n/22/201 1 15:3G FAX 2024935U 2 FAA - OMS 0001/03 7 

TodJC. Hmerson. ^8]75 

444 Syuih River Road 

St. George, Uiah. 84790 

Telephone: (435)634-3530 

facsimile; ('435)634-3505 

Emiii): remerson@skyvvcsi.com 

- And -

Michael L. Dwork'in #64047 

465 California Street, Suite 210 

San Franijisco, CLilitbmia94104 

'lelephonc: (415)421-02500 

Facsimile; (415)421-2560 

Email: lLiw(aiavialex.com 

Auomeys for SkyWcsl Airlines, Inc. 

'iERARTMtMT Of 

.liAMSPORTATlON 

X\( n OPERATIONS 

i^l KuV 23 A SUO RECE/VED 

^OV ; 5 20V 

"EARiNG DOCKET 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFIC E OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

[n the Maner of: 

SkvWesi Airlines, Inc. 

FAA Case Nos. 2011NM060010 and 

2011NM060011 

DMS Nos. 2011 -0486 and 2011-0485 

(Cunsoljdaied) 

SKYWEST AIRIJNES, INC-'S 

RESPONSE ANT> OBJECTIONS TO 

COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR 

DECISION 

Judge: TTie Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

TO THE DEPARTMEMT OF TRANSPORTATION, THE HONORABLF 

RJCl IARD C. GOODWIN, ADMINISTRATIVR LAW JUDGE, AND TO THE 

ADMINIS TKATOR FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AND HIS 

ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; 

Respondent, SkyWest Airlines, Inc. (herein "SKYWRST"). hereby 

responds and objects to Complainani's Motion for Decision as follows: 
11/22/201 1 15 3G FAX 2024935142 FAA - DMS @]002/.037 

INTRODUCTION 

Complainant has filed a Motion for Decision as to DMS No. 2011-04S6 (FAA 

Case No. 2011NM060010)/ arguing that no genuine issues of material fact exi.>t. 

SKYWEST contends this is not so and therefore objects to Complainant's Motion as iiel 

forih below. 

PROCEDURAL BACKGKOt'ND 

On June 16, 201!, Complainanl filed its Complaint alleging that SKYWT^ST 

violated FAR.S 119.5(e) and (1,K and 121.693 during one llieht from Denver International 

Airport to Y'ampa Valley Airpon on November 17, 2010. 

On July 15. 2011, Respondent answered the Complaint admitting several factual 

allegations. Hov/ever. Respondent denied facaial altegaiion number 13, all allegations of 

regulatory violation and all allegations concerning the appropriateness of the civil 

pcnalt}'. Hence, they remain ai issue 

Additionally, an Amended Answer was filed on October 11, 201 [^ scning forth 

siy separate and distinct affirmative defenses, specifically: 

J. The sancxion sou^^hi by Complainant is unwajranred by ihe iacts, safet>' in 

commerce and the public interest and is not only excessive, but, far exceeds 

policy, precedent and Complainant's own Sanction Guidance Table. Furlhcn the 

sanction is compounded, in violation oJ'ihe Complainant's own Sanction 

Guidance Table. 

2. The Complainant's ca.se, is unwarranted and without basis or jurisdiction in law or 

fact. 

3. The complained of aircraft weight differentials, ifany, were nominal at best and 

had absolutely no effect on aircraft center of gravity, performance, performance 

computations or safety. 

4. SKYWES f has proaciively mitigated any and all damage such that this action is 

unwarranted by policy or the need for safely. Specifically, SKYWEST has: 

' Complainanl has not addressed DMS Nos. 2011-0485 (FAA Cast; No, 2011NM0600I l)in ihi.s 

The Amended Answer admitted ihc same facts and additionally denied factual allegation 

number 13, the tillcgaiions of regulatory violation and the appropriaicness of ihe civil penalty. 

2 

FAA CaacNos. 20HNM060010 and 201INM060011 

SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S RESI*ONSE AND OBJECTIQ.NS 

TO ADMINISTkATORS MOTION FOR DECISION 
n/22/201 1 15 36 FAX 2024935142. FAA - DMS @]003/037 

a. Counseled all pursonncl involved in the loading and counting of the bags 

following each of the alleged incidents;-' 

b. Issued SKYWEST Customer Service Training Bulletin 2010-14, 

Designated Loading Agent Responsibilities, directed at providing 

additional training in avoiding bag count discrepancies; 

c. Is.sued SK^^WEST Customer Ser\'ice Training Bulletin 2010-04, Aircraft 

Loading Procedures, directed at providing additional training in avoiding 

bag count discrepancies; 

d. Updated and revised the. aircraft loading procedures set forth in its Station 

Operations Manual SP 5500 to specifically address said problems and 

ensure future compliance; 

c. Implemented initiatives to ensure all stations are physically staffed to 

allow one agent to directly account for the aircraft loading proce.s.'; on each 

SKYWEST flight, to ensure accurate physical baggage counts, cargo 

weighty, and weight and balance communication with flight deck crews; 

f Performed internal evaluations ol'cargo load repotting and determined that 

compliance had been achieved. 

5. The average weight programs contemplated by AC 120-278 fully acknowledge 

that the use of actual baggage and passenger weights are impracticaL and by their 

very nature, permit discrepancies between what is contained in the load manifest 

and the actual weight of the aircraft. 

6. Any and all discrepitncics upon which these actions are based arc the product of 

simple human iuithmetic error and in no way are indicative of SKY WES I's 

regulatory compliance disposition as all relevant employees vvere adequately 

trained and qualified and have since received additional training and internal 

audits have shown adequate compliance levels has been reached. 

7. SKYWEST has taken all necessary corrective actions to avoid repeated mishaps 

such that additional penalties are redundant and will not result in any increase in 

safet>\ 

all of which constitute material facts. 

UNDISPUTED FACIS 

The statement of''undisputed" facts set forth in Complainant's motion contains a 

glaring inaccuracy or misstatement. 

The .Al.J in The Maner of Seven j Point & Wallpaper Co., FAA Order No. 2001-(3 (May 16. 

2001) believed that training consiiujled a miiigating factor. 

3 

FAA Case Nos. 2011 NM060010 and 201INM060011 

SKYWEST .AIRLINES, INC.'S RESPOiNSH AND OB.IECTIONS 

TO ADMINISTRATOR'S MOTIO.N FOR DEC\S\Or< 
11/22/201 1 15.37 FAX 2024935142 FAA " DMS 12)004/037 

While SKYWEST has admitted the factual allegations oonlamcd in paragraphs 1 

through 12 of the Complaint, and that its weight and balance ("W&B") Manual states: 

ZlA WARNING - INACCURATE tOADlNG, REPORTING, OR 

FAILURE TO REPOBT INFORMATION COULD CAUSE ISSUES 

WITH AIRCRAFT PERPORMANCE AND HANDLING. RESULTING 

IN THE ENCANGERMEN T OF HuWAN LIFE 

SKYWEST has never admitted, and contiiutes to dispute, that the baggage miscount at 

question was critical lo flight safety. Ihe language on this warning specifically states 

"COin.D CAUSE", not "WTLL CAUSE". 

.As further di.scas.-^ed herein, any error in the subject load manifest calculations 

would hiive been in the range of 60 - 120 pounds, and as such, there was no change in 

aircraft performiince." Any changes in aircraft center of gravity were nearly negligible, 

and the subject aircraft was substantially under the maximum takeoff weight for the 

runway m use." 

SKYWLSf clearly set forth these findings in the SkyWest Airlines Weight and 

Balance Analysis, which SKYWLSf provided to Complainant on October n , 2011 

(which Complainant failed to mention or acknowledge in its Motion," yet readily 

admitted in its Discovery Response).^ 

Moreover, Complainanl has conceded "differences between the actual weight ol 

passengers and bags and the average vveight of passengers and-bags can occur when using 

average wcighis."'' Safety of llighi was maintained during the subject flights as all 

operations clearly fell within the manufacturer's Operating envelope. 

^ Following the tiling of this Motion for Decision, Complainant served its First Kesponst lo 

Respondent's First Request for Pioduction of Document.'! and Othei Di.scovery wherein 

Complainanl admitted that any change in aircraft performance was ''nearly negligible". Response 

to RoquCM for Admis.sion No. 3.5, page 7. Relcvaiu poriicns of the discover)' response are 

attached hereto a.s lixhibit 'A'. 

fho aircratV<i maximum gro';s takeoff wcighi was 66,5R2 pounds. 

Sky Wwi Ail-lines Weight and Balance Analysis is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 

^ F.xhihit "A''. 

^ FA A Advisory Circuhif 120-27, Chapter 2, .Section 1.200(a) 

FAA Case Nos. 2011NM0600 J 0 and 2011NM060011 

SKYWEST AlRLtNES. INC.'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS 

TO ADMINISTRATOR'S MOTION FOR DECISION 
n/22/201 1 15.37 FAX 2024935142 FAA - DMS @]005/037 

ARGUMENT 

1. Standard for Decision 

a. Rules uf Practice 

As set forth in The flatter of William A. Luker, Jr., FAA Docket No. 

CP09SW0008 (May 13, 2010), a motion for decision under 14 CFR Section 13.218(0(5) 

is comparable to a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56(c) of the federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure ('FRCP). The standard for deciding a summary judgment motion 

under the FRCP is governed by the Supreme Court's opinion m Celoiex Corp. v. Can-err, 

477U.S.317(I9S6): 

In our view the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summar.' 

judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who 

fails to make a showing .•sufficient to establish the existence of an element 

essential to that pany's case, and on which that part)' will bear the burden o(" proof 

at trial. In such a situation, there can be "no genuine issue as to any material fact." 

since a complete failure of proof concerning an essenticil element uf the 

nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. 

