Served February 29. 2012 MAR * 6 2012 

HEARJJVG DOCKET 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF g 

Oklahoma Skydiving Center ^ 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10SW0020 .-:> 5:^Sp^, 

(Civil Penalty Action) - "^P^ ^ 

DMS No. FAA-2010-1215 ^-ii^r^.O 

Agency's Brief on Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Issue of Law; 

Closing and Summation 

The Federal Aviation Administration (Complainant), through its undersigned counsel, 

hereby submits this Brief on Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Issue of Law for the 

hearing held on January 10, 2012, before Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin of the 

Department of Transportation, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. On October 21, 2010, the Complainant issued a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty against Oklahoma Skydiving Center 

(Respondent) for violation of 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.7(a), 91.405(a), and 91.13(a) in the amount of 

$8,000. Rt.'spondent requested a fonnal hearing and Complainant submitted its Complaint on 

November 16, 2010. Respondent submitted his Answer December I, 2010. (E.\. A-l) 

1. ADMITTED FACTS 

Oklahoma Skydiving Center was the operator of a Cessna P206A aircraft, civil aircraft 

N4682F, s(;rial number P206-0282. On July 11. 2009, Inspectors Lana West (now Boler) and 
Robert Ten-y of the Oklahoma City Flight Standards District Office (OKC FSDO) perfomied an 

inspection of aircraft N4682F. At the conclusion of the FAA inspection, an "Aircraft Condition 

Notice," FAA Form 8620-1. (E.xh. A-8) was issued by Inspector West listing the following discrepancies: 

• Pilot Seat stops do not meet manufacturer specifications (bolts installed) 

• Left hand ftap has hole 

• Right hand flap cracked 

• Left hand passenger side window cracked and duct taped 

The Aircraft Condition Notice noted that the items listed "are" considered to be an imminent 

hazard to safety. Operation of the aircraft prior to correction "will" be contrary to pertinent Federal Aviation Regulations. A special Flight Permit "will" be required to be issued prior to operation if corrective action has not been taken. Mr. Jack Reeves was personally shown each of the 

discrepancies by the FAA Inspectors, and handed the condition notice. Respondent readily admits 

these allegations. (E.xh. A-l) The Agency's Complaint charges that Oklahoma Skydiving violated 

§^91.7fa)'. 91.405(a)^ and 91.13(a)^ of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.R.). by operating the aircraft on July 11, 2009, while failing to address the discrepancies noted on the aircraft 

condition notice, each of which rendered the aircraft unairworthy as alleged in the Complaint. 

Under authority of 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(1). the civil penalty of $8,000 should be sustained. 

14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a) prohibits operation ofa civil aircraft unless ii is in an airworthy condition. 

14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a) obligates owners and operators lo inspect and repair discrepancies in accordance vvith 14 

C.F.R. part 43 between required inspections. 

14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a) prohibits careless or reckless operation of an aircraft so as to endanijer the life or property of 

another. 

Oklahoma Skydiving Center 

FAADOCKirrNO C['10SW0020 

DMS No. i-AA-2010-1215 
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

Allegations 1, II (1). (2), (4). (5), and (6) contained in the Coinplaint and admitted to in 

Respondent's Answer are deemed Admitted. 

IL Oklahoma Skydiving Operated N4682F on July IK 2009 

Respondent's owner, Mr. Reeves^ admitted that the aircraft operated on July 11, 2009, as 

well as the 12'^ and 13"\ He first testified that the aircraft operated on July 1 L 2009. (30! Tr. 

12-17) Me testified that the aircraft operated "ahout" 35 cycles over that weekend; Saturday and 

Sunday, before he fiew it the following Monday to get it repaired. (306 Tr. 4-13) Mr. Reeves also 

testified that "a hundred" people jumped out of the airplane that weekend. (306 Tr. 16-19) 

As alleged in the Agency's Complaint. Inspectors Boler and Terry testified that they 

watched N4682F taxi by their location; observed at least two (2) skydivers on board; take-off; the 

sky divers depart the aircraft; and watched the aircraft descend and land on July 1 L 2009. (59 Tr. 

5-22; 60 Tr. 1-6; 167Tr. 15-22; 168 Tr. 1-4). They recorded their recollections of that day in their 

Inspector's Statements. See Boler, (26 Tr. 6-22; 27 Tr. 1-20) (Exh. A-3) Sec Terry, (153 Tr. 3-22; 

154Tr. l-4)(Exh. A-9) 

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

Oklahoma Skydiving Operated N4682F on July 11, 2009. 

Oklahomii Skydiving Center 

l-AADOCKi^TNO CP10SW0020 

DMS No. FAA-20I0-!2I5 
IIL N4682F was unairworthy when Oklahoma Skydiving Operated it on July 11, 2009 

A. Statutory and Regulatory basis for Airworthiness 

The FAA has a statutory responsibility to enforce minimum safety standards in civil aviation. 

49 U.S.C. § 44701(a)(1). As part of this endeavor, the FAA issues "type certificates" for aircraft 

"when the Administrator finds that the aircraft ... is properly designed and manufactured, performs 

properly, and meets the regulations and minimum standards prescribed." 49 U.S.C. § 44704(a)( 1). 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 21.41, "[e)ach type certificate is considered to include the type design, the operating limitations, the certificate data sheet, the applicable regulations . . . and any 

other conditions or limitations prescribed" for the product or aircraft. In sum, a type certificate is a 

design approval issued by the FAA when an applicant has demonstrated that a product or aircraft 

complies with the applicable regulations. And that approval is only for the exact design submitted 

to the FAA for a type certificate. The type certificate is the foundation for other approvals, such as 

airworthiness approval. 

Once an aircraft has received a type certificate, any registered owner ofa U.S. registered 

aircraft may apply for an airworthiness certificate for that aircraft. 14 C.F.R. § 21.173. The FAA 

issues an "airworthiness certificate" for an individual aircraft that "conforms to its type certificate 

and, after inspection, is in condition for safe operation," 49 U.S.C. § 44704(d)(1). Therefore, in 

order to obtain an airworthiness certificate, an aircraft must be both in conformance with its type 

certificate and in a condition safe for flight. 

Oklahoma Skydiving Cenicr 

l-AA [X>CKI:T NO CPiOSW0020 

DMS No. rAA-2010-1213 
B. Airworthiness Case law 

FAA Inspector Lana Boler is a certificated Airframe and Powerplant Mechanic (A&P) with 

20-years' experience. She also holds an inspection authorization (lA) which she has held for 13 

years. She has been an FAA Airworthiness Inspector for four-and-a-half years. (24 Tr. 10-14) 

Inspector Boler testified that an aircraft is "airworthy" only when it conforms to its type 

design or its properly altered condition and it must also be safe for fight. (61 Tr. 11-13; 125 Tr. 

11-14) Respondent's Expert Witness also testified to this definition. (262 Tr. 10-18) This airworthiness test stems from the above statute and regulations, as well as the following case law. 

"The airworthiness standard is clear: 'To be airworthy, an aircraft must; (1) conform to a type 

design approved under a type certificate or supplemental type certificate and to applicable Airworthiness Directives; and (2) be in a condition for safe operation.'" Del. Skyways LLC, FAA 

Order No. 2005-6 at 2 (March 8, 2005) and Cal. Heliiech, FAA Order No, 2000-18 at 2 n. 7 

(August 11, 2000). Likewise, when an aircraft has unresolved discrepancies, it is not airworthy. 

Inlhe Mailer oj General Aviaiioth FAA OrdQv No. 1998-18 at 13 (October 9. 1998). See also, 

Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc., FAA Order No. 97-30 (October 8, 1997), p. 17. This is, and has 

been for many years, the well-established criterion for airworthiness. See also In ihe Mailer of 

America IVesi Airlines, FAA Order No. 96-3 (Feb. 13.1996) at 8,29 n. 26 and 27 (affirming ALJ's 

finding that while a minor repair may have no safety implications, the aircraft is unairworthy if. as 

a result of the repair, the aircraft no longer conforms to its type design); in ihe Mailer of USAir, 

FAA Order No. 96-25 (August 12, 1996) at 11. See also Adminisiraior v. Copsey, NTSB Order 

EA-3448 at 5 (1991) (test for airworthiness is not "fiyabiiity"; the aircraft must be in conformance 

with its type certificate arid in condition for safe fiight). 

