01/10/2013 11:20 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 02/17

1 2**~** 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 

# , 14 13 14 :l.S Kyle E. 

### Lomazow FAA Office of

### Regional Counsel 1601 Lind Ave., SW Renton, 

### Washington. 98057 Telephone: (425) 

### 227-1847 Facsimile: (425)**227~1007** 

### UNITED STATES 

### OF AMERICA FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

## OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. i:**L~O**

16 

### In the Matter of DMS NO. FAA-2011-0782 17 1

### a SKYWEST 

### AIRLINES, INC. FAA 

### Case No. 20lONM060081 19 20 21 

### n**~3** 24 2S 26 27 28 2:;1**~0** 3:1. 

### n :3:) 34 35 36 37 38 S:l 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 451 so 5:1. 

### COMPLAINANT'S BRIEF**PROCEDURALSU~Y** 

### On

### August 8, 2011. the 

### Complainantissued a 

### Complaintto which

### Respon.de:ot filed a timely 

### Answer. In 

### its Answer, 

### Respondent admitted to Section I 

### and Section II**(1)~(6),** 

### and 

### (10)- (1.1). 1 

### Respondent denied tlte 

### factual allegations in Section II (7)- (9), and (16) as well as raised

two affirmative defenses. On May 

### 31. 2012. the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) setthe hearing


### in this matter for October 1, 2012 and it

### was held on October 1 and October**2~** 

### 20**12~**



### s2 '· See Answer 53**COM~LhiN~T'S H~ING**  BaiEF SKYWEST AIRLINES

- FDMS NO FAA-2011-0792 FA'A.**C;~.sE** )No,**f!O~.Or;.TM0600a;l. P~ge**  1 of 1.6 KYLE E , LOMAZOW, FAA ATTORNEY

TEL: (425) 227-18471 FAX: (4:25) 227-100701/10/2013 11:20 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 03/17

l 2 3 4 5 15 7 a 9 J.O ].]. 12 l3 14 J.5 16 17 18 lSI 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27**~a** ?-9 30 31 32 33**~4:** 35 36 37 38**3~** 40 STATEMENT OFF ACTS Sky West Airlines is the holder ofScheduledAir Carrier Certificate No. SWIAO 11A and
conducts its operations per Federal Aviation Regttlation Part 121.2 Its Operations Spedfica1.ions (OpSpecs) require it

### to :r.:nai.:otabJ its 

### aircraft 

### in. accordance with its Continuous Airworthiness
Maintenance Program 

### (CAMP), which includes the provisions ofits 

### General Maintenance
Manual (GMM)? The Sky 

### West GMM 

### includes by reference a 

### Bombardier, CL-600-2B19
Maintenance 

### and Inspection 

### Program and

### the Bombardier CL-600-2B 19 Maintenance Manual.4

The 

### SkyWest CAMP incorporates by reference Sky West Standard 

### Practice 8600.s SkyWest OpSpec D085 authorizes it to**u..~e** N948SW, a Bombardier**CL~600-2Bl9** civil aircraft, inthe
conduct 

### ofits Part 121 operations. 6

On May 30,2010, the Captain ofN948SW aborted takeoffatthe 

### San F:r.ao.cisco International Airport after fue flight

### crew received a right air-conditioni.ng 

### system pack high.


### pressure roessage.7

### This message indicatedto the pilot

### that the aircraft 

### did not have the ability to regulate high inputpressure iuto the**a.ir~conditioning** 

### packs. 1bis 

### aircraft has two airuconditioning packs (a. left and a right pack) and 

### in tl1is 

### h1stan.ce, the left air.-conditionjng pack had already been

### deferred~ causing the

### pilot to abort the takeoffentirely.8 This was a 

### mechanicai irregularity that

41 required the pilotto writethat

### mechanical irregularity up i.n the 

### aircraft maintenance log, which 42 43 44 45 46 2 See Complaint II.l and Answer 4 7 3 See**Comple~.int** ll.2, Answer andExhibit C"l. 4 s**~** See Complaint 11.3 and Answer. 49**~** See Complaint T.I.4 aud. Answer. 50 15 See Complaint II.5 and Answer. s J. 7 See Complaint II.6 and. Answer 52 s Tr. At 29, lines 5-22 and Tr. At 30, lines 5-19. 53 CoMPLJ<:tN.ll.Nl'' .<: Hll:J<'R!NG**E:~tn:v** SKYWEST AIRLINES

- FDMS NO FAA•:2011•0792 FAA**C~<sl;l .~o.**  :'.OlON'MOr5008J. Page 2 of 16 TSJ • .: (425) 227-1847; FAX: (425) 227·100701/10/2013 11:20 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 04/17

1 the pilot did in fact do. 9A SkyWest maintenance worker then used

### the Pilot's QuickReference 2 3 4 5 6 7 

### e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ;1,7 19 19 20 ;n 22 23 24 25 26 27 29 :<!9**~0** 31 32 33 3{> 35 3G 37 3!3 39 4,0 41 4.2 43 44 45 46 47 Handbook (QRH) to address this error. No error message was received when performing the
static throttle run because the QRH procedure does not develop pressure high enough to test the
system. The mechanic signed offon the Aircraft Maintenance Log, giving the aircraft an airworthiness release and approval for returnto service. 10 The QRH is the manual to be used by a pilot in flight when an. abnonnal procedure occurs and is located inthe cockpit ofthe aircraft. However, the QRH is not part ofSk.yWest's CAMP nor their GMM and is not designed; intended

or authorized to be 

### used Jn lieu ofsanctioned maintenance procedures. 11 Operations Specifications issued to SkyWest do :n.ot authorize 

### 1he use ofthe QRH to perform 

### m.aintenarice
tasks.
After N948SW was released it flew eight cycles between May 30, 2010 and June 1, 2010
before teiro.inating at the San Francisco International Airport on June 1, 2010, due

# to the flight

crew receiving a right air·conditioning system pack high pressure message.U

I. 