C)n a motion for sunimar}'judgment, all evidence Lmd int'orcnces are to be viewed 

in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. TTowcvcr, "if the moving party's 

docuincritaty presentation demonstrates that its version of the facts entitles it to judgment 

iis it mailer of law, the Celorex n.ile requires the party opposing the motion to come 

forward with documents (other than the pleading.s) supporting a version of the facts that 

wdLild preclude the grant of suinmaiy judgment." As can clearly be scon herein. 

SKYWEST has done this. 

Pursuant to 1A CFR 13.218(0(5), Motion for decision, the administrative law 

judge shall grant a party's motion only if Ihe pleadings, depositions, answers to 

interrogatories, admissions, matters that the administrative law judge has officially 

noticed, or evidence inaoduced during the hearing show that there is no genuine i.ssue of 

material fact and the party making the motion is entitled to a decision as a matter of law. 

Here, the Complainant has attempted to cite: 

F.xhibit 1 - Load Manifest Procedures, from SkyWest W&B Manual; 

5 

FAA Case Nos. 201 INMOeOOlOand 20I1NM060011 

SKVWTST AIRLINES, INC.'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS 

TO ADMINISTRATOR'S MOTION FOR DECrSIOV 
11/22/2011 15:37 FAX 2024935142 FAA - OMS @i00G/037 

E.Khibit 4 - Airline Quanerly Financial Review (4'^ Quarter 2010), page 

27; 

L\hibit5-SkyWV>st Airlines, 2010 Annual Report, pages 17 and 101; 

R.vhibit 6 - FAA Weight and Balance Handbook, FAA-II-8058-1 A, 

Chapter L Pages 1-4; and 

Rxhibit 7 Advisor)' Circular 120-27H. Pages ii, 1, 5; Appendix 1. Page 1. 

None of these exhibits have as yet been entered or admitted into the record or otherwise 

officially noticed, and as such, exhibits 1, 4. 5, 6 and 7 must be su-icken and cannot be 

considered in this motion. 

In short, this motion for decision is premature as there arc genuine issues of 

material fact. 

b. Administrative Law Judge is Not Bound by Choice of Sanction 

/\n Administrative Law Judge (AL.I) is not statutorily bound to follow Complainant's 

choice of sanctiun. ALJ's make decisions independently, and the ALJ determines 

whether a civil penalty is to be assessed^ and if so, in what amount. The Complainant has 

chosen lo apply an excessive civil penalty conlrar)' to its own guidelines. This does not, 

in any way, increase or otherwise promote safety in air transportation 

While SKYWEST readily admitted that on November 17, 2010 one baggage handler 

employed by a third part)' accidentally, inadvertently and understandably miscounted two 

bags, Complainant argues that the only acceptable adequate compliance level i.s 100% 

and that SKYWEST fell shon of that standard. 

Such an argument is not only draconian, but naive. Baggage handlers arc humans. 

Humane mai-LO mistakes. Complainant argues that SKYWEST's argument that the 

incident was a simple mistake of arithmetic is incredulous because counting is "a skill 

'* NL Indit-Uries. Inc. v. DepartincJit vf'I'ransponaiion, 901 F.2d 141 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Federal 

Aviarion Adminisir.irion v Texas Army Nuiional Guard, FAA Docket No. CP09SO00U (2011 

F.^A Lexis 2-16); federal Avimion Admi>itsrrarion v. Federal Fxpnfw, Inc., F.^A Docket No. 

CP09NM0010 (March 29, 2011). 

6 

FAA Case Nos. 201 lNVt0600IO and 20IINMO6OO11 

SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS 

TO ADMIMS I'RATORS MOTION FOR DECISION 
11/22/201 1 15:37 FAX 2024935142 FAA - OMS 01007/037 

mastered by most Kindergartners".^*' Considering that on the same page as this 

'Kindergarten mastery' argument, Counsel for Complainant, who has one or more 

advanced academic degrees, misspelled "Texas"", one would believe the Complainant 

would understand that Lin inadvertent mistake should not be punished so harshly. 

2. Sunction 

a. Standard 

Complainant correcily states in its Motion for Decision that there are several' 

factors in determining the applicable sanction in each certain instance, specifically: 

- Nature and circumstances of the violation; 

- Extent and gravity uf the violation, 

Degree of culpabihly; 

History of prior violations; 

Ability to pay the civil penalty; 

Effect on the person's ability to stay in business; and 

Other matters as justice may require, 

citing In rhe Marier ofWarbelow s Air Ventures, Inc. FA A Order No. 2000-3 (February 

3. 2000). Complainanl, however, i.-: misguided in relying solely on IVarhelow as it does 

not list every possible mitigating factor.'^ 

Notwithstanding SKYWEST's ability to pay ihc civil penalty and the minimal, il" 

any, effect on SKYWES I's ability to remain in business, the relevant JVarbelow and 

Sanction Guidance factors demand mitigation against and reduction of Complainant's 

outrageously excessive proposed civil penalty. 

Motion for Decision, Page 8, lines 42- 47. 

" Motion for Decision, Pag« S, fine 3 "...FAA v, Teas Army National Gu^ird...." 

• Addiiionaliy, Complainanl rniscounted in its Motion Tor Decision. How Complainant, who h;i.s 

miscounted The exact number of sanction determining factors, can criticize SKYWEST for its 

rrtmp pcrsonriurs iiiiscounting bags, defies the imagination. Sec Footnote 13, inf-ci. 

' Sec Cnniplainant's Motion, fuoinoxe 9, listing the iwi;ivo Factors tlint must be considered by 

Complainanl (although Complainant has miscounted them as thirteen). 

7 

FAA Ca.seNos.20]INM06001U and 201 INM0600! I 

SKrS'WEST AIKLINICS, INC.'S RESPONSE AND OB.IECTIONS 

TO ADMINISTRATOR'S MOTION FOR DECISION 
11/22/201 1 15:37 FAX 2024935M 2 FA,*^ - OMS 12)008/037 

The extent and i^ravitv of the violation are low. As clearly shown in the attached 

W^eight and Balance Analysis (Pvhibit B). two miscounted bags did not create a safety of 

llight issue, fhe average weight program ftilly contemplates that the use of actual 

baggage and passenger weights are impractical, and by their very nature, permit some 

discrepancy between what is contained in the load manifest and the actual weight of the 

aircraft. 

Second, the complained of act was relatively isolated and was in fact contrary to 

company manuals, procedures and training. ITiis case arises solely from a simple human 

arithmetic error (i.e., a failure of ground personnel to accurately count 2 checked bags on 

a flight carrying 65 persons and 75 bags) and is in no way indicative of SKYWF.ST's 

regulatory compliance disposition. All employees were adequately trained and qualified. 

Moreover, they have since received additional training and subsequent company 

conducted imernal audits have sho^\"n compliance. 

Third, the personnel responsible for the miscount, while not direct employees of 

SKYWFST (ihcy were employees of United Airiines, SKYWLST's code-sharing 

parmer) did not have a history of such mistakes in the past. All personnel were 

subsequently counseled and retrained. While it may have been SKYWTiST's third such 

case in almost a two-year period,'^ it was a simple arithmetic mistake made by one 

employee and wholly unrelated to any previous similar mistake by different baggage 

handlers working different flights from different stations. 

Complainanl has conveniently ignored mentioning consideration of the numerous 

and substantial corrective actions taken by SKYWEST. l"his is curious because in it.s 

motion, Complainant specifically cited In ihe Matter ofStebhim Aviation, F/^A Order 

No. 2006-3 (February 7, 2006) wherein the ALJ explicitly reduced the proposed civil 

penally reasoning thai the F.'VA had not considered Slebbins' 'corrcciivc aciioiV". 

Here, Complainant failed to mention or even acknowledge that SKYWLS'f: 

' SKYWEST produced the trr^ining bulletin and internal audits to Complainanl in response to 

iequesi,<; for discoveiy. It is unknown why Complairtant failed to mention these miligaiion frtctor,^ 

in its Motion. 

Complainant's Motion for Decision, Pago 12. Section (g), cites two caseSj both served 

September 28. 2009. 

8 

FAACHsu-Nos.20]INM060010and201lMM06001 I 

SKVWFST AfRLrNES, INC.'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS 

TO ADMINISTRATOR'S MOTION FOR DECISION 
11/22/201 1 153 7 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS @|009/037 

a) Counseled all personnel involved in the loading and counting of the bags 

following each of the alleged incidents; 

b) Issued SKYWEST Customer Service Training Bulletin 2010-14, Designated 

Loading Agent Responsibilities, directed at providing additional training in 

avoiding bag count discrepancies; 

c) Issued SKYWbST Customer Semce Training Bulletin 2010-04, Aircrafl Loading 

Procedures, directed at providing additional training in avoiding bag count 

discrepcincies; 

d) Updated and revised the aircraft loading procedures sei forth in its Station 

Operations Manual SF 5500 to specifically address said problems and ensure 

future compliance; 

e) Implemented initiatives to ensure all stations are physically staffed to allow one 

agent to directly account for the aircraft loading process on each SKYWEST 

flight, to ensure accurate physical baggage counts, cargo weights, and weight and 

balance communication with flight deck crews; and 

f) Performed internal evaluations of cargo load reporting and determined that 

compliance had been achieved, 

SKYWEST Amended Answer. Pages 12-13."' 

SKYWEST respectfully submits that if there are any additional steps thai could 

possibly be taken to ensure that the baggage handlers avoid simple human arithmetic 

errors, they arc unknown to noi only SKYWFS'1\ hut probably to any other air carrier 

operating today. 

ALJ S are noi agency personnel and therefore are not expressly required by the 

provisions of FAA Order No. 2150.3A to follow its guidance'^ and as Complainant stated 

" SKYWEST Production of Documents, provided to Complainant on October 1 1, 2011, included 

all the relevant training bulletins, updated loading procedure.-;, internal evuluaiions and the 

SKYWEST Weight ;ind Balance Analysis for the subject flight. 

