### 4 ' ' ' ' SERVE D OCTOBE R 3 , 201 1 UNITED STATE S DEPARTMEN TO ETIMNSPORTATIO Ne - '^i-^CT ^ 0!'FIC EOFHEARING S ^ -'^ ^ WASHINGTON , D.C . 1 '^'^5=- ' 

# ^ > - 3§^ ^ FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATION , ) ^ </. ' ) ^ Complainant , ) FA ADOCKE TNO . CP10GL000 2 ) V . ) (Civi l PenaltyAction ) ) RUSHMOR E HELICOPTERS , INC . ) ) Respondent . ) DMS No.'FAA-20.\0-002 3 ) INITIA LDECISIO N O F ADWIINISTRATIV E LA WJUDG E RICHAR D C . GOODWI N Found : I ) Responden t violate d 1 4 CF R §§9I.7(a ) an d 91.13(a) a s charged ; an d 2 ) Responden t i s herebyassesse d a civi l penaltyo f$22,500 . I . Backgroun d 

### Responden t Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc . ("Respondent " o r"Rushmore") , i s a Par t 9 1 commercia l ai rtou roperato rlocate d i n Keystone , S D (Tr . 18-19) . On e o fit s pilots , Robert L . "Lee " Leffert , discovere d i n th e lat e afternoo n o fAugus t 6 , 2009 , tha t th e fue l ca p fo rth e Bel l 20 6 helicopte rh e ha d bee n operatin g wa s not i n place . Afte rh e trie d an d faile d t o locat e it , h e place d duc t tap e ove rth e fue l fille rport . Th e Complain t ofth e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("Complainant, " "FAA, " o r"th e agency") , a s amended , assert s tha t Responden t violate d Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s ("FARs" ) whe n Mr . Leffer t operate d te n passenger-carryin g ai rtou rflight s o n Augus t 7 , 2009 , i n thi s condition . — ^ ^

__^ ^

^=r— - Complainan t charge s tha t Responden t violate d th e followin g FAR s (bot h i n 1 4 CFR) : sectio n 91.7(a) , whic h prohibit s th e operatio n o fa civi l aircraft unles s i t i s i n a n airworth ycondition ; an d sectio n 91.13(a) , whic h prohibit s a perso n fro m operatin g a n aircraf t i n a careles s manne rs o a s t o endange rlif e an d property . Th e agencyseeks a civi l penaltyof$25,000. Respondent , whic h appeare d throug h it s presiden t an d owner , Michae l Jaco b ("Mr . Jacob") , acknowledge d th e fact s underlyin g th e allegation s (Tr . 41 ,

### 117-18) . Le e Leffert , th e pilot , concede d that , o n Augus t 6 , 2009 , onc e h e

realize d tha t th e fue l ca p ha d bee n misplace d an d tha t a n adequat e replacemen t wa s unavailable , h e place d duc t tap e ove rth e fue l port . H e fle wth e aircraf t th e next day , Augus t 7 , i n tha t conditio n (Tr . 70-73) . Mr . Jaco b testifie d tha t h e learne d ofth e situatio n o n th e mornin g o fAugus t 7^^, befor e an yflight s too k off . H e permitte d th e helicopte rt o b e flow n i n tha t conditio n (Tr . 42 , 44 , 118 , 120 ; se e als o Resp . Br. , p . 1) . Responden t denie d liability , howeve r(Resp . Br. , pp . 1 , 9) . Ahearin g wa s hel d o n Apri l 27 , 2011 , i n Rapi d City , SD . I determine d tha t a writte n decisio n wa s reasonabl e an d appropriat e unde rth e circumstance s (Tr . 122) . Th e partie s hav e file d brief s an d th e matte rno wi s read yfo rdecision . I hol d tha t th e fact s an d circumstance s ofthi s cas e justif yfinding s of violation s o feac h coun t and , allowin g fo rmitigatin g an d aggravatin g factors , warran t a n assessmen t agains t Responden t o f$22,500 . II . Th eProceedin g A . Th e Evidenc