Oklahoma Skydiving Cenier 

l-AA OOCKLT NO.'CPIOSWOOIO 

DMS No I-AA.20IO-I2J5 
In the appeal of In ihe Mailer of America Wesl Airlines, FAA Order No. 96-3, 13 (Feb. 13, 

1996), the Administrator found an aircraft unairworthy where speed tape (as opposed to an approved sealant or a "fiush plug patch") was used lo make repairs, not in accordance with the 

Structural Repair Manual (SRM). The Administrator found that even where the Complainant did 

not introduce as evidence the actual type certificate, it was clear that speed tape was not in conformance with the aircraft's type certificate as it was not a part of the original, approved condition 

of the aircraft or an approved repair. Id. The Administrator stated: 

"Although Complainant did not introduce the type designs, there was ample evidence, nonetheless, that the aircraft, with this damage and these temporary 'repairs' 

were no longer in conformance with their type designs. Inspectors Sebring and 

Kensche testified that the aircraft were no longer in their original or properly altered conditions, (citation omitted). . . . Also, Mr. Bororwski testified, in effect, 

that the speed tape was not included in the type designs of the aircraft, (citation 

omitted) .... |T]he aircraft, with the delamination or hole and with speed tape repairs, no longer conformed to their original type designs." Id. at 13. 

In America Wesl Airlines, the ALJ had found that while a minor, temporary repair using 

speed tape may not have had extreme safety implications, it still makes the aircraft unairworthy if, 

as a result of the repair the aircraft no longer conforms to its type design. Id. at 8. The Administrator affirmed the ALJ's finding of operation of an unairworthy aircraft because the aircraft, with 

speed tape temporarily covering certain discrepancies, did not meet the two-prong airworthiness 

test of conforming to a type certificate and being in a condition safe for fiight. Id. at 13. 

Although before the National Transportation Safely Board (NTSB) and not the Depanment 

of Transportation. Adminisiraior v. Fosler, 2004 WL 1795341 (June 29, 2004), appeal dismissed, 

NTSB Order No. EA-5112 (2004), is a comparable and persuasive case to the one at hand. In 

Fosier, a modification was made to an aircraft's fuel cap. Fosier, 2004 WL 1795341 at 1. The 

Oklahoma Skydiving Ccnier 

KAA DOCKIIT NO CP10SW0020 

DMS No [••AA-20I0-I2i5 
Administrative Law Judge found that such a fuel cap "modification is outside the type design for 

this aircraft. It was done by someone who is not an A&P mechanic, so as a matter of law, it is 

unairworthy. The modification as a matter of law is unairworthy. It does not meet its type design 

certificate - the fuel cap. It has been changed, and unless it has been changed and approved and 

accepted, it is unairworthy." Id. at 2. Therefore, the Judge found a violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a) 

when the aircraft in Fosier was operated with a modification to the fuel cap that was not part of the 

type certificate. Id. at 3. 

I. N4682F was unairworthy while duct tape was placed over its broken 

left window and operation in this condition violates 14 C.F.K. 91.7(a). 

On July 11. 2009, Respondent Oklahoma Skydiving operated N4682F in an unairworthy 

condition on at least one (1) passenger carrying fiight, in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a). Section 

91.7(a) provides that no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition. 

In this case, N4682F was not airworthy because it failed to meet both prongs of the definition of 

airworthiness: (1) it did not conform to its type certificate and, (2) it was not in a condition safe for 

fiight. Del. Skyways LLC, FAA Order No. 2005-6 at 2 (March 8, 2005) and Cal. Helilech, FAA 

Order No, 2000-18 at 2.n. 7 (August 11, 2000)). This discrepancy was listed on the Condition 

Notice. (Exh. A-l, A-3, & 8) 

Like the aircraft in In ihe Mailer of America Wesl Airlines and Adminisiraior v. Fosier, 

N4682F was not airworthy when someone modified the broken window by using duct tape to 

cover the breaks rather than removing and replacing the window. With the broken side window 

Okliihoma Skydiving CeniL-i 

l-AA DOCKTiT NO.'CPIOSWOOIO 

DMS No. FAA-2010-1215 
alone, with or without duct tape over it, N4682F first did not conform to its type certificate and, 

second, was not in a condition safe for fiight. 

a. N4682F was unairworthy because it did not conform to its t>'pe certificate. 

First, N4682F was unairworthy because the aircraft did not conform with its type certificate. A broken window covered with duct tape is not in contbrmance with the aircraft's type certificate, as it was not a part of the original, approved condition of the aircraft or an approved repair. 

As explained by Inspector Boler, it does not meet the aircraft type design to operate with a cracked 

window. Furthermore, duct tape is not an approved method of repair for windows. (52 Tr. 6-9) 

(Exh. A-6) 

Inspector Boler testified that she inspected the window and she determined that it was 

cracked vertically completely and there was also a crack that extended horizontally from that crack 

aft on the window. And those cracks were covered with duct tape. (51 Tr. 18-22; 52, 1) (Exh. 

A-6.) Inspector Terry likewise testified that the window was broken in half and had duct tape on it. 

(157Tr. 13-19) (Exh. A-9) There was no testimony to the contrary. Inspector Boler testified that 

the window of the aircraft was not serviceable on the date of the ramp inspection and it did not 

conform to the type design of the airplane. (53 Tr. 3-9; 61 Tr. 3-5; 109Tr. 12-16; 112 Tr. 2-4) 

When questioned by Respondent's counsel, Inspector Boler testified that duct taping the window 

on both sides would not make it comply with its type design. (135 Tr. 20-22; 136Tr. 1-4) 

When asked on direct examination if he had seen duct tape used on aircraft to make repairs 

such as this (window). Respondent's Expert Witness responded, "Not such as this. No, sir. I have 

not.'" (252 Tr. 14-17; again at 273 Tr. 21-22) 

Oklahoma Skydiving Ccnier 

FAAD0CK1;TN 0 C1'I0SWOU20 

DMS No. FAA-2010-1215 
Following the ramp inspection, Inspector Boler, reviewed the type certificate data sheet for 

the Cessna 206, (120 Tr. 2-3) and determined that a cracked window is not the original condition 

of the aircraft. (145 Tr. 7-10) See similar comparison in In ihe Mailer of America West Airlines: 

(witness testified that if aircraft came out of factory with speed tape covering discrepancies, then it would have conformed to its type design). The type design, 

which is part of the type certificate, is developed by aeronautical engineers and 

each component is designed for its specific purpose. The be "airworthy," ihe aircraft must conform to this type design and type certificate. 

In ihe Mailer of America Wesl Airlines, FAA Order No. 96-3, 13 n. 30. With a broken 

window, with or without the duct tape, N4682F did not meet its type certificate and, therefore, was 

not airworthy. When an aircraft has unresolved discrepancies, it is not airworthy. In ihe Mailer of 

General Aviaiion, FAA Order No. 1998-18at 13(October9, 1998). On July 11, 2009. N4682F 

was not in an airworthy condition when it did not conform lo its type certificate because it had a 

broken window with duct tape on it. 

b. N4682F was also unaimorthy because it was not in a condition safe for flight. 

Not meeting its type certificate, alone, made N4682F unairworthy. (52 Tr. 6-9; 120 Tr. 

2-3) However, in addition to not meeting its type certificate, the aircraft also failed the airworthiness lest because it was not in a condition safe for fiight. The safety of N4682F was compromised when its broken passenger window was covered with duct tape rather than removed and 

replaced. 