" /n (he Mutter of Fohom \s .-Xir Service, inc.. 1-AA Order No. 2008-1 1 (Nctvcmlier 6. 2008); //) 

the Matter uf No»-ihwesi Airlines, Inc., FAA Order No. 90-37 (November 7, 1 990). 

9 

FAA Case Nos 201INM060010 and 201 ]NM0600)1 

SKVWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS 

TO ADMINISTRATOR'S MOTION FOR DECIS/ON 
11/22/2011 15.38 FAX 2024935U2 FAA - OMS ^1010/037 

in its motion, the ''Administrator has the burden of justiiying amount sought" 14 CFR 

Section 13.244(a).'^ 

Complainant has failed 10 explain how an exorbitant civil penalty will further 

promote air transportation safety or hint at how it ased its sanction guidance to arrive at 

such an amount when SKYWEST (i) has already taken every step possible lo ensure its 

employees and contractors know the seriousness of the issues involved, (ii) has retrained 

not only the handler responsible for inputting the baggage count on the cargo load 

reports, but has trained all of its baggage handlers system wide and (iii) has conducted 

internal audits to ensure the effectives of its corrective action! 

Although we concede that this one case will not undermine SKYW^EST's business, 

there is a potential for adverse elfecl when one considers the tens of thousands of dollars 

at stake over two niiscounicd bags when SKYWEST is currently carrying over one 

hundred thousands (100,000) bags per day on over a thousand seven hundred (1.700) 

daily flights.''^ If Complainant's proposed penalty is allowed to stand and such precedent 

is created. SKYWEST alone could be threatened wiili daily penalties in the millions over 

a mistake with absolutely no bearing on safety. 

'" "Complainant musijustify to the law iudgo the amouni of the civil penalty ii seeks." In (he 

Matter ofWarheloM' S Air Ventures. Inc., I-'AA Order "Ko. 2000-3 (February 3. 2000)(SRF In (he 

Matter o f LiLxemburg. FAA Order Mo. 1994-18(Junc 22, 1994)). 

'" Cfilciilated average number ofdaily Highn and hags handled by SKYWEST; 

2009 Flights Flown = 1.563 Average/Day 

2010 Flights Flown = L714 Average/Day 

2011 Flights Flown - YTD 1,710 Average/Day 

2009 Bags Handled = 87,678 Average/Day 

2010 ^A'^^ Handled = 09,757 Averaee/Day 

201 I YI D Bags Handled = 101.997"Average/Day 

10 

FAA CjicNos. :011NM0600IOand201INM0600II 

SKVWEST AIRLLNES. INC.'S RESPONSK AND OBJECTIONS 

TO ADMINISTRATORS MOTION FOR DECISION 
n/22/201 1 153 8 FAX 2024935142 FAA - OMS 01011/037 

3. Al'llrmativc Defenses 

As stated in The Matter ofSrsbbin.\ Aviation, Inc., F.\A Order No. 2006-3 (Februao' 

7, 2006)-": 

It has been held many times that it is inappropriate in take a mathematical, formulaic 

approach of simply multiplying the number of violations by a set dollar amount.' Far 

more important in determining the appropriate sanction is the totality for the 

circumstances. This includes the nature, extern, and gravit>' of the violations, the 

violator's degree of culpabiiit)', hi.story of prior violations, financial situation, as well 

as any other matters that justice requires. 

a. Multiplicity - 14 CFR 1 19.5(R) and (1) regulate the same act and 

cannot be compounded. '* 

In it attempt to a.ssess multiple civil penalties for the same alleged act of operating 

a single air carrier flight with two unaccounted bags, Complainant argues that FAR' S 

119.5(g) and 119.5(1) are sufflcienily dillcrcnt because (g) governs a flight by an air 

carrier and (I) governs an aircraft operated under Part 121 (air carrier). This is a circular 

'" Quoting In the Matter of Luxembur,^, FAA Order No. 1994-28 C.lune 22. 1994Xciling In (he 

Matter ofNonhwesf Airlines, FAA Order No. 1990-37 (November 1, 1990)). 

'' In the Matter of Interstate Chemical Company, FAA Order No. 2002-29 (December 2, 2002). 

"" Complainant stated that in limiting the number ol'violations for a single act governed by 

multiple F.A.R'i the question is whether each violation requires proof of a fact the other dues not. 

citing Ball V. U.S.. 470 U.S. 856 (1985) and Dlockhurger v. U.S. 234 US. 299 

(l932)(C.omplainant additionally chcd Matier of Walsh, 2008 WL 92662009 (March 31, 200S) 

and Matter of Fo/sorn's Air Service, 2006 WL 1316970011 (May 3.2006)). 

Ball was superseded by staiure (IS USCS Section 1202 wa:> repealed by the Firearms Owners' 

Protection Aci, Pub. l-.No. 99-308, Section 104(b), 100 Stat. 449, '159 (1986)(SF.E IJniif^d Stales 

V. Santicsicnbcin, 825 F.2d 779( 1987)) AHKI filockhur^i^r was overmled in 20U6 by I'cople v. 

Marlm^ 271 Mich. App. 280. 

1! 

F.AA CascNob. 20| INM060010 and 2011NM0600I 1 

SKVWF.ST AIRLINES, INC.'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS 

TO ADMINISTRATOR'S MOTION FOR DECISION 
11/22/2011 15-38 FAX 2024935142 FAA - DMS 1^012/037 

argument that presupposes the conclusion it attempts to draw.'"' Complainani's logic is 

meriflcss; a flight operated under Part 121 IS IN FACT a flight by an air carrier. 

FAR Pans 119 and 119.5""' arc merely a recodification of Parts 12r' and 135/^ 

which apply only to air carriers. As such. Complainanfs argument that 119..5(g) applies 

to flights, not air carriers, and 119.5(1) applies to aircrafl, not air carriers, is totally 

spurious. 

I'unher. Complainant's pleading standard, citing Blackburger v. U.S. (overruled) 

and Doll V. U.S. (superceded), is incorrect. 

The difficulties with the Dlockburger test lead us to the conclusion that its should 

be abandoned. The United Slates Supreme Court has declared that its is but a test 

uf siaiuiory' construction and not a principle of conslituiional law. . We. therefore, 

find it within our power to reject the Blockhur^cr test, preferring instead lo use 

traditional means to determine the intent of the Legislature: the subject, language, 

and hist0r>' of the statues. 

People of the State of Michigan,-W^ Mich. 458 (September 18, 1984) 

.. .our Supreme Court noted these same limitations and, as a result, elected to 

abandon the traditional elements test stated in .Blockbur^er v. Unite Stote.y. 284 

U.S. 299; 52 S. Ct. 180(1932) as the only means for ascertaining whether the 

Legislature intended to impose multiple punishments. 

"^ F.AR 1 19.5(g) probiblus a person from "operating ... in violaiion of its operations 

.specitlcations"'; FAR 1 ls*.5(l) prohibits a person from "opi^rating .. in violation of its operations 

specifications". 

'* Certitlcation; Air Carriers and Commercial Operators 

" Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations 

• Opcraiing Requirements: Commuter and On Demand Operaliyny and Rules Governing Persons 

on Board Such Aircraft 

12 

FAA Case Xo.s. 2011NMO6001O and 2U11 NM060011 

SKYWEST AIRLLNES, INC.^S RESPONSE AND OB-IEC rrONS 

TO ADMINISTRATOR'S /MOTION FOR DECISION 
11/22/201 1 15:3 8 FAX 202493514 2 FAA " Oh'.S @iO13/03 7 

People of fhe State ofMichr^an., 271 Mich. App. 280 (June 13, 2006)(Citmg People v. 

RohiJeau, 419 Mich. 458 (19S4)) 

Applying the required .standard requires looking at the Federal .A-viation 

Admini.'itration's intent when it promulgated 14 CFR 119. 

;? 

The flrst objective of the proposed rule is to establish a permanent guide in a new 

Paa 119 thai will enable persons who operate aircraft for compensation or hire To 

detenriine what certification, operations, maintenance, and other regulatory 

rcciuircments they must comply '•vith. A second objective is lo update certification 

requirements and operating requirements in light of industry changes that have 

followed economic deregulation... 

The FA-A. has evaluated the economic impact of the proposed regulatory changes 

herein and concludes that proposed Part 119 will not have a significant adverse 

economic impact on the regulated parties because it is, for the most pan, a 

consolidation of regulations that are already in effect and is., eiscnlially, clarifying 

in nature... Con.solidaling these rules will not impose any economic burdens on 

the regulated parties'^ 

From a plain reading of the rcgulator>' intent, the purpose of 119.5 was to clarify, 

update, and guide, not to create new economic burdens. As discussed herein, the 

Complainanfs micndcd application of 119.5(g) and 119 5(1) to one single act and thereby 

doubling the penalty for a non-safet)' of flight i:iiiuc, is just that, an imposition of an 

economic burden that neither clarifies the standards required of air carriers nor guides 

SKVWtS r in preventing recurrence of fuiurc incidents. 

-^NoticeoffVopoicdRulemaking-DockelNo. 25713,-Notice No. 88-16. 53 FR 39S52. Ocrober 

12, 1988. Attempting to con.solidatmg into one p<jrt ihc ccnitlcation and operaiion.s specifications 

requircmenis iV>r persons who operate under Part 121 or Part 135. 

