U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

TRANS NORTH AVIATION, LTD 

FAA DOCKET NO. (20 12-GL-03-0012) 

FDMS NO. (FAA-2013-0046) 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

TRANS NORTH AVIATION'S APPEAL BRIEF 

RECElVED 

NOV 1 2 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

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

counsel, BARNETT & BORTH, LLC, hereby files its brief appealing the Initial Decision of the 

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 in need 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 of his 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 of Operations, 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 of Trans 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 of Flightplan.com, Mr. Schaberg used Trans North's internal manifests and duty logs to 

assure himself that 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. (TR 215: 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 of that 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 Wolf to 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 of the planned assignment verbally and did not provide Mr. Didier with any 

paperwork or Flightplan.com data for the assignment. (TR 218:15-18). At the hearing of this 

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 of the 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 of the assignment were demonstrated to be different 

than the actual flight times and actual completion of the 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. (TR 226-227:20-1 )(Exhibit R2). 

• Mr. Wolf was 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 Chieftan N59773 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 in the afternoon. (TR: 227:5-8). 

• The flight crew would then load the patient, make a quick tum and fly from West 

Palm Beach to 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 Beach based on past experience for this part of the 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 hour restriction. (TR 227-228:221-3). 

• From Jessup Georgia, Mr. Didier would serve as pilot in command in the final leg 

of the trip to Chicago where the patient would be unloaded and Mr. Didier would 

go off duty 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 of the mission. (TR 229:9-11, 229:16-20). 

Based on the 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 of the assignment (final leg 

of mission 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 per planned 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 of the planned assignment, or the reasonableness of his 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 testimony from any of its witnesses that 

could call into question Mr. Schaberg's assignment, his accounting for pre-assignment rest for 

Mr. Didier, the scheduled completion of the planned assignment, or the reasonableness of his 

planned assignment. The only testimony and evidence that the FAA offered at the hearing of this 

case concerned the actual flight and duty day timing not the planned assignment 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. The Pilot'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 that the 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 of how long the delay 

would be. (TR 231:16-18). Based on Mr. Schaberg's 31 years of experience scheduling air 

ambulance transport of patients, 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 of experience, Mr. Schaberg believes that an extended delay of the 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 of the 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 of the 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 of the 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 of the scheduled departure from West Palm Beach. (TR 249:2-4). So 

Mr. Schaberg could not know the nature or extent of the 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 of the 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 of rest was based upon the times 

and delays encountered by the flight crew and was not part of the 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 chief pilot 

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. Wolf was assigned by Mr. Schaberg as pilot in command to 

2 The crash of the subject aircraft is not the subject of any certificate actions or proposed civil penalty actions 

against Trans North. The NTSB determined that the probable cause(s) ofthis accident to be: The pilot's inadequate 

preflight planning and in-flight decision-making, which resulted in a loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion 

during approach. The NTSB did not find any problems with Trans North's assigurnent of the 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 Chief Pilot and 

Trans North's Director of Operations, Mr. Schaberg. (TR 46-47:22-9). Mr. Merrill did not ask 

Mr. Schaberg any questions concerning Mr. Schaberg's assignment of the flights. (TR 48-49:1-

5). Part of Mr. 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 of rest in the 24 

hour period that precedes the planned completion of the 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 of rest that preceded the planned completion of the assignment, 

then Mr. Schaberg would be in compliance 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 of the 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 by the 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 ofi from Jessup Georgia he only had one 

hour of his duty day left and that he could not complete the 3 hour and 25 minute flight to 

9 
Chicago without violating his rest period requirements. (TR 83 :5-14). Mr. Boerman testified 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 in her 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 of flight 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 of the 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 of the 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 than the rudimentary conversation that 

she had with Mr. Schaberg at the scene of the accident on the day following the accident, she had 

3 Flight Aware uses government air traffic data to track flights and provides date, aircraft, departure times, arrival 

times and duration of flights. (TR 91-92: 19-2). 

10 
no further conversations with Mr. Schaberg prior to recommending that the FAA should invoke a 

civil penalty against Trans North. (TR 138-139:15-21, 140:5-10). Ms. Boerman did not 

memorialize any conversation that she had with Mr. Schaberg as she did with the 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 of investigation 

nor anywhere else did she or the FAA request any information of documentation concerning Mr. 

Schaberg's planning of the 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 of her duties were to interview witnesses, but that even though none of 

the witnesses that she interviewed knew the specifics of Mr. Schaberg's assignment of flights 

and his planning of those flights, she did not interview Mr. Schaberg any further to determine 

what he considered when he constructed the flight assignment that is the subject of this 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 Wolf for the trip down to 

West Palm Beach 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 with the 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 if their flight was to depart or not. 

Q Okay. So, you would agree though that this was a 

unforeseeable event, correct? 

A Yes. 

Q The late arrival of the patient? 

A Yes. 

Q And you would agree also that the condition of the 

patient would be something that would be considered in whether or 

not to continue on with the assignment, wouldn't it? I mean, let me 

rephrase that. In this case, the delay that occurred in West Palm 

Beach was due to a patient late to get to the plane, correct? 

A Yes. 

Q And the condition of that patient may be a factor in 

whether or not to continue on with the flight or not, wouldn't it? 

A As a pilot, I wouldn't, the passenger or the patient 

wouldn't be a determination if the flight should go or not. 

Q Okay. In this instance, did you know whether or 

not this was a critically ill patient? 

A I don't know. I do not know. 

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 if a critical patient should fly? 

Q I'm asking you whether or not the pilot is 

reasonably considering the condition of the patient in determining 

whether or not he should continue on with the flight plan that was 

designated by the certificate holder from the beginning? 

A I don't think a pilot should worry about their 

passengers to determine if they should go on a flight. They should 

worry about weather, time on duty, fuel, all that kind of stuff, not a 

passenger. 

Q Okay. So, in this case, assuming hypothetically that 

this patient was an 80 year old gentleman who was critically ill 

with heart problems and was in need of intravenous 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 his journey north? 

A My opinion if a 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 of proposed Civil Penalty ALJ's Findings: 

As a result of the 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 of rest during the 24 hour period that preceded the planned completion time of 

the flight assignment." (See Exhibit 3). 

