In the Matter of: 

William A. Curtright 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

FAA Case No. 2014NM090046 

Judge J. E. Sullivan 

COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL DECISION (SUMMARY JUDGMENT) 

Complainant moves for Summary Judgment, pursuant to the provisions of 14 CFR Section 

13.218(f)(5) and Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), since, after considering 

the pleadings and the attached declarations and evidence, it should be clear that there is no genuine 

issue as to the material facts alleged and discussed below, and the FAA is entitled to a judgment in 

this case as a matter oflaw as to the issue of whether the violation was committed as alleged. 

Factual background 

This matter arose when Aviation Safety Inspectors (AS Is) from the Portland Flight 

Standards District Office (FSDO) investigated an accident that had occurred on Respondent's 

property. An ASI informed Respondent that he was required to provide access to certain records. 

Respondent failed to do so. 

On January 14,2015, the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty (NPCP) which 

alleged the following: 

This office has received a report of investigation from which it appears that: 

1. You were at all times material hereto the owner and/or operator of a Piper Model PA18135, a U.S. registered civil aircraft, N949JP. 

2. On or about July 1, 2014, an Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) from the Portland Flight 

Standards District Office wrote you a letter demanding that you provide aircraft weight and balance, 

and aircraft and engine maintenance logbooks for N949JP. 

1 
3. You sent two emails and a letter acknowledging that you were aware of the demand. 

4. As of this time, you have failed to provide the maintenance records referenced above. 

By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances, it appears that you violated Section 91.417 (c) 

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.)) in that you owned 

or operated an aircraft for which you failed to make all maintenance records required to be kept by 

this section available for inspection by the Administrator. 

Under 49 United States Code Sections 4630l(a) and (d), you are subject to a civil penalty not to 

exceed $11,000 for each violation noted. We propose to assess a civil penalty in the amount of 

$11,000. 

Although Respondent was briefly represented by counsel, no informal conference was 

requested ot took place. On May 19, 2015, Complainant filed the Complaint sub judice containing 

the identical language. Respondent failed to file a timely Answer1

, but, apparently contacted the 

FSDO and arranged to have the records examined. Undersigned counsel was notified that the 

records had been provided and were in order on August 17, 2015. 

Pursuant to the ALJ's rulings during the Prehearing Conference of September 20,2016, the 

parties then exchanged discovery, and this Motion for Summary Judgment follows. 

For the reasons that follow, Complaint asks for partial summary judgment on factual 

allegations in the Complaint, leaving only the sanction for adjudication. 

ARGUMENT AND BASIS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF 

A. Standard of Review 

A Motion for Decision pursuant to § 13.218(£)(2) is, for all intents and purposes, the same 

as a Motion for Summary Judgment under FRCP 56 and is reviewed under the same standard. In 

Re the Matter of Scott McDougall, Doc. CP89EA0316 at 4 (1990). Motions for Summary 

DAVID F. S!IAYNE, FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2165; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
should be litigated in light of applicable FAA policy and DOT precedence. See In Re Schuman 

Aviation Co. LTD, FAA Order No. 2016-2 (2106). 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, Complainant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment should 

be granted. 

Respectfully submitted this 161

h day ofNovember, 2016. 

\ r··--,,\ 

/'"' \ 

cK~-

DA\'Ib F. SHAYNE 

FAA Attorney 

DAVID F, SHAYNE, FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2165; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
William A. Curtright 

Respondent 

PO Box 1350 

Jefferson. OR 97352 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax: (503) 485-0812 

In The Matter Of: 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

WILLIAM A. CURTRIGHT, DBA 

Case No. 2014NM090046 

Respondent 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

RESPONDENTS SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO 

COMPLAINANT'S INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

INTERROGATORY No. 1: Describe with specit1city all of the facts and arguments which you 

anticipate presenting in the course of the Department of Transportation (DOT) hearing in this 

matter pertaining to the avoidance or mitigation of the sanction sought by the FAA in this case. 

SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO.1: The Respondent objects to Interrogatory 

Number 1 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 502 (g) (1) and {2) on the grounds that it seeks 

information that is privileged by virtue of the attorney-client privilege. Respondent would 

further object to Interrogatory No. 1 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 502 (g) {1) and (2) 

and Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 26 (b)(S) in that Complainant seeks information that is 

protected by the "work product" privilege. The interrogatory calls for disclosure of information 

or materials prepared in anticipation of the hearing and/or hearing preparation material by pro 

se Respondent representing himself in this case. 

Furthermore, Respondents supplemental answer to Interrogatory No. 1 is pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(e) and Rule 33 (b) (2) and would direct Complainant to the U.S. 

Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration National Policy Procedure Book 

dated, 10/01/07 Section 2150.38 page 4-10 section entitled: REGULATIONS CONSIST OF 

Page 1 Respondents Supplemental Answers and Responses to 

Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

WH!lam A. Curtrlght,DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209·7388 

fax (503)485·0812 
MULTIPLE ELEMENTS section B. Elements of regulations ...... and section c. Burden and Standard 

of Proof. (Herein attached for Complainants review). 

Additionally, respondent would refer Complainant to 2150.3 B 9. Letter of Investigation and 

Response section c. Sending the LOI to the Apparent Violator. And 2150.3B 10. Evidence 

section a. Further reference to complainant is to 2150.38 Types of Evidence. C (8) Interviews 

and written statements of apparent violators. Normally, FAA investigative personnel interview 

the apparent violator, even though he or she may have provided written information. I f the 

interview is not possible or necessary, FAA investigative personnel indicate the reasons why it 

was not accomplished. Apparent violators are interviewed mainly to GIVE THEM AN 

OPPORTUNITY TO TELL THEIR SIDE OF THE STORY AND TO HELP ESTABLISH ALL PERTINENT 

FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. AT TIMES, IT IS BEST FIRST TO GATHER SOLID EVIDENCE WITH 

WHICH TO INTERVIEW THE APPARANT VIOLATOR. 

Respondent would state that the FAA attorney David Shayne ignored when documents were 

produced to him for compliance of production of Respondents log books. Additionally, FAA 

attorney David Shayne has ignored when Local authorities in Oregon told him that Respondent 

was in compliance. Further FAA Attorney David Shayne has not followed the FAA rules and 

ORDER 2150.3B Section 15. Legal Enforcement Actions section f. Civil Penalties. Chapter 2 

Compliance and Enforcement Policy and Objectives 3. Compliance and enforcement philosophy 

d. Notifying Persons of potential Violations. ORDER 2150.3B page 2-3 g. Fairness. 

