# RFCEIVE D UNITED STATE S O FAMERIC A |j nA Dlflll/ ^ r\/^/M^C T FEDERA LAVIATIO NADMINISTRATIOrJltARIN GDOCKs T

WASHINGTON , D,C . I nthe matte

r of GOJE T AIRLINES , L.L.C . FA A Docke t No . CPIOCEOOO3I

2 • >^_ : DM S No . FAA-2010-002 5

- 0,^ r O : 

### COMPLAINANT' S REPL Y BRIE F^ Q9 ^ Pursuan t t o I4C.F.R . § § 14.2 8 an

d13.233 , Complainan

t submit s thi s Repl

y toJ Respondent' s Appea

l Brief whic hperfect s Respondent' s appea l o f the Initia l Decisiono f Administrativ e La

w Judg e Richar

dC . Goodwi

n(the "ALJ" ) issue

do nMa y 20 , 20 ! 1 i

n regard s t o the above captionedmatter. ' I . STATEMEN T O FTH ECAS E O nDecembe

r 23 , 2008 , the Complainan

t issue daNotic e o f

ProposedCivil Penalt y to Responden

t fo r violation s o f

14 C.F.R . §§43.13(c) , 91.13(a) an d 121.153(a)(2) , i

ntheamouhtof$33,000 . O nJanuar y 27 . 2010 , the Complainan t issue da Fina l Notic e o f

ProposedCivil Penalt

y t o Respondent . O

nFebruar y 8 , 2010 , Responden

t submittedareques t

fo r ahearing . O

nFebruar y 16 , 2010 , Complainan

t file dthe Complain t an do nMarc h17 , 2010 , Responden

t file dth e Answer . O

nAugust 25 , 2010 , a hearing wa s heldbefor

e the ALJ . Th

e AL J servedhi s Initia

l Decisiono

nMa y 20 , 201 1 affirming the Complain

t bu t modifyin g the sanctionto impos e acivi l penalt y of $18,000 . Responden

t filed atimely notic e o f

appea l o nMa y 26 , 2011 .

' I nhi s brie f

at pag e 2 , Responden t

requeste dora l argumen t o n thi s matter . Th e recor dha s bee nftilly develope dan dih e partie s hav e adequatel y briefe dth e issues , therefor e ora l argumen t doe s not appear necessar y i

nthi s matter .

### II . STATEMEN T O FFACT S Th e Violatio n OnNovembe r

26 , 2007 , followin g maintenanc e o na naircraf t brak e assembly . Respondent' s aircraf

t (N151GJ ) wa s unabl e t o retrac t it s landin g gear

durin g aschedule d passenge r flight. (Tr . 28 : 6-20 ; Ex . A-5 , a t 4) . N151G J wa s unabl e t o continu e wit hth e flight du e t o th e gear

no t bein g abl e t o retrac t

an dreturne dfor

landing . (Ex . A-5 , a

t 2) . Subsequen t

toN151GJ' s returnfro

mth e flight, Respondent' s personne l inspecte dth e aircraf t an dnote dthat

th e failure o f

th e landin g gear

t o retrac t wa s du e t o alandin g gear pinthat wa s installe ddurin g earlie r maintenanc e tha t

Responden t

faile dt o remov e after completin g th e maintenanc e t o th e aircraf t brak e assembly . (Tr . 28 : 10-19) . - Accordin g t o bot

hFA A Inspecto r

Coope r an dRespondent' s Chie f Inspecto r Jeffrey Crai g i

norde r fo r a naircraf t t o b e flownwit

hth e landin g gear

pi ninstalle di

t mus t b e flowni

naccordanc e wit

hth e Minimu mEquipmen t Lis t ("MEL") , whic h contain s certai ncriteri aan drestriction s relate dt o flying wit hth e landin g gear

pi n installed . (Tr . 29 : 15-21 ; 90-1 : 21-4 ; 120:5-11) . Responden t di dno t fly th e aircraf

t i n accordanc e wit

hth e MEL . (Tr . 122 : 8-10) . Whenaske dwhethe r flying th e aircraf

t wit h th e gear pininstalle dan dno t

I naccordanc e wit

hth e ME Lwoul dconstitut e operatin g th e aircraf t i neithe r a nairworth y o r

unairworth y manner , Inspecto r Coope r state dthat

'"[i] t woul db e unairworthy. " (Tr . 30 : 14) . Accordin g t o Inspecto r Cooper , leavin g th e gear pin s installe di

