U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

RECEIVED 

SEP 19 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

In the Matter of Aero Micronesia, FAA Docket No.: Unassigne~~ 

FDMS No.: FAA-2012-0469'--' 

Respondent. 

,...., 

r.' -,J 

FAA Region: Western-Pacific) 

Judge: Richard C. Goodwin _.l 

·o 

COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR DECISION 

r:..; 

en 

C..) 

... -

1~. , : \" I 

~~~ r-?:1 ::;: \-;--; 

$.:~s~=~ 

c3~x~~ ();:, 

To: Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge, and Respondent, Aero 

Micronesia: 

COMES NOW, Complainant, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), WesternPacific Region, by counsel, and files this Motion for Decision pursuant to sections 13.218(a) 

and (f)(5) of Title 14 of the Code ofFederal Regulations, on the grounds that Complainant is 

entitled to a decision as a matter of law because there is no genuine issue of material fact 

disputed by the parties. Respondent has admitted to all of the alleged facts, and only argues 

that it did not violate the cited regulation. Thus, as resolution of this case is limited to a 

question of law, it is appropriate for disposition by this motion. 

that: 

I. FACTS 

On June 25, 2012, Complainant filed the Amended Complaint in this action, alleging 

1. Aero Micronesia, Inc. d/b/a Asia Pacific Airlines ("Aero Micronesia") is now, 

and at all times mentioned herein was, the holder of Air Carrier Certificate No. 

I5PA400I, authorized to conduct flight operations, cargo only, under part 121 of 

the Federal Aviation Regulations ("F ARs"). 
2 

2. On or about December 8, 2010, the current versions of Aero Micronesia's "Flight 

Operations Training Manual" and "General Operations Manual," contained up 

through revision 9, and revision 22, respectively. 

3. Mr. Richard Gaza was the manager of Aero Micronesia's flight crewmember 

training at Sanford International Airport, Sanford, Florida. 

4. Mr. Richard Gaza was furnished with copies of Aero Micronesia's "Flight 

Operations Training Manual" and "General Operations Manual", revision 9, and 

revision 22, respectively. 

5. On or about December 8, 2010, the latest revisions contained in Mr. Gaza's Aero 

Micronesia's "Flight Operations Training Manual" and "General Operations 

Manual", were revision 5, and revision 21, respectively. 

By virtue of the foregoing, Complainant alleged that Respondent had violated the following 

Federal Aviation Regulation, and proposed to assess of civil penalty of $6,600: 

14 C.F.R. §121.137(a), which states that "[e]ach certificate holder shall furnish 

copies of the manual ... (and the changes and additions thereto) or appropriate 

parts of the manual to-its appropriate ground operations and maintenance 

personnel. .. " 

On July 18, 2012, Respondent filed an Answer, in which Respondent admitted 

allegations 1 - 5 above, adding some clarifications regarding allegations 3 and 5. See 

Respondent's "Motion to Strike and Answer to Amended Complaint" ("Answer"). 

Respondent clarified its admission to allegation 3 by providing the correct spelling of Mr. 

Gazda's name, and stating that Mr. Gazda was an independent vendor providing training 

services to Aero Micronesia, rather than an Aero Micronesia employee. Respondent also 

clarified its admission to allegation 5, stating that although the manuals themselves were not 

updated, Mr. Gazda was in possession of all the revisions for both manuals, and that no 

training was being conducted at the time of the FAA inspection. Respondent's clarifications 
regarding its admissions to allegations 3 and 5, do not alter the fact that Respondent has 

admitted to all alleges facts, including allegations 3 and 5. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD. 

Title 14 ofthe Code ofRegulations, section 13.218(£)(5) states: 

A party may make a motion for decision, regarding all or any part of the 

proceedings, at any time before the administrative law judge has issued an 

initial decision in the proceedings. The administrative law judge shall 

grant a party's motion for decision if the pleadings, depositions, answers 

to interrogatories, admissions, matters that the administrative law judge 

has officially noticed, or evidence introduced during the hearing show that 

there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the party making the 

motion is entitled to a decision as a matter of law. The party making the 

motion for decision has the burden of showing that there is no genuine 

issue of material fact disputed by the parties. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.218(£)(5). 

III. ARUGUMENT. 

As indicated above, Respondent has admitted to allegations 1 - 5 of the Complaint. 

3 

Thus, Respondent only contests that it violated the cited regulation, 14 C.F.R. § 121.137(a), 

and the amount of the proposed civil penalty ($6,600). 

We will start by addressing Respondent's claim that it did not violate 14 C.F.R. § 

121.137(a). 

a. Respondent Violated 14 C.F.R. § 121.137(a). 

Respondent denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. § 121.137(a), stating that it "did furnish 

the manual and all changes and additions.thereto to Mr. Gazda," and that "[t]hese revisions 

were provided by Aero Micronesia to Mr. Gazda at the time they were issued pursuant to the 
4 

Respondent's established distribution procedures." See Respondent's "Motion to Strike and 

Answer to Amended Complaint" ("Answer"). The certificate holder's responsibility, 

however, goes beyond merely supplying the manual updates to its personnel. "A certificate 

holder may utilize a variety of methods to supply its manual to crewrnembers provided that 

'it has clearly-established procedures describing the method to be used, the method for 

keeping the manual current and the method for verifying that the manual is current before 

each flight (including which crewrnember(s) is responsible for the verification). See Letter 

to Robert Sweet from Rebecca MacPherson (November 7, 2011), citing Interpretation 1988-

7 (Mar. 10, 1988). Exhibit No. 1. 

Mr. Richard Gazda, had both an outdated flight operations training manual (four 

revisions behind) and general operations manual (one revision behind). Thus, Respondent 

failed to implement any "clearly-established procedures" to maintain and verify the currency 

of its manuals. In fact, in each case, the manuals were nearly two years out of date. 

Respondent has admitted that, as of December 8, 2010, the latest revision in Mr. 

Gazda's Flight Operations Training Manual was revision 5, whereas the current version at 

the time was revision 9. See Respondent's Answer. Thus, Mr. Gazda's Flight Operations 

Training Manual was missing revisions 6, 7, 8, and 9. Revision 6 was dated approximately 

February, 2009. See Kanae Declaration, Exhibit A. 1 Thus, at the time of the FAA 

inspection on December 8, 2010, revision 6 had been in effect for about 22 months, yet Mr. 

Gazda's Flight Operations Training Manual had not been updated with the revision (nor had 

it been updated with Revisions 7, 8 or 9). 

Respondent also admitted that, as of December 8, 2010, the latest revision in Mr. 

Gazda's General Operations Manual was revision 21, whereas the current version at the time 

was revision 22. Revision 22 was issued February, 2009. See Exhibit 2, p. 5 (Notice of 

1 Exhibit A to the Declaration of FAA Inspector Kanae, is the FAA's "Record of Revisions" for Asia Pacific's 

Flight Operations Training Manual. It shows revision 6 inserted on 2/13/09, indicating that the revision must 

have been issued in February 2009, or earlier. 
5 

Manual Distribution" attached to Respondent's August 3, 2011 letter). Thus, at the time of 

the FAA inspection on December 8, 2010, Revision 22 had been in effect for approximately 

22 months, yet Mr. Gazda's General Operations Manual had not been updated with the 

reVISIOn. 

Respondent's untimely distribution of manual updates shows similar neglect. As 

indicated above, Revision 22 of the General Operations Manual (GOM) was issued in 

February, 2009. !d. However, it was not distributed to Mr. Gazda until October 13, 2010 

(22 months later), and receipt of the revision was not acknowledged by Mr. Gazda until 

January 21, 2011 (an additional 3 months). !d. 

IV. SANCTION. 

Respondent has admitted that its training manager had both an outdated Flight 

Operations Training Manual (four revisions behind) and General Operations Manual (one 

revision behind). The manuals were not updated with revisions for nearly two years. As 

demonstrated above, this is a violation of 14 C.F.R. § 121.137(a). 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46301, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed 

$27,500 for each violation. However, for this case, Respondent simply seeks a civil penalty 

of$6,600. This is an appropriate amount for a single violation of 14 C.F.R. § 121.137(a). 

Respondent had two separate manuals which were not properly updated, which could 

warrant a civil penalty of double this amount ($13,200). 

A civil penalty of$6,600 for a single violation of 14 C.F.R. § 121.137(a) is 

consistent with the FAA's sanction guidance. The FAA's publicly available sanction 
6 

guidance table is contained in Appendix B ofF AA Order 2150.3B. 2 The sanction guidance 

recommends a minimum civil penalty for failure to maintain a current manual.3 As 

Respondent is a Group II large business4

, the minimum civil penalty range is $2,035-

9,624. 5 FAA Order 2150.3B, Chapter 7, Subparagraph 5-b(3) instructs to "begin with an 

amount in the middle of the range, and increase that amount toward the higher end of the 

range for aggravating factors or decrease that amount toward the lower end of the range for 

mitigating factors." The middle ofthe range between $2,035 and $9,624 is $5,829; that 

would be the penalty for a single violation, absent any aggravating or mitigating factors. 

We note that there were actually two violations, rather than a single violation. Additional 

aggravating and mitigating factors were considered. Although aggravating factors exceeded 

any mitigating factors, and a significant increase in the civil penalty would have been 

justified, the penalty was increased only slightly, to $6,600. 

Respondent in its Answer, claims that the penalty is excessive and that the 

Respondent is entitled to mitigation of the penalty. See Complainant's "Motion to Strike 

and Answer to Amended Complaint," Second and Third Affirmative Defenses. Additional 

information regarding Respondents claim that mitigation is warranted is contained in 

Respondents August 3, 20111etter. See Exhibit 2. 

2 FAA Order 2150.3B can be found at 

http://www. faa. gov /regulations policies/ orders notices/index. cfm/ go/ document. information/ documentiD/ 1721 

3. 

3 See FAA Order 2150.3B, Appendix B, Figure B-1-a(l). 4 "In determining the concern's size, SBA counts the receipts, employees, or other measure of size of the 

concern whose size is at issue and all of its domestic and foreign affiliates, regardless of whether the affiliates 

are organized for profit." 14 C.F.R § 121.103. Asia Pacific Airlines is an affiliate of Tan Holdings. See 

http://www.tanholdings.com/index.php/sbu/. "Tan Holdings Corporation employs more than 4,000 people in 

the Western Pacific Region." See http://www.tanholdings.com/index.php/ourpeople/ under "Commitment." 

The maximum number of employees for an air transportation freight company to be considered a small 

business is 1,500 employees. See FAA Order 2150.3B, Appendix B, subparagraph 3-b. Thus, Respondent is 

considered a large business concern. 

5 See FAA Order 2150.3B, Appendix B, Subparagraph 3-c(l). The amounts shown above are the amounts 

provided in FAA Order 2150.3B, as adjusted for inflation. See 75 FR 72935 (October 29, 2010) and 14 C.P.R. 

13.305. 
First, Respondent claims that the penalty should be mitigated due to the death of 

Respondent's VP of Operations shortly before the FAA inspectors visit to Respondent's 

training facility. Although Complainant is sympathetic to the death of Respondent's 

employee, the loss (by death or by quitting, retiring, etc.) of an employee is a key reason 

why an operator should maintain current manuals. In the event of such a loss, other 

employees may not even be aware that a manual is not updated, and proceed with using an 

outdated manual. 

7 

Secondly, Respondent claims that the penalty should be mitigated because it had to 

temporarily move out of the training facility at the time, and move the manuals to Mr. 

Gazda's home. Respondent claims that since the FAA inspector didn't warn Respondent 

that he wanted to inspect the manuals, they were not immediately available. Respondent 

appears to contend that the FAA should have warned Respondent ahead of time, each and 

every aspect of what Respondent intended to inspect. Mr. Gazda had an associate retrieve 

the manuals from his home. The associate, apparently unaware that the manuals were not up 

to date, did not bring the updates which Respondent claims were at Mr. Gazda's home. 

Again, the manuals must be kept up to date to avoid the potential use of outdated manuals, 

which could have occurred in this case. 

Respondent also appears to start to argue for mitigation based on the fact that Mr. 

Gazda wasn't an employee of Respondent. Exhibit 2, ~ 4. But then Respondent goes on to 

admit that Mr. Gazda "is required to have appropriate manuals and they should be up to 

date ... ". !d. We also note that 14 C.P.R. § 121.137(a) is not phrased in terms of"direct 

employees" or similar language. 
8 

Finally, Respondent states that no training was going on at the time of the FAA 

inspection. However, 14 C.F.R. §121.137(a), doesn't limit the requirement to furnish 

updated manuals to when training is being conducted. As discussed above, keeping 

outdated manuals increases the likelihood that outdated manuals might be used. The danger 

of using outdated manual is that certificate holders may be trained on outdated procedures, 

with potentially serious consequences, including an aircraft accident. See Clarence Kanae 

Declaration. 

As indicated above, aggravating factors exceeded any mitigating factors. These 

aggravating factors could have been used, in addition to the fact that two manuals were out 

of date, to significantly increase in the civil penalty. However, the civil penalty was 

increased only slightly from the midpoint of the recommended range for a single violation 

($5,829), to $6,600. 

One of the factors that can be considered in setting the penalty amount is the degree 

ofhazard imposed by a Respondent's action. "[A]n increase in the degree of hazard may 

form the basis for exce~ding the sanction ranges." 6 Respondent argues that no training was 

going on at the time. However, the manuals had not been updated for nearly two years. 

Certainly, Respondent had conducted training within the two years prior to the FAA 

inspection. 

The sanction also could have been further aggravated by the fact that Respondent is 

an air carrier, and "[a]ir carriers are held to the highest standard of care."7 Having manuals 

6 FAA Order 2150.3B, Chapter 7, Subparagraph 4-e(2). 7 FAA Order 2150.3B, Chapter 7, Subparagraph 4-g. 
9 

which are nearly two years out of date is hardly the actions of an air carrier exhibiting the 

highest standard of care. 

In summary, although Complainant could have significantly increased the sanction 

due to the fact Respondent had two violations, Complainant did not do so. Although 

