OG/24/201 0 14:4 7 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DMS §1001/01 4

UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D C } n th e Matte r

of ; DARB Y AVIATIO N FA A Order No , 2010- 5 Dockei No . CP08SO002 5 FDMSNo . FAA-2008-1191 ' Served : Jun e 14,201 0 DECISIO N AN

D ORDER S Complainan t

Federal Aviatio n Administratio n ("FAA" ) ha s appeale d Administrativ e La

w Judg e ("AIAI" ) Isaac D . Benkin' s writte n initial decision / whic h grante dth e motio n fo

r decisio n o f

Respondent

Darby Aviatio n ("Darby") , d/b/aAlph aJet International . On appeal , th e FAA argue s tha t th e AI J erre di

n grantin g Darby' s motio n fo r decision . Specifically , th e FAA contest s th e ALJ' s findin g tha t aDarb y pilo t

wa. s qualifie da s acheck

pilo t vvhe n he conducte dcertai n chec k rides . ITii s decisio n grant s th e FAA' s appeal , reverse s th e AFJ' s initial decision , an dremand s thi s cas e l o the AL J fo r a determinatio n o f

th e appropriate sanctio n amount .

Material s filedi

n th e FA A Hearin g Docket

(excep t fo r material s filedi

n securit y cases ) arc availabl e for

viewin g at

http://www.regulations.^ov . ^ Th e Administraior' s civi l penall y decisions , alon g wit h indexe s o f

th e deci-sions , th e rule s o f practice , andothe r

information , are availabl e o n th e Internet

a t th e foUovvin

g address ; hitp://faa.gov/about/officejDr^/hecuiquarter s _ofrice5/agc/poljidjudication/AGC400/Civil_Penalty . I n addition , Thom.so

n Reuters/Wes i Publishin g publishe s Federa l Aviatio n Decisions . Finally , th e deci.sion s are availabl e throug h FFXI S (TRAN S library ) andWcslLa w (FTRAN-FA A database) . Fo r additional information , se e th e We b site . Thi s decision , which i s entitled , "Adminisiraiiv c La w Judge' s Order

Graniin g Motio n fo

r Summar y Dispositio n andSeverin g Proceeding, " i s attached .06/24/201 0 14:4 7 FA X 202493514 2 FA A• * DM S @1002/01 4

1 . Backgroun d Thi s cas e involve s tw o type s o f recurrin g pilo t

qualificatio n checks : (1 ) competenc y check s tha t under 1 4 C.F.R . § 135.29 3 mus t b e administere dbefore a pilo t ma y b e use di

n operation s under

1 4 C.F.R . Part

13 5 ("29 3 competenc y checks") ; an d(2 ) instrumen t

proficienc y check s require dby 1 4 C.F.R . § 135.29 7 ("29 7 instrumen t checks")

- Th e FA A filed acomplain t o n Novembe r

13 , 2008 , allegin g that

Darb y use don e o f it s pilots , Dan e Rheinschmidt , a s achec k pilo t whe n h e wa s no t

qualifie dbecaus e h e hadno t complete dth e necessary check(s) , violatin g 1 4 C.F.R . § 135.337(b)(2).' ' Th e complain t further allege dthat

Darb y use danother

of it s pilots , Jerr

y Standridge , wh o ha d take n a29 3 competenc y chec k administere db y th e unqualifie dRheinschmidt , thereb y violatin g 1 4 C.F.R . § I35.293(b). ^ ITic FA A sougli t a$44,00 0 civi l penalty fromDaihy .

" 1 4 C.F.R . § 135.337(b)(2 ) provides :

(b ) N o certificate holder

ma y us e aperso n .. . a s achec k airma n (aircraft ) i

n a trainin g progra

mestablishe dunder

thi s subpar

l unless , wit

h respec t t o th e iiircraf

l typ e involved , tliat

person — (2 ) Ha s satisfactoril y complete dth e trainin g phase s for th e aircraft , includin g recurren t training , that

are require dt o serv e a s apilo t i n comman di

n operation s unde r thi s part.. . Althoug h th e FAA' s complain t allege dthat

Darb y hadviolate dparagrap h (2) , paragrap h (3 ) i s more appropriate . Paragrap h (3 ) provide s a s follows :

