05/18/201 0 17:0 4 FAX 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 0001/00 9

UNITED STATE S DEPARTMEN T OFTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N ^TO r 

# mm \

Federal Aviatio n Administration ,

Complainant , Sunques t Executiv e Ai r

Charter , Inc . Respondent . FA A Docke t N o CPO8WP000 4 (Civi l Penalt

y Action ) RESPONDENT' S APPEA L BRIE F DM S No . FAA-2008-023 8

RESPONDENT' S APPEA L BRIE F Responden t

file s it s brie f

i n respons e t o th e appeal o n fil e b y th e Complainant .

STATEMEN T O FTH E CAS E AND RELEVEN T LSSUE S Th e sol e issu e raise db

y th e Complainan t

i n it s appeal an dbrie f

deal s wit h flight s by on e o f

Respondent' s employees , Mar k Smith , wh o flew ahelicopter fo r th e Lo s Angele s Polic e Departmen t on hi s ow n time . Th

e actio n i s no t

brought fo r an y allege dviolatio n b y pilo t Mar k Smith . I t i s onl y agains t

Respondent , th e air carrier fo r who mMr . Smit

h worke dwhe n h e wa s no t flying helicopter s fo

r th e L.A.P.D . Withou t

explainin g ho w or

i n wha t manner a n all ' carrie r

i s suppose d t o kno w what

al l o f it s pilot s ar e doin g i

n thei r of f dut y time . Complainant' sI 05/18/201 0 17:0 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A. PM S 0002/00 9 positio n appear s t o b e that Mr . Smith' s of

f dut y flying i s require dt o b e tracke db y th e ai r carrier . Interestingly , th e Complainan t fail s t o alleg e ho w or

i n wha t manner ai r carrier s are suppose dt o b e abl e t o ascertai n what it s pilot s d o i

n thei r of f dut y time . Th e Complainan t

appear s t o b e attemptin g t o arrogat e t o itsel f the rule s regardin g "publi c aircraft " i n th e teet h o f th e statutor

y definition s and F.A.A/ s earlie r

opinions . Thi s the y canno t do . I f th e Complainan t

wishe s t o chang e th e rules , it

eithe r ha s t o convinc e Congres s t o chang e th e statute or compl y wit h th e Legal Procedure s Ac t (includin g Notic e of

Propose dRulemaking , etc. ) or botli . Th e complain t charge s tha

t Responden t

committe daviolatio n becaus e it s record s di dno t

trac k Mr . Smitii' s Lo s Angele s Polic e Departmen t flying. However , by stipulation , th e Complainant agree s that

Mr . Smith' s flight

tim e fo r th e Lo s Angele s Polic e Departmen t referre donl y t o Mr . Smith' s flying apolic e helicopter owne dandoperate db y th e Lo s Angele s Polic e Departmen t whic h ha d operational contro l over

initiating , conductin g o r

terminatin g al l flights i n it s helicopters . Administrativ e La w Judg e RichardC . Goodwi n properl y rule dthat withi n the meanin g o f

th e F.A.R.' s Mr . Smith' s flying fo r th e L.A.P.D . di dno t constitute "othe r

commercial flying" unde r th e applicabl e dut

y tim e regulation s impose do n air

carriers .05/18/201 0 17:0 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A. nu ^ ' ^ * DM S 0003/00 9 Clearly , th e F.A.A . ha s astatutor y righ t an ddut y t o regulat e ai r carrie r pilots ' activit y includin g it s flight tim e an dres t

perio dtime . However , ther e i s n o regulation , statut e o r

rul e b y whic hth e F.A.A . ha s previousl y undertake n t o manag e o r

contro l th e activitie s o f th e ai r carrier' s employee s outsid e o f thei r employment . Analysi s o f th e regulator y schem e a s wel l a s commo n sens e dictate s otherwise . Applyin g th e complainant' s positio n t o it s logica l conclusio n woul d requir e ai r

carrier s t o tak e contro l of , supervise , patrol , sp y o n and/o r pr y int o wha t eac h o f it s pilot s doe s i n hi s of

f dut y time . Apparentl y thi s i s ates t

cas e b y whic hth e Complainan t i s attemptin g t o seiz e authorit y i t

doe s no t have . I t ha s pu t togethe r multipl e arguments . A s detaile dhereafter , non e o f thes e argument s fal l withi n th e statutor y schem e o r historica l backgroun dwhic h exist s regardin g thi s case . I . STATUTOR Y AUTHORIT Y Th e statut e whic h create dth e F.A.A . specificall y extend s th e authorit y o f th e F.A.A . t o regulat e flying machine s othe r tha n "publi c aircraft" . 491JS C 40102 1 [Emphasi s added ]

