01/09/201 2 11.4 4 FAX202493514 2 FA A- DMS ©001/02 0

StTRVED DECEMBER30 , 201 1 U.S. . DEPARTMEN TO FTPJ1.NSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . 

### DE C 3 0201 1

I NTH E MATTE RO F RUSHMOR E HELICOPTERS , INC . Z' . ^^ ^ FA ADOCKE T NO . CPIOGL000 2 ' C"-\--^^ ^ (Civi l Penalr yAction ) rr;ZSD^ , DM S No . FAA-201U-002 3 _ _HO' ^ e n COMPLAINANT' S REPL YBRIE F Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . ^ 13.233 , Conipiaindn L file s rhi s brie f i nlepl yt o Ru.shmore Helicopter' s ("Respondent " o r "Rashmore" ) appea l o f th e Init' i a l Decision , rendere db y Administrativ e LawJudg e ("ALJ" ) Richar dC . Goodwi non Octobe r 3 , 201 1 - _STATEMEN T Ol: ' TH E CAS E O nJc:nuar

y19 , 2010 , Complainan t issue da fina l notic e o f propose d civi l penalt yseeking a civi l penalt yo f $25,00 0 agains t Respondent . Responden t requeste da hearin g o nth e matter , an

d Complainan t file dthe coTiplaint i nth o cas e o n February2 , 2010 . I nthe complain^: , Conpiaina.it : allege dthat : 1 . A t ai l time s relevan' C heret o Rushmor e operate da commercia l ai r tou r operatio n(CA T operation ) i nth e vicinit yo f Custer , Sout hDakota .01/09/201 2 11:4 4 FA X202493514 2 • FA A- DM S 0002/02 0

2 . I nit 5 CA T operatio nRushmor e employe d th e service s o f a commercia l pilot , Rober t Lero yLeffer t (Lcffert ) an d ooerate da Bel l 20 6 helicopter , registere d a s N22b8 W an downe dby6 3 Whiske yLLC . 3 . A t al l time s relevan t heret o Leffer t acte d a s pilo t i n comman dandoperate d N226e wa s a pilo t of , an d agen t of , Rushmor e i nth e CA T operation . A . A t som e poin t durin g th e afternoo no f Augus t 6 , 2009 , Leffer t discovere d tha t th e fue l ca p wa s missin g fro m N2268W . 5 . Rathe r tha nsecur e M2260 Wunti l a replacemen t fue l ca p coul db e obtained , o r see k th e assistanc e o f a certificate c mechani c t o obtai na specia l fligh t (ferry ) permit , Leffer t pu t duc t tap e ove r th e fue l fille r por t an dfle wN226ew , fro mKeystone , Sout h Dakot a t o th e Rushmor e an d Blac:- : Hill s Aeria l Adventure s facility , nea r Custer , Sout hDakota , approximatel y1 0 mile s away . 6 . O nAugus t 1 , 2009 , Leffer t operate d N2268 Wi n Rushmore' s CA T operation , withou t th e benefi t o f a fue l ca p installe d an d wit hduc t tap e ove r th e fue l fille r port , o na t leas t 1 0 passenger s carryin g ai r tou r flights . 7 . N2268 Wdi dno t moo t th e typ e desig no r typ e certificat e fo r a Bel l 206 3 helicopte r whe ni t di d no t hav e a fue l ca p an d whe ni t ha d duc t tap e ove r th e fue l fille r port . 6 . A t n o tim e relevan t heret o wa s a specia l fligh t (ferry ) permi t issue d tha t woul d allo wfo r th e operatio no f N2268 Wwit hdue l tap e ove r th e fue l fille r por t rathe r tha nth e appropriat e fue l cap . 9 . AL al l time s tha t Rushmor e operate d N2263 Wwithou t a fue l ca p an dwit hduc t tap e ove r th e fue l fille r port , N2268 Wwa s no t i na nairworth ycondition . IC . Rushmore' s operatio no f l^2Z6QV } withou t a fue l ca p an d wit hduc t tap e ove r th e fue l tille r port , a s describe d abov e wa s careles s an d endangere d th e live s an d orooert vo f others .01/09/201 2 1 1 4 4 FA> ! 202493514 2 FA A- QM S 0003/02 0

Complainan t conclude dtha t Respondent' s conduc t wa s i nviolatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § § 91.7(a ) an d91.13(a). ' O nApri l 27 , 201 1 a hearin g wa s held . Rushmor e owne r an d Presiden t Michae ] Jaco brepresente d Responden t pr o se . O n Octobe r 3 , 2011 , th e AL J rendere d hi s Initia l Decisio ni nwhic h h e determine dtha t Complainan t prove d tha t Responden t violate d 1 4 C.F.R . § § 91. 7 an d91.13(a ) a s se t fort hi nth e Complaint . Initia l Decisio na t 6 . Th e AL J assesse d a civi l penalt yo f $22,500 . Responden t file dnotic e o f appea l o nOctobe r 14 , 2011 . STATEMEN T O F FACT S Responden t i s locate di nKeystone , Sout hDakot a an d operate s helicopter s i ncommercia l ai r tou r operation s conducte d unde r 1-