Complainant could have also used aggravating factors to significantly increase the amount 

ofthe penalty, Complainant did not do so. The sanction sought of$6,600 is only slightly 

above the midpoint ($5,829) of the recommended range for a single violati011. Accordingly, 

Complainant's selected civil penalty of $6,600 is well within the range indicated in the 

sanction guidance table, and is not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not according to law. 

V. CONCLUSION. 

Based on the foregoing, Complainant is entitled to a decision in its favor that 

Respondent committed the violations charged and should be assessed a civil penalty of 

$6,600. 

Respectfully submitted, 

NAOMI TSUDA 

By: 

Don Bobertz 

Attorney 

Dated: September 13, 2013 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this date I have placed in the United States mail, postage 

prepaid, the MOTION FOR DECISION, addressed as follows: 

And a copy to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 000 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Dept of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (E11-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

I further certify that on this date I have placed in the United States mail, postage 

prepaid, certified mail - return receipt requested, a true copy of the above, addressed as 

follows: 

David Kirstein, Esq. 

Kirstein & Young PLLC 

1750 K Street, NW, Suite 200 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

Mr. Michael Quinn, President . 

Asia Pacific Airlines 

156 Diablo Road, Suite 203 

Danville, CA 94526 

Dated: September 13, 2013 

Agq~~ Legal Technician 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

Hawthorne, California 

10 
RECEIVED 

. U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

SEP 1 9 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

NOV -1 20t1 

Robert Sweet 

95-1003 Wikao Street· 

Mililani, HI 96789 

Dear Mr. Sweet: 

This is in response to your July 23, 2008 request for a legalinterpretation. The answer to 

your question has taken longer than anticipated due to the need to clarify internal safety 

poliCies surrounding this issue. 

In your letter, you requested a clarification of 14 C.P.R. § 121.137 which requires that 

certificate holders furnish a copy of the general operations·manual to .crewmembers. You 

first question whether providing the manual in a .pdf format complies with; the regulation. 

Then you ask who is responsible for providing the means to view the .pdf file and bear 

the costs of printing the manual: the certificate holder or the crewmember. 

Section 121.137(a) states, in relevant part, that each certificate holder shall furnish a copy 

ofthe appropriate sections ofthe rrianual required by section 121.133 (and any changes 

or additions thereto) to ground operations and maintenance personnel, crewmembers, and . 

representatives of the Administrator assigned to the certificate holde~. Section 

121.137(b) states, in relevant part, that each person to whom a manual is issued shall 

keep it up-to-date with changes and additions and shru.l have· appropriate sections of the 

manual accessible while performing assigned duties. 

An electronic version of the manual is sufficient and satisfactory provided that there is a 

means to .view it quring the performance of assigned duties .. Also, an up-to-date paper 

version must be available when necessary. A certificate holder may utilize a variety of 

methods to supply its manmil to crewinembers provided that "it has clearly-established 

. procedures describing the method to be used, the method for keeping the man mil current . 

. iiDd the method for verifYing that the manual is· current before each flight (including 

' which crewmember(s) is responsible for the verification) see, Interpretation 1988-7 (Mar. 

10, 1988) (approving use of manual copies in "ship's library" provided in lieu of personal 

manual copies);· · 

Additionally, the use of an electronic manual requires operational approval through the 

issuance of Operations Specification A061 by the certificate holder's PrinCipal 

Operations Inspector (POI) for Class I, II and III Electronic Flight Bags (EFB). See 

generally, 

. l ~X, 1 I f'· 
• AC 25.1581-1, Airplane Flight Manual (Jul.14, '1997)(providing guidance on the 

use of electronic airplane flight manuals); 

• AC 120-78, Acceptance and Use of Electronic Signatures, Electronic 

Recordkeeping Systems, and Electronic Manuals (Nov. 29, 2002)(providing 

guidance on the requirements and approval process for electronic manuals); 

· • AC 120-76A, Guidelines for the Certification, Airworthiness and Operational 

Approval of Electronic Flight Bag Computing Devices (Mar. 1·7, 2003)(providing 

guidance on the use of an electronic flight bag, including the use of electronic 

manuals), and 

• AC 91-78: Use of Class 1 andClass 2 Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) (July 7, 2007) 

(providing guidance on the use of electronic flight bags in part 91 operations). 

Non-EFB Portable Electronic Devices (PED) may be used to view electronic manuals. 

14 CFR § 91.21, § 121.306, § 125.204, and§ 135.144 place restrictions on the in-flight 

· use of PEDs. In addition, when using PEDs to view ·electronic manuals, the Certificate 

. Holder must outline the requirements of the regulations .in their manuals; procedures etc. 

There is no Operations Specification paragraph tied to aPED. See generally, 

• AC No: 91-2l.1B- Use ofPortable Electronic Devices 

• InFO 10009 - Portable Electronic Devices 

Regarding your second question, the certificate holder must provide sufficient 

technological resources to crewmembers to allow them "to review effectively the 

applicable portions of the manual while performing their duties." Letter to Gregory 

Winton, from Rebecca B. MacPherson (Mar. 6, 2008). This means that if the manual is 

provided in an electronic format, the certificate holder must provide the means to view 

that manual during the crewmember's performance of assigned duties. As discussed 

above, the certificate holder must have clearly-established procedures regarding the use 

of electronic manuals, including procedures to update all paper and electronic copies of 

the manual to ensure consistency. 

This response was prepared by Robert Hawks, an Attorney in the Regulations Division of 

the Office of Chief Counsel and Robert H. Frenzel, Man~ger, Operations Law Branch in 

the Regulations Division and coordinated with the Air Carrier Operations Branch ofF AA 

Flight Standards Service. We hope this response has been helpful to you. If you have · 

additiOI).al questions regarding this matter, please contact US at your convenience at (202) 

.267~3073. . . 

Sincerely, 

~p,A-JIIfwl?. __. 

Rebecca B. JacPherson 

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC-200 
. J , r·' / ~"l'····· I. • ' J /,. /-' 

c7Jsin f'Jncific c7Jirlioes 

!56 Diablo Road, Suite 203 

Danville, CA 94526 

Tel: 9.25-362-4430, Fax: 925-362-4432 

August 3, 2011 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

Attn: Mr. Don Bobertz, A WP-7 

P.O.Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

RE: Case.No. 2011\VP350005 

Dear Mr. Bobertz: 

RECEIVED 

SEP 1 9 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

I am receipt of your letter dated July 6, 20-11. Attached to this letter is the Reply to Notice Form 

with Box 2 checked. I have also attached copies oft-vvo of our company forms indicating that the 

appropriate revisions to the 2 manuals in question v;ere distributed by the company to Mr. Gazda in 

a timely fashion and well before the DecemberS, 2010 date of Mr. Kanae's inspection. And l have 

attached a note dated March 12, 2010, retrieved ii·om our VP of Operations computer, that supports 

the company's Notice of Manual Distribution \Vith respect to Revisions 8 and 9 to the Flight 

Operations Training Manual. The "Dick" addressee in this note is Mr. Richard Gazda who manages 

our flight crewmer'nber training in Sanford. We believe the company did all that was necessary with 

respect to manual distributions as required by fAR 121.13 7(a). 

Some ofthe above information was not included in our February 18, 2011 reply to Mr. Kanae's 

original December 28,2010 LOI. But sil1ce there were no subsequent discussions verbally or in 

-vvriting on this subject between Mr. Kanae and anyone at our company over the next several 

months, well beyond the normal 75 days allocated for LOI resolution, we assumed that ti1e LOI had 

been closed with no further action. 

In addition, there are a few significant mitigating factors to· this case. Mr. Kanae's visit to our 

training facility occurred just one week after our VP of Operations had suddenly and unexpectedly 

passed a\:vay. Manuals and Revisions \vere this person's responsibility and as a former FAA 

. inspector himself, he would not have allowed Mr. Kanae to find out of date ti1anuals during that 

visit. Moreover, our company, during the 4th quarter of2010, was also still in the process cif 

transitioning our training from a Part 142 school to ai1 in house. program under the oversight of Mr. · 

Gazda. This necessitated his having to temporarily move out of the training facility in Sanford, 

Florida in which he had been previously located. He moved all the APA manuals to his personal 

home about 40 miles away. When ~vir. Kanae met with Mr. Gazda in December, it was at the 

Sanford facility, but since he had not mentioned to Mr. Gazda or the company that he wished to see 

APA 's manuals at that time, they were not immediately available. Mr. Gazda had an associate 

retrieve them from his home and bring them to the facility later in the clay which is when Mr. Kanae 

discovered that they were out of date. !v1r. Gazda actuall)' had the revisions at his home, but had not 
Mr. Bobertz Letter 

August 3. 20 II 

Page 2 

installed them in the respective manuals. He installed them the following day, however, Mr. Kanae 

·had already left town. 

Mr. Gazda was not then and is not now an employee of Asia Pacific Airlines. He is a vendor 

providing an FAA approved training service to our company. As such, he is required to have 

appropriate manuals and they should be up to date. but under the circumstances described, \\'e 

.believe it to be entirely inappropriate for the HNL CMO to bring this action against our airli11e. 

You also allege in your letter that the manuals in question were "in use at our training site at 

Sanford International Airport." This is incorrect as there was no tn:i.ining going on at the time. The 

manuals were not at the site until Mr. Kanae requc?ted them .. And at no time, were the out of date 

manuals ever used for training. 

And finally, we would sugge$t that it was a tremendous waste of FAA resources andtaxpayer 

dollars for Mt. Kanae, an inspector assigned exclusively to Asia Pacific Airlines and based in 

Honolulu, Hawaii to be in Sanford, Florida for a few hours when no Asia Pacific training was 

occurring. \Vc believe this additional information is sufficient for the proposed penalty to. be 

withdravm. 

'Michael R. Quinn 

President 

Attachments: 
·REPLY TO NOTICE OF PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY 

For Companies, Security Cases, and Individuals: Other than those acting in the 

capacity of a pilot, mechanic, flight engineer or repairman 

Regional Counsel for the Western-Pacific Region 

Federal AviationAdministration, AWP-7. 

P.O. Box 92007 

-Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 · 

Subject: Notice of_ Proposed Civil Penalty 

In reply to your Notic:e of Proposed Civil Penalty, I elect to proceed as indicated by my 

check mark beside the numbered paragraph(s) below: · 

1. [ ] · I hereby submit the amount of the proposed civil penalty with the 

understanding that an order assessing civil penalty will be issued in the amount without 

further notice. and that I waive my right to a hearing. _,,.-' 

/' . . 

2. [ I ] I hereby submit evidence and information, demonstrating that a violation of 

the regulations did not occur or that the amount of the penalty is not warranted by the 

circumstances. 

3. [ ] I hereby submit information and records showing that I am finanCially unable to pay 

the proposed civil penalty, or that payment of the penalty would prevent me from continuing in 

business. · 

4. [ ] I hereby request that a civil penalty be assessed in the amount of$ ___ _ 

and I submit the reasons for the reduction of the proposed amount. My request constitutes 

my agreement that if this offer is accepted by the FAA, an Order Assessing Civil Penalty in 

that amount may be issued without further notice and I waive my right to a hearing. . . 

5. [ ] I h~reby re.quest an informal conference that will be held atthe Office ~f the Regional Counsel, Hmvthorne; Ca(ifornia, or . . · · . · . 

(a mutually convenient location) in orderto discuss this matter with the attorney in charge 

of this case and-to present evidence and information on my behalf. 

. . 

6. { · ]I hereby requestthat the FAA impose a civil penalty without making the findings of 

violations, and submit my reasons. MY request constitutes my agreementthat if this offer is 

accepted, a Compromise Order will be. issued in that amount and I waive my right to a 

hearing. 

AWP-7 FORM 2150-25 {12/06 Edition) 
~§:itPJ Plllfdfle ~lrdlo;les'-------+ 

NOTICE OF MANUAL DISTRIBUTION . ~ . 

MA."JUALNAME: ' . 7A.::rli:~~ . u . ~~ 0 

'MANUAL NUMBER: · j- . . - · . 

REVISION NUMBER q + '1 

· 0\ . :. r_ P-L._ ASSIGNED TO: F:J~ /~ 

0 

~ 

ISSUE DAlF_: . ~- Is--I D 

DISTRIBUTION DATE:. 3- {;)__- J D 

·The Manual holder maintains responsibility fur the currency and condition of their assigned manuals at e3U ti~. 

Mar,ua! Revis~~ shall be j:~ed imm~'diately upon receipt . 

\ 

Federal Aviation Regukrtion 121.137 requires manual holders to keep their assigned manual "up- t~e with the changes and additions." · · · 

····~··············································~····················· 

TRANSMITi AL REPORT. 

I have received and reviewed the contents of1his Revision. 

/ . SIGNATURE 

~/?.Ro ·s· ~/'12£/4. PRIN"J:NAME 

·wL~/" 

PLEASE FAX OR SCAN THIS TRANSJWIITTA.L PAGE'TO: 

\lice President of Operations 

Asia Pacific Airlines 

156 Diablo Road, Suite 203. 

Oanville, CA 94526. 

(925) 362-4432 

Manual Distnbution 3112/2010 

03/24/10 01 :03 PM ASIA PAC AIRLIN Page 2 
~si~ JfJPJeifie ~ifi'l~'-------+ 

NOTICE OF MANUAL DISTRIBUTION 

MANUALNAME: -~~=0~.~~---------------------------

MANUALNUMBER: 51 

REVISION NUMBER: Z... "2-

ASSIGNEDTO: {)£Ck~· d<;:;~ 

ISSUEDATE: c:J.-d_ou f 

DISTRIBUTION DATE: / () - I 3- / 0 

The Manual holder maintains respo:,sibility for the currency and condition of their assigned 

manuals at all times. · 

Manual Revisions shall be posted immediately :;pon receipt. . . 

Federal Aviation Regulation 121.137 requires manual holders to keep their assigned manual"upto-date with the changes and additions." · 

··············~······················~·····~····························· 

TRANSMITTAL REPORT 

I have received and reviewed the contents of this Revision. 

I have posted the Revision in the assigned ma:1ual, removed ouidated fJ!aterials and recorded the 

date of posting on ~a Revision Page/< ~ ._c:L 

7 ·-SK;~ 

/ · D 

PLEASE FAX OR SCAN THJS TRANSMilTAL PAGE TO: 

, Vice President of Operations 

Asia Pacific Airlines . 

1_56 Diablo Road, Suite 203 

Danville, CA 94526 

(925) 362-4432 

Manual Distribution · 3/i 2/2010 
