SERVED: MAY 28, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ····';: 

In The Matter Of: 

WORLDWIDE AIRCRAFT 

SERVICES, INC. 

Respondent 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 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Withdrawn: Count II 

During the March 2014 Hearing, the FAA moved to withdraw Count II alleged in its 

February 20, 2013 Complaint (Complaint, page 2-3, ~II). The prose Respondent did not 

object, and the 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 of the Case 

On February 15,2013, the prose Respondent, 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 of Transportation's Office of 

Hearings. In its February 20,2013 Complaint, the FAA alleged that the Respondent, the holder 

of Air 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.) 

On June 6, 2013, an Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures was filed. Among 

other things, this Order provided a discovery schedule with deadlines, and set the Hearing for 

March 5-6, 2014 in Tampa, Florida. (6/6/13 Order, 1-4.) 

On January 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 by the prose Respondent during a January 8, 2014 

Conference. (1/9/14 Order, 1 ~ 1.) 

On February 4, 2014, an Order Granting/Denying Relief was filed. This February 4, 2014 

Order contains discussion and rulings on various discovery motions, which will not be repeated 

here. However, this February 4, 2014 Order confirmed and adopted additional agreed factual 

admissions, with the understanding that the Respondent would still be allowed to present a 

defense on the contested allegation. 1 (2/4/14 Order, 6 ~ 3 and 7 ~~ 4 and 8.) 

Among other things, the February 4, 2014 Order held that on June 5, 2009, Mr. Price, the 

Second in Command ("SIC") ofthe May 3, 2009 flight, authored and sent to FAA Inspector 

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") of the May 3, 2009 flight, authored 

and sent to FAA Inspector Robert Donahue a two (2) page Letter ("6/8/09 Plas Letter") 

discussing the May 3, 2009 flight. The contents of the 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 of Amended Complaint, which corrected 

some typographical errors contained in the February 20, 2013 Complaint. 

1 During the January 31,2014 Motion Conference, the prose Respondent explained its position in offering to 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 what they 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-admit the 6/5/09 Price Letter as Exhibit C-9, and to re-admit the 

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 15 
On March 4, 2014, an Order Granting/Denying Relief was filed. This March 4, 20 14 

Order contains discussion and rulings on various pre-hearing motions, which will not be repeated 

here. 

On March 5, 2014, March 6, 2014, and March 7, 2014, the parties appeared for Hearing 

in Tampa, Florida. In support of its case-in-chief, the FAA presented 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 of its responsive case, the Respondent 

presented two witnesses (Ms. Aleski and Mr. Honeycutt) and offered one ofthe FAA's Exhibits 

(i.e., C-6) into evidence. Exhibit C-6 was admitted. (3/5/15 Tr. 48-9.) At the conclusion of the 

March 2014 Hearing, the parties agreed that post-hearing briefs would not be 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 of Dominica (airport code TDPD) to Marsh Harbor, 

Bahamas (airport code MY AM) ("Flight") using civil aircraft N90LJ. "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 of the 

Respondent's General Operations Manual, Section F-1, which required 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 "Count II". (Complaint, 2-3, ~II.) As noted on page 1 supra, 

the FAA moved to 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" of the 

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 in this action, the Respondent, WorldwideAircraft Services, Inc, 

was the holder of Air Carrier Certificate No. W50A880L. (1/9/14 Order, 1 ~ 1.) It was a small 

(i.e. less than nine aircraft) Part 135 "on demand" aircraft operator. (3/5/15 Tr. 188:24-189:3). In 

2009 it provided global Medical Repatriation services, using four Learjets. (3/7/14 Tr. 17:22-25 

and 20:25-21: 14.) It had six to eight pilots operating the aircraft. (3/7 /14 Tr. 29:7-11.) 