nth e landin g gear

o f th e aircraf

t wa s adirec t

caus e o f th e aircraf

t havin g t o returnpre-maturel y fromaflight wit hexces s fue

l an dthi s create dapotentia l fo r a n acciden t du e t o a noverweigh t

landing . (Tr . 29 : 3-12) .Th e Voluntar vDisclosur e Reportin u Progra m Th e Voluntar yDisclosur e Reportin g Progra m C'VDRP" ) is a safet yprogra m that , at th e tim e o f th e foregoin g events , wa s set fort h i n Advisor yCircula r("AC" ) No . 00-58A . Unde rth e VDRP , certai n regulate d entities , includin g certiflcat e holder s lik e Respondent , ca n voluntaril ydisclos e t o th e FA Aapparen t violation s o f FA Aregulations . (Ex . A-11 , A C No . 00-58A , at 1, ^ 1) . I f a regulate d entity' s voluntar ydisclosur e satisfie s al l o f th e condition s i n A C No . 00-58A , th e FA Awil l forg o enforcemen t actio n agains t th e entit yan d issu e a lette ro f correctio n Instead , jd - at 3 , T [ 6 . FA AOrde r8900.1 , Volum e 11 , Chapte rI ("FA AOrde r8900.1" ) provide s guidanc e t o FA Aemployee s a s t o ho wt o handl e disclosure s unde rth e VDRP . (Tr . 43 : 3-6) . Aregulate d entit ycovere d b yth e VDR P i s require d t o notif yth e FA Ao f a n apparen t violatio n withi n 2 4 hour s o f th e discover yo f th e apparen t violatio n b yth e entit y i n orde rt o tak e advantag e o f th e VDR P process . (Ex . A-11 , A C No . 00-58A , at 4 , T | 7 ; Ex . A-10 , FA AOrde r8900.1 , at 4 , T [ 11-6.A.) . Th e FA Athe n provide s th e covere d entit y wit h a n acknowledgmen t o f th e entity' s notification . (Ex . A-11 , A C No . 00-58A , at 5 , H 8 ; Ex . A-10 , FA AOrde r8900. Kat 5 , H 1 1 -7) . Th e principa l inspecto r("PI" ) the n "open[s ] a n Enforcemen t Investigativ e Report (EIR ) tha t wil l b e close d ou t wit h a lette r o f correction , followin g satisfactor ydevelopmen t o f a comprehensiv e fixan d schedul e o f implementatio n agree d upo n b yth e FA Aan d th e entity. " Id . Th e P I unde rth e VDR P i s "'th e appropriat e maintenance , avionics , operation s inspector , o rothe rdesignate d FA A officia l o f th e progra m offic e responsibl e fo roversigh t o f th e are a o f noncomplianc e involve d i n th e disclosure. " (Ex . A-11 , A C No . 00-58A , at 2 , ^ 5.d. ; Ex . A-10 , FA AOrde r8900.1 , at 2 , H 1 1 -4.D.) .Followin g th e submissio n o f th e initia l notificatio n o f a n apparen t violatio n b ya

regulate d entit yt o th e FAA , th e VDR P the n require s th e entit yt o submi t a writte n report withi n 1 0 workin g day s o f th e initia l notificatio n tha t include s th e following : a . Alis t o f th e specifi cFA Aregulation s tha t ma yhav e bee n violated . b . Adescriptio n o f th e apparen t violation , includin g th e duratio n o f tim e i t remaine d undetected , a s wel l a s ho wan d whe n i t wa s detected . c . Adescriptio n o f th e immediat e actio n take n t o terminat e th e conduc t tha t resulte d i n th e apparen t violation , includin g whe n i t wa s taken , an d wh o wa s responsibl e fo rtakin g th e action . d . A n explanatio n tha t show s th e apparen t violatio n wa s inadvertent . e . Evidenc e tha t demonstrate s th e seriousnes s o f th e apparen t violatio n an d th e regulate d entity' s analysi s o f tha t evidence . f . Adetaile d descriptio n o f th e propose d comprehensiv e fix, outlinin g th e planne d correctiv e steps , th e responsibilitie s fo rimplementin g thos e correctiv e steps , an d a tim e schedul e fo rcompletio n o f th e fix. I f a propose d comprehensiv e fixi s no t full ydevelope d withi n 1 0 workin g days , a pertinen t regulate d entit yshoul d provid e at leas t a n overvie wo f it s comprehensiv e fix plan s i n a writte n repor t submitte d withi n 1 0 workin g day s afte rth e initia l notificatio n wa s made . I n an yevent , a detaile d descriptio n o f th e comprehensiv e fi xshoul d b e submitte d withi n 3 0 calenda rday s afte rinitia l notification . g . Identificatio n o f th e compan yofficia l responsibl e fo rmonitorin g th e implementatio n an d completio n o f th e comprehensiv e fix. (Ex . A- 1 1 , A C No . 00-58A , a t 6, 1 9 ; Ex . A-10 , FA AOrde r8900.1 , at 6, 1 1 1 -8) . A cotnprehensiv e fixi s define d a s "a n action , o ractions , propose d b yth e certificat e holder...an d accepte d b yth e principa l inspecto r(PI)...t o preclud e recurrenc e o f th e apparen t violatio n tha t has bee n voluntaril ydisclose d unde rthi s program. " (Ex . A-11 . A C No . 00-58A , at 2 , U 5.b. ; Ex . A-10 , FA AOrde r8900.1 , at 2 , I f 1 1 -4.B.) . Th e writte n repor t submitte d b yth e entit yi s the n reviewe d b yth e FA Awhic h work s wit h th e entit y t o "ensur e tha t th e regulate d entit yhas identifie d an yroo t cause s an d systemi cissue s whic h le d t o th e apparen t violation. " (Ex . A-11 . A C No . 00-58A , at 6 , t 10 ; Ex . A-10 , FA AOrde r8900.1 . at 7 , T l 1 1 -9) . I t i s thi s collaborativ e proces s tha t "help s ensur e tha t th e correctiv e action s containe d i n th e comprehensiv e fixare acceptabl e t o th e FAA."id .I f a comprehensiv e fixi s accepte d b yth e FAA , th e VDR P the n enter s th e