To be effective, the agency's compliance and enforcement program must be fair and 

reasonable and should be perceived as fair by those subject to regulations..... It also requires 

good faith efforts to understand the apparent violator's position and take it into account, as 

well as to apprise the apparent violator of the agency's position in a timely manner. 

Respondent would also refer Complainant to the FAA Quarterly Enforcement Report 1/1/16-

3/31/16 and would show the court that not one person is personally named for a civil penalty by 

the FAA. Further that if Complainant's Attorney reviewed their own FAA Quarterly Enforcement 

Report of 4-1-14 through1-1-16 that NOT ONE person has been named for a civil penalty by the 

FAA. 

Respondent would also state and/or argue that there is a lopsided scale of justice when one is 

involved with litigation with the FAA attorney, David Shayne. The scales have been titled to one 

side when dealing with attorney, David Shayne. He has abused his authority by not 

acknowledging that Respondent is in compliance and this case should have been closed over a 

year ago. Is this a misuse of power like the I.R.S. or is it political. It seems as though attorney, 

David Shayne is using his overbalanced power and a clear violation of the eight amendment of 

Page 2 Respondents Supplemental Answers and Responses to 

Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright, DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (5031209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
the constitution of the United States of America. Attorney, David Shayne has abused his 

authority in continuing to litigate a matter that is mute and has been resolved over a year ago. 

Further, the Complainant has no authority to continue in this suit because Complainant failed to 

give proper notice to Respondent in 2014. The notice sent by Complainant was not signed by 

any one and is therefore not proper notice of an alleged violation. Further, the alleged violation 

was not signed by an attorney or a bar number was not used in the complaint filed with the 

United States of America Department of Transportation Office of Hearing in Washington, D.C. 

This is a violation of the FAA ORDER 2150.38 in that attorney, David Shayne, told the Honorable 

J.E. Sullivan during a conference that Section 8 and C of the EIR was confidential and privilege 

when in fact according to the FAA ORDER 2150.38 Section C of the EIR is for two or more FAA 

investigative personnel are present during a conversation, that each one prepares a record of 

the interview for inclusion in Section C of the EIR. FAA ORDER 2150.38 also includes assurance 

from the outset the witness understands that any information provided may be used as 

evidence in subsequent enforcement, that the statement be signed and dated, that they 

summarize the interview with the witness to verify the interviewer's understanding and 

recollection of all relevant points. This report of interview is separate item of proof in the EIR. 

The report of interview must not contain personal opinions of the interviewer. 

Finally, attorney David Shayne testified before the Honorable Judge J.E. Sullivan that the 

maximum amount of the civil penalty was under his discretion. However, when one reads the 

2150.38, Chg 11 Appendix H of 2/24/2016 A violation that poses a medium actual or potential 

risk to safety generally warrants a civil penalty in the minimum to moderate range. There is 

nothing in the 2150.3B ORDER that states it is in the discretion of the legal counsel. 

INTERROGATORY No.2: Identify by name, address and telephone number all persons whom you 

know to have personal knowledge of the matters alleged in the Complaint. 

SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO.2: The Respondent objects to Interrogatory 

Number 2 on the ground that the information is already in the Complainant's possession, and 

was already provided to Complainant in Respondents Initial Disclosure Document and is 

obtainable from Respondents Initial Disclosure Document. Additionally, respondent would show 

that Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production were received on October 11, 

2016 via certified return receipt which would make these answers due on November 10, 2016 

Under Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 33(b) (2) herein attached a copy of the Received 

Complainant's Initial Discover Requests wherein Complainant states that Respondents response 

is due by October 27, 2016. Respondent would add that this is misleading to the Respondent 

when his responses are truly due on November 10, 2016. 

Page 3 Respondents Supplemental Answers and Responses to 

Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright,DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
Furthermore, Respondents supplemental answer to Interrogatory No. 2 is pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(e) and Rule 33 (b) (2) and would state the following response: 

a. William Ames Curtright 

P.O. Box 1350 

Turner, Oregon 

(503)209-7388 

b. Billy J. McKibbon 

Front Line Manager-heavy Helicopter Unit 

Portland Flight Standards 

Federal Aviation Administration 

(503)615-3235 

c. Curt Cowley 

Portland Flight Standards 

Federal Aviation Administration 

(503)615-3235 

d. Marty G. Conroy 

Aviation Safety Inspector 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Flights Standards District Office 

3180 NW 229'h Ave 

Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 

INTERROGATORY No. 3: Identify by title, date, author, present custodian, and content, all 

documents, including correspondence, obtained by you or in your possession, relating to the 

assertions in the Complaint, your appeal, your answer, and any affirmative defenses which you 

anticipate raising in this matter. 

SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO.3: The Respondent objects to Interrogatory 

Number 3 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 502 (g) (1) and (2) on the grounds that it seeks 

information that is privileged by virtue of the attorney-client privilege. Respondent would 

further object to Interrogatory No. 1 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 502 (g) (1) and (2) 

and Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 26 (b)(5) in that Complainant seeks information that is 

Page 4 Respondents Supplemental Answers and Responses to 

Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright, DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: {503) 209-7388 

Fax {S03)485-0812 
protected by the "work product" privilege. The interrogatory calls for disclosure of information 

or materials prepared in anticipation of the hearing and/or hearing preparation material by pro 

se Respondent representing himself in this case. Additionally, respondent would show that 

Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production were received on October 11, 2016 

via certified return receipt which would make these answers due on November 10, 2016 Under 

Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 33(b) (2) herein attached a copy of the Received Complainant's 

Initial Discover Requests wherein Complainant states that Respondents response is due by 

October 27, 2016. Respondent would add that this is misleading to the Respondent when his 

responses are truly due on November 10, 2016. 

Respondent reserves the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(e) and Rule 33(b) (2) to correct 

or update additional Answer's to Complainant's Interrogatories on November 10, 2016. 

Furthermore, Respondents supplemental answer to Interrogatory No.3 is pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(e) and Rule 33 (b) (2) and would state the following response: 

a. William Ames Curtright 

P.O. Box 1350 

Turner, Oregon 

(503 )209-7388 

INTERROGATORY No. 4: Identify by name, address and telephone number, all persons whom 

you intend to have testify as a factual or expert witness in your defense at the hearing in this matter, 

and for factual witnesses, provide a detailed summary of each persons anticipated testimony. 

SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO.4: The Respondent objects to Interrogatory 

Number 4 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 502 (g) (1) and (2) on the grounds that it seeks 

information that is privileged by virtue of the attorney-client privilege. Respondent would 

further object to Interrogatory No. 1 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 502 (g) (1) and (2) 

and Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 26 (b)(5) in that Complainant seeks information that is 

protected by the "work product" privilege. The interrogatory calls for disclosure of information 

or materials prepared in anticipation of the hearing and/or hearing preparation material by pro 

se Respondent representing himself in this case. Additionally, respondent would show that 

Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production were received on October 11, 2016 

via certified return receipt which would make these answers due on November 10, 2016 Under 

Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 33(b)(2) herein attached a copy of the Received Complainant's 

Initial Discover Requests wherein Complainant states that Respondents response is due by 

October 27,2016. Respondent would add that this is misleading to the Respondent when his 

responses are truly due on November 10,2016. 

Page 5 Respondents Supplemental Answers and Responses to 

Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright, DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (S03)209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
Respondent reserves the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(e) and Rule 33(b) (2) to correct 

or update additional Answer's to Complainant's Interrogatories on November 10, 2016. 

Furthermore, Respondents supplemental answer to Interrogatory No.4 is pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(e) and Rule 33 (b) (2) and would state the following response: 

a. William Ames Curtright 

P.O. Box 1350 

Turner, Oregon 

(503)209-7388 

The Respondent objects to Interrogatory Number 4 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 502 (g) 

(1) and (2) on the grounds that it seeks information that is privileged by virtue of the attorneyclient privilege. Respondent would further object to Interrogatory No. 1 under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 502 (g) (1) and (2) and Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 26 (b)(5) in that 

Complainant seeks information that is protected by the "work product" privilege. The 

interrogatory calls for disclosure of information or materials prepared in anticipation of the 

hearing and/or hearing preparation material by pro se Respondent representing himself in this 

case. 

INTERROGATORY No. 5: Identify by title, date, author, present custodian, and content, all 

documents which you anticipate offering into evidence at the hearing in this matter, and through 

which witness or witnesses. 

SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: The Respondent objects to Interrogatory 

Number 5 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 502 (g) (1) and (2) on the grounds that it seeks 

information that is privileged by virtue of the attorney-client privilege. Respondent would 

further object to Interrogatory No. 1 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 502 (g) (1) and (2) 

and Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 26 (b)(5) in that Complainant seeks information that is 

protected by the "work product" privilege. The interrogatory calls for disclosure of information 

or materials prepared in anticipation of the hearing and/or hearing preparation material by pro 

se Respondent representing himself in this case. Additionally, respondent would show that 

Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production were received on October 11, 2016 

via certified return receipt which would make these answers due on November 10, 2016 Under 

Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 33(b)(2) herein attached a copy of the Received Complainant's 

Initial Discover Requests wherein Complainant states that Respondents response is due by 

October 27,2016. Respondent would add that this is misleading to the Respondent when his 

responses are truly due on November 10,2016. 

Respondent reserves the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(e) and Rule 33(b) (2) to correct 

or update additional Answer's to Complainant's Interrogatories on November 10, 2016. 

Page 6 Respondents Supplemental Answers and Responses to 

Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright, DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
Furthermore, Respondents supplemental answer to Interrogatory No. 5 is pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(e) and Rule 33 (b) (2) and would state the following resp~nse: 

a. William Ames Curtright 

P.O. Box 1350 

Turner, Oregon 

(503)209-7388 

All documents used as exhibits in Motion to dismiss, Motion for Summary Judgment, 

Respondents initial disclosure, respondents supplemental disclosure and any documents 

introduced into this action. 

b. Billy J. McKibbon 

Front Line Manager-heavy Helicopter Unit 

Portland Flight Standards 

Federal Aviation Administration 

(503)615-3235 

Speed Memo dated August 14, 2015 

Photo's of Log books 

c. Curt Cowley 

Portland Flight Standards 

Federal Aviation Administration 

(503)615-3235 

Speed Memo dated August 14, 2015 

Photo's of Log books 

d. Marty G. Conroy 

Aviation Safety Inspector 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Flights Standards District Office 

3180 NW 229'h Ave 

Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 

Speed Memo dated August 14, 2015 

Letter dated September 9, 2014 from Dr. W. Ames Curtright to Martin G. Conroy 

Photo's of Log books 

INTERROGATORY No. 6: With respect to each expert witness identified m response to 

Page 7 Respondents Supplemental Answers and Responses to 

Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright,DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: {503)209-7388 

Fax {503)485-0812 
Interrogatory No. 4, above, specify their specific area of expertise, and provide a synopsis of their 

credentials, background, training and experience 

SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: The Respondent objects to Interrogatory 

Number 6 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 502 (g) (1) and (2) on the grounds that it seeks 

information that is privileged by virtue of the attorney-client privilege. Respondent would 

further object to Interrogatory No. 1 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 502 (g) (1) and (2) 

and Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 26 (b)(5) in that Complainant seeks information that is 

protected by the "work product" privilege. The interrogatory calls for disclosure of information 

or materials prepared in anticipation of the hearing and/or hearing preparation material by pro 

se Respondent representing himself in this case. Additionally, respondent would show that 

Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production were received on October 11, 2016 

via certified return receipt which would make these answers due on November 10, 2016 Under 

Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 33(b)(2) herein attached a copy of the Received Complainant's 

Initial Discover Requests wherein Complainant states that Respondents response is due by 

October 27,2016. Respondent would add that this is misleading to the Respondent when his 

responses are truly due on November 10, 2016. 

Respondent reserves the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(e) and Rule 33(b) (2) to correct 

or update additional Answer's to Complainant's Interrogatories on November 10, 2016. 

Furthermore, Respondents supplemental answer to Interrogatory No. 6 is pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(e) and Rule 33 (b) (2) and would state the following response: 

Respondent does not plan on calling an expert witness 

INTERROGATORY No. 7: With respect to each expert you expect to call as a witness, state the 

subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and state the substance of the facts and 

opin!ons to which the expert is expected to testify, and a summary of the grounds for each such 

OpiniOn. 

SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO.7: The Respondent objects to Interrogatory 

Number 7 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 502 (g) (1) and (2) on the grounds that it seeks 

information that is privileged by virtue of the attorney-client privilege. Respondent would 

further object to Interrogatory No. 1 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 502 (g) (1) and (2) 

and Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 26 (b)(5) in that Complainant seeks information that is 

protected by the "work product" privilege. The interrogatory calls for disclosure of information 

or materials prepared in anticipation of the hearing and/or hearing preparation material by pro 

se Respondent representing himself in this case. Additionally, respondent would show that 

Page 8 Respondents Supplemental Answers and Responses to 

Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production 

Docket No, FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright,DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503)209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production were received on October 11, 2016 

via certified return receipt which would make these answers due on November 10, 2016 Under 

Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 33(b)(2) herein attached a copy of the Received Complainant's 

Initial Discover Requests wherein Complainant states that Respondents response is due by 

October 27,2016. Respondent would add that this is misleading to the Respondent when his 

responses are truly due on November 10, 2016. 