The potential safety hazard of the window pieces being cracked and departing the aircraft 

created a significant risk for impact with the horizontal stabilizer, the vertical stabilizer, or the 

Oklahoma Skydiving Ccnici 

FAA DOCKi:-!- NO 'ciM0SW0O2O 

DMS No. FAA-2010-1215 
10 

rudder during night. Impact could cause loss of control of the fiight. (52 Tr. 9-17) Any matters 

affecting the safety of fiight are matters affecting airworthiness. 

As Inspector Terry explained, I wouldn't fiy an aircraft with a broken window in it. You 

know, there are a couple things come to mind. How strong is the duct tape? Is it going to hold? Is 

the window going to hold? I've had a door open on an airplane in fiight and it makes an awful lot 

of noise. The next pan is, is part of that window going to fiy back and hit a control surface. You 

know, could the aircraft become uncontrollable. (161 Tr. 6-15) 

Respondent's Expert Witness would not rebut ihe Inspector's testimony regarding safety. 

When asked on direct, ". . . in your opinion do anyone of these items render this aircraft unsafe for 

fiight or an imminent hazard to safety as indicated on the Condition Notice," Respondent's Expert 

stated, "In my opinion I have not looked at the maintenance manual to determine the limits of 

cracks on a window, holes or protruding — or protrusions from a fiap. I don't have enough data to 

go on right now." (254 Tr. 21-22; 255 Tr. 1-15) In fact. Respondent's Expert agreed that these 

discrepancies needed to be repaired. (255 Tr. 3-5) 

Respondents' President, Mr. Reeves, offered no testimony as to how long the window had 

been broken, or who applied the duel tape. There were unsubstantiated references to "other mechanics" who may have signed off inspections, including a "Mr. Conklin;" however, these individuals were not called to testify, nor was there any evidence introduced to support Respondent's 

claim. "Who'' actually covered the broken window with duct tape is not clear but, regardless, 

operating the aircraft with a broken window and attempting to use duct tape to hold it presents 

potential safety issues rendering the aircraft unairworthy. N4682F was not in a condition safe for 

flight and, therefore, it did not meet the two pronged airworthiness lest. 

Oklahoma Skydiving Ccnler 

FAA DOCKb"r NO. CP10SW0020 

DMS No FAA-2010-I21S 
11 

Respondent endangered life and property to an unacceptable degree. Its actions risked 

window pieces departing the aircraft and impacting the horizontal stabilizer, the vertical stabilizer, 

or the rudder during fiight which could cause loss of control of the fiight. 

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

The agency is required only lo prove cither thai Respondent violated the first prong or thai 

it violated the second. Rushmore Helicopiers. Inc., FAA Order No. 2010-0023 (October 3, 2011). 

Respondent's aircraft failed to meet either prong of the two-pronged definition of airworthiness 

when it was operated with duct tape covering its broken window on July 11, 2009. and any fiights 

thereafter until the window was replaced. A discrepancy unaddressed renders and aircraft unairworthy. In re General AviaiionA'^AA Order No. 1998-18 (October 9, 1998). The aircraft did 

not meet the ainA'orthiness standard required by 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a). Each fiight Respondent operated on July 11, 2009, and thereafter until it was replaced on July 17, 2009, was a separate violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a), although only one fiight is listed in the Complaint. 

N4682F was operated on July 11, 2009, while carry two passengers, when the left-hand 

passenger window was cracked and duct taped. (Exh. A-6) In this condition, N4682F did not 

conform to its type certificate or was not in a condition safe for fiight. Oklahoma Skydiving operated this aircraft in an unairworthy condition on July 11, 2009, in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 

91.7fa).'' 

" Del. Skywiys. FAA Order No. 2005-6: Cal. Helilech, KAA Order No, 2000-1 8; Einer}', i'AA Order No. 97-30: 

General .'tviaiian. FAA Order No. 1998-18: U.S.'\if\ FAA Order No. 96-25; .America H'e.u. FAA Order No. 96-3. 

Oklahoma Skydiving Cfnier 

FAADOCKKTNO CP10SW0020 

DMS No. FAA-2010-1215 
12 

2. N4682F was unairworthy while incorrect scat stops were installed in the 

pilot scat and operation in this condition violates 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a). 

Like the aircraft in America Wesi Airlines and Adminisiraior v. Fosier, N4682F was nol 

airworthy when Respondent had installed bolts and nuts in the seat tracks for the pilot's seat in 

N4682F rather than the type certificated seat stops. Without the type certificaied seat slops installed N4682F did not conform lo its type certificate and was not in a condition safe for fiight. 

Del. Sky\vays LLC, FAA Order No. 2005-6; Cal. Helilech, FAA Order No. 2000-18. This discrepancy was listed on the Condition Notice. (Exh. A-l & 8) 

a. N4682F was unairworthy because it did not conform to its type certificate. 

First, N4682F was unairworthy because the aircraft did not confonn with its type certificate. As explained by Inspector Boler, it does nol meet the aircraft type design to operate without 

the proper seat stops installed. The seat stops that were installed did not conform to the aircraft 

type design. (60 Tr. 1-2; 78-80 Tr. lines 22-1) 

Inspector Boler testified that during her inspection, she noticed that there were bolts and 

nuts installed in the pilot seat rails. (31 Tr. 2-4) (Exhs. A-3. R-I,and R-J) Inspector Boler testified 

under cross examination that the nut on one of the bolts was loose. (88 Tr. 7-9) Inspector Boler 

identified the proper seat slops by as shown on the Cessna parts list, (122 Tr. 1-21), as well as the 

type certificate for the aircraft, (133 Tr. 9-22; 134 Tr. 1-3), and the Cessna Illustrated Parts 

Breakdown (IPB) for the pilot seat. (Exh. R-K) (52 Tr. 1) Inspector Terry likewise testified that 

the aircraft did not have the Cessna seal slops installed. (158 Tr. 14-18) (Exh. A-9) There was no 

testimony to the contrary. Respondent's Expert identified the proper Cessna seat slops on ihe 

Cessna IPB and that he had seen them before. (242 Tr. 7-15) Nuts and bolls are nol called for in 

Oklahoma Skvdiving CL'nicr 

I'AA D0CKJ;T N O 'CPI0SW0020 

DMS No FAA-2010-1215 
13 

the Cessna IPB. (Exhs. R-I, and R-J) Respondenrs Expert could not state that bolts and nuts 

conformed lo the original type certificate. (243 Tr. 22; 244 Tr. 1-4) 

Respondent's Expert fuUy endorses the Administrator's position ihat the nuts and bolts do 

not meet the type design. He was asked, "And can an A&P mechanic on their own install parts that 

are not approved by the manufacturer?" His answer was unequivocal: "'That are not approved? 

Absolutely nol." (263 Tr. 22; 264 Tr. 1) See similar comparison in America Wesl: 

(witness testified that if aircraft came out of factory with speed tape covering discrepancies, then it would have conformed to its type design). The type design, 

which is part of the type certificate, is developed by aeronautical engineers and 

each component is designed for its specific purpose. The be "airworthy," the aircraft must conform to this type design and type certificate. 

America Wesl Airlines, FAA Order No. 96-3, 13 n. 30. Without the proper seal slops installed, N4682F did not meet its type certificate and, therefore, was not airworthy. 5"^^ Foster. 

Equipment thai is nol part ofa design that is approved under a type or supplemental type 

certificate and is not otherwise accounted for in appropriate records constitutes a discrepancy. 

While a minor repair may have no safely implications, the aircraft is unairworthy if, as a result of 

the repair, the aircraft no longer conforms lo its type design); In the Matter of USAir, FAA Order 

No. 96-25 at 11. 

The FAA inspectors were entitled to assume that the bolts and nuts were not lawful 

equipment and, thus, amounted lo a discrepancy. A discrepancy unaddressed renders an aircraft 

unairworthy. In the Mailer of General Aviation, FAA Order No. 1998-18. On July 11,2009. 