implementatio n phas e I n whic h th e entit yimplement s th e comprehensiv e fixwhil e th e FA Amonitor s th e implementatio n process . (Ex . A-11 , A C No . 00-58A , at 6-7 , ^11 ; Ex . A-10 , FA AOrde r8900.1 , at 7, ^ 11-10) . Durin g th e implementatio n phase , i f "th e FA Adetermine s tha t th e step s take n b yth e entit yar e no t thos e documente d o n th e comprehensiv e fix, th e lette ro f correctio n ma yb e rescinded , th e investigativ e repor t ma y b e reopened , an d appropriat e lega l enforcemen t actio n ma ybe initiated. " (Ex . A- l 1 , A C No . 00-58A , at 6-7 , H 1 1 .b. ; Ex . A-10 , FA AOrde r8900.1 , at 7 , H 11-lO.B.) . Followin g successfu l completio n o f th e implementationan d surveillanc e phase , th e P I wil l mak e a final assessment , an d i f th e P I finds th e fixt o b e satisfactory , th e cas e ca n b e closed . (Ex . A-11 . A C No . 00-58A , a t 7,1 1 12 ; ^^ - A-10 , FA AOrde r8900.1 , a t 8 , 1111-11) . Whe n evaluatin g whethe ra n apparen t violatio n i s covere d b yth e VDRP , th e FA A wil l evaluat e whethe rfive condition s are met . (Ex . A-11 . A C No . 00-58A , at 3,1 1 6a. ; Ex . A-10 , FA AOrde r8900.1 , at 3 , H 1 1 -5.A.) . Th e five condition s tha t mus t b e me t b y th e entit yarc : (1 ) Th e certificat e holder , qualifie d fractiona l ownershi p program , o rPA H has notifie d th e FA Ao f th e apparen t violatio n immediatel yafte rdetectin g i t an d befor e th e Agenc yhas learne d o f i t b yothe rmeans . (2 ) Th e apparen t violatio n wa s inadvertent . (3 ) Th e apparen t violatio n doe s no t indicat e a lack , o rreasonabl e question , o f qualificatio n o f th e certificat e holder , qualifie d fractiona l ownershi p program , o rPAH . (4 ) Immediat e action , satisfactor yt o th e FAA , wa s take n upo n discover y t o terminat e th e conduc t tha t resulte d i n th e apparen t violation . (5 ) Th e certificat e holder , qualifie d fractiona l ownershi p program , o rPA H has develope d a comprehensiv e fixan d schedul e o f implementatio n satisfactor yt o th e FAA . Th e comprehensiv e fixinclude s a follow-u p self audi t t o ensur e tha t th e actio n take n correct s th e noncompliance . Th e self audi t i s i n additio n t o an yaudit s conducte d b yth e FAA .

### Id . I f adisput e occur s regardin g th e acceptanc e o f acomprehensiv e fix, th e VDR P provide s amechanis mfo r resolutio no f

suc hdispute . (Ex . A-11 , A C No . 00-58A , a t 7 , H 13 ; Ex . A-10 , FA A Orde r 8900.1 , a

t 8 , H 11-12) . Th e disput e resolutio nprovisio no f th e VDR Pprovide s that , "[w]he ndispute s occu r

regardin g th e acceptanc e o f apropose d• comprehensiv e fix, o r

amodificatio ntheret o befor e th e fix i s considere d satisfactory , th e P

I an dth e pertinen t

regulate dentity may reques t that th e issu e b e resolve da

t th e ne.x t leve l o f managemen t

withi nth e FAA . Thi s procedur e wil l provid e fo r a nindependen t

assessmen t

o f th e area s i

n disagreement. " 

## MRespondent' s VDR PSubmissio n OnNovembe r

26 . 2007 , Responden t

provide da

ninitial notificatio nt o Complainan t

o f a n allege dviolatio ninvolvin g Respondent' s operatio nofN151G J wit ha gear pi ninstalle di

nth e lef t mai nlandin g gear . (Ex . A-5 , a t 1 ; Tr . 36 : 1 -20) . O n Novembe r

