### SERVED: MAY 28, 2015 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ····';:

In The Matter Of: WORLDWIDE AIRCRAFT SERVICES, INC. Respondent 

### OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC
) ) ) ) ) ) DocketNo. FAA-2013-0045

Case No. 2009S0150216

INITIAL DECISION OF U.S. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

Held: Count I Proven On or about May 3, 2009, the Respondent, Worldwide Aircnift Services, Inc., committed one (1) violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations, i.e., 14 C.F.R § 135.21(a). Withdrawn: Count II Duringthe March 2014 Hearing, the FAAmoved to withdraw CountII alleged in its February 20, 2013 Complaint (Complaint, page 2-3,**~II).** Theprose Respondent did not object, andthe motion was granted. (3/7/14 Tr. 5:1-6:9.) Civil Penalty Assessed: The Respondent is assessed $2,000 for the one (1) violation of 14 C.F.R § 135.21(a).

A. Short Background ofthe Case
OnFebruary 15,2013,theproseRespondent, Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc, served the FAA with a Request for Hearing. On February 27, 2013, the Regional Counsel for the FAA's Southern Region filed a Complaint, dated February 20, 2013, with the U.S. Department ofTransportation's Office of Hearings. In its February 20,2013 Complaint, the FAA alleged thatthe Respondent, the holder ofAir Carrier Certificate No. W50A880L, had committed two safety violations, identified as· Count I and Count II. The FAA proposed a total civil penalty of$12,375 for both Count I and Count II. (Complaint, 1-3.) OnJune 6, 2013, an Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures was filed. Among otherthings, this Order provided a discovery schedule with deadlines, and set the Hearing for March 5-6, 2014 inTampa, Florida. (6/6/13 Order, 1-4.) OnJanuary 9, 2014, an Order Setting Motion Conference and Additional Litigation Deadlines was filed. Among other things, this January 9, 2014 Order confirmed and adopted certain factual admissions offered bytheprose Respondent during a January 8, 2014 Conference. (1/9/14 Order, 1**~** 1.) OnFebruary 4, 2014, an Order Granting/Denying Reliefwas filed. This February 4, 2014 Order contains discussion and rulings on various discovery motions, which will not berepeated here. However, this February 4, 2014 Order confirmed and adopted additional agreed factual admissions, withthe understanding that the Respondent would still be allowed to present a defense onthe contested allegation. 1 (2/4/14 Order, 6**~** 3 and 7**~~** 4 and 8.) Among otherthings, the February 4, 2014 Order held that on June 5, 2009, Mr. Price, the Second in Command ("SIC") oftheMay 3, 2009 flight, authored and sent to FAAInspector Robert Donahue a one (1) page Letter ("6/5/09 Price Letter") discussing the May 3, 2009 flight. On June 8, 2009, Mr. Plas, the Pilot in Command ("PIC") ofthe May 3, 2009 flight, authored and sentto FAA Inspector Robert Donahue a two (2) page Letter ("6/8/09 Plas Letter") discussing the May 3, 2009 flight. The contents ofthe 6/5/09 Price Letter and 6/9/09 Plas Letter
were admitted as true? (2/4/14 Order, 7**~~** 4-5.) On February 11,2014, the FAA filed a Notice ofAmended Complaint, which corrected
some typographical errors contained inthe February 20, 2013 Complaint.

1During the January 31,2014Motion Conference, theprose Respondent explained its position in offeringto agree to the prehearing admission and "truth" ofMr. Price's and Mr. Plas' Letters: "I don't dispute them giving the statements and I don't dispute that whatthey said is the truth. My dispute is the assumption and allegation that is concluded from their statements." (1131/14 Tr. 19: 12-16.) See also, 1/28/14 Respondent's Response to Complainant's Motion in Limine, 2**~** 5.