March 12, 2010 

Dick and Joe: 

I have enclosed Revisions 8 and 9 for your FOTM. I have enclosed two copies 

for Dick since you indicated that you had two FOTMs. 

l have enclosed only the LOEP for Revision 9 since it is the latest, 

Note that Revision 9 removes all pages in Chapter 4 after Page 10. Theses are 

the outdated LOFTs. Wording has been added to Page 10 which indicates that 

·the LOFTs are maintained in Sanford. · 

Revision 9 removes Appendices F and G since these courses are taught outside 

Flight Operations as part of other FAA approved programs. 

·1 have enclosed an Appendix K for Joe since he indicated that he did not have 

one. 

The LOEP is accurate. It is exactly what the FAA has in their copy. Please 

reconcile any differences with your manual. 

Thanks. 

BOB 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

RECEIVED 

SEP 1 9 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

In the Matter of AERO MICRONESIA, FAA Docket No.: unassigned 

FDMS No.: FAA-2012-0468 

Respondent. FAA Region: Western-Pacific 

Judge: Richard C. Goodwin 

8 . DECLARATION OF CLARENCE K. KANAE 

9 I, Clarence K. Kanae, hereby declare and state: 

10 I. I a:m over 18 years of age and the following is within my own personal 

11 knowledge. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 

12 2. I have been employed by the Federal Aviation Administration since August 20, 

13 1995. My current position is an Aviation Safety Inspector. More specifically, I'm an Air Cartier 

14 Principal Operations Inspector in the Honolulu Certificate Management Office. In that capacity, 

15 my duties include oversight for the operation of Aero Micronesia Inc. (also known as Asia 

16 Pacific). Oversight of Aero Micronesia and other operators includes evaluation of airmen, 

17 training programs, equipment (aircraft) and facilities. I also conduct investigations of incidents 

18 and accidents for potential violations of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

19 3. Prior to working for the FAA, I spent time as a first officer for a part 121 air 

· 20 carrier, and as president/CEO and owner of a h\!liC()pter company (accredited for part 135, part 

21 141, and part 61 operatiqns). I have over-41 years of military service. 

22: 4 .. I have air transport pilot ratings for fixed wing multi-engi~e land airplanes and 

23 rotocnift. I am a certified flight instructor for multi-engine and single-engine airplanes and 

24 rotocraft. I am type rated in the B-727, SD-3, SK-1, and S-70 aircraft. I am a certified flight 

25 engineer for turbojet. I have a total of approximately 16,200 pilot hours. Ofthese, 1,500 are 

26 multi~engine airplane, 2,700 are single-engine airplane, and 12,000 are helicopter, including 

27 5,000 hours in military helicopters, 500 of which were combat flight hours in Iraq. 

28 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0469: DECLARATION OF CLARENCE KANAE 
I 5. As the FAA's Principle Operations Inspector over Aero Micronesia (a.k.a. Asia 

2 Pacific Airlines), I maintain copies of the Aero Micronesia manuals and the updates to the 

3 manuals as provided by Aero Micronesia. 

4 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a current, true, and correct copy of the "Record of 

5 Revisions" for the Aero Micronesia Flight Operations Training Manual. 

6 7. Maintaining outdated manuals can have an adverse impact on safety. Instructors 

7 and Check Airmen may disseminate outdated aircraft data, policies and procedures to company 

8 flight crew members during initial, recurrent, or re-qualification training. Flight crew members 

9 may use the outdated aircraft data, policies and procedures during their daily Hight activities. 

10 This. could result in an crew members executing improper procedures during flight, whiCh in 

11 severe cases, could result in an aircraft accident, and/orinjl.lfy or death. 

12 

13 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is trueto the best of my knowledge 

14 and that this declaration was executed at Honolulu, Hawaii (city, state) on September 12, 2013. 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

.28 

CLARENCE K. KANAE 

·2 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0469: DECLARATION OF CLARENCE KANAE 
d\siA tJAeifie d\irli '!S 

RECORD OF REVISIONS 

RECORD OF REVISIONS 

DATE DATE 

REV.# INSERTED INITIALS REV,# INSERTED 

) S~o/o; --&:"U-!5? 

~- J/c /_-: )- ------ ., ------ ~ .. >r: -'"" 

--~ I I • 

--) .~ /j / ·~~-)~-·~) /~) ~/ __.. '~ '"--" .._:·, tr:). ·:;:, t I 

'I ) ~- j;}..;.:,}L-y / ,......__; <·)5 ~ 

' 

--- C:../t /()/3 ~-- / '"S 3lO.'\ 

·G, )_/f3/o1 [!</<.. 

•-( d. II~~~ o 1 vKK 

<6 c -~, J 1/ -L-CIC t..\::-K 

'1 o 3/11/lo {l.A(K 

o:~:::-:~ ~f.:-.> i~ o:~ ... ("·'.~!·J I:'\~ ,/1Ya ~~ ~\ 

' .. , 

, . . · .. · ------· ,.._-----·-.. ,.~ : n:..s: (...--·· 

--- _______ .,., ... 

--· . .._ ... ~--·-· .. -- ...... ~·---.-·;;.....-.. --. 

. . . __ ,..,_ ~--·-··_..,,.,_ . ~---~ -------

. . ·- .... -.. ~ .......... -.... -.. ~~ - ..... ---.. -· - ... ............. ~ ...... __ .... -... -- - .. 

'·,!.· iJ.~ ,r ... {".~-:, _Qt '.);~;-~ .. r .. ~·- ·c. ( L 

" 

• .: •. ·~· 1.:3' 

Original FLIGHT OPERATIONS TRAINING MANUAl 

Page i 

INITIALS 

30 JAN 1998 
FLIGHT OPERAT'"NS TRAINING MANUAL 

LIST OF EFFECT,_.: PAGES 

LOEP 

Page ii ........... : ............................. Revision 9 

Page iii ........................................ Revision 9 

~evision 9-15 MAR 2010 

Page i 

Page 9 ........................................ Revision 3 

Page 1 0 ...................................... Revision 3 

Page 11 ...................................... Revision 3 I Page i ......................................... Revision 9 

Page iv ........................................ Revision 9 - Page 12 ...................................... Revision 3 

Page 13 ...................................... Revision 3 -Page 14 ...................................... Revision 3 

CHAPTER 1 - POLICY Page 15 ...................................... Revision 8 

Page i ......................................... Revision 3 Page 16 ...................................... Revision 8 

Page ii ......................................... Revision 3 Page 17 .......... ~ ........................... Revision 8 

Page 1 ........................................ Revision 3 Page 18 ...................................... Revision 8 

Page 2 ........................................ Revision 3 Page 19 .......... ~ .. : ........................ Revision 8 

Page 3 ........................................ Revision 3 Page 20 ...................................... Revision 8 

Page 4 ...................... ;.: ............... Revision 3 Page 21 ......................... , ............ Revision 8 

Page 5 ...................... : ................. Revision 4 Page 22 ...................................... Revision 8 

Page 6 ........................................ Revision 3 

CHAPTER 4- LOFT . .. 

CHAPTER 2 -.8·727 GROUND Page i. ........ ;.: ... : .......................... Revision 2 

Page· i ......................................... Revision 3 

· Page ii ......................................... Revision 3 

Page ii ......................................... Revision 2 

Page 1 ............ ~ ... , .......... _ ............. Revision 2 

Page 1 ..... : .................................. Revision 3 Page .2 ...... ; .. : ................. · ............. Revision 2 

Page 2 ........................................ Revision 5 Page 3 ........................................ Revision 2 

Page 3 ........................................ ·Revision 3 Page 4 ... ; .................................... Revision 2 

Page 4 ........................................ Revision 3 Page 5 ......................... ; .............. Revision 2 

. Page. 5 ........................................ Revision 7 Page 6 ........................................ Revision 2 

Page 6 ........................................ Revision 3 Page 7 ........................................ Revision 2 

Page 7 ........................................ Revision 3 Page 8 ........................................ Revision 2 

Page 8 ........................................ Revision 3 

Page 9 ............... ~ ........................ Revision 3 

Page 9 ........... : ............................ Revision 9 

Page 10 ...................................... Revision 9 

Page 10 ., .......... : ......................... Revision 3 

Page 11 ............... : .................. : ... Revision 3 

Page 12 ...................................... Revision 3 .CHAPTER 5 • FORMS 

Page ·13 ...................................... Revision 3 Page 1 ...................................... :. Revision 5 

Page 14 .............................. _.: ...... Re~l~i9~:31 ''·:! ,:f::~w~:~ .. ~ .......................... , .......... Rev~s~on 5 

. . - _ ·· . · · ·-··Page·3 ........................................ Revrsron 5 

'· - -· · . . -_ T . ; · ~-: ......:..P..e9.~-L:.;~.,_,;~,'"'-~ .. ,. ............. ~ ..... ~ ..... -... Revision 5 

CHAPTER 3 -i:;a72'T"Fiftmi~--- ;:,,.;J.~/'- ·:.;;. Page 5 ............... ; ........................ Revision 5 · 

-Page ,· R'' 3 P 6. R'' 5 1 ...... _ .................................... _ ._ evrsron · age ... _.......................... ..... ...... evrsron _ 

Page. ii .......... ~~:~. ~-:~::-:-:-:-:-:-:-:--Revisiorr-8·-~---.. -Page-7-;:::-== ~::·: : ............................. Revision 5 . 

Page iii ................... '( ... ,.~.-~-· ..... --Re.\lisior.\.-3--· ---P-age-8-,~-=-=:-~c:--:-;--;-.~ .. .-...................... Revision 5 . • ·lc'-q;;:; ~-i -R .. . 3 p 9 R . . 5 Page rv ............. :·.~!-: .. : ... ·: ....... _......... _evrsron age ....................................... -. evrsron 

Page 1 ......... _ ....... A-·-~---~~~ .. .Re\dsion . .3--~-f?age.10 .• ,, .... ~· ....... , ......................... Revision 5 

Page 2 ..................................... : .. Revision 3 _pa_g§,JJ .. _ .. _ ................................... Revision 5 

Page 3 ......... :~::-.-:-.~=:=.~~.~:~:-:-·RevlSTon 3-~-.. -- Pag~ 12 ............. · ......................... Revision 5 

Page 4 ........ +~;· ... ;:~~.;~,;·:;.:.-.::~.:-: .. :·.:RevisiorF3 .- :' . .-Page 1-3 ....................................... Revision 5 

Page 5 ............ :: . .'~:: ... ;: ..... '.'.: .. .' ...... Revision 3 

Page 6 .................................... :~:.Revision 3-

7 . \ R ... 3. Page ..................................... ::-. evrsron · 

. Page 8 ........................................ Revision 3 

c:7lsin pncific oZ/il'lines 

fAA APPROVED D~,\·-'2..0,0 

t /(..~L>j . WP-HNL-cMO . { o.._ 
FLIGHT OPERATIONS TRAINING MANUAL 

LIST OF EFFECTIVE ~ .3ES 

Page 14 .......................... : ............ Revision 5 

Page 15 ................... ~ ................... Revision 5 

Page 16 ....................................... Revision 5 

Page 17 ....................................... Revision 5 

Page 18 ....................................... Revision 5 

Page 19 ....................................... Revision 5 

Page 20 ....................................... Revision 5 

Page 21 ....................................... Revision 5 

Page 22 ....................................... Revision 5 

Page 23 ....................................... Revision 5 

Page 24 ......................... ; ............. Revision 5 

Page 25 .............. : ........................ Revision 5 

Page 26 ....................................... Revision 5 

Page 27 ....................................... Revision 5 

Page 28 ....................................... Revision 5 

· Page 29 ....................................... Revision 5 . Page 30 ....................................... Revision 5 

Rev;~ion 9-15 MAR 2010 

Page ii 

Page 3 ........................................ Revision 2 

Page 4 ........................................ Revision 2 

Page 5 ........................................ Revision 2 

Page 6 ........................................ Revision 2 

Page 7 ........................................ Revision 2 

Page 8 ........................................ Revision 2 

Page 9 ........................................ Revision 2 

Page 10 ... : .................................. Revision 2 

Page 11 ...................................... Revision 2 

Page 12 ...................................... Revision 2 

Page 13 ...................................... Revision 2 

Page 14 ........... ~ .......................... Revision 2 

Page 15 ........... · ....................... , .... Revision 2 

Page 16 ...................................... Revision 2 

Page 17 ...................................... Revision 2 

Page 18 ...................................... Revision 2 

Page 19 ......................... : ............ Revision 2 

Page 31 ............................. : ......... Revision 5 Page 20 ...................................... Revision 2 

Page-32 ....................................... Revision 5 

Page 33 ....................................... Revision 5 

. Page 34 .. ; .................................... Revision 5 

Page 35 ....................................... Revision 5 

. Page 36 .................... : .................. Revision 5 

Page 37 ....................................... Revision 5 

Page 38 ....................................... Revision 5 

Page 39 ...................... ~ ................ Revision 5 

Page 40 ....................................... Revision 5 

Page 41 .. , .................................... Revision 5 

APPENDIX A- BASIC 

INDOCTRINATION 

Page i .... _ ...................................... Revision 5 

P ··' . R . . 5 age 11 ••••••• , • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • evtston 

Page 1 ........................... ; ............. Revision 5 

Page 21 ...................................... Revision 2 

Page 22 ........ : ............................. Revision 2 

Page 23 : ..................................... Revision 2 

Page 24 ................................ ; ..... Revision 2 

Page 25 ...................................... Revision 2 

Page 26 ...................................... Revision 2 

Page 27 ...................................... Revision 2 · 

Page 28 .................................. : ... Revision 2 

Page 29 ....... , .............................. Revision 2 

Page 30 ...................................... Revision 2 

Page 31 .......... : ........................... Revision 2 

Page 32 ...................................... Revision 2 

Page 33 ............ : ......................... Revjsion 2 

Page 34 ...................................... Revision 2 

Page 35 ................. ~ .................... Revision 2 

Pag_e 36 ...................................... Revision 2 

Page2 ..... : ................................. ,.Revision5 ... , .. , ·~··..: 

Page 3 ......................................... Revisior.t 5 APPENDIX C.- B-727 FLIGHT . 

. Page 4 ......................... :-.::.:::·:::=:· .. :Revisio~ f? .. · .. ·,.'.PageT::::.:·~::::;·.:~::::-: ............ : ....... Revision 2 

· Page. 5 ................. : ....................... Revision'S · Page ii.. ....................... , ............... Revision 2 

Page 6 •........... : ........... ~ ................. Revisi.oo_5~-----·-P..age .. 1 ..• " ... ·n··· ............................ Revision 2 

· _ __ ______ .. _____ .. ___________ , _ __page 2...:.:.;:::.:.:.:.::.·.~:.:.::.:::.:.::.:.:: ............... Revision 2 

· . . ; · · · ·' ,. . Page 3 ........................................ Revision 2 

