'( 

SERVED: July 16, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SKYWEST AIRLINES 

DOCKET NO. F AA-2012 - 0868 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

:3 i : 

INITIAL DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

I. Glossary 

A CARS 

A&P 

ASI 

Ayers 

Brown 

C.F.R. 

CLR 

CLT 

CMO 

COG 

ESI 

FAA 

Aircraft Communications Addressing and 

Reporting System 

Airframe and Power Plant certificate 

Aviation safety inspector 

AndrewJanies Ayers 

Christopher C. Brown 

Code of Federal Regulations 

Cargo Load Report 

Charlotte/Douglas International Airport, Charlotte, NC 

Certificate Management Office 

Center of Gravity 

Element Performance Inspection 

Federal Aviation Administration, Complainant 

: ;: . 
FAR Federal Aviation Regulation 

IAH George Bush International/Houston Airport, Houston, TX 

N937SW/5840 SkyWest flight from IAH to CLT on June 2, 2011 

OpSpecs Operations Specifications 

Perkins Adam Scott Perkins, FAA inspector 

Salamone Carl Salamone, Sky West witness 

Sky West SkyWest Airlines, Inc., Respondent 

SMS Safety Management System 

U.S.C. United States Code 

W&BManual Weight & Balance Operations Part XII SP 4100 

II. Introductory Comment 

This case was consolidated with other cases with similar facts, issues and 

defenses by consent of the parties. 1 

This case involved Sky West flight N937SW operated as Flight 5840 (hereinafter 

''N937SW/5840") from George Bush International/Houston Airport (hereinafter "IAH"), 

Houston, TX to Charlotte/Douglas International Airport (hereinafter "CL T"), Charlotte, 

NC on June 2, 2011. 

III. Procedural History 

On July 26, 2012, Sky West!Airlines, inc:, (hereinafter "SkyWest") was advised 

through a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that the Federal Aviation 

Administration (hereinafter "FAA") proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of 

$40,000 for violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations (hereinafter "FAR"). 

1 SkyWest Airlines Docket Numbers FAA 2012-0617, FAA 2012-0619, FAA 2012-0868, FAA 2012 

-0869, FAA 2012-0872, FAA 2012-0873, FAA 2012-0874 and FAA 2012-0904. 

2 
On August 8, 2012, SkyWest Airlines, Inc., through legal counsel, submitted a 

written request for a hearing. 

On August 15, 2012, the FAA filed its Complaint. 

On September 17,2012, SkyWest filed its Answer. On June 21,2013, SkyWest 

filed its Amended Answer. 

By Order dated August 21, 2013 we consolidated this case with other cases with 

similar violations of the F ARs, similar issues and similar defenses of Sky West. 

IV. Hearing 

A hearing was held in Salt Lake City, UT., on May 19,2014 in the consolidated 

cases. 

The FAA was represented by Jeffrey Harper, Esq., FAA Office of Regional 

Counsel, Renton, Washington. 

SkyWest was represented by Michael L. Dworkin, Esq., of Dworkin & 

Associates, San Francisco, California 94104 and Todd C. Emerson, ESQ., General 

Counsel, SkyWest Airlines, St. George, Utah. 

Post hearing briefs were filed by both parties. 

The matter is now ready for decision. 

V. Jurisdiction 

SkyWest was at all times material hereto the holder of Scheduled Air Carrier 

Certificate No. SW1A011A, and conducted its operations pursuant to Part 121 ofthe 

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) and was subject to those regulations. 

3 
VI. Burden ofProof 

The FAA was the petitioning party with the initial burden of proof ( 14 C. F. R. § 

13.224). 

VII. Allegations 

A. The FAA's recitation of facts 

The FAA alleged: 

Section II (FAA's Complaint) 

1. Sky West was at all times material herein the holder of Scheduled Air Carrier 

Certificate No. SWIA011A, and conducted its operations pursuant to Part 121 

ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (hereinafter "FAR"). 

2. Paragraph D085 of Sky West's Operations Specifications (hereinafter 

"OpSpecs") authorized Sky West to use N93 7SW, a Bombardier Ct-600-2B 19 

civil aircraft, in the conduct ofSkyWest's Part 121 operations. 

3. Paragraph A098 ofSkyWest's OpSpecs required that aircraft loading for 

Bombardier CL-600-2B 19 aircraft be accomplished in accordance with 

SkyWest's Weight & Balance Operations Manual, SP4100, (hereinafter 

"W&B Manual"), "Part XII, revision Orig. of 1 APR 10." 

:, 'I' 

4. SkyWest's W&B Manual contained the loading schedules and instructions for 

Sky West's Bombardier CL-600-2B 19 aircraft. 

5. SkyWest's W&B Manual, Chapter 2, paragraph 2.A.58 defined "Standard 

Checked Bag" as a "checked bag weighing 50 lb. or less." 

6. SkyWest's W&B Manual, Chapter 2, paragraph 2.A.50 defined "Planeside 

Valet Bag" as "[e]quivalent to a Planeside Limited Bag or Service Item." 

4 
7. SkyWest's W&B Manual, Chapter 2, paragraph 2.A.55 defined "Service Item" 

as " [ e ]qui valent to a Planeside Loaded or Planeside Valet Bag. 11 

8. SkyWest's W&B Manual, Chapter 2; paragraph 2.A.49 defined "Planeside 

Loaded Bag as 11 [a ]ny bag or item that is placed at the door or steps of an 

aircraft or in the passenger loading bridge and subsequently placed in the 

aircraft cargo bin/pit. Referred to as Planeside Valet/Service Item on the 

Cargo Load Report [hereinafter "CLR"]. 11 

9. SkyWest's W&B Manual (Temporary Revision dated 14 FEB 11), Chapter 3, 

paragraph 3.B.2 stated the flight deck crewmember used the information from 

the CLR to construct the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting 

System (hereinafter "ACARS") load manifest. 

10. SkyWest's W&B Manual (Temporary Revision dated 14 FEB 11), Chapter 3, 

paragraph 2.D.l stated the 11 desfgnat~J'cn Ground Operations loading agent 

evaluates the classification of all checked baggage (either standard or heavy). 

