 if the person is an 

individual or small business concern) for violating ... (B) a regulation prescribed or 

order issued under any provision to which clause (A) of this paragraph applies ... " 

FAA Order 2150.3B, Chapter 7, provides a framework for determining 

sanctions. 

a. Nature of violation 

Three elements define the nature of violations: first, whether the violations were 

operational or non-operational; second, whether the violations involved careless or 

reckless conduct; and third, whether the violations involved any special aggravating or 

mitigating factors. (FAA Order 2150.3B, Chapter 7, 4 a.). The FAA argued the 

component was operational and wa~ a low degree of hazard. Later investigation 

determined the component was operational, but the sensor was not communicating with 

the aircraft computer. We find the component was operational but the sensor failed to 

communicate with the aircraft computer. Sky West failed to make appropriate entries in 

the AML on October 19 and/or 20,2010. We find the violations were neither careless 

nor reckless. The find there were no aggravating factors, but find there were mitigating 

factors. 

12 
b. Whether the violation was inadvertent or advertent 

SkyWest failed to make appropriate entries on the AML on October 19 and 20, 

2010 after interrogating the MDC to verify operation ofthe pack discharge pressure 

sensor on N822SK. It was later determined the sensor was not communicating with the 

aircraft computer but the equipment was operational. We find the violation was 

inadvertent in that it was the result of both inattention and lack of purposeful choice. We 

further find the violations were not deliberate. 

c. Certificate Holder's Level of Experience 

The FAA argued that the penalty requested of $142,500 was appropriate. It 

argued a minimum civil penalty was appropriate for operation contrary to OpSpecs -

technical noncompliance. It then suggested as a large business Group I air carrier, the 

range for a minimum sanction was $2,000-$9,999, the midpoint being $5,999. The 

FAA argued the affected component was operational, there was a low degree of hazard, 

then suggested that" ... given Respondent's lengthy experience as an air carrier 

however, a sanction above the midpoint is warranted". We disagree. The FAA's own 

analysis argues for a more reasonable civil penalty. There was nothing in the evidence 

to support a sanction above the midpoint for each of the two (2) violations. 

d. Attitude of the Violator 

SkyWest was cooperative. SkyWest admitted the violations and took swift and 

immediate corrective action. 

e. Degree of Hazard 

FAA argued the affected component wa§ operational and there was a low degree 

ofhazard. Later investigation deterkined·r~·sensor was not communicating with the 

aircraft computer but the equipment was operational. The component was working in 

automatic mode but not in manual mode. We find there was no threat to safety. 

f. Action Taken by Employer or Other Authority 

We find consideration of this element is not relevant to the facts of this case. 

g. Use of a Certificate 

Air carriers are held to the highest standard of care. Likewise, personnel engaged 

in air transportation are held to the highest safety standard. 

There was no evidence to suggest SkyWest did not adhere to the highest 

standard of care or that SkyWest personnel did not adhere to the highest safety standard. 

13 
'·~ . 

h. Violation History 

Violation history was not argued herein. A violation-free history is the expected 

norm, not the exception and, therefore, is not a mitigating factor. 

i. Ability to Absorb Sanction 

We find SkyWest has the ability to absorb any sanction. 

j. Consistency of Sanction 

Consistency was not argued and there was no evidence of consistency and/or 

inconsistency of sanction. 

k. Corrective Action 

The FAA COJ:?-Siders corrective action a mitigating factor in determining sanction 

provided the corrective action exceeds the minimum regulatory or statutory 

requirements. SkyWest immediately responded to the violation by taking corrective 

action. 

The FAA must justify to the law judge the amount of the civil penalty it 

seeks. (See In the Matter of Luxemburg, FAA Order No. 1994-18 (June 22, 1994), 

stating that Complainant bore the burden of justifying the amount of the civil 

penalty it sought and citing 14 C.F.R. § 13.224(a), which provides that, except in 

the case of an affirmative defense, the burden of proof is on the agency.) Here, 

the FAA has failed to explain to the undersigned, either through witnesses or in its 

written closing argument, exactly how it used its sanction guidance to arrive at a 

figure of$142,500. By failing to explain its proposed sanction adequately, the 

FAA in effect asks the undersigned simply to trust Complainant that its proposed • . 5 sanctiOn was appropnate. . 