2 At the March 2014 Hearing, the FAA moved to re-admitthe 6/5/09 Price Letter as Exhibit C-9, and to re-admitthe 6/9109 Plas Letter as Exhibit C-8. There was no objection, and the admitted documentary evidence was re-marked and re-admitted as requested. Page 2 of 15On March 4, 2014, an Order Granting/Denying Reliefwas filed. This March 4, 20 14 Order contains discussion andrulings on various pre-hearing motions, which will not be repeated here. OnMarch 5, 2014, March 6, 2014, and March 7, 2014, the parties appeared for Hearing in Tampa, Florida. In support ofits case-in-chief, the FAApresented 6 witnesses (Mr. Fanning, Mr. Plas, Inspector Kahler, Inspector Donahue, Inspector Singleton, and Ms. Farmer), and offered 13 Exhibits (i.e., C-1, C-3, C-4, C-7 through C-14, C-17 and C-18) for admission into evidence. All 13 Exhibits were admitted. In support ofits responsive case, the Respondent presented two witnesses (Ms. Aleski and Mr. Honeycutt) and offered one oftheFAA's Exhibits (i.e., C-6) into evidence. Exhibit C-6 was admitted. (3/5/15 Tr. 48-9.) Atthe conclusion ofthe March 2014 Hearing, the parties agreed thatpost-hearing briefs would notbe filed. 

### B. Summary ofF AA Allegations Count 1: The FAA alleged that on or about May 3, 2009, the Respondent operated a Part 135 flight from the Commonwealth ofDominica (airport code TDPD) to Marsh Harbor, Bahamas (airport code MYAM) ("Flight") using civil aircraftN90LJ. "Following" the flight (Complaint, 1,**~4)** the Respondent's flight crew failed to document that they had discovered the ground power unit ("GPU") receptacle ofN90LJ was damaged. This was a violation ofthe Respondent's General Operations Manual, SectionF-1, whichrequired the PIC to document any mechanical irregularities on an Aircraft Discrepancy Form, MX-02 before releasing the aircraft from service. Thus, the Respondent failed to ensure that its flight personnel used Respondent's General Operations Manual when conducting operations. (Complaint, 1-2.) Count II: On or about May 7, 2013, the FAA alleged the Respondent committed a second safety violation identified as "CountII". (Complaint, 2-3,**~II.)** As noted on page 1

### supra, the FAAmovedto withdraw Count II during the March 2014 Hearing. This motion was not opposed, and was granted. (3/7/14 Tr. 5:1-6:9.) Thus, Count II (involving the "skin" ofthe aircraft) (3/7/14 Tr. 4 7:22-48:25) will not be further discussed.