-^ Id 

13 

KAACaseNos. 20IINMO6OOIOand20nNM06001I 

SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS 

l O AOMfNTSTRATOR S MOTION FOR DECIS/ON 
11/22/2011 15:38 FkX 2024935142 FAA - OMS V. 014/037 

As such, under FAA Order 2150.3B, FAA Compliance and Cnforcemeni 

Program, Chapter 7, Sanction Guidance Policies.. Paragraph 6.b., General Sanction 

Ouidance.^'^ the Complainant*s assertions that SKYWEST be fined for violating both 

FAR' S 119.5(g) and (1) is compounding a .sanction in a disproponionniely har.sh manner 

tor the conduct involved. 

b. Complainant misapplied 14 CFR 121.693 as approved procedures 

were used and the aircraft's center ol gravity was within approved 

Umits. 

Complainant asserts that SKYWFST violated section 121.693 which requires That 

the load manifest contain ihe weight of the aircrafl, fuel and oil, cargo and baggage, 

passengers and crewmembers, as computed under approved procedures. 

Here, ihc baggage handler loading the aircraft in question simply made a mistake, 

counting incorrectly. The procedures approved and authorized by SKYWFST' S Ops 

Specs and by its weight and balance program were still followed. 

* Order 2150.3B. h'AA Compliance and F.nforcement Program, Chapter 7.. Sanction Guidance 

Policies: 

Piiragrnph 6.b.. General Sanction Guidance, states 

Simply adding up the individual penalties for each vioUuion cuuld result in compounding 

a sanction in a disproportionately harsh manner for the conduct involved. 

Paragraph V.b., Limitations on Total Civil Penalty Amouni.-, for Numerous- Multiple Violations, 

clause (1), state?; that 

In an average case involving numerous inadvertent, multiple violations resulting from a 

iiinglc act or omission, that is, not one that is covered by chapter 7. subparagraphs 7.c. or 

7.0., ihc total civil penally, for the multiple violations ordinarily falls within the ranges 

provided in either Figure 7-1 or 7-2. The group classifications ari; dcfiriod in pan I of 

Appendix B. 

Paragraph 7.b,, Limitations on Total Civil Penaltv' Amounts for Numerous Multiple 

Violations, clause f2). states 

The tenn isohilcj in Figures 7-1 and 7-2 typically describes a single instance of an 

employee's failure to follow a stalutors' or regulator^' requirement, contrary lo ihc 

company's own practice or procedure. A case may involve a riumher of isolated and 

unrelated violations. Each group of the multiple violations resulting from each isolated 

violation ordinarily is subject to the isolated, inadverlcni ranges in Figures .7-1 or 7-2. 

14 

FAA Case Nos. 201IMM060010 and 2011NM060011 

SKYVVEST AIRLINES, INC.'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS 

TO ADMLNISTRATOR'S MOTION KOR DECISION 
11/22/201 1 15:38 F.^X 2024935M 2 FA,^ - OMS 0015/03 7 

In support of its allegations.. Complainant argues that in violation of Section 

121.693. "the load manifest did not reflect the total weight of the aircrall... and the load 

manifest could not ensure the aircraft^s center of gravity' was within approved limits". 

This is in .stark contrast to a following page of the Motion where the Complainant .states, 

'The Administrator docs not allege that ... the operating limitations of the aircraft were 

actually exceeded".'' 

As elicited by Complainant in his motion, the ''operator must be vigilant lo ensure 

ihal the weight and balance control program reflects the reality of aircrafl loading". ' The 

reality is that people occasionally miscount bags and ihe program is designed to account 

for such mistakes so that aircraft, as was done here, are still operated safely and within 

their limitations. 

c. Degree of Hazard 

Complainanl asserts thai miscounting one bag is far firom a "technical noncompliance", rather, a "likely potential or actual adver.se effect on safe operation". This 

staiement seems somcwhal contradictory, if not ironic, as Complainant has clearly 

dismissed such an argument in its Discover}' Responses. 

Complainant admitted that for the aircraft type and airports utilized in the flight 

alleged in Ihe Complaint, with the aircrafl loads, flight crews, fuel, passengers^ and 

baggage recorded in ihe flight release, any errors in load manifesl calculations, producing 

a weigh! error of less than 300 pounds^ resuhs in a "nearly negligible" change in aircrafl 

performance. 

^° Motion for Decision, page 5, paragraph 2. 

^' Moiion for Decision, page 7, last paragraph. 

•*" Iial. added 

Complainant's First Response lo Respondent's First Request for Production of Documenis and 

Other Discovery. Served by Fa.'^ on November 10, 201 I. 

Id (Complainant's I-irst Response to Respondent's First Request for Production of Documents 

and Other Discovery, page.-, 7, request for admission 3.5. Relevant portions of which are anached 

hereto as E.xhibil A.) 

h'AACaseNos. 20llNM0600IOand20]INM0600II 

SKYWEST AIRLLNES, INC.'S RESPONSI". AND OB-FECTIONS 

TO ADMINISTRATOR'S MOTION FOR DECiSiO^ 
11/22/201 1 15-39 FAX 2024935142 FAA - OMS @]01G/037 

lurther. Complainanl admitted that the total cargo weight can be correct even if the 

number of bags listed in the CI.R is incorrect; going even further to say that load manifest 

errors do not always result in a heavier than planned aircraft, in some cases the aircraft 

may even be lighter than planned.'^ 

As clearly shown in the Weight and Balance /Vnalysis SKYWKS I' provided to 

Complainant on October 11, 2011/* there was never an adverse efTect on safe operation 

and the potential for such an adverse effect would require thousands of pounds of 

unaccounted weight, not Ihe 60 - 120 pound difference at stake here. 

SKYWFST's "technical non-compliance" in miscounting two bags did not jeopardize 

safety of the suhjeci flight as admitted to by Complainant. SK^'WT:ST has taken every 

available and appropriate corrective action and There are no other aggraviiting 

circum.stances demanding that such a harsh and unreasonable civil penalty be assessed. ' 

d- Violation History'/ Consistency of Sanction 

Complainant avers in ii.-? Moiion for Decision that the average penalty per prior 

infraction assessed to SKYWL'S 1 in the past for similar unrelated mi.*;takes by different 

employees at different airports on different dates w'as 52,500."** \^^ai Complainant seems 

to ignore is that it is currently trying to impose $33,000.00 per infraction (or $16,500 per 

miscounted bag), an excessive and unexplained 1,320% increase. 

•'" Id. Complainant's First Response lo Respondent's First Request for Production of Documenis 

and Other Discovery, pages 7-8 , request for admissions 3.6 and 3.9. Relevant ponions of which 

arc anachcd hereto as Fyhibit .\. 

•^' lixhibit B 

Order 2150.311. fAA Compliance and enforcement Program, Chapter 7.. Sanction Guidance 

Policies, Paragraph 7.C., Penalties Outside the Ranges, Clause (I J, Penalties lower than the 

ranges, states 

li may be appropriate to select a civil penalty amount below the ranges in Figures 7-1 or 7-2 

if the degree of culpability is minimal, the degree of potential hazard is e.\iremely low, and 

there are no other aggravating circumstances. 

'' Sanctions in 2009NM06023 and 2009KMO6O050averagedSl,666.66 and S5.000.00 per 

irifr;icli'jn, re^pcciivdy. B<.)lh cases wurc cliicd Scpiembcr 2S, 2009. 

16 

FAA CaseNos. 20llNM060010Hnd20IINM0600ll 

SKYWEST AlHLINE-S, INC.'S RKSFONSK AND OaiECTIONS 

TO ADMINISTRATOR'S MOTION FOR DECISION 
11/22/2011 15:39 FAX 20'24935ld2 FAA - DMS 0017/03 7 

v.^ > 

Complainant also fails to mention that these prior incidents were several months 

apart. Such a long duration between inadvertent mistakes does not indicate a scheme of 

noncompliance. 

Complainant should again act reasonably as ii did in the other cases and assess the 

culpabilit\' involved, the lack of immediate danger created, and steps taken by 

SKYWliSr to coun.st;] those involved, and .substantially reduce any penally. 

CONCLUSION 

Respondent requests ihat the Administrative Law Judge deny Complainant's Motion 

for Decision, not enter an order that SKYWEST be assessed a civil penally in the amouni 

of S33,000.00: That the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice; and for such other and 

further relief as may be deemed appropriate. 

KXHTBITS 

A - Portions of Complainant's Response to Discovery Requests frotn SKYWFST 

B - Sky West .\irlines "Weight and Balance Analysis 

Resi">eclfully submitted. 

Dated: November 14,2011 

Co-Counsel for SKYWEST 

FAA CJse Nos. 2011 KM060010 and 2011 NM060011 

SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS 

TO ADMINISTRATOR'S MOTION FOK DECISION 
11/22/201 1 15.39 FAX 2024935U 2 FAA - QMS @]018/037 

EXHIBIT A 

Complainant's Response to Discovery 

(Relevant Portions) 

V.\A Case Nos. 201 INMOoOOlO and 2011NM060011 

SKYWEST AIRLLNES, INC.'S RESPONSK AND OBJECTIONS 

TO ADMINISTRATOR'S MOTION FOR DECISION 
11/22/2011 15 39 FAX 2024935^2 

11/10/2011 11:25 42522"'^107 

FAA - OMS 

Af-IM7 

12019/037 

PAGE 62/25 

1 

3 

4 

5 

£ 

7 

9 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13' 

14 

15 

16 

17 

le 

19 

2D 

31 

22 

23 

24 

25 

2« 

27 

•2& 

25 

30 

31 

52 

33 

34 

35 

36 

3? 

38 

39 

40 

•51 . 

12 

•13 

4-; 

4E 

46 

47 

4e 

4^ 

50 

51 

52 

52 

JEFFREY M.HARPER 

FAA OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL 

1601 LiNDAvENUT-SOUTHWEST 

RENTON, "WASHINGTOK 9S057 

TELEPHONE; (425)227-2161 " 

FACSIMILE: (425) 227-1007 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFHCE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the "Matter of; 

SVyWest Airlines, Inc. 