N4682F was not in an airworthy condition when it did not conform to its type certificate because it 

did not have the proper seal stops installed. 

Oklahoma Skydiving Center 

FAA DOCkirr NO. a'10SW002U 

DMS No. FAA-2010-1215 
14 

b. N4682F was also unairworthy because it was not in a condition safe for flight. 

Not meeting its type certificate, alone, made N4682F unairworthy. (60 Tr. 1-2; 78-80 Tr. 

22 -1) However, in addition to nol meeting its type certificate, the aircraft also failed the airworthiness test because ii was not in a condition safe for fiighl. The safely of N4682F was compromised by not having the proper seal slops installed. 

There is a definite potential, if nol actual, safely hazard resulting from installing seat slops 

that do not conform to the aircraft's type design. When asked, "Why do we care if the seats in a 

Cessna have the right stops in them or nol," Inspector Boler stated, "There have been numerous 

accidents which have resulted from incorrect seal stops being installed. And it creates a significant 

safely risk for the pilot." (47 Tr. 3-9; also, 88 Tr. 13-18) 

Inspector Terry is an FAA Operations Inspector vvith an Airline Transport certificate and 

over 5,000 hours fiighl lime. He is also a certified fiight instructor with instrument and mulliengine ratings, and a Sabreliner type rating. He was the Chief Instructor of a part 141 fiight 

school as well as chief pilot ofa large part 91 fiying club. Inspector Terry testified directly to the 

imminent safety hazard involving improper seat stops in Cessna aircraft. He stated that, "Cessna 

aircraft have been known for seats sliding backwards at rotation because the pins that actually go 

into the holes in the rails will become woni down. Cessna's fix for thai was to create seat slops lo 

keep the seat from sliding all the way backwards at a critical lime of fiight such as at rotation. 

Because 1 believe there have been a few accidents with - when thai did happen there. And with 

the seat sliding all the \vay backwards at rotation the yoke goes with the pilot and the airplane goes 

straight up and could lead into a stall spin situation could lead to an accident." (160 Tr. 4-17) 

Oklahonui Skydiving Ccnicr 

FAA DOCKhr NO. (::i'10SVV0020 

DMS No. FAA-2010-1215 
15 

Respondent's expert witness agreed and also admitted that improperly installed seal slops 

are dangerous. (243 Tr. 9) In fact, Inspector Boler testified thai the photographs from this inspection were used as part ofa national safety alert for operators to ensure that proper seal stops are 

installed prior to fiighl for safe operations because improper seal slops present a significant safely 

hazard. (130 Tr. 15-22; 131 Tr. 1-10) (Exhs. R-I, and R-J) 

Regardless who actually installed the improper seat slops in N4682F, or for how long, or 

for how many fiights, or how many times the aircraft had passed an inspection, operating the aircraft with improper seat stops presents a potential, if not an actual, safeiy'issue rendering the aircraft unairworthy. There are no maintenance log entries showing that the proper Cessna seal stops 

were installed on July 11, 2009. (Exh. A-10) N4682F was nol in a condition safe for fiight and, 

therefore, it did not meet the two-pronged airworthiness lest. 

Respondent endangered life and properly to an unacceptable degree. Us actions risked the 

pilot's seat sliding backwards at rotation, with the pilot still pulling on the yoke causing a stall spin 

situation leading lo an accident. 

PRQPOSEt) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

The agency is required only to prove either that Respondent violated the first prong or that 

it violated the second. Rushmore Helicopters. Inc., FAA Order No. 2010-0023 (October 3, 2011). 

Respondent's aircraft failed to meet both prongs of the two-pronged definition of airworthiness 

when it was operated with improper seal slops installed on July 11. 2009, and any fiights thereafter 

until they were was replaced. (Exh. A-10, II & 12) {212 Tr. 4-6) A discrepancy unaddressed 

renders and aircraft unairworthy. In re General Aviation, FAA Order No. 1998-18 (October 9. 

Oklahoma Skydiving Center 

l-AA DOCKET NO. CP10SW0020 

DMS No. l-AA-2010-1215 
16 

1998). The aircraft did not meet the airworthiness standard required by 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a). Each 

fiight Respondent operated on July 11, 2009, and thereafter until the correct seat stops were installed on July 24, 2009, (Exh. A-l 2) was a separate violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a), although only 

one flight is listed in the Complaint. 

N4682F was operated on July 11, 2009, while carty two passengers, when the proper 

Cessna seal slops were not installed. In this condition, N4682F did nol conform to its type certificate or was not in a condition safe for fiight. Oklahoma Skydiving operated this aircraft in an 

unairworthy condition on July 11, 2009, in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a).^ 

3. N4682F was unairworthy while it had a screw protruding through the 

lower skin of the left flap, and operation in this condition violates 14 

C.F.R. § 91.7(a). 

Like the aircraft in In ihe Matter of America West Airlines and Administrator v. Fosier, 

N4682F was not airworthy when the lower skin of the left fiap on N4682F had a screw protruding 

through it. In this condition, N4682F did not conform to its type certificate and was not in a 

condition safe for fiighl. Del. Skyways LLC. FAA Order No. 2005-6 at 2 (March 8, 2005) and Cal. 

Helilech. FAA Order No, 2000-18 at 2 n. 7 (August 11, 2000)). This discrepancy was listed on the 

Condition Notice. (Exh. A-1 & 8) 

^ Dei. Skyways, FAA Order No. 2005-6; Cal. Heiltech, FAA Order No, 2000-18; Emery, FAA Order No. 97-30; General 

Aviation, FAA Order No. 1998-18; USAir, FAA Order No. 96-25; America Wesl FAA Order No. 96-3. 

Oklahnmu Skydiving Ccnler 

FAA DOCKET NO Cf'll)SW0020 

. DMS No. FAA-2010-1215 
17 

a. N4682F was unainvurthy because it did not conform to its t^pe certiFicatc. 

Firsi. N4682F was unairworthy because the aircraft did not confonn with its type certificate. Insptclor Boler testified that the left fiap on the aircraft had a piece of hardware - appeared 

lo be a screw of some sort --protruding through the lower skin of the fiap. (33 Tr. 3-7) (Ex. A-5) 

Inspector Boler explained that the aircraft does not meet the aircraft type design to operate with 

screws protruding through the fiap skinof the aircraft. (53 Tr.I3-17) 

Inspector Terry testified that he has fiown "a lot" of Cessna aircraft. When he was asked 

about a screw puncturing one of the flaps he staled, "I don't believe that's something that Cessna 

would let an airplane leave the factory with." (162 Tr. 12-14) Inspector Boler identified the 

problem and listed it on the Condition Notice. It did nol comply with its lype design, (57 Tr. 6-10; 

61 Tr. 6-8), which she reviewed. (120 Tr. lines 2-3) 

Respondent's Expert witness declined to stale thai ihe aircraft, with the screw protruding 

through the flap skin, would be in conformity with its type design. (249 Tr. 15-21) He agreed, on 

cross examination, that with Inspector Boler's experience and on-site inspection, she would be 

able to make the determination regarding the situation that existed on July 11, 2009. (270 Tr. 9-18) 

In fact, Respondent's expert has never reviewed the Cessna 206 maintenance manual. (270 Tr. 

21-1];271 Tr. 1-2; 275 Tr. 8-10) As m In the Matter of America Wesl Airlines, FAA Order No. 

96-3, 13 n. 30, Inspector Boler testified ihat the aircraft comes from the factory without that hole, 

without a screw protruding through the fiap. (Tr. 144. lines 5-7) 

To be "airworthy," the aircraft must conform to this type design. With a screw protruding 

through the left fiap skin, N4682F did not meet its type design and; therefore, was not airworthy. 