Congres s mad e i t

clea r tha t th e F.A.A . coul donl y regulat e aircraf t tha t wer e no t "publi c aircraft" . Th e statut e define s apubli c aircraf t i s on e " . . use d exclusivel y fo r

th e servic e o f

an y governmen t

[not ] carryin g person s o r propert y05/18/201 0 17:0 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A. nu o '^'^' ^ * DM S 0004/00 9

fo r commercial purposes. " Th e stipulatio n upo n whic h Administrativ e Judg e RichardC . Goodwi n relie dstate s tha t al l o f Mr . Smith' s flying fo

r th e L.A.P.D . wa s flight o f apolic e helicopte r

owne dandoperate db y th e Lo s Angele s Polic e Department

whic h ha doperational contro l over th e initiating , conductin g and terminatin g al l flights i n it s helicopters .

Th e Complainan t

appear s t o b e attemptin g t o reneg e on it s stipulation , arguin g that

al l flying fo

r agovernmental agenc y i s not , necessarily , publi c flying becaus e theoreticall y agovernmen t coul dus e th e aircraf

t for commercial purposes . Clutchin g thi s straw , th e Complainan t argue s tha

t flights, eve n i f

b y a governmental agency , migh t no t b e publi c flying, fo

r example , if

th e aircraf

t wa s bein g usedt o transport

passenger s or

ru n errand s fo

r achie f o f police . Th e troubl e wit

h thi s positio n i s that

ther e i s absolutel y n o evidenc e t o suppor t it . I n thi s appeal , neithe r th e Complainan t

no r th e Responden t

ca n go outsid e o f th e stipulate dfacts . Fo r

example , th e Complainan t no w suggest s i n it s brie f tha t ther e i s n o evidenc e that

Mr . Smith' s flying fo

r th e L.A.P.D . di dno t includ e runnin g errand s fo r th e Chie f o f Polic e or carryin g passenger s fo

r "hire" . B y aparit y o f reasoning , ther e i s als o n o evidenc e i n th e recor dt o eve n sho w that he wa s eve n pai dfo

r hi s L.A.P.D . flight

status . Th e Complainant' s positio n i s no t logical . Mr . Smit

h wa s a policeman , doin g polic e work . Fo r example , h e coul djus t

a s wel l hav e been05/18/201 0 17:0 5 FA X 202493514 2 FAA. nu o '^'" ^ * DM S 0005/00 9

drivin g apatro l ca

r o r walkin g abeat

ye t n o one , no t

eve n th e Complainant , woul d hav e argue dthat

any tim e s o spen t

hadt o b e tracke db y th e ai r carrier . Th e Complainant' s ivor

y towe r recital o f th e history behin dth e statutor y schem e i s incorrect , irrelevan t an dborder s on intellectual dishonesty . Th e tru e fact s are these : i n 1957 , tw o airliner s crashe dove r th e Gran d Canyo n killin g al l passengers. Congres s hadhearing s and , eventually , enacte dth e Federal Aviatio n Act . Th e purpos e o f th e statute , whic h create dth e F.A.A . and specifically exclude dpubli c aircraft , wa s t o make sure tha t suc h atragedy v»^oul

d never happe n again . Complainant' s argument regardin g legislatio n later introduce db y Senato r

Larry Pressler , an dth e F.A.A.' s Advisory Circular s pursuan t thereto , deal only with us e o f government

aircraf t whe n it i s no t use dfo r a governmental function . Thei r readin g o f

49US C 4012 5 an dF.A.A . Advisor y Circula r "Governmen t

Aircraf t Operations " No . 00-1.1 , date dApri l 19 , 1995 , enabl e F.A.A . regulator

y oversigh t

only a s (quotin g fro

mth e Complainant' s brief ) t o "some governmen t

aircraf t operations" . Wit h thi s background , reconciliatio n o f tw o key case s i s simple . I n U.S . vs . Aer o Specialties , th e Cour t o f Appeal , a s in thi s case , rejecte da n F.A.A . attemp t t o regulat e NASA' s us e o f transport aircraf t fo r th e spac e shuttle . I n that case , followin g blac k

letter law , th e Cour

t rejecte dth e F.A.A.' s attemp t t o seiz e such authority . Unlik e th e foregoing , U.S . v . Christensen , 4 9 Fe d2'"^ 1401 , hold s05/18/201 0 17:0 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A ^ DMS 0OOG/OO 9

tha t th e F.A.A . doe s hav e th e righ t an dth e dut y t o contro l flights i n U.S . airspace . Th e Complainan t

fail s t o understan dtha t

th e F.A.A . Ac t

give s i t authorit y o f

th e airspac e bu t

no t ove r publi c aircraf

t i n anon-airspac e issue . Thi s cas e doe s no t

dea l wit hregulatio n o f

aircraf t i n airspace . Ther e i s n o evidenc e tha t

operatio n o f

th e polic e helicopte r

could , woul do r

di dendange r th e operatio n o f

civi l aircraf

t o f an y kind , whethe r

owne do r

operate db y th e Responden t

o r anybod y else . Hence , th e Agency' s "parad e o f horribles " regardin g flights ove r