Page 3 of 15

# ~

I 

### C. Undisputed Facts During all times alleged inthis action,the Respondent, WorldwideAircraft Services, Inc,
was the holder ofAir Carrier CertificateNo. W50A880L. (1/9/14 Order, 1**~** 1.) Itwas a small (i.e. less than nine aircraft) Part 135 "ondemand" aircraft operator. (3/5/15 Tr. 188:24-189:3). In 2009 itprovided global Medical Repatriation services, using four Learjets. (3/7/14 Tr. 17:22-25 and 20:25-21:14.) Ithad six to eightpilots operating the aircraft. (3/7/14 Tr. 29:7-11.)
As a Part 135 operator, the Respondenthad a General Operations Manual ("GOM") that specifiedprocedures for addressing the discovery ofaircraft mechanical discrepancies. The GOM sections identified in the FAA's February 20, 2013 Complaint (Complaint, 2**~~5-6)** were accurate excerpts from Sections E-3 and F-1 ofthe Respondent's GOM. (2/4/14 Order, 6**~** 3.) According to the GOM, a Respondent employee who discovered an aircraft mechanical discrepancy had the responsibility, priorto releasing the aircraft from a specific flight, to report it to the Director ofMaintenance ("DOM"), and to also documentthe discrepancy on an MX-02 form, whichwas kept onthe aircraft. (!d.; 3/5/14 Tr. 129; Complaint, 2**~** 6.)**~**..t ' On or about May 3, 2009, the Respondent operated civil aircraftN90LJ, a Learjet 25D,
on an "ondemand" flight that included stops at the Commonwealth ofDominica andMarsh Harbor, Bahamas. (1/9/14 Order, 1**~** 1.) The aircraft leftthe Brooksville, Florida airport (airport code "BKV") at approximately 4:00a.m., landed in San Juan, Puerto Rico (airport code TJSJ) to refuel, flew to the Commonwealth ofDominica (airport code "TDPD") to pick up a medical passenger and refuel, flew to Marsh Harbor, Bahamas (airport code "MYAM") and refueled, and then completedthe flight by flying the medical passenger to Toronto, Canada (airport code "CYYZ") (3/6/14 Tr. 130:3-6 and 3/7/14 Tr. 23:4.) This was a nine-and-a-halfhour flight (with three stops). (3/7/14 Tr. 23:15.) The Respondenthad a 10-hour flight time limitunder its Part 135 operation. (!d. at 23:16.) Time was "critical" on every transport. (!d. at 25:12-13.) Shortly afterthis May 3, 2009 flight, the FAA field office received an anonymous, verbal complaint onits "hotline"number. The complaint allegedthatthe Respondent's flight crewhad**·~**. taxied offa runway with a GPU attached to the aircraft. (3/5/14 Tr. 196:3-9.) FAA Inspector Donahue was assignedto investigate the hotline complaint. (!d.) Inspector Donahue and Inspector Schaefer visitedthe Respondent's business location, and verified that the hotline Page 4 of 15complaintwas credible. (3/5/15 Tr. 211 :24-25). Once the complaint was verified, FAA Inspector Kahler opened a separate investigationregarding the possibilitythatthe Respondenthad failed to comply withits operating procedures. Duringthe FAA's investigations, the Respondent's flight crew agreed that on May 3, 2009, they had mistakenly taxied and taken offon aircraftN90LJ from BKV without first disconnecting the GPU cable from N90LJ. (2/4114 Order, 6**~** 3; Exhs. C-8 and C-9.) The flight
crewhad not knownthat the GPU was still attached whenthe aircrafttaxied from BKV. Mr. Plas reported that "nothing abnormal was felt" during the take-offfrom BKV. (Exh. C-8, 1.) After leaving BKV, the aircraft landed three times during the flight to refuel. The first two times the aircraft was refueled (i.e., TJSJ and TDPD), a GPU was connected, and the plane refueled without any problem. (Exh. C-8.) The third time the aircraft landed and refueled, a lineman at MYAMreported difficulty attempting to connectthe GPU. Mr. Plas exited the airplane andtried to assist.
In his June 8, 2009 Letter to Inspector Donahue, Mr. Plas reported thathe discovered during the MYAMrefueling stop that the GPU receptacle plug pins were "bent." (Exh. C-8, 2.) Mr. Price immediatelytelephoned Mr. Honeycutt, the Respondent's Director ofOperations ("DO"). (!d.; 3/5115 Tr. 217:21-24.) Mr. Plas reported to Mr. Honeycutt that the GPU could not be plugged into the aircraft. (Exh. C-8, 2.) After this telephone call concluded, Mr. Plas did not contactthe Respondent's DOM or fill out anMX form. Instead, he resumed the flight, and flew the medical passenger to the final destination,;CYYZ. Upon arrival, the medical passenger was routed for medical treatment. Mr. Plas then requested that the GPU be plugged into the aircraft to "see ifthe same problem would arise." (!d. at 2.) The GPU was plugged in, and "worked fine." (!d.) After landing in CYYZ and checking the GPU, the flight crewreleased the plane, and went offduty. (!d. at 2.) The DOM was not contacted, and the flight crew did notfill out an MX-02 form and leave it in the aircraft. (3/5/15 Tr. 220:23-221 :4.) AircraftN90LJ was operated again on May 6, 2009, May 7, 2009, May 12,2009, and May 14,2009. (3/6/15 Tr. 189:15-21.) The May 14,2009 flight returned aircraftN90LJ to its owner, Brandis Aircraft, for scheduled maintenance. (3/7/14 Tr. 39:3-9 and41 :6-10.) On May 20, 2009 (i.e., seventeen (17) days after the May 3, 2009 flight), Brandis Aircraft Page 5 of 15performed maintenance on aircraftN90LJ. (3/7/14 Tr. 41 :6-10.) The GPU mounting brackets and the GPU itselfwere replaced. (2/4/l4 Order, 6**~** 3.) In addition, the area aft/below the GPU
was reworked, with a 2024-T3.040 double and filler installed. (2/4/14 Order, 6**~** 3.) Shortlythereafter, during the FAA's June 2009 investigation, Mr. Plas told Inspector Donahuethat he did not fill out an MX-02 form about the GPU problem becausethe bent GPU pins did not create a risk to flight safety. (3/5/15 Tr. 218:10-12.) 