Respondent reserves the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(e) and Rule 33(b) (2) to correct 

or update additional Answer's to Complainant's Interrogatories on November 10, 2016. 

Furthermore, Respondents supplemental answer to Interrogatory No. 7 is pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(e) and Rule 33 (b) (2) and would state the following response: 

Respondent does not plan on calling an expert witness 

INTERROGATORY No. 8: State by name, address, telephone number, date of conversation, and 

substance of conversation, all persons [other than legal counsel or spouse] with whom you have 

discussed the matters alleged in the Complaint. 

SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: The Respondent objects to Interrogatory 

Number 8 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 502 (g) (1) and (2) on the grounds that it seeks 

information that is privileged by virtue of the attorney-client privilege. Respondent would 

further object to Interrogatory No.8 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 502 (g) (1) and (2) 

and Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 26 (b)(S) in that Complainant seeks information that is 

protected by the "work product" privilege. The interrogatory calls for disclosure of information 

or materials prepared in anticipation of the hearing and/or hearing preparation material by pro 

se Respondent representing himself in this case. Additionally, respondent would show that 

Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production were received on October 11, 2016 

via certified return receipt which would make these answers due on November 10, 2016 Under 

Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 33(b)(2) herein attached a copy of the Received Complainant's 

Initial Discover Requests wherein Complainant states that Respondents response is due by 

October 27,2016. Respondent would add that this is misleading to the Respondent when his 

responses are truly due on November 10, 2016. 

Respondent reserves the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(e) and Rule 33(b) (2) to correct 

or update additional Answer's to Complainant's Interrogatories on November 10, 2016. 

Page 9 Respondents Supplemental Answers and Responses to 

Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright,DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
Furthermore, Respondents supplemental answer to Interrogatory No. 8 is pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(e) and Rule 33 (b) (2) and would state the following response: 

Susan Bird 

Executive Assistant to William Ames Curtright 

189116'" St. SE 

Salem, Oregon 97302 

Respondent has not kept track of the specific dates that he has discussed the alleged matters in 

this complaint with Ms. Bird; however, there have been several discussions because Ms. Bird is 

my assistant and assists me with typing motions, and discovery in this alleged matter. 

INTERROGATORY No.9: If you deny any or all of Requests for Admissions l through 5, please 

explain in detail the specific reason for each and every fact denied. 

SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: The Respondent objects to Interrogatory 

Number 9 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 502 (g) (1) and (2) on the grounds that it seeks 

information that is privileged by virtue of the attorney-client privilege. Respondent would 

further object to Interrogatory No. 1 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 502 (g) (1) and (2) 

and Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 26 (b)(5) in that Complainant seeks information that is 

protected by the "work product" privilege. The interrogatory calls for disclosure of information 

or materials prepared in anticipation of the hearing and/or hearing preparation material by pro 

se Respondent representing himself in this case. Additionally, respondent would show that 

Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production were received on October 11, 2016 

via certified return receipt which would make these answers due on November 10, 2016 Under 

Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 33(b)(2) herein attached a copy of the Received Complainant's 

Initial Discover Requests wherein Complainant states that Respondents response is due by 

October 27,2016. Respondent would add that this is misleading to the Respondent when his 

responses are truly due on November 10, 2016. 

Respondent reserves the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(e) and Rule 33(b) (2) to correct 

or update additional Answer's to Complainant's Interrogatories on November 10, 2016. 

Respondents supplemental answer to Interrogatory No. 9 is pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure Rule 26(e) and Rule 33 (b) (2) and would state the following response: 

Respondent has already answered the Request for Admissions 1 through 5 and has already 

explained in detail the specific reasons for each and every fact denied. Complainants additional 

Page 10 Respondents Supplemental Answers and Responses to 

Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright,DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: {5031209·7388 

Fax (5031485·0812 
review are Respondents answer's to Complainant's Request for Admissions answers were the 

following on October 28, 2016. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 1. Admit that Attachment I is a true and correct copy of an 

electronic mail message (email) you sent to FAA Aviation Safety Inspector (AS!) Conroy on July 1, 

2014. 

RESPONDENT ADMITS IN PART AND DENY'S IN PART that this is a true and correct copy of 

an electronic mail message (email) respondent sent to FAA Aviation Safety Inspector (AS!) Marty 

Conroy on July l, 2014 because of the hand written notes in the right hand corner of the document 

are not the Respondents. Respondent would deny that this is a true and correct copy of the electronic 

mail message respondent sent to FAA Aviation Safety Inspector (AS!) Conroy on July !, 2014 and 

would ADMIT that a true and correct copy of the electronic mail message respondent sent to FAA 

Aviation Safety Inspector (AS!) Conroy on July 1, 2014 does not include the hand written notes in 

the right hand corner of the document that Complainant has produced. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 2. Admit that Attachment 2 is a true and correct copy of an 

email AS! Conroy sent to you on July 7, 2014. 

RESPONDENT DENY'S that Attachment 2 is a true and correct copy of an email AS! Conroy sent 

to Respondent on July 7, 2014 because the Attachment 2 also includes an electronic mail message 

(email) that Respondent sent to ASI Marty Conroy on July 7, 2014 at II :57 AM. Respondent 

ADMITS that Attachment 2 is a true and correct copy of an email AS! Conroy sent to Respondent on 

July 7, 2014 and an electronic mail (email) that Respondent sent to Marty Conroy, on July 7, 2014 at 

II :57 AM. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 3. Admit that Attachment 3 is a true and correct copy of an 

email you sent to AS! Conroy on August 28, 2014. 

Respondent ADMITS that Attachment 3 is a true and correct copy of an email that Respondent sent 

to AS! Conroy on August 28,2014 at 3:03PM. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 4. Admit that Attachment 4 is a true and correct copy of a 

Letter of Investigation AS! Conroy sent to you on September 4, 2014. 

Respondent DENY'S that Attachment 4 is a true and correct copy of a Letter of Investigation AS! 

Conroy sent to Respondent on September 4, 2014 because the document is not signed by anyone and 

is missing the second page of the document. Additionally, the document has hand notations on it that 

are not the Respondents and is not a true and correct copy of the Letter of Investigation AS! Conroy 

sent to Respondent on September 4, 20 I 4. The Request for Admission No. 4 ask for Respondent to 

assume and/or speculate that the document came from AS! Conroy. Also, the request for admission 

No.4 ask for Respondent to assume or speculate who Conroy is by not identify the full name of 

Conroy. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 5. Admit that Attachment 5 is a true and correct copy of an 

letter you sent to AS! Conroy on September 9, 2014. 