(b ) N o certificate holder

ma y us e aperso n .. . a s achec k airma n (aircraft ) in a trainin g programestablishe dunder thi s subpart

unless , wit

h respec t to th e aircraf

t typ e involved , tha t

person — (3 ) Ha s satisfactoril y complete dth e proficienc y o r competenc y check s tha t

are require dt o serv e a s apilo t i n comman di

n operation s unde r

thi s part . I n it s repl y t o Darby' s motio n fo r decisio n an

di n it s appeal brief

, th e FA A referre dto paragrap h (3) . (FAA Repl y t o Motio n fo r Decisio n at

3- 4 n.2 ; Appeal Brie f

a t 2 n.4. ) I n it s appeal brief

, however , it

continue s t o refe

r t o paragrap h 2 a s well . (FAA Appea l Brie f at 1 , 3. )OG/24/201 0 14:4 7 FA X 202493514 2 FA A^ QM S §1003/01 4

O n Decembe r

11 , 2008 , Darb y filed amotio n fo r decisio n i n whic h i l argue dtha t Rheinschmid t

was , i n fact , qualifie dwhe n h e administere dth e check s a t issu e t o Standridge . Darby' s rational e wa s that , unde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 135.293(c) , th e 29 7 instrumen t chec k tha t Rheinschmid t

ha dreceive dsubstitute dfo r hi s 29 3 competenc y check.' * O n Januar y 27,2009 , th e AL J issue dan orde r consolidatin g th e instan t proceedin g wit h anothe r cas e agains t

Darby . However , followin g aprehearin g conference , th e AL J o n Februar y 26 , 2009 , issue dawritte n initia l decisio n severin g th e tw o proceedings , grantin g Darby' s motio n fo r decisio n i n th e instan t

case , an ddismissin g th e case . Tli e AL J foun dtha t

th e 29 7 instrumen t

chec k substitute dfo r

a29 3 competenc y check ; therefore , h e held , Rheinschmid t wa s qualifie dt o serv e a s achec k pilo t a t th e time s i n question . IT . Fact- } Darb y i s a n ai r

carrie r operatin g a t

al l relevan t

time s unde r

1 4 C.F.R . Par t

135 . O n Septembe r

7 , 2005 , a n FA A inspecto r administere da29 3 competenc y chec k t o Rheinschmid t

i n aPA-3I T aircraft . (Darb y Motio n fo r Decision , Exhibi t

C. ) A 29 3 competenc y chec k

i s vali dunti l th e en do f th e 12** " mont h afte r

i t i s taken . 1 4 C.F.R .

1 4 C.F.R . § 135.293(b ) provides ;

(b ) N o certificate holder

ma y u.s c apilot.. . i

nany aircraf

t unle.s.'?, .since th e beginnin g o f

th e 12" ' calenda

r mont h befor e tha t service , tha

t pilo t ha s passe da competenc y chec k

given b y th e Administrato r

or a n authorize dchec k

pilo t in tha t clas s o f aircraf t .. . t o determin e th e pilot' s competenc e in practical skill s andtechnique s i n th e aircraf t o r clas s o f aircraft . 1 4 C.F.R . § 135.293(c ) provides :

(c ) Tli e in.strumcn

t proficienc y chec k

require db y § 135.29 7 ma y b e substitute d for th e competenc y chec k

require dby thi s sectio n fo r th e typ e o f

aircraf t use din th e check .OG/24/201 0 14:4 7 FA X 202493514 2 FAA * DMS @]004/01 4

§ 135.293(b) . A s aresult , Rheinschmidt' s competenc y chec k o n Septembe r

7 , 2005 , expire do n Septembe r

30 , 2006. ^ O n Marc h 22 , 2006 , th e FA A inspecto r administere da29 7 instrumen t chec k t o Rlieinschmid t

i n th e sam e PA-31 T aircraft . (Darb y Motio n fo r Decision , Exhibi t

A. ) A 29 7 instrumen t

chec k i s vali donl y tmli l th e en do f th e 6" ' mont h afte r

th e dat e o f

th e check . 1 4 C.F.R . § 135.297(a) . A s aresult , th e instrumen t chec k als o expire do n Septembe r

30 , 2006, ' O n Novembe r

27 , 2006 , R.heinschmidt , wh o wa s aproperl y designate dchec k pilo t fo r Darby , administere da29 3 competenc y chec k t o Standridg e usin g th e PA- 3 I T aircraft . (Darb y Motio n fo r Decision , Exhibi t