e Aviatio n safetyinspector s Gar yKwasniewsk i an d Barr yDunmir e o fFAA' s Fligh t Standard s District Offic e ("FSDO" ) i n Rapi d City , S D looke d int o th e matter . Eac h testifie d a t th e hearing . Jame s Ba d Horse , Rushmore' s principa l maintenanc e inspecto r("PMI") , als o testified . O n Augus t 7 , 2009 , inspecto rKwasniewsk i stated , h e learne d ofa complain t tha t Rushmor e ha d place d duct tap e ove rth e fue l fille rpor t o n on e it s helicopters . H e an d inspecto rDunmir e travele d t o Respondent' s facilit yi n Keystone , SD , an d talke d t o a pilot , Mr . Leffert . Ahelicopte rLeffer t ha d bee n • operatin g ha d jus t lande d an d it s engin e was running . Th e inspector s di d no t ye t kno wi fthi s wa s th e helicopte rimplicate d byth e complain t the yha d received . The ycoul d not se e th e fue l port . Kwasniewski'aske d Leffer t i fhi s helicopte rha d an ymaintenanc e issues . Leffer t replie d i n th e negativ e (Tr . 113) . Inspecto r Kwasniewsk i testifie d tha t h e di d not hav e an yreaso n t o doub t th e pilot' s response. A s inspecto rDunmir e explained , "W e tak e th e pilot' s wor d fo rit. " (Tr . 113) . Bu t thi s i n fac t wa s th e helicopte ri n question . Leffer t di d no t voluntee rt o ih e inspectors,that.ducttap e wa s coverin g th e fue l ca p (Tr . 75 , 84) . "The ydidn' t askTancIlliidn' t say, " h e testifie d (Tr . 86) . Leffert als o seeme d t o b e i n a hurry . H e sai d tha t h e ha d passenger s waiting . Kwasniewsk i an d Dunmir e allowe d hi m t o continu e (Tr . 21-26 , 61 , HO IS) . Accordin g t o Leffert , th e inspector s tol d hi m t o fl yth e aircraf t an d sai d tha t the ywoul d tal k

afte rh e returne d (Tr . 75) . Momentarily , an d befor e Mr . Leffer ttoo k offwit h hi s passengers , inspecto r Kwasniewsk i notice d tha t Leffer t ha d repositione d th e helicopte rt o anothe rpad .Passenger s wer e loading . Th e inspector s no wcoul d se e th e fue l port , an d duc t