During the hearing of this case, FAA witness, Sandra Boerman was cross examined about 

her knowledge of the 14 CPR 135.267(d) and a legal interpretation letter dated November 13, 

2012 written by Rebecca MacPherson, FAA Assistant Chief Counsel 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 of rest in a 24 hour period then "if the original planning is upset 

for reasons beyond the control of the 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 mean that based on a 24 hour look back at the time of the 

completion of the assignment the pilot had r less than 10 hours of rest. 

13 
• I find that the circumstances herein were not beyond the control of the certificate 

holder. 

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

scheduled. 

• I fmd that the evidentiary facts, by a preponderance of the evidence standard, the 

FAA proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated 14 

C.P.R. Section 135.267(d) as alleged. 

• Trans North presented 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 of this case hinges on a few basic concepts that both the FAA's presentation 

of evidence and the interpretation of the evidence undertaken by the Judge below appeared to 

have missed. 

The first basic concept is that in this case the certificate holder, Trans North is accused of 

violating 14 C.P.R. Section 135.267(d) alone. (See Exhibit 3, Final Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty). There are no allegations that Part 1215 was violated, that Trans North deviated from its 

operations specifications or that Trans North violated 14 C.P.R. Section 135.267 (b)(2) 

concerning the total flight time of the 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 CPR part 135 Certificate holder and holds no certificates under part 121. 

6 The FAA initially alleged a violation of14 C.F.R. Section 135.267 (b)(2) concerning the total flight time of the 

assigned pilot, Mr. Didier, but withdrew that allegation following an informal conference when they received the 

Affidavit of Andrew Wolf that attested that he was assigned to fly the Part 91 segments from Indiana to Florida. 

(See Exhibit 1 ). 

14 
The second basic concept is that when reviewing the case under 14 C.F.R. § 135.267(d), 

the FAA, through its legal interpretation letters, has established what amounts to a step by step 

process for analyzing whether§ 137.267(d) was violated or not. To begin, the only regulation at 

issue in this case states as follows: 

§ 135.267 Flight time limitations and rest requirements: 

(d) Each assignment under paragraph (b) of this section must 

provide for at least 10 consecutive hours of rest during the 24-hour 

period that precedes the planned completion time of the 

assignment. 14 C.F.R. § 135.267 (d)(Emphasis supplied)(See 

Exhibit R5). 

Therefore, the first step in the analysis is an inquiry and understanding of the planned 

assignment that was created by Trans North by its Director of Operations, Mr. Schaberg. The 

second step in the analysis is an inquiry and understanding of whether or not Mr. Schaberg's 

assigument realistically was scheduled Mr. Didier to allow 10 hours of rest in the 24 hour period 

that preceded the planned completion time of the assignment. The final step in the analysis 

concerns unforeseeable delays that serve as circumstances beyond the control of the certificate 

holder, Trans North and can serve as exceptions to the pre-assigument rest requirements of 14 

C.F.R. Section 135.267(d). 

During the FAA's investigation and during the FAA's presentation of its case at the 

hearing of this matter, the FAA paid no attention to the above referenced analysis. The FAA's 

focus and somehow the Judge's focus as well was upon the actual flight times and the pilots 

actions respecting the actual flight 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's planned assignment 

and the calculation of the 10 hour rest period based on the planned completion time of the 

assignment. 

15 
The only evidence relevant to a focus upon 14 C.F.R. § 135.267(d) carne from Mr. 

Schaberg. According to the judge: "I find that all witnesses testified truthfully and were 

credible". (See Exhibit 6). Mr. Schaberg's testimony affirmatively and distinctly explained his 

planned assignment, verified the timing accuracy of his plan assignment with his Flightplan.com 

software program, and affirmatively demonstrated that based on the planned completion of the 

assignment Mr. Didier had more than l 0 hours of rest and was, therefore, realistically scheduled. 

Mr. Schaberg's testimony on this relevant topic went unrefuted and was not ever the subject of 

any cross examination. Since the judge found Mr. Schaberg's testimony both truthful and 

credible and since the FAA presented no evidence to dispel, contradict, impeach or in any way 

call into question Mr. Schaberg's testimony it is strains logic to think that the judge could find in 

favor of the FAA. 

In its "closing brief' the FAA disingenuously disregards the on-point FAA legal 

interpretation set forth in the Kidd Letter and instead cites a number ofF AA legal interpretation 

letters that concern part 121 and argues that 14 C.F.R. § 135.267(d) is somehow to be reviewed 

in conjunction with opinions that interpret the dictates of part 121. The FAA even went so far as 

to cite a case brought by the Air Transport Association of America7 that has nothing to do with 

part 135 but does have a footnote related to flight time limitations not the analysis of flight 

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 of flight assignments. Part 121 

has its own distinct and substantially different flight time and rest time calculation rules that only 

apply to "major scheduled air carriers" and other airlines operating large transport category 

airplanes" pursuant to part 121 certificates. Conversely, Section 135.267 applies to "any 

operation that is not a scheduled passenger-carrying operation ... "using a one or two-pilot crew.' 

7 Air Transport Ass'n of America, Inc. v. F.A.A., 291 F.3d 49 (D.C. Cir., 2002) 

16 
See 14 C.P.R.§§ 135.261(c) and 135.267. In this case, Trans North is accused of violating 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 on the Part 121 regulation in this case inapplicable. 

Unlike 14 C.P.R. § 135.267(d) that addresses "the planned completion time the assignment" the 

Part 121 regulation, 14 C.P.R.§ 121.47l(b) addresses "the scheduled completion time of any 

flight segment". 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 each flight segment to determine whether the pilot had sufficient rest. In 

stark contrast, the regulation at issue here only requires that the certificate holder to look back 24 

hours before the entire, non-segmented assigmnent to determine whether the pilot had sufficient 

rest. That is exactly what Mr. Schaberg did. Based on his unrefuted testimony, Trans North met 

the 14 C.P.R. § 135.267(d) requirements. The trial Court erred in this 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 relevant planned flight pre-assignment rest 

and planned assignment completion times. The entirety of the FAA's evidence and testimony in 

this case was irrelevant since it only focused on the actual flight. Nowhere in 14 C.P.R. Section 

135.267(d) does the term "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 

assignment based on unforeseen and unprecedented delays encountered in one particular 

segment of the assigmnent. 