B. ) Subsequently , Darb y use dStandridg e t o operat e th e PA-3I f

aircraf t unde r Par t 13 5 o n eigh t

occasion s betwee n Decembe r 10 , 2006 , an dMa y 16 , 2007. ' O n Ma y 24 , 2007 , Rheinschmid t als o administere da29 7 instrumen t chec k i n th e PA- 3 I T aircraf

t t o Standridge . (FA A Respons e t o Motio n fo r Decision , Ite m3. )

' 1 4 C.F.R . § 135.301(a) provides : I f aci-ewmembe

r wh o i s require dto tak e ates t o r aflight chec k unde r thi s part , complete s th e tes t

o r fligh t chec k i n th e calenda

r mont h befor e or afte r th e calendar mont h i n which i t i s required , tha t

crcwmember

i s considere dt o hav e complete dth e tes t

o r chec k in th e calendar

mont h in whic h i t

i s required . Unde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 135.301(a) , if Rheinschmid t

ha dsuccessfully complete dth e 29 3 competenc y chec k i n Octobe r 2006 , it woul dhav e bee n considere da s havin g been complete di n September

2006 , th e mont

h i n whieh it wa s required .

' A s wit h th e 29 3 competenc y check , unde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 135:30l(a), i f Rheinschmid t

ha d successfull y complete dth e 29 7 instrumen t chec k in Octobe r

2006 , i t woul dhav e bee n considere d a s havin g bee n complete di n September

2006 , th e mont

h i n whic h i t wa. s require d
^ Th e A U incorrectl y wrote that "[tjh e flight s for

whic h [Darby ] wa s cite dal l too k plac e withi n 1 yea r afte r Ma y 24 , 2007. " (Initial Decisio n a t 4. ) Each flight , i

n fact , too k

plac e before Ma y 24 , 2007 . (FA

A R.cspon.se t o Motio n for Decision , Ite m4, )06/24/201 0 14:4 7 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S 12005/01 4

ra. Th e ALJ' s Decisio n I n hi s decision , th e AL

J di dnot addres s whether

Rheinschmidt

wa s qualifie dt

o giv e Standridg e th e 29 3 competenc y chec k o n November

27 , 2006 , an dfocuse dsole) y o n th e 29 7 instrumen t

chec k o n May 24,2007 . H e foundtha t Rheinschmid t

was qualifie dt o giv e Standridg e th e 29 7 instrumen t check . In reachin g thi s conclusion , th e ALJ explaine dthat

whe n Rheinschmidt

administere dth e 29 7 instrumen t chec k o n May 24 , 2007 , Rheinschmidt' s competenc y check , base do n th e September 7 , 2005 , examination , ha dexpired ; nevertheless , i n th e interim , Rheinschmidt ha dsuccessfull y complete da29 7 instrumen t

chec k o n Marc h 22 , 2006 , whic h coul db e substitute dfor a29 3 competenc y chec k unde r th e regulations . Specifically , 1 4 C.F.R . § 135.293(c ) provide s a s follows : Th e instrumen t

proficienc y chec k

require db y § 135.29 7 [29 7 instrumen t check ] may b e substitute dfo r th e competenc y chec k

require db y thi s sectio n 129 3 competenc y check ] for th e typ e o f

aircraf t use di n th e check . Consequently , th e perio dfo r Rheinschmidt' s competenc y chec k date dfro mMarc h 2006 . Th e AL J hel dtha t th e substitute d29 7 instrumen t check covere dRheinschmid t

when h e administere dth e 29 7 instrumen t chec k to Standridg e o n Ma

y 24 , 2007 . Th e AL J rejecte dth e FAA' s argumen t tha t th e successfu l completio n o f th e 29 7 instrumen t

chec k doe s no t mee t th e requirement s o

f 1 4 C-F.R . § 135.29 3 unles s th e 29 7 instrumen t

chec k include s al l th e element s o f th e 29 3 competenc y check . Th e ALJ state dthat there wa s n o basi s i n th e regulatio n fo r th e FAA' s argument , an dth e FAA' s analysi s woul drea dparagrap h (c ) ou t o f th e regulation . IV . Discussio n O n appeal , th e FA A argue s thai eve n i f Darb y coul dsubstitut e th e 29 7 instrumen tOG/24/201 0 14:4 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DMS glOOG/O U

chec k for a29 3 competenc y check,' " th e 29 7 instrumen t chec k sUl l ha dexpire dwhe n Rlieinschmidt