Page 11 Respondents Supplemental Answers and Responses to 

Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production 

Docket No. FAA-2015·1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright, DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485·0812 
Respondent ADMITS AND DENY'S in part and DENY'S that Attachment 5 is a true and correct 

copy of a letter Respondent sent to AS! Conroy on September 9, 2014; However, respondent 

ADMITS that Attachment 5 is a true and correct copy of a letter Respondent sent to AS! Conroy on 

September 9, 20 I 4 with seven attachments of the following: I. Oregon Aircraft Registration 

Certificate; 2. Memorandum from Ben W. Davidson to William Ames Curtright dated 8/26/2014 re: 

annual Inspection N949JP; 3.Medical Certificate Third Class of William Ames Curtright; 4.The 

Standard Pilot Log of Dr. W. Ames Curtright DBA; 5.The second page ofthe Standard Pilot Log of 

Dr. W. Ames Curtright DBA; 6. A certified handwritten note regarding a flight review; and 7. A 

document reflecting a work order. 

INTERROGATORY No. I 0: If you deny any or all of Request for Admissions 6 please explain in 

detail the specific reason for each and every fact denied and sate specifically whether you had a 

conversation with AS! Comoy and, if so, what is your recollection of the conversation. 

SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: The Respondent objects to Interrogatory 

Number 10 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure S02 (g) (1) and (2) on the grounds that it seeks 

information that is privileged by virtue of the attorney-client privilege. Respondent would 

further object to Interrogatory No. 10 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 502 (g) (1) and (2) 

and Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 26 (b)(S) in that Complainant seeks information that is 

protected by the "work product" privilege. The interrogatory calls for disclosure of information 

or materials prepared in anticipation of the hearing and/or hearing preparation material by pro 

se Respondent representing himself in this case. Additionally, respondent would show that 

Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production were received on October 11, 2016 

via certified return receipt which would make these answers due on November 10, 2016 Under 

Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 33(b)(2) herein attached a copy of the Received Complainant's 

Initial Discover Requests wherein Complainant states that Respondents response is due by 

October 27,2016. Respondent would add that this is misleading to the Respondent when his 

responses are truly due on November 10, 2016. 

Respondent reserves the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(e) and Rule 33(b) (2) to correct 

or update additional Answer's to Complainant's Interrogatories on November 10, 2016. 

Furthermore, Respondents supplemental answer to Interrogatory No. 10 is pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(e) and Rule 33 (b) (2) and would state the following response: 

At this time Respondent does not recall the conversation; however, reserves the rights to 

amend this response pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(e) and Rule 33 (b) (2) 

before discovery ends. However, Respondent did not refer the aircraft N949JP as being in an 

accident, but an incident on June 14, 2014 

Page 12 Respondents Supplemental Answers and Responses to 

Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright,DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)48S-0812 
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. I: Provide a copy of all documents referred to tn your 

answer to the preceding interrogatories No. I through No. I 0. 

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE N0.1: The Respondent objects to Request for Production Number 1 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 502 (g) (1) and (2) on the grounds that it seeks information 

that is privileged by virtue of the attorney-client privilege. Respondent would further object to 

Request for Production No. 1 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 502 (g) (1) and (2) and 

Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 26 (b)(5) in that Complainant seeks information that is protected 

by the "work product" privilege. The interrogatory calls for disclosure of information or 

materials prepared in anticipation of the hearing and/or hearing preparation material by prose 

Respondent representing himself in this case. Additionally, respondent would show that 

Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production were received on October 11, 2016 

via certified return receipt which would make these answers due on November 10, 2016 Under 

Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 33(b)(2) herein attached a copy of the Received Complainant's 

Initial Discover Requests wherein Complainant states that Respondents response is due by 

October 27,2016. Respondent would add that this is misleading to the Respondent when his 

responses are truly due on November 10, 2016. 

Respondent reserves the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(e) and Rule 33(b) (2) to correct 

or update additional Responses to Complainant's Request for Production on November 10, 

2016. 

Interrogatory No. 10 is pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(e) and Rule 33 (b) (2) 

and would state the following response: 

Furthermore, Respondents supplemental answer to Request for Production No.1 has produced 

all documents referred to in Respondents answer to the preceding interrogatories no. 1 through 

No. 10. On October 27, 2016. Additionally, Respondent herein produces all documents referred 

to in Respondents Supplemental Answers to Complainants Interrogatories and Requests for 

Production of Documents. 

Page 13 Respondents Supplemental Answers and Responses to 

Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright, DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485-0812 
VERIFICATION OF INTERROGATORY SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS AND REQUEST FOR 

PRODUCTION 

I, William A. Curtright, DBA as Respondent, I believe, based on reasonable inquiry, that the foregoing 

ans,vers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 

I verify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on November g, 2016 

William A. Curtright, DBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

l hereby certify that the foregoing Respondents Supplemental Answers and Responses to Complainant's 

Interrogatories and Requests for Production, has been served as designated by the recipient this date, 

to the following: 

David F. Shayne, FAA Attorney (email, fax and Certified Mail-Return Receipt 

Requested) 

Complainant's Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1847 

Dated November 9, 2016 

William A. Curtright, DBA 

Page 14 Respondents Supplemental Answers and Responses to 

Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright, DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fa> (503)485-0812 
VERIFICATION OF INTERROGATORY SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS AND REQUEST FOR 

PRODUCTION 

I, William A. Curtright, DBA as Respondent, I believe, based on reasonable inquiry, that the foregoing 

answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 

I verify under penalty of pe!jury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on November 9, 2016 

William 

to~~ A. Curtright, DBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Respondents Supplemental Answers and Responses to Complainant's 

Interrogatories and Requests for Production, has been served as designated by the recipient this date, 

to the following: 

David F. Shayne, FAA Attorney (email, fax and Certified Mail-Return Receipt 

Requested) 

Complainant's Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1847 

Dated November 9, 2016 

William A. Curtright, DBA 

Page 14 Respondents Supplemental Answers and Responses to 

Complainant's Interrogatories and Requests for Production 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1319 

Case No. 2014NM0046 

William A. Curtright,DBA 

Respondent 

Telephone: (503) 209-7388 

Fax (503)485·0812 
Attach1nent 1 
Conroy, Marty G (FAA) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

June 1, 2014 

To: Marty Conroy: 

Marty, 

William Ames Curtright <ames@amesresearch.com> 

Tuesday, July 01, 2014 4:58 PM 

Conroy, Marty G (FAA) 

Ames 

I never received you Email. Here is mine. As I mentioned I will need some time to get things for you out of country or as 

soon as I can locate things. 