Oklahoma Skvdiving Ceiilfr 

TAA DOCKKT NO 'CI'10SW0020 

DMS No. KAA-2010-1215 
18 

On July ] 1, 2009, N4682F was not in an airworthy condition with a screw protruding through the 

left fiap skin. 

b. N4682F was also unairworthy because it was not in a condition safe for flight. 

Not meeting its type certificate alone made N4682F unairworthy. (53 Tr. 13-17; 120 Tr. 

2-3) However, in addition to nol meeting its type certificate, the aircraft also failed the airworthiness test because it was not in a condition safe for flight. The safety of N4682F was compromised with a screw protruding through the left fiap skin. 

Inspector Boler testified that the safety issue with the fiap with the screw protruding from 

the lower skin would be possible jamming of the fiap, leading to asymmetrical flap, which she 

slated could lead to a significant controllability problem. (53 Tr. 18-22; 54 Tr. 1-8) 

Inspector Terry, from an operations perspective, agreed. He slated he found that "odd," 

and wondered, "are there more floating around inside the airplane." (157 Tr. 22; 158 Tr. 1 -5) He 

expressed concern that a screw should nol be there and was concerned where did the screw come 

from. He was concerned that something could get bound into a control wire or into a bell crank. 

(161 Tr. 20-22; 162 Tr. 1-8) 

As Inspector Terry explained, the a screw protruding through the fiap skin near the fiap 

track and unknown condition therein, it created a potential safety concern regarding fiap asymmetry. As he testified, with a loose screw in a flap track, it could cause the flaps lo malfunction. 

Inspector Terry testified that, ''it could possibly lead into a very dangerous situation when the 

airspeed comes down . . . you could approach the stall speed, the aircraft uncontrolled." He concluded that, "an accident and personal injury could result." (163 Tr. 3-19) Ihe screw's location 

Oklahoma Skydiving Center 

l-AA DOCKET NO CP10SW0020 

DM.SNo FAA-2()I0-J2I5 
19 

was confirmed by Respondent's expert who testified that the flap track was above the screw proiRiding through the flap skin. (269 Tr. 17-19) Inspector Terry unequivocally staled that he would 

nol fly thai airport (airplane). (169Tr. 15-16) There was no evidence produced by Respondent to 

rebut the Agency's allegation. N4682F was unairworthy because it was not in a condition safe for 

flight. 

Respondent endangered life and property to an unacceptable degree. Jls actions risked the 

fiap jamming and a resulting fiap asymmetry issue, which, at low speed, could be very dangerous 

including stalling the aircraft leading lo an accident. 

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

The agency is required only to prove either that Respondent violated the first prong or that 

it violated the second. Rushmore Helicopiers. Inc.. FAA Order No. 2010-0023 (October 3, 2011). 

Respondent's aircraft failed lo meet either prong of the two pronged definition of airworthiness 

when it was operated with a screw protruding through the left fiap skin on July 11, 2009, and any 

flights thereafter until the fiap was repaired. A discrepancy unaddressed renders and aircraft unairworthy. In re General Aviation, FAA Order No. 1998-18. The aircraft did nol meet the airworthiness standard required by 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a). Each flight Respondent operated on July 11, 

2009, was a separate violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a). although only one fiight is listed in the 

Complaint. 

N4682F was operated on July 11, 2009, while carr>' two passengers, when the left-hand 

fiap had a hole (screw protruding through it). (Exh. A-5) In this condition, N4682F did not conform to its type certificate or was nol in a condition safe for fiighl. Oklahoma Skydiving operated 

Oklahoniii Skydiving Center 

i"AA DOCKET NO CP10SW0020 

DMSNo. FAA-20I0-I2l.'i 
20 

this aircraft in an unairworthy condition on July 11, 2009, in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a).^ 

4. N4682F was unainvortby whiJc it had cracks in the lower skin of the 

right flap, and operation in this condition violates 14 C.F.R. § 9L7(a). 

Like the aircraft in In the Mailer of America West Airlines and Administrator v. Foster, 

N4682F was not airworthy when the right flap on N4682F had cracks in it. In this condition, 

N4682F did not confonn to its type certificate and was not in a condition safe for flight. Del. 

Skyways LLC, FAA Order No. 2005-6 at 2 (March 8. 2005) and Cal. Helilech, FAA Order No. 

2000-18 at 2 n. 7 (August 11, 2000). 

a. N4682F was unairworthy because it did not conform to its t>'pc certificate. 

Inspector Boler testified thai the right fiap was cracked. (37 Tr. 3-4) She photographed it. (Ex. A-7) This discrepancy was listed on the Condition Notice. (Exhs. A-l & 8) As 

explained by Inspector Boler. it does nol meet the aircraft type design to operate with cracks in the 

fiap. (53 fr. 10-12: 61 Tr. 6-8) Inspector Boler, reviewed the lype certificate data sheet for the 

Cessna 206. (120Tr. 2-3) On cross examination, Inspector Terry agreed with Inspector Boler that 

the aircraft was unairworthy and should nol have been flown under any circumstances. (177 Tr. 

3-7) When asked on direct examination if there was a "stop hole" drilled between the cracks in the 

right fiap. Respondent's Expert testified that he could not tell. (256 Tr. 6-8) 

When an aircraft has unresolved discrepancies, it is not airworthy. In the Matter of General Aviation, FAA Order No. 1998-18at 13(October9, 1998). See similar comparison in In the 

^•Del. Skyways, FAA Order No. 2005-6; Cal. Helitech, FAA Order No, 2000-18; Emery, FAA Order No. 97-30; General 

Aviation, FAA Order No. 1998-18; USAir, FAA Order No. 96-25; America West, FAA Order No. 96-3. . 

fJklahomaSkvdivine Center 

FAA DIXKFT NO CPlOSWOtOi) 

DMS No FAA-2010-1215 
21 

Matter of America West Airlines, FAA Order No. 96-3, 13 n. 30 (witness testified that if aircraft 

came out of factory with speed tape covering discrepancies, then it would have conformed lo its 

lype design). The lype design, which is part of the type certificate, is developed by aeronautical 

engineers and each component is designed for its specific purpose. To be "airworthy," the aircraft 

must conform to this lype design and type certificate. With cracks in the right flap, N4682F did nol 

meet its type certificate and, therefore, was not airworthy. On July 11, 2009, N4682F was not in an 

airworthy condition when it did nol conform to its type certificate because it had cracks in the right 

flap. 

b. N4682F was also unainvorthy because it was not in a condition safe for flight. 

Not meeting its type certificate, alone, made N4682F unairworthy. (53 Tr. 10-12; 120 Tr. 

2-3) However, in addition to nol meeting its type certificate, the aircraft also failed the airworthiness test because it was not in a condition safe for flight. Inspector Boler stated that the 

safely concerns with the flap is possible internal damage, which would be unknown without an 

inspection. (53 Tr. 21-22; 54 Tr. 1-3) 

Inspector Tcrty, on cross-examination testified that seeing the cracks in Ihe right fiap he 

would not fiy the aircraft under any circumstances, and that it was an imminent hazard to safety, 

(174 Tr. 16 through 177 1 r. 7), and that Mr. Reeves' operation of the aircraft in that condition was 

a substantial disregard for safety. (189 Tr. 3) 

On direct, Respondent's Expert declined lo expressly declare that the cracks in the right 

flap were not an imminent hazard lo safe flight. Instead, he hesitated, staling that, "But once 

OkljihoiiiJi Skvdiving Ccnicr 

l-AA DOCKl^l NO.'Cl'10SWU020 

DMS Nil FAA-20lf)-12l5 
22 

again, there's a maintenance manual that tells me what the tolerances are, a structural manual I can 

look at, measure the crack and determine whether or nol it is good or bad."' (255 Tr. 6-15) 

Respondent endangered life and property to an unacceptable degree, fts actions risked the 

safety of the pilot and passengers by exposing them lo possible failure of the fiap due to hidden 

internal damage. As with any fiap problem, asymmetrical lift issues are always a safely concern 

and an imminent safety hazard. 