Eidminisieredth e chec k

ride s t o Standridge . Th e FA A i s correct , an dtli e AI J erre di n several respects . A 29 7 bstrumen t chec k i s vali dunti l th e en do f

th e 6'' ' month afte

r th e date of

th e check. " 1 4 CF.R . § 135.297(a) . Consequently , th e AL J erre d i n finding tha

t th e 29 7 instrumen t

chec k wa s vali dunti l th e en do f th e 12 * mont

h afte r th e dat e o f th e check . Th e Marc h 22 , 2006 , instrumen t chec k was vali donly unti l September

30 , 2006 , unles s Rheinschmidt look another 29 7 instrumen t

check , whic h h e di dnot . Thus , th e 29 3 competenc y chec k Rheinschmid t

administere dt o Standridg e on Novembe r

27,2006 , a s wel l a s th e 29 3 competenc y chec k h e administere do n Ma

y 24 , 2007 , were performe dwhe n RJieinschmidt hadno current

instrumen t

check . B y usin g Rhein-schmid

t a s achec k

pilo t whe n h e wa s no t

current . Darb y violate d 1 4 C.F.R . § 135.337(b)(3) , whic h prohibit s usin g aperso n a s achec k pilo t unles s that perso n ha s satisfactoril y complete dal l of th e check s require dt o serv e a s pilo t i n command.' ^ Darb y als o violate dSectio n 135.293(b ) b y usin g Standridg e whe n hi s competenc y chec k

ha dbeen given b y Rheinschmidt at atim e whe n h e wa s no t

qualifie d

' ' Th e FA A state s tha

t ii doe s not

agree wit h the ALJ' s finding tha

t a29 7 instrumen

t chec k ca n be substitutedfo

r a29 3 competenc

y check, bu

t o n appeal , the agenc

y is no t challenging thi s finding . (Appea l Brie f a t 3 n.5. ) "1 4 C.F.R . § 135.297(a

) provides : N o certificat e holde r ma y us e apilot.. . as apilo

t i n comman do f a n aircraf t unde r IF R[Instrumen

t Fligh t Rules ] unless , sinc e the beginnin g of th e 6 * calenda r mont h befor e tha t service , tha

t pilo t has passe da n instrumen

t proficienc y chec k unde r thi s sectio n administere

db y the Administrato

r o r a n authoriz.e dchec k pilot . ' ^ Se e supranot

e 4 fo r the tex t o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 135.337(b)(3) .OG/24/201 0 14:4 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A • > DM S Igl007/01 4

t o b e achec k

pilot.'- ' Conclusio n Th e AL J erre di n grantin g Darby' s motio n fo r decisio n an di n dismissin g th e FAA' s complaint . Darb y violate d1 4 C.F.R . § § 135.337(b)(3 ) an d135.293(b) . Thi s cas e i s remande dfo r

adeterminatio n o f

th e appropriat e civi l penalty , ' ^

RANDOLP H BABBIT T ADMINISTRATO R Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n

'• ' Darb y argue s i

n it s repl y brie f

tha t th e FA A raise dth e 6-mont h argument

fo r th e first time o n appea l andi t shoul dtherefore no t

b e considered . Eve n i

f th e FAA shoul dhav e brought i t u p below , matter s raise dfor

th e firs t tim e o n appeal wil l b e considere donl y i n "mos t unusual circumstances, " suc h a s whe n th e "publi c interes t i s implicate d.. . or

manifes t injustic e woul d result. " Federa l Expres s Corp. . FAA Order No . 2003^ 2 at

1 (Ma y 6,2003) , quotin g Procte r & Gambl e v . Haugen . 22 2 F.3 d1262 , 127 1 (lO" " Cir . 2000) , quotin g Smit h v . Roger s Galvanizin g Co. . 12 8 F.3 d1380 , 138 6 (10'' ' Cir . 1997) . "Wher e th e issu e 'i s purel y amatter o f la w .. . and.. . it s prope r resolutio n i s certain,' " however , it ma y b e considere do n appea

l froma n ALJ' s decision . Federal Express . FA A Order No . 2003- 2 a

t 1 , quotin g Procte r

& Gamble . 22 2 F.3 da

t 1271 . quoting

^ Ros s v . Unite dState s Marshal . 168F.3 d1190 , 119 5 n. 5 (lo"'Cir . 1999) . I n th e instant case , th e publi c interes t

i s implicated , th e issu e i s amatter o f law , andit s resolutio n i s certain .