29 , 2007 , Complainan t

provide dResponden t

wit ha ninitial notificatio n response . (Ex . A-5 , a

t 2) . OnDecembe r

10 , 2007 . Responden t

submitte dawritte nreport t o Complainan t

regardin g th e violation . (Ex . A-5 , a t 2 ; Tr . 38-9 : 21-1) . I

nth e writte n report . Responden t

provide dth e followin g comprehensiv e fix proposal : "[t]h e Mechani c wa s counsele donth e mandatory procedure s outline di n th e Genera l Maintenanc e Manual tha t require s yo u t o mak e a

nentry i nth e Aircraf t Maintenanc e Flight

Logboo k statin g 'Landin g gear

pininstalled , retnov e befor e flight'." (Ex . A-5 , a

t 4) . O nJanuar y 25 , 2008 , i

nrespons e t o th e VDR Preport , th e P I fo r Respondent , FAA Inspecto r

Cooper , sen t

alette r t o Responden t

statin g that

acomprehensiv e fix

### neede dt o b e establishe dI naccordanc e withFAA Orde r 8900.1 . (Ex . A-6 ; Tr . 39 : 3-7). ^ Prio r t o sendin g th e Januar> ' 25 , 200 8 letter , Inspecto r Coope r hadth e lette r

approve d throug htw o level s o f

supervision . (Tr . 60-1 : 22-12 ; Ex . A-7) . Inspecto r Coope r determine dtha

t Respondent' s offere dfix. counselin g th e erran t mechanic , wa s no t

sufficien t

t o preclud e recurrenc e ofth e incident . (Tr . 45 : 7-21 ; Ex . A-5 , a

t 5 ; Ex . A-6) . Specifically , Inspecto r Coope r state dthat : "[t]h e mechani c involve dkne w ofth e GM M requiremen t t o mak e a logboo k entry statin g th e landin g gear pi nwa s installe dprio r

t o th e incident , an dye t

stil l forgo t

t o mak e th e entr>' . Counselin g (reminding ) th e mechani c ofth e GM M requiremen t doe s no t mee t th e guidanc e I

nFAA Orde r 8900.1 , Volum e 11 , Chapte r 1 , paragrap h1 1 -4 . Th e comprehensiv e fix shoul dpreven t

th e sam e mechanic , o r

an y othe r

mechanic , from forgettin g t o mak e th e logboo k entry an dsubsequentl y forgettin g t o remov e th e gear

pin s followin g maintenanc e again. " (Ex . A-5 , a

t 5 ; Ex . A-6 , a

t 2) . Inspecto r

Coope r note dthat

th e procedure s i

nRespondent' s maintenanc e manua l di dno t includ e removin g th e landin g gear pin s after

brak e maintenanc e wa s performed . (Tr . 46 : 2-7) . Inspecto r Coope r suggeste da s apar

t ofth e comprehensiv e fix that

Responden t

amen dth e manual t o includ e remova l ofth e landin g gear pin s an dResponden t

rejecte dtha t

suggestion : (Tr . 46 : 7-14) . Inspecto r Coope r slate d that "[fjailur e t o provid e acomprehensiv e fix acceptabl e t o thi s offic e b y th e clos e o f busines s o nFebruary 8 , 200 8 wil l resul t i nth e self-disclosure s bein g close dou t ofth e we b base dVDR Psyste man dprocesse da s enforcement s (sic ) utilizin g FAA Orde r 2150.3. " (Ex . A-6 , a

t 1 ; Tr . 84 : 9-14) . Responden t indicate dt o Inspecto r

Coope r that othe r thancounselin g th e mechanic , the y woul dno t implemen t

an y othe r

fixes. (Tr . 39 : 15-21 ; 46 : 2-15 ; 50 : 2-11) . Responden t receive dth e Januar y 25 , 200 8 lette r containin g th e February 8 , 200 8 deadlin e bu t neve r responde dby providin g anothe r comprehensiv e

' FA A Orde r 8900. 1 a t 6 , H 11-8.F. discusses th

e requiremen

t t o provid e acomprehensiv

e fix unde r th e VDR Pwhic his analogous t

o th e requiremen

t tha t acomprehensiv

e fix b e establishe dunde r A C 00-58A .fix. (Tr . 125 : 1-8) . Complainan t subsequentl ybrough t thi s enforcemen t action . (Tr . 51 :

11-14) . ALJ' s Writte n Initia l Decisio n Th e AL J affirme d th e Complain t wit h a modificatio n o f sanction . Specifically , th e AL J foun d tha t Responden t faile d t o follo wth e procedure s outline d i n it s GM M an d therefor e violate d 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(c) . ^ (Initia l Decisio n at 5) . Th e AL J foun d tha t Responden t violate d 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.153(a)(2 ) "becaus e a n aircraf t wit h a lockpi n installe d i n erro ri s no t i n a conditio n fo rsaf e operation. " Id . H e furthe rfoun d tha t Responden t violate d 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.13(a ) becaus e " a violatio n o f § 91.13(a ) follow s a s a residua l violatio n onc e th e fac t o f a n unairworth yoperatio n has bee n established. " ]d . Th e AL J addresse d Respondent' s afllrmativ e defens e finding tha t Complainant' s decisio n t o "rejec t Respondent' s VDR P submissio n an d t o institut e enforcemen t actio n wa s lawful. " ]d . a

t 7 . H e conclude d tha t Responden t "ha d faile d t o prov e it s affirmativ e defense. " id - at 8 . III . STANDAR D O F REVIE W O n appeal , th e FA ADecisionmake rconsider s whethe reac h finding o f fac t i s supporte d b ya preponderanc e o f reliable , probative , an d substantia l evidence , an d whethe reac h conclusio n o f la wi s mad e i n accordanc e wit h applicabl e law , precedent , an d publi cpolicy . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.233(b)(l)-(2) .