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

The agency is required only to prove either that Respondent violated the first prong or that 

it violated the second. Rushmore Helicopiers, Inc., FAA Order No. 2010-0023 (October 3, 2011). 

Respondent's aircraft failed to meet either prong of the two-pronged definition of airworthiness 

when it was operated with cracks in the right fiap on July 11, 2009, and any fiights thereafter until 

the cracks were replaced. A discrepancy unaddressed renders and aircraft unairworthy. In re 

General Aviation, FAA Order No. 1998-18 (October 9, 1998). The aircraft did not meet the 

airworthiness standard required by 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a). llach flight Respondent operated on July 

11, 2009, and thereafter until July 17, 2009, when it was repaired, was a separate violation of 14. 

C.F.R. § 91.7(a), although only one fiight is listed in the Complaint. 

N4682F was operated on July 11, 2009, while carry two passengers, when the right-hand 

fiap was cracked. In this condition, N4682F did not conform to its type certificate or was not in a 

condition safe for flight. Oklahoma Skydiving operated this aircraft in an unairworthy condition 

Oklnhnma Skydiving Center 

TAA DOCKIIT NO CPI0S\V0O20 

DMS No FA,\-20}0-}2l5 
23 

on July 11, 2009, in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a).^ 

IV. Section 91.405(a) was violated when, as the operator of N4682F, Oklahoma Skvdiving 

Center did not have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E, and did not bet^vecn 

required inspections .. . have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter 

Inspector Koui, followed up ihe July 9, 2009, ramp inspection with a return visit the following January 10. Inspector K.oijt has an A&P certificate and an lA. He has been an Airworthiness Inspector with the FAA for 13 years. Respondent's maintenance records failed to show 

that any of these discrepancies had been addressed prior to July 17, 2009, six (6) days after the 

ramp inspection. (214 Tr. 4-9) The aircraft had also accumulated 19.7 hours of flight time. The 

aircraft's logbook showed that three (3) of the discrepancies listed on the above referenced condition notice, including replacing the cracked window, slop [drilling] cracks in the right lower flap 

skin, and installing reinforcement plates on the cracked right fiap skin, and left fiap, (210 Tr. 22; 

211 Tr. 1-18) were signed for as being repaired by a certificaied mechanic, Gay lord A. Syrslad, 

A&P3024178. on July 17, 2009, at aircraft tachometer lime of 8,364.0 hours. (Exhs. A-10, A-l 1, 

and A-12) According to Mr. Reeves, 35 fiights took place with the aircraft in the inter\'ening 

period, carrying 100 people. It was nol until laier, July 24, 2009, that the maintenance records 

indicate that new Cessna seat slops were installed on the pilot seat rails. (Fxh. A-12) 

Respondent's owner. Reeves, does not dispute nor contradict Inspector Koul's testimony or 

the inferences drawn from Agency exhibits A-l 1, 12 & 13. Reeves admits that the discrepancies 

had been brought to his attention at the July 11 inspection, (287 Tr. 3-20) (Exh. A-l), and that he 

' Del. Skyways, FAA Order No. 2005-6; Cal. Helitech. FAA Order No, 2000-18; Emery, FAA Order No. 97-30; General 

Aviation. FAA Order No. 1998-18; USAir. FAA Order No. 96-25; America West, FAA Order No. 96-3. 

Oklahoma Skydiving Cenicr 

rAADOCKF.TNO CP10SW0020 

DMS No. l-AA-2010-1215 
24 

had personally received a Condition Notice listing the discrepancies. (297 Tr. 9-15) (Exhs. A-3 & 

9) He admitted that Oklahoma Skydiving had taken no action in response lo the cracked flap, 

punctured fiap, or broken window before operating. (298 Tr. 7-12) 

Oklahoma Skydiving' Reeves asserted in his defense, that he was "on the phone" with his 

mechanic and his mechanic purportedly told him that the seat stops were "nol factory seat stops so 

you need to change those. He testified, ". . . the other -discrepancies and he asked me about the 

cracks on the rivets he said, those can wait till Monday but change the seat stops today."' (296-297 

Tr.) His testimony does not indicate that he asked his mechanic about the broken and duct taped 

window, nor does it describe how he would have described Ihe discrepancies lo at\ A&P mechanic 

. in sufficient detail for that person to make an inspection in accordance with 14 C.F.R. part 43 

requirements. 

Il appears from his line of testimony that Respondent's Reeves is claiming some sort of 

detrimeniaJ reliance defense ~ that he relied on-his mechanic to advise him whether or not lo operate the aircraft. The Rules of Practice obligate a Respondent to "specifically state any affinnalive defense that the respondent intends lo assert at the hearing," in the Answer. 14 C.F.R. § 

13.209(d). The Answer filed by Respondent (Exh. A-l) fails to state any affirmative defenses. 

Furthermore, the burden of proof is on the Respondent to prove any affirmative defenses. Here, 

we only have the testimony of Mr. Reeves. Despite the 2 1/2-years that have elapsed between the 

date ot the ramp inspection and the hearing, the person with whom Mr. Reeves allegedly spoke 

with was not called lo testify. There is no statement from him or her. In fact, we have only Mr. 

Reeves' testimony that he, in-fact, was speaking to anyone on the phone, let alone a mechanic, or 

any particular mechanic, that day. 

Oklahoma Skydiving Center 

l-AA DOCKET NO. CP10S\VOU20 

DMS No FAA-2010-1215 
25 

With regard lo the seal slops, the only evidence that they were replaced is in the aircraft 

logbook, dated July 24, 2009, during the 100-hour required inspection. (Exh. A-12) Inspector 

Kout did not find any evidence that they had been replaced earlier. (214 Tr. 4-9) The inspector 

testified that the FAA relies on the records provided by an operator to show compliance and that 

the FAA relies on them. (214Tr. 10-22;215Tr. 1-10) He testified that maintenance^ must be 

wTJtlen down.^ (Tr. 216, lines 2-3) Inspector Kout did not see any evidence in the aircraft log of 

N4682F as to who installed any seat slops, on what day, or how, prior to the 100-hour inspection 

onJuly 24, 2012. (215 Tr. 11-22) 

The language of Ihe Federal Aviation Regulations indicates that the failure lo maintain records 

constitutes a violation, and an aircraft operator's failure to maintain such records is not a trivial 

matter. Wcuis Agr. Aviation. Inc. v. Busey, 977 F.2d 594 (9'^ Cir. 1992). "A policy of leniency 

toward recordkeeping inevitably encourages carelessness in the timely performance of required 

maintenance, to the derogation of safety....'" Administrator v. Newman, 1 NTSB 2008, 2010 

(1972), pet. for review denied, 494 F.2d 1219 (2d Cir. 1974). 

In an enforcement proceeding such as this one, the FAA may sustain its burden of proving 

that required maintenance has nol been completed by relying on the absence of the requisite entries 

in the aircraft's maintenance record. See Delaware Sky^vays. LLC, FAA Order No. 2005-6 (March 

18, 2005); California Helitech, FAA Order No. 2000-18 at 3 n.7 (August 11, 2000). As such, the 

8 

Maintenance is defined in part 43 lo mean "the inspeciion, overhaul, repair, upkeep, and preservation ofairframes. 

powerplanls, propellers and appliances, including the replacement of parts." 

Part 43. which His Honor look judicial notice of. states that each person who maintains, pertbmis preventive 

maintenance, rebuilds, or alters an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part shall 

make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information; 

(1) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of work performed. 

(2) The dale of completion of the work performed. 

(3) The name of the person performing the work . . .. 