' * An y argument s no t

addresse dhav e been considere dan dfoun dunworthy o f

discussion .I OG/24/201 0 14:4 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DMS 0008/01 4



## SERVE D FEBRUARY 26,200 9 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . I N TH E MATTE ROF DARB Y AVL\TION , Respondent . FA A DOCKE T NO . CP08SO002 6 DM S NO . FAA-2008-119 2 IN TH E MATTE RO F DARB Y AVM.TION , Respondent . FA A DOCKE T NO . CP08SO002 5 DM S NO . FAA-2008-119 1 EPIC F;•••••; >

. ; lir'.ii ^



### ADMINISTRAXrS ^ LA WJUDGE» S ORDE RGRANTIN G MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR Y DISPOSITIO N AN D

SEVERIN G PROCEEDIN G Thi s orde r

grant s th e motio n o f

th e Responden t

fo r summar y dispositio n o f th e issue s pendin g i n Docke t No . CP08SO002 5 an dsever s tha t proceedin g from th e proceedin g pendin g i n Docke t No . CP08SO0026 . Th e severanc e wil l allo w an immediat e appea l fromthi s order , notwithstandin g th e fac t tha t I earlie r denie da motio n b y th e Responden t fo r summary dispositio n i n Docke t No . CP08SO0026 .06/24/201 0 14:4 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * QM S 0009/01 4



### I n thi s case , th e Respondent , a n ai r carrie r conductin g operation s unde r Part 13 5 o f th e FedetaJ Aviatio n Regulation s (FAR) , ha s bee n charge dwith usin g a pilot , Jerry Standridge , wh o ha dno t successfull y passe dacompetenc y chec k withi n on e yea r

o f hi s us e a s apilot . Mr , Standridg e ha dpasse dacompetenc y chec k give n b y anothe r

Darby-employe dpilo t

b y th e nam e o f

Dan e RheJnsclimidt , acompetenc y chec k

tha t i n al l respect s wa s consisten t wit h applicabl e provision s o f th e FA RTh e questio n tha t animate s thi s case , however , i s whethe r Rheinschmid t

wa s himsel f

eligibl e t o serv e a s aperso n wh o coul dgiv e th e requisit e test s t o Standridge . Accordin g t o th e charge s launche db y th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA) , Rheinschmid t wa s no t entitle dt o serv e a s chec k pilo t fo r Standridge' s testin g becaus e Rheinschmid t ha dno t himsel f passe dhi s require dproficienc y tes t

withi n th e precedin g year . Th e relevan t

regulation s ar e foun di n § 135.29 3 o f th e FAR , 1 4 C.F.R , § 135.293 . I n pertinen t

part , the y rea da s follows ; (a ) N o certificat e holde r

ma y us e apilot , no r

ma y an y perso n serv e a s apilot , unless , sinc e th e beginnin g o f th e 12t h calendar

month befor e tha t service , tha t

pilo t ha s passe dawritte n o r

oral test , give n b y th e Administrato r

o r a n authorize dchec k

pilot , o n tha t

pilot' s knowledg e i n th e followin g area s ~ (1 ) Th e appropriat e provision s o f part s 61,91 , an d13 5 o f

thi s chapte r an dth e operation s specification s an dth e manua l o f th e certificat e holder ; (2 ) Fo r eac h typ e o f

aircraf t t o b e flow n b y th e pilot , th e aircraf t powerplant , majo r

component s an dsystems , majo r appliances , performanc e an doperatin g limitations , standar dan demergenc y operatin g procedures , an d th e content s o f

th e approve dAircraf

t Fligh t Manua l o r

equivalent , a s applicable ; (3 ) fo r <eac h tj^j e o f aircraf t l o b e flown b y th e pilot , th e metho do f determinin g complianc e with weigh t an dbalanc e limitation s fo r takeoff , landin g an de n rout e operations ; (4 ) Navigatio n an dus e o f ai r navigatio n aid s appropriat e t o th e operatio n o r

pilo t authorization , including , whe n applicable , instrumen t approac h facilitie s an dprocedures ;08/24/201 0 14:4 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A^ QM S 12010/01 4