^ C.F.R . par t 91 . (Tr . 18-19) . Blac k Hill s Aeria l Adventure s ("Blac k Hills" ) i s Respondent' s siste r compan yan d i s locate d approximatel yte nmile s aw= yi nCuster , Sout hDakota . Michae l Jaco bi s th e owne r an d Presiden t o f both . Rushmor e an d Blac k Hills , Employee s wh o wor k fo r Rushmor e als o v/or k fo r Blac k Hills . (Tr . 13-19) .

Sectio n91. 7 states : § 91.7(a)

- N o perso nma yoperat e a civi l aircraf t unles s .i t i s i na nairworth ycondition . Sectio n91.13(a ) states : § 91.1 3 (a)

- Aircraf t operation s fo r th e purpos e o f ai r navigation . M o perso nma yoperat e a naircraf t i na01/09/201 2 11:4 4 FA X202493514 2 FA A- DM S (^004/02 0



### OnAugus t 5 , 2009 , Rober t Leffert , a pilo t for . Respondent , refuele d N2268W , a Bel l 20 6 Je t Ranger , a t Keystone . (Tr- . 70) . Leffer t the nassiste d a groundcrewnembe r wh o wa s havin g troubl e .stowin g a fue l hose . (Tr . 70) . A s a result , Leffer t becam e distracted , an

d ''th e fue l cap didn' t ge t pu t on. " (Tr . 70) . Leffer t the nrelocate d the helicopte r acros s th e ram p are a t o th e loading pad , picke d u p passengers , an

dlook off . (Tr . 70) . Soo nrealizin g hi^

- mistake , Leffer t returne dt o Keystone , unloade d the passengers , an dsearche dfo r the fue l cap . (Tr . 70

- 71) , Afte r failin g t o locat e th e fue l cap , Leffer t place dduc t tapf c ove r th e fue l port , flewN2268 WLo Blac k Hills' s hanga r facilit yi nCuster, , the nlof t th e facilit yfo r th e day . (Tr . 70

- /5 ) . Onthe mornin g o f Augus t 7 , 200 9 befor e Responden t bega n conductin g commercia l ai r lour. s fo r tha t day , Leffer t andJaco b discusse d th e lac k o f a fue l cap . (Tr . 73) . Jaco bstate dtha t h e ha d a telephon e conversatio nwit ha Bel l desig nenginee r o n Augus t 7 , 700 9 wh o opine d tha t th e fue l cap wa s no t a structura l componen L an

d tha t th e lac k o l a fue l cap di dno t presen t a safet yissue . (Tr . 113) . However , during the cours e o f hi s investigation , FA

AInspecto r Gar yKwasniewsk i contacte da Bel l enginee r wh o state d t o Kwasniewsk i i na nemai l tha t th e fue l cap

careles s o r reckles s manne r s o a s t o endange r th e 1if e o r propert yo f another .01/09/201 2 11.4 4 FAX202493514 2 FA A^ DMS [2|005/02 0



### i s a nessentia l componen t andtha t operatin g th e helicopte r withou t a fue l cap compromise s safet yan drender s th e aircraf t unairworthy . (AgencyExhibi t 7) . OnAugus t 7 , 2009 , Leffer t decide d t o fl yN2266 Wfrom Custe r t o Keystone , wher e h e conducte dcommercia l ai r tou r operation s tha t day . Upo nreceiving a complain t o f a missin g fue l cap from

a-busines s owne r locate dbesid e Respondent' s facilit yi nKeystone , Inspecto r Kwasniewsk i wen t t o th e facilit y o nth e afternoo no f Augus t 7 t o investigate . (Tr . 20) . Kwasniewsk i observe d N2268 Wtakeof f wit hpassenger s o nboard , withou t a fue l cap , an d wit hduc t tap e coverin g th e fue l fille r port . H e state d tha t h e firs t observe dtha t th e fue l cap wa s missin g a s th e aircraf t wa s preparin g t o depar t fromth e ''farthes t port " a t th e facility . (Tr . 26) . Fo r safet yreasons , h e di d no t prever: t th e helicopte r fromtaking off : " I didn' t fee l I shoul d b e running ou t t o g o in.fron t o f th e helicopte r tha t wa s startin g t o tak e off. " (Tr . 59) . Whil e Inspecto r Kwasniewsk i waite d a t th e Keyston e locatio n fo r N2268 Wt o return , he go t a copyo f th e Augus t 7 fligh t recor d fromRush-more employee , Maria hWeller . (Tr . 29 , Agenc y Exhibi t A