Oklahoma Skydiving Ccnlt-i 

FAA D0CK!: T NO. CI'10SW0020 

DMS No KAA-2010-1215 
26 

F AA is entitled to rely only on N4682F's maintenance records in determining whether the pilot 

seat stops had been appropriately installed or any other maintenance performed. The Agency is 

not obligated lo inquire further. Maintenance records, as the Administrator has often stated, are 

the linchpin of the agency's enforcement efforts. Agency inspectors may rely on them in determining whether required maintenance has been performed. California Helitech, FAA Order No. 

2000-18 (August 11, 2000), p. 16, 2000; Walls Agricultural Aviation d/b/a Growers Air Service,. 

FAA Order No, 91-8 (July 5, 1991), pp. 15-16, review den. sub. nom. Walts Agricultural Aviation 

V. Busey, 977 F.2d 594 (D.C. Cir. 1992). As such, the Agency is entitled to conclude Just from a 

review of pertinent records that replacement of the left-hand passenger side window (cracked and 

duct taped); repairs lo the left-hand Hap with the hole (screw protruding) and the cracked 

right-hand flap; as well as the installation of proper Cessna seat slops, had not been accomplished 

as of July 11, 12, or 13, 2009. The possibility that Oklahoma Skydiving may have in fact performed any unsubstantiated maintenance is nol pertinent lo the charge. (215 Tr. 11 through 216 

Tr.3) 

PROPOSED FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

N4682F accumulated 19.7 hours (35 flights with 100 passengers total) between the initial 

FAA inspeciion (condition notice issued on July 11, 2009) and the dale ihe A&P mechanic indicated that he had taken corrective action, approximately six (6) days later when he replaced the 

cracked window, stop [drilling] cracks in the right lower flap skin and installed reinforcement 

plates on the cracked right ilap skin, and left ftap. The Cessna seat stops were not instalied until 

the date of the next required inspeciion, the 100-hour inspection, on July 24, 2009. Oklahoma 

Okbhonia Skydiving Cenier 

l-AA DOCki-'l NO CP10SW002U 

DMS No rAA-2010-1215 
27 

Sk}'diving operated this aircraft with open discrepancies on July 11, 2009, with two passengers on 

board, in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a).'^ 

V. Section 9L13(a) was violated when, as the operator of N4682F, Oklahoma Skvdiving 

Center, operated that aircraft in a reckless or careless manner so as to endanger the life or 

property' of another. 

Pursuant lo FAA Order 2150.3B. (Exh. A-2), "When a person operates an aircraft in violation ofa speciftc regulation other than 14 C.F.R. § 91.13,... that violation constitutes a careless 

or reckless operation in and of itself. In these cases, the misconduct may also result in a violation 

of 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 if it actually or potentially endangers the lives or property of others." Respondent's violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a), operating an unairworthy aircraft on July 11. 2009, 

carrying two passengers, constitutes careless operation in and of ilsclf under 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a). 

In this case, Respondent's operation of N4682F was not merely a technical violation of 14 C.F.R. 

§91.13(a), but the operation was a separate, independent violation. Respondent's operation involved an unairworthy as well as unsafe aircraft. Respondent placed its passengers and the pilot of 

the aircraft at risk. 

In its Answer (Exh. A-l), Respondent admits that on the date of the event, July 11,2009, at 

the conclusion of the FAA inspection, an'"Aircraft Condition Notice." FAA Form 8620-1, was 

issued by Inspector West (now Boler) listing the following discrepancies: 

• Pilot Seat stops do not meet manufacturer specilications (bolts installed) 

• Left hand ftap has hole 

'° California lleliiecli. FAA Order No. 2000-18 (August 1 1, 2000), p. 16; iVaiis Agriculiural Aviaiion d/b/a Growers 

Air Service, KAA Order No. 91-8 (July 5. 1991). pp. 15-16. review Jen. sub. nom. Waits A^ricuhurai Aviaiion v. 

Busey. 977 F.2d 594 (D.C. Cir. 1992). 

Okliihoma Skvdiving Cvnlcr 

FAA IX)CKRT NO.'CI'IOSW0020 

OMS No. FAA-2010-1215 
28 

• Right hand ftap cracked 

• Left hand passenger side window cracked and duct taped 

(Exh. A-8) 

The Aircraft Condition Notice described above noted ihat the items listed "are" considered 

to be an imminent hazard to safety. Operation of the aircraft prior to correction "will" be contrary 

to pertinent Federal Aviation Regulations. A special Flight Permit "will" be required to be issued 

prior to operation if corrective action has not been taken. Mr. Jack Reeves was personally shown 

each of the discrepancies by the FAA Inspectors, and handed the Condition Notice. Mr. Reeves' 

testimony confirms this as well as the fact that the Inspectors first showed him each of the discrepancies prior to issuing the Condition Notice. (297 Tr. lines 9-15) 

Mr. Reeves testified that Inspector Boler told him thai unless the discrepancies were corrected the night was going to be contrary to the regulations and may be a violation. (297 Tr. 16-22; 

298 Tr. 1-2) Reeves also admitted that Inspector Boler told him that if the aircraft was Hown 

[Oklahoma Skydiving] may be in violation. (298 Tr. 3-6) At this lime. Reeves well-understood 

the ramiftcations of failing to deal properly with these matters. Nevertheless, Mr. Reeves repeatedly told the Inspectors of his intent lo operate the aircraft, (58 Tr. 2-9; 59'fr. 5-7; 60 Tr. 7-11; 

164 Tr. 12-14; 165 Tr. 9-20; 299 Tr. 12-14; 310 Tr. 3-8) (Exhs. A-3 & 9). and then did just that. 

To be airworthy, an aircraft must conform to its type design and be in a condition for safe 

operation. Fmery Worldwide Airlines, //7c., FAA Order No. 97-30 (October 8, 1997). Therefore, 

any matters atTecting the safety of flight are matters affecting airworthiness. Despite being told 

and shown the problems, and being handed a Condition Notice, Mr. Reeves admitted that the 

aircraft was operated on Saturday and Sunday, July 11th and 12th, 2009, and that he personally 

flew it to have il repaired on Monday, July 13"^, (299 Tr. 3-5), without obtaining a ferr>' permit. 

Oklahoma Skvdiviny Ceiilcr 

FAA D0CK1:T NO. C1'IOSW0020 

DMS No. FAA-2010-1215 
29 

(309 Tr. 15-17) Reeves testified that the aircraft made "guessed'' 35 take offs and landings that 

Saturday and Sunday prior to the aircraft being repaired on July 17, 2009. Reeves admitted, and it 

is unconlroverted, that ihe ftap problems and broken window were not repaired/replaced until July 

17, 2009. some six (6) days later, during which time Mr. Reeves testified that the aircraft was 

flown 19.7 hours, on at least 35 flights, and carried 100 people. (306 Tr. 4-19; 301 Tr. 12-17; Tr. 

306 4-13) 

As the owner of Oklahoma Skydiving and the aircraft, Mr. Reeves was aware of the discrepancies, having a condition notice in-hand. A discrepancy unaddressed renders and aircraft 

unairworthy. General Aviation, FAA Order No. 1998-18. Aware of the fact that the discrepancies 

were not repaired, he knowingly operated this aircraft with open discrepancies on July 11, 2009, 

with two passengers on-board. He carelessly and recklessly placed the passenger's and pilot's 

lives in potential risk." 

PROPOSED FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

Oklahoma Skydiving knowingly operated N4682F on July 11, 2009. with open discrepancies and two passengers onboard. Oklahoma Skydiving operated N4682F on July 11, 2009, in a 

careless and reckless manner so as to endanger the lives or properly of another in violation of 14 

C.F.R. §91.13(a).'-

Complainant is not required lo show that the described condition was unsafe in fact. It was enough to demonsirale 

that it carried the potential for hami. Riisfvnore Helicopters. Inc., FAA Order No. 2010-0023 (201 1), cuing Polynesian Ainva\'S. FAA Order No. 1994-40 (December 9. \99A)\ DavidH. A/aj^r, FAA Order No. 1997-12 (Februar>'20, 

1997). 