~~~~~X.B- SX~!~N!.~~~~~~-~~-------~.92-~.:.:.:.::.:;;:.;::;::.:.:.:;..:~:.:.::· .. ·· .......... Rev~s~on 2 

Page 5 ......................................... Rev1s1on 2 

·-------· --···--·--~-·:-:--~-pag-e-o::-.-::·:-::::::-;:::::-::-.::::: ............... Revision 2 

Page i .......................... ~ ......... , ... ···:~eV!SI9n?. r'·r ·""·''"~ .... ~·.; .. ,1 ... ~t .•.. .. •.. 

P · .. t ... ··: ...... !lo.t~ .tf· ;j ~J· 'R'"~ .,a:o.:.r ~:t~ .... · .. d~~ .. ~.,·~~r..t · ... ·.l·t··~ 4 ... l.s ~ ... ··;., .. ,I~ . 

age II ................ : ..... ::: .. : .... :.::: ... ! eVISIOn L ' ,, '. ' 

Page 1 ........................ · ................. R.~visio_0-_2 --···--~--.. , -~, 

Page 2 ......................................... R~.\!!~igr:·f..~ '···: .'.~ :, '.1 .. ~-;; FAA-APPROVED 

o~-oz.o\-n . 

. . \£. • t!-""""" p or. 

