### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
IN THEMATTER OF TRANS NORTHAVIATION, LTD FAADOCKETNO. (20 12-GL-03-0012) FDMS NO. (FAA-2013-0046) (Civil Penalty Action)


### TRANS NORTH AVIATION'S APPEAL BRIEF 

# RECElVED NOV 1

# 22014 

## HEARING DOCKET

TRANS NORTH AVIATION, LTD. (Hereafter "Trans North"), by and through its counsel, BARNETT & 

### BORTH, LLC, hereby files its briefappealing the Initial Decision ofthe Administrative Law Judge dated September 25, 2014 pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.233(c) and states as follows: 

### Pertinent Facts: A. Trans North's Planned Flight Assignment. Respondent, Trans North, was established as a fixed wing air 

### ambulance service that has been in operation for the past 31 years. (TR 208:2-4). Trans North operates its air ambulance service, transporting medical patients and their family members throughout North America and Canada. (TR 207:9-11). On the dates at issue, Trans North's operation consisted of approximately 5 aircraft and 5 pilots. (TR 208:21-22, 209:8-11). Trans North holds the appropriate FAA part 135 certificates for its operations. Ronald Schaberg is Trans North's President and Director of Operations charged with the responsibility as certificate holder to create flight assignments for the pilots employed and engaged by Trans North. (TR 207:2-4,

### 241:14-21). On November 25, 2011, Intensive Air Ambulance, a Florida broker for mr ainbulance services, requested a quote from Trans North to provide air ainbulance services to transport a patient from West Palm Beach Florida to Palwaukee Airport in Wheeling, illinois. (TR210:6-12). Trans North was informed that the patient inneed oftrm1sport was an 80 year old gentleman who was extremely weak secondary to recent cardiac history, suffered from renal failure and required isolation as a precaution for MRSA infection. (TR 234:4-17). The patient's physician also certified that the patient had severe cardiac disease and required assistance to administer oxygen, required suctioning ofhis airway (Exhibit 7). On November 27, 2011, at approximately 9:00 a.m., Trans North confirmed the trip with the Florida broker. (TR 210:16- 21). Subsequently, Trans North's Director ofOperations, Ronald Schaberg undertook to assign the necessary crew members and flight for the mission. (TR 211 :1-

### 7). Mr. Schaberg creates his flight assignments by first ascertaining the ainount of rest his pilots have in advance of the proposed assignment then he uses an internet based computer prograiU known as Flightplan.com to create assignments that include all legs of the assignment. (TR 213: 4-5). Flightplan.com allows Mr. Schaberg to take into account weather, weight and balance, alternate airports, fuel stops, etc. (TR 213:4-10). Flightplan.com is listed in Trans North's operations specifications as a legal source of flight assignment planning. (TR 213:8-10). Mr. 

### Schaberg had been using Flightplan.com to create flight assignments for the past 3 years prior to the assignment in question. (TR 213: 11-17). Mr. Schaberg did not file the any flight plans for the pilots. (TR 242:22-3). It

### was the custom and practice ofTrans North to require the assigned pilot file his or her own flight plans with the appropriate FAA authority. (TR 242:13-21). In conjunction with the use ofFlightplan.com, Mr. 

### Schaberg used Trans North's internal manifests and duty logs to assure himselfthat the pilots that he chose for the assignment had adequate pre-assignment rest.

2

### (TR 215:6-13). Utilizing Flightplan.com and his internal review of pilot rest periods, Mr. Schaberg created an initial mission assignment and then contacted Trans North pilot, William Didier, to discuss the proposed assignment. (TR 215:6-13, 214:11-15). It 

### was the custom and practice of Mr. Schaberg and Trans North to provide the assigned pilot with the planned assignment verbally in person or over the telephone. (TR 214:5-15). According to his internal review, Mr. 

### Schaberg determined that Mr. 

### Didier had adequate pre-assignment rest since Mr. Didier had not flown a trip in the prior five to seven days. (TR215: 14-20). Mr. 

### Schaberg created
an initial mission assignment that was aborted due to mechanical difficulties encountered by the airplane assigned for the first leg ofthat assignment. (TR 222-223 :20-4). The affected aircraft then landed in Crawfordsville, Indiana and a new flight assignment was created by Mr. 

### Schaberg. (TR 223-224:22-3). It 

### is this assignment that is the subject of this action. The assignment pertinent to this case called for Andrew Wolfto serve as pilot in command for the flight legs to be conducted under part 91 to Florida and Mr. Didier to fly the legs conducted under part 135 from Florida to Palwaukee Airport near Chicago. (TR 225:1-9). Mr. 

### Schaberg's assignment considered that Mr. Didier had 10 1/2 hours of rest before going on duty for this mission. (TR 225:17-20). Consistent with Trans North's custom and practice, Mr. 

### Schaberg informed Mr. 

### Didier ofthe planned assignment verbally and did notprovide Mr. Didier with any paperwork or Flightplan.com data for the assignment. (TR 218:15-18). At the hearing ofthis matter, Mr. Schaberg presented a printout of the data that he obtained from his Flightplan program that demonstrated the details of his assignment. (See Exhibit R2). In addition, Mr. 

### Schaberg superimposed his assignment upon a chart that the FAA inspector had created that demonstrated the actual flight times that were not part ofthe assignment. (TR 216-217:7-9)(See Exhibit R8). Mr. 

### Schaberg testified that the chart that had been created by the FAA inspector

3

### showed the actual 

### flight but did not show the assignment 

### that he created for the mission. (TR 217:3-9). The difference in the assignment, the planned flight, passenger pick up, fueling times and the planned time for the completion ofthe assignment were demonstrated to be different than the actual flight times and actual completion ofthe assignment due to an unanticipated and unprecedented delay encountered in Florida. From a rest time and flight time perspective Mr. Schaberg's planned assignment for Mr. Didier was as follows:
• Mr. 

### Didier would be on duty at 6:00 am and fly as a passenger from Indiana to West Palm Beach Florida. (TR226-227:20-1)(Exhibit R2).
• Mr. Wolfwas assigned to be pilot in command for the part 91 leg to West Palm Beach Florida. (TR 227:1-3, 269:4-12, TR 118:19-22)(See also Affidavit of Andrew Wolf dated 11-1-2012: "On November 27, 2011, I was assigned to fly
our ChieftanN59773 from Indiana to Florida". (Exhibit 1).
• Mr. 

### Didier, Mr. Wolf and Maynard Blodgett (the flight medic assigned to the mission) were supposed to meet the patient and the patient's wife at the Palm Beach airport at approximately 1:20 or 1:25 inthe afternoon. (TR: 227:5-8).
• The flight crew would then load the patient, make a quicktum and fly from West Palm Beachto Jessup Georgia for a fuel stop with Mr. 

### Didier serving as pilot in command for this part 135 flight. (TR 227:10-14). The planned assignment also assumed a 45 minute window for loading the passengers and fueling the aircraft in Palm Beachbased on past experience for this part ofthe mission. (TR 229:8-9, 229:16-20).

4

### • To keep the assignment legal and safe, the plan assigned Mr. 

### Didier as the pilot in command only for the part 135 legs from Florida to Illinois so that he would not exceed the eight hour flight within 24 hourrestriction. (TR 227-228:221-3).
• From Jessup Georgia, Mr. 

### Didier would serve as pilot in command inthe final leg ofthe trip to Chicago where the patient would be unloaded and Mr. 

### Didier would go offduty at 7:30pm. (TR 228:4-10).
• The planned assignment assumed a 30 minute window for the fuel stop in Jessup based on past experience for this part ofthe mission. (TR 229:9-11, 229:16-20). Based onthe planned assignment, Mr. Didier would be on duty at 6:00 am and complete the mission at 7:30 pm which, based on a 24 look back, would have provided Mr. 

### Didier with lOY> hours of pre-flight rest. (TR 228:18-2)(Exhibit R2). At the hearing of this matter, Mr. 

### Schaberg produced a printout from Flightplan.com that recreated the assignment that he had verbally provided to Mr. 

### Didier and Mr. 

### Wolf. (See Exhibit R2). The Flightp1an.com printout verifies that the certificate holder, Trans North's, planned completion ofthe assignment (final leg ofmission landing at 7:05 p.m.) satisfied the pre-flight rest requirements of 14 C.F.R. Section 135.267(d). In simple fashion, based on Mr. Schaberg's unrefuted testimony and Flightplan.com recreation the assignment planned by Mr. 

### Schaberg can be charted as follows

5

### TRANS NORTH'S PLANNED ASSIGNMENT: 

### Didier's actual pre-flight rest without 24 hour look back1 : 

### Planned assignment duty day start: Planned assignment completion time: Planned crew duty day duration: 14 

### hours 6:00 a.m. (1200Z)(See R2) 7:30 p.m. (0130Z)(R2) 13 hours 30 minutes (R2) Didier's pre-flight rest perplanned assignment completion time:lO hours 30 minutes (R2) Total 24 hours In Mr. Schaberg's opinion, the planned assignment that he constructed for Mr. Didier would comply with 14 CFR § 135.267(d) respecting the 24 hour day and the required 10 hour rest period prior to the duty day. (TR 228:11-16). The FAA did not cross examine 

### Mr. Schaberg
on his assignment, his accounting for pre-assignment rest for 

### Mr. Didier, the scheduled completion ofthe planned assignment, or the reasonableness ofhis planned assignment. No one at the FAA ever asked Mr. Schaberg to explain his planned flight assignment. (TR 142-143:1-6, 152-153:3-20). In

### addition, the FAA did not present any testimonyfrom any ofits witnesses that could call into question 

### Mr. Schaberg's assignment, his accounting for pre-assignment rest for 

### Mr. Didier, the scheduled completion ofthe planned assignment, or the reasonableness ofhis planned assignment. The only testimony and evidence that the FAA offered at the hearing ofthis
case concerned the actual flight and duty day timing not theplannedassignment created by Mr. Schaberg and Trans North which is the only relevant inquiry in a case involving the alleged violation of 14 CFR § 135.267(d). B. 

### ThePilot's Actual Flights: The flight down to West Palm Beach did not experience any delays. (TR 230-231:20-3). An 

### unanticipated and unexpected delay was encountered by the flight crew in West Palm Beach. I This is undisputed. 

### 6

### (TR 231 :4-7). Mr. 

### Schaberg was informed by someone in his office thatthe flight was running a little bit late because the ground ambulance that was carrying the passenger/patient got lost on the way to the airport. (TR 231:1 0-15). Mr. 

### Schaberg was not made aware ofhowlong the delay would be. (TR 231:16-18). Based on Mr. Schaberg's 31 years of experience scheduling air ambulance transport ofpatients, ground ambulances are usually prompt in delivering patients to aircraft and are not often late by more than 30 minutes. (TR 231-232:19-16). Based on his 31 years ofexperience, Mr. 

### Schaberg believes that an extended delay ofthe ground ambulance's delivery of a patient is an unforeseeable circumstance. (TR 232:14-19). Based on his years of experience and upon the particular circumstances involved, Mr. 

### Schaberg did not believe that any significant delay would occur. The initial planned mission, that had to be aborted due to mechanical difficulties, was scheduled to load the patient at 9:30 am central time (TR 220:8-22). When the pickup time for the patient was changed from the morning to the afternoon due to the mechanical difficulties, Mr. Schaberg expected a tight schedule since the critically ill

### patient and his wife were getting anxious about beginning their trip to Chicago. (TR 232-233 :21-9). It 

### stands to reason also that a ground ambulance that had been previously scheduled to bring the patient to the airport some four hours earlier would not be late especially when the grave condition ofthe patient is considered. As it turned out, the ground ambulance was delayed for 3 hours. (TR 237:11-14). Mr. Schaberg did not discover the extent ofthe delay until the next day. (TR 237:7-10, 245:16-18). According to the Trans North operations manual, a pilot who experiences a delay in excess of 30 minutes ofthe scheduled departure time must contact the director of operations, Mr. Schaberg. (TR 248:14-18). Neither of the pilots contacted Mr. Schaberg about any delays ofthe scheduled departure from West Palm Beach. (TR 249:2-4). So Mr. Schaberg could not know the nature or extent ofthe pilot's deviation from the assigmnent

7

### provided to those pilots by Mr. Schaberg. But for the unanticipated and unforeseen and unprecedented ground ambulance delay that was not known by Mr. Schaberg at the time that he devised the pilot assignments, the assignment would have been completed in conformance with 14 CFR section 135.267(d) in terms ofthe pre-flight rest period attributed to Mr. 

### Didier. (TR 237-238:20-2). The unanticipated ground ambulance delay that was unknown to Mr. 

### Schaberg at the time that he set up the assignment caused the pilots and crew to deviate from the planned completion ofthe assignment. (TR 238:3-6). Mr. Schaberg's assignment provided for lOY, hours of rest for Mr. Didier during the 24 hours that preceded the planned completion of the assignment. (TR 239-240:22-5). Due to the ground ambulance delay that was not known and could not be foreseen by Mr. 

### Schaberg at the time that he devised the flight assignments, the flights to Chicago were delayed approximately 3 hours and the pre-flight rest time based on a 24 hour look back was 7.3 hours. (TR 239:5-21). The 7.3 hours ofrest was based upon the times and delays encountered by the flight crew and was not part ofthe planned assignment issued by Mr. Schaberg. (TR239:16-21). C. The FAA Investigation: 

### John Merrill is an Aviation Safety Inspector and Principal Operations Inspector for the FAA. (TR 14: 19-22). Mr. Merrill was assigned as the Principal Operations Inspector for Trans North. (TR 17:7-10). Mr. Merrill became involved in this case when Trans North's chiefpilot informed him that the subject aircraft crashed near Palwaukee airport. (TR 16-17:14-3f Mr. 

### Merrill testified that he interviewed Mr. Schaberg on the day following the crash and was informed by Mr. Schaberg that Mr. Wolfwas assigned by Mr. 