### (5 ) Ai r traffi c contro l procedures , includin g IF Rprocedure s whe n applicable ; (6 ) Meteorolog y i n general , includin g th e principle s o f frontal systems , icing , fog , thunderstorms , an dwindshear , and , i f appropriat e for

th e operatio n o f

di e certificat e holder , hig h altitud e weather ; (7 ) Procedure s for

- (i ) Recognizin g an davoidin g sever e weathe r situations ; (ii ) Escapin g fromsever e weathe r situations , i n cas e o f

inadverten t encounters , includin g low-altitud e windshear (excep t tha t rotorcraf t pilot s ar e no t require dt o b e teste do n escapin g fromlow-altitud e windshear) ; an d (iii ) Operatin g i n o r

nea r thunderstorm s (includin g bes t penetratin g altitudes) , turbulen t

ai r (includin g clear

ar e turbulence) , icing , hail , an dothe r potentiall y hazardou s meteorologica l conditions ; an d (8 ) Ne w equipment , procedures , o r techniques , a s appropriate . (b ) N o certificat e holde r ma y us e apilot , no r

ma y an y perso n serv e a s apilot , i n an y aircraf

t unless , sinc e th e beginnin g o f th e 12t h calendai ' month befor e tha t

service , tha t

pilo t ha s passe dacompetenc y chec k give n b y th e Administrato r

o r an authorize dchec k

pilo t i n tha t clas s o f aircraft , i f

single

engin e airplan e othe r

tha n turbojet , o r

tha t typ e o f aircraft , i f

helicopter , multiengin e airplane , o r

turboje t airplane , t o determin e th e pilot' s competenc e i n practica l skill s an dtechnique s i n tha t aircraf t o r clas s o f aircraft . Th e exten t

o f th e competenc y chec k

shal l b e determine db y th e Administrato r

o r authorize dchec k

pilo t conductin g th e competenc y check . Th e competenc y chec k

ma y includ e an y o f

th e maneuver s an dprocedure s currentl y require dfo r

th e origina l issuanc e o f

th e particula r

pilo t certificate require dfo r

th e operation s authorize dan dappropriat e t o th e category , clas s an dtyp e o f

aircraf t involved . Fo r

th e purpose s o f

thi s paragraph , type , a s t o a n airplane , mean s an y on e o f agrou p o f airplane s determine db y th e Administrato r

t o hav e simila r

mean s o f propulsion , th e sam e manufacturer , an dn o significantl y differen t handlin g o r

fligh t characteristics . Fo r

th e purpose s o f

thi s paragraph , type , a s t o helicopter , mean s abasi c mak e an d model . (c ) Th e instrumen t

proficienc y chec k

require db y § 135.29 7 ma y b e substitute dfo r

th e competenc y chec k

require db y thi s sectio n for th e typ e o f aircraf t use di n th e check .OG/24/201 0 14:4 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A > DM S 0011/01 4



### Th e undispute dfact s ar e a s follows : Th e aircraf t flown b y Standridg e wa s a Pipe r PA-31-T , twin-engine , turbopro p machine , Standridg e ha dpasse da proficienc y chec k

i n thi s typ e o f

aircraf t o n Novembe r

27 , 2006 . Thi s mean t

tha t h e wa s du e fo r

anothe r proficienc y chec k

i n th e PA-3 1 - T typ e o f

aircraf t o n o r befor e Decembe r

1 , 2007 . H e too k

an dpasse danothe r

proficienc y check , administere db y Rheinschmidt , o n May 24 , 2007 . Th e flight s for whic h th e Responden t

wa s cite dal l too k

plac e withi n on e year

after Ma y 24 , 2007 . Rheinschmid t

ha dlas t passe daproficienc y chec k o n Septembe r

7 , 2005 , H e had , however , take n an dpasse dan instrumen t proficienc y chec k

o n Marc h 22,2006 . Th e instrumen t

proficienc y chec k

ha dbee n administere db y a n FA A Inspecto r a t th e loca l Fligh t

Standard s Distric t

Office . Hence , at

th e tim e Rheinschmid t administere dth e proficienc y chec k t o Standridg e (May 24 , 2007) , h e wa s ou t o f tim e for hi s genera l proficienc y chec k bu t wa s withi n ayear

o f successfull y completin g hi s instrumen t proficienc y check . Th e Complainant' s motio n for summary dispositio n wa s oppose db y th e FAA , principall y o n th e groun dtha t Rheinschmid t

ha dno t passe dhi s annua l proficienc y chec k

i n th e sam e "type " o f

aircraf t o n whic h Standridg e wa s tested . Tha t is , th e FA A claime dtha t Rheinschmidt' s tes t

ha dtake n plac e i n aLear Je t Mode l 35 , amulti-engin e turbo-je t powere daircraft , als o owne dan doperate db y th e Respondent , rathe r

tha n th e Pipe r

PA-31- T turbopro p aircraf t o n whic h h e purporte dt o qualif

y hi s colleague , Standridge . Bu t b y th e tim e th e FAA' s counse l argue dth e motio n durin g apnrehearin g conferenc e o n Februar y 24 , 2009 , th e FA A ha dapparentl y change dit s poskion;