### D. BriefDiscussion ofCount I All evidence has been considered, but only certain highlights will be discussed in this Initial Decision. The Respondent's GOM identified procedures to take when a "mechanical discrepancy"
was discovered on an aircraft. (2/4/14 Order, 6**~** 3.)Neitherparty introduced the Respondent's GOM's definitions section into evidence, so.it is unknown whetherthe GOM provided a specific definition for "mechanical discrepancy.'' Duringthe FAA's case-in-chief, Inspector Singleton described the GPU receptacle on aircraft N90LJ as follows: Itis a point onthe aircraft where a ground power unit can be attached to the aircraft to provide electrical powerto the aircraft. (3/6/15 Tr. 77:23-25.) The electrical power was provided through an external electrical cord. (/d. at 78:1-8.) Thus, the FAAcategorized the GPU receptacle as part ofthe aircraft electrical system. (/d. at 75:19-22,82: 12-23.) Whenthe aircraft was in flight, it generated its ·own power. But once the aircraft was onthe ground, the GPU provided external "electrical powerto an aircraft." 

### (!d. at 78:10-12.) Among other things, the GPU external power source helped "relieve the load onthe aircraft-battery system." (/d. at 78:17-18; 3/7114 Tr:;24:16-21.) FAAwitnesses alternatively referred to the May 3, 2009 discovered GPU bentreceptacle pins as "damage" or as a "discrepancy" or "malfunction" or "irregularity." 

### (See, e.g., 3/5/15 Tr. 128:8, 14-15 and 235:11-12.) Inspector Donahue testified that ifit were "assum[ed]" (!d. at
Page 6 of 15235:9) that the bent GPU pins were a mechanical discrepancy, thenthe flight crew should have filled out an MX-02 form. (3/5115 Tr. 15-16.) Inspector Kahler and Inspector Singletonboth testified thatthe bentpins were a "discrepancy." (!d. at 128:13-24; 3/6/15 Tr. 80:24-81:2, 94:22- 23.) Inspector Singleton opinedthat ifthe GPU receptacle pins were bent, then the GPU "no longer meets its typed design." (3/6/15 Tr. 81:4-5.) Inspector Kahler testified that Mr. Plas' discovery ofthe bentpins on May 3, 2Q09 required·documenting the problem on a MX-02 form and notifying the Respondent's maintenance crew: The abnormality ofthe plug to perform its function constituted a mechanical irregularity or a discrepancy upon the aircraft

...that should have been written up, [and] passedto the maintenance people for their determinationto see ifthere was a malfunction. (3/5/15 Tr. 128:13-24.) According to Inspector Singleton, the bent pins meant thatthe GPU receptacle was altered. In addition, any damage to the GPU receptacle pins might have also caused internal damage, such as degraded insulation. (3/6115 Tr. 83:13-24.) Inspector Donahue further explained that a non-functioning GPU plug meant that the aircraft was not meeting its certificate capabilities. (3/5115 Tr. 235:18-21.) Itis not able to fly inthe manner in which it was designed. This particular case, the aircraft could not be started usingthe gtdund-power unit ifthe [aircraft] battery had become defective. (3/5115 Tr. 128:13-24.) Inspector Singleton testified thatthe GPU's bent receptacle pins was consistent with a GPU being left attached to the aircraft. (3/6115 Tr. 105:10-21.) Inspector Kahler testified that the Respondent's May 20, 2009 maintenance on aircraftN90LJ demonstrated that the GPU plug was "unserviceable." (3/5/14 Tr. 174:20-21). Thus, once Mr. Plas discovered the bentpins onMay 3, 2009, he shouldhave reportedthe problemto the DOM and documented the discrepancy on an MX-02 form. The FAA also emphasized thatthe Respondent's GOM'sreporting and documenting procedures were to ensure thatthe aircraft was properly maintained so that the Respondent couldbe a "safe operator flying in the skies." (!d. at 187:18-19.) Page 7 of 15

{,'**'~** ,l '

. '• •[D]ocumentation is the only vehicle that maintenance has to repair an aircraft if there is damage or an irregularity. Without documentation, we don'tknow that there is anything wrong. (3/6/15 Tr. 107:9-13.) This evidence, considered together with the pre-hearing admissions and the undisputed facts, was sufficient to establish aprimafacie case on Count 