) . Kwasniewsk i observe d Welle r rerriov e the recor dfrom th e binder , mak e a copy , the nhand th e copyt o Kwasniewski .01/09/201 2 11.4 4 FAX202493514 2

. . FA A•. DMS ^006/02 0

(Tr . 66-67) , Wilie r tol dKwasniewsk i tha t th e recor d wa s th e onl yrecor dfo r tha t day , Augus t 7 , an d tha t al l previou s fligh t record s ar e take nt o th e Blac k Hill s facilit yi nCuster . (Tr . 37 , 66-67) . Kwasniewsk i the ntravele d t o Custe r t o ge t a cop yo f th e fligh t recor dfo r th e previou s day , Augus t 6 . (Tr . 33 ; Agenc yExhibi t 3) : Whil e enrout ^ fro mKeystone't o CusLer , Inspecto r Kwasniewsk i notict^ dCha t th e recor d Welle r provide d hi ma t Keyston e wa s marke da s Augus t 6 instea d o f Augus t 7 . (Tr . 36

- 37) . Kwasniewsk i determine d tha t th e recor d wa s marke d .incorrectl yan dshoul dhav e bee nmarke d a s Augus t 7 . (Tr . 37) . Kwasniewsk i base dhi s determinatio no nhi s observation s of , an d conversatio nwith , Welle r a s describe d i nth e precedin g paragraph . (Tr . 36-37 , 66-67) . Afte r Kwasniewsk i arrive d a t th e Blac k Hill s facilit yi nCusLer , h e spok e wit hJacob , owne r o f Blac k Hill s an dRushmor e an dgo t a cop yo f th e Augus t 6 fligh t record . (Tr . 41-42 ; Agenc yExhibi t 3) . A t hearing . Complainan t calle d Rushmor e pilo t Leffer t t o testify . Whe n^.skfic . ho wman yflight s Leffer t conducte d o n Augus t 1 , 2009 , Leffer t sai d ''[a ] ccordin g t o th e records , ther e wa s abou t te nflights . I don' t remembe r doin g tna t many , bu t tha t wa s apparently , th e casii " (Tr . 76-77) . Als o a t hearing . Responden t presiden t Jaco btestifie d that , "[r]egardin g th e inciden t o f Augus t 6t han d 7th , I d o no t den y01/09/201 2 11:4 5 FAX202493514 2 FA A- QM S 01007/02 0

tha t th e aircraf t wa s operated.wit hduc t tap e place d ove r th e fue l por t whe nth e ga s ca p wa s lost. " (Tr . 118) . Jaco bals o stated , " I admi t t o th e fac t tha t th e aircraf t wa s .operated. " (Tr . 119). . O ncross-examina t ion , . Comp l ainan t aske d Jaco bi f h e admitte d tha t Rushjtor e operate d .th e aircraft . Jaco brespondent ,

'' I adm.i t tha t [Rushmor e pilot ] Le e Leffer t operate d th e aircraft. " (Tr . 120) . STf^NDARD O F REVIE W O nappeal , th e FAADecisionmake r consider s onl yth e followin g issues : "(1 ) Whethe r eac hfindin g o f fac t i s supporte d b ya preponderanc e o f reliable , probative , an d substantia l evidence / (2 ) Whethe r eac hconclusio no f la wi s .Tiad e i n accordanc e wit happlicabl e law , precedent , an d publi c policy ; an d (3 ) Whethe r th e administrativ e la wjudg e committe d an y prejudicia l error s tha t suppor t th e appeal. " 1 4 C.F.R . § T 3 . 2.33(b ) (l)-(3 ) . ISSUE S 1 . Whethe r th e AL J erre dwhe nh e determine d tha t Responden t operate dte nflight s o nAugus t 7 , 200 9 withou t a fue l fille r ca p an dwit hduc t tap e coverin g th e fue l port . 2 . Whethe r th e Decisionmake r shoul d reduc e th e civi l penalt y wher e Responden t assert s financia l hardshi p o nappea l bu t di d no t rais e th e issu e a t hearing . ARGUMEN T (1 ) Th e AL J properl ydetennina d tha t Responden t operate d ta nflight s o nAugrus t 7 , 200 9 base d o na preponderanc e o f th e reliable , probativ e evidence . 701/09/201 2 11:4 5 FA X20^493514 2 FA A* DM S 1^008/02 0