### ARGUMENT
SKYWESTVIOLATED ITS CAMP BY USING THE PILOt QUICK 

### REFERENCE :HANDBOOK 

### TO PERFORM MAINTENANCE. Sky West attempted to complicate the facts at the hearing aJJ.d 

### m.ake it seem like this is a muchmore complicated case than 

### it actually is. What it comes dovvn to is that SkyWestused a pilot's in. flight procedure in lieu ofauthorized and approp1iate maintenauce 

### manual procedures.

48 9 Tr. at 30·31, lines 20-22, l-3 and Exhibit C"2. 4 9 10 Tr. at 31, lines 7

- 20; Tr. at 32, lines 1 - 15, and Exhibit

## c-z so 11 Tr. at 32, lines 16-22; Tr. at 33, lin.es**1~22** and Exhibit C.l Sl J. 2 ComplaintII. 10 and. Answer and Respondent's Response to Complainant's Injtial Piscovery Requests, Request 52 for Admissions No.6

T<;YI,;r.: m• t..QM1>-:IOW, FAA ATTORNEY

FAA C1\.s:t: No. 2010NM0600B1 Page 3 of ;1.6 TEL:**(425)227~1847;** FA."{: (425}227-100701/10/2013 11:20 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 05/17

"). '2

3 4 5 G 7 

### SkyWest 1hen approved the aircraft for return to service, dispatched and operated 1he aircraft in

au

### unairworthy condition. SkyWesthas admitted the QRH: was not part ofits CAMP during the incident in

8 

### question. 13 

### However, Sky

### West argued that because the QRH was authored by 

### Bombardierthe

10 11 12 13 14 1S ;16 ;1.7 lS 19 20 21 22 23 24, 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

- 46 49 QRH is**~'manufacturer's** data'' 

### and could therefore be used by 

### their maintenance workers to
correct the right air-conditioning pack error message. 14 

### However, as Aviation Safety Inspector
Skeeter Gelui.n.g testified., the QRH is a flight operations roanna.l and is manufa.ctur.er's data for flight. 15 

### SkyWest is basica.lly 

### argub::tg that any document 

### generated by 

### a 

### manufacwrer, even one that is generated solely for flight operatjons, is appropriate for maintenance. That is no different
than arguing that an airplane brochure written

### by the roan.uiacturcr is appropriate for
maintenance. Aircraft manufacturers, such as Bombardier, are required

### to develop both
maintenance 

### procedures (instructions for 

### conti.n:u.ed airworthiness) and flight operations procedures. While both sets ofinformation and instructions are critical, they are n.ot interchangeable .in that the aircraft 

### cannot be 

### ""operated'' according to 

### maintenance**procedures~**


### normaintained in accordance with flight operation.s procedures. Passengers

# on commercial 

### airliners deserve to travel with the knowledge that the Ai.rlin.es are actually using maintenance
manuals to correct maintenance issues. Principle Operations Inspector Andrew Ayers, whose 

### current duties in:clude general oversight ofall the operational units ofSkyW 

### est, testifi.ed that the QRH is not to be used for
maintenance purj,oses. Mr. Ayers indicated that the QRH is intended to allow the airplane to

so 13 See Respondent's Response to Cornplainant;s lnitial Discovery Requests, Request for Admission No.3. 51 24 Tr.. at l02, line 3-20. 52 15 Tr. at 102, lines 3

- 20, Exhibit C-10 53 COMPLAINANT'S**H~~RrN~** BRLEF SK'lWF.JS'T Ar7<LtN1l!S- FDMS No FM-:'ZOll-0792 FAA CAsE No. 2010NMOG00$1 Page 4 of 1G TEL: (425) 227-1847; li'AX1 (445) 227-100701/10/2013 11:20 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 05/17

1 2 3 4 5 t5 7 8 9 ;LO 11 12 J.3 14 15 16 17 l.6 19 :2.0 21 22 23 24 25

> ;26

27 

### continue flight until the conclusion ofthe flight when the abnormalities can be addressed. 16 

### As
Mr. Ayer's testified, "the QuickRefer.en.ce Handbook,as I said. is an operational document. It is

not meant for corrective action. ofmechanical irregularities." 17


### The word**~<Quick''** 

### i,n the "Quick Reference Handbook'' is meant to allow a pilot to quickly address abnormalities inflight. Itis not meant to allow SkyWestto "quickly" get a plane offthe gate for on-time departure purposes. We note with a degree ofemphasis that the correct roaintena:r.J.ce procedure is significantly more detailed and time consuming than the mere use ofa QRH flight operations procedure.