### I. As part ofthe Respondent's defensive case, the Respondent closely questioned Inspector Singleton, who was a certified Airframe and Power Plant ("A & P") aircraft mechanic. Initially during the Respondent's cross-examination, Inspector Singleton agreed that a "mechanical discrepancy" was a "hard fault or failure." (3/6/15 Tr. 109:24-25.) Itwas something that is "not working properly" (!d. at 110:4-6) and "is not curable, it is continuous." (!d. at 110:1-3.) Inspector Singleton also agreed that ifa GPU was plugged into the aircraft GPU receptacle, and the aircraft received power from the GPU, thenthe GPU receptacle would be operating "as it
was designed to operate."(!d. at 116:16-22.) Inspector Singleton then correctedhis own testimony: A discrepancy is anything that can be written. A maintenance discrepancy is anything wrong with the airplane, whether it is a hard fault or intermittent. The word discrepancy is an anomaly with the aircraft that needs to be written up. (3/6/15 Tr. 129:2-6.) During redirect, Inspector Singleton added that whether a problem on an aircraft is characterized as a discrepancy, an irregularity, or a malfunction, itneeds to be "writtenup" so that the problem canbe inspected by amechanic. (!d. at 135:23-136:8.) Inits responsive case, the Respondent pointed outthat none oftheFAAinspectors asserted that aircraftN90LJhad ever beenunairworthy, either onMay 3, 2009, or from May 3, 2009 through May 20,2009 (the date maintenance was performed onthe GPU). (3/7/14 Tr. 9:24-10:4.) The Respondent also emphasized that what constituted a "discrepancy" was often a subjective determination, and

# adiscrepancy determination could easily vary from one individual to the next. (!d. 30:23-31:10.)

Page 8 of 15Mr. Honeycutt agreedthatitwas the ultimate responsibility ofthe captain ofthe aircraft to determine whether or notthe aircraftwas airworthy, before he flies the aircraft. (!d. at 32:3-9.) He also believedthe Mr. Plas had correctly determined, on May 3, 2009, thatthe aircraft was airworthy:
I stand a hundredpercentbehind Captain Plas, his decisionthatthe aircraft did nothave damage, did not have a discrepancy

...Thatis provenby CaptainPlas' actions inToronto when herequestedthe GPU to bepluggedin. He found

...that

...the GPU workedproperly. As Mr. Singleton's testimony yesterday, he said "Howwould youtestthe GPU receptacle that youfelt maynotbe operating properly,"he said, "plug in a GPU." (3/7/14 Tr. 35:12-22.)
Mr. Honeycutt also testified aboutthe complexities ofglobal flight services. He explained that finding an FAA certified mechanic outside ofthe United States "is very complicated." 

### (!d. at43:4.) It was difficultto "do maintenance" away from the United States. 

### (!d. at 43:3-22.) Wheneverpossible, the Respondenttried to transport its ownmaintenance team to other cities to inspect or work onits aircraft, especially in a foreign country. 

### (!d. at 46:14-46.) The Respondent is correctthat a pilot in command ofan aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a). It is also well-established that the "pilotincommand shall discontinue the flight whenunairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions,:occur." 

### !d. The Respondent is also correctthatthe FAA did not allege orprove that aircraftN90LJ
was unairworthy whenit left MY AM or when it landed later onthe same day in CYYZ. However, the factthat aircraftN90LJ was airworthy onMay 3, 2009 is not determinative in this
case. 3 The fact that an aircraft is airworthy does notpreclude a violation for failure to log a mechanical irregularity. Hinson v. Calhoun, NTSB Order EA-4032, 1993 WL 512479 (Nov. 23, 1993).

3NB: It should be noted thatthe issue ofwhether aircraft N90LJ was rendered unairworthy after May 3, 2009, because the aircraft was flown multiple times before the GPU receptacle was replaced on May 20, 2009, was not alleged in the Complaint, and is not before this court. See In the Matter of Delaware Skyways, LLC, FAA-2002- 14060 (March 18, 2005) (an unresolved or unaddressed discrepancy renders an aircraft unairworthy.)