In this case, the FAA went to 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 of those charts had anything to do with Trans North's planned assignment. 

Granted, it was a nice chart but it simply had no relevance to the charged violation of 14 C.F .R. 

Section 13 5.267 (d). In fact, until the day of the hearing the FAA had no clue what the actual 

planned flight assignment was and did not even attempt to perform a 24 hour look back based on 

Mr. Schaberg's planned completion time ofthe subject assignment.(TR 154:1-22). 

Despite an investigation by a team ofF AA investigators and assumed analysis by FAA 

attorneys, the FAA never saw fit to focus on the real issues related to an alleged violation of 14 

C.F.R. § 135.267(d), never refuted the planned assignment, and never presented any evidence 

that would shed any negative light on the realistic completion time and schedule planned by Mr. 

Schaberg. Accordingly, the FAA presented absolutely no evidence or testimony at the hearing of 

this case from which the judge could possibly determine that the FAA met its burden and proved 

by a preponderance of the evidence that Trans North violated 14 C.F.R. Section 135.267(d) as 

alleged. The Judge's decision should be reversed. 

Highly relevant to the analysis of the errors connnitted by the judge in this case is the 

FAA's own interpretation of 14 C.F.R. § 135.267(d). At the hearing of this case, Trans North's 

counsel offered into evidence an FAA Legal Interpretation letter from Assistant Chief Counsel, 

Rebecca B. MacPherson to Jason M. Kidd, dated November 13, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 

the "Kidd Letter") during cross-examination of the FAA Aviation Safety Inspector Sandra 

Boerman (TR. at Page 170). The Kidd Letter was written by the FAA's legal department, a 

department that makes policy for the FAA and dictates how FAR's and CFR's are to be 

interpreted by FAA employees such as Ms. Boerman. The Kidd Letter is a review and 

reaffirmation of the FAA's position on the proper analysis of 14 C.F.R. § 135.267(d) stennning 

from FAA legal interpretation letters dating back to 1992. (See Exhibit 4 at page 2 fu 4-7). The 

18 
Kidd Letter is instructive in situations like the present one where an unanticipated delay of one of 

the legs of a scheduled flight assignment occurs that has the effect of diminishing the rest period 

that was calculated based on the planned completion of an assignment. 

The factual scenario presented in this case should render any argument respecting further 

interpretation or practical application of 14 C.F.R. § 135.267(d) moot. The issue presented in the 

Kidd Letter was the effect of an unanticipated delay on the certificate holder who devises flight 

assignment under part !35. The pertinent paragraphs of the Kidd Letter are as follows: 

For your next question, you pose the following scenario. A part 

135 certificate holder operates unscheduled cargo and passenger 

operations pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 135.267(d). That certificate 

holder schedules its flightcrew to be in rest from 2200z until 

0800z. The flightcrew is then scheduled to start a duty assignment 

that is supposed to begin at 0800z and end at 21 OOz. The duty 

assignment consists of three flight segments, each of which 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; and the final segment is 

scheduled to depart at 1800z. 

You then list a number of delays that could happen during the 

flightcrew's assigned duty day. The delays specified in your letter 

consist of: (I) 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 takeoff clearance from air traffic control. 

Each of these delays would result in the flightcrew finishing its 

duty day after 21 OOz. You ask whether these delays would result in 

the flightcrew violating there requirement of§ 135.267(d) ifthat 

flightcrew finishes all three flight segments of its originallyscheduled duty day. 

Subsection 135.267(d) requires that an assignment "'must provide 

for at least 10 consecutive hours of rest during the 24-hour period 

that precedes the planned completion time of the assignment." In a 

previous interpretation, the FAA emphasized that "[t]he key to the 

applicability of§ 135.267(d) is in the final phrase 'planned 

completion time of the assignment."' In that interpretation, the 

FAA concluded that if a crewmember is realistically scheduled to 

receive 10 hours of rest in a 24-hour period, then "if the original 

19 
planning is upset for reasons beyond the control of the 

[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 stated that delays due to air traffic 

control, mechanical problems, or adverse weather could constitute 

circumstances that are beyond the control of the certificate holder. 

In addition, the FAA has stated that delays due to late-arriving 

passengers or cargo could also constitute circumstances that 

are beyond the control of the certificate holder. Accordingly, 

the delays specified in your question (late-arriving passengers or 

cargo low visibility mechanical failure, and delayed takeoff 

clearance) could constitute circumstances that are beyond the 

control of the certificate holder that would permit the flightcrew to 

finish its duty day after the originally-planned 21 OOz completion 

time. However we emphasize that in order for the circumstancesbeyond-the-control-of-the-certificate-holder doctrine to apply, the 

original 21 OOz completion time must have been realistically 

scheduled." (Exhibit 4 at p.2)(Footnotes omitted, emphasis 

supplied, italics in original). 

The Kidd Letter denotes the importance of the language of 14 C.F.R. § 135.267(d) and 

highlights the FAA's long standing position that: "The key to the applicability of§ 135.267(d) is 

the final phrase 'planned completion time of the 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 by unanticipated delays. Regardless of the delay, the 

Kidd Letter emphasizes the original analysis that probes the original assignment as plarmed by 

the certificate holder. It the event that, as in this case, a delay occurs that could not be 

reasonably foreseen by the certificate holder at the time when the flight assignment was 

conceived, the FAA takes the position that the certificate holder will not be 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. Didier does nothing to change that and 

applying the Kidd Letter to the facts of this case would allow a relaxation of the duty time and 

rest time provisions of 14 C.P.R. § 135.267(d). Unlike judicial cases and rulings and orders from 

the NTSB that can be interpreted in various fashions and used to bolster or degrade legal 

arguments. these interpretation letters come from the highest level of the FAA legal department 

and are drafted to define and solidify the FAA's position on a variety of issues. The fact is that 

the Kidd Letter squarely addresses the situation that Mr. Didier found himself in by addressing a 

multiple leg assignment and an unanticipated delay based upon late arriving passengers. When 

Mr. Schaberg created the original flight assignment, he realistically scheduled the assignment by 

splitting the pilot assignments based on the Part 91 legs and the Part 135 legs, allowing 

appropriate time for passenger loading and fuel stops and relying on his years of experience in 

assuming that an ambulance that is carrying a critically ill passenger would not be late. 