tap e appeare d t o b e coverin g i t (Agenc yExhs . 1 an d 2 ; Tr . 31-32) . S o thi s wa s th e helicopte ri n question . I t ha d th e registratio n numbe r2268 W(referre d t o a s "6 8 Whiskey") . Th e aircraf t no wbega n t o tak e off . Inspector s Kwasniewsk i an d Dunmir e agree d tha t i t wa s no t saf e t o approach . The yle t i tg o (Tr . 25-26 , 59 , 67 , 112) . Mr . Leffer t returne d a shor t tim e later . Whe n inspecto rKwasniewsk i - no wawar e o fth e duc t tap e coverin g th e fue l por t - aske d th e pilo tt o explain , Leffer t state d tha t h e ha d discovere d tha t th e helicopter' s fue l ca p wa s missin g shortl ybefor e 4 o'cloc k i n th e afternoo n o n th e previou s da y(Augus t6 , 2009) . Wit h n o adequat e substitut e ca p available , h e the n decide d t o cove rth e fue l fille r por t wit h duc ttap e unti l a replacemen tcoul d b e obtained ^ Kwasniewsk i wondere d i fLeffer t the n though tth e helicopte rha d bee n airworthy . Leffer t replie d i n th e afl'irmativ e (Tr . 26-30) . Th e pilo tha d no t sough t th e opinio n o fan y maintenanc e personnel , h e said , becaus e ther e ha d bee n non e t o ask . Inspecto r Kwasniewsk i no wadvise d Leffer t t o refrai n fro m furthe rftying unti l th e airworthines s o fth e aircraf t coul d b e determined . Th e inspecto rals o tol d Leffer t tha t an yflight s alread yundertake n i n tha t conditio n migh tb e i n violatio n (Tr . 28 , 45 , 75-76 , 85) . Inspector s Kwasniewsk i an d Ba d Hors e testifie d tha t t o b e airworthy , a n aircraf t mus t 1 ) confor m t o it s typ e certificat e o rsupplementa l typ e certificat e ("STC" ) an d 2 ) b e saf e fo rftight (Tr . 45-46 , 95) . Thi s indee d i s th e Administrator' s test . See , e.g. , Delawar e Skyway s LLC , FA AOrde rNo . 2005- 6 (Marc h 8 , 2005) , p . 2 ; Californi a Helitech , FA AOrde rNo . 2000-1 8 (Augus t 11 , 2000) , p . 3 n . 7 . Th e inspector s conclude d tha t 6 8 Whiskey , wit h duc ttap e coverin g th e fue l ftllerport , ha d no t bee n airworthy . Th e inspector s supporte d thei rpositio n b yexplainin g tha tth e fue l ca p i s a n essentia l componen t o fth e aircraft . I ti s show n i n th e helicopter' s engineerin g drawings . Th e drawing s ar e considere d par to fth e typ e certificat e dat a sheet . Thi s vie wwa s confirme"d''b ya Bel l Helicopte rtechnicia n inspecto rKwasniewsk i late rcontacte d (49-50) . Whe n a n aircraf t doe s no tconfor m t o it s typ e certificate , i t i s no t airworth yb ydefinitio n (Tr . 45-46 , 96 , 104) . I t fail s th e firs t pron g o fth e ain/vorthines s test . Moreover , inspecto rKwasniewsk i added , th e aircraf t ha d no t bee n saf e fo rfligh t- thu s failin g th e second , independent , pron g a s well . Th e us e o fduc t tap e riske d fue l contaminatio n (Tr . 46-47 , 58).^RdtoTwash''could"get ^ int o th e fue l cell . Additionally , i n a n aircraf trollover , fue l migh tspil l ou tan d lea d t o a fire. ^

Thre e Bel l Helicopte rtechnician s who m inspecto rKwasniewsk i late r contacte d substantiate d hi s conclusio n tha tth e aircraf t i n th e describe d conditio n ha d bee n unairworthy . On e technicia n specificall yconfirme d tha tth e fuel-ca p

' Tr . 47 , 96'98 , 105 . Ha d th e ca p bee n vented , duct tap e sealin g u p th e port woul d have prevente d th e port t o vent . Tha t coul d have cause d partia l fue l cel l collaps e an d eventuall yfue l starvation . Thi s vva s not a concer n i n thi s case becaus e th e ca p ha d no t bee n vented . Tr . 48 , 97 , 104 .

### substitutio n create d unacceptabl e concern s fo rsafet y(Tr . 49-51 , 64 ; Agenc y

Exh . 7) . Inspecto rKwasniewsk i determine d fro m Responden t fligh t record s tha t 6 8 Whiske yha d operate d te n time s o n Augus t 7 wit h duc t tap e substitutin g fo ra fue l cap . Th e helicopte rha d carrie d a tota l oftwenty-seve n passengers. ^ Responden t defende d it s conduct . Rushmor e witnesse s testifie d tha t Responden t ha d receive d assurance s fro m knowledgeabl e an d experience d peopl e i n th e industr