^ Th e ALJ' s finding tha t Responden t violate d sectio n 43.i3<c ) i s no t conteste d an d i s no t raise d a s a basi s fo rRespondent' s appeal .

### IV . COUNTERSTATEMEN T O FTH EISSUE S 1 . Whethe r

th e ALJ' s finding tha t Responden t

violate dsectio n121.153(a)(2 ) i s supporte db y apreponderanc e ofth e reliable , probative , an d substantia l evidence , an di s consisten t wit happlicabl e law , precedent , an d publi c policy . 2 . Whethe r

th e AL J properl y foun dResponden t violate dsectio n91.13(a ) a s aresidua l violation . 3 . Whethe r

th e AL J correctl y foun dtha t Complainant' s rejectio no f Respondent' s voluntar y disclosur e an dinitiatio no f a nenforcemen t actio naccorde dwit hth e requirement s o f A C 00-58 A governin g th e "Voluntar y Disclosur e Reportin g Program. " V . ARGUMEN T 1 . Th e ALJ' s findin g tha t Responden t

violate dsectio n121.153(a)(2 ) i s supporte db y apreponderanc e ofth e reliable , probative , an dsubstantia l evidence , an di s consisten t

wit happlicabl e law , precedent , an dpubli c policy . Th e ALJ' s finding o f

aviolatio no f

1 4 C.F.R- . § 121.153(a)(2 ) i s fully supporte d by apreponderanc e ofth e reliable , probative , an dsubstantia l evidence , an dconsisten t wit happlicabl e law , precedent , an dpubli c policy . Sectio n121.153(a)(2 ) provide s that "[e]xcep t a s provide di

nparagrap h(c ) o f

thi s section , n o certificat e holde r may operat e a naircraf t unles s tha t

aircraf t -...[i] s i na nairworth y conditio nan dmeet s th e applicabl e airworthines s requirement s o f thi s chapter , includin g thos e relatin g t o identificatio nan d equipment. " "T o b e airworthy , a

naircraf t mus t (1 ) conformt o it s typ e desig napprove dunde r a typ e certificat e an dt o applicabl e AD s [Airworthines s Directives] , an d(2 ) b e i na conditio nfor

saf e operation. " I

nth e Matte r

o f Whitley , FAA Orde r

No . 2009-4 , 200 9 WL 210674 , a t * 5 (Jan . 14 , 2009) , fcitin g I nth e Matte r

o f Kilrain . FAA Orde r

No . 1996-18 , 199 6 W L325902 , a

t * 4 (Ma y 3 , 1996)) . "Ainvorthines s an d'fiyability ' ar e no t synonymou s concepts. " Whitley . 200 9 W L210674 , a

t * 5 (citin g Copse v v . NTSB . 99 3F.2 d 736 , 73 9 (10' ^ Cir . 1993)) ; accor d I n th e Matte ro f U S Air . FA AOrde rNo . 1996-25 , 199 6 W L 509937 , a t ^ 6 (Aug . 12 , 1996) . I n orde rfo rth e aircraf t i n questio n t o b e operate d I n a n airworth ymanne rwit h a landin g gea rpi n installed , th e aircraf t mus t b e operate d I n accordanc e wit h th e MEL . (Tr . 29 : 15-21 ; 90-1 : 21-4 ; 120 : 5-il) . TheME L Impose s certai n restriction s upo n th e fiight includin g certai n weigh t restriction s i n orde rt o avoi d overweigh t landings . (Tr . 29 : 2-12) . Failur e t o operat e th e aircraf t i n accordanc e wit h th e ME L render s th e aircraf t unairworth ybecaus e I t create s th e possibilit yo f a n acciden t cause d b ya n overweigh t landing . (Tr . 30 ; 7-14 ; 29:10-12) . Here , th e ME L wa s no t use d t o operat e th e aircraf t wit h th e landin g gea rpi n installed . (Tr . 122 : 5-10) . Th e recor d show s tha t th e gea rpin s wer e installe d a