. . . . . . . . . .**~.** ' •.. ' ·:A 

### II. SKYWEST IS NOT FREE 

### TO DEVELOP NEW 

### METHODS AND 

### TECHNIQUES ON THE FLY During the hearing Sky

### West argued that the discrepancy at issue here was a "known

. . 

### condition" and that therefore SkyWest.maintenance workers were free to develop a method,

• • " • ' • 'h'\ ' 2s 

### technique, or pr:wtice to return the aircraft to its original or.**proper!~ altered,con~,itiqu**  

### as per
... 2.9**~** '

..**~·** t '

. 30 31 32 ;33**~.~'** 3S 36 37 38 .39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1,6 47 

### section l.A(2) oftl1eGMM. 18 

### That argument lacks meritbecause there ar.e many.**m:ainte~c.e,** 

### issues which are "lo:J.Own conditions," but that does not alleviate an air carrier from having to

. -(.. '·.•

. . . ·,. '' .. ;•' . ' :. 

### follqw its CAMP. There is 

### no reference in SkyWest's CAMP or. GMM which says the maintenance program '"does not apply ifcondition known to SkyWest." 19 

### Fur.thennore, there is nothing inthe GMM that refers to the error message received in tltis case as a "known condition."

### 20 More important) 

### SkyWest's pilot did not believe this

### ~as a 

### know11

### co~dition when he decided to abort the flight and 

### Write it up 

### as amechanical irregularity requirlrtg 

### maintenance.

'1,,

. '

4B 16 Tr. at 138, lines 8-12 and Tr. !'It 139, lines 7-22. 49 l 7 · Tr. at 140-l4l,

### Hoes 21 -2. 5o J 6 T.r. at 83, lines 12- 15. Tr. at 130, lines 6

- 11, page 4 of 19 ofExhibit C.l. 51 19

. Sec Exhibit C-1. , s2**~o** Tr. 

### at 82, 53 COMPLAINANT'S HEARING**~R"F.?** SKYWEST AIRLINES

- :f'PMS NO**FAA~201l-0782** FAA CASE NO. 2010NM060081 Pa.ge 5 o:e l6 TET.,; (425) 227"1847; FAX: (425) 227-100701/10/2013 11:20 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 07/17**~** ;'. 3 4 5 6 ·'·7 

## a 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 l? iS**l~** 20 2:!, 22 23 24 25 26 2? 28 29 30 3l. 32 33 34 35 35 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 4.s ,,1,1;; 47 48 4;1 so Sl 52 53 

### SkyWest's argument that their 

### mechanics can develop their ovvn method, 

### technique or pra.ctice to return the compo:o.ent or aircraft to its original 

### or properly altered condition also lacks credibility. What SkyWest is basically arguing is, 

### "we hire sm.ar.t people and they know what they

are doing: Therefore, there is no need 

### for us to follow our own CAlvfP every time." It goes without saying that an air carrier 

### cannotbypass their own CAMP or GMM because they happen

to hire qualified mechanics. Hiring quaHfied 

### tnecb.au.ics is what is to be expected 

### fTom any aix
carrier. SkyWestis 

### fTee to develop new methods or techniques 

### when. it com.es to :returning an aircraft to its o:r.igi.nal or properly altered condition, but any new technique still has to be acceptable to 

### the FAA aud 

### implemented in its CAMP. Otherwise SkyWest could 

### simply pick and
choose when to follow their CAMP. In the final analysis, Sky

### West alone

### is~esponsible for 

### the
airwoithiness oftheir aircraft. Acceptance ofthis

### responsibility i.s 

## the core**objecti~e** 

### of maintenance program 

### procedures. To delegate 

### this responsibility 

### to**line~ro.~chanics** 

### on. a flightby-flight basis is unacceptable from both a practical perspective as well as a safety management perspective. Maintenance procedures are defined in company maintenance**m.au~tals;** 

### which are linked

to Operations Specifications. The procedures and processes contained therein constitute the
FAA's agreement 

## with SkyWestregarding how 

### tb.ei.r aircraft will be maintained. SkyWest 'is· free

to defme as many

### altem~te**proc~dures** as they like, bu.t they cannot have a 

### policytb.a.t allows. or directs mechanics to make stuffup on the fly 

### with the objective ofon-time departures.
III. SKYWEST'S CAMP DOES ADDRESS THE MECHANICAL IRREGULARITY AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE**COMP~rNANT** 1 S 'foilill<lUI:'G SRIEF SI<YWEST AIRLINES**~** FDMS No FAA·20H-0782 FAA CASE No. 2010NM06008;1, Page 6 of**~6** T<YLE E, LOMAZOW, FAA**ATrO!lN~'t**

TEL: (425) 227•184,?; li'f'>X; (4.45) 227-100701/10/2013 11:20 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 08/17

1 4 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :tO 11 J.2 13 14 15 16 J.7 18 19 20

### ~'· Sky 

### West argued 1hatthere are some occasions wheJJ. a :mechallic n.eeds to operate on a system in the aircraft and cannot find 

### it inthe CAMP the mechanic 

### could then refer to an operations rn.alJ.Ual 

### on how to repair the problem.2 J 

### This 

### argument Jacks credibility for three

reasons. One, an air carrier is required to maintain their aircraft in accordance with thel.r CAMP
an.d 