FAA DOCKET Not Assigned 

FAA Ca5e No. 2011NM060010 

DMSNo. FAA-2011-04S6 

FAA DOCKET Not Assigned 

FAA Case No. 2011NM060011 

DMSNo. FAA-2011-0485 

Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

To: SkyWesT Airlines, rnc. 

C0MPLAINANT* S FIRST RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S FIRST REQUEST FOR 

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND OTHER DISCOVERY 

Pursuant to 14C,.F.R. § 13.220, and consistent with Fcd.R.Civ.Pro. 26, 33, 34, and 36, 

the Administrator (Complainant) responds to Sky West Airlines' (Respondent) First Request for 

Production of Documents and Other Discovery. Complainant is aware of and understands the 

eoniixLuing nature of his discovery obligation. This discoveiy will be supplcnnented as necessary. 

Where an objection is noted, but a substantive response is provided, the substantive response is 

provided without waiving the objection. 

Requests for ProdnctioD 

REQUEST FOP^ PRODUCTION NO. 1.1: Complainant's case file bearing Case Nos. 

2011NM060010 and 20] 1NM060011 in their entirety, including, but not limited to, items of 

proof, exhibits, correspondence, Tnemoranda, and all other documents contained tlierein. 

COMPOD.T'a I ST RESPCI'SETC RESPONDENT'S iST RSOeESTFOn 

PnoDUcnoH OP DocL-MD^s AND OTMEB. DISCOVERY 

In th-: Mailer of SVry West Airlines, Inc. 

FAA Cose •Mo.-;. :0IONMO6O01O and 2Q10NM0600II 

DMS Nos. F/W2011-0^S6. FAA-2011-04^3 

?a«e 1 of U 

TEL: (d25)227-il&l; FAX : (115) 227-1007 
11/22/201 1 15:39 FAX 2024935142 

U/lQ/201 1 11:2 5 425227''^07 

FAA - OMS 

ANM7 

0020/037 

PAGE 67/25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

1 

6 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

IS 

16 

17 

19 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

2S 

2S 

27 

26 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

l } i 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

4S 

45 

47 

4a43 

SO 

El 

52 

53 

RBSPONSE: See response to Request for Production 1.3. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 2.4: For each expert witness Complainant intends to cai) at the 

hearing, provide a brief statement regarding the grounds for the opinion testimony of each expert 

witness, aiid copies of any documents prepared or reviewed by said expert witness. 

RESPONSE: Complainant docs not anticipate calling any expert witnesses as this time. 

Should this change, opposing connsel i^iH be notified and Complainant will produce documents 

appropriately as requested. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 2.5: If Complainant obtains additional documents not 

mentioned in response to Request No. 2.3, above. SKVWEST requests these documents be 

produced as expeditiously as possible. 

RESPONSE; Complainant is aware of the ongoing nature of a discovery request, and will 

provide ffupplcmentnl infonnation as required. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 2.6: If Complainant secures additiona] wimesses not 

mentioned in response to Request No. 2.1, above, SKYWEST requests a supplementary witness 

list and a brief statement regarding the subject matter of the testimony of each of tlie wimesses. 

RESPONSE: Complainant is awaie of The ongoing nature of a discovery request, and vAW 

provide supplemental information as required. 

Requests for Admission 

REQUEST FOR ADNflSSION NO. 3.1: ADMTV that SkyWest Airlines' Weight and 

Balance Operations Manual, Standard Practice 4100, has been reviewed and approved by the 

F A A for use in all SkyWest operations and was in effect as of the dates of the alleged violations. 

RESPONSE: Admit. 

CONJPLAIKT'S 1ST PiSPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S 1ST REQUEST FOR 

PRODUCTION OP DOCUMEKT? AND OTHIR DTSCOVERV 

ID the Maner of SkyWesi Airlines, be . 

FA-\ Case Kos. 201ONM060010 and 201 ONMO^OO 11 

DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0486, FAA-2011 -0485 

Pnge^of H 

.TEFFSEVM. HAWI:?L, FAA ATTOP ^ f 

TEL: (425) 237.2161:.FAX: (425) 227-1007 
1 1/22/201 1 15:3 9 FAX 

11/10/231 1 11:2 ! 

2024935142 

' 42522731^07 

FAA - DMS 

AHM7 

1 

2 

3 

4 

S 

6 

1 

a 

9 

.10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

3.$ 

17 

IB 

15 

20 

2* 

2 2 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

2S 

29 

30 

21 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

35 

39 

1 2 

•41 

42 

<i3 

44 

•J5 

46 

4 7 

4 8 ' 

•13 . 

50 

51 

S3 

53 

0021/03 7 

PAGE 08/25 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.2: ADMIT that none of the aircraft in the subject 

flights exceeded the maximum takeoff weight for the runway of use. 

RESPONSE: AdmitPvEQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.3: ADMIT tliat SkyWest Airlines^ Weight and 

Balance Operations Manual, Standard Practice 4100, provides guidance and instmction necessary 

for flight crew and Customer Service personnel to complete weight and balance calculations, the 

Cargo Load Report (CLR), and the Load Manifest. 

RESPONSE: Admit. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.4: ADMIT that SkyWest Airlines' Weight and 

Balance Operations Manual, Standard Practice 4100, provides weight and balance information 

sufficient tn ensure safe aircraft operations. 

RESPONSE: Deny, In addition to the infonnation contained in Standard Practice 4100, 

an accurate assessment of the aircraft's payload, including baggage, cargo^ and passengers, is 

required to ensure safe aircraft operations. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3,5: ADMIT that for the aircraft types and airports 

•utilized in the fliglit alleged in the Cornplaint. and with the aircraft loads, flight crews, fuel, 

passengers, and baggage recorded in the flight releases for the flights in qtiestion, any errors in 

load manifest calculations, producing a weight error of less than 300 pounds, results in; 

a. No change in aiiciaft performance; and 

b. A nearly negligible change in aircraft center of gravity. 

RESPONSE: Deny. The FAA believes there would be a change in aircraft performance, 

although that change may be "nearly negljgibje/' 

COMPLAINT'S l .IT RESPONSE TO ftESMNDENi's 1 ST REQUEST FOPPRODUCTION OP DOCUMENTS AJJD r>n-iER DISCOVETIV 

tn tlic Matter of SVyWcsi Airlineji, Inc. 

FAA Cojc N'cf. 20\ 0NMP600! 0 and 2010TJM0600] J. 

DMS Nos. FAA-2P11-n486, FAA-20 1 1 -045? 

Ppge7of 14 

JEITKEYM.HARPEI»,FAAArTOWlEV 

TEL: (423) 227-2161: FAX : (425) ;27-1007 
^^/22/20 U 15:3S FAX 2024935142 

n/lQ/2£l l 11:2 5 ^25227^^07 

FAA 

•» DMS 

ANM7 

0022/037 

PAGE ng/25 

3 

4 

5 

7 

a 

$ 

10 

11 

12 

13 

! • ! 

l ib 

l b 

n 

13 

19 

20 

21 

7.7. 

23 

:4 

25 

26 

27 

25 

29 

3C 

31 

32 

33 

3^ 

35 

36 

S? 

38 

33 

40 

42 

4S 

4€ 

4T 

48 

'IS 

50 

51 

52 

53 

REQUEST FOR .ADMISSION NO, 3.6: ADMIT that load manifest errors do not always 

result in a heavier than planned aircraft, that in some cases the aircraft may be lighter than 

planned. 

RESPONSE; Admit. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.7: ADMIT that SkyWest has been FAA-approved 

to use the following standard baggage average weights in its Weight and Balance Program: 

Standard checked baggage 

(baggage weighing more than 

50 pounds but less than 100 

pounds) 

30 pounds 

Kea%7 checked baggage - 60 pounds 

Planeside loaded/carry-on baggage - 30 pounds 

Carry-on baggage and/or personal 

item stowed in aircraft passenger - 0 pounds 

cabin 

Non-luggage baggage (standard) - 30 pounds 

Non-luggage baggage (heavy) - 60 pounds 

Ticketed cabin baggage (siimmcr) - SI pounds 

Ticketed cabin baggage (wfater) - 87 pounds 

RBSPONSE: Admit. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.8: ADMIT that FAA AC 120-27, Chapter 2, 

Section 1.200(a), sutes: ".. .differences between thft ftcruaJ weight of passengers and bags and the 

average weight of passengers and bags can occur when using average weights." 

RESPONSE: Admit. 

REQUEST FOR .\DMJSSION NO. 3.9: ADMIT that .it is technically possible to have the 

correct total cargo weight even if the number of baggage [sic] contained in the CLR is incorrect 

RESPONSE: Admit. 

C0NiF_A.th'T"S 137R£5PON3bT(jR£iKWDEKT'5t3T REQUEST FO^ 

PRODUCTION OP DOCUMENTS ^MD OTHHR DISCOVERY 

In die Matter of SkyWest Airlines, Inc. 

FAACo5e"NoB. 20]0rNM060010EiT«diOlONMO6UOll 

DMS Nos. FAA-2nil-04S(i. FAA-IOll-O-IBS 

JETFREY M HARPW, FA A ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425)227-2161;FA>: (425) 227-1007 
n/22/20 n 15-39 FAX 2024935ia2 

n/lQ/2dl l 11:2 5 d252271D07 

FAA - OMS 

aNM7 

0 023/09-7 

PAGE 10/25 

1 

2 

S 

4 

5 

6 

1 

S 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

16 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

2S 

26 

£7 

2B 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

33 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

46 

49 

!iO 

SI 

S2 

52 

A " ^ 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.10: ADMIT that during the subject Flight 6573, 

5rom .D.EN to HDN, alj checked baggage was loaded into the aft cargo bin. 

RESPONSE: Admit. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5.11: ADMIT that during takeoff, an additional 120 

pounds would not cause Flight 6573 to exceed the maximum takeoff weight limit of the runway 

in use. 