As a Part 135 operator, the Respondent had a General Operations Manual ("GOM") that 

specified procedures for addressing the discovery of aircraft 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, prior to releasing the aircraft from a specific flight, to report it 

to the Director of Maintenance ("DOM"), and to also document the discrepancy on an MX-02 

form, which was kept on the aircraft. (!d.; 3/5/14 Tr. 129; Complaint, 2 ~ 6.) ~ . .t ' 

On or about May 3, 2009, the Respondent operated civil aircraft N90LJ, a Learjet 25D, 

on an "on demand" flight that included stops at the Commonwealth of Dominica and Marsh 

Harbor, Bahamas. (1/9/14 Order, 1 ~ 1.) The aircraft left the 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 of Dominica (airport code "TDPD") to pick up a medical 

passenger and refuel, flew to Marsh Harbor, Bahamas (airport code "MY AM") and refueled, and 

then completed the 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 Respondent had a 10-hour flight time limit under its Part 

135 operation. (!d. at 23:16.) Time was "critical" on every transport. (!d. at 25:12-13.) 

Shortly after this May 3, 2009 flight, the FAA field office received an anonymous, verbal 

complaint on its "hotline" number. The complaint alleged that the Respondent's flight crew had ·~ . 

taxied off a runway with a GPU attached to the aircraft. (3/5/14 Tr. 196:3-9.) FAA Inspector 

Donahue was assigned to investigate the hotline complaint. (!d.) Inspector Donahue and 

Inspector Schaefer visited the Respondent's business location, and verified that the hotline 

Page 4 of 15 
complaint was credible. (3/5/15 Tr. 211 :24-25). Once the complaint was verified, FAA Inspector 

Kahler opened a separate investigation regarding the possibility that the Respondent had failed to 

comply with its operating procedures. 

During the FAA's investigations, the Respondent's flight crew agreed that on May 3, 

2009, they had mistakenly taxied and taken off on aircraft N90LJ from BKV without first 

disconnecting the GPU cable from N90LJ. (2/4114 Order, 6 ~ 3; Exhs. C-8 and C-9.) The flight 

crew had not known that the GPU was still attached when the aircraft taxied from BKV. Mr. Plas 

reported that "nothing abnormal was felt" during the take-off from 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 MYAM reported difficulty attempting to connect the GPU. Mr. Plas exited the 

airplane and tried to assist. 

In his June 8, 2009 Letter to Inspector Donahue, Mr. Plas reported that he discovered 

during the MYAM refueling stop that the GPU receptacle plug pins were "bent." (Exh. C-8, 2.) 

Mr. Price immediately telephoned Mr. Honeycutt, the Respondent's Director of Operations 

("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 

contact the Respondent's DOM or fill out an MX 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 if the 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 crew released the plane, and went 

off duty. (!d. at 2.) The DOM was not contacted, and the flight crew did not fill out an MX-02 

form and leave it in the aircraft. (3/5/15 Tr. 220:23-221 :4.) 

Aircraft N90LJ 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 aircraft N90LJ to its 

owner, Brandis Aircraft, for scheduled maintenance. (3/7/14 Tr. 39:3-9 and 41 :6-10.) 

On May 20, 2009 (i.e., seventeen (17) days after the May 3, 2009 flight), Brandis Aircraft 

Page 5 of 15 
performed maintenance on aircraft N90LJ. (3/7/14 Tr. 41 :6-10.) The GPU mounting brackets 

and the GPU itself were 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.) 

Shortly thereafter, during the FAA's June 2009 investigation, Mr. Plas told Inspector 

Donahue that he did not fill out an MX-02 form about the GPU problem because the bent GPU 

pins did not create a risk to flight safety. (3/5/15 Tr. 218:10-12.) 

D. Brief Discussion of Count 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.) Neither party introduced the Respondent's 

GOM's definitions section into evidence, so .it is unknown whether the GOM provided a specific 

definition for "mechanical discrepancy.'' 

During the FAA's case-in-chief, Inspector Singleton described the GPU receptacle on 

aircraft N90LJ as follows: 

It is a point on the aircraft where a ground power unit can be attached to the 

aircraft to provide electrical power to 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 FAA categorized the GPU receptacle as part of the aircraft electrical system. (/d. at 

75:19-22,82: 12-23.) When the aircraft was in flight, it generated its ·own power. But once the 

aircraft was on the ground, the GPU provided external "electrical power to an aircraft." (!d. at 

78:10-12.) Among other things, the GPU external power source helped "relieve the load on the 

aircraft-battery system." (/d. at 78:17-18; 3/7114 Tr:;24:16-21.) 