ytha t th e duct-tap e solutio n - which , th e witnesse s noted , wa s expecte d t o las t onl yunti l anothe rca p coul d b e delivere d t o i t - di d no t rende rth e helicopte runairworthy . Mr . Jaco b testifie d tha t o n th e mornin g ofth e 7^^ , afte rh e learne d ofth e situation , h e ha d spoke n wit h a desig n enginee ratBell . Th e enginee rha d advise d tha t th e ca p wa s not a structura l component . Thi s individual , who m Jaco b named , sai d that , a s such , th e situatio n ha d not create d a safet yo rftight issue . Accordin g t o pilo t Le e Leffert , th e enginee radde d tha twhil e Rushmore' s temporarysolutio n wa s no t recommended , i t ha d no t bee n a violatio n t o operat e withou t a fue l ca p (Tr . 82) . Th e enginee rals o ha d promise d t o forwar d t o Mr . Jaco b a "lette rofnon-objection. " (Tr . 118-19) . Jacob , i n consultatio n wit h Rushmore' s chie fpilo t - a vetera n ofmore tha n 4 0 year s offlyin g - an d othe r Rushmor e pilots , includin g Mr . Leffert , decide d afte rthi s conversatio n tha t th e duct-tap e substitutio n di d not rende rth e aircraf t unairworth y(Tr . 82-83 , 119) . Lefter t adde d tha t h e proceede d t o operat e wit h relativel ylittl e ga s i n th e tan k t o kee p th e helicopter' s tota l weigh t dow n an d thereb yfl yth e passenger s i n a safe r conditio n (Tr . 73-74) . Jaco b als o note d i n Respondent' s defens e tha t Mr . Leffert wa s pilo t i n comman d ("PIC") . Protoco l an d custo m dictate d tha t h e alon e wa s charged wit h determinin g i fth e aircraf t wa s saf e t o operate . Sinc e hi s decisio n a s PI C ha d bee n i n th e affirmative , th e implicatio n wa s tha t Leffert' s decisio n shoul d b e respected . - - - - Perhaps , Mr . Jaco b hinted , th e pilot' s fi xnonetheles s ha d constitute d a n erro ri n judgment . Bu t i t ha d no t bee n undertake n wit h th e intentio n t o circumven t an yregulatio n o rt o creat e a hazardou s situation , Jaco b maintaine d ,(Ir._1-19).—- ^

• —• 

### Th e Bel l enginee rwa s unabl e t o mak e goo d o n hi s promise . He.tol d Mr . Jaco b later , th e witnes s testified , tha t hi s supervisor s directe d hi m no t t o provid e writte n approval . Th e reaso n offere d wa s tha t suc h a lette rcoul d establis h a (presumabl yunwanted ) preceden t (Tr . 120) .

^ Agenc yExhibit s 3 an d 4 ; Tr . 40 . Th e fligh t schedule s lis t th e dal e a s Augus t 6 , 2009 . bu t th e evidenc e showe d that th e flight s too k plac e o n Augus t 7 . an d th e document s properl yshoul d have reflecte d that . Tr . 36-37 .B . Finding s an d Conclusion s I fin d an d conclud e tha t Complainan t prove d eac h o fth e violation s i t alleged . A s noted , Responden t admitte d th e fact s underlyin g th e charges . Rushmore' s witnesse s eac h acknowledge d tha tit s Bel l 20 6 helicopte rknow n a s 6 8 Whiske yha d operate d te n flight s withou ta fue l fille rca p an d wit h duc t tap e ove rth e are a (Initia l Decisio n ("I.D.") , p . 2) . Complainan t showe d tha t Rushmor e violate d 1 4 C.F.R . §91.7(a ) b y operatin g i n a n unairworth ycondition . Th e evidenc e demonstrate d tha tth e helicopte rwa s no tainworth yunde reithe rpron g o fth e airworthines s test. ^ A s inspector s Kwasniewsk i an d Ba d Hors e explained , th e duc ttap e coverin g th e fue l fille rpor t mean t tha t th e helicopte rdi d no tmatc h it s essentia l engineerin g drawings . I foun d that , a s such , th e aircraf t faile d t o confor m t o it s typ e certificat e (I.D. , p . 3) . I agre e als o wit h inspecto rKwasniewski' s testimon ytha tth e aircraf t wa s neithe rairworth yunde rth e secon d pron g becaus e th e substitut e coverin g place d th e safet yo fpassenger s an d cre wa ta n unacceptabl e risk . Th e prospec t o ffir e an d th e possibilit yo ffue l depletio n wer e to o grea t t o b e consisten twit h minimu m mandate d level s o faircraf t safety . Tapin g th e fue l fille rport , whil e well intentione d an d anticipate d t o b e short-term , wa s a n unaccepte d an d unapprove d solutio n t o th e lac k