^^ in ilie Mailer of General Aviaiion, FAA Order No. 1998-18 at 13 (October 9, 1998), £mm' Worldwide Airlines. 

Inc , FAA Order No. 97-30 (October 8, 1997). 

Okluhomy Skydiving Ctmler 

FAA DOCKtT NO. CP10SW0020 

DMS No. FAA-2010-1215 
30 

VL CLOSING AND SUMMATION 

In its ANSWER, Respondent Oklahoma Skydiving DENIED allegations 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 

and 12 of the Agency's Complaint TO WIT: 

3. At the time of the FAA's inspection, the aircraft's tachometer indicated 

8344.3 hours. 

7. Shortly thereafter, the inspectors watched N4682F taxi by their location, 

obser\'ing at least two (2) skydivers on board, and then take-off. 

8. No corrective action with regard to the Aircraft Condition Notice has been 

received by the OKC FSDO. 

9. On January 20, 2010, Inspectors from the OKC FSDO again inspected 

N4682F, as well as the aircraft's maintenance records. 

10. The aircraft's logbook showed that the discrepancies listed on the above 

referenced condition notice, including the cracked window and ftaps, were 

corrected by a certificated mechanic on July 17, 2009, at aircraft tachometer 

lime of 8364.0 hours. 

11. N4682F had accumulated 19.7 hours between the initial FAA inspection 

(condition notice issued) and the date the A&P mechanic indicated that he 

had taken corrective action, approximately six (6) days later. 

PROPOSED FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

Allegation #3 was proven during the hearing: (Exh. A-3 i& 4) (30 Tr. 10-12) 

Allegation #7 was proven during the hearing: (Exh. A-3 & 9) (59 Tr. 19-20; 167 Tr. 19-20; 306 

Tr.4-19) 

Allegation #8 was proven during the hearing: (309 Tr. 18-310 Tr. 2) 

Allegation #9 was proven during the hearing: (209 Tr. 14-212Tr. 17) 

Allegation #10 was proven during the hearing: (Exh. A-10, 11 & 12)(209Tr. 14-212Tr. 17) 

Allegation #11 was proven during the hearing: (100 Tr. 6; 104 Tr. 6; 112 Tr. 14; 113 Tr. 2-10; 

119Tr.4) 

All of the factual allegations in the Complaint were established. What remains are the 

Oklahoma Skydiving Ccnler 

l-AA DOCKET NO. CP10SW0020 

DMS No FAA-2010-1215 
31 

regulatory violations alleged in allegation 12, specifically, 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.7(a), 91.405(a), and 

91.13(a). The Agency, as set forth supra in its proposed findings of fact and law, has proven ihe 

violation of each of these regulations by a preponderance of the evidence. 

VL PENALTY 

The agency has issued enforcement guidelines for its employees to follow in determining 

appropriate sanctions. The guidelines also advise the public of the sanction policy that the Administrator intends to abide by in adjudicating individual cases. Folsotn's Air Service, Inc., FAA 

Order No. 2008-11 (November 6, 2008), p. 13. (A relevant excerpt was admitted as Administrator's Exhibit A-2. 

The Agency prays that the court defer to its choice and amount of sanction in this case and 

assess a civil penalty in the amount of $8,000. This amount is reasonable and warranted by the 

circumstances. It is well-wilhin the guidelines of FAA Order 2150.3B sanction guidance upon 

which it is based. (Exh. A-2) 

Respondent Oklahoma Skydiving operated a Cessna 206 on July 11. 2009, after failing 

properly lo address four discrepancies that FAA inspectors had found. Respondent unaccepiably 

compromised the safety of each fiight that il operated while the aircraft was in this unairworthy 

condition, specifically the fiight observed by the Inspectors as alleged in the Agency's Complaint. 

This occurred with Respondent's owner, Mr. Reeves, having been handed a Condition Notice by 

the Inspectors specifically stating that the items list are considered to be an iinminent hazard to 

safely, that operation of the aircraft prior lo correction will be contrary to pertinent Federal Aviation Regulations, and that a special fiight permit will be required to be issued prior to operation if 

OkliihoniJ Skydiving Ctnier 

•AA DOCKET NO.'C!MUSW0020 

DMS No. FAA-2010-1215 
32 

corrective action has nol been taken. 

A civil penally of $8,000 is warranted. The penafty will appropriately fulfill FAA policy. 

It will promote enforcement of the FARs and help deter this Respondent and others in its position 

from operating in violation of them. The Agency therefore prays that a civil penalty of $8,000 be 

sustained against Oklahoma Skydiving Center for violating 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.7(a), 91.405(a), and 

91.13(a). 

VII. PRAYER 

WHEREFORE, the Agency asks the Court lo find that the Agency has met its burden of 

proof in shovving by a preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantive evidence that 

Oklahoma Skydiving Center operated N4682F in an unairworthy condition, without recoding and 

repairing discrepancies, and in a careless or reckless manner, for which a civil.penalty of $8,000 

must be sustained. 

Respe^tfuily_submilted lhis/-^/th day of February, 2012. 

Gregory 

Attorney, S^feli^EnforcementJJfanch 

Federal AviationAHrninisTfation 

2601 Meacham Blvd., 663 

Fort Worth. TX 76137 

Phone: 817/222-5083 

FAX: 817/222-5945 e-mail: gregor>'.s.lander@faa.gov 

Oklahomu Skydivmg Center 

FAA DOCKHT NO. CI'10SW0020 

DMS No. FAA-2010-1215 
33 

LIST OF CITATIONS 

America West Airlines, FAA Order No. 96-3 (Feb. 13, 1996). 

California Helilech, FAA Order No. 2000-18 (August 11, 2000). 

Copsey, NTSB Order EA-3448 (1991). 

Delaware Skyways. LLC, FAA Order No. 2005-6 (March 8, 2005). 

Emery Worldwide Airlines. Inc., FAA Order No. 97-30 (October 7. 1997). 

Folsom'sAir Service. Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-1 1 (November 6. 2008). 

Fosier, 2004 WL 1795341 (June 29, 2004), appeal dismissed, NTSB Order No. EA-5112 (2004). 

General Aviaiion, FAA Order No. 1998-18 (October 9, 1998). 

Mayer, FAA Order No. 1997-12 (February 20, 1997). 

Newman. 1 NTSB 2008, 2010 (1972),/?^/./or rev/>u't/emfc/. 494 F.2d 1219 (2d Cir. 1974). 

Polynesian Airways. Inc.. FAA Order No. 1994-40 (December 9, 1994). 

Rushmore, FAA Order No. 2010-0023 (October 3, 2011). 

USAir, FAA Order No. 96-25 (August 12, 1996). 

Walls Agricultural Aviation, Inc. v. Busey, 977 F.2d 594 (9'^ Cir. 1992), 

Oklahoma Skydiving Center 

•AA DOCKKT NO CP10SW0020 

DMS No F.\A-20I0-1215 
34 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the signed original and a copy of Complainant's Brief on Proposed Findings of 

Fact and Conclusions of Issue of Law; Closing and Summation, have been sent this date by 

CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, and via First Class Mail, lo: 

FAA 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk; AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

I certify that a copy of Complainant's Brief on Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Issue 

of Law; Closing and Summation, has been sent this date by CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, to: 

The Honorable Richard D. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Tel: 202-366-2139 

Fax: 202-366-7536 

Bret A. Glenn, Respondent's Counsel 

Bret A. Glenn, Atlomev at Law, P.C. 

414 N.W.4''^ Street, Suite 200 

Oklahoma City, OK 73102 

Tel: 405-702-4980 

Fax: 405-702-4984 

"/hi(UimtilMiJ^^ ^^^// ^ 

MarquiUa Robinson Dale 

Paralegal Specialist 

Safety Enforcement Branch 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Oklahoma Skydiving Cenier 

FAA DOCKET NO. CIM0SW0020 

DMS No. i-AA-2UlO-1215