The designated loading agent must mark the number of standard and heavy 

checked baggage on the CLR. 11 

11. SkyWest's W&B Manual (Temporary Revision dated 14 FEB 11), Chapter 3, 

paragraph 2.1.2 stated that " [ u ]pon completion of loading the cargo bin/pit, the 

designated loading agent must verify the piece count of all Standard Checked, 

Heavy Checked, and Planeside Loaded/Service item Baggage ... 11 

12. SkyWest's W&B Manual, Chapter 4, paragraph 8.8, required the loading 

agent to write the total number of standard checked baggage loaded in each ' ,. 

cargo bin/pit in the appr~priate 11 St~dard Checked" block on the CLR. 

5 
13. SkyWest's W&B Manual, Chapter 4, paragraph 8.10, required the loading 

agent to write the total number of Planeside Valet/Service Items loaded in 

each cargo bin/pit in the appropriate "Planeside Valet/Service Items" block on 

the CLR. 

14. SkyWest's W&B Manual, Chapter 4, paragraph 11- Aircraft Loading, 

contained the warning: 

WARNING- INACCURATE·.tOADING, REPORTING, OR 

FAILURE TO REPORT INFORMATION COULD CAUSE ISSUES 

WITH AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE AND HANDLING, RESULTING 

IN THE ENDANGERMENT OF HUMAN LIFE 

Section III (FAA's Complaint) 

15. On June 2, 2011, at IAH, SkyWest loaded passengers and baggage onto 

N937SW/5840 bound for CLT. 

16. SkyWest's personnel at IAH loaded twenty-seven (27) standard checked bags 

and twenty (20) planeside loaded bags onto N937SW/5840. 

17. The CLR for N937SW/5840 listed nineteen (19) standard checked bags and 

fifteen (15) planeside loaded bags on board N937SW/5840. 

18. The inaccurate data on t~e CLR, ~~~·used to prepare the A CARS load 

manifest forN937SW/5840. 

19. SkyWest thereafter operated N937SW/5840 from IAH to CLT. 

Section IV (FAA's Complaint) 

20. SkyWest paid civil penalties in eight (8) previous cases involving loading of 

cargo and baggage contrary to approved procedures. 

Section V (FAA's Complaint) 

6 
21. By reason ofthe foregoing facts and circumstances, the FAA alleged SkyWest 

violated the following sections ofthe PARs (14 C.F.R.): 

( ·:)i' ,. : .. ! .· 

a. 14 C.F.R. Section 1 i9.5(g), in.that, as a direct air carrier, SkyWest 

operated in violation of an appropriate operations specifications. 

b. 14 C.F.R. Section 119.5(1), in that SkyWest operated aircraft under Part 

121 in violation of its operations specifications. 

c. 14 C.FR. Section 121.693(a), in that SkyWest operated flights without a 

load manifest that accurately reflected the weight of the cargo and 

baggage. 

d. 14 C.F.R. Section 121.693(c), in that SkyWest operated flights when the 

total weight of the aircraft was not computed under approved procedures. 

e. 14 C.FR. Section 121.693(d), inrP-at SkyWest operated flights when the . :.~ .. 

aircraft was not loaded according to an approved schedule. 

22. The FAA alleged in accordance with 49 United States Code (hereinafter 

"U.S.C.") Sections 46301 (a) and (d) (Transportation) Sky West was liable for 

a civil penalty not to exceed $27,500 for each of the violations noted. 

23. The FAA alleged under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil 

penalty of $40,000 was appropriate. 

B. SkyWest's recitation of facts 

Answering Section I of the Complaint, Sky West averred: 

I(, 

7 
SkyWest admitted that it was advised through a Final Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty that the FAA, proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $40,000, 

and on August 8, 2012, SkyWest submitted a timely written request for a hearing. 

Answering Section II of the Complaint, SkyWest averred: 

1. In response to Paragraph 1, SkyWest admitted that it was at all times material 

hereto, the holder of Scheduled Air Carrier Certificate No. SWIA011A, and 

conducted its operations pursuant to Part 121 of the F ARs. 

2. In Response to Paragraph 2, Sky West admitted that Paragraph D085 of its 

OpSpecs authorized SkyWest to use N937SW, a Bombardier CL-600-2B19 

civil aircraft, in the conduct of its Part 121 operations. 

3. In response to Paragraph 3, SkyWest admitted that Paragraph A098 of its 

OpSpecs required that aircraft loading for Bombardier CL-600-2B 19 aircraft 

be accomplished in accordance with SkyWest's W&B Manual, "Part XII, 

revision Orig. of 1 Apr 10". 

4. In response to Paragraph 4, SkyWest admitted that its W&B Manual 

contained the loading schedules and instructions for SkyWest's Bombardier 

CL-600-2B 19 aircraft.'· .:.l:: .. , i

·,, ·.'. 

5. In response to Paragraph 5, SkyWest admitted that SkyWest's W&B Manual, 

Chapter 2, paragraph 2.A.58 defined "Standard Checked Bags" as "checked 

bags weighing 50 pounds or less". 

6. In response to Paragraph 6, SkyWest's admitted that its W&B Manual, 

Chapter 2, paragraph 2.A.50 defined "Planeside Valet Bag" as "[e]quivalent 

to a Planeside Loaded Bag or Service Item". 

8 

':,. ,~). 
7. In response to Paragraph 7, SkyWest admitted that its W&B Manual, Chapter 

2, paragraph 2.A.55 defined "Service Item" as [e]quivalent to Planeside 

Loaded or Planeside Valet Bag". 

8. In response to Paragraph 8, SkyWest admitted that its W&B Manual, Chapter 

2, paragraph 2.A.49 defined "Planeside Loaded Bag" as "[a ]ny bag or item 

that is placed at door or steps of an aircraft .or the passenger loading bridge 

and subsequently placed in the aircraft cargo pit/bin". Referred to as 

Planeside Valet/Service Item on the CLR. 