Cam p David , prohibite dareas , an dth e like , whethe r militar y aircraf t o r otherwise , ar e specious . The y al l dea l wit hus e o f airspace . A s pointe d ou t b y th e Agency' s ow n brie f (pag e 10 , commencin g at lin e 12 ) th e rule s requir e th e F.A.A . t o forwar dit s investigativ e material s t o th e appropriat e militar y fo r appropriat e handling . Thi s i s becaus e militar y flying i s publi c flying an dth e F.A.A . itsel f

doc s no t hav e authorit y t o dea l wit hsuc hviolations . I n th e cas e o f publi c aircraft , th e governmenta l agenc y whic hoperate s th e publi c aircraf t itsel f i s th e on e wh o control s a n allege doperatin g erro r o n th e par t

o f govermnenta l aircraft , whil e th e F.A.A . ha s th e contro l ove r airspace . I L L,A.P.D . FLYIN GI S NO T COMMERCIA LFLYIN G Th e Complainan t

take s asentenc e ou t

o f contex t fro man opinio n i n F.A.A . interpretatio n 1991

- 45 . Thei r answe r t o Issu e #3 i n th e opinio n doe s05/18/201 0 17:0 5 FAX 202493514 2 FA A ^ OM S 0007/00 9

indee dstate that

"othe r commercial flying" include s an y non-military flying . B y some lea p o f faith , th e Complainan t

attempt s to broade n tha

t singula r sentenc e into meanin g that

al l governmen t

flying other

than militar

y i s commercial flying. O f cours e that

i s no t correct . Wit

h respec t t o th e specifi c issu e presente dhere , namel y th e responsibilitie s o f

an ai r carrier' s dut

y fo r trackin g o f

flight or res t period s o f

a pilo t on th e pilot' s of

f dut y tim e d o no t

fall o n th e commercial operator ; tliey fal l o n th e pilot . I

n another opinio n o f

th e F.A.A.' s chie f

counsel , o

n Augus t 9 , 1989 , h e squarel y deal s wit

h th e issue s presente dhere . H e states : "Technically , it

i s no t aviolatio n o f

135.267(b ) fo

r apilo t t o fly durin g th e require dres t perio di f th e flying i s no t assigne db v th e certificate holder . [Emphasi s added ] "However , it

i s aviolatio n o f

Sectio n 91.1 3 'i f

th e certificate holder allow s acrewmember

t o perfor mflyin g whe n th e pilot' s lac k o f res t ma y endanger others.' " N o on e suggest s that Mr . Smith' s flights wit

h th e L.A.P.D , were assigne db y Sunquest . No r i s ther e any evidenc e that Responden t

allowe dan

y o f it s pilot s t o fly wit

h lac k o f res t or otherwis e endanger

th e public . Likewise , F.A.A,' s chie f

counse l explaine d(F.A.A . chie f counsel' s opinio n o f

Ma y 9 , 2003) :05/18/201 0 17:0 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S 0008/00 9

"Th e prohibitio n agains t

performin g othe r

commercial flying durin g require dres t

perio donl y applie s whe n th e same entity tha t assign s th e Par

t 13 5 flying i s als o assignin g th e 'othe r commercial flying'." That i s no t th e cas e here . Thi s Responden t neithe r require dno r assigne dMr . Smith' s flying wit h th e L.A.P.D . Mr . Smit

h an donl y Mr . Smit

h made that determination . II L

CONCLUSIO N Responden t

urge s that

th e wel l reasone dopinio n an dconclusio n o f th e Administrativ e Law Judg e b e affirmed . Respectfull y submitted .

^ ARTHURWASSERMAN , Attorne y fo r Sunques t Executiv e Ai r

Charter , Inc .05/18/201 0 17:0 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DMS 0009/00 9

CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E I hereb y certif

y tha t o n thi s dat e I place di n th e Unite dState s Mail , postag e prepaid , th e origina l o f th e attache ddocumen t

(Respondent' s Appea l Brief ) an d2 copies , addresse dto : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building , Suit e 2W100 0 An dacop y sen t

Unite dState s Mail , postag e prepaid , atru e cop y addresse dto : Josep h A . Conte , Manage r Ai r Carrie r & Operation s La w Enforcemen t

Division , AGC-30 0 Offic e o f th e Chie f

Counse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Washington , D C 2059 1 Dated : Ma y 7 , 201 0

Christin aMerric k LA WOFFIC E O FARTHU RWASSERMA N 1638 0 Rosco e Boulevard , Suit e 12 0 Va n Nuys , Californi a91406-122 1