The FAA's investigator, Ms. Boerman admitted under oath that the late arrival of the 

patient was an unforeseeable event. (TR 159:4-8). Based on the Kidd Letter, the delay that 

admittedly constituted circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder would mean 

that the "flight may nevertheless be conducted, even though crew duty time may extend beyond 

14 hour in a 24 hour period" (Exhibit 4) Based on the pre-flight rest context of the Kidd Letter 

the reference to the extension of the duty day is obviously based on the fact that assuming a 14 

hour duty day, I 0 hours of rest must precede that duty day. The FAA's construction of its own 

regulations as set forth in the Kidd Letter should be given due deference in this appeal. United 

States v. Ozark Air Lines, Inc., 419 F.Supp. 795, 798 (E.D.Mo.l976). The FAA and the judge in 

this case failed to give due deference to the FAA's longstanding legal interpretations concerning 

14 C.P.R.§ 135.267(d). Accordingly, the judge's decision to uphold the proposed civil penalty 

21 
against Trans North should be reversed. Trans North was under a duty to make sure that its 

flight assignment supplied crewmembers with at least ten consecutive hours of rest. Since the 

assignment met that requirement Trans North should not be held liable. 

The FAA and the trial judge knew of the Kidd Letter, knew of the language of 14 C.F.R. 

§ 135.267(d) and knew or should have known that the focus of the FAA's prima facie case rested 

securely not on the actual flight but on the scheduled flight assignment and the 24 hour look 

back based on the planned completion of the assignment. However, the FAA failed to present 

any evidence in its case in chief that would support a prima facie case of violation of 14 C.F .R. § 

135.267(d) and the judge erred in determining that Trans North violated 14 C.F.R. § 135.267(d), 

that Trans North presented no evidence in mitigation (the ground ambulance delay) and that the 

FAA established its prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence. Regardless of the 

standard of review to be applied here the judge'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 of U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Richard C. Goodwin. 

2) Reversing the imposed $7,500.00 civil penalty. 

3) Finding that the FAA was not substantially justified in bring this action. 

4) For such other relief as is deemed just and appropriate. 

22 
Dated: November 10,2014 

Paul R. Borth 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

(84 7) 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 Brief of Respondent, 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 2Wl 000 

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 of November, 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 DOCKET NO. (2012-GL-03-0012) 

FDMS NO. (FAA-2013-0046) 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

TRANS NORTH AVIATION'S APPEAL BRIEF 

EXHIBITS 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL A VIA TlON ADMINISTRATION 

HAVING COME before the undersigned Notary duly authorized to administer oaths, ANDREW WOLF, 

did state under oath a!t.er being properly sworn, that the following statements are true and accurate. 

l. At all times herein J was a pilot v.1th Trans North Aviation, L TO. 

2. On November 27, 201.1, I flew with Mr. Quentin Levitte in our Chieftain N59773 from Wtsconsin to 

Indiana. 

3. On November 27, 2011, I was assigned to fly our ChieJl:ain N59773 ti·orn lndiana to Florida. 

4. 1 verbally confitmed with Quentin Levitte that the 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 on November 27, 2011. 

6. ram a commercial rated multi engine pilot and lam qualified to operate the 14 CFR Part 91 legs 

onlv. 

7. William Didier was assigned to fly as Pilot-In Command on the 14 CFR Part 135 legs fi·om Florida. 

8. Jl' called to testify as to the above-slated information, my testimony would be the 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 _L day 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 Passenger FllghtBriefing __ ~~-11 

PARI 91 LEGS ANDREW WOLF 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\07 108!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: JET AVlATlON-AVff i FBO Phone-#: 800-53-8-0724 

.i 

; 

I :f Cumont Weather 6•33J at WEST 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 

-,- i Destination ~n:formation: 

1 Time Zone: !::astern 

P<lQfl 1 nf 2 
7f7JB L36 rM 

._i Depart ccps; -WEST PALM BEACH, FL 02:GO PM!' Flighi Time 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"-'""-'-""'=' Current Weather at JESUP, 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

:I I 

Arrive 

JESUP-WAYNE 

~;rc·mc .• CHICAGO/PROSPECT 

COUI\JTY 

HGT, 07:05PM I 

Flight 

04:05 

Time 

~~~~~one#:847-537-1200 

FBO Name SIGNATURE !I 

· 

1 il___ ~~iiGAGO EXECUTIVE I 1 ~~ ._:·,_·--.~~~ ·~±~ CmrentWeafuer a! 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 

h ttps:: t I l~w8.fllpl<>rL rom jAw P a.s sB.r l efM u Ill OJ spl a v .ex~?,,= 1 
U.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. 20 l3 

CERTIFIED & REGULAR MAlL 

Mr. Ronald J. Schaberg 

President 

Trans North A \'iation LTD 

Eagle River Airport 

PO Box 1445 

Eagle Ri,er, Wl5452t 

Grsa! Lakes Region 

23'JO E. Devon Jwo:, 

D% Piaims. ll 6001 8 

Area Code 847.294.7057 

fiNAL NOTICE OF PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY 

On July 12, 2012. you were advised throHgh a Notice of Proposed Civil PenaJty that the fA/\ 

pro-posed Lo asst':ss a civil penalty against you in lhe amount of$ 15~000.00. 

After consideration of all 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, ''Trans North'!) no-,.y holds and at all tirncs 

me11tioned herein held Air CatTier Ce11lficate Number EBFA443D that authorizes Trans Nonh 

LO conduct operations under Parr 135 of the Fcdcrai A\·imion Regulation~-. 

o At all times mentioned herein, William Didier, holder of Airline Transpm1 Pilm 

C crtifieate Number 306763 L was authorized to conduct Trans North's commercial t1ight 

operations under both Part 91 and Part 135. 

3, On November 28~ 2011! Jvlr. Didier was the Pi1ot~in-Command of a 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 of Chicago Executi-ve A lrport~ \\/heeling, 

lllinois tKPWK). (rhe flight} 

EXHIBIT 

I 3 

~~~------·-- ----
iL The flight ended when N59773crashed short of Chicago Executive Airport in 

\Vhedlng~ Illinois. The cra .. sh resulted in three fatalities, including two passengers and N1r. 