### their 

### CAMP should address 

### what to do should a problem rise 

### that is not contained in the maintenance manual. 22 

### Two, as Inspector Gehring testified, the Fault Isolation Manual andthe
Aircraft Maintenance Manual, both ofwhich are part ofSkyWest's Camp, clearly address howto


### correct and 

### test tbe systems following the error message received inthis case. 

### 23**Thxee~** 

### the QRH,

as

### stated.ab~ve, is designed

# t6 allow the aii·plane to contin:ue flJ.ght 

### until 

## its conclus'ion

# whert the

22 • 

### m.echau.icai irregularity can

# be**~ddressed**

# and is not meant to be used

### for.cori:ecti~e· action of 23

### ~·: .m.ech.auical i:cregularities?4
26 :J? 29 29 30 

### CAMP contained 

### the answer. 

### SkyWest 

### used the QRH because

### ti:r.n~ is 

# moriey**~~d** .they

### w~ted to**~1** . .



### . 'get this airctaffback 

### into the air

## as quickly as possible.**~f** . i'

39 37 3S 39 .40 41 42 43 44 1l5

..**~,6** 47 '

.. · IV.

. .

## THE FAlLURE

## TO FOLLOW

### THEIR. CA1\1P 

### RESUL

### TEiirnN94~SViBEINd RELEASED IN AN UNAlRWORTHY CONDITION


### SkyWest**r~leased** 

### N948SW after their mechanic signed offthe Aircraft**Maintenan~e** 

### Log after using the 

### QR.l:l to address the right air-conditioning pack 

### error message. 25 

### SkyWest then

,. proceeded

### to operate 

### N948SW on eight flights with N948SW 

### in an unairworthy condition due to

:>.J. Tr at 106, lin.es 6-11 22**Tr~** 

### at l06s lines 0-22, Tr. at 107, lines 1-22. -::-,-· 23 Tr. at 37, lines !.5- 22; Tr. at 38, lines l· 1.9; Tr. at 39, lines l

- 1 0; Tr. at 40, lines 1.**~** 16; Exhibit C-3 and 5o Exl1ibit C.-4.

. . Sl · 24 Tr. at 139, lines 12-22 andTr. 140-)41, lines 21-2. 52 

### 53 2.5 Tr. at,3.2, lines 2**~** 22, Exhibit

### 9·2 arid Exhibit C- 5.

COI'Il'LAlN.M"t' s HI!:AI'!.iNG. BlUE//' SK'!WE:S'l.' AIRLINES

- FDMS No FAA-2011-0782 FAA CAse No. 2010NM0600BJ. Page 7 of J.6 . '') '
...
X'lLE ll, LOMAZOW, FAA ATTORl'lE'l

'l'EL: (4.25) 227•1847; FAX! (425)**227~1007**01/10/2013 11:20 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 0'3/17

1 2 3 4 5 6 .7 9 9 10 l.l 12 13 14 l!;i 16 17 18 19 ;;!0 :21 22 

### n 24 25 26 27 26 ;;!$! 30**~l** 32 33 34 35 36 37 39 39 40 

### the aircraft not meeting type design (a failure in the**air~cond.itioning** 

### pack) and a required inspection that was not accomplished to 4etennine if

### a condition existed that could have been 

### potentially dangerous?6 

### In fact, the 

### very next 

### day, a Sky

### West pilot aborted takeoffagai.n whi.le ·operatingN948S

### W. This time 

### SkyWest replaced au integral component ofthe air-conditioning pack in 

### accordan.ce with 

### their CAMP_
The Administrator has previously ruled that if

### a legally required inspection has not been performedthe aircraft cannotbe considered airworthy. In the Matter ofUSAIR, INC., 

### 1296 'WL 

### 509037, Docket No. CP94EA0045 at 6. In the USAir 

### case, the Respondent failed to perform a high energy stop inspection 

### in accordance with 

### the Boeing 767 Maintenance Manual. Jd

### at 1. 

### USA.ir then operated the aircraft on eight domestic flights**b~tween** 

### the- tiine ofihefir.st 

### aborted
takeoffand when 

### it was aborted again eight flights latcr.Jd at 2. The DOT 

### rejected 

## USAir's argument that without damage to the plane the FAA could not prove the·aircraft was

### u~irworthy by 

### stating: 

### "By failing to perform the high energy 

### stop inspection when the 

### need 

### aTose,

as caJ]ed for by the 

### Boeing 767 

### maintenance manual, USAir failed to perform the
maintenance required by 

### Part 43. As a result, the aircraft's airworthiness certificate was
not in effect for the eight flights at issue here." ldat 6.