RESPONSE; Per phone conversation with coiinscl for Respondent held on October 31, 

2011, the question should read "for the runway in use." With that clarification, Admit. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.12: .AD^'aT that the subject Flight 6573 was a 

minimum of 1,300 pounds below the maximum takeoff weight limit for the runway in use. 

RESPONSE: Deny. According to Respondent's produced documentation prepared by 

Mr. Carl Salamone, the aircraft was 1,304 pounds below maximnm takeoff weight for the 

runway in use — as calculated by the crew, which the FAA alleges did not account for two heavy 

bags. The FAA believes that properly accounting for those two bags as required by Respondent's 

Standard Practice 4100 would have resulted in a takeoff weight that would, at best, be L244 

pounds below the maximum takeoff weight limit for the runway in use. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.13: ADMIT that during the subject Flight 6573, tlie 

safety of flight was maintained as all operations fell within the manufacturer's operating 

envelope. 

RESPONSE; Deny. The F.AA is without sufficient information or knowledge of the 

operation of Flight 6573. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.14: ADMTT that during the stibject Flight 4659, 

from BIL to SLC, all checked baggage was loaded into the aft cargo bin. 

CONTLAfKr'S \s^ Rfi-IPONSE TO RESPOMJEKl'i. 1 ST REQUEST FOR 

pRODUcnojj OF DOCUMENTS ^ND OTHER DjacovERY 

In the Maner of SkyWesi Airlines, Inc. 

FAA Case Nos. 2QinNMO6OO10 and 2010NMC>600n 

DMSNO5F.AA-2011-04SS, FAA-2011-0485 

Page 9 ofU 

JEFFRSYM R^WER, FAA .'LTTORTJEY 

rEL: C425)227-:i61. FAX: (4:15) ?27-1007 
11/22/2011 15 40 FAX 2024935112 

11/10/2011 11:25 4252271R07 

FAA - QMS 

AhM? 

gl024/037 

PAGE 11/25 

1 

2 

3 

A 

5 

G 

7 

3 

9 

ID 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

le 

IS 

20 

21 

22 

2i 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

3g 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

4S 

46 

47 

48 

i9 

50 

51 

52 

53 

RESPONSE: Admit. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.15: ADMTT thai the subject Flight 4659 is alleged 

to have had an additional 60 pounds in luggage not listed on the CLR. 

RESPONSE: Admit. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.16: ADMIT thzt the subject Flight 4659 was a 

minimurn of 3,200 pounds below the maximum runway takeoff weight. 

RESPONSE: Deny. According to Respondent's produced documftntation prepared by 

Mr. Carl Salamone, the aircraft was 3,213 pounds below maximum takeoff weight for the 

runway in use — as calculated by the crew, wltich the FAA alleges did not properly account for 

two heavy bags. The FAA believes that properly accounting for those two bags as required by 

Respondent's Standard Practice 4100 would have resulted in a takeoff weight that would be 

3,153 pounds below the maximum runway takeoff vweight. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.17: ADMIT that during the subject Flight 4659, the 

safety of flight was maintained as all operations fell within the manufacturer's operating 

envelope. 

RESPONSE: Deny. The FAA is without sufQcient informarioQ or knowledge of the 

operation of Flight 4659. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO- 3.IS: ADMIT that during the subject Flight 4800, 

from LAX to SAN- all checked baggage was loaded into the aft cargo bin. 

RESPONSE: Admit. 

KEQLTEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.19; ADMIT that the subject Flight 4800 is alleged 

to have had aa additional 120 potmds of luggage not listed on the CLR. 

RESPONSE: Admit 

COM?:.A.rNTS 1ST RESPONSE roREsro>JDENT'5lsr REQUEST FOR 

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMEVT3 AJ ^ OTHER DISCOVERY 

In aic Matter of SV^West Airluies. Inc. 

FAJ*. Case Nos. 201ONM060010 and 201 aNMDfOO 11 

DMS Nos. FAA-iOI I-(J4W, FAA-2011-O-lSf 

Page 10 of 14 

JEFFHEV M. HAWW. FAA ATTOIC^Y 

TEL; C4;S) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
11/22/2011 15.40 FAX 2024935142 

11/10/2011 11:25 ':25227'inS7 

FAA - OMS 

A^JM7 

121025/037 

PAGE 12/2= 

1 

2 

4 

5 

e 

7 

B 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

IS 

36 

a. 7 

1 8 

1 9 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

35 

25 

27 

28 

25 

30 

31 

^3 

33 

3* 

35 

31; 

37 

3a 

3S 

40 

41 

42 

42 

•14 

45 

45 

*7 

46 

49 

50 

51 

53 

53 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.20: ADMIT that the subject Flight 4800 had a 

takeoff weight in ex&ess of 2200 potmds below the maximum runway takeoff weight. 

RESPONSE: Admit. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.21: ADMIT that the additional weight alleged by 

the F.AA. on subject Flight 4S00 would not have caused the subject aircraft to exceed the 

maximum takeoff weight limit for the runway in use. 

RESPONSE: Admit. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.22: ADMIT that during the subject Flight 4^00 the 

safety of flight was maintained as all operation.'; fell within the manxifacturer's operating 

envelope. 

RESPONSE; Deny. The FAA is without sufficient information or knowledge of the 

operation of Flight 4800. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.23; ADMTf that during the subject Flight 6692, 

from LAX to SAN, all checked baggage was loaded into the aft cargo bin. 

RESPONSE: Admit. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.24: ADMTT that during the subject Flight 6692 the 

safet>' of flight was maintained aa all operations fell within the manufacturer's operating 

envelope. 

RESPONSE: Deny. The FAA Jswithout sufficient infonnation or knowledge of tlie 

operation of Flight 6692. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.25: ADMIT that the subject Flight 6692 had 270 

pounds less cargo actually present than reported on the aircraft load manifest 

RESPONSE: Admit. 

Cohffi-rtn'rr's lsrR£5PciN£EToREsroNOTrn's 1 5T REQUSST FOR 

PKODUcnoN OF DOCUMENTS A>"D On-izic DISCOVERY 

In Ttic Matter nf Sty Wcat AJVUTIK. Inc. 

F A A Case Nos." 201 ONM0»SO0 ] 0 and 201ONM060011 

DMS Wo3. FAA-;011-0486, FAA'2011-0485 

Puec 11 of ] 4 

jEmurv M. HARPES. FAA ATTOWJEY 

TEL: (*25) 227-2161; FAX; C42S] 227-1007 
11/22/2011 15 iO FAX 2024335142 

11/10/2011 11:25 ^252271^07 

FAA - DMS 

AHH7 

21026/037 

PAGE 13/25 

3 

4 

5 

£ 

7 

9 

lo' 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

17 

la 

19 

20 

21 

22 

a-i 

25 

2c: 

27 

2B 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

3a 

39 

40 

41 

42 

•*2 

44 

45 

4^ 

17 

48 

49 

53 

51 

52 

53 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.26: .AJDMIT that FAA ASI WendeD S. Oehring's 

November 22, 2010 vvri.ttenstatementthat the acmal weight and balance of Flight 4659 was in 

error by 60 pounds is based solely on the standard average weight of heavy bags and does not 

necessary reflect the exact weight of Flight 4659. 

RESPONSE: Admit. 

REQUEST FOR ADMSSION NO. 3.27: ADM n that under AC120-27E an operator 

may choose to use one weight for a fleet or group of aircraft for establishment of the aircraft's 

operational empty weight if the weight and CG of each aircraft is within the limits stated in said 

AC. 

• RESPONSE; Deny. An operator may use a fleet weighing program under AC120-27E, 

Chapter 1, Paragraph 103.b.; an operator may not arbitrarily choose one weight for the fleet. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.28: ADMIT that under Sky West's W&B Manual, 

heavy bags are considered any bag that weighs more than 50 pounds and less than 100 pounds. 

RESPONSE: Admit. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.29: ADMTT that Order 2150. 3B, FAA Compliance; 

and Enforcement Program, Chapter 7,, Sanction Guidance Policies. Paragraph 6,b., Oeneral 

Sanction Guidance, states khai 

Simply adding up the individual penalties for each violation could 

result in compounding a sanction in a disproportionately harsh 

manner for the conduct involved, 

RESPONSE: Admit, 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.30: ADMITthat Order 2150.3B, FAA Compliance 

and Enforcement Program, Chapter 7.. Sanction Guidance Policies, Paragraph 7.b., Limitations 

on Total Civil'Penalty Amounts for Numerous Multiple Violatioris, clause (1)» states that 

CoMPLATM-'s 1ST RESPONSE TO RispoNDEWT's 1ST REQUEST FOR 

PRODucmcN or DOCUMENTS tOJD 0"n-nw DUCOVIRY 

In The Maner of SkyWest Airline?;, Jnc. 

FA.\ ClECNoa. 2010NM0I5Q0IO and 201 ONMO<50011 

DMS Nos. FAA-20 ] l-04R(i. FAA-2011-0485 

Page ] 2 of 14 

JEFFREY M. HARPER, P A,A ATTUHMLY 

TEL; (425) 227-216]; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
11/22/2011 15:40 FAX 2024835142 

11/13/2611 11:25 42522?i'^07 

FAA - OMS 

AtJM7 

(2027/037 

PAGE lii/25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

s 

€ 

7 

fi 

1 0 

3.1 

1 2 

1 3 

14 

15 

1 « 

1 7 

l e 

1 5 

2 0 

2 1 

S2 

2 3 

2-1 

25 

:i5 

2 7 

2 9 

2 9 

:o 

3 '-

5 2 

2 3 

2 4 

3 5 

3S 

1 1 

3S 

3 9 

•10 

4 1 

4 2 

4 3 

4-4 

4 S 

4 € 

4 7 

4 8 

4 9 

^ 0 

5 1 

= 2 

5 3 

In an average case involving numerous inadvertent, multiple 

violations resulting from a single act or omission, that is, not one 

that is covered by chapter 7, subparagraphs 7.c. or 7.d., the total 

civil penalty for the multiple violations ordinarily falls within the 

ranges provided in either Figure 7-1 or 7-2, The group 

classifications are defined in part I of Appendix B. 