Didier, 

S. Trans North assigJ.1ed ML Didier as P11ot~in-Command of the flight on November 28_ 

101 L which did not provide for at least 10 c-onsecuti \·e hours of rest Juring the ~4-hour period 

that preceded the plam1ed completion time of the f1ight assignment. 

By reason of the facts and circumstances described above, Trans \lorth ·violated the follcw.-ing 

F eder.1! Aviation Regulation: 

14 CFR Sectf{)n 13:5.267(d), \vhich states that each assignment under paragraph (b) l\f 

thls section must provide for at least I 0 con::\ecutive hours of rest during the 24-hour 

period that precedes the p1armed completion thne of the assignment 

In accordance with Tille 49 ofrhe United States Code, Section §46301 or ~463{)3 (49 U.S. C. 

§46301 or §46303). ·you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed for each \--Jolat]on of the 

regulations $1 1~000.00. Therefore, by reason of the foregoing 11cts and circumstances. we 

propose to assess a civil penalty in the amount of$ 7,500.00. 

Wirhin fitieen ( 15) days after yonr receipt of this Final Notice of Proposed Civi I Penaily, yon 

musr elect to either submit the full clviJ penalty amout1t of$7500.00 or request a formal 

hearing. If you fail to respond vvith one of these alternati\•es, an Order Assesslng CiYil 

Penally, requiring payment of the full amount of the proposed clviJ penalty~ 'i.Vill be issued. 

Should you elect to submit the civil penalty~ please mail or deliver a certified check or money 

order. payable to the Federal Aviation Administratl.on, to the Federal Aviation Administration. 

Oflice of Regional Counsel~ 2300 East Devon Avenue (AGL-7, Room 4 79)~ Des Plaines~ 

Illinois 600 l 8. Please include, on the certified check or money order, the FAA c:ase nwuber 

t20[2-GL-03-0012), which is located atthe top of this Order, 

In the alternative, you may pay your 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 will rhen be directed to enter your credit card or bank accounl debit infonnation, To use 

the bank account debit. you \Nill need your bank routing number, account number. and check 

nurnb-er. 
Shouid you elect to request a fon11al hearing, you must file a typev..Titten or legibly 

ha11dwritten request for 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 of your request for hearing to the undersigned atton1ey at the address 

provided in the previous paragraph. y-· our Iequest must be dated and signed, in accordance 

with Section 13.16 of the Federal AviatiDn Regulations (14 CTR. 13.16), a copy of which 

\Yas sent to you with the Notice of Proposed 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 

3 
U.S. Department 

of rransportation 

Federal AvialioiJ., 

Adminislrcti6l1 i'N 0 V 

Jason M. Kidd 

7201 North view Drive 

Brookfield, OH 44403 

Dear Mr. Kidd: 

Office of the Chief Counsel 800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

This is in response to your July 12, 2012letter posing a number of questions about 14 C.F .R. part 

135 operating rules. 

Flight. Dutv. and Rest Questions 

Question 1: Phone Calls During a Rest Period 

For your first question, you ask whether a certificate holder can require a flight crewmember to 

answer a phone call from the certificate holder during a rest period. 

During a rest period, a crewmember must be free from all restraint by the certificate holder. 1 If a 

crewmember is required to answer the phone by the certificate holder, then that crewmember is 

not free from all restraint. Thus, that flight crewmember is not on a valid rest period. 

Accordingly, a certificate holder cannot require a flight crewmember to answer a phone call 

during a rest period. 

We note, however, that the FAA has a "one phone call" policy that "generally allows a certificate 

holder to initiate one phone call during [a] crewmember's rest period."2 If the crewmember 

voluntarily chooses to answer this phone call, then the FAA does not view the call as disruptive 

and breaking the rest period.3 However, we emphasize that in order for the "one phone call" 

policy to apply, the crewmember cannot be required to answer the certificate holder's phone call, 

but must instead angwcr the phone on his own volition. 

Question 2: Effect of Delays 

For your next question, you pose the following scenario. A part 135 certificate holder operates 

unscheduled cargo and passenger operations pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 135.267(d). That certificate 

holder schedules its flightcrew to be in rest from 2200z until 0800z. The flightcrew is then 

scheduled to start a duty assignment that is supposed to begin at 0800z and end at 21 OOz. The 

duty assignment consists of three flight segments, each of which is scheduled to be 3 honrs long. 

1 Letter to Glenn Jimenez from Rebecca MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (June 9, 2011 ). 'Id. 

3 ld. 

1 
The first flight segment is scheduled to depart at 0930z; the second segment is scheduled to 

depart at 13 OOz; and the final segment is scheduled to depart at 1800z_ 

You then list a number of delays that could happen during the ilightcrew' s assigned duty day_ 

The delays specified in 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 

takeoff clearance from air traffic control. Each of these delays would result in the flightcrew 

finishing its duty day after 21 OOz_ You ask whether these delays would result in the llightcrew 

violating the rest requirement of§ 135.267(d) if that flightcrew finishes all three flight segments 

of its originally-scheduled duty day_ 

Subsection 13 5.267( d) requires that an assignment "must provide for at least 10 consecutive 

hours of rest during the 24-hour period that precedes the planned completion time of the 

assignment." In a previous interpretation, the FAA emphasized that "[t]he key to the 

applicability of§ l35.267(d) is in the final phrase 'planned completion time of the 

assignment '"4 ln that interpretation, the FAA concluded that if a crewmember is realistically 

scheduled to receive 10 hours of rest in a 24--hour period, then "if the original planning is upset 

for reasons beyond the control of the [certificate holder], the flight may nevertheless be 

conducted, even though crew duty time may extend beyond 14 hours" in a 24-hour period_ 5 

The FAA has previously stated that delays due to air traffic control, mechanical problems, or 

adverse weather could constitute circumstances that are beyond the control of the certificate 

holder6 In addition, the FAA has stated that delays due to late-arriving passengers or cargo 

could also constitute circumstances that are beyond the control of the certificate holder. 7 

Accordingly, the delays specified in your question (late-arriving passengers or cargo, low 

visibility, mechanical failure, and delayed takeoff clearance) could constitute circumstances that 

are beyond the control of the certificate holder that would permit the flightcrew to finish its duty 

day after the originally-planned 2100z completion time. However, we emphasize that in order 

for the circumstances-beyond-the-control-of-the-certificate-holder doctrine to apply, the original 

21 OOz completion time must have been realistically scheduled. 8 

Navigation and Chart Databases 

Questions 3 and 4: Pilot-Performed Updates on Avionic Devices 

Two questions you pose concern pilot performed updates to aeronautical information avionic 

devices_ First you ask whether the pilot of an aircraft operated under part 135 may update a GPS 

and/or FMS navigation database (such as the Collins FMS-3000, GNS500 series or Gl 000). 