' ' 4,1 

### Furthermore, the Administrator stated that an aircraft that has flown without required inspections '\t2 42 44 45 46 47 48**4~** 

### so 51 

### is not

### airw~rthy 'Within the meaning oftb.e Federal Aviation Act 

### simply because 

### itis later found

to beundamaged. !d. "Airworthiness is not synonymous with fly 

### ability." !d. Just as in this case, by 

### failing to use their GMM to properly maintain the right air-conditioning pack, Sky

### West failed

52 26 Tr at 57, lines 14- 21; Tr. at 66, lines 12- 22; Tr. at 67, li.nes 1 -7. S3 COM:!'LIUM.IIm'' s H:EAAINO**Btt~Sl" .S~'tW!!:$'1'**  A:r:ru

..n!IM

- FDMS No FAA-201.1-0782 FAA CII.SE No, 2010NM060081 Page S of 16 KYLE .It, LOMllU>W 1 l!'AA AITORNEY

TEL: (4.2S) 227-1$47; FAX; (425) 2.27-'l.00701/10/2013 11:20 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 10/17

1 2 3 4 s !) 7 6 9 10 

### n 12 13 14 to perform the maintenance required by Part 43. As a resul4 the aircraft'$ 

### airworthiness
certificate was not in effect for the eight flight cycles at issue here.


### In. regards to safety, as mentioned above, 

### the left airNconditioning pack 

### was already
deferred and therefore not functioning when. the pilot received a 

### :message indicating that the right air-conditioning pack was not functioning properly. When the right air-conditioning pack
malfunctioned the safety ofthe aircraft

### became unknown and that is anunknown safety issue on

15 a passenger carrying flight, which is simply unacceptable. ,,6 17 18 19 20 21 42 2.3 24 25 26 27 26 .29 30 31 32 33 34 35 315 37 3S 3:3 40 

## v. THE PROPOSED SANCTION IS SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS AND THE ADMINISTRATOR'S SANCTION GUIDANCE SET FOURTH IN FAA

.. 

### ORDER 2150.3B.

.. While the maximum statutory civil penalty for violations ofthe provisions of 14 C.F.R.


### Parts 1i9 and 121 is 

### $27j500'per occtirrence27 

### and per flight,2R

### the Adniinistrat6ihtis'jSrovided published''policy guidance 

### for Agency employees to follow 

### when determining**~n** 

## approp:d'ate
civil penaltY for a given**case.~ 9**  This guidance is contained in FAA Order 2150.3B, in particular Chapter 7 and Appendix B. The guidelines aid Complainant's penalty determinationthrough a Sanction Guidance Matrix. The Matrix sets out specific penalty ranges for each type ofviolation
and provides a range within**whi~h** an appropriate sanction should be 

### soug11t. Complainant's
sanction determination nevertheless does not merely reflect a fixed mathematical computation

1U but considers a multitude offactors set for in Chapter 7, paragraph 4. Using these factors, the 4:2 43 44 45 27 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(J.). See also FAA Order 2150.3:S, Chap 7, para. 3 46 28 See 49 U.S.C. 4o30I(a)(2). 4 7 29 IfRespondent attempts to claim that some other sanction is appropriate in this case, t js well-settled tbat the 4 B FAA's· determination to institute a civil pen.alty proceeding rather than employini some lesser fomJ. ofsauction (such 49 as a letter ofcorrecti.on) is a:r.:o.atter committed to the Agency's sound discretion. SeeIn the matter o.fq((ShoreAir, 50 F.AA. Order 2002-7, 2002 WL 1042304 (Apri115, 2002) and In the matter ofWyatt, FAA Order 92-73, 1992 WL s1 733220 (Dec. 21, 1992). See alsoln the matter ojEoston-Mai12e Airways, FAA No. CP08S00002, 2008 WL 52 3485802 (August 8, 2008)(initial decision). 53 COMPLAINANT'S l'!FoAR;tN(; B'IUEllf SKYWElST AJ:RLINEl.S**~** FDMS No FAA-2011-0782 FAA. CAsE: No. 2010NM060081 Page;: 9 of 16 KY.UEl E, LOMAZ.OW, FAA ATTORME'!

TEL:**(425)227~1847l** FAX: (425)227-100701/10/2013 11:20 4252271007 ANtv17 PAGE 11/17

1 

### Complainant adjusts the sanction either upward or downward from. middle ofth.e 

### recommended 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 n 1.9 19 20 ;21 22 23 ?.4 25 26 ?..7 28 2$1 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37**~8** 39 40 41**~,2** 43 44 45 46" 47 4e 49 50 51 52 53 

### sanction range.30 

### The 

### Complai.nan.t has 

### identified thirteen (13) factors 

### to consider when determining tbe 

### appropriate sanction for the violations 

### associated with 

### this case.31 

### In 

### Folsom's
Air

### Service, Inc.,FAA OrderNo 2008-ll (November 6, 2008), the 

### Administrator held that FAA
Order reflects the Administrator's 

### general views about the civil penalty ranges that are appropriate for different types ofviolations. In short, a civil penalty must reflect the totality of1he 

### circumstances surrounding the violations

.

### .Folsom's, sup_ra. Unlike the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

### ALJs,32 

### Department of Transportation (DOT) ALJs are 

### not statutorily bound by the 

### Administrator's guidance. However, the 

### ALJ is bound to follow 

### Agency guidance andthe Administratorhas asserted the power to impose the agency's sanction policy on appeal ifan ALJ assesses a civil 

### penalty that

## is not consistent with the policy. 

### See .ln the matter ojWarbelow 'sAir Ventures, Inc., FAA Order No.

30 The guidance provides that the :middle ofeach recommended sw.ction range is where one begins for a single vjoJation without aggravating or rni.tj.gating factors. FAA Order2150.3B, app. B, para. 3(c) [p. B-2] S.l Those factors are: .· .. a. Nature ofthe violatio:o.; b. "Whetherthe viol11tion. was jnadvcrtent and not deliberate; c. The certificate bolder's level ofexperience; d. The attitude**~;~fthe** violator; e. The degree ofhazard; f. Whetherthere was action taken by the employer or other authority for against the employee that committed the violation(s); g. Use ofthe certificate; h. Violation history; i. Decisional Jaw; j. Ability to absorb the sancti.on; k. Consistency ofSan.ction; I. Whetherthe violation was Reported Voluntarily; and, m. Corrective Action.