RESPONSE: Admit. 

REQUEST FOR /VDMISSION NO. 3.31: ADMIT that Order 2150. 3B, FAA Compliance 

and Enforcement Program, Chapter 7., Sanction 0\Adaiic& Policies, Paragraph 7.b., Limitations' 

on Total Civil Penalty Amounts for Numerous Multiple Violations, clause (2), states: 

The term isolated in Figures 7-1 and 7-2 typically describes a 

single instance of an employee's failure to follow a statutory or 

regtilatory requirement, contrary to the company's own practice or 

procedure. A case iDfly .involve a number of isolated and unrelated 

violations. Each group of the multiple violations resulting firom 

each isolated violation ordinarily is subject to the isolated, 

inadvertent ranges in Figures 7-1 or 7-2. 

RESPONSE: Admit. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3,32: ADMIT that Order 2150. 3B, FAA Compliance 

and Enforcement Program, Chapter 7., Sanction Guidance Policies, Paragraph 7.c., Penalties 

Outside the Ranges, Clause (1), Penalties lower than the ranges, states: 

It may be appropriate to select a civil penalty amoimt below the 

ranges in Figures 7-1 or 7-2 if the degree of culpability is minimal, 

the degree of potential hazard is extremely low, and there arc no 

other aggravating ciicunisianccs. 

RESPONSE: Admit. 

Dated this 10th day of November, 2011. 

'./ ^ 

Jefee y M . Harpe r 

F A A Attorne y 

COMPLAINT'S Isr RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S 1 ST REQUEST FOR 

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS *ND OTKERDISCOVERT 

In fho Maner of SVyWesiAirtincB. Inc. 

FAACi^NoE. 20J0NMC6OOIO(m(J2P10NMO<5001I 

DMS Nos. FAA-r'OI I-04S6, ?.\A-20\\-(Hi5 

Page ]3o f M 

JarSBY M. ^io^PE^ FAA ATTOR>tEY 

TEL: (425) 227-: 161: PAX: (425) 227-1007 
11/22/2011 15:40 FA>( 2024935142 

11/10/2311 11:25 C25227^'^07 

FAA - 0I.1S 

fiMH7 

12)028/037 

PAGE 15/25 

3 

4 

«; 

7 

B 

9 

10 

:i 

12 

13 

14 

15 

lb' 

17 

:e 

19 

20 

21 

?.2 

23 

24 

25 

:e 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

'^4 

35 

16 

37 

35 

39 

•iO 

41 

42 

4.1 

44 

45 

"4S 

«7 

48 

19 

50 

s : 

52 

53 

CERTtnCATE OF SERVICE 

T hereby certify that the foregoing Complaint's I si Response to Respondent's 1 st Request for 

Production of Documenis and Otlier Discoveiy has been served via facsimile and Certified 

M^il - Return Receipt Requested this date, to the following: 

The Hono.rable Richard C. Goodv^in 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

•200 Ncv; Jeney Avenue. S-E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Rm E12-320 

Washington, D.C 20590 

TEL: (202)366-2139 

FAX: (202)366-7536 

Attn: Hearmg Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave. SW. 

Washington. DC 20591 

FAX: (202)493-5142 

Todd Emerson^ Esq. 

Skj'West Airlines 

444 S. KivcT Rood 

St. George, UT 84790 

TEL; (435)634-3530 

FAX: (435)634-3505 

Michael Dworkin, Esq. 

Michael L. Dworlcin and Associates 

465 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 941C4 

TEL: (415)421-2500 

FAX.- (435)421-2560 

DATED this 10th day of November, 2011. 

MOIFAIR CHIN 

Office of Regional Counsel (ANM-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton,WA 98057 

(425)227-2160 

COMPUUKT'S l?TR3SP0N:;ET0RESPOND^r'S JSTR£<3U£S7FOR 

PT,0DUCnO>l O? DOO.'KfENTa *>iDOT;TCft D:SCOV2Ry 

In Thi Malta- of SkyWest Airlines, Inc. 

F.AA Cue N'ns. ZOIONTWOfiOOlO «nc! 2010NM060on 

CMS No5 FA,V:Oi J-C486. FAA-,?OI I-0.)85 

Page Uo f 14 

JEFFREY M. HARPER. F> ^ ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2161: F.AX: IA2S) 237-1O07 
_ [)[;5 @]029/037 

11/22/2011 15.40 FAX 2024935142 F^A 

EXHIBIT B 

SkyWest Airlines Weight and Balance Analysis 

(Relevant Portions) 

P AA Case Nos. 2011NM060010 and 2011NV1060011 

SKVWEST AIRLINES, INC'S RESPONSi; AND OBJECTIONS 

TO .ADMINISTRATOK' S .MOT/ON FOR DECISIONS 
11/22/2011 15:40 FAX 2024935142 FAA - OMS 2)030/03 7 

A I R L I N E S <S> 

Weight and 
11/22/201 1 15:41 FAX 2024335142 FAA - OMS @031/03 7 

This document contains recalculations of the aircraft load manifest and aircraft performance for the nine 

flights in involved in FAA case numbers 2011NTM060010, 2011NM06001[, 2011NM060033. and 

2011NM060038. The analysis will include both the loading and pertoiTnance values as calculated by the 

flight crew, and the values as observed by the Federal Inspector. 

When analyzing vveight and balance errors to measure operational safety, it is important to approach the 

observed loading configuration from three vie^vpoints: 

1. Aircraft Takeoff Weight 

2. Aircraft Takeoff CcnTcr of Gravity 

3. Aircraft Climb Performance and Maximum Operating Altitude 

Aircraft Takeoff Weight 

The most impnitant factor when examining aircraft takeoff weight is that the observed takeoff weight did 

not e.\cced die maximum takeoff weight for the runway of use. In this case, all runway lenglh and initial 

climb requirements would have been met in compliance with federal and operational requirements. 

Aircraft Takeoff Center of Gravltv 

The aircraft center of gravit>' is defined as "the average location of the weight of the aircraft ." To ensure 

controllability at ail time?, each aircraft manufacturer publishes a range in which the center of gravity 

must remain. This is often referred to a.<; the aircraft operating envelope and is expressed in a percentage 

of mean aerodynamic chord (VOMAC). It is important that the aircraft remain within this envelope during 

all phases of flight. The following analysis will show that small errors in load manifest calculations (for 

the purpo.'sc.s of tins document, a weight error of less than 500 pounds) results in a near negligible change 

in ^ircraftcenter of gravit>'. 

.Aircraft Climb Performance and Maximum Operating Altitude 

As aircraft weight increases, enroute climb perfonnance and maximum operating altitude decrease. In 

normal operations, actual flii^ht conditions often differ from planned flight eonditioiis. One of the 

priinar>' responsibilitic; of the flight crew is to wdapt to actual flight conditiony and operate the aircraft in 

a safe manner at all rimes. Any deviations from planned aircraft flight perforra^incc would be recognized 

and corrected by Lhi^ flight crew. 

Due to decreased climb performance and lower operating altitudes, a higher than planned aircraft weight 

may result in a higher than plarmed fuel usage for the fight. SkyWest Airlines automatically includes a 

minimum of 550 pounds additional contingency fuel for every CRJ 200 flight, and 850 pounds additional 

contingency fuel for evcr>' CRJ 700 and CRJ 900 flight., Any increased fuel usage due to additional 

http77www.grc.na.';a.gov/WWV//k-12/airpIane/ac£.htmI 

Page 1 of 21 
11/22/2011 15:41 FAX 2024935142 FAA . DMS 032/037 

weight on board would be less than the standard contingency fuel already included on every SkyWe.si 

Airlines flight. 

Load manifest errors do not always result in a heavier than planned aircraft, hi some eases, tlie aircraft 

may be operated at a lighter than planned weight. Provided that minimum flight weight limitations are 

met, an aircraft that weighs Jess than planned will exhibit performance improvements in all cases. 

Page 2 of 2 I 
11/22/201 1 15:4 1 FAX 2024335142 FAA ^ OMS @jO33/037 

Date: 11/17/2010 

Flight Number: 6573 

Aircraft Number: N702SK 

Route of Flight: DHN -1IDN 

The FAA report*; three heavy bags found on board the aircraft. The station cargo load report (CLR) only 

lists only one hea^'y bag. Without actaal CLR bag counts, it is not po.-^sible to determine if the r^vo 

additional bags were counted as standard weight or not counted at all. If the additional heavy bags were 

counted a.-; standard bags, this would have resulted in sixty pounds of additional cargo on board. If the 

additional heavy bags were not counted at all, the result would have been 120 pounds of additional cargo 

On board. SkyWest procedure .';peciftes that all checked baggage is loaded into the aft cargo bin on a CRJ 

700, thus the additional weight would have been held in the aft cargo bin. 

The flight crew calculated a gross takeoff weight of 65,278 pounds. Factoring environmental conditions 

at the time of takeoff, the maximum takeoff weight for die runway in use was 66,582 pounds. Tlie flight 

crew calculated a-takeoff weight in excess of 1300 pounds below the maximum takeoff weight limit for 

the runway of use. The additional weight obsen-'ed by the Federal Inspector did not exceed the maximum 

takeoff weight /imil for the runway of use. The flight crew also calculated a takeoff center of gravity 

(CG) located at 21.39 percent mean aerodynamic chord (?/aMAC). An additional sixty pounds located in 

the aft cargo bin would have shifted the takeoff CG to a point located at 21.57 %MAC. An additional 120 

pounds located in the aft cargo bin would have shifted the lakcnff CG to a point located at 21.75 %M.AC. 