Second, you ask whether the same pilot may update the charts displayed electronically on a 

Multifunction Display, such as the Jeppesen approach charts on the Collins Proline 2L Because 

4 Letter to Kevin Wilson from Donald P. Byrne, ABsistant Chief Counsel ofRegulations and Enforcement Divjsiun 

(Mar. 30, 1992) (quoting and emphasizing a portion of the regulatory text from§ 135.267(d))_ 5 lei See alsa Letter to Mr_ Ross from Donald P. Byrne (Aug. 30, 1993). 6 See Letter to William E. Banks, Jr. from Rebecca MacPherson (Mar. 18, 2009)(citing previous legal 

interpretations). 

7 See Letter to Kevin Wilson and Letter to Mr. Ross. 8 See Letter to Kevin w:i.lson. 

2 
both of these questions deal with a rule that the FAA is currently fmalizing, we cannot answer 

these questions at this time. Instead, we will answer these questions in a separate letter once the 

pertinent rulemaking has cone! uded. 

Weight and Balance Computations 

Question 5: Load Manifest Duplicate 

For your next question, you state that 14 C.F.R. § 135.63(c) requires you to prepare a load 

manifest before each takeoff. You ask whether a copy of this load manifest must be left with the 

certificate holder and/or departure airport personnel or whether it is sufficient to keep the only 

copy of the load marrifest on board the aircraft. 

Subsection 135 .63( c) requires the certificate holder of a multiengine aircraft to prepare a load 

manifest in duplicate containing information concerning the loading of the aircraft. Pursuant to 

§ 135.63(d), the pilot-in-command must carry the load manifest in the aircraft to its destination, 

and the ce1tificate holder must then keep the load manifest for at least 30 days at its principal 

operations base, or at another location used by the certificate holder and approved by the FAA. 

When § 135.63 was originally proposed it included a requirement that the pilot-in-command 

arrange at the takeoff airport for a copy of the load manifest to be retained in a suitable place at 

that airport.9 However, this part of the proposed rule was withdrawn in response to comments. 10 

As such, § 135.63 does not specify what must be done with the duplicate of the load manifest. 

While§ 135.63(d) does not specify how the duplicate copy of the load manifest should be 

handled, the FAA advises certificate holders to incorporate procedures in their operations' 

manuals for the disposition of the duplicate copy. 11 The certificate holder should work with its 

principal operations inspector to develop such procedures. This is because the duplicate copy of 

the load manifest could provide valuable information to investigators regarding passengers, 

crewmembers, and aircraft weight and balance if there is an accident and the load manifest 

carried on-board the aircraft is destroyed. 12 

Enforcement Action 

Question 6: Manual that Violates FAA Regulations 

For your next question, you pose a scenario in which an operator has submitted a required 

manual containing procedures that violate FAA regulations. You ask whether in that scenario the 

FAA would hold responsible: (l) the certificate holder for submitting and enforcing improper 

procedures; and (2) the crewmember for complying with company procedures that violate FAA 

regulations. 

'See 42 FR43490, 43515 (Aug. 29, 1977). 10 See 43 Fed. Reg. 46742,46764 (Oct. 10, 1978); Letter to Stanley L. Bernstein from Rebecca MacPherson (Nov. 

13, 2009); Letter to Nettie Dickerson, from Edward p, Faberman, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel (Nov. 5, 19&0). 

uSee Letter to Stan ely Bernstein. 12 Id 

3 
Anyone who violates FAA regulations could be subject to an enforcement action. In order to 

actually determine who would be held responsible by the FAA in your scenario, we would need 

additional details concerning the company procedures that violate FAA regulations. 

Operation Specifications C0 55 and A097 

You also ask a number of questions about operation specifications (OpSpecs) C055 and A097. 

Your questions about these OpSpecs are policy questions, and as such, we have referred them to 

the AFS-200 program office. 

We appreciate your patience and trust that the above responds to your concerns. If you need 

further assistance, please contact my staff at (202) 267-3073. This response was prepared by 

Viola Pando and Alex Zektser, Attorneys, Regulations Division of the Office of the Chief 

Counsel, and coordinated with the Air Transportation Division of Flight Standards Service. 

Sincerely, 

Rebecca 

~r~ B. MacPherson 

Assistant Chief Counsel for 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 GBlendar year_ 

(2.) 120 hours jn any calendar month. 

(3) 34. hbUTS ill a:U1,1' 7 conr;ecUtiVe days. 

(4) B houxs: du.rin.g any 24 consecutive 

hours for a flight crew consisting- of one pilot. 

C5) 8- J:lOurS betw-een req_ulred rest IJeriods fur a :!lig-ht crew consisting of ~-o 

pilots qualified under this part for the 

operation being conducted. 