9. In response to Paragraph 9, SkyWest admitted that SkyWest's W&B Manual 

(Temporary Revision dated 14 FEB 11), Chapter 3, paragraph 3.B.2 stated the 

flight crew member used the information from the CLR to construct the 

" A CARS load manifest. " . ,· ~ '· . "'' . ' 

10. In response to Paragraph 10, SkyWest admitted its W&B Manual (Temporary 

Revision dated 14 FEB 11), Chapter 3, paragraph 2.D.1 stated "designated CS 

Ground Operations loading agent evaluates the classification of all checked 

baggage (either standard or heavy). The designated loading agent must mark 

the number of standard and heavy checked baggage on the CLR". 

11. In response to Paragraph 11, SkyWest admitted its W&B Manual (Temporary 

Revision dated 14 FEB 11), Chapter 3, paragraph 2.1.2 stated that "[u]pon 

completion of loading of the cargo bin/pit, the designated loading agent must 

verify the piece count of all Standard Checked, Heavy Checked, and Planeside 

Loaded/Service Item Baggage ... " 

9 
12. In response to Paragraph 12, SkyWest admitted that its W&B Manual, 

Chapter 4, paragraph 8.8 required the loading agent to write the total number 

of standard checked baggage loaded on each cargo bin/pit in the appropriate 

"Standard Checked" block on the CLR. 

13. In response to Paragraph 13, SkyWest admitted that its W&B Manual, 

Chapter 4, paragraph 8.1 0, required the loading agent to write the total 

number of "Planeside Valet/Service Items" block on the CLR. 

14. In response to Paragraph 14, SkyWest admitted that its W&B Manual, 

Chapter 4, paragraph 11 - Aircraft Loading contained the warning: 

WARNING- INACCURATE LOADING, REPORTING, OR 

FAILURE TO REPORT INFORMATION COULD CAUSE ISSUES 

WITH AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE AND HANDLING, RESUL TlNG 

IN THE ENDANGERMENT OF HUMAN LIFE 

Answering Section III of the Complaint, SkyWest averred: 

15. In response to Paragraph 15, SkyWest admitted on June 2, 2011, at IAH, 

SkyWest loaded passengers and baggage onto N937SW/5840 bound for CLT. 

16. In response to Paragrap~ 16, S~y~er,tstated it was without sufficient 

information or knowledge from which to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegation that SkyWest personnel at IAH loaded twenty-seven (27) standard 

checked bags and twenty (20) planeside loaded bags onto N937SW/5840 and 

therefore denied the allegation. 

17. In response to Paragraph 17, SkyWest admitted the CLR for N937SW/5840 

listed nineteen (19) standard checked bags and fifteen (15) planeside loaded 

bags on board N937SW/5840. 

10 

.,.;·, 
18. In response to Paragraph 18, SkyWest stated it was without knowledge or 

~· .. , :;\t . 

information from which' to for~'a belief as to the truth of the allegation that 

the inaccurate data on the CLR was used to prepare the A CARS load manifest. 

for N937SW/5840 and therefore denied the same. 

19. In response to Paragraph 19, SkyWest admitted operated N937SW/5840 to 

CLT. 

Answering Section IV of the Complaint, SkyWest averred: 

20. In response to Paragraph 20, SkyWest admitted it paid civil penalties on eight 

(8) previous cases involving loading of cargo contrary to approved procedures. 

Answering Section V of the Complaint, SkyWest averred: 

SkyWest generally denied all the rem,aining allegations set forth in the r.'··. 

Complaint. 

Affirmative Defenses in Answer 

SkyWest asserted the following Affirmative Defenses: 

1. The proposed civil penalty was excessive and violated FAA orders. 

2. SkyWest may have other affirmative defenses not currently known but which 

may become known through discovery. SkyWest reserves the right to allege 

such affirmative defenses as they become known. 

Affirmative Defenses in Amended Answer 

1. First Affirmative Defense 

The sanction sought by the FAA w,a$~.tinwarranted by the facts, safety 

in commerce and the public interest and was not only excessive, but, 

far exceeded policy, precedent and FAA's own Sanction Guidance 

11 
Table. Further, the sanction was compounded, in violation of the 

FAA's own Compliance and Enforcement Handbook and Sanction 

Guidance Table. 

2. Second Affirmative Defense 

The FAA's case, was unwarranted and without basis or jurisdiction in law or ,.,. 

'.' r,. 

fact. 

3. Third Affirmative Defense 

They complained of aircraft weight differentials, if any, were nominal at best 

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

performance computations or safety. 

4. Fourth Affirmative Defense 

a. SkyWest proactively mitigated any and all damage such that this action 

was unwarranted by policy or the need for safety. Specifically, SkyWest: 

1. Counselled all personnel involved in the loading and counting of the 

bags following each of the a\leged incidents; I -, ~ :'f '. 

ii. Issued Sky West Customer Service Training Bulletin 201 0-14 

Designated Loading Agent Responsibilities, directed at providing 

additional training in avoiding bag count discrepancies; 

111. Issued SkyWest Customer Service Training Bulletin 2012-04, Aircraft 

Loading Procedures, directed at providing additional training in 

avoiding bag count discrepancies; 

12 ':~. 
'-:; 

1v. 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; 

v. 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; 

v1. Performed internal evaluations of cargo loading reporting and 

determining that compliance;.had been achieved. 

5. Fifth Affirmative Defense 

The average weight programs contemplated by AC120-27E fully 

acknowledged 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. Sixth Affirmative Defense 

Any and all discrepancies upon which these actions are based are the 

product of simple human arithmetic error and in no way are indicative 

of Sky West's regulatory compliance disposition as all relevant 

employees were adequately tr~ined Jia qualified and have since 

received additional training and internal audits have since shown that 

compliance levels have been reached. 

7. Seventh Affirmative Defense 

13 
SkyWest took all necessary corrective actions to avoid repeated mishaps such 

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

safety. 

VIII. Issues 

Did SkyWest violate 14 C.F(R. Seq(ior,zs;J19.5(g), 119.5(!), 121.693(a), . . .I 

121.693(c) and/or 121.693(d) by operation of flight N937SW/5840 from IAH to CLK on 

June 2, 2011 according to the facts alleged by the FAA. 