o fa fue l cap. " Th e describe d situatio n compel s th e conclusio n tha tth e aircraf twa s no t airworth ywhe n operate d fo rth e te n flight s o n Augus t 7 , 200 9 show n b yth e evidence . A s such , Complainan tprove d a violatio n o f§91.7(a) . Secondly , b yoperatin g th e helicopte ri n th e manne rdescribed . Responden t endangere d lif e an d propert yt o a n unacceptabl e degree . It s action s riske d fue l contaminatio n an d create d a n intolerabl e ris k o ffir e (se e I.D. , p . 3) . Complainan tthu s prove d a violatio n o f§91.13(a ) a s well . I rejec tRespondent' s counte rtha t §91.13(a ) shoul d b e treate d merel ya s a residua l violatio n o rtha t Complainan tfaile d t o prov e th e element s o fth e violatio n (Resp . Br., ' pp. " 7-8) . Complainan tmad e it s case . Responden t als o contend s tha ti tshoul d no t b e hel d responsibl e fo rth e violations . I t wa s th e PIC , Le e Leffert , wh o operate d th e helicopter , no t Rushmore . Th e aircraf t wa s Leffert' s sol e responsibility . Rushmor e di d no t ~ "operate " th e aircraf t i n th e regulator ysense , i t maintains , an d therefor e canno t b e accountabl e fo rth e result s (Resp . Br. , pp . 3-4 , 9) . Thi s argumen t i s rejected . ^ See I.D. , p . 3 . Responden t stale s tha i Complainan t must demonstrat e that Rushmore violate d bot h prong s o fth e airworthines s test t o prov e a §91.7(a ) violation . Resp . Br. , p . 5 . Thi s i s not correct ; th e agenc yi s require d onl yt o prov e eithe rthatResponden t violate d th e first pron g o rthat i t violate d th e second . See I.D. , p . 3 ; Compl . Repl yBr. , p . 2 . • * Complainan t was not require d t o sho wtha i th e describe d conditio n was unsaf e i n fad . I t was enoug h t o demonstrat e that i t carrie d th e potentia l fo rharm . Polynesia n Airways . FA AOrde rNo . 1994-4 0 (Decembe r9 , \99A) ; DcmdH . Mayer . FA AOrde rNo . 1997-1 2 (February20 , 1997) .Rushmore' s contentio n ignore s th e fac ttha tRespondent' s presiden t an d