WP-HNL-CMO 

c A 3 \=X. 1 ~· 
FLIGHT OPERATIC'.'S TRAINING MANUAL 

LIST OF EFFECTI\, _ PAGES 

Page 7 ........................................ Revision 2 

Page 8 ........................................ Revision 2 

Page 9 ........................................ Revision 2 

Page 1 0 ...................................... Revision 2 

Page 11 ...................................... Revision 2 

Page 12 ...................................... Revision 2 

Page 13 ...................... : ............... Revision 2 

Page 16 ...................................... Revision 2 

Page 17 ...................................... Revision 2 

Page 18 ...................................... Revision 2 

Page 19 ...................................... Revision 2 

Page 20 ...................................... Revision 2 

Page 21 ...................................... Revision 2 

Page 22 ... , .................................. Revision 2 

APPENDIX D· REQUALIFICATION 

(TYPE 1) 

·Page i ............. ~ ........................... Revision 2 

Pe~ge ii ......................................... Revision 2 

Page 1 ...... ~ ................................. Revision 2 

Page 2 ....................... : ................ Revision 2 

Page 3 .................................... : ... Revision 2 

Page 4 ........................................ Revision 2 

Page 5 ..... ,. .................................. Revision 2 

Page 6 ........................................ Revision 2 

Page 7 ........................................ Revision 2 

.nqvision 9 - 15 MAR 2010 

Page iii 

APPENDIX H - LONG RANGE 

NAVIGATION 

Page i.. ........................................ Revision 2 

Page ii ......................................... Revision 2 

Page 1 ....................... : ................ Revision 2 

Page 2 ........................... : ............ Revision 2 

Page 3 ........................................ Revision 2 

Page 4 .~ ...................... ~ .............. ,Revision 2 

APPENDIX I -CREW RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT 

Page i. .......... ; .............................. Revision 2 

Page ii ......................................... Revision 2 

Page 1 ........................................ Revision 2 

Page 2 ....... -................................. Revision 2 

APPENDIX J -CHECK 

AJRMANnNSTRUCTOR 

Page i. ......................................... Revision 2 

Page ii ......................................... Revision 2 

Page 1 ........................................ Revision 2 

Page 2 ........................................ Revision 2 

Page 3 ........................................ Revision 2 

Page 4 ........... ; ............................ Revision 2 

Page 5 ........................................ Revision 2 

Page 8 ........................................ Revision 2 _ Page 6 ........................................ Revision 2 

APPENDIX E- EMERGENCY APPENDIX K- TRAINING DEVICES 

Page~_. ........................................ Rev~s-~on 2 AND ~IMULATORS .. Page 11 ......................................... Rev1s1on 2 Page!.. ........................................ Rev1s1on 6 

Page 1 .~ ...................................... -Revisjqn ~- , . _ ·. ~~9.~ ii...._. ... : ................................. Revision 6 

Page 2 ........................................ Revis,idi1 ~: ; '· -· ·Page 1' .: .................. ~ ................... Revision 6 

Page .3 ................. :::·.-...... ,__,:;.:::..:.:.::,,:.·.:.:.BitY.lslon? · _ .. f~_g_e .. ?. .. ::.:::·:·::.:.. .. ·::""'"''~ ............... Revision 6 

Page 4 .............. ::.;:: .................... Revisionj2.:_,;,· · -- · _ . 

Page 5 .............. : ......................... ReVision 2 _ Page 6 · ---·-----, ..... ____ -- Revision-2--·~--,_.------ ~-- · -----.-· - -, ... ...... ~ ....... _ .. ····_······:·~:~~-::~~::_:.: __________ ,_-----~----~---- .. ______ FAA APPROVED · ,- ... ~ ·;- . D'#1: ~'1.0\0 I APPENDIX F-.RESERVED _______ .. ___ .~---·~--..,·---·----------······-· Jtl); lc... ~ fOL 

. · WP-HNL.CMO ................. ~ ..... -·~· ............... _. ........ ~ ...... ~-.... -.,,,~-...... --~-! .......... ~-...... ,.~ ....... ··-· _ .. _ _..., . _,..., ·, ...... __ 

I APPENDIX G • RE~~RVED,: :.;; '.: .,. :· : ~;_. -1 ·::~~;. ·-., _r: ;: .: : :: . • . 
FLIGHT OPERATION~ ""RAINING MANUAL 

LIST OF EFFECTIVE t .GES 

Revic;ion 9-15 MAR 2010 

Pageiv 

APPENDIX L • WINDSHEAR 

Page i ......... ~: ............................... Revision 2 

Page ii ......................................... Revision 2 

Page 1 ................. , . : ..................... Revision 2 

Page 2 ......................................... Revision 2 

Page 3 ......................................... Revision 2 

Page 4 ......................................... Revision 2 

APPENDIX M -FLIGHT FOLLOWING 

Page i .......................................... Revision 6 

Page ii ......................................... Revision 6 

Page 1 ......................................... Revision 6 

Page 2 ........................... ~ ............. Revision 6 

APPENDIX N -AIRCRAFT LOADING 

Page i ............ , ............................. Revision 2 

Page ii ......................................... Revision 2 

Page 1 ......................................... Revision 2 

Page 2 ................... : ..................... Revision 2 

, Page 3 .......................................... Revision 2 

Page 4 .......... ~ ....................... : ...... Revision 2. 

Page 5 ......................................... Revisiori 2 

Page 6 .................................... ; .... Revision 2 

APPENDIX 0 - RVSM 

·Page ~ ........................................... Rev~s~on 2 

Page 11 ......................................... Rev1s1on 2 

Page 1 ......................................... Revision 2 

Page 2 ... , ................................... , .. Revision ·2 · 

APPENDIX P- TRAINING SCHEDULE 

APPENDIX Q-GPS APPROACH 

TRAINING 

Page i ......................................... Revision 3 

P .. . R .. 3 age IL ............................. , .. .. .. .. .. eVISIOn 

Page 1 ................. : ...................... Revision 4 

Page 2 ........................................ Revision 4 

Page 3 ........................................ Revision 4 

Page 4 ........................................ Revision 4 

Page 5 ........................................ Revision 4 

Page 6 ..................................... ~ .. Revision 4 

Page 7 ........................................ Revision 4 

Page 8 ........................................ Revision 4 

Page 9 ........................ , ............... Revision 4 

· .. FAA APPROVED 

0~~1010 

~- Nw..t, f~I: . WP-HNL-GMO 

Page i .................................... .-...... Revision ~'\'.!';;s: ~~.t. -~ ,.::-~·.t···." ,., ·Page ii .; ........................... ,.: ......... Revision~·::· ,.,... ,,,_,. ,,.,,, '"'~(... . 

Page 1 .... :·•·:····· ... ;.:~·;·,-.~~;·...,<-<W.v..o.~ .... ~~a!QJl.?:::;,;i;·~>;,.s: ~~~~··u~---··-·--·--· ·-· Page .2 .................... w::! ................ Revlslon 2.... · . 

. Page 3 ........ , ................ , ................ Revision 2 · Page 4 .................... :::=:::::":":::-::::Re'QTs1oi'f2-~~-~· .. -"": .. , ___ ..._ __ ,~--~-_, 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

RECEIVED 

SEP 19 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

In the Matter of Aero Micronesia, FAA Docket No.: Unassigned 

FDMS No.: FAA-2012-0468 

Respondent. FAA Region: Western-Pacific 

Judge: Richard C. Goodwin 

COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR DECISION 

To: Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge, and Respondent, Aero 

Micronesia: 

Complainant, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Western-Pacific Region, by 

counsel, files this Motion for Decision pursuant to sections 13.218(a) and (f)(5) of Title 14 

of the Code of Federal Regulations, in that Complainant is entitled to a decision as a matter 

of law because there is no genuine issue of material fact disputed by the parties. 

I. FACTS 

On May 11, 2012, Complainant filed the Complaint in this action. The Complaint alleged: 

1. Aero Micronesia, Inc. d/b/a Asia Pacific Airlines ("Aero Micronesia") is now, 

and at all times mentioned herein was, the holder of Air Carrier Certificate No. 

I5P A400I, authorized to conduct flight operations, cargo only, under part 121 of 

the Federal Aviation Regulations ("F ARs"). 

2. On or about March 25, 2011, Aero Micronesia operated a Boeing 727-200 

aircraft, Civil Registration No. N319NE, on a cargo carrying flight from Majuro 

Atoll to Honolulu International Airport. 

3. Incident to the above operation, N319NE carried an item of cargo, which 

included an aircraft engine in zone 8. 
4. The "Load Planner- Weight Manifest" for the above flight showed that the 

weight of the cargo indicated in no. 3 above was distributed across zones 7, 8, 

and 9. 

2 

5. The weight of the cargo indicated in no. 3 above was not distributed across zones 

7, 8, and 9, but was instead limited to zone 8. 

6. As a result of allegations 3 - 5 above, the "Load Planner- Weight Manifest" was 

not accurate. 

7. The maximum allowable weight in zone 8 ofN319NE was 10,000 pounds. 

8. N319NE contained a placard indicating that the maximum allowable weight for 

zone 8 was 10,000 pounds. 

9. The weight of the cargo indicated in no. 3 above exceeded 10,000 pounds. 

10. Alternatively, if it is found that the cargo indicated in no. 3 above did not exceed 

10,000 pounds, then the "Load Planner- Weight Manifest" showing the total 

weight of said cargo did exceed 10,000 pounds is not accurate. 

By virtue of the foregoing, Complainant alleged that Respondent had violated the following 

Federal Aviation Regulations, and proposed to assess of civil penalty of $19,250: 

(a) 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(a), which states" ... no person may operate a civil aircraft 

without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved 

Airplane or Rotocraft Flight Manual, mar~ing, and placards ... " 

(b) 14 C.F.R. § 121.665, which states "[e]ach certificate holder is responsible for the 

preparation and accuracy of a load manifest form before each takeoff. .. " 

On June 15, 2012, Respondent filed an Answer, in which Respondent admitted allegations 1 

-8 above. Respondent's Answer, page 1, ~ 1. That leaves allegations 9 and 10, and 

violations (a) and (b) as contested. However, Respondent has separately admitted to 

allegation 10 (and violation of (b), inaccurate manifest), leaving allegation 9 (and violation 

(a), overweight engine cargo) as the only truly contested matters. 
II. LEGAL STANDARDS. 

Title 14 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations, section 13.218(£)(5) states: 

A party may make a motion for decision, regarding all or any part of the 

proceedings, at any time before the administrative law judge has issued an 

initial decision in the proceedings. The administrative law judge shall 

grant a party's motion for decision if the pleadings, depositions, answers 

to interrogatories, admissions, matters that the administrative law judge 

has officially noticed, or evidence introduced during the hearing show that 

there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the party making the 

motion is entitled to a decision as a matter of law. The party making the 

motion for decision has the burden of showing that there is no genuine 

issue of material fact disputed by the parties. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.218(£)(5). 

III. ARGUMENT. 

As indicated above, the only allegations of the Complaint not admitted in 

Respondent's Answer are allegations 9 and 10- and the only truly contested allegation is 

allegation 9 (the overweight engine cargo), since Respondent has actually admitted to 

3 

allegation 10 (the inaccurate manifest). We will start by addressing Respondent's admission 

to the inaccurate manifest violation. 

a. The Manifest was Inaccurate (14 C.F.R. § 121.665). 

There are two issues regarding the inaccurate load manifest. One involves a 

violation for the load manifest showing an inaccurate distribution of the cargo (allegations 4 
4 

-6 of the Complaint), to which Respondent has admitted. 1 Thus, a violation of 121.665 is 

not contested in that regard. 