32 49 U.S.C. §44709(d)(3) requires the Boardto give deference to the Administrator's**writt~n** Agency policy, absent a fmding that it is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not accordi.ug to law. · '**!ca~E** ;;: • LO!o!l\ZOW, FAA**ATTORNS~** SX'lWEST AIRLINES

- FPMS No F.AA-2011-0782 FAA CASE :No. 2010NM060081**PC~.ge** ;t 0 o:C 16 TEL: (425) ,227-1847 i FAX: (425} 227-100701/10/2013 11:20 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 12/17**~** 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 H 12 13 14 15 H 17 lS 1:3 20 21 22 ?.3 24 25 26 2000-3 (February 3, 2000), at 20; 

### In the matter of NorthwestAirlines, FAA Order No.**1990~37** (November 7, 1990), at 8-10.
From the ou,tset, the Complainant acknowledges that ithas the burden tojustifY the amount of
civil penalty it seeks. 

### In. the 

### Matter of Luxemburg, FAA Order 1994-18 (June 22, 1994). However, it is also well established "[a]n administrative agency i.s entitled to substantial deference in assessing the civil penalty appropriate for a violation ofits regulations.
The Agency's choice ofa sanction is not to be overturned unless it is unwarranted in law or withoutjustification in 

### fact" 

### NL 

### Industries, Inc. 

### v. Dept. ofTransportation, 901 F.2d 141, 144

• ' , • ''

. • l , •I {-.· '•" • ' (D.C. Cir; 1990). 33 In this case, the sanction is not only appropriate but 

### fully 

### supported und:er the
Administrator's sanction guidauce.34

-.... 11:J.is case does not involve 'a person on her first aitplaneflight who cominiti ateiativeiy**~7** m.irJ:or violation. By statute- Title 49, Section**44701(d)(l)(A)~** Air carriers are held to a high duty 29 29 30 

### n 32 33 34 35 ofcare. Indeed, they are obligated to perform their servjces 

### with "the

### ,highest possible 

### standard of
care." 

### See, e.g., Folsom's, supra, p. 16. This degree ofcare devolves from the carriers' responsibility to assure, to the maximum extent possible, the safety and well-being 

### ofhs

36 passengers, 

### crew, and others involved 

### in transportation by air: 

### TI::te Administrator has made it 37 39 39 40 o\1;;1. 42 43 44 33

..**[T)her~** is precedent indicating that unless there**<~re** factors justl,:f.YJ:og the reduction ofan otherwise reason,able 45 civi.I penalty, Complainant's use ofthe sanction guidance to cletenniue. the appropriate civil penalty should not be -\1,6 disturbed." Jn the Matter of BlueRidgeAirlines, FAA Order No. 99-15, 1999 WI

.. 1279832 (Pee. 22, 1999) citing 47 Tral18 WorldAirlines, .Tnc., FAA Order No. 98"11, at 21 (June 16, 1988). AccordFAA v. Don BessetteAviation, 49 2006 WL 1624325, at 5, 7 (injtial deci-sion ofJudge Goodwin). · 4 Sl 31 ''When sanction is an issue, the lawjudge is expected to give areasoned explanation ofthe amount ofthe civil so penalty selected, whether or not the penalty is reduced, The Admb::dstrative Procedure Act requires articulation ofthe 51 lawjudge's sanction decision." ]71 the Matter ofToyotaMotor Sales, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 94-24, 1994 VJ1, 89966 52 (Sept. 30, 1994)(citingto 5 U.S.C. §557(c)). 53**COM:!'LAt~,t;NT'** S HEARING BRIEF SKYWEST AIRLINES

- ?OMS No FAA-2011-0782 FM, Cl>.SE J:'Jo. 2010NM060081 Page 11 of 16**KYL~** Pl , l:.OMI>,ZOW, FAA ATTOJ'U.!EY

. j I

'1.'F.L: (425) 227-18471 FAX: '{425)227'-100701/10/2013 11:20 4252271007 ANM7

1 

### clear that "[ c

]ertificate holders with a greater level ofexperience may be hefd to' ahigher 2 3 

### standard."35 4 5 6 

### Another consideration in. determining the penalty amount is Respondent's size. The 7 

### s Agency's policy is to place a relatively equivalent deterrent effect on eachair carrier. As such, "[w]henthe violator is a large company rather than a small company, 11 

### the Administratorhas said, 11

### the penalty may need to be correspondingly larger to achieve the same deterrent effect." Toyota }vfotor Sales, USA, Inc., 

### FAA OrderNo. 94-28 (September 30, 1994). p. ll. Here the PAGE 13/17

10 11 12 13 14 15 LS 17 :1.S 19 20 21 22**~3** 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 