owner , Mr . Jacob , kne wo n th e mornin g o fAugus t7 tha t6 8 Whiske yha d covere d it s fue l fille rpor t wit h duc ttap e an d nonetheles s ha d allowe d th e helicopte rt o operat e th e te n flights i n issu e (I.D. , p . 2) . Responsibilit yfo rth e resultan t violation s thu s fall s squarel yo n hi m and , throug h him , o n hi s company , th e Respondent . Bu t eve n puttin g tha t fac t aside , i ti s well-establishe d tha t ai r carrier s ar e responsibl e fo rregulator yviolation s committe d b yanyon e actin g withi n hi s o rhe rscop e o femploymen tfo rtha tcarrier . See , e.g. , Warbelow' s Ai r Ventures , Inc. , 200 0 W L29857 8 (FA AOrde rNo . 2000-3) , Februar y2 , 2000 ; Alik a Aviation , FA AOrde rNo . 1999-1 4 (Decembe r22 , 1999) . Ai rcarriers , mandate d t o perfor m thei rservice s wit h th e highes tpossibl e standar d o fcare , carr yresponsibilitie s to o critica l t o permi t the m t o transfe rthei robligation s t o another . A n ai rcarrier' s dut yo fcar e simpl yi s non-delegable . Th e publi cmus t b e assure d tha t carrier s wil l d o everythin g i n thei rpowe rt o ensur e tha teveryon e workin g o n thei rbehal fcomplie s wit h safet yregulations . TWA , FA AOrde rNo . 1999-12 , pp . 9 , 1 0 (Octobe r7 , 1999) . A s th e pilo t o f6 8 Whiskey , Mr . Leffer t clearl ywa s actin g withi n hi s scop e o femployment . Responden ti s legall y responsibl e fo rLeffert' s conduct . Responden t operate d th e helicopter . Agains t thi s background , 1 fin d an d conclud e tha t Responden t violate d FA R § § 91.7(a ) an d 91.13(a ) a s se t ou t i n th e Complaint. ^ III . Penalt y Th e agenc yha s aske d fo ra tota l civi l penalt yo f$25,000 . Responden t take s exception . I t ask s that , shoul d a violatio n o rviolation s b e found , th e agency' s propose d fin e b e "significantly.reduc[ed]. " (Resp . Br. , p . 1) . Complainan t bear s th e burde n o fjustifyin g th e amoun to fth e civi l penalt yi t seeks . Phylli s Jone s Luxemburg , FA AOrde rNo . 1994-1 8 (Jun e 22 , 1994) , p . 6 . I conclud e tha t th e evidence , take n i n total , warrant s a civi l penalt yi n th e amoun t o f$22,500 . A . Issue s Complainan t i s obligate d t o conside rth e followin g factor s whe n ^determinin g th e civi l penalt yamount : (1 ) th e natur e an d circumstance s o fth e •violatiorTr(2)"th'e''^en t an d gravit yo fth e violation ; (3 ) th e respondent' s degre e o f culpability ; (4 ) th e respondent' s histor yo fpho rviolations , i fany ; (5 ) th e respondent' s abilit yt o pa yth e civi l penalty ; (6 ) th e effec to n th e entity' s abilit yt o sta yi n business ; an d (7 ) othe rmatter s a s justic e ma yrequire . See , e.g. , Folsom' s Ai rSen/ice , Inc. , FA AOrde rNo . 2008-1 1 (Novembe r6 , 2008) , p . 11 . Th e determinatio n weigh s whethe rth e violatio n wa s inadverten t o rdeliberate , th e privat e o rpubli ccharacte ro fth e violation , an d th e attitud e o fth e violator . Th e agenc yals o consider s th e respondent' s size , particularl yi n determinin g th e

' Ihav econsidere dall other argument s advance dby Respondent Eui drejec t the mwithout

comment .offender' s abilit yt o absor b th e sanction . A n appropriat e civi l penalt ymus treflec t