### Schaberg as pilot in command to

2 The crash ofthe subject aircraft is notthe subject ofany certificate actions orproposed civilpenalty actions against Trans North. TheNTSB determined thatthe probable cause(s) ofthis accidenttobe: The pilot's inadequate preflightplanning andin-flight decision-making, which resulted in a loss ofengine power due to fuel exhaustion during approach. The NTSB did not find any problems with Trans North's assigurnent ofthe flight. (See Exhibit A). 

### 8

### fly the replacement aircraft from Indiana to West Palm Beach. (TR 23-24:18-13). Mr. Merrill testified that he did not perform any investigation about this accident but did complete an FAA inspector's report to document the conversations that he had with Trans North's ChiefPilot and Trans North's Director ofOperations, Mr. 

### Schaberg. (TR 46-47:22-9). Mr. Merrill did not ask Mr. Schaberg any questions concerning Mr. 

### Schaberg's assignment ofthe flights. (TR 48-49:1- 5). Part ofMr. Merrill's responsibilities as Trans North's Principal Operations inspector is to audit Trans North's books to make sure that Trans North complies with 14 CFR § 135.267, however, he performed no such audit concerning the subject flight assignments. (TR 50-51:16- 14). Mr. Merrill testified that 14 CFR § 135.267(d) requires at least ten hours ofrest in the 24 hour period that precedes the planned completion ofthe assignment. (TR 54:1-4). Mr. 

### Merrill testified that if Mr. 

### Schaberg created an assignment for Mr. 

### Didier and Mr. 

### Wolf that would allow for ten consecutive hours ofrest that preceded the planned completion ofthe assignment, then Mr. 

### Schabergwould be incompliance with 14 CFR § 135.267(d). (TR 55-56:11-2). The FAA also called Sandra Boerman to testify at the hearing of this matter. Ms. Boerman is an Aviation Safety Inspector and Principal Operations Inspector with the FAA. (TR 60:16-19). Ms. Boerman was one ofthe FAA's investigators who performed the enforcement investigation. (TR 65-66:21-2). Ms. Boerman interviewed Mr. Schaberg, Mr. 

### Blodgett and Mr. 

### Wolf in person and memorialized the interviews on FAA telephone conversation forms. (TR 69:4-15). As part of her investigation, Ms. Boerman reviewed documents including load manifests and flight plans filed bythe pilots that listed the different pilots for the different legs of the assignment. (TR 74:3-14). From the load manifests and the flight plans filed by the pilots, Ms. Boerman determined that when Mr. Didier took ofifrom Jessup Georgia he only had one hour ofhis duty day left and that he could not complete the 3 hour and 25 minute flight to

9

### Chicago without violating his rest periodrequirements. (TR 83 :5-14). Mr. 

### Boermantestified that in 

### arriving at that conclusion she had no documentation concerning Trans North or Mr. 

### Schaberg's

**assi~,>nment** 

### of the flights. (TR 84-85:20-2). She testified that "It's all about planning" (TR 84:20). However, Mr. Boerman never ascertained what the planned flight assigmnent actually was or how it was planned by Mr. 

### Schaberg. The IFR flight plans that Ms. Boerman referred to inher investigation came from Flight Aware3 

### and demonstrated that all IFR flight plans for these flights were filed by the pilots, not the certificate holder, Trans North/Mr. Schaberg. (TR 87:5-20). According to Ms. Boerman, the documents that she utilized to obtain flight times and durations offlight were all documents that were filled out or generated by the pilots, not Trans North or Mr. 

### Schaberg. (TR 102:4-16). During Ms. Boerman's interview with Mr. 

### Wolf, Mr. 

### Wolf informed her that Mr. Schaberg had assigned him to fly the part 91 flights from Indiana to Florida. (TR 118:19-22)(See also Exhibit __j. 

### Ms. Boerman testified that
none ofthe documents that she reviewed indicated that there had been any departure delays. (TR 130:3-9). Ms. Boerman confirmed the Trans North company policy that the assigmnent coming from Mr. Schaberg to the pilots was verbal and that she was not able to fmd any flight assignment or 

### planning documents that were generated by Trans north or Mr. Schaberg during her investigation. (TR 130:16-19). Ms. Boerman later discovered that there was a delay in pilots' departure from Pahn Beach due to the patient arriving late. (TR 134-135:17-3). Ms. Boerman did not consider the late arrival ofthe patient to be an unforeseen circumstance and based on the pilot filed documentation that she had and that Trans North violated 14 CPR § 135.267(d). (134:3-16). Ms. Boerman testified that other thanthe rudimentary conversationthat she had with Mr. 

### Schaberg at the scene ofthe accident onthe day following the accident, she had

3 Flight Aware uses government air traffic datatotrackflights andprovides date, aircraft, departure times, arrival times and duration offlights. (TR 91-92: 19-2). 

### 10

### no further conversations with

### Mr. Schaberg priorto recommending thatthe FAA should invoke a civil penalty against Trans North. (TR 138-139:15-21, 140:5-10). Ms. Boerman did not memorialize any conversationthat she had with 

### Mr. Schaberg as she did withthe other witnesses that she interviewed. (TR 139:5-12). According to Ms. Boerman, the local FSDO, the regional office and the FAA counsel were all involved in her investigation but, to her knowledge, no one at the FAA documented anything about Trans North's assignment for the subject mission. (TR 163:21-4, 164-165:15-1). Ms. Boerman testified that neither in the FAA's letter ofinvestigation
nor anywhere else did she orthe FAArequest any information ofdocumentation concerning 

### Mr. Schaberg's planning ofthe flight assignments that preceded the subject flights. (TR 142-143:1- 6). Based on the fact that Trans North communicates it planned assignments verbally, there exists no way for the FAA to verifY the planned assignment other than speaking with the pilots who received the assignment or 

### Mr. Schaberg, the creator of the planned assignment. Ms. Boerman agreed that part ofher duties were to interview witnesses, butthat even though none of the witnesses that she interviewed knew the specifics of Mr. Schaberg's assignment of flights and his planning ofthose flights, she did not interview 

### Mr. Schaberg any further to determine what he considered when he constructed the flight assignment that is the subject ofthis action. (TR 152-153:3-20). Q: As you sit here today, you do not know what Ron's [Schaberg] flight plan was for Diclier and Wolffor the trip down to WestPalmBeach and back up to the Chicagoland area, correct? A: No, there's no documentation
... No, the company did not provide me anything. Q: Okay, and you never interviewed Mr. Schaberg for that information either, correct? A: Notthatlrecall. (TR 154:1-22). Ms. Boerman never sought out the reasons for the departure delay that occurred in West Pahn Beach because she thought "it doesn't matter". (TR 155:11-20). Ms. Boerman admitted

11

### that Trans North could not foresee that the patient would be late and that this was an unforeseeable event. (158-159:21-8). In her testimony, Ms. Boerman indicates that the violations were associated withthe pilots' decisions to continue the mission: A. What I testified was that it wasn't foreseen beyond their control. They couldn't foresee that the patient was going to be late, but they could control iftheir flight wasto depart or not. Q Okay. So, you would agree though that this was a unforeseeable event, correct? A Yes. 

### Q The late arrival ofthe patient? A 

### Yes. Q And you would agree also that the condition ofthe patient wouldbe something that would be considered in whether or not to continue onwiththe assignment, wouldn't it? I mean, let me rephrase that. In 

### this case, the delay that occurred in West Palm Beachwas due to a patient late to getto the plane, correct? A 

### Yes. Q And the condition ofthat patient may be a factor in whether or not to continue on withthe flight or not, wouldn't it? A As a pilot, I wouldn't, the passenger or the patient wouldn't be a determination ifthe flight should go or not. Q Okay. In this instance, did you know whether or not this was a critically 

### illpatient? A I don't know. I do notknow. Q Okay. Would that be a factor that would be reasonably considered by the pilot as to whether or not he or she should continue on with his flight assignment provided by the certificate holder? A Are you asking me ifa criticalpatient should fly? Q I'm asking you whether or not the pilot is reasonably considering the condition ofthe patient in determining whether or not he should continue on with the flight plan that was designated bythe certificate holder from the beginning? A I don't think a pilot should worry about their passengers to determine ifthey should go on a flight. They should worry about weather, time on duty, fuel, all that kind ofstuff, not a passenger. Q 

### Okay. So, inthis case, assuming hypothetically that this patient was an 80 year old gentleman who was critically ill with heart problems and was inneed ofintravenous fluids and pain medications and was already delayed three hours getting to the aircraft that's something that you don't think 

### is reasonable to be

12

### considered by the pilot in determining whether or not to continue on with hisjourney north? A My opinion ifa patient who is that critical should be staying on the ground at a hospital, not in an airplane. (TR 158- 161:21-14). D. The Notice ofproposed Civil Penalty ALJ's Findings: 

### As a result ofthe investigation, on January 15, 2013, the FAA issued a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty to Trans North alleging that "Trans North assigned Mr. Didier as Pilotin-Co=and of the flight of November 28, 2011, which did not provide for at least 10 consecutive hours ofrest during the 24 hour periodthatpreceded the planned completion time of the flight assignment." (See Exhibit 3). During the hearing ofthis case, FAA witness, Sandra Boerman was cross examined about her knowledge ofthe 14 CPR 135.267(d) and a legal interpretation letter dated November 13, 2012 written by Rebecca MacPherson, FAA Assistant ChiefCounsel for Regulations (hereafter referred to as the "Kidd Letter". (TR 167:5-15.)(See Exhibit 4, Kidd Letter) Ms. Boerman did not agree with the notation in the Kidd Letter that stated that if

### a crew member is realistically scheduled to receive 10 hours ofrest in a 24 hour period then "ifthe original planning is upset for reasons beyond the control ofthe certificate holder, the flight may nevertheless be conducted
even though the crew duty time may extend beyond 14 hours in a 24 hour period"4
, 

### stating that there are other FAA interpretation letters to the contrary. (TR 169-170:8-1). No such letters were
ever produced and none exist. Administrative Law Judge, Richard C. Goodwin concluded that
• I fmd that all witnesses testified truthfully and were credible.

4 The extension ofthe duty day past 14 hours would meanthatbased on a 24 hour look back at the time ofthe completion ofthe assignment the pilothadr less than 10 hours ofrest. 

### 13

### • I find that the circumstances herein were not beyond the control ofthe certificate holder.
• I 

### find that the original and revised completion times were not realistically scheduled.
• I 

### fmd that the evidentiary facts, by a preponderance ofthe evidence standard, the FAA proved by a preponderance ofthe evidence that the Respondent violated 14 C.P.R. Section 135.267(d) as alleged.
• Trans Northpresented no evidence in mitigation. (See Exhibit 6). Argument: The Administrative Law Judge Erred in Finding Trans North Violated 14 C.F.R. Section 135.267(d) The review ofthis case hinges on a few basic concepts that both the FAA's presentation of evidence and the interpretation ofthe evidence undertaken by the Judge below appeared to have missed. The first basic concept is that inthis case the certificate holder, Trans Northis accused of violating 14 C.P.R. Section 135.267(d) alone. (See Exhibit 3, Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty). There are no allegations that Part 121 5 

### was violated, that Trans North deviated from its operations specifications or that TransNorthviolated 14 C.P.R. Section 135.267 (b)(2) concerning the total flight time ofthe assigned flight6

. 

### In

### addition, there are no allegations that the pilots involved violated any regulation. The only alleged violation concerns the certificate holder, Trans North.

5 Trans North is a 14 CPRpart 135 Certificate holder and holds no certificates underpart 121. 6 The FAAinitially alleged a violation of14 C.F.R. Section 135.267 (b)(2) concerning the total flight time ofthe assigned pilot, Mr. Didier, butwithdrewthat allegation following an informal conference when they received the Affidavit ofAndrew Wolfthat attestedthat he was assignedto fly the Part 91 segments from Indiana to Florida. (See Exhibit 1 ). 

### 14

### The secondbasic concept is that whenreviewing the case under 14 C.F.R. 

### § 135.267(d), the FAA, throughits legal interpretation letters, has established what amounts to a stepby step process for analyzing whether§ 137.267(d) was violated ornot. To begin, the only regulation at issue in this case states as follows: 

### § 135.267 Flighttime limitations and restrequirements: (d) Each assignment 

### under paragraph (b) ofthis section must provide for at least 10 consecutive hours ofrest during the 24-hour periodthatprecedes the planned completion time ofthe assignment. 

### 14 C.F.R. 

### § 135.267 (d)(Emphasis supplied)(See ExhibitR5). Therefore, the first step in the analysis is aninquiry and understanding oftheplanned assignmentthat was created by Trans Northbyits Director ofOperations, Mr. Schaberg. The second step in the analysis is an inquiry and understanding ofwhether or not Mr. 

### Schaberg's assigument realistically was scheduled Mr. Didierto allow 10 hours ofrest in the 24 hour period thatpreceded theplannedcompletion time of the assignment. The final step inthe analysis
concerns unforeseeable delays that serve as circumstances beyondthe control ofthe certificate holder, Trans North and can serve as exceptions to the pre-assigumentrestrequirements of 14 C.F.R. Section 135.267(d). During the FAA's investigation and during the FAA'spresentation ofits case atthe hearing ofthis matter, the FAApaidno attentionto the above referenced analysis. The FAA's focus and somehowthe Judge's focus as well was upon the actualflight times and the pilots actions respecting the actualflight and actual flight times when the only 

### focus in a case involving 14 C.F.R. 

### § 135.267(d) should be upon the certificate holder'splannedassignment andthe calculation ofthe 10 hour rest periodbased on theplannedcompletion time of the assignment.

15

### The only evidence relevantto a focus upon 14 C.F.R. 

### § 135.267(d) carne from Mr. 

### Schaberg. According to thejudge: "Ifind that all witnesses testifiedtruthfully and were credible". (See Exhibit 6). Mr. 