The second issue regarding the load manifest is in regards to the engine cargo weight 

indicated on the load manifest (allegation 10 of the Complaint). Complainant will show 

later in this motion that the weight of the engine cargo did actually exceed 10,000 pounds, as 

depicted on the load manifest (and thus there is no second violation of 14 C.P.R. § 121.665). 

However, Respondent asserts that the engine cargo did not exceed 10,000 pounds- that 

instead "the load manifest had an inaccurate weight for the engine." Respondent's Answer, 

p. 1, ~ 3. Thus, Respondent has admitted to allegation 10 of the Complaint. Respondent is 

essentially arguing that it committed a second 14 C.P.R. § 121.665 violation (manifest error) 

rather than a 14 C.P.R. § 91.9(a) violation (overweight engine cargo). Thus, in an abundance 

of caution, Complaint alleged a second 14 C.P.R. § 121.665 violation. 

Respondent denies allegation 10 in its Answer simply based on the fact that this 

charge was "not mentioned in [Complainant's] original LOI [Letter of Investigation] or 

proposed civil penalty." Respondent's Answer, page 1, ~ 1. Allegation 1 0 was included, 

however, in Complainant's Amended Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty (NPCP) dated March 

1, 2012, Final NPCP dated April24, 2012, and Complaint, dated May 11, 2012. See Exhibit 

1, Amended NPCP, and Exhibit 2, Final NPCP. See also Complaint. Thus, Respondent has 

had ample notice of the inaccurate load manifest allegations. . 

Respondent further claims that the "the technical inaccuracy contained in the 'Load 

Planner-Weight Manifest' [doesn't constitute] a material violation." See Answer, page 1, ~ 

2. Such contention does not vitiate the violation, but is only relevant in determining the 

1 Respondent admits that the manifest showed the engine cargo distributed across three zones, when it was 

actually limited to a single zone (allegations 4-6 of Complaint). See Respondent's Answer, p. 1, ~ 1, 

admitting allegations 1-8. 
5 

appropriate sanction. See FAA Order 2150.3B. The uncontested facts show that 

Respondent violated 14 C.F.R. § 121.665 (manifest error) in at least one instance by 

showing an inaccurate distribution of the cargo, and either violated 14 C.F.R. § 121.665 a 

second time by showing an inaccurate weight on the manifest, or instead violated 14 C.F.R. 

§ 91.9(a), by carrying overweight engine cargo? 

b. The Engine Cargo Exceeded 10,000 Pounds (14 C.F.R. § 91.9(a)) 

Respondent denies that the weight of the engine cargo exceeded 10,000 pounds, 

preferring to admit solely to errors in the manifest. However, the evidence shows that the 

engine cargo, which Respondent was shipping for Continental Airlines, did exceed 10,000 

pounds. 

First, Respondent's own "Load Planner- Weight Manifest" shows that the engine 

cargo exceeded 10,000 pounds. See Kanae Declaration Exhibit G. Respondent's "Load 

Planner- Weight Manifest" shows a weight of9450 pounds in zone 8, and 546 pounds in 

both zones 7 and 9. The total for these weights is 10,542 pounds. Respondent has admitted 

that "because the support for the engine was in zone 8 all of the engine weight was in zone 

8." Respondent's Answer, p. 1, ~ 4. Thus, according to the load manifest, the weight in 

zone 8 was 10,542 pounds, well in excess of 10,000 pounds. 

Second, Continental Airlines shipping documents show that the engine cargo 

exceeded 10,000 pounds. See Declaration of Catherine Flores, Declaration of Clarence 

Kanae, and Exhibits to the declarations, which also support a weight of 10,542 for the 

2 See also Respondent's Answer, p. 1, para. 3, wherein Respondent states" ... the error in the subject load 

manifest was inadvertent and immaterial...". See also Respondent's Answer, p. 1, para. 4, wherein 

Respondent states "[t]he personnel who created the load manifest had an inaccurate weight for the engine," and 

it "contained some technical inaccuracies." 
6 

engine as shipped. As indicated in Ms. Flores's Declaration, Exhibit C (Continental Airlines 

"Air Waybill" for the flight) shows a total weight for the engine (in 3 pieces) of 10,400 lbs. 

Exhibit D (Asia Pacific's "Cargo Manifest") for the flight shows that the 3 pieces were split 

into two pallets for shipping, pallet PAG72083CO and PAG72217CO. Exhibit E 

(Continental Airline's "Unit Load Device I.D. Tag and Dispatch Record" for pallet "PAG 

72217") shows 316lbs were placed on pallet PAG72217CO with some other items, for a 

total weight of 517 lbs. With 316 lbs removed from the original! 0,400 lbs, the remaining 

engine cargo weight would have been 10,084 lbs. This remaining 10,084 lbs was placed on 

pallet PAG72083CO, with some other items, for a total weight of 10,542lbs. See Exhibit F 

(Continental Airline's "Unit Load Device I.D. Tag and Dispatch Record" for pallet "PAG 

72083"). Thus, the Continental Airlines shipping documents also support the fact that the 

weight ofthe engine cargo as shipped exceeded 10,000 pounds. 

Respondent contends that the weights shown on the above documents were in error. 

In suppmi of its contention, Respondent provided a letter dated April20, 2011, along with 

some documents. See Kanae Declaration Exhibit H. Although the documents provided by 

Respondent show the weight for a typical CFM56-7 engine (the type of engine in this case) 

as shipped, rather than the particular engine in this case, they are worth examining. Page 3 

ofKanae Declaration Exhibit H, is an April 15, 2011 email from Ms. Lois Santos of 

Continental Airlines, showing the weight for a CFM56-7 in the shipping stand to be 9800 

pounds. Page 5 ofExhibit H shows the dry weight for a CFM56-7 is 5,216 pounds, and 

page 6 ofExhibit H shows the weight ofCFM-56-7B engine stand to be 4,620 pounds. 

When added together, the weight provided for the typical engine and typical engine stand is 

5,216lbs. + 4,620 lbs. = 9,836 pounds, which is relatively close to the 9800 pounds 
provided in the Lois Santos email. At first glance, these documents appear to support 

Respondent's contention that the engine cargo did not exceed 10,000 pounds. However, as 

stated above, these documents provide weights for a typical engine as shipped, not the 

engine in this case. 

7 

The engine as shipped in the case at hand was different than the typical engine as 

shipped discussed above. As indicated in the Declaration of Ms. Catherine Flores of 

Continental Airlines, she witnessed the weighing of a typical CFM56-7 prepared for 

shipping, and it weighed 9,812 pounds. This figure is relatively close to the 9800 pounds 

provided in the Lois Santos email, and the 9,836 pounds provided in the other documents 

with Respondent's April20, 2011, letter discussed above. However, in viewing the photo of 

the engine in the case at hand, Ms. Flores noticed a key difference. She noticed that the 

engine in the case at hand had something extra that the typical engine she weighed did not. 

The engine in the case at hand still had the casters (wheels) attached to the shipping stand, 

whereas the engine she weighed did not. Declaration ofMs. Catherine Flores, at 2:8-13. 

The casters weigh a total of 680 pounds. !d. When added to the weight of the typical 

CFM56-7 prepared for shipping, the total weight ofthe shipped engine would be 9,812lbs. 

+ 680 lbs. = 10,492 pounds. !d. Thus, the typical CFM56-7 engine as shipped with the 

casters (wheels) would have weighed approximately 10,500 pounds. This is relatively close 

to the 10,542 provided in Respondent's own manifest, and the Continental Airlines 

documents. Thus, not only do the actual shipping documents show that the engine shipment 

in this case exceeded 10,000 pounds, the typical engine as shipped with casters (like the 

engine in this case) also exceeds 10,000 pounds. Thus, Respondent violated 14 C.P.R. § 

91.9(a). 
8 

IV. SANCTION. 

As demonstrated above, Respondent operated a Boeing 727 from Majuro Atoll to 

Honolulu International Airport, while carrying an engine in a manner that exceeded the 

operating limitations of the aircraft, a violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(a). Additionally, 

Respondent prepared an inaccurate load manifest, in that Respondent's manifest showed the 

engine cargo spread over 3 loading zones, when in fact the weight of the engine cargo was 

limited to a single zone. This is a violation of 14 C.F.R. § 121.665. Finally, even if 

Respondent were correct about the engine cargo weighing less than 10,000 pounds, the 14 

C.F.R. § 91.9(a) violation (overweight engine cargo) would simply be replaced by a second 

14 C.F.R. § 121.665 violation (inaccurate manifest) for showing the engine weighed more 

than 10,000 pounds on the manifest. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46301, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed 

$27,500 for each violation. Respondent committed two violations: One 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(a) 

violation, and one 14 C.F.R. § 121.665 violation (or, alternatively, as Respondent contends, 

two 14 C.F.R. § 121.665 violations). Thus, Respondent is subject to a maximum civil 

penalty of $55,000. However, for this case, Respondent simply seeks a civil penalty of 

$19,250. This is an appropriate amount for a single violation of either 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(a) 

violation, or 14 C.F .R. § 121.665. Again, although a civil penalty of double this amount 

($38,500) would be appropriate because of the two violations committed by Respondent, 

Complainant is simply seeking an amount based on a single violation. 

A civil penalty of $19,500 for a single violation of either 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(a) or 14 

C.F.R. § 121.665 is consistent with the FAA's sanction guidance. The FAA's publicly 
9 

available sanction guidance table is contained in Appendix B of FAA Order 2150.3B. 3 

Operation of an aircraft while exceeding the operating limitations (14 C.F.R. § 91.9(a) 

violation) is analogous to operation in non-conformity ofthe aircrafts type certificate, which 

may have an adverse effect on safe operation of the aircraft. The sanction guidance 

recommends a moderate to maximum civil penalty for such a violation. 4 Similarly, the 

sanction guidance also recommends a moderate to maximum civil penalty for the inaccurate 

manifest (14 C.F.R. § 121.665) violation. 5 As Respondent is a Group II large business6

, 

the maximum civil penalty range is $17,875- $27,500, and the moderate civil penalty range 

is $9,625-$20,624.7 FAA Order 2150.3B, Chapter 7, Subparagraph 5-b(3) instructs to 

"begin with an amount in the middle of the range, and increase that amount toward the 

higher end of the range for aggravating factors or decrease that amount toward the lower end 

of the range for mitigating factors." The middle ofthe range between $9,625 and $27,500 is 

$18,562. The penalty could have been substantially increased by the fact that there were 

actually two violations, rather than a single violation, but it was not. The penalty could have 

been substantially increased by the fact that aggravating factors exceeded any mitigating 

3 FAA Order 2150.3B can be found at 

http://www.faa.gov/regulations policies/orders notices/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentiD/1721 

3. 

4 See FAA Order 2150.3B, Appendix B, Figure B-1-1(2). 5 See FAA Order 2150.3B, Appendix B, Figure B-1-k(l), which recommends a moderate to maximum civil 

penalty for any violation of subpart U of 14 CFR part 121. 14 C.P.R. § 121.665 is contained in subpart U of 14 

CFR part 121. 6 "In determining the concern's size, SBA counts the receipts, employees, or other measure of size of the 

concern whose size is at issue and all of its domestic and foreign affiliates, regardless of whether the affiliates 

are organized for profit." 14 C.F.R § 121.103. Asia Pacific Airlines is an affiliate of Tan Holdings. See 

http://www.tanholdings.com/index.php/sbu/. "Tan Holdings Corporation employs more than 4,000 people in 

the Western Pacific Region." See http://www.tanholdings.com/index.php/ourpeople/ under "Commitment." 