- I t n o longe r

argue dtha t

Rheinschmidt' s proficienc y ha dbee n checke di n th e wron g typ e o f aircraft . Dtirin g th e conference , counse l fo

r th e FA A argue dtha t

Rheinschmid t

wa s no t qualifie da s achec k

pilo t o n Ma y 24,200 7 becaus e hi s successf U completio n o f

th e instrumen t

proficienc y tes t di dno t qualif y hi munde r

§ 135.29 3 o f

th e FA Rt o perfon n i n tha t capacity . Th e Respondent , o n th e othe r hand , claim s tha t

Rheinschmidt' s successfu l completio n o f

th e instrumen t

proficienc y tes t

withi n ayear

o f th e dat e h e administere dth e geaera l proficienc y tes t t o Standridg e mad e hi meligibl e i n thi s respec t t o serv e a s Standridge' s chec k pilot . Th e controvers y turn s upo n th e meanin g o f th e languag e o f

§ 135.295(c) : "Th e instrumen t

proficienc y chec k

require db y § 135.29 7 may b e substitute dfor th e competenc y chec k

require db y thi s sectio n for th e typ e o f

aircraf t use di n th e check. " I t

i s th e Respondent' s positio n tha t thi s exceptio n t o th e genera l rul e o f § 135,295(a ) covere dRheinschmid t a t th e tim e h e administere dth e genera l proficienc y tes t

t o Standridge .OG/24/201 0 14:4 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A DM S 0012/01 4



### A s amatte r

o f pur e constructio n o f

th e languag e o f

§ 135.295(c) , it

appear s tha t th e Responden t

i s correct . Rheinschmidt' s case , a s o f th e dat e h e administere d th e proficienc y tes t

t o Standridge , fel l squarel y withi n th e meanin g o f tha t language : H e wa s substitutin g hi s successfu l completio n o f an instrumen t proficienc y chec k

give n unde r

§ 135.29 7 for

th e genera l proficienc y tes t specifie d i n § 135.295 . Accordin g t o th e argiraien t o f Complainant' s counse l at th e prehearin g conference , Rheinschmidt' s successfu l completio n o f th e instrumen t

proficienc y tes t coul dno t

b e substitute dfor

successfu l completio n o f th e genera l proficienc y tes t Thi s i s th e case , th e Complainant argued , becaus e th e instrumen t proficienc y tes t di dno t cove r al l o f th e subject s tha t

ar e require dt o b e teste di n agenera l proficienc y tes t

unde r § 135.295(a)(l)-(8) . Proo f o f that , say s th e FAA , can b e see n i f w e examin e th e tes t

scor e sheet . For m8410-3 , tha t th e perso n wh o administere dth e tes t

filledou t whe n h e examine dRheinschmid t t o detennin e whethe r h e woul dpas s th e instrumen t proficienc y test . Severa l o f th e block s ar e no t filledi n t o sho w tha t

Rheinschmid t

me t applicabl e requirement s fo r th e genera l proficienc y test . Hence , hi s successfu l completio n o f th e instrumen t

proficienc y tes t provide s n o assuranc e tha t h e me t al l o f th e genera l proficienc y requirement s se t fort h i n § 135.295(a)(]>(8 ) an d(b) . I n short , i t

i s th e FAA' s positio n tha t successfu l completio n o f th e instrumen t

proficienc y tes t

doe s no t satisf y th e requirement s o f

§ 135.29 5 unles s th e instrumen t

proficienc y tes t

include s al l o f

th e element s o f

th e genera l proficienc y test . Ther e ar e tw o significan t problem s wit h th e FAA' s approach . First , ther e i s n o basi s for i t i n th e languag e o f

th e regulation . Paragrap h (c ) o f § 135,293 , whil e no t

amode l o f

skillfu l draftsmanship , i s clear enoug h i n th e contex t o f thi s contrpversy . I t

allow s apilo t

wh o ha s successfull y complete da n instrumen t

proficienc y chec k

imde r § 135.29 7 t o substitut e tha t achievemen t

fo r successfu l completio n o f th e genera l proficienc y chec k unde r § 135.293 . Ther e i s nothin g i n th e languag e o f paragrap h (c ) tha t

suggest s tha t

i n orde r t o us e th e instrumen t

proficienc y chec k

a s asubstimt e for

th e genera l proficienc y check , th e pilo t mus t hav e been teste do n thos e subjects which , althoug h irrelevan t t o an instrumen t

proficienc y check , woul db e subject s teste ddurin g agenera l proficienc y check .08/24/201 0 14:4 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A ^ QM S 0013/01 4