Under the facts and circumstances of this case, was a civil penalty of $40,000 

appropriate. 

IX. Brief Summary of Evidence and Testimony 

All admitted testimonial and documentary evidence was reviewed and considered. 

Only brief highlights are summarized herein. 

A. FAA's Case 

Adam Scott Perkins 

•' ,. ,,;, 

The FAA called Adam Scott Perkii1s (h~r~inafter "Perkins") as a witness. Perkins 

had twelve (12) years of aviation experience from flight instructing to flying cargo. Six 

(6) years of that was spent at Atlantic Southeast Airlines flying CRJll aircraft and 

ATR72 aircraft. Perkins had worked at the FAA SkyWest Certificate Management 

Office (hereinafter "CMO") for approximately three (3) years as an Aviation safety 

inspector (hereinafter "ASI").Z 

On June 2, 2011 performed an Element Performance Inspection (hereinafter 

"EPI") at CL T involving the weight and balance program for Sky West Airlines. As part 

2 Tr. p. 38, 1. 21 top. 40, 1. 13. 
.,: 

!:,:.,. t· 

of the inspection he observed N937SW/5840 arriving in CLT from IAH. After reviewing 

an exhibit, Perkins recalled he had observed twenty-seven (27) standards bags on arriving 

N937SW/5840. There were twenty (20) planeside loaded bags. After making the 

observations, Perkins obtained the copy of the crew's CLR3 and load manifest. He did 

not obtain a copy of the IAH station CLR. Perkins also obtained a copy of the load 

manifest.4 Perkins testified the CLR did not correctly reflect the number of bags on 

board N937SW/5840, though the weight listed on the load manifest did match up with 

the weight calculated on the CLR. That meant the weight listed on the load manifest was 

incorrect in light of the actual loading of the aircraft. 5 

Perkins testified ifyou take the baggage count on C-1 (CLR) and added it up 

times 30, times 60, whatever, you would get the exact cargo weight number that is in C-2 

(load manifest). There were nineteen (19) standard checked bags and fifteen (15) plane 

side valet items, a total of thirty-four (34). There was also ninety-two (92) pounds of 

freight on board. 6 

Andrew James Ayers 7 

Andrew James Ayers (hereinafter "Ayers") was called by the FAA as an expert in 

Weight and Balance and specifically SkyWest's Weight and Balance program. Ayers' 

testimony was applicable to all of the cases,~n the consolidated docket. 

Ayers had worked in the aviation industry for nineteen (19) years, had been a 

Pilot in Command (hereinafter "PIC") on EMB-120 and CL-65 aircraft for approximately 

3 FAA# C-1. 4 FAA# C-2. 5 Tr. p. 40, I. 14 top. 47, I. 10. 6 Tr. p. 84, I. 14 top. 86, I. 11. 7 Tr. 179, I. 17top. 209, I. 19. 

15 
nine (9) years. He had been with the FAA approximately six (6) years at the SkyWest 

Certificate Management Office. He was the "Principle Operations Inspector" (hereinafter 

"POI") for SkyWest and had the overall responsibility for all ofthe authorizations and 

approvals for Sky West's operational needs. He oversaw compliance, authorizations for 

SkyWest programs, and scheduled surveillancenand follow-up. He had an airline 

transport pilot certificate with type ratings in the EMB-120 and CL-65 series aircraft. He 

had training as an Aircraft Safety Inspector (hereinafter "ASI"). He received generalized 

weight and balance training that was applicable to any pilot flying any sort of aircraft as 

well as training specific to the type aircraft at issue in these cases. Ayers was familiar 

with SkyWest's Weight and Balance program and as SkyWest's POI, it was his 

responsibility and authority to grant approval for those procedures. Ayers was received 

by the court as an expert in the field of aircraft weight and balance. 

Ayers explained the CLR was a tally worksheet for computing the loads or the 

weight of cargo loaded on the aircraft. A 'standard bag' was a term used for an average 

•t" ·"" •. ''".:,{t•' 

bag assigned a weight of thirty (30}''pounds: A standard bag was defined as a bag 

weighing from zero (0) up to fifty (50) pounds. A heavy bag would be over fifty (50) up 

to one hundred (100) pounds. For purposes of SkyWest weight and balance program, 

heavy bags were assigned a weight of sixty (60) pounds. Plane side loaded valet bags 

were assigned a weight of thirty (30) pounds which included a weight range do of zero 

(0) to fifty (50) pounds. 

Ayers testified the load manifest contained the total weights for aircraft flights. 8 

Ayers described SkyWest's "Weight and Balance Handbook" as a general book which 

contained both background knowledge, scientific information, factual information about 

8 The witness identified FAA# C-6, C-9, C-12, and C-14 as examples ofload manifests. ,,,. .'':~'16'. '.' 
.. ' 

weight and balance, as well as suggested policies and procedures for complying with 

weight and balance when operating aircraft. It also described hazards associated with 

improper weight and balance. 

The FAA proffered evidence of a prior aircraft accident under Part 121 where 

weight and balance was a causal factor. We sustained an objection to the testimony and 

reaffirm our ruling. Ayers proffer was: 

... the accident in question involved an aircraft that was loaded no[t] in 

compliance with the operator's approved weight and balance program. Incorrect 

information was provided to the flight crew which allowed them or did not allow 

them, rather, to accurately complete their load manifest for their flight. That 

resulted in them being unable to d~tect an aft CG ... the aircraft in question stalled 

shortly after takeoff and crashed, killiiig all persons aboard ... 

The proffer offered no testimony of the type aircraft; when or where the accident 

occurred; weather conditions; flight conditions; what information was incorrectly 

provided; weight and balance program of the aircraft and/or carrier; or any other factors 

which would show any relevance to the facts of this case. We reaffirm our ruling and the 

objection was sustained. The testimony was not received. 

With respect to N937SW/5840,9 Ayers testified a review of documentation 

showed the weight on the CLR did not correspond with the weight on the load manifest. 

Ayers further testified that in a couple of the cases

10 where the load manifest 

weight matched the CLR there was still a violation of the approved program because the j . , ~- \! ··tl:·>. 