### violator is "the world's lar.gestindependently-owned regional airline. providing service throughout
North America.''36 

### As an air 

### carrier whose annual operating revenues are in excess of$100 million
and who employs more thau 1,500 employees,37 

### SkyWest is categorized under the Administrator's
sanction gttidance as a Group I air carrier.38 

### As a large carrier by any measure, 

### SkyWest must be subject to a fine with 

### a deterrent factor appropriate to its size. The penalty should represent something greater in effect than simply a cost ofdoing business. Considering

# SkYWest's size and operating revenue, there is no issue about the ability to absorb the sanction.
Tbis 

### case involves SkyWest faiJure to perfonn maintenance after the pilot reported. "8. 

### mechanical irregularity severe enough to cause the captain to abort the takeoff. Instead of performing the required inspection, SkyWest used a QRH procedure not designed for or

41 

### applicable to the performance ofmaintenance.**~.2** 43 44 45 35 FAA Order 2150.3B, chap. 4, para
.. 4(c)(l) [p. 7·5]

. 46 3 G SkyWest Airlines Fact sheet at**http://www.SkvWest.com/mediaJSJ.-'YWest·AirU;w~E!;,s.t;:§b.!te..!J?l:IJ;J.** (retrieved June 47 9, 2010). ' 48 37 See Answers to Request for**Adm~ssions** land 2 iu Respondent's Response to Complainan.t,s In.itial Discovery 49 Request. According to SkyWest's own statements on its public website, it employees 10,373 full-time employees so operates 323 aircraft, an.d had an operatingrevel'll.le of$9:21.2 mUlion in tbe quarter ending March 31,2012 alone. Sl See www.SkyWest.com. s2 a FAA Order 2150.3B, app. B, para
.. 3(c)(l) [p.**B~3].** 53**COMP.LAI~Nr'S ~~~RJ.N~** **aR'-~F** SKYW:saT A:tRLINt.S**~** FDMS NO FAA-2011-0782 FAA CAs.e No. 2010NMOG0081**Pag~** 12 of 16 KYLE E , LOMI\.ZOW, FAA ATTORNEY01/10/2013 11:20 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 14/17

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 

### s 9 10 11 12 l.3 l4 1S 16 17 j,S 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 .28 2$ 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 4.2 43 44 45 46 47 48 4.9 so Sl For sanction purposes, the Administrator has identified what an appropriate sanction
would be fo:r. each type ofviolation alleged in this case. For sanctions involving operation ofan aircraft in violation ofits operations specifications, the sanctionrange is $10,000-$25,000 for
each violation. Beginning at the mid-range, prior to any further evaluation, the initial sanction
would be $17,500 per violation.**Here~** SkyWest operated N948SW eight times in violation ofits Operation Specifications, which would equal $140,000 ($17,500 x 8). The sancti.on sought inthis

case is $68,500, wl1ich is a significant dmv:nward deviation. Furthelmore, this was not an inadvertent act. SkyWest intentionally used a manual they
knowjs for flight operations only and therefore caused a 

### passenger carrying 

### flightto 

### be released

.**~** . . .**~** ' ·, • '·· ·' : '. :, l in 

### an unairworthy condition. 

### An air canier with SkyWest's level ofexperience ilfexpected to

···;. '• • 1_**~** ,...**~** ,- . •**~ ~.**  ,, •• • '',•• ':· '·· .·.,··._(**.~** const.stently comply withthe Federal Aviation 

### Regulations. 

## To date SkyWest has not taken. any 

### steps to

### en~ure

## t:hai'a si.milar violation will riot in fact occur again.-39 :· '. '.**~** . '.

Even iftl1e five regulation violations were considered as being multiplidous for sanction
purposes, $17,500 per violation would equal $87,500, which is at the lower e11d ofthe sanction guidance. There is no evidence that has beenpresented by SkyWestthat warrants a downward
deviation from the Administrator's sanction guidance. 

### Any amount 

### lower than the proposed
sanction

### wo~ld not provide sufti.cient deterrent. The Agency is 

### in the

# best. position to

### d~termine

. . what 

### sanction should be imposed for a given violation and abseut a

## fl.ndblg 1hat the

. . Administrator is acting arbitrarily or capriciously, the ALJ should give deference

# to the sanction proposed by the Agency, particularly when th.e sanction proposedis at the lower en.d ofthe 

### sanction. guidance:

s2 39 Sec exhibit C-9 53 COMFT,AJ:WJ.\))11'' S HF.lliR,;r,N(l BR;r.EJ;' SrcrWES'!' Aur •.:r:l'r.lS- FDMS No FAA-2011-0782**~AA.** Cli$E No. 2010NM060081 ;F.>;;.ge**~3** of 16

. . KYLE E.**I.OWI.~OW** 1 ll'AA ATTORNEY

TEL: (425) 227-J.847.l F.AX: (425)**~27-J,007**

# ---------------------------------....., 01/10/2013 11:20 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 15/17

1 2 3 4 5 VI. RESPONDENT'S DEFENSES DO NOT WARRANT A REDUCTION IN SANCTION.