th e totalit yo fth e circumstance s surroundin g th e violation s (Tr . 110-11 , 117 ; Folsom' s Ai rSen/ice , inc. , FA AOrde rNo . 2008-1 1 (Novembe r6 , 2008) , p . 12 ; Easter n Ai rCenter , Inc. , FA AOrde rNo . 2008- 3 (Januar y28 , 2008) . Finally , th e civi l penalt yshoul d provid e sufficien tincentiv e t o dete rth e responden tan d similarly-situate d entitie s fro m futur e violations . Folsom' s Ai rSen/ice , Inc. , Id. , p . 20 . Th e agenc yha s issue d enforcemen t guideline s fo rit s employee s t o follo w i n determinin g appropriat e sanctions . Th e guideline s als o advis e th e publi co f th e sanctio n polic ytha t th e Administrato rintend s t o abid e b yi n adjudicatin g individua l cases . Folsom' s Ai rService , Inc. , FA AOrde rNo . 2008-1 1 (Novembe r 6 , 2008) , p . 13 . ( Arelevan t excerp twa s admitte d a s Exhibi t 6 . I ti s als o foun d a t www.aihA/eb.faa.gov) . Th e guideline s se tou t penalt yrecommendation s withi n thre e range s o famount s - designate d minimum , moderate , an d maximu m - t o bes t reflec t th e natur e an d circumstance s o feac h violation . Mitigatin g and/o r aggravatin g factor s ar e par t o fth e calculus . Complainan t state s tha t it s civi l penalt ydeterminatio n followe d th e guidelines . Unde rthem , a n unainworth yaircraf thavin g a n actua l o rpotentia l advers e effec t o n saf e operatio n warrant s a civi l penalt yi n th e moderate-to maximu m range . Fo ra smal l busines s concer n suc h a s Respondent , th e Sanctio n Guidanc e Tabl e set s ou t th e civi l penalt yrange s pe rviolatio n a s follows : moderate , $2,20 0 t o $4,399 ; an d maximum , $4,40 0 t o $11,000 . Fo rte n violatin g flights, then , th e Sanctio n Guidanc e Tabl e recommend s a tota l penalt y o fbetwee n $22,00 0 an d $110,00 0 (Agenc yExh . 6 ; Compl . Br , p . 12 ) Complainan t conclude d that , i n vie wo fth e guidelines ' recommendation s an d al l th e factor s pertinen t t o thi s case , a n appropriat e civi l penalt yshoul d b e $2,50 0 pe rflight, o r$25,00 0 i n tota l (Compl . Br. , p . 12) . B . Decisio n I n weighin g al l th e facts'an d circumstances , I An d an d conclud e tha ta civi l penalt yassessmen t o f$22,50 0 i s appropriate . I ti s commensurat e wit h th e natur e an d exten t o fth e violations , whil e accountin g i n suitabl e measurejor ^ mitigatin g an d aggravatin g factors . Th e recor d show s tha t Respondent' s helicopte rwa s flown outsid e o fth e speciflcation s o fit s typ e certiflcat e an d i n a n unsaf e manne ro n te n occasions . Thes e action s place d th e travellin g publi ca tsigniflcan tan d unacceptabl e risk . Respondent' s conduc twarrant s a substantia l penalty . Rushmor e contend s i n mitigatio n tha ti t di d no tinten d t o bypas s o revad e an yrequirement . No rwa s i t tryin g t o cour ta n unsaf e situatio n {se e I.D. , p . 4) . Thi s argumen t fail s t o persuade . Th e behavio ro f6 8 Whiskey' s pilot , Le e Leffert , wa s no t completel yforthcoming . H e demonstrate d tha t h e wa s awar e tha t th efuel-ca p situatio n migh trais e questions . Whe n th e inspector s aske d hi m i fh e

ha d an ymaintenanc e issue s wit h th e helicopter , h e replie d i n th e negativ e (I.D. , p . 2) . Perhap s i n hi s ow n min d h e ha d n o suc h issue s ~ bu t a s a vetera n PI C wit h fort yyears ' experienc e (Tr . 43) , Mr . Leffer twa s no t naive . H e ha d t o hav e know n wha tth e inspector s wer e gettin g at . H e ha d a dut yunde rth e circumstance s t o offe ra fulle rexplanation . H e shoul d hav e raise d th e matte ro f th e missin g fue l cap . H e di d not . Additionally , Leffer tclaime d t o b e i n a hurr y- an d i t ma yb e fairl yinferre d i n thi s contex t tha th e wa s hopin g t o cu t shor tth e inquiry. ^ Th e pilot' s behavio rdurin g thi s conversation , i n sum , wa s no t particularl yaccommodating . Agains t thi s background , Responden tma yno tfairl y asser t tha t i t ha d n o intentio n t o overloo k requirements . I t ma yclai m n o mitigatio n o n thi s ground . I n fact , Leffert' s co yconduc t amount s t o a n aggravatin g circumstance . Mr . Jaco b als o asserte d i n mitigatio n tha tResponden t ha d operate d i n relianc e o n a n opinio n fro m a Bel l technicia n (I.D. , p . 4) . I wil l permi tsom e mitigatio n o n thi s ground , notin g tha tthi s testimon yi s entitle d t o lesse rweigh ta s pur e hearsay . Responden tproduce d neithe rth e technicia n no ra n attestatio n fro m him. ^ Th e sanctio n amoun t o f$22,50 0 suitabl yaccount s fo rth e totalit yo fth e circumstance s o fthi s case . Th e assessmen t determine d als o i s substantial . Further , i t i s withi n th e guidelines ' moderate-to-maximu m rang e o fsuggeste d penalt yamounts . 1 find als o tha t th e penalt yha s sufficien t"bite, " o rdeterren t effec t (se e Toyot a Moto rSales , Inc. , FA AOrde rNo . 94-2 8 (Septembe r30 , 1994) , p . 11) .