s a safet ymeasur e whil e maintenanc e wa s performe d o n th e aircraft , on e o f whic h Responden t faile d t o remov e afte rcompletio n ofth e maintenanc e an d befor e th e Novembe r26 , 200 7 fiight. (Tr . 28 : 10-19) . I n fact , th e aircraf t returne d fro m th e fiight wit h mor e fue l tha n i t shoul d hav e ha d i f i t ha d bee n operate d properl yunde rth e MEL , an d tha t situatio n create d th e possibilit yo f a n acciden t du e t o th e aircraf t bein g overweight . (Tr . 29 : 1-12) . Sectio n 121.153(a)(2 ) prohibit s a certificat e holde rfro m operatin g a n aircraf t i n a n unainvorth ycondition . Amon g othe rrequirement s note d above , t o b e airworth ya n aircraf t mus t "b e i n a conditio n fo rsaf e operation. " Whitley . 200 9 W L 210674 , at *5 . Respondent' s operatio n ofth e aircraf t wit h th e gea rpi n i n an d withou t usin g th e ME L rendere d th e aircraf t no t i n a saf e conditio n fo roperatio n becaus e ofth e possibilit yo f a n acciden t du e t o th e aircraf t landin g overweight . Respondent' s operatio n pu t th e passengers , aircrew , an d aircraf t at risk . Th e AL J foun d tha t "[a] n aircraf t operatin g i nthes e circumstance s i s no t i n a conditio n fo rsaf e operatio n and , b ydefinition , canno t b e

considere d airworthy. " (Initia l Decisio n at 5) . Thi s finding i s supporte d b yth e preponderanc e ofth e reliable , probative , an d substantia l evidence an d i s consisten t wit h applicabl e la wan d precedent . 2 . Th e AL J properl yfoun d Responden t violate d sectio n 91.13(a ) a s a residua l violation . A s discusse d above , th e aircraf t I n questio n wa s operate d i n a n unairworth y conditio n i n violatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.153(a)(2) . Th e AL J als o foun d tha t Responden t violate d 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.13(a ) becaus e thi s violatio n "follow s a s a residua l violatio n onc e th e fact o f a n unairworth yoperatio n has bee n established. " (Initia l Decisio n a t 5) . I n hi s brief . Responden t has raise d n o basi s t o distur b thi s finding. Sectio n 91.13(a ) provide s tha t "[n] o perso n mayoperat e a n aircraf t i n a careles s o rreckles s manne rs o a s t o endange rth e lif e o rpropert yo f another. " Ther e i s "[a]mpl e lega l authority...indicatin g tha t absen t extraordinar ycircumstances , careles s o rreckles s operatio n o f a n aircraf t follow s a s a residua l violatio n [onc e th e agencyestablishe s operatio n o f a n unairworth yaircraft]. " I n th e Matte ro f Ac e Pilo t Training . FA AOrde r No . 2005-12 , 200 5 W L 2214609 , at * 5 (Aug . 15 , 2005 ) (citin g I n th e Matte ro f USAir , Inc. . FA AOrde rNo . 1992-70 , 199 2 W L 753206 , at * 3 (Dec . 21 , 1992)) . Responden t contend s tha t "extraordinar ycircumstance s exis t i n whic h t o negate " th e ALJ' s conclusion . (Resp't' s Appea l Br . at 6) . Specifically , i t contend s tha t Inspecto r Cooper' s testimon ywa s tha t '"thi s airplan e fiying wit h th e gea rpi n installe d i s no t a n unairworth ycondition . I t i s jus t subjec t t o restrictions , an d i n n o cas e woul d i t constitut e a careles s manner. " \d . (citin g t o testimon yat Tr . 29) . Thi s i s a gros s misapprehensio n o f th e substanc e ofth e Inspector' s testimony .

### Inspecto r Coope r testifie dthat

leavin g th e gear

pin s i nth e landin g gear

ofth e aircraf t wa s adirec t

caus e ofth e aircraf

t havin g t o returnpre-maturel y fro mafiight

wit h exces s fue

l an dthi s create dapotentia l fo r a nacciden t

du e t o a noverweigh t

landing . (Tr . 29 : 3-12) . Inspecto r

Coope r further testifie dthat

fiying th e aircraf

t wit hth e gear

pin i nan dno t i naccordanc e wit

hth e ME Lconstitute s operatio nofth e aircraf t i na n unairworth y manner . (Tr . 30 : 14) . Consequently , Inspecto r Cooper' s testimon y canno t reasonabl y b e understoo dt o sugges t otherwise . Thus , eve nI

f Chie f Inspecto r

Crai g testified , a s Responden t

states , that

Responden t

ha s "legally " operate daircraf t wit hth e landin g gear

pi ninstalle di

nth e past , (Resp't' s Appea l Br . at 6) , Responden t

di dno t legall y operat e N151G J i nthi s case . I nsum , th e ALJ' s finding o f aresidua l violatio no f

sectio n91.13(a ) accord s wit h th e preceden t

foundi nAc e Pilo t

Trainin g an di s prope r

i nthi s case . Further . Responden t ha s faile dt o stat e an y "extraordinar y circumstance " unde r Ac e Pilo t

Trainin g that

woul d overcom e afinding of aresidua l violatio no f 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.13(a) . Therefore , th e ALJ' s finding o f aresidua l violatio no f