.' ! I .' 

program described procedures for completion of the CLR, and failure to follow those 

procedures was still a violation. Whether or not the number was correct was not relevant 

to whether those procedures were actually followed. Ayers drew an analogy that, it was 

not enough to get the right answer, but to show your work to get the answer and that 

9 Tr. 198, I. 7 top. 198, I. 16. 10 Referring to the consolidated docket. 

17 
work also had to be correct. Ayers testified he believed there was an unknown impact on 

safety posed by these discrepancies, but that he was not surprised that the aircraft were 

operated within their weight and balance envelope. 11 

Cross 12 

Ayers testified the front side of the CLR worksheet was where the math was 

tallied up while the back side of the CLR was the worksheet to assist the loading agents 

in counting. Ayers admitted that as part of the investigation it would have been 

beneficial to have copies of the backside of the CLR. Ayers admitted his testimony was 

predicated upon the assumption that when the inspectors counted the offloaded baggage 

they were counted correctly. 

Ayers testified that in 2011 SkyWest did not have a Safety Management System 

(hereinafter "SMS"). SMS was a series of tools and programs that allowed SkyWest to 

identify risks and mitigate those risks with processes and procedures in place to identify 

how they do that, when they do that, and what the outcomes are. Risks were categorized, 

with Category I being non-safety related. Sky West implemented an SMS after the 2011 

incidents. 

Redirect13 

Ayers testified both copies of the CLR should be updated with any last minute 

changes. If the load manifest was inaccurate, the process wasn't followed. CO MAT was 

required to be marked on the CLR as COMAT and ballast was required to be marked on 

the CLR as ballast. If a live animal was on board, that was required to be reflected on the 

CLR. 

11 Tr. p. 207, I. 19 top. 208, I. 16. 12 Tr. p. 209, I. 21 top. 219, I. 10. 

13 Tr. p. 219, I. 13 top. 222, I. 1. 

18 
Recross 14 

Ayers testified live animals, as baggage, were assigned a weight of thirty (30) 

pounds or sixty (60) pounds, including the container. Animals shipped as freight are 

assigned a different weight. 

Evidence 

The following FAA exhibits were admitted in the consolidated docket set forth 

above: FAA# Exhibits C-1 through C-36, inclusive; there is no FAA#C-37; FAA# C-38 

was not received [see SW# 1]; Judicial Notice was taken of FAA# C-39 through C-42, 

inclusive; FAA#C-43 through C-47 were provided for reference; FAA#C-100 through 

103, were not offered, but are a part of the administrative record. 

B. SkyWest' Case 

Carl Salamcone, deposition transcript, 2014050615 

The testimony of Carl Salamone (hereinafter "Salamone") was taken by 

deposition (SW# 3-3) and introduced into the record by agreement of the parties. 

Counsel for both parties were present at the deposition. Salamone's testimony was 

applicable to all of the cases in the consolidated docket. 

Salamone had been a pilot for SkyWest for seven (7) years and was a member of 

a special projects group for SkyWest. He was a first officer on Canadair Regional Jets 

01' .. _:r, .. 

(hereinafter "CRJ"). He held an airline transport pilot certificate for the CL-65 type 

aircraft, a flight instructor's certificate, an advanced ground instructor and an instrument 

ground instructor certificate. He was rated in the CRJ 200, 700 and 900 aircraft and had 

operated all three types of aircraft. He had 4200 flight hours, of which 3200 were in 

14 Tr. p. 222, I. 3, top. 223, I. 1. 

15 Tr. p. 227, I. 7 top. 281, I. 17. 

19 
CRJ s. He had a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and a Bachelor of 

Science degree in aviation human factors, from the University of Illinois. Aviation human 

factors was the study of human factors principles in research and psychology as it related 

:,;; ' \ ·~:. 

specifically to aviation in the hum~ elements of aviation safety, including weight and 

balance systems. For five (5) years he had been a member of a special projects group 

which, among other things, involved analysis of weight and balance. Salamone estimated 

he had flown about 3,000 flights. Each flight required a weight and balance calculation 

prior to that flight. He had training in weight and balance from his education as well as 

Sky West. 

Salamone was received by the court as an expert in the field of calculation of 

aircraft weight and balance and the effects of that weight and balance on the aircraft 

performance. · 

Salamone reviewed SW# R-1, a w~ight and balance analysis covering are- • -' l" ' 

creation of the fourteen (14) flights based on the data available to him on weight and 

balance as calculated by the crew and also the alleged weight and balance as it would 

have been observed by an inspector(s) for each of the flight violations. In the analysis of 

these flights, Salamone took all information that was available to him, the cargo load 

reports, the load manifests, electronic, if available, the inspector's statement from the 

FAA, as far as the alleged weight or items that may have been present and the 

manufacturer documentation for the Canadair series jets to determine performance and 

the weight and balance in that respect. He also took into account runway length, air 

temperature and fuel weight. 

\o' ~ ' 

,j 

20 
Aircraft takeoff weight was defined as the gross weight of the aircraft in the 

takeoff configuration, as it would begin the takeoff segment of the flight. It was the full 

weight of the airplane immediately prior to beginning takeoff, including passengers, 

cargo, ballast, et al. 

Aircraft takeoff Center of Gravity (hereinafter "COG") was the location of the 

center of gravity at a point on the airplane and calculated to ensure that the plane 

remained in balance for the manufacturer's specifications throughout that flight. COG 

d: 

was a single point, a mathematical point. It was '11 single point like a teeter-totter, where 

that airplane would balance on one particular point where the weight was mathematically 

seen on that location on the airplane. COG was important for stability reasons, for 

control reasons, and it was really just a major part of the physics of flight, to ensure that 

the plane will perform as it was designed to. 

Other factors considered in Salamone's analysis included runway performance, 

flight climb performance, and maximum operating altitude. Those factors meant thatthe 

airplane would not be too heavy to meet its performance requirements and performance 

planning. An airplane was operated at a weight that would ensure that the runway was 

adequate, that the climbing performance was adequate, and that it would be able to obtain 

its operating altitude for all phases ~f flight add complete that flight as planned. 