(U) Exce:pt as provided in paragra:ph 

(b-) or tills 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 of rest for less 

than 8 ho-urs of schMuled ilighb 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 the foJlowi: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 B hours 

1f the ilight 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 of 9 hour::; 

if t.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 

crewrnember m_g,y not exce.ed-

(1) 8 haUl'S for a flight crew consisting of one :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.ssigned flig-ht t"ime occurs dwing; a.regu_-

larly assigned duty pedod of uo mo:re 

than 14 hours and--

(1) If this duty period is inrrnediately 

preceded by and followe-d by a rc;qn..ired 

rest pe1·1txl of at least 10 consecutive 

haurs of l'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) 8 J:wurs for a flight crew consistinsof one pilot; OI' 

(ii) 10 hmiTS for a flight crew consisting of two 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' EXHIBIT 
Federal Aviation Administration, 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 crewmember has 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:~:·ewm.enlber (sucll as adverse weather nonditior:;_s), iil:w,t flight crewmem.ber mnst 

have a rest- period before being assigned 

or accepting an assignment for flight 

t'ime or at least-

(1) ll eonsecutive h01.1rs of :rest if the 

flight time. limitation is ex-ceeded by 

:::tct more tb&n 3il n:tiuu.tee; 

(2) 12 consecutive hou.rs of rest if the 

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 at leastc 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· and fouFpil ot 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 hours in 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) 

of this section; 

(5) Adequate sleeplng facilities on the 

aiTcraft for the relief pilot; 

(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 followiug~ 

(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,y period 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 in Bach 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 Chief Pilot 

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 of Operacions of Trans Nmih 

Part !35 flight tl-om Jessup-Wayne County Airport Georgia 

(KJES), with an intended destination of Chicago 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, 20 lJ 

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 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

The fAA alleged and Trans North adn1itted that at all times n1entioned herein~ 

\rVilliam Didier, holder of Airl1ne Tran~port Pilot Certificate Nurnber 3067631. ,vva.s 

amhorized to conduct Trans Nmil1s commercial tligbt operations under both Part91 and 

Part !35. 

D. Burden of Proof: 

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) of this section must 

provide for at 1e.ast 10 consecutive hours of rest during the 

24-hour period that precedes the planned completion time 

of the assigm1Knt 

F. Sm11111ary of Facts: 

l. Agencv~ s rec~~ation off acts: 

The Complaint alleged that on November 28, 201 1, Bill Didier (hereinafter 

ccDidier~ ) \Vas the Pilot-in-Cornmand (here1nafter ''PlC") of a Piper, PA-J l-3 50. N59773, 

on a Pa1t 135 flight operated by Trans North :tl:·on1 Jessup-\V2yne County Airport, 

Georgia (KJES), with an intended destination of Chicago Execmive Airport Wheeling, 

Illinois (KP\VK) (hereinatter "the tlighC"i. 
The Hight ended when N59773 crashed short of Chicago Executive Airport in 

Wheeling, [liinois. Tbe crash resulted in three fatalities, inciuding two passengers and 

D1diec 

Trans North assigned Didier as PilOT-in-Command of lhe J1ight on November 28, 

201 1. which did not provide for at least iII consecutive hours of rest during the 24-hour 

period that preceding the planned completion time of the flight assignment. 

l Respondent's rec.it_ation of FacLs: 

Trans North denied it assigned Didier as Pilot-in-Command of the Hight on 

Novcn1ber 2~L 201l, Yvhich did not provide for at least 10 consecutive hour~ of rest 

during the 24-hour period that preceding the planned completion time of the tlight 

assigmnenL, 

Respondents denied all allegations of violation of 14 CFR Section i 35.267(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 behalf of the Federal Aviation 

Ach11'ini strati on. 

Charles R. Barnett, Esq. and Paul R. Borth, !:'sq. of Barnett & Borth. LLC. 

appeared on behalf of Trans North. 

H. Summary of Evidence: 

Agency Exh1b1ts 5, 9. 1 L 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 the transcript 

as not recel,/ed. 

1. S un1n1ary 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 "A TP") and a flight 

Instructor certificate (hereinafter ''FI") that had the rmings of single 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() 1 1. he recei>ied a call from Trans North: s Chief Pilot. Kenneth Fox (herelnaftcr 

'Toxc':L notify-ing ivierrill that Lhere had been a fatal accident of their Piper Chieftain. 

The accident occurred in Pal waukee which was in the Illinois District of DuPage. fox 

asked to meet with Merrill later on November 28,20\1 after meeting with I he DuPage 

Investigators at the 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 

of Operations (hereinafter '"Schaberg"') of Trans 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 Chief Pilot 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/ oif and 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 1352 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 of Operations.3 - The docwnents \vere c.urrent at the ti1ne of the -

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_ I g 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 

of the NOC. As part of his 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 of the 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 

Standard Time !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 of Chicago 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 of the 

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 of fuel. 

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. L 2(J. 
Boerman patiicipat.ed in intervie-rvs \Vith Schaberg and \\.,-oa*· on site_ then, 

Maynard Blodgett (hereinafw· "BlodgetCl and memorialized the substance of the 

intervie\VS. 

Blodgett's recollection of the Hight was that Didier had flown all four legs of the .~· h' 1(1 rllg ~t.- · 

Boerman found 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 

pcno ' d' , b d ase on ' 

ner e1,ra I uat1on ' o f' t1e l ev1 'd ence. i I B oerman·s ' ana l JiSlS ' \Vas: 

... \iVhen you are to look back because it1

S a revolving, you 

kno\\'_ 24 hours. So, you have w look back to see that 

there's ten hours of rest. 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. 

__ . that1

s \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 if you 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 ofrest because 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_ if you 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 of time. 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. 

6 
The only piece of paper that we had was the lFR flight 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, if you 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 off would 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 on the 

ground, you're going to exceed your rest period ... 

-,vhen you\e unde-r the obligm1on of the air carrier_ thaes 

not considered rest. .. 

. ,Bed-head (sic, should be "dead head") is not considered 

rest. He isn1

t (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'olf was hired to be second in command in 135 t1ights, but had not recejved 

all of the 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 tis ted 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, Didier feathered 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 on her itP/estigation, Boerman reached the following conclusions: 

That there \ven: vioiations of the 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 of the 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 

7 
in 0200. So. there's a violation of the ten consecmive hours c• • d '1 01 rest peno-. ·-

Violf told Boennan lhe patient for the flight was late, according to infommtion she 

developed during the course of her 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 you7re 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 Wolf said he did not 1111 out any paperwork for the flights 

including the manifest. 16 

Boennan discussed her understanding of Flight 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 

if the Hight should go ()r not ... 

. . .l don't think a pilot should wony about lhelr passengers 

to determine -if they 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. 1 6:2. I. 2 

Tr. p. 1 5S. 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 period time .. 