Too much junk and stuff. 

Please re-list things you need now to complete your investigation. 

The aircraft is now off of Floats, on wheels, As I mentioned the reason for incident was left gear collapse. As you know 

this is an amphibious Aircraft with Whip-line 2100 floats. 

This is an embarrassing and expensive and mechanical, or otherwise, one always wonders what one could have done 

better. 

Here is my description, hope it helps you. 

The wheels indicated down and locked. The braking power of the metal rail on the underside of the float was more than 

1 could compensate for thus a hard left braking occurred forcing the aircraft at a low rate of speed off the runway. Less 

than 5 mph when the aircraft slowly went up a slight embankment, thus it rolled slowly to the right striking and 

breaking the right wing tip and the prop struck the ground. I was very surprised to find myself in that position, because 

there was no real warning or expectations of anything such as that and no other than a perfect and great landing. It was 

more like standing up and falling over maneuver on the side of an embankment at slow speed. 

I have to say I wondered whether I even had to call NTSB on my own field, but I wanted to play it safe and make the call. 

Cause of incident was gear failure. The Aircraft was on my Airport 21 Oscar Golf Ames Airport, Privately owned by 

myself, and the Aircraft a Super Cub PA 18 is owned solely by myself. I was not injured in anyway, the aircraft is 

repairable. One does not want to waste a perfectly good air plane broken or otherwise. Nostalgic. 

Presently it has been taken off of Floats, and is on wheels. Looks good on wheels. I will repair it do a full work up on the 

aircraft and restore it with qualified personnel, with most likely a new engine and rebuilt wing to service. I have flown 

this aircraft for twenty years, without a dent. I have certainly had my time in it, I think I have gone through one Hobbs, 

and into another, so I think I have more time than I thought in it. 

1 am loosing track of how many types of plane I have flown. Bob Hoover, my good friend crashed about twenty before he 

was twenty two. It did it for a living although! 
I hope my discription helps. I will need some time to get those documents to you as I travel a lot. I understand that I will 

not have to fill out any other documents. 

My last biannual I think was late summer of 2012 or 2013. I lose track of time. You have my health certificate and I just 

completed a new one. 

I note you have my older registration and a newer one was issued, I believe. I will look around for that. 

W. Ames Curtright 

2 
! ' 

Attachment 2 
Conroy, Marty G (FAA) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Mr. Ames Curtright: 

Conroy, Marty G (FAA) 

Monday, July 07, 2014 12:27 PM 

'William Ames Curtright' 

McKibbon, Bill J (FAA); 'Lewis Larry' 

RE: N949JP Information 

I do have a photograph of the airworthiness certificate, and I do not need another. 

I do need a complete record of your flight review that includes the instructor's endorsement signature. 

Please provide me a date that I can inspect the aircraft weight/balance and airframe/engine maintenance logbooks. 

Thank you. 

-----Original Message-----

From: William Ames Curtright [mai!to:ames@amesresearch.com] 

Sent: Monday, July 07, 201411:57 AM 

To: Conroy, Marty G (FAA) 

Subject: N949JP Information 

Marty, 

Please see attached. As you might recall you took a picture of the air-worthiness certificate when you came out, want 

me to take another picture for you? it that was taped in the cockpit on the wall. 

Airworthiness, Wet damaged reordered fresh one. Bi-Annual copy from log. 

I provided a medical certificate to you at the time, and I have a fresh New Medical exam last week. 

Rest of Documents are north in Canada logs. Will need some time to get them. 

My traveling style is a bit cramped for a bit. I will not be available the rest of this week. 

I feel sad for the People that were lost at the coast. It's a hard Job, your Job. The pain you see I cannot imagine. Thanks 

for your service and for your past service in the military. 

As I stood on my hill on the fourth of July watching the explosions of fireworks from all sides. It reminded me of Viet 

Nam of Shells going off, of cannon file, and the rolling thunder of Armageddon. 

It was different for me that night, it gave me thoughts of what was to come if we do not change the course of our 

country. 

Good Luck to you and God blessings. 

Ames 

1 
Attach1nent 3 
Conroy, Marty G (FAA) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

To: FAA 

Marty, 

William Ames Curtright <ames@amesresearch.com> 

Thursday, August 28, 2014 3:03 PM 

William Ames Curtright 

N949JP Information 

Weight-Balance.pdf; 2013 Annual Inspection Notice.pdf 

It was a pleasure to meet you at Ames Ranch. 

I have been very grounded so I have not been able to get north and will not be able to go up this year, but as you 

suggested I did locate who did the annual and got a letter to meet your needs as you requested. 

I have been very busy with the patriotic event I had { h!.\J;I;LLJl.iJ!h."lLngoftheeag~s.corn/); now that it is over, I have had a 

little bit more time. Keeping America safe for democracy. Seems as we are going to have to continue our battle for 

freedom will never end. The sacrifice of our brothers, who died, we must not forget. Thus we continue for them. U 

Tubes are on line. Worth watching. 

Warmest and best, 

Dr. W. Ames Curtright DBA 

Office, 503-588-7000 

Cell, 503-209-7388 

1 
7.7 

September I 1, 1997 Viking Air Ltd. 

wing work was completed ·underW/0 #14603: 

d EDO floats 89-2000, rlh sin 3594, l/h sin 3593 and installed Wipaire 

loats sin rlh 21044, llh 21043. Wipaire Amphib flpats were installed in 

ce with STC SA 00713CH and Wipaire Master Drawing list for Piper 

d mode12100 floats reissued 6/.17/97. 

 gear system working normally and checked serviceable. 

on of Lake and Afr Inc. Advisory system in accordance with ST SA 

d system checks se~ceable. "THE ;,/),! i·iT 

ht. and balance had been amended to show this change. A!;;)f'}l 'i=' f_t .;:. -::;: • . l::l·- <f- ,-IJ """ 

w~ight and balance is as follows: 

yweight~I560.0 New C. G.~ 73.08 ACCORDf.\NCE STANDf\RDS Moment"' 114001.51. ,, 
I 

Memorandum 

To: William Ames Curtright 

From: Ben W Davidson 

Date: 8/26/2014 

Re: Annual Inspection N949JP 

Bill, 

This letter is to verifY that I completed an Annual Inspection on N949JP 

a PA-18 on September 23r~ 2013. At that time 1 provided you with 

a discrepancy list that included an expired battery in your ELTthat 

required replacement. 