Complainan t prove dbya preponderanc e o f th e evidenc e tha t Responden t conducte dte nflights.o nAugus t 7 , 2009 . I nhi s initia l decision , th e AL J found : A s noted . Responden t admitte d th e fact s underlyin g th e charges . Rushmore' s witnesse s eac hacknowledge dtha t it s Bel l 20 6 helicopte r know na s 6 8 Whiske yha d operate d te nflight s withou t a fue l fille r ca p an d with , duc t tap e ove r th e are a (Initia l Decisio n{''I . D." ) , p . 2 ) . initia l Dec i .sio

na t b . Whil e Responden t adrr.its tha t i t operate d th e aircraf t afte r substitutin g duc t tap e fo r th e fue l fille r cap . Responden t argue s tha t th e AL J erroneousl ydetermine d tha t "Rushmore' s witnesse s eac hacknowledged " tha t Rushmor e operate d th e helicopte r o nte nflights . Therefore , accordin g t o Respondent , "th e Initia l Decisio nshoul d b e reverse d a s t o it s finding s an dconclusion s tha t te nflight s occurre d o n Augus t 1 , P009. " (Responden t Brie f a t 8) . Respondent' s argumen t focuse s onl yo nth e ALJ' s findin g o f wha t Rushmor e witnesse s "acknowledged " whil e disregardin g th e totalit yo f reliable , probaLive , an d substantia l evidence : I n additio nt o testimon yfro mRushmor e pilo t Leffer t an d owne r Jacob , th e AL J wa s entitle dt o rel yo nth e testimon yo f FA A Inspecto r Kwasniewski , includin g hi s testimon yregardin g th e Respondent ' 3 flight , record s fo r Augus t 6 a.n d 7 entere d int o evidenc e a s Agenc yEAhib i t s 3 an d 4 , respectively , t o determin e01/09/201 2 11:4 5 FAX202493514 2 FAA- QM S 0009/02 0

tha t Complainan t prove dbya preponderanc e o f th e evidenc e tha t Responden t operate dN2268 Wo nte nflignt s o nAugus t 7 , 2009 . a . FA AInspecto r Kwasniewski' 9 testimon ysupport s th e ALJ' s findin g tha t Rushmor e conducte d te nflight s i nN2 2 68 Wo n Augus t 7 , 2009 . O nappeal , Responden t note s tha t Inspecto r Kwasniewski' s testimon yabout.Maria hWeller' s statemen t concernin g th e incorrec t Augus t 6 dat e o nth e Augus t 7 fligh t recor d i s hearsay . (Responden t Brie f a t 4) . Responden t acknowledge s tha t hearsa yevidenc e i s admis.sibl e an d ma yb e considere d i na n administrativ e proceedin g bu t argue s tha t Ms . Weller' s statemen t i s insufficien t fo r Complainan t t o mee t hi s burde no f provin g th e te nflights . However , Respondent' s argument , consider s th e hearsa y statemen t i nisolatio nwhil e completel yignorin g corroboratin g direc t evidence . S_e_ B Tran s Worl d Airlines , FA AOrde r No . 98-1 1

a t n.l 8 (Jun e 11 , 1996 ) (statin g tha t hearsa ystatement s tha t

ar e consisten t wit han dcorroborat e testimon ypresente d b y witnesse s a t th e hearin g ar e worth yo f consideration) ; cf . Hig h Exposure , Inc. , FA AOrde r No . 2003- 7 a t 5 (Sept . 10 , 2033 ) (notin g Lha L hearsa ytestimon yi nth e absenc e o f corroboratin g documentatio nconstitute s uncompellin g an d unsubstantiate d hearsay") . O nAugus t 7 , Inspecto r Kwasniewsk i directl yobserve d Ms , Welle r remov e th e fligh t recor d fro mth e folde r a t th e Keyston e location , tur naroun d t o mak e a copy , the nhan d01/09/201 2 1 1 4 5 FAX202493514 2 .FA A- DM S 0010/02 0

Inspecto r Kwasniewsk i th e copy , (Tr . 66-67 ; Agenc yExhibi t 4] . Ms . Welle r contemporaneous] ytol d Inspecto r Kwasniewsk i tha t i t

wa s th e recor dfo r tha t day , August. . 7 , an d tha t th e previou s days ' record s ar e ne t kep t a t Key.^ton e bu t ar e take nt o th e Custe r location . (Tr . 66) . . O ntha t sam e day , Augus t 7 , Inspecto r Kwasniewsk i confirme d Weller' s statemen t tha t previou s days ' record. s are - take nt o Custe r whe nh e drov e t o Custe r an d did , i nf cact , locat e an dge t a cop yo f th e fligh t recor d fro m Augus t 6 , th e previou s day . (Tr . 33 ; Agenc yExhibi t 3) . Th e preponderanc e o f reliable , substantial , an d probativ e evidenc e showe dtha t th e fligh t recor d tha t Ms . Helle r gav e t o Inspecto r Kwasniewsk i o nAugus t 7 , wa s i nfac t th e Augus t 7

recor d incorrectl ydate da s Augus t 6 . Tha t fligh t recor d fo r Augus t 1 , 200 9 indicate s tha t Responden t operate d N2268W , o nte n flights . r'ro