FAA witnesses alternatively referred to the May 3, 2009 discovered GPU bent receptacle 

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 if it were "assum[ed]" (!d. at 

Page 6 of 15 
235:9) that the bent GPU pins were a mechanical discrepancy, then the flight crew should have 

filled out an MX-02 form. (3/5115 Tr. 15-16.) Inspector Kahler and Inspector Singleton both 

testified that the bent pins were a "discrepancy." (!d. at 128:13-24; 3/6/15 Tr. 80:24-81:2, 94:22-

23.) 

Inspector Singleton opined that if the 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 of the bent pins on May 3, 2Q09 required·documenting the problem on a MX-02 form 

and notifying the Respondent's maintenance crew: 

The abnormality of the plug to perform its function constituted a mechanical 

irregularity or a discrepancy upon the aircraft ... that should have been written up, 

[and] passed to the maintenance people for their determination to see if there was 

a malfunction. 

(3/5/15 Tr. 128:13-24.) 

According to Inspector Singleton, the bent pins meant that the 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.) 

It is not able to fly in the manner in which it was designed. This particular case, 

the aircraft could not be started using the gtdund-power unit if the [aircraft] 

battery had become defective. 

(3/5115 Tr. 128:13-24.) 

Inspector Singleton testified that the 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 aircraft N90LJ demonstrated that the GPU plug was 

"unserviceable." (3/5/14 Tr. 174:20-21). Thus, once Mr. Plas discovered the bent pins on May 3, 

2009, he should have reported the problem to the DOM and documented the discrepancy on an 

MX-02 form. The FAA also emphasized that the Respondent's GOM's reporting and 

documenting procedures were to ensure that the aircraft was properly maintained so that the 

Respondent could be 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't know 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 a prima facie case on Count I. 

As part of the 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.) It was 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 if a GPU was plugged into the aircraft GPU receptacle, and 

the aircraft received power from the GPU, then the GPU receptacle would be operating "as it 

was designed to operate." (!d. at 116:16-22.) Inspector Singleton then corrected his 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, it needs to be "written up" so 

that the problem can be inspected by a mechanic. (!d. at 135:23-136:8.) 

In its responsive case, the Respondent pointed out that none ofthe FAA inspectors 

asserted that aircraft N90LJ had ever been unairworthy, either on May 3, 2009, or from May 3, 

2009 through May 20,2009 (the date maintenance was performed on the GPU). (3/7/14 Tr. 

9:24-10:4.) The Respondent also emphasized that what constituted a "discrepancy" was often a 

subjective determination, and a discrepancy determination could easily vary from one individual 

to the next. (!d. 30:23-31:10.) 

Page 8 of 15 
Mr. Honeycutt agreed that it was the ultimate responsibility of the captain of the aircraft 

to determine whether or not the aircraft was airworthy, before he flies the aircraft. (!d. at 32:3-9.) 

He also believed the Mr. Plas had correctly determined, on May 3, 2009, that the aircraft was 

airworthy: 

I stand a hundred percent behind Captain Plas, his decision that the aircraft did 

not have damage, did not have a discrepancy ... That is proven by Captain Plas' 

actions in Toronto when he requested the GPU to be plugged in. He 

found ... that ... the GPU worked properly. As Mr. Singleton's testimony yesterday, 

he said "How would you test the GPU receptacle that you felt may not be 

operating properly," he said, "plug in a GPU." 

(3/7/14 Tr. 35:12-22.) 

Mr. Honeycutt also testified about the complexities of global flight services. He 

explained that finding an FAA certified mechanic outside of the United States "is very 

complicated." (!d. at 43:4.) It was difficult to "do maintenance" away from the United States. (!d. 

at 43:3-22.) Whenever possible, the Respondent tried to transport its own maintenance team to 

other cities to inspect or work on its aircraft, especially in a foreign country. (!d. at 46:14-46.) 

The Respondent is correct that a pilot in command of an 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 "pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy 

mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions,: occur." !d. 

The Respondent is also correct that the FAA did not allege or prove that aircraft N90LJ 

was unairworthy when it left MY AM or when it landed later on the same day in CYYZ. 