If need further assistance, please do not hesitate to cali anytime before 

9pm (IJ1yday. (541) 490-6980. 

A&P2855347IA 

1 
Attachtnent 4 
US. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

September 4, 2014 

Northwest Mountain Region 

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, 

Oregon, Utah, Washington, 

Wyoming 

Flight Standards District Office 

3180 NW 229th Ave. 

HJ!Isboro, Oregon 97124 

503-615-3225, Fax: 503-615-3300 

1-800-847-3240 

marty .g .conroy@faa.gov 

CERTIFIED MAIL/SPECIAL DELIVERY- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

EIR Number: 2014NM090046 

William Ames Curtright 

1895 16th SE 

Salem, Oregon 97302 

Subject: Letter of Investigation 

Dear Mr. Curtright: 

Personnel of this office are investigating an accident, which involved the operation of an 

aircraft, N949JP, on June 14,2014. This office sent you a letter dated July 1, 2014 by 

registered mail requesting you present to us the following documents: aircraft weight and 

balance record, the airframe and engine maintenance logbooks, the Airworthiness and 

Registration certificates, and documentation of your compliance with the flight review 

requirement of 14 CFR Part 61.56(c). 

To date, you have not presented this office with the airframe and engine maintenance 

logbooks for N949.TP and a complete record of your required flight review that includes the 

instructor's endorsement signature. 

This may be contrary to the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

This Jetter is to inform you that this matter is under investigation by the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA). In accordance with the Pilot's Bill of Rights, we are infom1ing you 

that: 

(I) The nature of this investigation is to determine whether you acted as pilot in command 

ofN949JP in violation of the Federal Aviation Regnlations, and if so, what, if any 

enforcement action should be taken. 

(2) Oral or written response to this Letter oflnvestigation is not required, and no action can 

be taken or adverse inference made against you for declining to respond to this Letter of 

Investigation. 

NM09: MConroy: MGC; 3240; 9/4/14: 

N:\FSDO Electronic Work Space\lnvestigations\Violation\2014\2014NM090046 ~Curtright, Wi!llam Ames\LO! 9-4-2014.doc 
3 

PRIVACY ACT NOTICE 

This Notice is provided in accordance with Section (e) (3) of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 

Section 552a (e) (3), and concerns the information requested in the letter or form with which 

this Notice is enclosed. 

A. Authority: This information is solicited pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 40113(a) and the 

regulations issued under that statutory provision codified in 14 C.P.R. part 13. Submission of 

information is voluntary. 

B. Principal Purposes: 

1. The request for information is intended to provide you with an opportunity to 

participate in the investigation. 

2. The requested information will be used to help determine whether or not there has 

been a violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations, and if so, what, if any, enforcement 

action should be taken. 

C. Routine uses: Records from this system of records may be disclosed in accordance with 

the following routine uses that appear in the System of Records No. DOT/FAA 847, General 

Air Transportation Records on Individuals, DOT IF AA: 

I. To provide basic ainman certificate and qualification information to the public upon 

request. 

2. To disclose information to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in 

connection with its investigation responsibilities. 

3. To provide information about airmen to Federal, state, and local law enforcement 

agencies when engaged in the investigation and apprehension of drug law violators. 

4. To provide information about enforcement actions arising out of violations of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations to govermnent agencies, the aviation industry, and the 

public upon request. 

5. To disclose information to another Federal agency, or to a court or an administrative 

tribunal, when the Govermnent or one of its agencies is a party to a judicial proceeding 

before the court or involved in administrative proceedings before the tribunal. 

D. Effect of failure to respond: The FAA cannot impose any penalties upon you if you fail 

to respond to this letter of investigation. If you fail to supply the requested information, 

however, the FAA will make detenninations about possible enforcement action for this 

matter without the benefit of your comments on this matter. 
Attachment 5 
September 9, 2014 

Martin G. Conroy 

Aviation Safety Inspector 

Flight Standards Dist. Office 

3180 NW 229'" Ave. 

Hillsboro, OR 97124 

Re: EIR Number 2014NM090046 

Dear Sir: 

As explained via email, the aircraft logs are not in the United States; they are in Canada where I 

also live. I am now awaiting the time to repair my aircraft repair. In order to meet your request 

1 have emailed the remaining documents and the Certification of Annual Inspection as requested 

to the Portland office. 

All other documents have been provided to you as requested. Is it possible your people have 

not opened your em ails to check the attachments? They were sent to your Portland office. If 

you are still missing something let us know. 

We have provided a letter from the mechanic who did the annual certification inspection. We 

recently emailed the weight and balance but again we will mail it to you. 

The event was on my private property. It took place after landing; there was a steering problem 

because of a collapsed gear which caused a breaking to the left. The aircraft was not airborne 

but inertia and the rail on the floats pulled the aircraft to the left and into the grass, thus, our 

description of the event which damaged the aircraft. 

Your letters indicate you have never received any of this information which is troubling. 

We have provided you the aircraft weight and balance, airworthiness registration certificate, 

and documentation with the flight review requirements and all the documents you requested, 

yet you people act as if you never received those items. 

We have provided to you the documents in a spirit of cooperation. Again, we hope this meets 

your needs and pray this brings closure for us both. 

Dr. W. Ames Curtright 

Ames Research Laboratories, Inc. • 1891 16 St. SE. Salem, Oregon USA 97302 

Toll~Fr~e: 8&8-345~0809 • Phone: 503-588-3330 • Fax: 503-364-2380 o amesstaffiJ(j;tmesresearch.com 
FAA NO.: N949JP 

Year: 1953 

Certificate: 42137 

Expiration: 2128/2015 
! 

I 

' 

Memorandum 

To: William Ames Curtright 

From: Ben W. Davidson 

Date: 8/2612014 

Re: Annual1nspection N949JP 

Bill, 

This letter is to verify that I completed an Annual Inspection on N949JP 

aPA-18 on September 2Jr~ 2013. At that time !provided you with 

a discrepancy list that included an expired battery in your ELT that 

required replacement. 

If need fUrther assistance, please do not hesitate to call anytime before 

9pm anyday. (541) 490-6980. 

Ben W. Davidson 

A&P2855347IA 

1 
UN!TE.D STATES OF AMERJCA 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Avi,.llon Admle1islr.3!km 

MEDICAL CERTIFICATE THIRD CLASS 

1

;, This certifies that (Full name ;md address): 

IN1LLIAM AMES CURTRIGHT 

4135 PARADISE HlLL 

TURNER OR 97392 USA 

; Date of Birth I Height I Weight I Hair I 

1---- o6~"1Ml9-13 I 7o ns BROWl\ ! 