### Schaberg's testimony affirmatively and distinctly explainedhis planned assignment, verifiedthe timing accuracy ofhisplan assignment withhis Flightplan.com software program, and affirmatively demonstrated thatbased on the planned completion ofthe assignment Mr. 

### Didierhadmore than l0 hours ofrest and was, therefore, realistically scheduled. Mr. 

### Schaberg's testimony onthis relevant topic wentunrefuted and was not ever the subject of any cross examination. Since thejudge found Mr. 

### Schaberg's testimonybothtruthful and credible and since the FAApresentedno evidence to dispel, contradict, impeach or in any way call into question Mr. 

### Schaberg's testimony itis strains logic to think that thejudge could find in favor ofthe FAA. In

### its "closingbrief' the FAA disingenuously disregards the on-pointFAA legal interpretation set forth inthe Kidd Letter and instead cites a number ofFAA legal interpretation letters that concern part 121 and argues that 14 C.F.R. § 135.267(d) is somehowto be reviewed in conjunctionwith opinions that interpret the dictates ofpart 121. The FAA even went so far as to cite a case broughtby the Air Transport Association ofAmerica7

### that has nothing to do with part 135 but does have a footnote related to flight time limitations notthe analysis offlight assignment scheduling. Trans North is not a part 121 commercial carrier, therefore, part 121 does not apply to its operations or, more specifically, its planning offlight assignments. Part 121 has its own distinct and substantially different flight time and rest time calculationrules that only apply to "major scheduled air carriers" and other airlines operating large transport category airplanes" pursuantto part 121 certificates. Conversely, Section 135.267 applies to "any operation that is not a scheduledpassenger-carrying operation
... "using a one ortwo-pilot crew.' 7 AirTransport Ass'n ofAmerica, Inc. v. F.A.A., 291 F.3d49 (D.C. Cir., 2002) 

### 16

### See 14 C.P.R.§§ 135.261(c) and 135.267. In

### this case, Trans North is accused ofviolating 14 C.P.R. 

### § 135.267(d). (See Exhibit 3). The regulation governing Part 121 operations is significantly different from 14 C.P.R.§ 135.267(d) rendering any analysis based onthe Part 121 regulation inthis case inapplicable. Unlike 14 C.P.R. § 135.267(d) that addresses "theplannedcompletion timethe assignment" the Part 121 regulation, 14 C.P.R.§ 121.47l(b) addresses "the scheduledcompletion timeof any flightsegment". Therefore, Part 121 breaks down a Part 121 certificate holder's flight

assigmnent into separate segments and imposes a duty upon the certificate holder to look back for 24 hours before eachflight segmentto determine whether the pilot had sufficientrest. In stark contrast, the regulation at issue here only requires that the certificate holder to lookback 24 hours before the entire, non-segmented assigmnentto determine whether the pilothad sufficient rest. That is exactly what Mr. 

### Schaberg did. Based onhis unrefuted testimony, Trans North met the 14 C.P.R. § 135.267(d) requirements. The trial Court erred inthis case by adopting the FAA's disjointed analysis of 14 C.P.R.§ 135.267(d) and adopting an irrelevant analysis based on the actual flight times that were different from the relevantplannedflight pre-assignmentrest and planned assignment completiontimes. The entirety ofthe FAA's evidence and testimony in this case was irrelevant since it only focused onthe actual flight. Nowhere in 14 C.P.R. Section 135.267(d) does theterm "actual flight" appear and nowhere in 14 C.P.R. Section 135.267(d) is there any reference to flight segments or any duty for the certificate holder to adjust a plarmed assignmentbased on unforeseen andunprecedented delays encounteredin one particular segment ofthe assigmnent. In

### this case, the FAA wentto great lengths gather flight data, load manifests and create a chart that demonstrated the actual duty day and flight times for Mr. 

### Didier. However, none of

17

### that data and none ofthose charts had anything to do with Trans North's planned assignment. Granted, it was a nice chartbutit simplyhadno relevance to the charged violation of 14 C.F.R. Section 135.267(d). Infact, until the day ofthe hearing the FAA hadno clue whatthe actual plannedflight assignment was and didnoteven attempt to perform a 24 hour lookbackbased on Mr. Schaberg's

### plannedcompletiontime ofthe subject assignment.(TR 154:1-22). Despite an investigationby a team ofF AA investigators and assumed analysis byFAA attorneys, the FAAnever sawfit to focus onthe real issues relatedto an alleged violation of 14 C.F.R. § 135.267(d), neverrefuted the planned assignment, and neverpresented any evidence that would shed any negative light on the realistic completiontime and schedule plannedby Mr. Schaberg. Accordingly, the FAApresented absolutely no evidence ortestimony at the hearing of this case from whichthejudge couldpossibly determine thatthe FAAmet its burden and proved by a preponderance ofthe evidence that Trans Northviolated 14 C.F.R. Section 135.267(d) as alleged. The Judge's decision should be reversed. Highly relevantto the analysis ofthe errors connnittedbythejudge in this case is the FAA's own interpretation of 14 C.F.R. § 135.267(d). Atthe hearing ofthis case, Trans North's counsel offered into evidence anFAA Legal Interpretationletter from Assistant ChiefCounsel, RebeccaB. MacPhersonto JasonM. Kidd, datedNovember 13, 2012 (hereinafterreferred to as the "KiddLetter") during cross-examination ofthe FAAAviation Safety Inspector Sandra Boerman (TR. atPage 170). The Kidd Letterwas writtenbythe FAA's legal department, a department thatmakes policy for the FAA and dictates howFAR's and CFR's are to be interpreted by FAA employees such as Ms. Boerman. The Kidd Letter is a review and reaffirmation ofthe FAA's position on the proper analysis of 14 C.F.R. 

### § 135.267(d) stennning from FAA legal interpretationletters dating back to 1992. (See Exhibit 4 atpage 2 

### fu 4-7). The

18

### KiddLetter is instructive in situations like the present one where anunanticipated delay ofone of the legs ofa scheduledflight assignment occurs that has the effect ofdiminishing the rest period that was calculated based onthe planned completion ofan assignment. The factual scenario presented inthis case shouldrender any argument respecting further interpretation or practical application of 14 C.F.R. 

### § 135.267(d) moot. The issue presented inthe Kidd Letter was the effect ofanunanticipated delay onthe certificate holder who devises flight assignment under part !35. The pertinentparagraphs ofthe Kidd Letter are as follows: Foryour next question, youposethe following scenario. A part 135 certificate holder operates unscheduled cargo and passenger operations pursuantto 14 C.F.R. 

### § 135.267(d). That certificate holder schedules its flightcrew to be inrest from 2200zuntil 0800z. The flightcrew is then scheduled to start a duty assignment that is supposed to begin at 0800z and end at 21OOz. The duty assignment consists ofthree flight segments, each ofwhich is scheduled to be 3 hours long. The first flight segment is scheduled to depart at 0930z; the second segment is scheduled to depart at 1300z; andthe final segment is scheduled to depart at 1800z. Youthen list a number ofdelays that could happenduring the flightcrew's assigned duty day. The delays specified in your letter consist of: (I) late-arrivingpassengers or cargo; (2) en-route flight delays due to lowvisibility; (3) a diversion due to a mechanical failure; and (4) a delayed takeoffclearance from air traffic control. Each ofthese delays wouldresult in the flightcrew finishing its duty day after 21OOz. You ask whetherthese delays wouldresult in the flightcrew violating thererequirement of§ 135.267(d) ifthat flightcrew finishes all three flight segments ofits originallyscheduled duty day. Subsection 135.267(d) requires that an assignment "'mustprovide for atleast 10 consecutive hours ofrest during the 24-hourperiod thatprecedes the planned completion time ofthe assignment." In 

### a previous interpretation, the FAA emphasizedthat 

### "[t]he key to the applicability of§ 135.267(d) is in the final phrase 'planned completion time ofthe assignment."' In

### thatinterpretation, the FAA concluded thatifa crewmember is realistically scheduled to receive 10 hours ofrest in a 24-hour period, then 

### "ifthe original

19

### planningis upset for reasons beyond the control ofthe [certificate holder], the flight may nevertheless be conducted, even though crew duty time may extend beyond 14 hours "in a 24-hour period. 

### The FAA has previously statedthat delays due to air traffic control, mechanical problems, or adverse weather could constitute circumstances that are beyondthe control ofthe certificate holder. In addition, theFAA has stated that delays due to late-arriving passengers or cargo could also constitute circumstances that are beyond the control ofthe certificate holder. 

### Accordingly, the delays specified inyour question (late-arrivingpassengers or cargo lowvisibility mechanical failure, and delayed takeoff clearance) could constitute circumstancesthat are beyond the control ofthe certificate holder that wouldpermitthe flightcrew to finish its duty day after the originally-planned 21OOz completion time. However we emphasizethat in order for the circumstancesbeyond-the-control-of-the-certificate-holder doctrine to apply, the original 21OOz completiontime must have been realistically scheduled." (Exhibit 4 atp.2)(Footnotes omitted, emphasis supplied, italics in original). The Kidd Letter denotes the importance ofthe language of 14 C.F.R. § 

### 135.267(d) and highlights the FAA's long standingposition that: "The key to the applicability of§ 135.267(d) is the final phrase 'planned completiontime ofthe assignment." (Id.). The Kidd Letter is instructive to certificate holders who create flight assignments as well as the FAA inspectors who analyze assignments that were derailed byunanticipated delays. Regardless ofthe delay, the Kidd Letter emphasizes the original analysis that probes the original assignment as plarmed by the certificate holder. It

### the event that, as inthis case, a delay occurs that could not be reasonably foreseen bythe certificate holder atthe time whenthe flight assignment was conceived, the FAA takes the positionthat the certificate holder will notbe subject to FAA action so long as the original plarmed flight assignment was realistically scheduled. In this case the only evidence is that Mr. 

### Schaberg's original flight assignment was realistically scheduled.



### 20

### The unanticipated delay encountered by Mr. Didierdoes nothing to change that and applying the Kidd Letter to the facts ofthis case would allow a relaxation ofthe dutytime and rest time provisions of 14 C.P.R. § 135.267(d). Unlikejudicial cases and rulings and orders from the NTSB that canbe interpreted in various fashions and used to bolster or degrade legal arguments. these interpretationletters come from the highest level ofthe FAA legal department and are drafted to define and solidify the FAA'sposition on a variety ofissues. The fact is that the Kidd Letter squarely addresses the situation that Mr. Didierfound himselfin by addressing a multiple leg assignment and anunanticipated delaybasedupon late arriving passengers. When Mr. Schaberg created the original flight assignment, he realistically scheduled the assignment by splitting the pilot assignments based onthe Part 91 legs and the Part 135 legs, allowing appropriate time for passengerloading and fuel stops and relying onhis years ofexperience in assuming that an ambulance that is carrying a critically 

### illpassenger would notbe late. The FAA's investigator, Ms. Boerman admitted under oaththatthe late arrival ofthe patient was an unforeseeable event. (TR 159:4-8). Based onthe Kidd Letter, the delay that admittedly constituted circumstances beyondthe control ofthe certificate holder wouldmean thatthe "flightmaynevertheless be conducted, even though crew duty time may extend beyond 14 hour in a 24 hourperiod" (Exhibit 4) Based onthe pre-flight rest context ofthe Kidd Letter the reference to the extension ofthe duty day is obviously based onthe fact that assuming a 14 hour duty day, I0 hours ofrest must precedethat duty day. The FAA's construction ofits own regulations 

### as set forth inthe Kidd Letter should be given due deference inthis appeal. United States v. Ozark AirLines, Inc., 419 F.Supp. 795, 798 (E.D.Mo.l976). The FAA and thejudgein this case failed to give due deference to the FAA's longstanding legal interpretations concerning 14 C.P.R.§ 135.267(d). Accordingly, thejudge's decisionto uphold the proposed civil penalty

21

### against Trans North shouldbe reversed. Trans North was under a duty to make sure that its flight assignment supplied crewmembers with at least ten consecutive hours ofrest. Since the assignment metthat requirement Trans North should notbe held liable. The FAA and the trialjudge knew ofthe Kidd Letter, knew ofthe language of 14 C.F.R. § 135.267(d) and knew or shouldhave known that the focus ofthe FAA's primafacie case rested securely not onthe actual 

### flight but onthe scheduled flight assignment 

### and the 24 hour look backbased ontheplannedcompletion of the assignment. 

### However, the FAA failed to present any evidence in its case in chiefthat would support a prima facie case ofviolation of 14 C.F.R. § 135.267(d) andthejudge erred in determining that Trans North violated 14 C.F.R. § 

### 135.267(d), that Trans Northpresented no evidence in mitigation (the ground ambulance delay) and that the FAA established its primafacie case by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Regardless ofthe standard ofreview to be applied here thejudge's decision was not supported by any competent evidence, was clearly erroneous and should be reversed. WHEREFORE, 

### Trans North Aviation, LTD respectfully requests an order as follows: 1) Reversing the September 25,2014 decision ofU.S. Administrative LawJudge Richard C. Goodwin. 2) Reversing the imposed $7,500.00 civil penalty. 3) Finding that the FAA was not substantiallyjustifiedinbring this action. 4) For such other reliefas is deemedjust and appropriate.