..., Page 9 of 15Itwas undisputed thatMr. Plas discovered, during the MYAMrefueling stop, that two of the three GPU receptacle plug pins on aircraftN90LJ were "bent" and the GPU receptacle could notbe accessed. (Exh. C-8, 2.) After discovering these two bentpins, Mr. Plas opted notto use an external power source to charge the plane, determined thatthe aircraft was still airworthy, and flew without any problems from MYAM to CYYZ, the final destination in the flight plan. Once the aircraft landed in CYYZ, Mr. Plas rechecked the GPU receptacle, and found that the receptacle and pins were functional and could be accessed

.. The Respondent argued thatthe bent pins did not qualify as a mechanical discrepancy, because the GPU receptacle was tested in CYYZ and functioned. This is not persuasive. The fact that items do not need immediate repair should not be determinative ofwhether they are problematic and need reporting. Indeed, the fact that Mr. Plas checkedthe GPU receptacle after landing in CYYZ, to verify whether it was still inoperable, is proofthatthere was a mechanical discrepancy. See e.g., Hinson v. Hardisson, NTSB Order EA-3997, 1993 WL 428981 at *2 (Oct. 5, 1993) ('"'any deviation from the normal functioning ofan aircraft component no matterhow slight or momentary,' constitutes a mechanical irregularity.") Inspector Singleton is correct that an "anomaly with the aircraft" needs to be written up so that the problem can be inspected by a mechanic. (3/6/15 Tr. 135:23-136:8.) See e.g., Administrator v. Schoppaul, 7 NTSB 1195, 1198 (Oct. 2, 1991)(even a "small worry" should be reported). In accordance with federal regulations, the Respondent's GOM requires, upon discovery ofa discrepancy, thatthe DOMbe notified and areport created onAircraft Discrepancy FormMX-02, so that qualified aircraft mechanics are told ofany problems withthe aircraft. This is the waymaintenance should be notified about a discovered discrepancy, so that maintenance can determine whether or notthere is a problem that needs to be further addressed. See e.g., Schoppaul, at 1198 (apilot "should not usurp" the duties ofmaintenance personnel by depriving them ofthe opportunity to know about and address a possible problem); Hardisson, at

. ,. j l' 2 (aflight crewmay notpreemptthe :fuhction

### ~ciresponsibility ofmaintenancepersonnel to analyze mechanical problems). A failure to properly report discrepancies, even whenperceived by an individual as minor, compromises aviation safety. FAA v. SundanceAir, Inc., FAA-2004- 17789, 2006 WL 728822 (Mar. 15, 2006). After considering all the evidence and arguments ofthe parties, the FAA has proven, by a Page 10 of 15preponderance ofevidence, that on May 3, 2009 the Respondent failed to comply with its GOM (Sections E-3 and F-1) when it released aircraftN90LJ from the May 3, 2009 flight at CYYZ, without first reporting the discovery ofits GPU receptacle's bentpins and temporary inoperability to its Director ofMaintenance ("DOM"), and documenting such discrepancy on an MX-02 form to be kept on the aircraft. (Complaint, 2**~~5-7.)** Thus, on May 3, 2009, the Respondent committed one (1) violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations, i.e., 14 C.F.R 

### § 135.2l(a). E. BriefDiscussion ofCivil Penalty
Prior to the Hearing, the Respondent stipulated that itwould not raise an affirmative defense regarding its ability to pay the proposed fine, or its ability to do business. (2/4/14 Order, 7**~** 8.) Atthe Hearing, during its case-in-chief, the FAA presented Inspector Farmer's testimony in support ofits proposed civil penalty of$12,375 for both Count I and Count II. (3/6/14 Tr. 157- 186.) The FAA asserted that ithad utilized the Table ofSanctions (Appendix B) in FAA Order 2150.3B (Exh. C-17), when it calculated the proposed $12,375 amount. (3/6/15 Tr. 157:11-24.) According to theTable ofSanctions, the Respondent fell into "group three because it employed six (6) pilots." (!d. at**159:11~18.)** Pursuan:tto FAA Order 2150.3B, the two alleged violations were "records and reports" violations. (Exh. C-17, page B-14.) The applicable penalty range extended from was from the minimum to the maximum. 

### (!d. at 162:5-8; Exh. C-17, page B-4.) The minimumrange was $825-$3,299; the moderate range was $3,300-$7,149; and the maximum range was $7,150-$11,000. (!d.) Inspector Farmer explained that the FAA had started with the "midrange ofa civil penalty." 