### Th e secon dproble mwith th e FAA' s analysi s i s that , a s apractica l matter , i t woul drea dparagrap h (c ) ou t o f th e regulation . I f

successfu l completio n o f an instrumen t

proficienc y chec k

i s insufficien t

t o qualif y apilo t a s havin g passe dth e genera l proficienc y requirement s unles s th e instrumen t proficienc y chec k

include s al l o f th e element s o f

agenera l proficienc y check , ther e woul dappea r t o b e n o purpos e i n allowin g thos e wh o pas s th e instrumen t proficienc y chec k

t o substitut e i t for th e genera l proficienc y check . That i s th e cas e becaus e th e instrumen t proficienc y chec k

woul dinclud e al l o f

th e element s o f

th e general proficienc y check , s o apilo t

seekin g t o demonstrat e hi s proficienc y i n IF Roperation s migh t jus t a s wel l tak e bot h tests . I f paragrap h (c ) ha s an y purpose , i t i s t o avoi dsuc h unnecessar y multipl e testing . Thi s i s no t

t o say tha t

th e FAA' s positio n i s totall y unwarranted . Fo r a n agenc y concerne dwith maximizin g th e safety o f flight, th e possibilit y o f

licensin g apilo t wh o i s capabl e o f

passin g th e instrumen t

proficienc y tes t

bu t wh o canno t successfiill y complet e th e genera l proficienc y chec k migh t b e amatte r

o f concern . I f tha t i s th e case , i t

migh t b e advisabl e t o requir e someon e lik e Mr . Rheinschmid t l o demonstrat e hi s genera l proficienc y a t leas t onc e every yea r

eve n thoug h h e ma y als o durin g tha t

yea r becom e qualifie da s an instrumen t pilot . T o d o so , however , on e woul dhav e t o chang e th e languag e o f th e regulation , Tha t

i s somethin g tha t

1 canno t do , no r i s i t somethin g th e FA A can accomplis h throug h th e mediu mo f prosecutin g acivi l penalt y claim . Fo r th e foregoin g reasons , an dsubjec t t o revie w b y th e Administrato r a s provide di n § 13.23 3 o f

th e Rule s o f

Practice , 1 4 CF.R . § 13.233 , I T I S ORDERE D tha t

- 1 . Th e proceedin g i n Docke t No . CP08SO002 5 i s severe dfromth e proceedin g i n Docke t No . CP08SO0026 ; 2 . Th e Respondent' s motio n fo r summary dispositio n i n Docke t No . CP08SO002 5 i s granted ; an d 3 . Th e complain t

i n Docke t

No . CP08SO002 5 i s dismisse dwit h prejudice .
Isaa c D . Benki n Administrativ e La w Judg e Attachment-Servic e Lis tOG/24/201 0 14:4 9 FA X 202493514 2 FAA + DM S 0014/01 4

[Note : Thi s decisio n may b e appeale dt o th e Administrato r

o f th e FAA . Tb e Notic e o

f Appea l mus t

b e filedno t

late r tha n 1 0 day s afte r

servic e o f thi s deciBion . Th e appea l roust b e perfecte dwith awritte n brie f o r memorandu mnot

late r tha n 5 0 day s afte r

servic e of thi s decision . Th e Notic e o f Appea l an dbrie f

o r memorandu mmus t

cithe r b e maile dt o th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building , 800 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Waehington , D.C . 20591 , Attention ; Docke t Clerk , o r delivere dpersonall y o r

vi a expedite dcourie r

servic e t o th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 60 0 Independenc e Ave. , S.W . Washington , D.C . 20591 , Attention : Hearin g Docket Clerk , AGC-430 . A cop

y o f th e Notic e of Appea l an dbrie f

o r memorandu mshoul dals o b e sen t t o counse l fo r

th e FA A i n thi s proceeding. )