1 4 C.F.R . § 91.13(a ) shoul db e affirmed . 3 . Th e AL J correctl y foun dtha t Complainant' s rejectio no f Respondent' s voluntar y disclosur e an dinitiatio no f a nenforcemen t

actio naccorde dwit hth e requirement s o f

A C 00-58 A governin g th e ^^Voluntary Disclosur e Reportin g Program. " Th e ALJ' s determinatio n"tha t th e FAA' s decisio nt o ultimatel y rejec t [Respondent's ] VDR Psubmissio nan dt o institut e enforcemen t actio nwa s lawfijl " i s prope r an dshoul db e affirmed . Complainant' s decisio nt o rejec t Respondent' s VDR Psubmissio n wa s mad e i n accordanc e wit h th e applicabl e procedure s i n th e polic y

containe d i n A C 00-58A. ^ A s a genera l proposition , "agencie s ma yno t violat e thei row n rule s an d regulation s t o th e preiudic e o f others. " Battl e v . FAA , 39 3 F.3 d 1330 , 133 6 (D.C . Cir . 2005) . Federa l agencie s mus t "follo wthei row n rules , eve n gratuitou s procedura l rule s tha t limi t otherwis e discretionar yaction. " Steenhold t v . FAA . 31 4 F.3 d 633 , 63 9 (D.C . Cir . 2003 ) (findin g tha t th e FA Awa s require d t o follo wprocedure s publishe d i n it s ow n Orde rbu t th e failur e t o follo wthos e procedure s wa s withou t prejudic e t o th e Petitioner) . I n thes e circumstances , i t I s clea rtha t Complainant' s action s comporte d wit h applicabl e Agenc ypolic yan d guidanc e regardin g th e VDRP . Unde rth e applicabl e versio n ofth e VDR P i n A C No . 00-58A , mer e self disclosur e of a violatio n i s no t sufficien t unde rth e A C fo rth e Complainan t t o forg o civi l penalt yactio n fo radministrativ e action . Th e A C require s tha t al l ofth e five condition s i n paragrap h 6.a . mus t b e met . (Ex . A-11 , A C No . 00-58A , at 3 , H 6) . Her e Responden t faile d t o mee t th e fifth conditio n tha t "[t]h e certificat e holder...ha s develope d a comprehensiv e fixan d schedul e o f implementatio n satisfactoryt o th e FAA. " (Ex . A-11 , A C No . 00-58A , a t 3,16.a. ; Ex . A-10 , FA AOrde r8900.1 , at 3 , ^ 11-5.A.) . Althoug h Responden t submitte d it s comprehensiv e fixtha t I t woul d counse l th e •mechani ctha t th e mandatoryprocedure s i n th e GM M require d hi m t o mak e a n entr yi n th e fiight logboo k

statin g tha t th e pi n wa s remove d befor e fiight. Inspecto rCoope rdi d no t accep t th e comprehensiv e fixbecaus e i t di d "no t preclud e recurrenc e o f thi s Althoug h th e AL J cite s th e "arbitrar yan d capriciou s standard " fo rjudicia l revie wo f agenc yaction s a s hi s basi s fo rrevie wofth e VDR P issue , (Initia l Decisio n at 6) , th e standar d o f revie wfo rth e FA A Decisionmake ri s whethe reac h conclusio n o f la wi s mad e i n accordanc e wit h applicabl e law , precedent , an d publi cpolicy . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.233(bKn-(2) . 1 3violation. " (E\ . A-5 , at 4 ; Ex . A-6 , a t 2) ; se e als o A C 00-58 Aat Ex . A-11 , a t 2 , ^ 5.b . (definin g comprehensiv e fixa s ". . .a n action , o ractions , propose d b yth e certificat e holder...an d accepte d b yth e principa l inspecto r(PI)...t o preclud e recurrenc e ofth e apparen t violatio n tha t has bee n voluntaril ydisclose d unde rthi s program.") . I n additio n t o suggestin g ho wRespondent' s comprehensiv e fixwoul d b e acceptable . Inspecto r Coope rinforme d Responden t tha t a comprehensiv e fix, acceptabl e t o Complainant , neede d t o b e resubmitte d b yFebruary8 , 200 8 o rth e initia l approva l o f Respondent' s self-disclosure s woul d b e rescinde d an d a n enforcemen t actio n woul d b e brought . (Ex . A-6 , a

t 1 an d 2) . Responden t receive d Inspecto rCooper' s Januar y25 , 200 8 lette rcontainin g th e February8 , 200 8 deadline. ^ (Tr . 125 : 1-8) . Ha d Responden t submitte d anothe rproposal . Inspecto rCoope rwa s prepare d t o evaluat e th e proposa l t o ensur e tha t suc h a fixwoul d preclud e recurrenc e ofth e violation . (Tr . 46 : 16-21) . Respondent , however , electe d no t t o provid e anothe rcomprehensiv e fixfo rInspecto rCooper' s consideratio n o rotherwis e communicat e wit h it s P I o rwit h th e next leve l o f managemen t withi n th e FAA . (Tr . 39 : 15-21 ; 50 : 2-11 ; Tr . 125 : 1-8) . Becaus e Responden t faile d t o satisf yal l five condition s fo r acceptanc e ofth e self-disclosur e unde rth e VDRP , Complainan t brough t enforcemen t action . (Tr . 51 : 11-14) . Responden t contend s tha t i t submitte d a n appropriat e comprehensiv e fixan d tha t th e FAA' s decisio n t o rejec t tha t fixan d Initiat e enforcemen t actio n rathe rtha n allowin g Responden t t o hav e it s propose d fixreviewe d b yth e nex t leve l o f managemen t i s Responden t acknowledge d i n hi s Pos t Hearin g Brie f tha t (h e January ' 25 , 200 8 lette rprovide d nodficatio n t o Responden t ofth e Februar y8 , 200 8 deadline . (Resp't' s Pos t Hearin g Br . at II) . Specifically , Responden t state d tha t "Coope rneve rnotifie d [Respondent ] o f hi s decisio n t o rescin d th e VDR P an d institut e a n enforcemen t actio n prio rt o th e January25 , 200 9 (sic ) letter. " 1^ , 1 4