22

### Dated: November 10,2014

Paul R. Borth Barnett & 

### Borth, LLC 800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 Glenview, IL 60025 (847) 809-9520 (815) 356-7042 (FAX)

23 Respectfully submitted,

A 

# e Respondent Trans North Aviation, LTD

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### The undersigned certifies that consistent with 14 C.P.R. § 13.233(g) and 14 C.P.R. § 13.233(d), the foregoing Appeal BriefofRespondent, Trans North Aviation, Ltd. was served via Federal Express as follows: ORIGINAL AND TWO COPIES 

### Hearing Docket Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, SW Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 FAX: 202-493-5142 ONE COPY 

### Jeanette Daubaras, Complainant's Counsel Great Lakes Region, AGL-7M Federal Aviation Administration 2300 East Devon Avenue Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 FAX: 847-294-7498
Dated this lOth day ofNovember, 2014

**lPmirR.~** 

### h/ - Attorney for Respondent

24

### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
IN THE MATTER OF TRANS NORTH AVIATION, LTD FAA DOCKETNO. (2012-GL-03-0012) FDMS NO. (FAA-2013-0046) (Civil Penalty Action)


### TRANS NORTHAVIATION'S APPEAL BRIEF 

# EXHIBITS

### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATlON ADMINISTRATION

HAVING COME 

### before the undersigned Notary duly authorized to administer oaths, ANDREW WOLF, did state under oath a!t.er being properly sworn, thatthe following statements are true and accurate. l. At all times herein 

### Jwasa pilot v.1th Trans North Aviation, LTO. 2. On November 27, 201.1, I flew with Mr. QuentinLevitte in our ChieftainN59773 from Wtsconsin to Indiana. 3. On November 27, 2011, I was assigned to 

### fly our ChieJl:ain N59773 ti·orn lndiana to Florida. 

### 4. 1verbally confitmed with QuentinLevitte 

### thatthe legs from Indiana to Florida 

### were to be llown under 

### 14 CT'R 

### Part 91 and 

### l was to be the 

### Pilot-In-Command. S. l was not checked oul as a Second-In-Command with our company onNovember 27, 2011. 6. ram a commercial rated multi engine pilot and lamqualified to operatethe 14 CFR Part 91 legs onlv. 7. William Didier was assigned to fly as Pilot-In Command onthe 14 CFRPart 135 legs fi·om Florida. 8. Jl' called to testify as to the above-slated information, my testimony would bethe same.

A

.. FFIANT FI.JRTHER SAYETHNAUGHT This



### ~ 

## ,A) -/ ? ,.., day of 4 _ ()

**~-** , __Ol"·· 

### I County

# off).'fit.t.b.PJ_Q 

# fj v State

# of }r)c0--l:. 0-.... ,r Sworn before me this

# _Lday 

### or

## _L\)_f2\)
___, 20!2



### My Commission Expincs:



## EXHIBIT 

## 1 --L. 

### <;

# /12(

# t3**FltP!an.ctr~-** Copyright 2.01-3 7{7{13l:36PM
1 

### PassengerFllghtBriefing
__ **~~-11** PARI 91 LEGS ANDREWWOLF PIC

This Tonight Monda:y Aftemoon KCF.J-KPXE KPXE-KPBI PART 135 LEGS BILL DIDDlER PIC

Monday.

Night KPBI-i<JES KJES-KPWK

Tuesday Tuesday Night Wednesday Wedne-sday Thursday Night 

# J

50% Chance 20% Chance 30% Chance -30% Cht:mce 30% Chance 20% Chanco 40% Chanc-e :

T-Storms T-Storms T-Storms T-Storms T-Storms T-Storms T-Storms

**~** LO'#', 1'1 -'(-"



## --,-.~~~;jiT :;s;,



## ~~

# J!

**'.·~,** Schedul<>:



## ,.~:~da\07108!2013 · Depart ,,,

**~-._c,-** PLRRY, GA 11:01 AM!

**~I** PERRY-HOUSTON COUNTY 

# I :1 Arrive l';Pt;:l -WEST PALM BEACH, FL 01 ·HI PM

**~~** . . . PALM

**BEACH!~·-· -··~~-~··** **"*----=-·~--** L 

### Flight Time 

### 02:Hl Destination lnfOnnaUon: Tlrne Zone: Eastern Tfme Change: S-arne Time Zone FBO NamE: JETAVlATlON-AVff 

# iFBO Phone-#: 800-53-8-0724 .i ;

# I

6•33J 

# :f CumontWeatheratWEST PALM BEACH, Ft.,·

**~~** Scatte,-,dCI?ud,,ViS 10Miles,Temp: 8SF (32C), l/ljjnd" Eastat 18 "'_Ph Gusting ro24 mph
if Th!s Tonight r .. 1on-day Monday Tuesday Tuesday Wednef:'day 

# J
Wednes9ay Nigl1t Sunrise Strrme-t

**~:** 

# ll

**Af"t.er.n~on** Night Night 

# !c-c" -·c·"'"''



# ~S-d--~-~~w~~=~~~~Mre-Ch~~~~an~~ 

# \]

**'~~!:v;~~~ ',~:~';~r~F**  !!';! 

### '!'
..,.



# ,::~;~c **,::.t~r:~c L:~t~::F**  **!~;,~\~~:'~, ~;t~;:F**  **i~~~t~:,.** :1


### -,- 

# iDestination

**~n:formation:** 1 TimeZone: !::astern P<lQfl 1 nf 27f7JB L36 rM ._i Depart ccps; -WEST PALM BEACH, FL 02:GO PM!' 

### FlighiTime 

# I

**J~ ~~:~~~~~~~~~+'~~~·**  j·J 

### l PALM BEACH INTL 

### "1 ?() ) l u

**;~ ~FBOPhone#812427-5949**  _';-·

**'~** Arrive '< II''" ·JESUP GA 03:50 PM 1 , 

## ,ii JESUP-WAYNE co'uNTY _I 

### 'it"-'""-'-""'=' CurrentWeatheratJESUP, GA

-



### ~-s~~;:;~~o~~6=c.~;g"l1 ': Scattere-d Clouds, Vis: 10 Miles, Temp: 86F {30C), Winds: South at 8 mph
_ _ l_ Sunset 2_0:.:?61

**:r~~-~...::==:..::::.~~~=~,~~=~~~~~=::......:=::2:.\j** Tonight Monday Monday Tuesd-ay Tuesday Wednesday Wednesday Thursday Night Night Night



# y~ ' 

# A Partly Mostly Paftly 20% Ch:ance Partly MosUy Partly Partiy Cloudy Sunny C!oudy T-Siorrns Cloudy Sunny Cloudy Sunny LCPAr: 73 "F '-'·

**:it·~-** -0/;1

**~~- 7**  LD','4: !A "F

**;"{,~_;!;.** c::s ,- low: l4 "F

-

**·:::·,~** s;; 'F LP\V: ·r-4

**~F**

**1-~,ni·;._-S.J** 

### ·-r """"""

**-·--·~·-:-.**

### ·--- "--

__________,

### __

**~**_;



# ~~~~:~:~~e~-~~;;~~:~~~~~~~~~---- 

# -

**--~ ·:4::0~~** 

# . 1- · --



# ----c~~~nr~~~~~1r.:;~:~:~:r



# 1 I JESUP-WAYNE COUI\JTY 

### Flight Time FBO Name SIGNATURE 

# !I 

# :I Arrive



## ~;rc·mc.• CHICAGO/PROSPECT HGT, 07:05PM

# I 04:05



## ~~~~~one#:847-537-1200 · 

# il___



# ~~iiGAGO EXECUTIVE 

# I 1



# ~~

**._:·,_·--.~~~ ·~±~**  CmrentWeafuera!



# CH!CAGOIPROSP~~**H~T,IL** . . .. . - j



# --~;;;,-,;;. , 5:23

**~L~~--~~S~c.:.atrn:='**

**~req** ClolJds, \/js: }O_Mlles,

**T~_l!'!_l_: ~3~**  (2:8C), VVinds: So\Ithwe_statE mp_h
_ l
__sunset._ 20:30 :J This :1 t\ft:emvoro 

### d '•



## ~ '.I 

## I
.. I 1

# 120% Chanco :J [ T-Storms H 

# :.L·c· '·
... . .. 'I
--· Tonight Monday Monday Tuesday Tue-sday Wednesday Wednesday Thursday Night Night Night

**~):.~~** .::, -::;;,......- 50% Chance 50% Chance T-Siorms T-StOITliS

**T~Storms** 40% C!1ance Mosfly Sunny

T-St.orms T-Storms Likely Ukely Llkely T-Storms Clear Lo\,\( 73 "'F

**~-:';·~~~\ ;'f:~**  t"::"

**L,-;-.,~r** 75 _,F -;;,;i:. cJ:: c L-ow·: 

### n

**~-F**

**'"C;~_,fl** 2:\':: "r l.t:1V? sn .,f

**d\!\~, ;-.;~**  **,,-~** Produce-d us-ing FltPian.GOffl © 2013

https::tI

**l~w8.fllpl<>rL**rom jAw P a.s sB.rlefMuIllOJsplav

**.ex~?,,=**1U.S, Dep;:;;rmsn' of l<c:1s:p::;rc;-ion Federal Aviation Adminfstration

In Reply

Refer lo: AGL-7J 2012-GL-03-0012
January 15. 20l3
CERTIFIED & REGULAR MAlL
Mr. Ronald J. Schaberg President Trans North A\'iation LTD Eagle River Airport POBox 1445 EagleRi,er, Wl5452t Grsa! Lakes Region 23'JO E. Devon Jwo:, D% Piaims. ll 6001 8

Area Code 847.294.7057

fiNAL NOTICE OFPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY On July 12, 2012. you were advised throHgh a Notice ofProposed Civil PenaJty that the fA/\ pro-posed Lo asst':ss a civil penalty against youin lhe amountof$**15~000.00.** After consideration ofall ofthe available infonnation, and based on the information you provided at and after the informal conterence. it has been detemlined that: L Trans North Aviation Inc. (hereinafter, ''TransNorth'!) no-,.y holds and at all tirncs me11tioned herein held Air CatTier Ce11lficate NumberEBFA443D that authorizes Trans Nonh LO conduct operations under Parr 135 ofthe Fcdcrai A\·imion**Regulation~-.** o At all times mentionedherein, William Didier, holder ofAirline Transpm1 Pilm Ccrtifieate Number 306763L was authorized to conductTrans North's commercialt1ight operations underboth Part 91 and Part 135. 3, On November**28~** 2011! Jvlr. Didier was the**Pi1ot~in-Command** ofa Piper, PA-31-350. 

### N59773, on a

### Part 135 tlight operated 

### by 

### Trans North !i·om .Jessup-Wa}11e 

### County Airport. Georgia (KJES)_ \vith an intended destination ofChicago Executi-ve A**lrport~** \\/heeling, lllinois tKPWK). (rhe flight}



### EXHIBIT 

# I 3**~~~------·--** ----

### iL The flight 

### ended when N59773crashed short ofChicago Executive Airport in

**\Vhedlng~** Illinois. The cra .. sh resulted inthree fatalities, including two passengers and N1r. Didier, S. Trans North assigJ.1ed ML Didier

### as

**P11ot~in-Command** ofthe flight onNovember 28_ 101 L which did not provide for at least 10 c-onsecuti\·e hours ofrest Juring the

**~4-hour** period that preceded the plam1ed completion time ofthe f1ight assignment. By reason ofthe facts and circumstances described above, Trans \lorth ·violated the follcw.-ing Feder.1! Aviation Regulation: 14 CFR Sectf{)n 13:5.267(d), \vhich states thateach assignmentunderparagraph (b) l\f thls section mustprovide for at least I0 con::\ecutive hours ofrest during the 24-hour period that precedes the p1armed completion thne ofthe assignment In accordance with Tille 49 ofrhe United States Code, Section §46301 or

**~463{)3** (49 U.S.C. §46301 or §46303). ·you are subjectto a civil penalty notto exceed for each \--Jolat]on ofthe regulations $1

**1~000.00.** Therefore, by reason ofthe foregoing 11cts and circumstances. we propose to assess a civil penalty in the amount of$ 7,500.00. Wirhin fitieen (15) days after yonrreceipt ofthis Final Notice ofProposed CiviI Penaily, yon musr electto eithersubmit the full clviJ penalty amout1t of$7500.00 or request a formal hearing. Ifyou fail to respond vvith one ofthese alternati\•es, an OrderAssesslng CiYil Penally, requiringpayment ofthefull amount ofthe proposed clviJ

**penalty~** 'i.Vill be issued. Shouldyou electto submit the civil

**penalty~** pleasemail or deliver a certified check or money order. payable to the FederalAviation Administratl.on, to the Federal Aviation Administration. Oflice ofRegional

**Counsel~** 2300 East Devon Avenue (AGL-7, Room 4

**79)~** Des

**Plaines~** Illinois 600l8. Please include, on the certified check or moneyorder, theFAA c:ase nwuber t20[2-GL-03-0012), which is located atthe top ofthis Order, In the alternative, you maypayyour civil penalty \\·ith a credit card, or a bank account debiL over the Ini.erneL To pay electronically, visit the web site at https:(/\V\\'\,.,.·.p.:n--.uov. 1J.nder the Search Publlc Fonns option: type in ""FGL-FINEL" Click on ·'Civil Penalty Payments- Great 

### Lakes Region", You must then complete the requested 

### inJonnation and click ''Continue,'' You willrhen bedirected to enteryour credit card or bank accounl debit infonnation, To use the bank account debit. you \Nill need your bank routing number, accountnumber. and check nurnb-er.Shouid you electto request a fon11al hearing, you must file a typev..Titten or legibly ha11dwritten requestfor hearing \vith the hearing docket clerk at: ltearing Docket, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk,

**AGC-~130,** Wilber Wright Building- Suite 2WIOOO. You rnust also mail a copy ofyour request for hearing to the undersigned atton1ey at the address provided inthe previousparagraph. y-·ourIequest must be dated and signed, in accordance with Section 13.16 ofthe Federal AviatiDn Regulations (14 CTR. 13.16), a copy ofwhich \Yas sent to you with the Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty.

cc: Charles Batnett, ill Attorney at Law Lake in th£ Hills Airport (3CK) 3411 Pyort RoacL Suite I!0 Lake in the Hills. lL 60 !56-9704 By: Jeffrey A. Klang Regiona! Counset

Adrianne Wojcik Attorney 3U.S. Department of rransportation Federal AvialioiJ., Adminislrcti6l1 

### i'N

### 0 V Jason M. Kidd 7201 North view Drive Brookfield, OH44403 DearMr. Kidd: Office of the Chief Counsel 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591

This is inresponse to your July 12, 2012letterposinga number ofquestions about 14 C.F.R. part 135 operatingrules. Flight. Dutv. and Rest Questions Question 1: Phone CallsDuringa RestPeriod For your first question, you ask whether a certificate holder can require a flight crewmemberto answer a phone call from the certificateholder during a restperiod. During a restperiod, a crewmembermust be free from allrestraint by the certificate holder. 1 Ifa crewmemberis required to answer the phone by the certificateholder, thenthat crewmember is not free from all restraint. Thus, thatflight crewmember is not on a validrestperiod. Accordingly, a certificate holdercannotrequire a flight crewmember to answer aphone call during a restperiod. We note, however, that the FAAhas a "one phone call"policy that "generally allows a certificate holder to initiate one phone call during [a] crewmember'srest period."2 Ifthe crewmember voluntarily chooses to answer this phone call, thenthe FAAdoes notviewthe call as disruptive and breakingthe restperiod.3 However, we emphasizethatin orderfor the "onephone call" policy to apply, the crewmember cannotbe requiredto answer the certificate holder's phone call, butmustinstead angwcr the phone onhis own volition. Question 2: EffectofDelays Foryour next question, youposethe following scenario. A part 135 certificate holder operates unscheduled cargo andpassenger operations pursuantto 14 C.F.R. 