### (!d. at 162:19.) To find the "midrange" number, she added $825 (the lowest amount in the minimumrange) to $11,000 (the highest amount inthe maximum range), whichtotaled $11,825. Inspector Farmer then divided $11,825 inhalf, to reachthe "midrange" penalty amount of$5,912.50 for eachviolation. (!d. at 163:7-164:17.) Becausethis case involvedtwo Counts, Inspector Farmernext multiplied $5,912.50 by two, to reach $11,825. 

### (!d. 165:10-12.) However, the FAA'sproposed civil penalty inthis case, ontwo Counts, was $12,375. Page 11 of 15This was $550 higher than its "midrange" calculation. (I 

### d. at 191 :2-3.) Inspector Farmer explained that this particular case involved "special aggravating factors" as described in FAA Order 2150.3B, Chapter 7 (Jd. at 165:16-166:7; Exh. C-18, 7-4**~** 4 .) Specifically Inspector Farmer opined that the following aggravating factors should apply: the "nature ofviolation" (i.e., paragraph (4)(a)); the "degree ofhazard" (i.e., paragraph (4)(e)); and the "use ofa certificate" (i.e., paragraph (4)(g)). (Exh. C-18, 7-4**~~** 4(a), (e), (g).) Inspector Farmerrepeatedly asserted that because a Part 135 operator was an "on demand" air carrierthat.carried passengers for compensation, the fine shouldbe aggravated, because the Respondent shouldbe "heldto a higher degree" ofsafety in its operations. (3/6/15 Tr. 174:16-175:5; 184:19-20; 185:19-22.) Among otherthings, Inspector J:iarmer testified thatthe fact that the Respondent had been "inthe business" for several years, and then was charged withthis violation, should be deemed
an "aggravating" factor. 

### (!d. at 183: 18-19.) Inspector Farmer also noted that aircraft N90LJ continued to be operated after May 3, 2009, prior to the May 20, 2009 maintenance. The continued operation ofthe aircraft, and the delay in maintenance inspection after the May 3, 2009 flight, should be considered an aggravating factor. 

### (!d. at 184:21-25; 189:15-24.) Lastly, Inspector Farmer opined that ifthe Respondent was found to have committed the violation (i.e., neither Mr. Plas norMr. Honeycutt made arecord entry into the aircraft logbook on May 3, 2009 about the bent GPU pins) that should be deemed an aggravating factor. (ld. at 190:6-17.) As noted earlierherein, after the FAApresented Inspector Farmer's testimony, it moved to withdraw Count II. This motion was not opposed, and was granted. (3/7/14 Tr. 5:1-6:9.) As a result, the FAA amended its proposed penalty of$12,375 to $6,100. 

### (!d. at 5:22-25.) After Count IIwas withdrawn, Inspector Farmerreturned to the witness stand and testifiedthat $6,100 was halfof$12,375, and was supportedby the sa'uie "pblicy and evidence in this case." 

### (!d. at 8:5- 10.) As noted herein, thepro se Respondent agreed not to raise certain affirmative defenses to the proposed civil penalty. However, in its responsive case, the Respondent asserted that the $6,100 amount was "excessive." (ld. at 37:13-14.)

Page 12 of 15After considering all the evidence and arguments ofthe parties, the FAAhas notproven, by a preponderance ofevidence, that it fully utilized the guidance provided in FAA Order 2150.3B, or that $6,100 is an appropriate penalty.
In general, the Table ofSanctions inFAA O,rder 2150.3B provides three penalty ranges for violations: Minimum, Moderate, and Maximum. (Exh. C-17, page B-3 to B-8.) The amount offine within each penaltyrange varies, depending on the type ofviolation and other factors. (Id.) The Table ofSanctions further provides limitations on when eachrange shouldbe considered, based on additional factors. 