6 

### The Respondent rose as a defense, but presented no evidence to support, tha.t the proposed
7 

### a penalty violates FAA policy. is excessive, and. IS 

### an abu.se ofdiscretion. 

### Tiris assertion lacks

10 1:1. 12 13**~.~** 15 16 17 18 19 20 ::n 22 23 ?.4, 25 26 ')..7 28 29 30 

### n 32 33 3-:J, 35 36 37 39 39 40 41 42 43 44, 45 46 47 48 49 50 

### meri.t. In the

### main, the Respondent has the burden ofprooffor 

### any affirmative defense.
The Administrator is ultimately responsible for regulating safety in air com.m.erce. Congress gave the Administrator the power to prescribe regulations.40 

### Infurtherance ofthis obligation to the

### public, the Administrator has the authority to impose sanctions for 

### violating A.ge:o.cy Regulations.41 

### .The Administrator has made available to the pubU.c how sanctions will be
determined and what factors it 

### vvill consider. However, as to the weight associated vv:i.th each
factor "the Complainant maintains relative prosecutorial discretion

# io

..detenni.ni.ng the case's


### final aggregate weight in proposing the level ofcivil penalty!'

### In the lv.fatter

### ofWilliam A. Luker

.. .Jr., 

### FAA Docket No. CP09SW0008, 2010 WL 1989430 (May 13, 201.0) (Order ofChiefJudge
Yoder Granting Complainant's Motion for Sumrn.ary Judgment)

51 -iO 49 U,S,C. §40 11.3. 52 41 49 U.S.C. §46301. See also 14 C.F.R. §13.16 53 COM:;>J,.JI,;r.NII.l<I'T. I s H'E111.1l.:tNG EIR:t'SF SKYW1i1S'J." Al:R.J.INE$- FDMS No FAA-2011-0782 FAA CAsE :t:ro. 20l0NM060081 Page 14 of :1.6 K'r:t.>: t.**Loro~.>~.zow,** FAA AnO!tliiE"!

TEL: (425) 227-1847; FP.JC: (4::J5)**n7-~.007**01/10/2013 11:20 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 15/17

1 2 3 4 5 CONCLUSION ·

6 SkyWest failed 

### to perform maintenance after the pilot ofthe subject aircraft reported a 7 s mechanical irregularity severe enough to cause the captain to abort the takeoff. Instead of

10 11 12 l3 14 15 16 :1.7 19**~.Sl** 20 2l 22 23 24 :as 26 27 <.!tl 29 30 31 3.2 33 31 35 3G 37 39 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 46 47 4S 49 60 51 52 !53 performing the required inspection, 

### SkyWest used a QRH procedure not designed for or applicable to the performance ofmaintenance. This substantial disregard for the safety of
passengers led to SkyWest's**approv~** for return to service, dispatch and operation ofan unairworthy aircraft. These 

### types ofactions by a major air carrier are 

### simply inexcusable, especially considering 1hese are passenger carrying fl.ights. Given the circumstances and the fact
that the Administrator could have sought a much higher saucti.on, the $68,500 proposed is more than reasonable. The AL.T should defer to that sanction and affirm the Co1:nplainant's

### reque~t for
the imposition for a $68,500 penalty.


### RESPECTFULLY SUBMITrED this 

### lOth day of

### Jan.uary 2013. 

# (

__......

## --···~;/ ,...**,.~·" COMPLhi~ANT'S** **HE~~J.NG** nR.F.F SKYWEST AIRLIIJES

- lf:OMS :NO**FM~2011~0782** FAA CliSE No. 2010NM06008l Page 15 of :t.6 TEL1 (425) 227-lS47; FAX; (4:<tS)**.?.~7-:1.007**01/10/2013 11:20

1 2 3 4252271007 ANM7

CERTIFICATE 

### OF SERVICE

4 

### I hereby certify that the

### foregoi.ng Complainant's Brief, has been served via Facsimile and 

### s Certified Mail this date, to 

### the following: 6 7 

### a 9 :LO 11 12 13 l.4 l.S 16 17 18 19**~0** 21 :22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34: 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 so 51 52 53 

### The Honorable Richard 

### C. Goodwin. Office ofhearings. M-20 1200 

### New Jersey Avenue, S.E. EastBuilding Ground Floor, Rm El2-320 

### \Vashington, D.C. 20590 FAX: (202) 366-7536



### Federal Aviation Administration Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 800 

### Independence Ave SW · 

### Wilbur WrightBldg.

- Suite 2WJ. 000 Washington, D.C. 20591 FAX: (202) 493-5142 

### Todd C. 

### Emerson SkyWest Airlines 444 S. 

### River Road. St. George, Utah 84790 

### FAX: (435) 634-3505

Dated this 

### 1oth day ofJanuary, 2013.

# ~~ Office ofRegional Counsel (ANM-7) 

### Federal Avjatio:n. Administration 1601 Lind 

### Ave. SW Renton, 

### WA 98057 TEL: (425) 227-2164 FAX: (425) 227-1007 PAGE 17/17**CoM~~ZNANT S**  REARING aRZEF SI<¥WBS'l'**AlR.~~NEl!il** - FDMS No FAA-2011-0782 FAA CASe; No. 20;I.0NMOSOOB1 XYJ:,E E. LOIIVt.ZOW' FAA A'!"I'ORJ>.TE¥
P;;tge 16 of 16 TEL: (425)227-J.947f F'.IJ.X: (425)227-1007