The maximum number of employees for an air transportation freight company to be considered a small 

business is 1,500 employees. See FAA Order 2150.3B, Appendix B, subparagraph 3-b. Thus, Respondent is 

considered a large business concern. 7 See FAA Order 2150.3B, Appendix B, Subparagraph 3-c(l). The amounts shown above are the amounts 

provided in FAA Order2150.3B, as adjusted for inflation. See 75 FR 72935 (October 29, 2010) and 14 C.P.R. 

13.305. 
. \ 

10 

factors, but it was not. Although a significant increase in the civil penalty would have been 

justified, the penalty was increased only slightly, to $19,250. The factors affecting the 

sanction are discussed in more detail below. 

"If a violation is deliberate or not inadvertent, a sanction at the upper end of the 

range or exceeding the range for that type of violation is generally appropriate." 8 By its 

own admission, Respondent claims that it knew ofthe manifest error, but attempts to justify 

the error by stating that "the flight was already late departing and we decided not to redo the 

... paperwork." See Kanae Declaration Exhibit H, p.l, ~ 3 (Respondent's April20, 2011 

letter responding to Complainant's Letter oflnvestigation). However, as noted above, 

despite Respondent's deliberate operation with a known manifest error, the civil penalty 

amount was increased only slightly. 

Additionally, Respondent contends that Complainant "improperly considered prior 

alleged violations." (Respondent's Answer, p. 2, ~ 5).9 However, the civil penalty amount 

was not increased due to prior violations. 

Another factor that can be considered in setting the penalty amount is the degree of 

hazard imposed by a Respondent's action. "[A]n increase in the degree of hazard may form 

the basis for exceeding the sanction ranges." 10 Respondent argues that its manifest error 

regarding the engine weight was inadvertent and immaterial" and "did not ... represent any 

safety risk." However, recordkeeping violations are not trifling matters. On the contrary, 

they are significant. Complete and accurate recordkeeping is the linchpin ofF AA's 

8 FAA Order 2150.3B, Chapter 7, Subparagraph 4-b. 

9 See FAA Order 2150.3B, Chapter 7, Subparagraph 4-d(l) which states that "[a] prior violation history may 

suggest that a person has a poor compliance disposition, which is an aggravating factor." See also FAA Order 

2150.3B, Chapter 7, Subparagraph 4-h(l), which states that "a violation history can justify imposing a sanction 

at the higher end of the normal range or a sanction beyond the normal range." Thus, the FAA's sanction 

guidance provides for increasing the sanction when a respondent has a violation history. However, as 

indicated above, Complainant did not aggravate the sanction based on a violation history. 1

° FAA Order 2150.3B, Chapter 7, Subparagraph 4-e(2). 
11 

oversight and enforcement. Complete and accurate recordkeeping is essential for the FAA 

to fulfill its mandate of assuring that operators comply with safety standards. See Watts 

Agricultural Aviation, Inc., d/b/a Growers Air Service, FAA Order No. 91-8 (April 11, 

1991). Incomplete or inaccurate records compromise air safety. Such transgressions merit 

significant penalties. 

Additionally, the potential hazard created by exceeding weight limitations of an 

aircraft cannot be overstated. 

Compliance with the weight and balance limits of any aircraft is 

critical to flight safety. Operating above the maximum weight 

limitation compromises the structural integrity of an aircraft and 

adversely affects its performance. 

FAA Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, Chap. 9, Weight and Balance, p. 

9-1 (http:/ /www.faa.gov/regulations _policies/handbooks_ manuals/aviation/pilot_ handbook/) 

"Because of abnormal stresses placed upon the structure of an improperly loaded aircraft, or 

because of changed flying characteristics of the aircraft, loss of life and destruction of 

valuable equipment may result." FAA Aircraft Weight and Balance Handbook, FAA-H8083-1A. p. 1-1 (http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/ 

Yet, despite the hazards imposed by Respondent's actions in this case, the amount of the 

civil penalty was increased only slightly. 

The sanction also could have been aggravated by the fact that Respondent is an air 

carrier, and "[a]ir carriers are held to the highest standard of care."11 As discussed above, 

rather than correcting what Respondent claims was a known manifest error, Respondent 

attempts to justify its manifest error, stating that "the flight was already late departing and 

11 FAA Order 2150.3B, Chapter 7, Subparagraph 4-g. 
------------------.......... ... 

12 

we decided not to redo the ... paperwork." See Kanae Declaration Exhibit H, p.l, ~ 3 

(Respondent's April 20, 20Illetter responding to Complainant's Letter oflnvestigation). 

This is hardly the actions of an air carrier exhibiting the highest standard of care. 

In summary, although Complainant could have doubled the sanction due to the fact 

Respondent committed two violations, Complainant did not do so. Although Complainant 

could have also used aggravating factors to significantly increase the amount of the penalty, 

Complainant did not do so. The sanction sought of$19,250 is only slightly above the 

midpoint ($18,562) of the recommended range for a single violation. Accordingly, 

Complainant's selected civil penalty of $19,250 is well within the range indicated in the 

sanction guidance table, and is not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not according to law. 

V. CONCLUSION. 

Based on the foregoing, Complainant is entitled to a decision in its favor that 

Respondent committed the violations charged and should be assessed a civil penalty of 

$19,250. 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: 

Attorney 

Dated: September 13, 2013 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this date I have placed in the United States mail, postage 

prepaid, the MOTION FOR DECISION, addressed as follows: 

And a copy to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 000 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Dept of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (E11-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

I further certify that on this date I have placed in the United States mail, postage 

prepaid, certified mail -return receipt requested, a true copy of the above, addressed as 

follows: 

David Kirstein, Esq. 

Kirstein & Young PLLC 

1750 K Street, NW, Suite 200 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

Mr. Michael Quinn, President 

Asia Pacific Airlines 

156 Diablo Road, Suite 203 

Danville, CA 94526 

Dated: September 13, 2013 

Legal Technician 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

Hawthorne, California 

13 
Western-Pacific Region AWP-7 

U.S. Department 

·of Tronspor1ation 

Office of The Regional Counsel P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

f-.·1arch L 2012 Case No. 2011 WP350018 

CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Aero Mit:roi1esia, Im:. d/b/a 

Asia Pacific Airlines, Inc. 

Att11: Michael Quinn, President 

153 Diablo Road 

Suite 203 

Danville, CA 94526 

aHJ A~:ro Mi~.:wnesia, Inc., d/b/a 

Asia Pacific Airlines, Inc., c/o 

Joanne W. Young, Agent for Service 

1750 K Street NW 

.w~hington, D.C 20006 REcEIVED 

AMENDED NOTICE OF PROPOSED·CIVIL PENALTY SEP 1 9 2013 

Based on a report of investigation, it appears that: HEARING DOCKET 

1. Aero Micronesia, Inc. d/b/a Asia Pacific Airlines ("Aero Micronesia") is no\:v, and at 

all times mentioned herein was, the holder of Air Carrier Certificate No. ISP A400I, 

authorized to conduct flight operations, cargo only, under part 121 ofthe Federal 

Aviation Regulations ("F ARs"). 

2. On or about March 25, 2011, Aero Micronesia operated a Boeing 727-200 aircraft, 

Civil Registration No. N319NE, on a cargo carrying flight from Majuro Atoll to 

Honolulu Intemational Airport. 

3. Incident to the above operation, N319NE cmTied an item of cargo, which included an 

aircraft engine in zone 8. 

4. The "Load I>.lanner ~Weight Mm1ifest" for the above flight showed that the weight of 

the cargo indicated in no. 3 above was distributed across zones 7, 8, and 9. 

5. The weight of the cargo indicated in no. 3 above was not distributed across zones 7, 

8, and 9, but \Vas instead limited to zone 8. 

6. As a result of allegations 3 - 5 above, the "Load Platmer- Weight Manifest" was not 

accurate. 

7. The maximum allowable \Veight in zone 8 ofN319NE was 10,000 pounds. 

8. N319NE cqntained a placard indicating that the maximum allowable weight for zone 

8 was 10,000 pounds. 
9. The \:Veight of the cargo indicated in no. 3 above exceeded 10,000 pounds. 

10. Alternatively, if it is found that the cargo indicated in no. 3 above did not exceed 

10,000 pounds, then the "Load Planner- Weight Manifest" sho\ving the total weight 

of said cargo did exceed 10,000 pounds is rtot accurate. 

2 

By reason of the facts and circumstances described above, Aero Micronesia failed to exercise the 

degree of care, judgment, and responsibility required of the holder of an air carrier certificate. 

By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances, it appears that Aero Micronesia violated the 

following Federal Aviation Regulation(s): 

a. 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(a), \Vhich states " ... no person may operate a civil aircraft without 

complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or 

Rotocraft Flight Manual, marking, and placards ... '' 

b. 14 C.F .R. § 121.665, which states"[ e ]ach certificate holder is responsible for the 

preparation and accuracy of a load manifest fonn before each takeoff ... " . ' 

Based on information on Aero Micronesia, Inc. and its affiliates, it does not appear that Aero 

Micronesia, Inc. is a small business concern as defined in 13 C.F.R. Section 121. Under Section 

4630l(a)(5)(A) of Title 49 of the United States Code, Aero Micronesia, Inc. is subject to a civil 

penalty for each of the violations noted. As adjusted under 14 CFR part 13, subpart H, the 

ma..ximum penalty for each violation is $27,500.00. We propose to assess a civil penalty for the 

violations noted above in the total amount of $19,250.00. 

Enclosed is information on Aero Micronesia, Inc.'s options in responding to this Notice. The 

options include pa1iicipating in an informal conference with an FAA attorney, and submission of 

information to the FAA for consideration. Aero Micronesia, Inc. must submit, in VvTiting, its 

choice of the alternatives explained on the enclosed information fom1,on or before 30 days after 

it receives this Notice. If Aero Micronesia, Inc. ·rails to submit ·its choice within that time, it will 

have no further right to participate in the infonnal procedures. 

In the alternative, Aero Micronesia, Inc. ·may pay its civil penalty with a credit card over the 

Internet. To pay electronically, visit the web site at http://w·ww.pav.gov. Under the "Search 

Public Fonns" option located on the left side of the page, type F\VP-FINEl and click "Go". 

Click on "FAA Civil Penalty Payments- Westem Pacific Region", complete the requested 

information and click ''Submit" to pay by credit card. 
3 

Please direct all communication in tllis matter to Don Bobertz; Attorney, A WP-7.7, FAA, Office 

ofRegional Counsel, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007. Telephone number (310) 

725-3454. 

NAOMI TSUDA 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

Attorney 

Enclosures 

~)(.', r '3 
RECEIVED 

SEI' 1 9 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Western-Pacific Region P.O. Box 92007 

Office of the Regional Counsel Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

April24,2012 

Telephone: (31 0) 725-3454 

Fax: (310) 725-6816 

Case No. 2011 WP350018 

CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Aero Micronesia, Inc. d/b/a 

Asia Pacific Airlines, Inc. 