### (!d., at B-29 to B-53.)
In the instant case, the penaltyranges for a Group III carrier such as the Respondent include all three ranges: $825-$3,299 (minimum), $3,300-$7,149 (moderate), and $7,150- $11,000 (maximum), respectively. (Exh. C-17, page B-4.) Thus, ifthe guidance provided bythe Table ofSanctions is fully utilized, it is necessary to first determine, based on the facts and circumstances ofthe individual case, which ofthe three penalty ranges should apply, andthen determine the appropriate civil penalty withinthatpenalty range. The FAA did not follow this guidance. Instead, it appears to have created a fourth type of penalty range, by using a mathematical calculation .that, without analysis or explanation, defaults into the higher end ofthe moderate penalty rarige. Once it calculates its mathematical "median" number, the FAAthen considers whether to adjust it up or down, based onboththe factors listed in Chapter 7, paragraphs 4(a)-(m) ofthe Sanction Guidance as well as other unlisted factors. Thus, although the Table ofSanctions in this case allows for consideration ofa penalty in the minimumrange or maximum range, the FAA considered those ranges only to provide the
raw numbers for its mathematical "median" calculation. It should be emphasizedthat FAA's "median" calculation will always result inaproposed penalty that begins in the upper 50% ofthe moderate range (e.g., inthis case, $5,912.50). As a result, even though the Sanction Guidance provides the possibility ofa civil penalty in the minimum or low moderate ranges, the FAA's calculation will always ignore boththe minimum range as well as over 50% ofthe moderate range, andbegin at an amount significantly higher. While it is theoretically possible thatthe FAA's consideration ofthe factors inparagraph 4 could result in lowering its calculated "median" penalty into the lower moderate or even Page 13 of 15minimum range, that did not occur herein. Instead, the FAA recommended that paragraph4 factors should be utilized to further increase its "median" calculation (i.e., $5,912.50) into the highest end ofthemoderate range (i.e., $6,100). The Respondent's violation inthis case consisted ofa single, non-operational event (i.e. failure to ensure that its employee followed the General Operations Manual). Itwas an inadvertent violation, because neither Mr. Plas nor Mr. Honeycuttrecognized the bentpin problem as a discrepancy. They were not careless or reckless. (Exh. C-18, page 7-4.) Instead, they mistakenly believed that the bent GPU pin discovery was so minimal in nature thatthey could "test" the problem and determine its mechanical functionality. Mr. Plas tested the GPU before releasing the aircraft from flight, and found it functional. Giventhe testimony in this case from bothparties, Mr. Honeycutt's and Mr. Plas' decisions were understandable. Nevertheless, the bent GPU pins were a mechanical discrepancy onthe aircraft, which should have been reported to the DOM and recorded on Aircraft Discrepancy Form MX-02. Afterreview ofall the admittedtestimony and other evidence, and consideration ofall arguments and applicable regulations, rules, and caselaw, the appropriate civil penalty range to apply in this case is the Minimum range. In accordance withthe Sanction Guidance, the calculation ofthe civil penalty begins at the midpoint ofthe applicable penalty range. (Jd. at 7-9; 3/6114 Tr. 162:17-19.) In this case, the midpoint ofthe Minimumrange is $2,062. Itwas undisputed that the Respondent has been in existence since 2003 (3/7/14 Tr. 17:12) and atthe time ofthe violation was an Air Carrier Certificate holder engagedinPart 135 operations (Complaint 1; 3/5/14 Tr. 39:23-25). There was no showingbythe FAA, however, thatthe Respondent's actions on May 3, 2009 rose to a level thatrequired a finding ofaggravation under any ofthe factors identified in Chapter 7, paragraph 4.

Page 14 of 15F. Conclusion. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent is assessed a total civil penalty of$2,000 for committing one (1) violation of 14 C.P.R.§ 135.21(a) onMay 3, 2009

. .;_:·· Pursuantto 14 C.P.R. § 13.232(d), this Initial Decision shall be considered a final order finding violations and assessing a civil penalty unless either party files a notice ofappeal within 10 days ofservice ofthis Initial Decisionpursuant to 14 C.P.R. § 13.233.

ivan**A.~ffi.ii·**mstrative LawJudge Attachment: Service List

Page 15 of 15SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W10004

Mr. William P. Vines 

### Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration ONE COPY

Office ofthe Regional Counsel, Southern Region P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223 Mr. Michael A. Honeycutt, President Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc., 

### Respondent c/o JET I.C.U. 2561 Rescue Way Brooksville, FL 34604 TEL: 352-796-2540 FAX: 352-796-2549 mike@jeticu.com Judge J.E. Sullivan 

### US. Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0045 (Civil Penalty Action)

4 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430.