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

day~ thal 1

S fourteen hours of rest prior to starting that 

portion of the hip . 

. . . Because legal to start is nollegal to finish n ±1lght. And 

based on mv thirteen years of doing night and duty and 20 

years of tlying that you knovv, if you1

re -~ dovv<n, you can 

pre\-'cnt it fi'om departing. ,il~nd no mQtter \vhat it is. if you 

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. \Volf v.vas assigned as a pilot 

c:on1111and for the Part 91 i1ight on November 28th., 20 ll. 

There \.vas no wTitten docurnent.ation of assignn1ent, just 

verbaL \Jormal company procedures for assignments cmne 

from a phone call by Ron, the director of operations, 

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 if there is a question 

they phone Ron .. ~~ 

:2. Respondent's ca~c 

Schaberg testified he \Vas the owner and President of Trans 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 of the 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, L 4 TO p.103, L 4. 

: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 l 030, tly to TZome, GA .. 

tOr refueling and anive 1n \ 1

/est Pall11. Beach at 5:00p.m. The pilots vv·ere to go off duty 

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"}. Didier had 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 off at 

approximately 1100 hours. Didier had 3 mechanical problem and had to land in 

Cra~rvilJrd~ Indiana. Based on the landing in Indiana, Schaberg revised the original flight 

plan. 2

:' 

Due t.o the maintenance problem in lndiana, Didier went off duty m 1600 hours. 

Quentin mrci Wolft1ew a new aircraft to lndiana to contimuo the t1ight The plan was for 

\Vcol f to he the PIC on the Pan 91 ±light to Florida. then have Didier be the PIC on the 

Pa1i 135 return tlight back to 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 should have 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 win deY'·'/ for fueling in Jessup, 

(Jeorgia" at~~l then a 25 minute off duly 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 approximately thre.e (3) hours been use 

lhe an1bulance tnmsponing the patient got 1ost on the way to the airport. 26 

J. Analysis of facts: 

Schaberg scheduled the flight to depmi: Oshkosh, WL at 1 030, fly to Rome. G;L 

for Jeflwling and mTive i:c. \\lest Paln-1 Beach at 5:00 p.n1. Tt1e pilots \Vere to go off duty 

at 1730 Central Time. At 1030 hours the next clay the pilots 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 off at 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. 

lO 
Due to the maintenance proble111 in Indiana, Didier wem off duty at 1600 hours. 

Quentin and "~::Volfflevv' a ne~w aircraft to Indiana to continue the ±1ight. The plan \-vas for 

Wolf to be the PIC on the Pan 91 flighr to Florida, then have Didier be the 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 completed his flight by 1930 homs in Chicago. 

Didier flew all four legs of the flight. 

~llJe patient \'-/as late arriving at the \Vest Palm Be<1ch, FL. airport. 

The late arriving patient resulted in a late departure from \Vest Paln1 Beach, FL. 

Airport. 

Didier could not complete H1ghl without going into his resl period. 

K. Conclusions: 

Didier could 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 assigned flight 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 of one 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) of this section rnust provide: for at least 

10 consecutiYc hours of rest during the 24-hour period that precedes tlle plan11ed 

completion time: of the assignrnent. 

5U.S.C. Section 5123, et seq. 

Findings of Fact: 

After consideration andre-vic\\' of all the C\'identiaQ ±acts, te~tin1ony and 

evidence lJereiiL by a preponderance of Lhe evidence SlEmdard, \-ve mal\.e the tbllo\ving_ 

finding:..: 

J l 
The 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 off duty 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 

off at approximatelY 1 100 hours. 

Didier went off duty 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 

Schaberg becan1e 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. 

Schabem ~ had the resnonsibilitv to ensure that tl1e JliQht r ~ Y 

could be LlGCOinplished in a safe manner pursu2Jlt lo the 

regulations. 

12 
..\!. Conc1usions of Law: 

Trans >Jorth violated 14 CFR Section l35.267id). which states that each 

assignment under paragraph (b) of this section must pro-vide for at least l 0 consecuti've 

hours of rest during the 24-hour period that precedes the planned completion 1in1c of the 

assignment. 

0. Analysis of Facts and Conclusions of!,_.fa"v 

holder. 

I ·End all \Nitnesses testi±lc.d truthfully and were 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 of all 

direct employees and agents of the 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 Exhibit 4. page 1 of 5). 

The Certificate holder failed to do so. 

I find the circumstances herein were not beyond the control of the certificate 

I End the original and revised cmupletion tin1es \Nere not realistically scheduJed. 

I find the evidentiary' facts, by a preponderance of the evidence standard. the FAA 

proved by a preponderance oftbe evidence that the 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 Brief he 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) of this section must provlUe for at lea:0: 

10 consecutive hours of rest during the 24-hour period that precedes the 

plam1ed completion tin1e of the assignment; and 
3. Trans Nmih 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 A vjation Adn1inistration 

800 Independence Av~-nue: S.\V. 

\"'A/ashington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 000 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 of the Regional CounseL Great Lakes Region 

Federal A-,. .. iatlon Adn1lrristration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

TEL: 847-294-7313 

FAX: 84 7-294-7498 

Tbe Honorab1e Richard C. GoodVi .. -in. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of:" Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Departmem ofTransponation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Anornev-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. P !\.A-2013-0046 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Sen: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=eriun Me.dlcnl Resplltt!ie 

.Phnne 

'MEDICAL NECESSITY 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 and aphrm m tkiair any 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,,""'"" .asijistanre to admims~oxygen on rautei W~tiJAA ¢::mlshl betnw) 

fflR•muli«,. suotiunihg /iliway control en root{1; rP!c1u!e (gq,ifain beloJ!'i 

o Requires t~inlil o F~~ l:&k 

Zfru»l<offhllin~ out of a whee!chaif h1mot1on d11• to: (PI<sse wlain M~w) 

li:">llf~on l!'rec:"mo•m duo to: fPI•M• Wll•lll hluw) 

0 PrtllOI>oili<il),,m," flittt'pfo¥cillii'traUBp0rt~y:wheeloh~;ei•~m- ~~a!' tpl@ a-g¢gm bel'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 ls hereby 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