Salamone testified that for the fourteen (14) flights he reviewed, given the 

weights that the crews had recorded and believed that they were operating under, none of 

the flights exceeded maximum takeoff weight and none of the flights were unsafe in 

anyway. 

21 
In Salamone's opinion, taking into account the additional weights observed by the 

FAA inspectors, none of the aircraft exceeded tolerances nor were the flights unsafe. In 

his opinion, the crews' calculations were accurate as pertaining to the cargo and weight 

that they believed that they had and the calculations did not exceed the manufacturer's 

suggested limitations nor as perceived by the FAA inspectors. Taking into account three 

of those factors, either as calculated by the SkyWest crews at the time or adjusting for the 

observed variations by FAA inspectors, in Salamone's opinion, none ofthe flights would 

have been in excess of the manufacturer's limitations for takeoff weight, center of gravity, 

runway performance, climb performance, or maximum operating altitude. 

With respect to N937SW/5840, 16 Salamone testified he found the additional 390 

pounds would have not exceeded the maximum takeoff weight ofN937SW/5840 for this 

runway, nor would it have exceeded the manufacturer's maximum takeoff weights. The 

COG would have moved approximately orie and\:me-half percent aft or towards of the 

envelope. The weight would not have impacted safety ofN937SW/5840. 

Fuel planning for all the CJRs involved would have been very close. The · 

additional weight may have caused a slight increase in fuel usage, just because it costs 

more to fly around the extra weight. However, Sky West has a policy of adding 

contingency fuel that was above and beyond the federal required fuel and any nominal 

increase in burn would have been accounted for and included in that contingency fuel. It 

would not have impacted safety. 

Salamone described the human factors involved in loading an airplane and 

counting bags. He described the most difficult aspect of aircraft loading and baggage 

' ~ ~0~ 

handling as having to do with the e~viroruri~n~ ~~und which it is centered. The ramp 

16 Tr. p. 264, I. 2 top. 266, I. 11. 

22 
environment may have temperature swings; it may have noise and vibration. It could 

have light, darkness issues, as well a flurry of activity making focus difficult for that 

particular employee. It was a very active area that could cause, perhaps, a pause in 

counting or bags arriving at different times from-different connecting flights. Salamone 

described that humans have a difficult time inherently with counting, and when. you 

throw in some difficult environmental factors, it makes that task even more difficult. 

Salamone was not particularly surprised at bag ,qount discrepancies. \ ' !;: .. ,

Cross 17 

Salamone testified the reason why he took runway length into account was that a 

heavier aircraft required a longer distance to takeoff. Heavier aircraft needed to reach a 

higher speed to become airborne, had a lower rate of climb, a lower angle of climb, lower 

service ceiling and slower cruising speed. Additionally, heavier aircraft had a shorter 

range, higher fuel 'burn, higher landing speed and longer landing roll. Center for gravity 

exceeding the aft or forward limitation of the aircraft would affect performance. The 

CLR is one of the documents used to generate the load manifest. The load manifest was 

the document that contained the aircraft gross weight and center of gravity location, 

which was then used to determine p~rform~ce·Fequirements. 

Christopher C. Brown18 

Christopher C. Brown (hereinafter "Brown") was the Director of Aircraft 

Operations for SkyWest Airlines. His principle duties included oversight, flight 

standards, fleet management, and program development, process development, manuals, 

such as weight and balance, ground deicing program, flight operations manual, standard 

17 Tr. p. 281, I. 18 top. 291, I. 6. 18 Tr. p. 298, I. 20 top. 324, I. 14. 

23 

'·· ~~- .. , ~ ('_t~ 'I;;:· ... 
operations procedures, and such. He had been in the aviation industry for thirty (30) 

' 

years. He had an AMP certificate, airline4ranspdrt certificate with the CL-65, a flight 

' 

instructor certificate, an advanced flight instructor or an advanced ground instructor 

certificate. Brown's testimony was applicable to all of the cases in the consolidated 

docket. 

Brown testified about SW# RS-1, which was a letter to the CMO, to Mr. Ayers, 

requesting consideration for a proposed amendment to the approved weight and balance 

program to allow for human factors errors in bag counting. The proposal would 

artificially add a specific amount of weight to the basic operating weight of each aircraft. 

In doing so, the performance calculations would be performed as if the weight was 

physically onboard the aircraft, even though, in most cases, the weight would not be 

present. The aircraft operating env6lope ~guicfbe curtailed in such a way that for small 

miscounts, the SkyWest weight and balance program would assure that the aircraft would 

always remain within the manufacturer's operating envelope. Brown testified the 

proposal was similar to a program implemented by Delta. 

Evidence 

The following SkyWest exhibits were admitted in the consolidated docket set 

forth above: SW# Exhibits R 1-1,2-1,3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 4, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 6-

1, 6-2, 6-3, 7, 8, 9 and 10, inclusive. There are no exhibits SW 11-20, inclusive. SW# R21, was admitted. 

C. Credibility determinations 

. ~~ ' ~·~. tl .. ~,·. 

We find the testimony of all witnesses to have been truthful and credible. 

24 
X. Brief Summary and Analysis 

On June 2, 2011, at IAH, SkyWest loaded passengers and baggage onto 

N937SW/5840 bound for CLT. SkyWest's personnel at IAH loaded twenty-seven (27) 

standard checked bags and twenty(20) planeside loaded bags onto N937SW/5840. The 

CLR forN937SW/5840 listed nineteen (19) standard checked bags and fifteen (15) 

planeside loaded bags on board N937SW/5840. The inaccurate data on the CLR was 

used to prepare the ACARS load m~ifest for N937SW/5840. Sky West thereafter 

operated N937SW/5840 to CLT. 

XI. Law 

A. The FAA has the burden of proof, except for affirmative defenses 14 C.F.R. 

§§ 13.224(a) and (c). The standard is a preponderance of reliable, probative, and 

substantial evidence 14 C.F.R. § 13.223. 

B. 49 US. C. Sections 46301 (a) and (d) (Transportation) provide for the imposition 

of civil penalties in FAA cases. 