However, the fact that aircraft N90LJ was airworthy on May 3, 2009 is not determinative in this 

case.3 The fact that an aircraft is airworthy does not preclude a violation for failure to log a 

mechanical irregularity. Hinson v. Calhoun, NTSB Order EA-4032, 1993 WL 512479 (Nov. 23, 

1993). 

3 NB: It should be noted that the issue of whether 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 15 
It was undisputed that Mr. Plas discovered, during the MY AM refueling stop, that two of 

the three GPU receptacle plug pins on aircraft N90LJ were "bent" and the GPU receptacle could 

not be accessed. (Exh. C-8, 2.) After discovering these two bent pins, Mr. Plas opted not to use 

an external power source to charge the plane, determined that the aircraft was still airworthy, and 

flew without any problems from MY AM 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 that the 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 of whether they are 

problematic and need reporting. Indeed, the fact that Mr. Plas checked the GPU receptacle after 

landing in CYYZ, to verify whether it was still inoperable, is proof that there 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 of an aircraft component no matter how 

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 of a discrepancy, that the DOM be notified and a report created on Aircraft 

Discrepancy Form MX-02, so that qualified aircraft mechanics are told of any problems with the 

aircraft. This is the way maintenance should be notified about a discovered discrepancy, so that 

maintenance can determine whether or not there is a problem that needs to be further addressed. 

See e.g., Schoppaul, at 1198 (a pilot "should not usurp" the duties of maintenance personnel by 

depriving them of the opportunity to know about and address a possible problem); Hardisson, at . ,. j l' 

2 (a flight crew may not preempt the :fuhction ~ciresponsibility of maintenance personnel to 

analyze mechanical problems). A failure to properly report discrepancies, even when perceived 

by an individual as minor, compromises aviation safety. FAA v. Sundance Air, Inc., FAA-2004-

17789, 2006 WL 728822 (Mar. 15, 2006). 

After considering all the evidence and arguments of the parties, the FAA has proven, by a 

Page 10 of 15 
preponderance of evidence, that on May 3, 2009 the Respondent failed to comply with its GOM 

(Sections E-3 and F-1) when it released aircraft N90LJ from the May 3, 2009 flight at CYYZ, 

without first reporting the discovery of its GPU receptacle's bent pins and temporary 

inoperability to its Director of Maintenance ("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 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, i.e., 14 C.F.R § 

135.2l(a). 

E. Brief Discussion of Civil Penalty 

Prior to the Hearing, the Respondent stipulated that it would 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.) 

At the Hearing, during its case-in-chief, the FAA presented Inspector Farmer's testimony 

in support of its proposed civil penalty of$12,375 for both Count I and Count II. (3/6/14 Tr. 157-

186.) The FAA asserted that it had utilized the Table of Sanctions (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 the Table of Sanctions, 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 minimum range 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 "mid range of a civil 

penalty." (!d. at 162:19.) To find the "mid range" number, she added $825 (the lowest amount in 

the minimum range) to $11,000 (the highest amount in the maximum range), which totaled 

$11,825. Inspector Farmer then divided $11,825 in half, to reach the "mid range" penalty amount 

of$5,912.50 for each violation. (!d. at 163:7-164:17.) Because this case involved two Counts, 

Inspector Farmer next multiplied $5,912.50 by two, to reach $11,825. (!d. 165:10-12.) 

However, the FAA's proposed civil penalty in this case, on two Counts, was $12,375. 

Page 11 of 15 
This was $550 higher than its "mid range" 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 of hazard" (i.e., paragraph (4)(e)); 

and the "use of a certificate" (i.e., paragraph (4)(g)). (Exh. C-18, 7-4 ~~ 4(a), (e), (g).) 

Inspector Farmer repeatedly asserted that because a Part 135 operator was an "on 

demand" air carrier that. carried passengers for compensation, the fine should be aggravated, 

because the Respondent should be "held to a higher degree" of safety in its operations. (3/6/15 

Tr. 174:16-175:5; 184:19-20; 185:19-22.) 

Among other things, Inspector J:iarmer testified that the fact that the Respondent had been 

"in the business" for several years, and then was charged with this 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 of the 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 if the Respondent was found to have committed the violation (i.e., 

neither Mr. Plas nor Mr. Honeycutt made a record 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 earlier herein, after the FAA presented 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 

II was withdrawn, Inspector Farmer returned to the witness stand and testified that $6,1 00 was 

half of $12,375, and was supported by the sa'uie "pblicy and evidence in this case." (!d. at 8:5-

10.) 