### § 135.267(d). Thatcertificate holder schedules its flightcrewto be inrest from 2200z until 0800z. The flightcrew is then scheduledto start a duty assignment thatis supposedto begin at 0800z and end at 21OOz. The duty assignment consists ofthreeflight segments, each ofwhichis scheduled to be 3honrs long.

1 Letter to Glenn Jimenez from Rebecca MacPherson, Assistant ChiefCounsel for Regulations (June 9, 2011). 'Id. 3 ld. 1The first flight segment is scheduledto depart at 0930z; the second segmentis scheduledto depart at 13OOz; andthe final segmentis scheduled to depart at 1800z_ You thenlist a number ofdelays that couldhappen during the ilightcrew's assigned duty day_ The delays specifiedin your letter consist of: (1) late-arriving passengers or cargo; (2) en-route flight delays due to low visibility; (3) a diversion due to a mechanical failure; and (4) a delayed takeoffclearance from air traffic control. Each ofthese delays would resultintheflightcrew finishing its duty day after21OOz_ Youask whetherthese delays would result in the llightcrew violating the rest requirement of§ 135.267(d) ifthatflightcrew finishes all three flight segments ofits originally-scheduled duty day_ Subsection 135.267( d) requires that an assignment "mustprovide for at least 10 consecutive hours ofrest duringthe 24-hourperiod thatprecedes the planned completion time ofthe assignment." In aprevious interpretation, theFAAemphasizedthat "[t]he key to the applicability of§ l35.267(d) is in the final phrase 'plannedcompletion time ofthe assignment'"4 

### lnthatinterpretation, the FAA concludedthat ifa crewmember is realistically scheduled to receive 10 hours ofrest in a 24--hourperiod, then "ifthe original planning is upset for reasonsbeyond the control ofthe [certificate holder], the flight may nevertheless be conducted, even though crew dutytime may extend beyond 14hours" in a 24-hourperiod_5 The FAAhaspreviously stated that delays dueto airtraffic control, mechanical problems, or adverse weather could constitute circumstances that arebeyond the control ofthe certificate holder6 In addition, the FAA has statedthat delays due to late-arriving passengers or cargo could also constitute circumstancesthat are beyond the control ofthe certificate holder.7 Accordingly, the delays specified inyour question (late-arriving passengers orcargo, low visibility, mechanical failure, and delayed takeoffclearance) could constitute circumstances that are beyondthe control ofthe certificateholderthat would permitthe flightcrew to finish its duty day afterthe originally-planned 2100zcompletiontime. However, we emphasize thatinorder for the circumstances-beyond-the-control-of-the-certificate-holder doctrineto apply, the original 21OOz completiontimemust have beenrealistically scheduled.8 Navigation and Chart Databases Questions 3 and4: Pilot-PerformedUpdates on AvionicDevices Two questions youpose concernpilotperformedupdates to aeronautical information avionic devices_ Firstyou ask whetherthe pilot ofan aircraft operated underpart 135 mayupdate a GPS and/or FMS navigation database (such as the Collins FMS-3000, GNS500 series or Gl000). Second, you ask whetherthe samepilotmay update the charts displayed electronically on a MultifunctionDisplay, suchasthe Jeppesen approach charts onthe Collins Proline 2L Because
4 Letterto Kevin Wilson from Donald P. Byrne, ABsistant ChiefCounsel ofRegulations and EnforcementDivjsiun (Mar. 30, 1992) (quoting and emphasizing a portion of the regulatory text from§ 135.267(d))_ 5lei See alsa Letter to Mr_ Ross from Donald P.Byrne (Aug. 30, 1993). 6 See Letterto WilliamE. Banks, Jr. from RebeccaMacPherson (Mar. 18, 2009)(citingprevious legal interpretations). 7 See Letter to Kevin Wilson and Letter to Mr. Ross. 8 See Letter to Kevin w:i.lson. 

### 2both ofthese questions deal with a rulethatthe FAAis currently fmalizing, we cannotanswer these questions atthis time. Instead, we will answer these questions in a separate letter once the pertinentrulemaking has cone!uded. Weight andBalance Computations 

### Question 5: LoadManifestDuplicate Foryournext question, you state that 14 C.F.R. 

### § 135.63(c)requires you to prepare a load manifestbefore each takeoff. Youaskwhether a copy ofthis loadmanifestmustbe left with the certificate holder and/or departure airportpersonnel orwhether itis sufficientto keep the only copy ofthe load marrifest onboardthe aircraft. Subsection 135.63( c) requires the certificate holder ofa multiengine aircraftto prepare a load manifest in duplicate containinginformation concerning the loading ofthe aircraft. Pursuant to § 135.63(d),the pilot-in-commandmust carrythe load manifest inthe aircraftto its destination, and the ce1tificate holdermustthenkeep the loadmanifestfor at least 30 days atits principal operations base, or at another locationusedbythe certificate holder and approvedby the FAA. When 

### § 135.63 wasoriginallyproposeditincludeda requirementthatthe pilot-in-command arrange atthetakeoffairportfor a copy oftheload manifestto beretained in a suitableplace at that airport.9 However, this part oftheproposedrulewas withdrawn inresponseto comments. 10 As such, § 135.63 does not specify whatmustbe done withthe duplicate ofthe loadmanifest. While§ 135.63(d) does not specifyhowthe duplicate copy oftheload manifest shouldbe handled, theFAA advises certificate holders to incorporateprocedures intheiroperations' manuals for the disposition ofthe duplicate copy. 11 The certificateholder should work withits principal operationsinspectorto develop suchprocedures. This isbecause the duplicate copy of the load manifestcouldprovide valuable informationto investigators regarding passengers, crewmembers, and aircraft weight andbalance ifthere is an accident andthe load manifest carried on-board the aircraft is destroyed. 12 EnforcementAction 

### Question 6: ManualthatViolates FAA

### Regulations For your next question, youpose a scenario in which an operatorhas submitted a required manual containing procedures thatviolate FAAregulations. Youaskwhether inthat scenario the FAAwouldhold responsible: (l)the certificate holder for submitting and enforcing improper procedures; and (2) the crewmemberfor complyingwith companyproceduresthat violate FAA regulations.
'See 42 FR43490, 43515 (Aug. 29, 1977). 10 See 43 Fed. Reg. 46742,46764 (Oct. 10, 1978); Letterto Stanley L. Bernstein from RebeccaMacPherson (Nov. 13, 2009); LettertoNettie Dickerson, from Edward p, Faberman,Acting Assistant ChiefCounsel (Nov. 5, 19&0). uSeeLetterto StanelyBernstein. 12Id 3Anyonewho violates FAAregulations couldbe subjectto anenforcement action. Inorderto actuallydetermine who would beheld responsible by the FAAin your scenario, we would need additional details concerningthe companyprocedures that violate FAAregulations. Operation Specifications C055 andA097 You also ask a number ofquestions about operation specifications (OpSpecs) C055 andA097. Yourquestions aboutthese OpSpecs are policy questions, and as such, we have referred themto the AFS-200 program office. We appreciate yourpatience andtrustthat the aboveresponds to your concerns. Ifyouneed further assistance, please contactmy staffat (202) 267-3073. This response was prepared by Viola Pando and AlexZektser, Attorneys, Regulations Division ofthe Office ofthe Chief Counsel, and coordinated withthe Air Transportation Division ofFlight Standards Service. Sincerely,



# ~r~ RebeccaB. MacPherson Assistant ChiefCounselfor Regulations, AGC-200



### 4§ 135.267 flight crewmembel" :may acoopt an as- .signme-nt, for flig;ht time in scheduled operations or in other comnlercial flying if tha.t crewmember's tot.::cLl flight time in all commercial flying- will exceed-

(1) 1,200 hom·s 'ln any GBlendaryear_ (2.) 120 hours jn any calendar month. (3) 34. hbUTS illa:U1,1' 7 conr;ecUtiVe days. (4) Bhouxs: du.rin.g any 24 consecutive hours for a flight crew consisting- of onepilot.

C5) 8-J:lOurS betw-eenreq_ulred rest IJeriods fur a :!lig-ht crew consisting of

**~-o** pilots qualified under this part for the operationbeing conducted.

(U) Exce:pt as provided in paragra:ph (b-) ortills secti{1h, no ce'ftrii':rtitt.e

### noraer mn:y schedule it flight crewn:tembe:t T and no flight crewmemher: may accept an assignment, fot• flight time durJng the 2.4 consecutive hours preceding the sclterluleil. complet:i_on of any flight segment without a .scheduled rest period dm'ing- that 24 hours of at lea.st the following:

(1) 9 consecutive llollhl ofrest for less than 8ho-urs of schMuledilighb t1n1e.

(2) 10 uolli5ec-utive bours of rest for B or more bnt less t.lu.m 9 hours of scheduled flight tix:ne.

(3) 11 c-onsecutive hours of rest for 9 or more hom·s of sched.ulod flight time.

(c) A certificate holdm may schedule a. fligllt orewmember for less than the _test :eequ.i.:re-d in paragraph (b) of this scctf-on or may rednGe a. scheduled rest tmder thefoJlowi:ug conditions:

(1) A rest 1·equired under pu..1'agxaph (b)(l) of this

**sec·~ion** may be scheduled fm• or l'educed to a minimunl of a hours if the ±light cr-ewmeml:Jer is given a rest period of a.t least 10 .hours that must beg·:in no later than 24 homs a.ite1' t.he commeucomout of the reduc:ed re.">t f'"&- r-iod.

(2) A rest rer.1uh·ed under parag.rlLph (b)(:2J of this section ma.y be scheduled fo1• Ol" reduced, to a millimum of Bhours 1f theilight orevnnembe..r is given a rest IJBriod of at least 11 hom's that must begin no later than 2.4 hmli.'S after the eonwnencemout of the reducod rest period.

(3) A l'est requ1red m:tde-r pa:ra,gr·a.:ph

**(b)(~)** of this sectio:u may be scheduled for m· reduced tO a miniumm of9 hour::; ift.he :ilight crewmemOer is given a

**res~.** perio1i of a,t

**le~o1st** 12 hours that must 14 Cffi Ch.l (1-l-03

**~dition)** begin na later than 21 hours a.....<=t.or th.e oommencement of the :reduced :rest :period.

(d) Erwh certifi:c::LtB holden: s11f1Jl ro- ]jeve each flight erewmember

**euga~;ed** in -scheduled ai1' h'ansportatiml from aJl filrther duty for at least 24- consecutive hom·s durllig any 7

**coiL..~c-utive** days. §135.267 Flight time limitations and rest requirements: Unschflduled one.- and two-pilot crews. (a) No certificate holdcl' may a.Eslg;n any flight crewmember, and no illght et:ewmember may accept an assig·nmsnt, for flight time as a member of a n:ue- m-

**two~piJ:ot** crew if th-at 

### crewmember's total flight time in all commerc-ial flying wiH exceed-

(1) 500 hours jn any calendar qnarte1·. (2) BOO hom·s 1ll any two consecutive calendar quarters.

(.'3) 1,400 hom-sin any calend.a.T year. (b) Except a.s :p-rov:lded in _paragraph (c) o:t tbis section, during any 24 conS8ClitiVe hOUl'ii 'f,be ·total flight Ln'De Oi the assigned flight when adrled tio a.uy other commercial tl:ying· l.Jy that flight crewrnemberm_g,y not exce.ed-

(1) 8 haUl'S for a flight crew consisting ofone :pilot,; or

(2) lD houxs for a, flight crew co11- Sist.ing· of ti\VO pilots q_u_ali:fted 1l..'llder thls :part for the Op-Bl'a.tion being conducte-d,

(c) A flight

**cr~nvmembe:e's** flight. timemay exceed tho flight time limits of paragraph (b) of this section if the a.ssignedflig-ht t"ime occurs dwing; a.regu_- larly assigned duty pedod of uo mo:re than 14 hours and--

(1) Ifthis duty period isinrrnediately preceded by and followe-d by a rc;qn..ired rest pe1·1txl of at least 10 consecutive haurs ofl'Bst;

(2) If

**~night** time is assigned during this_pe-riod; tJJ.al:; Lol.al flight time whGn a.dded to auy other commeroi.:-"Ll flying by the llig-ht crcvn:uember may not sxCAed-

(i) 8J:wurs for a flight crew consistinsof one pilot; OI'

(ii) 10 hmiTS for a flight crew consisting oftwo pilots; and

{3.) U the combineD dnty and rest periods eq_ual24 hau:rs.