An appropriate civil penalty must reflect the totality of the circumstances 

surrounding the violations. Eastern Air Center, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-3 

(January 28, 2008). Finally, the civil penalty should provide sufficient incentive 

to deter the respondent and similarly-situated entities from future violations. 

Folsom's Air Service, Inc., Id., p. 20.6 

The violations were the faih,tre to make entries demonstrating SkyWest crews 

verified the operation of the 'pack discharge pressure sensor on October 19, 201 0 and 

October 20, 2010 for N822SK. 

While a penalty calculated in accordance with the FAA's policy guidance should 

stand, absent a showing ofSkyWest's inability to pay, the evidence testimony does not 

5 In the Matter of War below's Air Ventures, Inc., FAA Order No. 2000-3 at 6 In the Matter ofGoJetAirlines, LLC., FAA-2010-0025- 0190 

14 
support the penalty requested. While the FAA was entitled to substantial deference in 

establishing an appropriate civil penalty, we cannot ignore our role to evaluate the 

testimony and evidence. 

When a single instance of noncompliance results in multiple violations of 

general and specific regulations involving the same or similar conduct, the FAA 

ordinarily does not compound the sanction to reflect the amount of sanction 

recommended in the table for each regulatory violation (FAA Order 2150.3B, Chapter 

7, 6 c.). . •.. 

The FAA argued that the penalty requested of $14 2,500 was appropriate. It 

argued a minimum civil penalty was appropriate for operation contrary to OpSpecs -

technical noncompliance. It then suggested as a large business Group I air carrier, the 

range for a minimum sanction was $2,000-$9,999, the midpoint being $5,999. The 

FAA also argued the affected component was operational, there was a low degree of 

hazard, then suggested that " ... given Respondent's lengthy experience as an air carrier 

however, a sanction above the midpoint is warranted". We disagree. The FAA's own 

analysis argues for a more reasonable civil penalty. There was nothing in the evidence 

to support a sanction above the midpoint for each of the two (2) violations. 

A sanction should not be a mathematical addition of alleged violations. We find 

the seventeen (17) flights were residual violations, because they were not independent 

events; they were dependent on the original failure to annotate the AML on two (2) 

separated dates, October 19 and 20, 2010. The failure to document the MDC checks in 

the AML were the underlying violations. The seventeen (17) flights were strictly 

residual violations. There were no distinguishing factual elements between the AML 

notation violations and the seventeen (17) flights. 

SkyWest immediately implemented five.'(5) significant measures to prevent 

recurrence of the underlying violations: 

1. Creating the new position of Supervisor of Internal Compliance; 

2. Establishing an electronic aircraft maintenance blocking program; 

3. Creating the new position of Data Administrator; 

4. Installing enhanced phone system to improve crew to 

maintenance communications; and 

5. Adding sever (7) additional Maintenance Controllers. 

The result was an investment by SkyWest of approximately $622,000 to implement 

these preventative measures. 

We find a penalty of $142,500 would be an excessive penalty in the 

circumstances of this case and in effect compounds the sanction. There were two (2) 

violations. The FAA argued the midpoint ofthe minimum sanction was $5,999. We 

find a civil penalty of $11,998 is a more appropriate civil penalty and more accurately 

reflects the totality of the circumstances surrounding the violations. (In The Matter of 

Folsom's Air Service, Inc., 2008 WL 4948488 (2008)) 
WHEREFORE, evidence and testimony having been heard and considered it be 

and is hereby ORDERED as follows: 

a. SkyWest be and is assessed a civil penalty in the amount of$11,998. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

16 
SERVICE LIST 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0777 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

ONE COPY 

Todd C. Emerson, Respondent's Counsel 

Director, Government and Legal Affairs 

SkyWest Airlines 

444 South River Road 

St. George, UT 84 790 

TEL: 435-634-3530 

FAX: 435-634-3505 

Jeffrey M. Harper, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2161 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E 11-31 0) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building--Suite 

2W I 000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

17