n thi s evidence , th e AL J properl yconclude d tha t Responden t operate d N2268 Wo nte nflight s o nAugus t 7 , 20C9 . b . Pilo t Rober t Lefferf s testimon ysupport s th e ALJ' s findin g tha t Leffer t conducte dte nflight s i nN2268 Wo n Augus t 7 , 2009 . ?,esponden ~ cite s Pilo t Leffert' s testirr.on ydurin g Complainant' s direc t examinatio nt o suppor t Respondent' s contentio ntha t th e .AL J erre d i nfindin g th e te nflights : Q : D o yo u kno who wman yflight s yo u too k o n Augus t 7t ho f '0 9 wit hduc t tap e ove r th e .fue l port ?

1 001/09/201 2 11:4 5 FAX202493514 2 FA A- DMS (2)011/02 0



### A : Accordin g t o th e records , ther e wa s abou t te n flights . I don' t remembe r doin g tha t many , bu t tha t was , apparentl yth e case . Responden t Brie f a t 4 ; Tr . 76-77 . Responden t speculate s that " Leffert' s qualifyin g statement , ''accordin g t o the records, " coul d indicaL e tha t Complainant'ha dpu t word s i nhi s mout ha s t o th e numbe r o f flights . Se e Responden t Brie f a t 4 . However , Respondent' s speculatio nI s no t supporte db yth e cas e record . Th e cas e recor d show s tha t Complainant' s counse l aske dLeffer t a clear , non-leadin g questio na s t o the numbe r o f flights : "D o yo u kno who wmanyflight s yo u too k onAugus t 7t ho f '0 5 wit hduc t tap e ove r th e fue l port? " (Tr . 16-11] . Leffer t answere dtna t th e record s indicate d tenflights , eve nthoug hh e di dno t recal l specificall yconductin g te nflights . Th e fligh t record s depicte d i nAgenc yExhibit s 3 an d4 ar e busines s record s o f Respondent' s ow ncreatio nandkep t i nth e ordinar ycours e o f it s business . Complainan t introduce dthes e exhibit s int o evidenc e withou t Respondent' s objection. ~ Responden t recorde d th e te nflight s onth e recor dfo r Augus t 7 , a s depicte d i nAgenc yExhibi t 4 . Therefore , i nadditio nt o Inspecto r Kwasniewski' s testimony , th e AL J properl yrelie don Pilo t Leffert' s testimonyandRespondent' s fligh t recor dt o

' Whil e H^sponden t di d no t objec t a t hearing , Hespo.-iden t di dnot e tha t bot hfligh t record s wer e date da s Augus t 6 . (Tr . 35 ; Agenc y Exhibit s 3 and 4) . 1 101/09/201 2 11:4 5 FA X202493514 2 FA A^ DM S 13012/02 0

determ i n e tha t Rushmor e witnesses-acknowledge d th e operatio no f te nflight s o nAugus t 7 , 2009.- ^

c . Rushsxor e Presiden t Michae l Jacob' s testimon ysupport s th e ALJ' 3 findin g tha t Responden t operate d te nflight s i n N2268 Wo nAugus t 7 , 2009 . Complainan t introduce dint o evidenc e Respondent' s Augus t 6

an d Augus t 7 fligh t records , marke d a s Agenc yExhibit s 3 an d 4 , respectively . (Tr . 35 , 37-33) . Whil e Jaco bdi d no t object , h e note d tha t "'th

e fligh t schedule s ar e date d Augus t 6 , instea d o f

on e bein g date dAugus t 7. " (Tr . 35) . Th e AL J the nadvise d Jaco b t o "'make sur e tha t yo u highligh t tha t i nyou r cas e i nchief. " (Tr . 3[> ) . Jaco bdi dno t highligh t tha t i nhi s case- i n-chie f a s advise d b yth e ALJ . Rather , Jacob' s narrativ e testimon y consiste d o f (1 ) a nadmissio ntha t Responden t operate d th e aircraf t wit hduc t tap e coverin g th e fue l por t o nAugus t 6 an d 7 (Tr . liy-119 ) an d(2 ) hi s opinio ntha t th e duc t tap e di d no t rende r th e aircraf t unairworthy , an d tha t Leffert , a s pilo t i n command , wa s responsibl e fo r determinin g tha t th e aircraf t wa s saf e t o operate . (Tr . 118-119) . Becaus e Jaco bfaile d t o addres s th e issu e o f th e fligh t recor d date s a s depicte d i nAgenc y

^ Althoug hLeffer t wa s calle d b yComplainan t an d therefor e wa s no t technicall ya witnes s fo r Respondent , th e ALJ' s error , i f a t all , wa s harmles s whe nh e implie d tha t Leffer t wa s a witnes s fo r Rushmor e i ndeterminin g that , "Rushmore' s witnesse. = eac h acknowledged " tha t Rushmor e operate d th e helicopte r o nte n flights . Initia l Decisio na t 5 .01/09/201 2 11:4 5 FAX202493514 2 FA A^ OM S 0013/02 0