Ey~ 

BLUE 

has met the medical standards prescribed in part 67, Federal Avia1ion 

Re ulations, forthis classof Medical Certificate. 

Must wear corrective lenses_ 

CONDITIONS OF ISSUE 

The holder Df this certificate must: 

Have it in his or her personal possession at aU Urnes 

while exercising prtvile.ges of an airman certificate. 

(14CFR§61.3) 

Understand that the issuance of a medical certificate 

by an Aviation Medical Examiner may be reversed by 

the FAA within 6G days. 

(14CFR § 67.407) 

Comply with validity standards specified fur first-, 

second-, and third--class medical certificates. 

(l4CFR § 6123) 

Comply with any statement of functional, operational. 

and/or time limitation lssued as a condition of 

certification. 

(14CFR § 67.401) 

(Note: A letter of authorization (or SODA) describing 

any such limitations must be kept with this certificate 

at all times while exercising !he privileges of an airman 

certificate.} 

Complv with the standards relating to prohibitions on 

operation during medical deficiency, 

(14CFR §§ 61 .53, 63.19, ar!d 65.49) 

For International Operations Only: Some holders may be 

affected by certain international medical standards. 

Consult the U.S. Aeronautical Information Publication for 

U.S. differences with ICAO Annex 1 medical" standards. 

AEROSPACE MEDICAL CERTIFICATION DIVISION, AAM • 300 

FAA Givi! Aerospace Medical Institute 

Mike Monroney .Aeronautical Center 

; P.O Box 26080 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125-9914 

WILLIAM AMES CURTRIGHT 

4135 PARADISE HILL 

TURNER OR 97392 USA 

Dear Aimmn: 

Above i;; your new medical certificate ! l :mpers.dt..~ any previous one you may hnn~ h<.>cn issued. 

T{l validate this cl:!rtiticate, it is necess<lry that yuu sign il in the s,pacc provided {Airmru1's Signature). 

This certificate nmS1 be in your possession at alt lim~s while exercising your pilot privileges 

Cn:,;teQ on Thursday. Jun~ 26.2014 
Certificates Held 

,., .. STUDENT PILOT 

SPORT PiLOT 

RECREATIONAL PILOT 

PRIVATE PILOT 

COMMERC!AL PILOT 

FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR 

AI RUNE TRANSPORT PILOT 

a.V!AT'.ON TECHNICIAN 

?:.ROUND INSTRUCTOR 

Logbook Number __ _ 

From--------

To _____________ _ 

Date Issued Certificate Number .G1lfRPlANE 

I <'" 1 

~"(\~ S 4'2,-'\'6::'\\S~I~LE ENGINE ~D !Q.8EA 

-------- 0 MULTI-ENGINE 0 LAND 0 SEA 

--,--,.--,----- -----,----- Otc(LJLr1-ENG!NE Limited to Center Line Tnrust 

_,.S=W/~':;,LL\ f-/-\\~<?j~'1t::4:l,." S";"':> ''"'i'f·il:r:> 0 INSTRUMENT 

('L.............,.e 

--~I 0 GLIDE.R DAEROTOW 0 \1>/INCHTOW 

0 POW~e~~' 0 WEIGHT-SrFT CONTROL 

0 ROTORCRAFT 

' q--' ('I ti'<:c>--"" :il;;"' (, . ELICOPTER 0 GY OPLANE 

0 LIGHTER-THAN-AlA 0 ArRSHIP 0 BALLOON 

0 POWERED. LIFT 

OGI BASIC 0 Gl ADVANCED 0 Gl INSTRUMENT 

0 OTHER RA.TINGS (Specify) 
I nerllfv lha! the 

AIRCfiAFT 

IDENTifiCATION 

NUMBER 
I 4!>£P.:rt,::-' ;-H,p.qr u,~,.:.~.-.~14~ R. 

t::..Cof~r.n..~t;Nr P~v ... .,.lf P.d • .4T ~~ 

!lit !:~$ f/i-77-bCI II .. $ S"A-r'I$F'J'iif'r~t..}" Co'JA.!'t?.t.a"f'E1> A Fr..; GN'Y 7Ce Vt!JE:..P 

~11'"--U.I' '<!>Y G>l, !:~ ~>•N" '1'/1{'/e., 

G!5-wC2..:..Jl.,. "-<'' t -..ffr5''f?,...'lis 
' 

:L'jL" I '1 't- 1 Hobbs 527.7 Viking Air Ltd. w -'\6..""\J~ September 11, 1997 

The following work was completed under W /0 # 14603: 

-removed EDO floats 89-2000, r/h s/n 3594, 1/h s/n 3593 and installed Wipaire 

Amphib floats s/n rlh 21044, Vh 21043. Wipaire Ampbib floats were installed in 

accordance with STC SA 00713CH and Wipaire Master Drawing list for Piper 

PA 18 and mode12100 floats reissued 6117197. 

- landing gear system working normally and checked serviceable. 

- installation of Lake and Afr Inc. Advisory system in accordance with ST SA 

39CH and system checks serviceable. "THE £~':.~;1;-:T -the weight and balance had been amended to show this change. ABOVE Hi\S ; 

The new weight and balance is as follows: 

New empty weight =1560.0 New C.G. 73.08 

ACCORD;C,i'-JCE 

STANDfiRDS Moment~ 114001.51. 
Attachtnent 6 
Record of Telephone Call 

Name: William Ames Curtright 

Address: 189116thSE 

Salem, Oregon 

Phone: 503-209-7388 

Date: 9/24/2014, at 2:46PM 

Subject: EIR #2014NM090046 

This office left a voice mail message on 9/16/2014 for Mr. Curtright regarding access to 

the aircraft and engine maintenance logbooks for N949JP. This aircraft was involved in 

an accident on June 14, 2014. Mr. Curtright did not respond. 

On 9/24/2014, I did make contact with Mr. Curtright by telephone. I asked him if he 

intended to present this office with the aircraft and engine maintenance logbooks to 

allow us to conclude our investigation into the accident on June 14, 2014. 

Mr. Curtright responded that the logbooks were at his home in Canada and that he was 

not in a position to travel there and recover them. I then asked Mr. Curtright if he could 

provide me a future date when he would be able to recover them. Mr. Curtright 

responded that he did not expect to travel to Canada any time in the near future, 

because he was "running a business." 

We politely concluded our conversation. 

t{aiJ;vu (ij}-

MARTIN G. CO~Y Aviation Safety Inspector