As noted herein, the pro 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 15 
After considering all the evidence and arguments of the parties, the FAA has not proven, 

by a preponderance of evidence, that it fully utilized the guidance provided in FAA Order 

2150.3B, or that $6,100 is an appropriate penalty. 

In general, the Table of Sanctions in FAA 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 

of fine within each penalty range varies, depending on the type of violation and other factors. 

(Id.) The Table of Sanctions further provides limitations on when each range should be 

considered, based on additional factors. (!d., at B-29 to B-53.) 

In the instant case, the penalty ranges 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, if the guidance provided by the 

Table of Sanctions is fully utilized, it is necessary to first determine, based on the facts and 

circumstances of the individual case, which of the three penalty ranges should apply, and then 

determine the appropriate civil penalty within that penalty 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 of the moderate penalty rarige. Once it calculates its mathematical "median" 

number, the FAA then considers whether to adjust it up or down, based on both the factors listed 

in Chapter 7, paragraphs 4(a)-(m) ofthe Sanction Guidance as well as other unlisted factors. 

Thus, although the Table of Sanctions in this case allows for consideration of a penalty 

in the minimum range or maximum range, the FAA considered those ranges only to provide the 

raw numbers for its mathematical "median" calculation. It should be emphasized that FAA's 

"median" calculation will always result in a proposed penalty that begins in the upper 50% of the 

moderate range (e.g., in this case, $5,912.50). As a result, even though the Sanction Guidance 

provides the possibility of a civil penalty in the minimum or low moderate ranges, the FAA's 

calculation will always ignore both the minimum range as well as over 50% of the moderate 

range, and begin at an amount significantly higher. 

While it is theoretically possible that the FAA's consideration of the factors in paragraph 

4 could result in lowering its calculated "median" penalty into the lower moderate or even 

Page 13 of 15 
minimum range, that did not occur herein. Instead, the FAA recommended that paragraph 4 

factors should be utilized to further increase its "median" calculation (i.e., $5,912.50) into the 

highest end ofthe moderate range (i.e., $6,100). 

The Respondent's violation in this case consisted of a single, non-operational event (i.e. 

failure to ensure that its employee followed the General Operations Manual). It was an 

inadvertent violation, because neither Mr. Plas nor Mr. Honeycutt recognized the bent pin 

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 that they 

could "test" the problem and determine its mechanical functionality. Mr. Plas tested the GPU 

before releasing the aircraft from flight, and found it functional. Given the testimony in this case 

from both parties, Mr. Honeycutt's and Mr. Plas' decisions were understandable. Nevertheless, 

the bent GPU pins were a mechanical discrepancy on the aircraft, which should have been 

reported to the DOM and recorded on Aircraft Discrepancy Form MX-02. 

After review of all the admitted testimony and other evidence, and consideration of all 

arguments and applicable regulations, rules, and caselaw, the appropriate civil penalty range to 

apply in this case is the Minimum range. 

In accordance with the Sanction Guidance, the calculation of the civil penalty begins at 

the midpoint of the applicable penalty range. (Jd. at 7-9; 3/6114 Tr. 162:17-19.) In this case, the 

midpoint of the Minimum range is $2,062. It was undisputed that the Respondent has been in 

existence since 2003 (3/7/14 Tr. 17:12) and at the time of the violation was an Air Carrier 

Certificate holder engaged in Part 135 operations (Complaint 1; 3/5/14 Tr. 39:23-25). There was 

no showing by the FAA, however, that the Respondent's actions on May 3, 2009 rose to a level 

that required a finding of aggravation under any of the factors identified in Chapter 7, paragraph 

4. 

Page 14 of 15 
F. 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) on May 3, 2009 . .;_:·· 

Pursuant to 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 of appeal within 

10 days of service of this Initial Decision pursuant to 14 C.P.R. § 13.233. 

ivan 

A.~ffi.ii· mstrative Law Judge 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 15 of 15 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0004 

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 of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey 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-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.