Attn: Michael Qubm, President 

153 Diablo Road 

Suite 203 

Danville, CA 94526 

and Aero Micronesia, Inc., d/b/a 

Asia Pacific Airlines, Inc., c/o 

Jomme W. Young, Agent for Service 

1750 K StreetNW 

Washington, DC 20006 

FINAL NOTICE OF PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY 

On March 1, 2012, Aero Micronesia, Inc. was advised through an Amended Notice of Proposed 

Civil Penalty that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposed to assess a civil penalty 

in the amount of$19,250.00. We have considered Aero Micronesia's response to the Amended 

Notice. 

A report of investigation indicates that: 

1. Aero Micronesia, Inc. d/b/a Asia Pacific Airlines ("Aero Micronesia") is now, and at 

all times mentioned herein was, the holder of Air Carrier Certificate No. I5PA400I, 

authorized to conduct flight operations, cargo only, under pati 121 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations ("F ARs"). 

2. On or about March 25, 2011, Aero Micronesia operated a Boeing 727-200 aircraft, 

Civil Registration No. N319NE, on a cargo carrying flight from Majuro Atoll to 

Honolulu International Airport. 

3. Incident to the above operation, N319NE carried an item of cargo, which included an 

aircraft engine in zone 8. · 

4. The "Load Platmer- Weight Manifest" for the above flight showed that the weight of 

the· cargo indicated in no. 3 above was distributed across zones 7, 8, and 9. 

5. The weight of the cargo indicated in no. 3 above was not distributed across zones 7, 8, 

and 9, but was instead lbnited to zone 8. 
6. As a result of allegations 3 - 5 above, the "Load Planner- Weight Manifest" was not 

accurate. 

7. The maximum allowable weight in zone 8 ofN319NE was 10,000 pounds. 

2 

8. N319NE contained a placard indicating that the maximum allowable weight for zone 

8 was 10,000 pounds. 

9. The weight of the cargo indicated in no. 3 above exceeded 10,000 pounds. 

10. Alternatively, if it is found that the cargo indicated in no. 3 above did not exceed 

10,000 pounds, then the "Load Platmer- Weight Manifest" showing the total weight 

of said cargo did exceed 10,000 pounds is not accurate. 

By reason of the facts and circumstances described above, Aero Micronesia failed to exercise the 

degree of care, judgment, and responsibility required of the holder of an air carrier certificate. 

By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances, it appears that Aero Micronesia violated the 

following Federal Aviation Regulation(s): 

a. 14 C.P.R.§ 91.9(a}, which states " ... no person may operate a civil aircraft 

without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane 

or Rotocraft Flight Manual, marking, and placards ... " 

b. 14 C.P.R. § 121.665, which states "[e]ach certificate holder is responsible for the 

preparation and accuracy of a load manifest form before each takeoff. .. " 

Under Title 49 U.S. C., Section 4630l(a)(5)(A), Aero Micronesia is subject to a civil penalty not 

to exceed $11,000.00 for each of the violations noted. By reason of the foregoing facts and 

circumstances, we propose to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $19,250.00. 

Unless a request, in writing, for a hearing in this matter is mailed or personally delivered, on or 

before 15 days after you receive this Final Notice, we will issue an Order Assessing Civil Penalty 

and Aero Micronesia will have no further right to a hearing. If a written request for a hearing is 

not received, Aero Micronesia inust pay the proposed civil penalty. 

Your request for a hearing must be sent to: (1) For U.S. mail or certified mail -Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing 

Docket Clerk, AGC-430, Wilbur Wright Building-Room 2Wl000; (2) for commercial 

expedited courier (overnight mail)- Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1 000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: 

Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430; (3) a copy MUST be sent to the undersigned FAA attorney in 
3 

the Office of the Regional Counsel, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007, (310) 725-

3454. Your request must be dated and signed, in accordance with Section 13.16 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations, sent to you with the Amended Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty ( 14 C.F .R. 

13.16). 

You may pay the proposed penalty by submitting a certified check or money order payable to the 

"Federal Aviation Administration," to FAA!MMAC, AMZ-310-WP/NM, PO Box 25770 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125. 

In the alternative, you may pay your civil penalty with a credit card over the Internet. To pay 

electronically, visit the web site at http://www.pay.gov. Under the "Search Public Forms" 

option located on the left side of the page, type FWP-FINEl and press "Go." On the page 

entitled "Search Public Forms," scroll to the bottom of the page and enter "Next Page." Click on 

"FAA Civil Penalty Payments- Western-Pacific Region," follow the prompts to complete the 

requested information and click ''submit" to pay by credit card. Please advise me of the date of 

any payment made over the internet. 

Naomi Tsuda 

Regional Counsel 

:~.ilie w&fi8gv::--n7t(------

Don Bobertz \ 

Attorney 

8 x:. J.' P· 3 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

U riTED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPA~TMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

RECEIVED 

SEP 19 2Dl3 

HEARING DOCKET 

In the Matter of AERO MICRPNESIA, FAA Docket No.: unassigned 

FDMS No.: FAA-2012-0468 

R<~pondcnt. FAA Region: Western-Pacific 

Judge: Richard C. Goodwin 

8 DECL ~ TION OF CATHERINE FLORES 

9 I, Catherine Flores, beret~ declare and state: 

10 L I am over 18 year of age and the followl.ng is within my O\Vll personal 

11 knowledge. If called as a witnes , I could and would competently testify thereto . 

12 2. . I have been empl yed by United Airlines since r'ebruary 24, 1997. My current 

13 position is Warehouse Supervise~. In that capacity, my duties include overseeing the daily 

14 operations of the Guam Stores V arehouse. 

15 3. Exhibit A is a ph< to graph taken in May, 2011, of a CFM56-7l326 engine as 

16 typically prepared for shipment. The components of the shipment consist of a CFM56-7B26 

17 engine, an AM2811 engine stan , 1 pallet, 10 straps, and 3 spreader boards. I witnessed the 

18 weighing of these components i May, 2011, and the total weight was 9,812 lbs. 

19 4. Exhibit B is a ph to graph provided to me by Don Bobertz of the Federal Aviation 

20 Administration. Mr. Bobertz tol me that this was also a photo ofa CFM56-7B26 engine as 

21 loaded on an airplane for shipm ton March 25, 2011. Mr. Bobertz stated that he was trying to 

22 ascertain the correct weight oft engine shipment. He provided me copies of Continental 

23 Airline's and Asia Pacific Airlin s shipping records for this engine, included as Exhibits C- F. 

24 Exhibit C shows a total weight.[! r the engine (in 3 pieces) of 10,400 lbs. It appears from Exhibit 

25 D that the 3 pieces were split int two pallets for shipping, pallet PAG72083CO and 

26 PAG72217CO. Exhibit E show 316lbs were placed on pallet PAG72217CO with some other 

2 7 items, for a total weight of 517 1 s. With 316 lbs removed from the original 1 0,400 lbs, the 

28 remaining engine weight would ave been 10,084 lbs. Exhibit F shows this remaining 10,084 

FDMS No. F.t\A-2012-0469: DECLA TION OF CATHERINE FLORES 
lbs of the engine placed on pallet PAG72083CO, with some other items, for a total weight of 

2 10,542 lbs . 

.:., ·.) 5. Mr. Bobertz inqui ed a<> to the discrepancy between the weight of 9,812 lbs. that l 

4 provided for the typical CFM56- B26 shipment (Exhibit A), and the weight of 1 0,542lbs. 

5 indicated in the shipping docume ts as discussed above. My original thought was that the 

6 shipping weight of 10,542 pound indicated in the shipping documents \.vas wrong. I believed 

7 that the weight ofthc engine asp cpared for shipping should be closer to 9,812 pounds like it 

8 was \Vhen I weighed the similar gine in May, 2011. However, when Mr. Bobcrtz provided me 

9 with the photograph of the engin as shipped (Exhibit B), I noticed that the engine shown in 

10 Exhibit B still had the casters (w eels) attached to the shipping stand, whereas the engine shown 

11 in Exhibit A did not. All four ca ters weigh a total of 680 pounds. If the four casters had been 

.12 left on the typical shipment sho in Exhibit A, the shipment would have weighed 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

approximately 9,812 lbs plus 68 lbs, for a total of 1 0,492lbs. 

I declare under penalty o perjury that the foregoing is true to the best of my knowledge 

and that this declaration vv·as exe utcd at Barri~~da, ~~: on September 12, 2013. 

{ ~ ...,- ' 

~()\ L~""'",., .. CATHERINE FLORES ~-----~-

2 

FDMS No. FA/1.-20 12-0469: DECLAR TION OF CATHERINE FLORES 
Actual Scale Weight 

Engine Model: CFM56-7B26 

Engine Stand: AM2811 

1 pallet 

10 straps 

3 spreader boards 

Total Weight: 9,812 lbs. 

- /. 

I ... 

\ 

. ...r •. 

~-

··-------....... 
L_ ..c'J. ___ _ 
·,WORLD 'fft,AY t·JEST 

LOS ANGELES 

.. 

AC-17A ---~10) 

NOT NEGOTIABLE 

/AIR WAYBILL_; 

(AIR CONSIGNMENT NOTE) 

uuo u b :i 0 u u f ;) 

.C{ni~~~~:! IJt 600 JEFFERSON 

HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 

Received In good order and condition at---:-:----on-::-:--=--------- Place Datemme 

Signature of Consignee or his agent 

ALSO NOTIFY NAME AND ADDRESS (OPTIONAL ACCOUNTING INFORMATION) 

NATURE AND QUANTTIY OF GOODS 

QNCL DIMENSIONS OR VOLUME) 

OF ISSUING CARRIER OR ITS AGENT 

005 0695 0075 
3-25-11; 11: 19AM; 

Asia Pacific Airlines 

P.O. Box 24858 

Barrigada, Guam 96921 

Tel: 1-671-647-0050/51 

Fax: 1-671-647-1086 

www.flyapa.com 

I 

' ( ;671 647 1086 

Flight No: Magellan 319 

Aircraft Registration No: N319NE 

Date: March 25, 2011 

Point ofl..:lding: Guam 

Point ofUnlading: Honolulu 

EID: 

GUM-HNL ISI 

PAG72IZIB3CQ. 

00505'350075P 

PAG72217CO 

00505 '350075P · · 

TOtAL·- ... .. 

1 ACFT 

2 ACFT 

3 

ENG IN 

ENG IN 

10084L CONTINENTA GUMLAX P 

315L CONTINENTA GUMLAX P 

1041Z10L 

# 2/ 2 

16:30 

i 

~-------------4----------4-~----------~---'~·-~-~~-----~-~------~------·-_·~_~-~·" __ -~_-_-·_··_·---~+--------------------_j .. .....-.~~:r~"·~~~~ .. ~~";'"'· ..... -........ -~. .. l 

~-------------+-------4------~--~~~---------+---------+---------------------~ 

1-------------!--__._-4-~1.:;C'·:::f:·J...,4·~!.!l .. '~L.:?'!~~~t:~!~:ll.!..::~~-..,.;:,:::'•;.,;.;.·~~~. ·l.....;.:"...u.!·:;_~ :"'-~·_,_·:"::----; ·'...:.. • .-:,.C'_i..;..}·:!!:'(~<.e;:.;,lio!..·•.:::.:C:~~i.,l.pfw.i~.:.:.:_·;....-:;~-':":!i·;-,~;_.l,"~.._"'"_.-"''·'-'·+1·---------------~ 

3/25/201111:01 AM