A person is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more 

than $25,000 for violating ... (B) a regulation prescribed or order issued under any 

provision to which clause (A) of this paragraph applies." The authority for issuing 

Parts 119 and 121 of 14 C.F.R. includes,49 U.S.C. Chapters 401,441, and 447-

all of which are covered by clause(A); 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(1)(A), 14 C.P.R. 

Parts 119 and 121 (Preamble). 

C. 14 C.F.R. § 119.5 Certifications, authorizations, and prohibitions. 

1. 14 C.F.R. Section 119.5(g), provides: 

No person may operate as a direct air carrier or as a commercial operator without, 

or in violation of, an appropriate certificate and appropriate operations 

specifications. No person may operate as a direct air carrier or as a commercial 

operator in violation of any deviation or exemption authority, if issued to that 

person or that person's representative. 

25 

..... : 

c. t1 ..•. Y.'· 
2. 14 C.F.R. Section 119.5(1), provides: 

""1-. 

No person may operate an aircraft underthis part, part 121 of this chapter, or part 

13 5 of this chapter in violation of an air carrier operating certificate, operating 

certificate, or appropriate operations specifications issued under this part. 

D. 14 C.F.R. § 121.693 Load manifest: All certificate holders 

The load manifest must contain the following information concerning the loading 

of the airplane at takeoff time: 

1. 14 C.F.R. Section 121. 693(a), provides: 

The weight of the aircraft, fuel and oil, cargo and baggage, passengers and 

crewmembers. 

2. 14 C.F.R. Section 121.693(c), provides: 

The total weight computed under approved procedures. 

3. 14 C.F.R. Section 121.693(d), provides: 

Evidence that the aircraA is l~a~~d';~~ording to an approved schedule that 

insures that the center of gravity is within approved limits. 

E. FAA Order 2150.3B Chapter 7 and Appendix B, dated October 1, 2007 (Sanction 

Guidance). 

The Sanction Guidance contains tables that establish specific penalty ranges for 

different types of violations. 

XII. Findings of Fact 

After consideration and review of all the evidentiary facts, testimony and 

evidence herein; by a preponderance of the evidence standard, we make the following 

findings: 

26 
A. 14 C.F.R. Sections 119.5(g) and 119.5aJ 

Section 119.5 (g) prohibits an air carrier from operating in violation of its 

OpSpecs. SkyWest's OpSpecs obligate the carrier to use the procedures detailed in its 

Weight & Balance Manual for loading and counting baggage. The Manual, among other 

things, directs the carrier's designated loading agent to accurately prepare the flight's 

CLR. The testimony and evidence ,showed that.Jor flight N937SW/5840, SkyWest's . ' ~ . 

CLR failed to properly reflect in the appropriate block the actual count of the different 

classes of baggage loaded onto the aircraft. The failure to accurately prepare the CLR, it 

is concluded, constitutes a violation of §119.5(g). 

Sky West's actions in loading and marking the CLRs for flight N937SW/5840 also 

constituted a violation of FAR §119.5(!). This section prohibits Part 121 air carriers from 

operating in violation of OpSpecs. By failing to set out for each flight accurate 

information on the CLRs, SkyWest, a Part 121 air carrier, did not operate in conformance 

with its OpSpecs. It thus violated this section. 

B. 14 C.F.R. Sections 121.693(a). (c). and (d) 

Subsection (a) of §121. 693 requir~s•a 16aa manifest to contain the weight of the 

cargo and baggage. Subsection (c) compels the use of"approved procedures" in 

computing the total weight of the aircraft. Section 121. 693(d) requires that the load 

manifest contain evidence that the aircraft was loaded according to an approved schedule 

which insures that the center of gravity is within approved limits. Construing these 

subsections together, as principles of statutory construction dictate, indicates that a 

carrier's load manifest will pass muster if it has been compiled using approved 

27 
procedures, and that the method used insures that the center ofgravity is within limits. 

~~ .. 

The evidence shows that SkyWest follow~d these mandates. 

Salamone testified that for the fourteen (14) flights he reviewed, including 

N937SW/5840, given the. weights that the crews had recorded and believed that they 

were operating under, none of the flights exceeded maximum takeoff weight and none of 

the flights were unsafe in anyway. The crews' calculations were accurate as pertaining to 

the cargo and weight that they believed that they had and the calculations did not exceed 

the manufacturer's suggested limitations nor as perceived by the FAA inspectors. None 

of the flights would have been in excess of the manufacturer's limitations for takeoff 

weight, center of gravity, runway performance, climb performance, or maximum 

operating altitude. 

_J , ... ' .,/ f 

As noted earlier, SkyWest computed its load manifest from its CLR using its 

Manual's average weights program. SkyWest's OpSpecs required loading procedures to 

follow the Manual. The load manifest, then, used approved procedures to compute the 

weight of the baggage. No violation of §§121.693(a) and (c) thus could be proven. Nor 

was a §121.693(d) violation proven; no evidence tended to demonstrate that the approved 

method failed to insure that the center of gravity was within approved limits. Indeed, 

Salamone's testimony and accompanying evidence suggested that the aircraft weight and 

center of gravity location fell within manufacturer recommendations and performance 

envelopes for every flight under review. 19 

Accordingly, the FAA, it is concluded, f<iiled to prove that SkyWest violated 14 

C.F.R. Sections 121.693(a), (c), and (d). 

19 See In the Matter of Sky West Airlines, Inc., "Initial Decision of Administrative Law Judge" FDMS Nos. 

FAA-2011-0779, May 2, 2013; In the Matter ofSkyWest Airlines, Inc., "Initial Decision of Administrative 

Law Judge" FAA-2011-0485, FAA-2011-0486, May 2, 2013; 

28 
XIII. Conclusions 

Upon consideration of the totality of evidentiary facts and testimony, by a 

preponderance ofthe evidence standard, we find: 

A. The FAA proved that SkyWest violated 14 C.F.R. Section 119.5(g), and 14 C.F.R. 

Section 119.5(1). 

B. We find the FAA did not made ~p'ritn~'facie case with respect to the violations 

of 14 C.F.R. Section 121.693(a),14 C.F.R. Section 121.693(c), and/or 14 C.F.R. 