' ' 1 not e that inspecto rKwasniewsk i testifie d no t tha t h e ha d aske d Mr . Leffer t i fhi s helicopte rha d an y maintenanc e issue^ . bu t th e mor e pointe d - an d mor e difficul t t o den y—questio n o fwhethe rth e pilo t ha d an yairworthines s issues . Tr . 24 . Leffertdenie d that th e inspectors aske d hi m specitlcall yabou t airworthiness . Tr . 84 . Fo rpurpose s o fth e discussio n i n th e text , 1 accept Leffert' s recollectio n ofth e conversation . ^ Complainant' s assertio n that thre e Bel l technician s believe d that th e duct-tap e solutio n rendere d th e helicopte runairworth yals o was hearsay , o fcourse ; however , i t wa.s supporte d bya n e-mai l writte n b yon e ofth e technicians . Agenc yExhibi t 7 . Moreover , thi s testimon ywa s offere d i n suppor t of , an d confirmed , b yth e expertis e o fComplainant' s inspectors - - wh o did , o fcourse , testify . I giv e n o weigh t t o th e opinion s o fothe rRushmor e pilot s supportin g Mr . Leffert' s duct-lap e solution . I n additio n t o it s hearsa

ynature , there was n o showin g o fexpertise ; moreover , thei ropinions , a s Rushmore employees , were self-serving .

### Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc . i s hereb yassesse d a civi l penalt yof$22,50 0

fo rviolation s o fFA R §§91.7(a ) an d 91.13(a ) a s describe d i n thi s Initia l Decision. '

Adniinistraliv c La w Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic eLis t

"An y sppeai fro

mtheInitia

l Decisio nto theAdministrato r mus t b ei naccordanc ewit

hsectio n13.23 3 o f th eRule s o f

Practice , whichrequire s I ) tha t anotic eo f

appeal b efiledn o later

tha n1 0 day s (plu s a

n additional 5 fo

r mailing ) fro

mthedal eof

thi s order

and2 ) tha

t theappeal b eperfecte dwit hawrittenbrie f or memorandumnot

later tha n5 0 day s (plu s 5 fo

r mailing ) fro

mth edateof

thi s order . Eachi s t

o b esen t to th eAppellateDocket

Clerk , Room924rA , Federal Aviatio nAdministration , 80 0 independenc eAvenue , S.W. , Washington , DC 20591 , andto agenc y counsel . Servic euponth epresidin g judg ei s optional .FA ADocke t No . CP10GL000 2 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n 80 0 Independenc eAvenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e2W1000 ' ON ECOP Y Michae l Jacob , Responden t Presiden t o r CE O Rushmor eHelicopters , Inc . 2456 4 Highwa y 16/38 5 Custer , S D 5773 0 Brian aMartino , Complainan t ^ s Counse l Grea t Lake s Region , AGL- 7 Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n 230 0 Eas t

Devo nAvenu e De s Plaines , I L60018-469 6 TEL : 847-294-731 3 FAX : 847-294-749 8 Th eHonorabl eRichar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ eLa w Judg e Offic eo f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 .., . TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Ser\'icc wa

s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r ser\'ic ei npersono r b y expeditedcourier, usetli

efollowin g address : Federa l Aviatio nAdministration , 600 IndependenceAvenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D

C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 .