(d) Each assignment under paragraph ("n) of thl.s section n.mst _provide for at 702 

# :: :>

b' EXHIBITFederal AviationAdministration, DOT

**l1~ast** 10 eunsec:uLlve bou.r;; or rest during the ?.4-chonr period ttta.t precedes the plar.ned completion time of the as- 5ig:mne-nt.

(e) When a night crewmemberhas exceeded fue dB,ilY flig-ht time U:mibations in tll1s s-ection, because -of cirOttiUStallte!:l beyond the c.ofitl'Ol Of the certificate holder or flig;ht

**c:~:·ew** m.enlber (sucll as adverse weather nonditior:;_s), iil:w,t flight crewmem.ber mnst have a rest- periodbeforebeing assigned or accepting an assignment for flight t'ime or at least-

(1) ll eonsecutive h01.1rs of :rest ifthe flight time. limitation is ex-ceeded by :::tct more tb&n 3il n:tiuu.tee;

(2) 12 consecutive hou.rs of rest ifthe Light time lirr)ita.tion 1.$ exoeedecl by more th?..n 31) minutes, but not mo1'e tha11 60 minutes:; and

(8) 16 consemrt±ve- hours of rest if the fl1ght time- limita:t.ion is exceeded by more t·hau 60 :minutes.

(i) TbP- ce:etJ__:fi.caJ,e bolder must

**:pro~** vide eacJ1 ilight arewmember atleastc 13 rest periods of at least 24 consecutive :Uour'::l i:'.a.oh 'in each calendar q_ua.rter.

**(Do(~-** No.

**~36'34,** 50 FR 293ZO, July 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 135-----33,, 54 FR S92SJ, Se.]Jt. 25. 19a.9-; Amd(>_ 135----60, 61

**li~R** 2616. J-an. 2-6. 1006] § 135.269 Flight time 11n::citat:io:ns and rest l:equ:irements; Unscheduled three· andfouFpilot crews.. (a) No oertificate holder may assign any flight creWlnember. 2.lld no llight erewmeml)-eL may aceept an

**assign~** went, fo1· flig·ht time as a member of a t-hree
.. qr

**fQJJX~1JUot** crew if t.hat c:rew- membex's tot;al f'ilght time in all commerolal flyillg will e.:x-.ceHCl-

(1) 500 hours in -any calendar qu:a.rter. (2) BOO hours in any two consecu.tive CP.vlendar Quarter,:;.

(3) 1,400 hoursin a.ny calendar year-. (l1) No certificate holder _may assign any pilot to a crew of thl."Be or fo11.r pilots, uuJGS.'J tb.a,t assig!lment provides----

[1) At least 10 consecutive hours of rest immediately preceding the assignlneU't;

(2) No more than B hou-rs of flight deck duty in any 24 consecutive bom:-s;

(3) No more than 18 duty hau·rs fo:r a. three-pilot crew or 20 dut-y hours for a. four-pilot crew in any 21 consecu.t.lve hours; § 135.271 ('±)No more than 12 Jwur;;; aloft for a three--pilot crew or 16 hours aloft for .a four-pilot crew during the ma.ximum duty hours specified in paragm_:ph (b)(3) ofthis section;

(5) Adequate sleeplng facilities on the aiTcraft for the reliefpilot;

(6) Upon con:rpletion of the a-Ssignment, a rest :period of at le-ast 12 'hom·s;

('T) For a three-pilot crew, a Cl'ew which consists of &t lea.sl, l;hB fol**lowiug~**

(1) A p-ilot i:!l oonunand {PIC) who meets t:he app-licable flight m·ewmeml:JeT requ.il'ements of subpart E of part 13fi;

{ii) A PIC who meets the applicable flight ore:wmembei' requi:rements. of subpart E of :pft.t:-t 135, except those :Prescribed in§§135.24:4 and 135.447; and.

(iij) A second :b1 command (SIC) who mcm:s the 

### sre g_ualiiica'd.ous uf §135.245.

(8') For a

**fonr~pilot.** crew, a.t least three pilots w1:w meet the conditions of paragmlJh (b)(7) of this section, :Qlus a fou:rth _pilot who meets the SIC qu.ali-· :ficatlons of§13fi.24fi.

(c) When a flight Cl'ewrnernber ha.s ex- caeded the droly ·flight deck dut--y

**limJ~** tai.Jon in thlB eeution by mol'c tllan 6U minutes, because of cjxo-Uinstances 'beyond the control of the oe_rtifica;.te holder or fli-ght e,rewmember, thRt flight Cl'ewmember must have a rest period befoN the next dnt,yperiod o:( at le-aat 16 consecutive hours.

(d) A ce:rtificate holder must pmvide each flight m·e\rmember at least 13 rest pe_tiOd& Of at leaS't 24 00hMCi1:tFl0 b.Oin;S each inBach calendar qu.o'l.rter. § 135..271

**Helieftpt~-r** hoh.pital emexM gency m.edical evacuation_ service (HEMES). (a) No certificalie holder may assign

**>~.ny** llight cre'Wlllemt.)er, and no flight, -orewmember- may accept an assignme:u.t for- flight "Vlli.ie- ii 'uh·a.t ·c-r-ewmeluber's total Hight t:i.L"!le in all t.:ommercial flight 

### wm

**Flxceoa:~**

(1) 500 hmu:s :in any c-alendar quaJ.'t.E:lr. (2) 300 hours in

**an~,.** two

**cons&:~ulive** calendar quarters.

(3) 1,400 ho11rs ill_ a.ny calEmdar year_ (b) No

**cer::.ifica;~e** holder 1na.y ass'ign a helicopter Hight crewmember, and no 703

### SERVED: September 25, 2014 C.S. DEPARTIVfENT OF TRANSPORT/\TION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

\VASHlNGTON. 

### DC 

### TN THE .\!lATTER OF

**TRA:~S** 

### NORTH AVIATION, LTD. FA;\ DOCKET 1"0. [TO BE ASSJCJNED] (CiviJ Penalty Action) 

### fDj\llS NO. FAA-2013- 0046 

### INITIAl DECISION OF AD'IIHNlSTK4.TlVE LA'W JUDGE A. Introduction: ASI 

### /\TP 

### Boen11-an Blodgetn Dldie.r FAA 

### Fox 

### FI FSDO Keenan Levitte tv1erT]li 

### 'USB Or Specs PIC 

### POI Schaberg The Flight
Trans North \Volf 

### AviaLion 

### Safety Inspector AJr Transport Piloi 

### Sandra Boem1an, 

### FAA witness Maynard Blodgell, Flight 'Vledic Bill Didier, 

### PIC ohhe t1ight Federal Aviation Administration Kenneth Fox. Tram North's ChiefPilot Fiight Instructor Flight

### Standards Safety Ofi!cc Jim Keenan, Director ofiv!aintenance, Trans North Quentin Levitte_ Ass-istant Chief"Pilm
__ Trans \iorth John Me1TilL FAA witness ;.;atlonal Transportation Safety Board Operations Speci±lcations Pilot-in-Command 

### Principal Operations lnspector President'Director ofOperacions ofTrans Nmih Part !35 flight tl-om Jessup-Wayne County 

### Airport Georgia (KJES), with an intended destination ofChicago Executive Ai'1)0rt, Wheeling, fiiinois (KP\VK) Trans North Aviation._ Ltd_, Respondent Andrew \lv'olf


### EXHIBIT 

# < ([,The Federal A·v·iation Administration thereinafter

**''"FAA~~)** illed a Con1plalnt dated i'.pril 16, 20lJ Trans North Aviation, Ltd. (hereinafter "Trans 1'iorth") !Jlecl an Answer dated March 26.2013. 

### Trans North's Request ior Hearing and •\nswer were accepted over objection. C, Jurisdiction: Trans h'mih \Vas ill1 on den1and air taxi servic.e \vhich operated under 14 C.F.R. Part135. The FAA aHeged and Trans North admitted that Trans North AYiation Inc. held at aH

**tim~s** mentioned herein Air Carrier Certificate Number EBFA443D that authorized Trans North to conduct operations under Part. 135 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations. The fAA alleged and Trans North adn1itted that at all times n1entioned

**herein~** \rVilliam Didier, holder ofAirl1ne

**Tran~port** Pilot Certificate Nurnber 3067631. ,vva.s amhorized to conduct Trans Nmil1s commercial tligbt operations under both Part91 and Part !35. D. Burden ofProof: The Burden ofProofv,cas on the agency (14 C.F.R. § 13.224). E. issue: Whether Trans North violated 14 CFR

**~** 135.267(d), which slates: Each assignment under paragraph (b) ofthis section must provide for at 1e.ast 10 consecutive hours ofrest during the 24-hourperiod that precedes the planned completion time ofthe assigm1Knt F. 

### Sm11111ary ofFacts: 

### l.

**Agencv~**

### s

**rec~~ation** offacts: The Complaint alleged that on November 28, 201 1, Bill Didier (hereinafter

**ccDidier~**

**)** \Vas the Pilot-in-Cornmand (here1nafter ''PlC") ofa Piper, PA-J l-350. N59773, on a Pa1t 135 flight operated by Trans North :tl:·on1 Jessup-\V2yne County Airport, Georgia (KJES), with an intended destination ofChicago Execmive Airport Wheeling, Illinois (KP\VK) (hereinatter "the tlighC"i.

### The Hight 

### ended when N59773 crashed short 

### ofChicago 

### Executive Airport in Wheeling, [liinois. Tbe crash resulted in three fatalities, inciuding two passengers and D1diec 

### Trans North assigned Didier as 

### PilOT-in-Command oflhe J1ight on 

### November 28, 201 1. which did not provide for at least iII consecutive hours ofrest during the 24-hour period that preceding the planned completion time ofthe flight assignment.
l Respondent's rec.it_ation ofFacLs: Trans North denied 

### it assigned Didier as Pilot-in-Command ofthe Hight on Novcn1ber

**2~L** 201l, Yvhich did not provide for at least 10 consecutive

**hour~** ofrest during the 24-hourperiod that preceding the planned completion time ofthe tlight assigmnenL, Respondents denied all allegations ofviolation of 14 CFR Section i35.267(d) as set forth in the Complaint. G. Hearing: A hearing \Vas held Jn1y 23,2013, at the Federal Bulldlng and U.S. Courthouse
.. 517 East \Visconsin 

### A.venue, lv1ihvaukec
.. \Visconsin. Jeanette B. Danbaras, Esq. appeared on behalfof the Federal Aviation Ach11'ini stration. Charles R. Barnett, Esq. and Paul R. Borth, !:'sq. ofBarnett & Borth. LLC. appeared on behalfofTrans North. H. Summary ofEvidence: Agency Exh1b1ts 5, 9. 1L 13. 14,15 and 18 vvere not received in evldencc. ,t\Jl other exhibits \vere received. Respondenl Ex.hiblt 7 ...,:o.'as not recc1-v-cd: Exhibit 8 \:<.faS \\'ithdrav.m. There \A/ere no Exhiblts 3 or 4. Exhibits 5 and 6 ''\'ere recc.:i-ved and incorrectly marked in thetranscript as not recel,/ed. 

### 1. Sun1n1ary of

### Testim.ony: ,0.,J_l admilLed kstlmon::r- and docum_cntary evidence ,,vas re>Iie\1\:ed and considered. Only highlights are included herein.

### Merrill The Agency called John

### lVfe:Ti11 (hereinafter

**·'~v'lerrill',).** lv[erTill vvas an 

### Avlation SafCty Inspector (hereinafter ''ASl''), Principal Operations Inspector (hereinafter "'POT"). 

### Merrill held an Airline 

### Transport Pilot certificate (11erea_ftcr 

### "ATP") 

### and a flight Instructor certificate (hereinafter ''FI") that had the rmings ofsingle engine/ multi-engine 

### and CFU. '.Vhich v,·as instrument instructcr and held a second e-1ass med1ca1 with no restrictions.

**~Vierrill** testified that at approximalely 1130 hours Central Time on Novernber 28, '2() 11. he recei>ied a call from Trans North:s ChiefPilot. Kenneth Fox (herelnaftcr 'Toxc':L notify-ing ivierrill that Lhere had been a fatal accident oftheir Piper Chieftain. The 

### accident occurred 

### in Pal

### waukee which was in the Illinois 

### District ofDuPage. 

### fox asked to meet with Merrill later on November 28,20\1 after 

### meeting with I he DuPage Investigators atthe l\.'Iihvaukee FlighL Standards Safely Office (hereinafter '·FSDO"} Wierril1 met with Fox on Nuven1ber 28; 2011. Also present at the meeting \vas fonner FAA POI Inspector, Cathy ·vuksano•Jic and Ronald Schaberg, President/Director ofOperations (hereinafter '"Schaberg"') ofTrans North. 

### DuTing the meeting 

### it was learned 

### the flight 

### was a para-medical 

### flight scheduled to depart frorrl Chicago Executive J\ilvort.

**fl~,.:** LO Palm

**Beach~** _pick up passcnger(s) and renn1l to the Chicago area. Fox \vas told the pilot involved in the f3tai accident, D1d1e-r. had fknv11 th<e Cessna 340 the day h
..::forc. \\'hich \\'as originally assigned to the tlght 7 departing from_ Chicago. On the vvay to Paln1 Beach, the Cessna 340 de-veloped an atlitude indicator failure and diverted to Cm.\\JfordSI-'ilJc, Indiana. Schcberg then assigued Quentin Le,vitte (hereinafter

**~;Levitte'·),** the Assistant ChiefPilot at the time, to take the

**C~hi0ftain** do\VD to

**Craws1-~Jrdvi11e., lndiana~**  '-Vith Andrew \Volf(hereinafter "\h/olf"). Ce-vitte l.ft./3S then assigned to stay wilh the Cessna 340 \\-rhile V/oifand Didier continued the par:1-medical tligbr to Palrn Beach. Vv'olfwas to perfom1 repositjonlng the aircraft

**J~__Jvvn** to 

### PaJrn :Beach

**·~vhile D~dier**  \.Vould l1y from Palm Beach to Chicago. 1 

### Merrill teotii!cd at the time, Schaberg held an on demand Air Carrier Certificate for 135 2 

### The 

### Operaliuns SpecificaTions (hereinall:er "Op Specs") for the airline retlected Ken Fox as ChiefP1loL James Keenan as Director 

### of!vJainlenane-e and Ronald J. Schaberg as Director ofOperations.3 The docwnents \vere c.urrent at the ti1ne ofthe 

# -

- 

### accident The Op Specs set forth personnel responsibilities and who is authorized 

### to 

## ' exercise operational control.'' The OP Specs sets how operational control \Vas exercised by Trans l\ronh. 5 Tr.p. 14, [_ l top.23. L 17_ Agency Ex. AI. -Age-ncy t:x. /\2. -· Agency Exs. A3, A4.