### arbitrary an dcapricious . (Respondent' s Appea l Br . a t 9) . Althoug hth e ALJ note di nhi s summar y o f

Respondent' s VDR Pdisput e tha t Responden t

allege dComplainan t

faile dt o infor mResponden t

o f it s option s followin g Complainant' s withdrawa l o f it s acceptanc e o f Respondent' s initial self-disclosure , (se e Initial Decisio na t 3 (citin g Resp't' s Pos t Hearin g Br . a

t 6 . 11-14 ; Tr . 14-15)) , Responden t state s i nthi s appea l that

I t doe s no t argu e that . (Resp't' s Appea l Br . a t 9 n.4) . Instead , Responden t state s tha t

it argue s "tha t by failin g t o notll y i

t ofth e decisio nt o rescin dth e voluntar y disclosur e an dinstitut e a n enforcemen t

procedur e i

t wa s unabl e t o avai l itsel f o f th e optio nt o elevat e Its disput e wit hCoope r ove r th e prope r

comprehensiv e fix t o th e ne.x t leve l o f managemen t

withi n th e KA A a s th e FAA' s ow npublishe dguidanc e document s provid e for. " (Resp't' s Appea l Br . a

t 9 n.4) . Regardles s o f

ho w Responden t

frame s Its VDR Pargument . I t ha s n o merit . A s alread y discusse dabove , th e recor destablishe s tha t Inspecto r

Coope r gav e writte nnotice , receive dby Respondent , tha t i t ha dunti l February 8 . 200 8 t o submi t acomprehensiv e fix satisfactory t o Complainan t o r th e matte r

woul dprocee da s alegal enforcemen t action . Responden t

freely chos e t o neithe r

submi t anothe r comprehensiv e fix no r

tak e th e matte r u p t o th e nex t

leve l o f management . Accordingly , th e AL J properl y foundthat Complainant' s ultimat e rejectio no f Respondent' s voluntar y disclosur e an ddecisio nt o procee dwit

hthi s enforcemen t

actio naccorde dwit

hth e applicabl e polic y an dguidanc e an dwas , therefore , lawfijl . (Initia l Declsion_a t 7) . Th e ALJ thu s properl y conclude d Responden t

"faile dt o prov e Its affirmativ e defense. " Id . at 8 .

I nfootnot e 5 o f

Respondent' s Appea l Brief , Responden t

claim s tha t

th e holdin g i

nFAA v . GoJe t Airlines , LLC , DM S No . FAA-2010-0i9 0 (May 20 , 2010 ) ha s som e bearin g o nthi s case . However , th e mattt r befor e th e FAA Decisionmake r her e an dth e othe r

matte r reference dby Responden t i nfootnot e 5 ar e 

### 1 5

### VI . CONCLUSIO N Fo r al l ofth e foregoin g reasons . Complainan t respectfull y request s th e FA A Decisiomake r

affir mth e ALJ' s initial decisio nI nit s entirety . Respectfull y submitted ,

Pete r Lync h Assistan t Chie f Counse l fo r Enforcemen t

Dated : Octobe r

7 , 2 0 Charle s Raley , Attorne y Enforcemen t

Division , AGC-30 0 Offic e ofth e Chie f

Counse l Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Phone : (202)267-335 7 Facsimile : (202)267-510 6

tw o distinc t

cases , eac hwithdistinc t fact s an dcircumstances , an deac hadjudicate di nseparat e hearings . Moreove r tha t othe r cas e i s no t

eve nprecedent .

### Certificat e o f Servic e I hereb y certif

y that o nthi s dat e I hav e sen t

b y certifie dmail , return-receip t requested , on e origina l an don e cop y o f Complainant' s Repl y Brief/»th e Maile r o f GoJe t Airlines , LLC , Docke t

No . CP10CE0003 , addresse dto : Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Attn : FAA Decisionmaker , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building-Suit e 2W100 0 I naddition . I hereb y certif y that onthi s dat e I hav e sen t

b y certifie dmail , return receip t requested , on e cop y ofth e foregoin g documen t to : Davi dJ . A . Hayes , II , Esq . Vic e Presiden t

& Genera l Counse l Tran s Stat e Airline s Inc . 1149 5 Natura l Bridg e Rd. , Suit e 30 3 Bridgeton , M O 6304 4

Dated : Octobe r

7 , 201 1