In either Ciisc, safety of flight was maintained aj all operations fell well within ihe manufacturer's 

openiiing envelope. Reference Figures I, 2, and 3 tor CRJ 700 operating envelapc.'? depicting the crew 

calculated and both possible options for FAA observed aircraft loading. 

ino o J^— I 

•CuVnO s -iJiK«V)iu(J»01**lH.iilJIIl'UNT4>ir,-OfrWBakr 

01100 

Xltf i 

M'.co 

f 17 : M 

I I 111' 

MiDu 

,^«UiL 

rX2 

- ; r-i '-tj^r j - i. I '-:—'"^~-v-- " 

U 

iJiw-N-j^ l _ 

r n t 

±ur::-::i--r1ll"l-fl-ri;.4:.I.H-:V^ 

U VB BiMiUJl^LNZEnORJELUrClrnil 

m--^' mm 

I i 

-TT 

•n-^^^ 

^ir^E^ 

crrirt-r -i-h-*- -r^ 

TTjzn 

.H-n:-)ri-i-^ ^i•raa 

pram 

:q-aT 

^mm^ :.:.-4:.-j-_-.r.-j' *JC « 

r ; TTT. I j:.^- ^ 1 

—,—--•(-•(• r- rr - -. -

H?^ ^ :3a-:t 

ki.T Trpp::;:.r 

.UJ__.;:.T,4r r "p 

imei hfl)MlrdMUNFLiCHTiWESKTW^''"^ E 

•i—1 - [ ^ laxxi 

nm 

:i_lT. I I I ] I • I I I . • - 1 I • • -J • -i—'_j> 

Page 3 of 21 
11/22/2011 15 41 FAX 2024935142 FAA •r DM S 034/037 

FiguiL [: Flighi 6573 Crew Calculated Aircraft Takeoff Loading* 

iivj) V — 

I I ' V l .• .lT:ao»(>«i«kai 

moo t 

.''J ICC 

F X 

2 

XOD 

lirlW-l- w-

. 

mm 

:-4..-"^^.:t 'Sir 

-1- -

H:: 

•1^-:; , 

MUIMUH ruiMP wCW'fT!--jr. 

li*4i«kajwuiujMTUE-orFWEiawr^ 

-^--•:^.:-Li.z.Ur -.|.-_T-. 

-1—r 

1 » OS.. 

•^•U- i gjiii 

II7H>CIB(U39I ISI''*^"l^'><-'!OM a WEIGHT 

i^ui; -D [iu » 11) bUidhwn r.£no RJELWEICHT 

-rr--tr±=i:: 

• u 

nm 

rTT^ 

- -T-r3.-r--r|-

-•-•(^l-T'MDfc l 

,^E:iiir£i=ySi 

&matti^ 

•.•i.-.-._j:.Lli- _ 

:1^ 

.. :m^ 

=l=f= 

^•-' -

33 

-rr::; ^n 

JT.ft'A.t S 

-j/tJIitLq" 

^ET£ 

i 

..(. . 

..L.L/. !,f«f) 

•It 

r^TT-:? 

StiMU 

(. : - r S500C 

J -IIMM] 

I ' ' I '^^ ^ UtKM 

Figure 2; Flight 6573 F.AA Observed Takeoff Loading Option 1 - 60 Pound Frror^ 

311 TO 

;MI< D 

J1IU 

j.'TT" ^ I |. j7GK0i»(iJ1l3W»«WMVMHA«iH*tK;uTf--3 " .•:i..ijmr T 

'^••'^i^du 

Figure 3: Flight 6573 FAA Observed Takeoff Loading Option 2 - 120 Pound Error^ 

- Bombardier CRJ 700 Weight and Balance Manual 01-00-60, Page 14, Jul 09/2009 

^ Bombardier CRJ 700 Weight and Balance Mantiai 01-00-60. Page 14, Ju! 09/2009 

* Bombardier CRT 700 Wcigtit and Balance Manual 01 -00-60, Page 14, .Tul 09/2009 

Page 4 of21 
Appendix A: GTOW, CG, and %MAC Calculations 

Date Route Flight 

11/17/2010 DEN - HDN Flight 6573 - A'C N702SK 

11/22./2010 BIL - SLC Flight 4659 ~ MC K4 lOSW 

12/14/2010 LAX - SAN Flight 6692 - .A'C N984CA 

12/15/2010 LAX-SAN Flight 4800-A'C N4IISW 

2/n/2011 SLC - CPR Flight 4451 - A/C N709BR 

j/3/20 n SAN - SLC Flight 4553 - A/C N800SK. 

3/3/2011 PHX - SLC Flight 4445 - A/C N614SK: 

3/3/2011 iMSO - SLC Flight 4540 ~ .A/C N465SW 

3/3/2011 DMA - SLC Flight 4613 - A'C N816SK 

GTOW 

65278 

46358 

39641 

44621 

42007 

74196 

66920 

49863 

79231 

GTOVVARM 

771.7247 

504.2255 

513.265^ 

506.9247 

509.8524 

863.0721 

772.6551 

50J.8347 

857.9123 

GTOW MOMENT 

50376644.97 

23374885.73 

20346341.83 

22619487.04 

21417369.77 

64036497.53 

51706079.29 

25122709.65 

67973249.44 

o 

Dale Route Flight 

11/17/2010 rjLN - HDN Flight 6573 - A'C N702SK: 

ll/2Z'20i0 BIL-SLC Flight 4659- A/CN410SW 

12/14/2010 LAX-SAN Flight 6692 - A/C N984CA 

12/15/2010 LAX - SAN Flight 4800 - A/C N4nSW 

2/1 l/20i 1 SLC - CPR Flight 4451 - A/C N709BR 

3/3/20II ^A>i - SLC Flight 4553 - .VC N800SK: 

3/3/2011 1>HX - SLC Flight 4445 - A.'C N614SK 

3/3/2011 MSO - SLC Fljght 4540 - A^C N465SW 

3/3/2011 OMA - SLC Flight 4613 - A'C N816SK 

ADD. WEIGHT 

120 

60 

-270 

120 

60 

150 

90 

3 

0 

ADD. ARM 

1036.1 

687 

687 

687 

687 

1187.5 

1036.1 

687 

0 

ADD. MOMENT 

124332 

41220 

-185490 

82440 

41220 

178125 

93249 

2061 

a 

Date 

11/17/2010 

11/22/2010 

12/14/2010 

12/15/2010 

2/11/2011 

3/3/2011 

3/3/2011 

3/3/2011 

3/3/20nRoute 

DEN - HDN 

BIL - SLC 

L/VX - SAN 

L/VX - SAN 

SLC-CPR 

SAN-SLC 

PHX - SLC 

MSO - SLC 

OMA - SLC 

Flight 6573 

Flight 4659-

Flight 6692 

Flight 4800-

Flight 4451 

Flight 4553 

Flight 4445 

Flight 4540 

Flight 4613 

Flight 

- A^'C N702SK 

AyCN410SW 

- A'C N984CA 

-A/CN4nS W 

~A/CN709BR 

- A/'C N800SK 

-A/CN614SK 

-A'CN465SW 

-Ay'CN816SK 

RECALC WEIGHT 

65398 

46418 

39371 

4474] 

42067 

74346 

67010 

49866 

7923] 

RJ3CALC MOMEN T 

50500976.97 

234J6105.73 

20160851.83 

22701927.04 

21458589.77 

64214622.53 

51799328.29 

25124770.65 

67973249.44 

RECALC ARM 

772,2098071 

504.4617547 

512.0736539 

507.4076806 

510.1050649 

863.7266636 

773.0089284 

503.8457195 

857.9123 

lof2 
Appendix A: GTOW, CG, and %MAC Calculations 

Date Route Flight 

11/17/2010 DEN - HDN Flight 6573 ~ A/CN702SIC 

Il/22/'2010 BIL-SLC Flight 4659-A/C N410SW 

12/14/2010 LAX - S/VN' Flight 6692 - A^C N984CA 

12/15/2010 LAX - SAN Flight 4800 - A;'C N41ISW 

2/11/2011 SLC - CPR Flight 4451 - A'C N709BR 

3/3./2011 SAN - SLC Flight 4553 - A/C N800SK 

3/3./2011 PHX ~ SLC Flight 4445 - MC K614SK 

3/3/2011 MSO - SLC Plight 4540 - A/C N465SW 

3/3/2011 OMA - SLC Flight 4613 - A/C N8 ]6SK 

GTOW %MAC 

21.39 

10.49 

19.58 

13.21 

16.15 

22.39 

22.08 

10.10 

18.54 

RBCALC%M.4C 

21.75 

10.73 

18.39 

13.69 

16.41 

22.88 

22.35 

10.11 

18.54 

2 of 2 
U/22/20 U 15:42 FAX 2024935142 FAA -r OMS 037/03 7 

CER LTFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 14'"' day of November 2011, atme and 

correct copy of the foregoing 

SKVWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO 

COMPLAINANI' S MOTION FOR DECISION 

wai served as follows: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

OtTiceorHearing.s, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.F. 

East Building Ground Floor. Room E12-

320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

{Federal Express) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

SOO Independence Avtnue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-43U 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Jeffrey M. Harper 

Federal Aviation .^dniinisiration 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renion, Washington 98057 

FAX (425) 227-1007 

(Facsimile and Federal F.xprsss} 

{Federal Express} 

18 

l-AA Case Nus. 201 INMOCiOOlO and 2011NM0600! I 

SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S RESPONSE /VND OBJECTIONS 

TO ADIW/MSTKATOH' S MOTrON FOW DECISrON