**~** Tr_ P- :28_ i_ Ig Lop. 40. I. :21. Agency Ex. /\4. ·' Agency .A'-l·. 4

### IV!errili Cross Iv1errill testified he did not investigate the accident. 6 lv1enill rnemurialized the conversatjon abo>/e and played no pati in preparing the allegations whlch were the basis ofthe NOC. As part ofhis duties he audited Trans North to insure it complied \Vith 14 CFR Section §135.267.

Sandra Boerman (hereinafter "Boerman") testified she had betm an Aviation Salety lnspectoriPrincipal Operations Inspector for ten (10)

**~'ears** for the F.A.A. She and

**se~,.-eraJ** other inspectors ·went to the accident site. The

**~ational** Transportation Safety Bootrd (hereinat!er ·'NTSB''l was the primary investigator ofthe accident. Boerman assisted other field and \Vashing1on, D.C. inspectors Yvith the accident investigation. 

### TI1e investigation narratiYe 

### stated: On Noven1ber 28,

**2011~** at approxirnately 2250 Central StandardTime !CST) (0550Z), 1'159773. Piper PA-31-350 Chieftain. 

### O\vnecl and operated b:.: Trans North ,r-\viation. LTD., crashed in Rivenvoods, Illinois; approxilnately 3 nautical miles northeast ofChicago Executi-ve Airport (PWK). The aircraft was substantially damaged 

### by impact tOrces. On board -,_-vere the pi1oL a pilot-raLed

**passenger~** a Jligilt 

### nurse, a patient and his wife. The pilot, the patient and his wife all received fatal injuries. The pilot-rated pussenger a1Ld the ±1ight nurse recei•ied non-lifethreatening, serious injuries. There \vere no ground lqjuries or s1gni flcant grollnd damage. \\Teather at the tin1e ofthe crash was night visuat nl.eteorologica1

**conditions~** wind from the norlb at 9 knots. (Agency Ex. 6, p. 3 of 3). The investigalion concludC"d there were several issues- involved "vith the accident: Airman·s competence as to the iVIRS Management offuel. F

### .A..R -·violation as to ClTIV rest/duty tin1e \.'iolalions. Flight 

### \ViLh knO\\illlnalfunc:tions not 

### rec.orded in 

### discrepancy log. lnadequcue reserve fuel for IFR Jlight. Unqualified Pilot pcrfonning Cie\V duties during a 14 C.F.R. Part 135 night. at 213)

b Tr. p. ,·10. L 22 to p. 46, L !7. Agenc.y Ex. 5. ·; Tr. p. 60. l. :Z top. 68. L2(J.Boerman patiicipat.ed in intervie-rvs \Vith Schaberg and \\.,-oa*· on site_ then, Maynard Blodgett (hereinafw· "BlodgetCl and memorialized the substance ofthe intervie\VS. Blodgett's recollection ofthe Hight was that Didier had flown all four legs ofthe

**.~·** h' 1(1 rllg

**~t.-** · Boermanfound three load manifests vvhich documenie-d the t1ight. Boerman created a chart m ret1ect the 

### flight Boemtan concluded the flight went into the PIC's re:-;1 ' d' 

### b d ' I ' f' 

### l 'd i I 

### B ' l ' pcno , ase on ner e1,ra uat1on o t1e ev1 ence. oerman·s ana JiSlS \Vas:

...\iVhen you are to look back because it1S a revolving, you kno\\'_ 24 hours. So, you have w look back to see that there's ten hours ofrest. So, the !irs! load. well, we don't have it bcrc. but the load. we do, but I have to look to when he ended hi0 duty the day before. It was on the 27th \vhcn he landed in Crawfordsville \-Vitb the mec.hanical \vhlch that ended up.

__ .that1s \Yben his duty day ended and he had a rest period from 2200 Zulu to 1200 Zulu which is when he started his day, which 

### ifyou look ac Exhibits 15-1 and the time he put 0700 duty on time, but dov-.m be1ow j·fyou iook al his block out is 048, so that vvas central1in1e and the 0700 is eastern time. So.! verified that with the flight Aware to help when they track the time so when the planes left. So, 1200 Zulu is when his day started which meant when he started there, he had 14 hours ofrestbecause it'you iook back. there was 14 hours. _A.s you proceed fonl\.-ard, the key tin1e would be 0200 Zulu because that would gh.re hi1n only ten hours from 0200 to [200. So_ ifyou dravv a line dovvn from 0200 onto the 18th. anything after 0200 that was, you know. planted (sic., should be ;'planned'') on >;>.,:ould be in his ten hours of

**n~sL** period oftime. So, v'-·hen he \\'W3 in Jessup, it \'.'as 0100 and he was on the ground 

### thereo not in the air and tJ1e rFR t1ight plan filed listed Didier as ihe PiC. Listed 2308 as the pLanned departw·e tin1e and listed the flight to be three hours and 25 

### n1inutes. So, an hour into his 

### :t1ight, he would be in his rest period and he could not complete three hours and 25 mi.nules in an hour time. So, that lllght should not have deparicd.

H Identitlcd as the Second Pilot in Agency Ex. 6.

**(~Th-e** night paramedic, sec- .-'\gency 7 at P- 2 oD_ j() ld. 11 Tr.p,'TJ._l. i7top, !!3,1.2. AgencyExs.A8.A9.AlO.Ali.AJ2.Al3. 

### 6The only piece ofpaper that we had was the lFRflight plan that listed Didier as the PIC and listed \\--hen they proposed w ieave whlch '-'iaS 2308 and that the flight time from Jessup to

**"Pal\Yaukcc~** according to that flight plan., was three hours and 25 minutes. So, 

### ifyou can con1plete three hours and 25 rnlnll1:ts and not go in your rest period, you 

### would be legal to go. but a.t 0200. that's where his ten hours cut offwould 

### be. So. if

### he tlies anything after 0200 that would be ir. 

### his rest period. So, he would only depart an hour and then be in his rest period. So. l<l10'\..Ving1y onthe ground, you're going to exceed your rest period
... -,vhen you\e unde-r the obligm1on ofthe air carrier_ thaes not considered rest. ..



### .,Bed-head (sic, should 

### be "dead head") is not 

### considered rest. He isn 1t (sic: should be

**"'is'~)** on assignment 

### fron1 the con1pany, therefore: 

### he is not on rest.. Boerman interYie'A:ed

**\"\:'ol:f~** men1orializing the lntervie>:v. 12 Aecording to the intervie-'-".1 • 'ifv'olfwas hired to be second in command in 135 t1ights, but had not recejved all ofthe training in the aircraft to be rated fOr rhat position. '\Alo1ftold Boerman he vvas assigned by the Trans 1\iorih to fly the 91 Hight down to Indianapolis and Florida. Wolf \-Vets tisted as additional. ere\:>..'; seated in the right seaL, acC-ording to the load n1anifes1:.

**"~::Voif** deseribed Lhc minutes before the accident as Didier flipped to augs tanks, fuel v,,-arning lights came on. Didlc.r selected the cross feed valve, Didierfeathered the engines. the plane descended. in1pacting the ground. According to Boennan's notes, both fvlr. Didier and 0/Jr_ \;A/olf\ve.re on the flight controls dwing the tlight. 

### \Volfindicated thm the- piJot acted abnormally_ sporadic and \\·'eird in Florlcla. Didier set his po\,ver sett1ngs frorn a card that was kept in the windo\VS visot. There \vere no engine abnornwlities dm·ing the t1ight

**\~Volftold** Boern1an Didier told b1rn not to tell any-one about going into reserve fuel. Based onher itP/estigation, Boerman reached the following conclusions: That there \ven: vioiations ofthe regulations that took place and
.._the only documcntmio11 , .

**\~o;'as** the lFR fl-ight plan with Ivfr. Didier to s-it as the pilot, departure time 

### of2308, 

### the three 

### hour and 25 111inute 

### tlight. They Yvere 

### on Lhe ground c.on:municating to their DO 

### V\'ho has operational 

### control ofthe airplane and the pilols, Texting back and forth cmd 

### that they departed ai 

### 0100 lor 

### a three hour ancl 25 

### minute ±1ight and their rest period needed 

### to start at 

### 0200, 

### and Jvlr. Did1er 'l1'ou\d 

### not n1ake 

### three hours and 25 minutes

7in 0200. So. there's a violation ofthe ten consecmive hours

c• • d '1 01 rest peno-.·- 

### Violftold Boennan 

### lhe patient for 

### the flight 

### was late, according 

### to infommtion 

### she developed during the course ofher investigation. in Boerman's opinion this vvas not an ''unforeseen c-ircumstance''
.

...**~411** unforeseen circumstance is son1ething \Vhen you're in the air and the President con1es into tovm or there 1S thunderstorrns and you7 re already in the. air flying and you can\ contro11t, but ifyou1re already on the ground. you can I ..• . 14 contra_ n you ctepmi or not.. 

### Boern1an Cross Boern1an spoke Lo the certificate holder at the crash site about the tlighL She. revie\ved her invesTigat1on. She did not know 

### vd10 ±lied the flight 

### plan. Boe1n1an found the load manifest at the scene \\·hich indicated \VolJ\-vas the PIC one page and Didier the 

### PIC on another

### page. 15 

### Wolfsaid 

### he did 

### not 1111 out any paperwork 

### for the flights including the manifest. 16 Boennan discussed her understanding ofFlight i\Yvare. She tc:stifled Schaberg: said the n:vo pilots \"':ere given verbal instruction:; for the t1ight plan. Boennan \Nas aware. through her in\-'estigation, that the patlent was late 

### rutiv1ng to the aircraft in \Vest Palm Beach_: 7 Boennan·s position \'Vas that the delay _in \A/esl Palm Beach
..

...wasn't foreseen beyond their control. They couidn'l foresee that the patient was going to be late, but they could control iftbeir 'f1ight V\/RS to de-part or no::..

...the passenger or the patient woulcln 1t be a determination ifthe Hight should go ()r not...

. ..l don't think a pilot should wony about lhelr passengers to determine -ifthey should go on a flight. They should 

### worn about weather, time on duty, fuel, all that kind of n:. !8**stUir~** not a passenger.

I! '1'1. p. 134, L 1 top. !3-+. i. 16.**~Tr.p.** \35.!. !8top.l36.L·]. !j - . ·\ 8
.**~{_)-"'-** 1 . '_,

t.'\. h-,. P"-c"'S ana-!..**'~** ·r r. p. 137. l. 5 tv p. 14£. L 12. :: Tr. p. 1.55. i. l to p. 16:2. I. 2

Tr. p. 15S. L 21 lu P- l 61. I_ l.

### Bocm1an testit!cd:

...There are no exceptions to 135.267. The only exceptions are for flight time, not the rest periodtime
..

.. .According to the load manifest I!e. at 2200 zero the next

**day~** thal 1S fourteen hours ofrest prior to starting that portion ofthe hip
.

. . . Because legal to start is nollegal to finish n ±1lght. And based on mv thirteen years ofdoing night and duty and 20 years oftlying that you knovv, ifyou 1 re

**-~** dovv<n, you can pre\-'cnt it fi'om departing.

**,il~nd** no mQtter \vhat it is. ifyou e-annoL 

### the planned .t1ighl is [hree hom·s m1d 25 rninutcs and you (:annot accomplish that before your rest period is going tn starr you cannot depart..

)vir. Levitte stated thm Mr. \Volfv.vas assigned as a pilot 

### c:on1111and for 

### the Part 91 i1ight on 

### November 28th., 20ll. There \.vas no wTitten docurnent.ation ofassignn1ent,just verbaL \Jormal company procedures for assignments cmne from a phone call by Ron, the director ofoperations, fOllO\Yed by itinerary for the Hight, the piiot texts or calls Ron before takeoff Tiren after landing the pilot picks ±Ltel stops based on location and place, and ifthere is a question they phone Ron
..