Section 121. 693(d), inclusive and those violations will be dismissed. 

XIV. Penalty and Mitigation Considerations 

SkyWest admitted allegations as set forth hereinabove. 

We found the violations of 14 C. F. R. Section 119. 5 (g), and 14 C. F. R. Section 

119.5(1). 

We found the FAA failed to make a prima facie case with respect to the 

violations of 14 C.F.R. Section 121.693(a),J4 C.F.R. Section 121.693(c), and/or 14 

C.F.R. Section 121.693(d), inclusive . 

. \ '· f.;t, IJ .; (<I 

The FAA argued under the facts and Circumstances of this case, a civil penalty 

of $40,000 was appropriate in this case. 

We note in FAA 2011-0485, the FAA sought a civil penalty of$99,000. In FAA 

2011-0485, the FAA sought a civil penalty of$33,000. In FAA-2011-0779, the FAA 

sought a civil penalty of $33,000 

SkyWest was cooperative and responsive to FAA concerns. 

The FAA had a cooperative working relationship with SkyWest. 

29 
Once notified of the violations, Sky West took swift, comprehensive corrective 

action including implementation of an SMS after the 2011 incidents as set forth in its 

Post Hearing Brief and in testimony before the court. 

The FAA argued, and SkyWest admitted, that SkyWest paid civil penalties in 

eight (8) previous cases involving loading of cargo contrary to approved procedures. 

While a penalty calculated in accordance with the FAA's policy guidance should 

stand, absent a showing of a respondent's inability to pay, the evidence and testimony 

did not support the penalty requested. While the FAA was entitled to substantial 

deference in establishing an appropriate civil penalty, we cannot ignore our role to 

evaluate the testimony and evidence,. 

Significantly, the violations found were technical in nature. They had no material 

effect on weight and balance or on aircraft performance. SkyWest showed that in no 

instance was safety of flight at even the slightest risk (See Tr. p. 227, 1. 7 top. 281, 1. 17.). 

As SkyWest noted, the CLRs were not dispositive. The most important factor in 

the weight and balance context unquestionably was the load manifest. It was this 

document that was computed by the flight crew and used by them to evaluate how their 

calculations will affect operational safety. The FAA failed to show for any of the flights 

that Sky West failed to follow the scheme of its Weight & Balance Manual in deriving its 

load manifests. In fact the evidence showed that SkyWest's load manifest calculations 

were in accordance with its OpSpecs and Manual instructions in every instance. In 

addition, SkyWest implemented a new Safety Management System to address the 

violations. 

30 
We find further that just one civil penalty per flight is appropriate. To assess a 

civil penalty based on the multiple violations per flight found is, under the circumstances, 

unfair, unwarranted, and disproportionate to the offenses. 

The two sections violated in each instance, 14 C.F.R. §§119.5(g) and 119.5(/), are 

not significantly different. The first prohibits operation as a direct air carrier in violation . ~. ' / l 

ofOpSpecs; the second prohibits operating under Part 121 in violation ofOpSpecs. The 

distinction between the two provisions for the present purposes is inconsequential. As 

such, penalizing SkyWest for both violations would be unjustified. We note that the 

agency's civil penalty guidelines, FAA Order 2150.3B, take a similar stance: they advise 

that "[w]hen a single instance of noncompliance results in multiple violations of general 

and specific regulations involving the same or similar conduct, the FAA ordinarily does 

not compound the sanction ... " (FAA# C-40, p. 7-10). Under these circumstances, one 

civil penalty- in a minimal amount of $250 per violation- suffices. 

In sum, we find that the civil penalty appropriately accounts for the factors the 

statute and agency policy directs in.~fixirig the~~~~essment. 

All arguments by both parties have been carefully considered. Those not 

explicitly discussed are rejected or dismissed as mooted by this Initial Decision. 

WHEREFORE, evidence and testimony having been heard and considered it be 

and is hereby ORDERED as follows?0 

20 This decision may be appealed to the Administrator of the FAA. The notice of appeal must conform to 

sections 13.210, 13.211(e) and 13.233 ofthe Rules ofPractice, which require that a notice ofappeal1) be 

filed not later than 10 days (plus an additional five days if mailed) from the service date of this decision, 

and 2) be perfected with a written brief or memorandum not later than 50 days (plus an additional five, if 

mailed) from the service date of this decision. The notice of appeal and brief or memorandum must either 

be a) mailed to the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 

20591, Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, or b) delivered 

personally or via expedited ~ourier service to the Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, D.C. 20591, Attn: Hearing Docket 

)' ·.p;_ . ''.i31• ,, . 
1. We reaffirm our ruling and SkyWest's objection to the FAA's proffer of 

testimony from Ayers for reasons set forth hereinabove SkyWest's objection 

be and is hereby sustained. The testimony was not received. 

2. SkyWest Airlines, Inc. be and is hereby assessed a civil penalty of $250.00 

for violations of 14 C.F.R. Section 119.5(g), and 14 C.F.R. Section 119.5(1); 

and 

3. We find the FAA did not made a prima facie case with respect to the 

violations of 14 C.F.R. Section 121.693(a),14 C.F.R. Section 121.693(c), 

and/or 14 C.F.R. Section 121. 693(d), inclusive and those violations be and are 

hereby DISMISSED. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

t: ··i,1 .. 

.;· .... 

Clerk, AGC-430. A copy of the notice of appeal and brief or memorandum also must be sent to agency 

counsel. Service upon the presiding judge is optional. 

32 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl0001 

Todd C. Emerson, Respondent's Counsel 

Director- Government and Legal Affairs 

SkyWest Airlines 

444 South River Road 

St. George, UT 84 790 

TEL: 435-634-3530 

FAX: 435-634-3505 

ONE COPY 

Michael L. Dworkin, Re,~pondent 's Counsel 

MICHAEL L. DWORKIN AND ASSOCIATES 

465 California Street, Suite 210 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

TEL: 415-421-2500 

FAX: 415-421-2560 

EMAIL: law@avialex.com 

Robert Spitzer, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1417 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0868 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 
The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative L.aw .Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11~310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0868 

(Civil Penalty Actions)