### F-xhioit s 3 an

d 4 a s ih e AL J had sugges t fed t o him , Corapl ainan t wa s no t obligate d t o expand th e scop e o f hi s cross-examinatio n beyond Jacob' s narrativ e testimon yb yaskin g Jaco babou t the fligh t records. ' Therefore , Respondent' s argumen t onappea l tha t so.iieon e shoul d hiv e questione d Jaco babou t th e fligh t record s i s unavailing , especiall yi nvie wof . th e AL J havin g cue dhi mtha t .^ e shoul d addres s thi s issu e i nhi s cas e i nchie f i f h e wante d t o ct o so . Onc e Complainan t me t hi s burde no f producin g evidenc e tha t Responden t conducte d te nflights , th e burde no f productio n shifte d t o Responden t t o sho wtha t Responden t di dno t conduc t te nflights . Se e Enier yWorldwid e A.irlir.es ^ Inc. , FA AOrde r No . 57^3 0 (Oct . 7 , 1997 ) (determining tha t .A L J' s findin g tha t companyoperate d aircraf t v/ithou t len s cover s i nth e carg o comparLr[:en

t wa. ^ supporte d b

ya preponderanc e o f the evidenc e whe nAL J credite d FA Ainspector' s testimon yan dmaintenanc e log s showin g tha t th e len s cover s wer e missin g ove r Respondent' s testimonytha t len s cover s wer e ix nplace ] . Accordir^.gly , afte r Complainan t produce d evidenc e showin g tha t Responden t operate d

Jaco braise d th e issu e o f the fligh t record s onl ydurin g hi s cross-examinatio no f Inspecto r Kwasniewski , Inspecto r ^''•asniewski' s tesLlmonyoncross-examinatio nregardin g th e -ligh t record s wa s onl ytha t bot hfligh t record s obtaine don Augus t 7 , 2009 , on e from the Cu.ste

r locatio nandthe othe r from th e Keyston e location , wer e date dAugus t 6 . (Tr . 62) .01/09/201 2 11.4 5 FA> ! 202493514 2 FA A^ QM S (?]014/02 0

•tenflight s o nAugus t 7 , Responden t ha d th e burde no f producin g som e evidenc e tha t i t di dno t operat e te nflight s o ntha t day . Respondent ' faile dt o mee t it s burden . Responden t note s tha t Leffer t testifie dfo r Complainant , an d therefor e tha t Jaco b

wa s th e onl ywitnes s fo r Rushmore . Responden t the nimplie s tha t becaus e Jaco bdi dno t specificall yadmi t tha t Responden t conducte d te nflights , th e AL J mus t hav e erre d b yfindin g that , ''Rus.hrTiore ' s wi-ness^ s eac hacknowledge d tha t it s [helicopter ] ha d operate dte nflight s ... " Responden t Brie f a t 3-4 ; Initia l Decisio na t 5 . Whil e Jaco bdi d no t specificall ystat e tha t Responden t operate dte nflight s i nN2 2 66 Wo nAugus t '/ , h e adiTiitte

d tha t th e flight s wer e flown , an d h e neithe r objecte d t o th e admissio no f th e fligh t record s no r di d h e specificall y contes t th e numbe r o f flight s liste d o nth e Augus t 7 fligh t

recor d when , a s discusse dabove , th e burde no f productio nha d shifte d T.o Responden t t o rebu t Complainant ' s allegatio no f te n flights . Afte r Responden t admitte d tha t i t operate d N2266 Wo n Augus t 7 , 2009 , Responden t faile d t o produc e som e evidenc e showin g tha t i t di dno t operat e te nflight s o ntha t date . Therefore , th e AL J di dno t er r whe nh e foun d tha t Rushmore' s v/itnesse s acknowledge dtha t it s helicopte r operate d te nflight s withou t a fue l fille r ca p an d withou t duc t tap e coverin g th e fue l port .