**~~** :2. Respondent's

**ca~c** Schaberg testified he \Vas the owner and President ofTrans North Aviation and the slster conlpany, Travel Care lntenlationaL 

### rbc COlnpanies conducted Jixed \Ving air ambulance transportation tlu·oughout NoTih America and Canada, transpm1:ing patients and fan1ily members. The.Y had been in business 33 years.7.0 Didier \Vas h.ired about eight (8) months prior to the accident. Didier \Vas a 

### trained PIC 

### tor Trans North Aviation

### in a Piper Chietlain 

### and Cessna 340 Series. 21 At the time ofthe accident Trans Nmth owned three aircraft and leased lV'/0 more. The aircraft. that crashed 

### 'iv·as a ..Piper Chieftain oYvncd 

### by Trans No1ih.22

IYTr_ p. t66_ L i {O p. t97, L 8. 20 Tr. p. 207, L4 TO p.103, L4. :c.\ Tr_ p. 201.L 

### n. g to l7_ 22 Tr. p. 200, il. 8 to !5.Schaberg did the scheduling for the jJight from \Vest Palm Beach to Chicago. The original plan "vas for the Hight to depart Oshkosh, \\/}.at l030, tly to 

### TZome, GA
.. tOr refueling and anive 1n \ 1 /est Pall11. Beach at 5:00p.m. The pilots vv·ere to go offduty at 1730 Central Time. At 1030 hours the next day the pilots would resume their t1ight. The original Hight \:vas Lobe flo\vn 

### by Didier and Jvlaynard Blodgetl (hereinafter ·'Blodgett"}. Didierhad not flown a 135 or 91 trip in at least five to seven days prior lO the flight Didier went on duty m approximately 1000 homs and took offat approximately 1100 hours. Didier had 3 mechanical problem and had to land in

**Cra~rvilJrd~** Indiana. Based on the landing inIndiana, Schaberg revised the original flight plan. 2:' Due t.o the maintenance problem in lndiana, Didier went offduty m 1600 hours. Quentin mrci Wolft1ew a new aircraftto lndianato contimuo the t1ight The plan was for \Vcol f to he the PIC on the Pan 91 ±light to Florida. then have Didierbethe PIC on the Pa1i 135 return tlightbackto Chicago. \Vith the revlsed tlTght plan Didier\t..'ould have had kwrtecn (14) hours of[ The patient v.,ras supposed to be at \Vest Palm Beach AiqJort at approxin1atcly 1330 hours. Based on the revised plan Didier shouldhave gone on dutv at 0600 hours and completed his t1ight by 1930 hours in Chicago 24 The plan:

.. ,also included a 45 minute\ it should have been a one hour. approximately 45 minute prior to depanm·e being on, induded a 30 lTrinme. window for the fUel stop in Georgia, and a J.5 minute

**'i~iindo\v** for loading and fueling in Palm Beach, and then a 30 minute windeY'·'/ for fueling in Jessup, (Jeorgia"

**at~~l** then a 25 minute offduly time, extra ti1nc in Chicagt)
.. ,__) L'he pr1tient being transported \\'as 80 years oid and had significant luedical problems. The Hight \Vas dela)·e-d in Florida for approximatelythre.e (3) hours beenuse lhe an1bulance tnmsponing the patient got 1ost on the way to the airport. 26 J. Analysis offacts: Schaberg scheduled the flight to depmi: Oshkosh, WL at 1 030, fly to Rome. G;L forJeflwling and mTive 

### i:c. \\lest Paln-1 Beach at 5:00 p.n1. Tt1e pilots \Vere to go offduty at 1730 Central Time. At 1030 hours the next clay thepilots were to resume their fiight. The_original flight \vas to be flovvn by Didier. Didier 

### \Vent on duty al 

### approxin13teJy 1000 hours an.d took offat approxin1ately lliJO hours. Did',er had rr mechanical problem and landed in Crawford, Indiana. Ba5ed on the landing in Indiana, Schahcrg rexised the origina! flight plan.

**'----··~·--** 13 Tr. p. ·21 0, l_ 1S to!--'- 2.!_cL L 3. Exs.. R-: R-1.

**z.~** Tr. p. '2.24, l. 8 to p.129. l. '"> 25 T1·. p. 229. ll. 4 tn 1'2. 2" Tr. p. 7.37. L ll top. 24fl_ L 5. 

### lODue to the maintenance

### proble111 inIndiana, Didier wem offduty at 1600 hours. Quentin and

**"~::Volfflevv'** a

**ne~w** aircraft to Indiana to continue the ±1ight. The plan \-vas for Wolfto be the PIC on the 

### Pan 91 flighr to Florida, then have Didier bethe P!C on the Pa:rt 135 return :t1ight back to Chicago. With the revised flight pian Didier would have had fourteen 04) how·s off. Based on the revised p1an Oldier should have gone on dut:: at 0600 hours and completedhis flight by 1930 homs in Chicago. Didierflew all four legs ofthe flight.

**~llJe** patient \'-/as late arriving at the \Vest Palm Be<1ch, FL. airport. The late arriving patientresulted in a late departure from \Vest Paln1 Beach, FL. Airport. Didier could not complete H1ghl 

### without going into 

### his resl period. K. Conclusions: Didiercould not cornpletc tlight vvithout going i.nto his rest period. L. Lavv: ]4 C.F.R. part 135.267 provides in pali: (b) .Except as provided in paragraph (c) oftbis section, during an)' 14 ';onsecutive hours the total flight time ofthe assignedflight when added to any other commerclal fly·ing ty that flight c-re\Vnlember n1any not excee-d--- (1) 8 hotu·s IOr a flight cre\-V consisting ofone pilot or (2) 10 hours for a f1ight crev,: consisting oft\vo pilots qua1ified under this part for the operatiou being conducted. (d) Each assignment under paragraph (b) ofthis sectionrnust provide: for at least 10 consecutiYc hours ofrest during the 24-hour period thatprecedes tlle plan11ed completion time: ofthe assignrnent. 5U.S.C. Section 5123, et seq. Findings ofFact: After consideration andre-vic\\' ofall the C\'identiaQ ±acts,

**te~tin1ony** and evidencelJereiiL by a preponderance ofLhe evidence SlEmdard, \-ve mal\.e the tbllo\ving_ finding:..:



### J

### lThe flight was scheduled to depm1 Oshkosh, WL at 1030. fly to Rmne,

**GA.~** for refueling m1d arrive in \71/est Pahn Beach a\ 5:00 p.m. The pilots \\:ere to go offduty m 1730 Central Tin1e. At 1030 hours the next day the pilots were to resume their 

### flight. The original flight \Vas to be t1own by Didier. Didier 

### \Vent on duty at 

### approxi1nately 1000 hours and took offat approximatelY 1100 hours. Didier went offduty at 1600 hours in Crawtord, IN. Didlcr should her'le gone on duty at 0600 bours and completed his tlight 

### by 1930 hours in Chicago with 

### the revised 11ighl plall. Didier Hew aU four legs oftbe ftighL The patient 1vas late arriving at the \Vest .Palm_ Beach; FL. airport. The late arriving patient resulted in a late departure from \Vest Palm f:k:ach, FL. Airport Schabergbecan1e aware that the flight V\-·as delayed. Schaberg did 

### not do 

### any additional

### t1ight planning 

### after he 

### learned the Hight vvas delayed in FL. Didier could not complete the flight without going into his rest period, Didier did not complete the Hight v\·-ithout going into his 

### rest period. Schabemhad the 

### resnonsibilitv to ensure that tl1e JliQht

**~** r

**~** Y could be LlGCOinplished in a safe manner pursu2Jlt lo the regulations.



### 12..\!. Conc1usions ofLaw: Trans >Jorth violated 14 CFR Section l35.267id). which states that each assignment under paragraph (b) ofthis section must pro-vide for at least l0 consecuti've hours ofrest during the 24-hour period that precedes the planned completion 1in1c ofthe assignment. 0. Analysis of Facts and Conclusions of!,_.fa"v

holder. I ·End all \Nitnesses testi±lc.d truthfully andwere credible. Trans North's Operations specifications staLe: (liThe certit1cate holder retains all responsibility for the operational control of a\rc.raft 

### operatim1s, and thus the safety of each flight conducted under this certificate and operations speci±1cation, including the- actions or inactions ofall direct employees and agents ofthe certificate holder. The certificate holder"s responsibility for operation control supersedes any agreement. contract, understanding or arrange1nent either oral or

**\~Tittcn.** expre,ssed or 

### i111plied, bel'seen any persons or entities. (_/\_gency Exhibit4. page 1 of 5). The Certificate holderfailed to do so. I find the circumstances herein were not beyond the control ofthe certificate
I Endthe original and revised cmupletion tin1es \Nere not realistically scheduJed. I find the evidentiary' facts, by a preponderance ofthe evidence standard. the FAA proved by a preponderance oftbe evidencethatthe Respondent violated 14 C.F.R. Section !35.267(cl) as ai!eged. Trans };·cnih presented no evidence in mitigation.

**\VHEREFORE~** evidence and testimony having been heard and consickred it be and is hereby ORDERED as foll,ows: L Trans l\Iorth's ::V1otion to Strike Agency s Ctos"ing Briefhe and is hereby 

### DENIED.

**~** i find Tram :--iorth violated 14 C.P.R. Section 135.267(d). which states that each assignment under paragraph (b) ofthis section must provlUe for at lea:0: 10 consecutive hours ofrest during the 24-hourperiod that precedes the plam1ed completion tin1e ofthe assignment; and3. TransNmih be and is hereby assessed a civil penalty in the amount of$7,500.



### Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- 

### Service List

l4

### SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal Avjation Adn1inistration 800 Independence

**Av~-nue:** S.\V. 

### \"'A/ashington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1 

### ONE COPY Charles R. Barnett Ill, Respondent's Counsel Bamett & Borth. LLC 800 Wau.\:egan Road, Suite 200

**Glenview~** IL 60025 

### TEL 847-809-9520 FAX: 815-356-7041 Je::mette B. 

### Daubaras) Cornplainanf 's Counsel Office ofthe Regional CounseL Great Lakes Region Federal A-,.
..iatlon Adn1lrristration 2300 East Devon Avenue Des Plaines, IL 60018 TEL: 847-294-7313 FAX: 847-294-7498 Tbe Honorab1e Richard C. GoodVi
.. -in. Administrative Law Judge Office of:" Hearings, M-20 

### U.S. Departmem ofTransponation 1200 

### NewJersey Avenue, 

### SE (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Anornev-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX 202-366-7536 FDMS No. P!\.A-2013-0046 (Civil Penalty Action)

1Sen:ice \Vas b·y U.S. f\Aa!L For service in person or by expedited courier, use the f'ol!mvingaddrcss: Federal i-\viation Administration. 600 Independence Avenue, S.\V
.. Wilbur Wright

**Bui!ding-~Suite** 2\V 1000, \\iashington, DC 2059!. Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk
.. AGC--430. 15

### J 

### j 

## ' ·; \ Def-ault User



# " "ne·o·



# ~3



# "' ' '

.\' ·.·.-,. ;y,-·-·,·-=·-o-=.·.-.-----··-•-· f'

**~** l


## ' 424 '!.NTENSIVE Aill. J>NE!JI.)!;N[$ l<rO "PCS RECif;::tV.l::!D.!JOB! l!Ir..llri A=eriunMe.dlcnlResplltt!ie .Phnne 

### 'MEDICALNECESSITY 

### f<>r

**l\!Qu-Em.er~acy** 

### ,A.mbui""'.e

### 'l:'r=•portatlN> iJ..j:;a.ej20il (NnlYB.l}uir.eilj& rqk-'"titiVt.lpC<tii!flf,\'}2. 'frunspol"'t#:

**9:01~** l4-3.S2:2 I) 0-00 <1.

**Flont/IJ;lli!~** ------



# ::1::~:~::::~~~~~~~~~:::===~~8-~DO~B~-~-~ii~ii~~9.~~~~~~::==~M~~~~ l2.F"":



## Elf

**M~nlJ<ai!>l;!U.'<llli!m<>ntl•** >·¢q<riAd

**~ttll.n•porl.**

**rPI·""'"'''c~** !'Jjf andaphrm mtkiairany

**uftht!f~w.fng** t.h!I!Wwldi*'JifJO'rli'h£cm:hu.JrmCl!:irtm;;porl} lv<!lltila•tor dependent (f@sefl'!'ritaia b6'faw) en

**rout~ trle~** eml§ht.ru:lm·il O[l!:<:::Gl.tt>Ottltc,rit>g requ:i:rt;rlen rome (fl;.,a,-se,exnltUn

**~S;lnW)** 

### .Fr!R,,""'"" .asijistanreto

**admims~oxygen** on rautei

**W~tiJAA** ¢::mlshl betnw) fflR•muli«,. suotiunihg/iliwaycontrol enroot{1; rP!c1u!e (gq,ifain beloJ!'i o Requires

**t~inlil** o

**F~~** l:&k

**Zfru»l<offhllin~**out ofawhee!chaifh1mot1on d11•to: (PI<sse wlain

**M~w)**

**li:">llf~on**l!'rec:"mo•m duo to: fPI•M• Wll•lllhluw) 0 PrtllOI>oili<il),,m,"



### flittt'pfo¥cillii'traUBp0rt~y:wheeloh~;ei•~m-
**~~a!'**tpl@

### a-g¢gmbel'nw): ' . . \ '

-

**~** . "



### ~•Mrl••"notavaim~le:c-----~----------------------------------------------- palieutillschargod'lmm

**sendlng-fuollit~?** Cl Yea
. 

### o No t siD_:famiUM

**~'{fu**fue

**p~lwnt**

**S** eoodftiOll

**Etl.(i:b,av~ d~i::J.~** **'~:hat** th9 p-af:lent1B

**b'l~di~_reccO'fd** >n\;>po•rtsilie mbulance

**~6opi)rtatiol1.** f-ur

**fuc;I"'ori!Wll('~) ;~P"...ci.fttd** • .Arro.J:m..!anc;e serrlce lshereby ardenxL

**~p&tlti'VrS plltif:l'nffi~** !!.!!.h:a

**plt~~tiici~** rutr;y

**~;ign) Pf~IDi~**  uheek"VDe>>-

**~~7**



### l j El l'A q CNS!-" )> Vl 

## w Vl U1 G) 

# )§: I 

# z 0 m ;;o 

# c 0 -l !-" 

### ;;o )> 

### w 

### 0 

## z U'1 

# c 0 

# .,., -l )> 

# ' -< n G) 

### 0 

## n I

# ~ m 

## -o -l -l 

# .,., )> 

### m 

### 0 

# z 0 ;;o 

### 0 

## -o 00 U1 

# ' 0 1...0 )> 

# z 0 I Vl 

### 0 m 

# c n ;a I 

### ;a 

### m Vl 

### 0 

## 0 

# c Tl 

# ' m -- -· _-, ' 3" ,.**-~**

'"-'**~** ::;: 2- ':'**~~-::4 ~--~**  )> 

# :5: oco 

# me 

# '•**~)>** 

## z n m