1 401/09/201 2 11:4 5 FA) ( 202493514 2 .FA A- rDM S 0015/02 0

I nsum , Complainant ' prove d b ya preponderanc e o f th* i evidenc e tha t Responden t conducte d te nflight s i nN2268 Wo n Augus t 7 , 2009 . Complainan t me t it s burde nthroug htestimon yo f E"A AInspecto r Kwasniewsk i an d Pilo t Leffer t tha t Responden t conducte d th e te nflight s a s depicte d i nth e Augus t 7 fligh t record , incorrectl ydate da s Augus t 6 , 3e e Agenc yExhibi t 4 . Jacob' s admissio ntha t th e flight s wer e flow nan d hi s failur e t o contes t th e te nf1igh t entrie s o nth e fligh t recor d depicte d i n Agenc yExhibi t 4 furthe r supporte d th e P^LJ' s determinatio ntha t Responden t conducte dte nflights . Respondent' s effort s o nappea l L o cas t th e numbe r o f flight s a s a nissu e whe nh e chos e no t t o i nhi s cas e i nchief , i s therefor e unavailing . (2 ) Th e FA ADecisionmalce r shoul d no t reduc e th e civi l penalt ywher e Responden t faile d t o rais e th e issu e o f financia. 1 hardshi p a t th e hearing . O nappeal . Responden t concede s tha t i t "woul d hav o ha d th e burde nt o prov e an yassertio no f financia l hardship. " Responden t Bjrie f a t 6 . However , Responden t goe s o nt o asser t tha t i t "-=5hoL:l d onlyb e incumben t o nRushmor e t o [bea r th e burde no f ptovin g financia l hardship ] i f evidenc e i s presente d allegin g tha t i t ha dth e abilit yt o pa yan d tha t i t woul d no t affec t it s abilit yt o sta yi nbusiness. " Responden t Brie f a t 6 . Respondent' s attemp t t o shif t th e burde no f provin g linancia l hardshi p t o Complainan t ignore s altogethe r longstandin g preceden t establishin g tha t "financia l hardshi p an d 1 501/09/201 2 11:4 6 FA X202493514 2 FA A- DM S 0016/02 0

inabilit yt o pa yar e affirmativ e defense s tha t th e responden t ha s th e burde no f provin g b ya preponderanc e o f th e reliable , probative , an dsubstantia l evidence. " Atla s Frontiers , LLC , FA A Orde r Mo . PQIQ-I O a t 6 (Jun e 16 , 2010) ; Salvator e Giuffrida , FA A Orde r Ho . 1992-7 2 a t 2 (Dec . 21 , 199?) ; se e 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.244(c ) (providin g tha t th e responden t bear s th e burde no f provin< 3 affirmative , defenses ) - -Thus , th e burde no f provin g financia l hardsh i p fall s squarel yo nRespondent. ^ Th e Adrr.inistrato r ha s explaine d tha t a respondent , no t th e FAA , i s 1-

1 th e bes t positio no f knovJin g an d producin g evidenc e relate d t o a respondent ' s ' abilit yt o pay . Se e Costello , FTl A Orde r No . 93-1 0 a t 4 (Mar , 25 , 1993 ] (upholdin g ALJ' s assessmen t

o f civi l penalt yagains t th e respondent , findin g tha t th e responden t faile dt o rai.s e th e issu e o f financia l hardshi p a t hearin g andsLaLin g tha t "th e perso nwh o claiTn s financia l hardshi p bear s th e burde no f proo f becaus e th e financia l informatio na t issu e i s withi nhi s o f he r exclusiv e control") .

• ' Responden t suggest s tha t ne winformatio nregardin g it s financia l conditio nha s arise nsinc e th e hearin g an d shoul d b e considere d o nappeal . Responden t Brie f a t 7 . However , th e tw o affidavit s Responden t attache s t o it s appea l brie f sho wtha t Respondent' s financia l hardshi p clai mi s largel ybase d o n i nformat. : o ntha t pre-date dth e Apri l 27 , 201 1 hearing . Micnae l Jaco bAffidavi t a t paragraph s 2 , 4 , 7 , 8 , an d 9 ; Shelle yDykstr a Affidavi t showin g profi t an dlos s state.'T^ent . I nfact , Pespo.ndent , throug hit s affidavits , assert s that ' i t experience d financia l hardshi p a s lon g a s on e yea r befor e th e Apri l 27 , 201 1 hearing . Jaco baffidavi t a t paragrap h2 . Therefore , Responden t 1 601/09/201 2 1 1 4G FAX202493514 2 FA A^ DM S 0017/02 0



### Responden t wa s i nexclusiv e contro l o f it s financia l Information . However , a t hearing . Responden t faile dt o rais e th e issu e of , o r produc e an yevi.denc e relatin g to ' financia l hardshi p a s require d b yprecedent . Se e Tabula , FA AOrde r Uo . 2010- 6 (June 15 , 2010 } (upholding th e ALJ' s civi l penalt y assessmen t agains t th e respondent , notin g tha t "[a ] responden t attemptin g t o prov e inabilit yt o paymus t substantiat e hi s claim s at - th e hearin g wit hthe type s o f record s tha t a reasonabl e perso nwoul d accep t a s probativ e o nth e issue s o f incom e and expenses") . Id . a t 7 ; se e Giuffrida , FA- AOrde r No . . 1992,-7 2 (Dec . 21 , 1 992 ) . Onl ynow , o nappeal , an d wit hn o opportunit yfo r Complainan t t o cross-examRespondent , doe s Rushmor e rais e th e issu e o f financia l hardshi p an d attac hdocumentatio nattemptin g t o suppor t it s claim . I nTabula , the responden t onappea l attache d documentatio nattemptin g t o sho wfinancia l hardship . However , th e Administrato r foundtha t o nappeal , i t wa s to o lat e fo r th e responden t t o submi t evidenc e o f financia l hardshi p becaus e th e significanc e o f suc hevidenc e "canno t b e clarifie d throug hcross-examination. " Tabula , FA AOrde r No . 2010- 6 a t 7 , Fo r th e sam e reason . Respondent' s productio no f documentatio n attemptin g t o substantiat e financia l hardshi p i. s untimely .

shoul d hav e presente d thi s informatio na t hearing . Onappeal , th e Decisionrriaker shoul d no t conside r thi s ''new " information . 1 701/09/201 2 n4 6 FA X202493514 2 FA A- . DM S 1^018/02 0

I ncase s wher e a responden t fai. l e d t o introduc e evidenc e o f financia l hardshi p .a t th e hearing , th e Administrato r ha s uphel d th e civi l penalty . See , e.g^ , Folsom' s Ai r Service , Inc. , FA A Orde r l-^o . 2008-1 1 a t 7- 9 (Nov , 6 , 2008) ; Costello , FA AOrde r No . 93-1 0 a t 4 . I nth e presen t case . Responden t faile d eve nt o rais e th e issu e o f financia l hardshi p a t th e hearing . Contrar y t o Respondent' s assertions , th e AL J wa s no t require d t o conside r Respondent' s abilit yt o pa yth e civi l penalt yan d th e effec t o n th e Respondent' s abilit yt o sta yi nbusines s whe nResponden t

neve r pu t th e AL J o nnotic e a t hearin g tha t .financia l hardshi p wa s a nissue . Consequently , an d i naccordanc e wit hprecedent , t h eDecisionmake r mus t rejec t Responden t ' s claiiu s o f fina.tcia l hardshi p a s untimel yan daffir mth e ALJ' s civi l penalt y assessment . Th e AL J thoroughl yjustifie d hi s civi l penalt yassessmen t

o f ^?.?. , TiOO . Initia l Decisio n7 . H e note d tha t Complainan t determine d th e civi l penalt yunde r it s sanctio nguidance . Id . Th e AL J explaine dtha t th e amoun t o f civi l penalt ywa s wiLhi n th e TAA' s sanctio nguidanc e foun d i nFA AOrde r 21b0.3 B an d wa s appropriat e give ntha t Respondent' s helicopte r wa s "flow n outsid e o f th e specification s o f it s typ e certificat e an d i na n unsaf e manne r o nte noccasions, " an d tha t "thes e action s place d th e travelin g publi c a t a significan t an d unacceptabl e risk. " Id . 1 801/09/201 2 11:4 6 FA X202493514 2 FA A^ DM S 1^013/02 0



### CONCLUSION Fo r al l o f th e foregoin g reasons . Complainan t respectfull y request s tha t th e Administrato r affirmth e ALJ' s Initia l Decisio nan

d Orde r finding tha t Responden t violate d1 ^ C.F.R . § § 91.7(a ) and 91.13(a ) a s se t fort hi nth e Complaint , an d uphol d th e ALJ' s civi l penalt yassessmen t o f $22,500 . Respectfull ysubmitted . Pete r J . Lync h Assistan t Chie f Counse l Enforcemen t Division , AGC-30 0 By : J#i nC . Stuart , Jr . A ^ t orn e y , AGC

- 3 0 0 Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n Offic e o f the Chie f Counse l 8 0 0 Independenc e .Avenue , S . W . Washington , D.C , 2059 1 (202 ) 267-995 8

1 901/09/201 2 11:4 6 FA X202493514 2 FA A ^ OI.I S 020/02 0



### CERTIFICAT E O F SF.RVICE I herebycertif ytha t I . hav e sen t vi a persona l delivery , on e origina l an

d tw o copie s o f th e Complainant' s Repl yt o Respondent' s appea l o f th e .ALJ' 3 initia l decision , addresse a to : Federa l Aviatio nA.dn'.inistratio n 60 0 Independenc e Ave , SW . . Wilbu r Wrigh t Building - Suit e 2H100 0 Washington , DC 20o9 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Inaddition , I hereb ycertif ytha t I hav e onthi s dat e sen t b ycertifie d mail , retur nreceip t requested , on e copyaddresse d to ; Frank ABettman , Esq . BettmannHoqu e s

. Diedric h Counse l fo r Responden t 1^0 6 Mountai nVie wRoad , Suit e 10 1 Rapi d City , S D 57702-434 9

Dat'ed : Decembe r 30 , 201 1

2 0