U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

SEP 0 1 2016 

***************************** 

In the Matter of: 

KENNETH RAY RUMBERGER 

* 

* Docket No. FAA-2015-0639 

* Case No. 2015WP270015 

* ALJ -RAWALD 

* 

***************************** 

TO: Honorable Douglas M. Rawald and Respondent 

COMPLAINANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS 

DOCKET 

COMES NOW, Complainant, by counsel, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(d), files this 

Opposition to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, served by mail on August 15, 2016. 

Introduction 

The Complaint alleges Respondent violated 14 C.F.R. § 91.11 when, on or about 

November 15, 2014, he pointed a laser at an aircraft- N341HP, and the beam of light illuminated 

the aircraft's cockpit, interfering with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's 

duties. See, 76 FR 76611-76612 (Dec. 8, 2011): directing laser beams towards aircraft operating 

on the ground or in the air so that it interferes with a crewmember in the performance of the 

crewmember's duties is a violation of section 91.11; and persons violating section 91.11 are 

subject to a substantial civil penalty. 

Background 

Respondent moves for dismissal stating that the Complainant's evidence does not meet 

the clear and convincing standard of proof. Respondent attaches to his motion the releasable 

portions of Enforcement Investigative Report (EIR) 2015WP270015 and a declaration from the 

passenger who was in Respondent's vehicle at the time of Respondent's arrest. 
The releasable portions of the EIR include the Laser Beam Exposure Questionnaire 

completed by the aircraft's pilot in command- CHP Officer Gavitte and a summary "Record 

Review" of the Richmond Police Department Arrest Report. (Richmond Police Department 

requested that its arrest report not be disseminated. 1

) In support of his motion, Respondent states 

that the Laser Beam Exposure Questionnaire contains contradictory responses; that portions of 

the EIR released to him are blacked out; and that the "Record Review" of the Richmond Police 

Department arrest report is biased. In further support of his motion, Respondent includes and 

refers to his passenger's declaration wherein the passenger states he only observed Respondent 

aiming the laser pointer at street signs. 

Argument 

In accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 13.223 of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty 

Actions, the standard of proof in this matter is by the preponderance of reliable, probative, and 

substantial evidence. 

The pmtions of the EIR that were blacked out were withheld as containing privilegeddeliberative, pre-decisional material. See, the undersigned counsel's cover letter to Respondent 

providing the releasable portions of the EIR, which is attached to Respondent's motion to 

dismiss. 

CHP Office Gavitte explains that the reason he responded "No" on the Laser Beam 

Exposure Questionnaire to the questions "Did the laser illumination incident interfere with your 

performance of pilot or crewmember duties during the flight?" and "Did the laser illumination 

1 On August 22, 20 16, the undersigned counsel contacted Respondent and provided Respondent with the records 

section supervisor contact information of the Richmond Police Department so that he could obtain the report of his 

arrest directly with the Richmond Police Department. 

2 
Narrative/Supplemental, dated August 25, 2016, with attached Exhibit 1, Flight Officer W. 

Lowe's Narrative/Supplemental, dated November 15, 2014, and with attached Exhibit 2, the 

Laser Beam Exposure Questionnaire completed by Officer Gavitte. Officer Gavitte states that he 

was able to mitigate the laser strike to his eyes by taking his hand off a flight control (collective) 

to block the laser beam, by using his peripheral vision only for navigating on a forward path, and 

by lowering his vision inside the cockpit so that he would not lose control. Thus, there is no 

dispute that the laser beam illuminated the cockpit of the helicopter and the laser beam interfered 

with Officer Gavitte's performance of his piloting duties; Officer Gavitte took extraordinary 

measures to maintain control of his helicopter. On the remaining issue, Respondent denies he 

pointed a laser at the police helicopter. However, Officer Gavitte states that the laser beam 

appeared to deliberately track the aircraft. See Exhibit C-1, at p. 5 of Exhibit 2. 

WHEREFORE, the Complainant respectfully requests this Court deny Respondent's 

motion to dismiss. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Patricia A. MeN all 

Acting Assistant Chief Counsel 

For Enforcement 

By: 

Lisa Toscano, Attorney 

Enforcement Division, Western Team 

email: Lisa.M.Toscano@faa.gov 

Telephone: (310) 725-7100 (main) 

(310) 725-7110 (direct) 

(310) 725-6816 (fax) 

Dated: August 26,2016 

3 
DOCKET NO. FAA-2015-0639 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that on this date I have sent by United States First-Class mail, the 

COMPLAINANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, and Exhibit C-1 with Exhibits 1 

and 2, addressed as follows: 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald 

Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Comiesy Facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

Kenneth Ray Rumberger 

2451 Church Lane, SPC 38 

San Pablo, CA 94806-5945 

Dated: August 26, 2016 

•7; 

~;;C;;u~-\~ /' ~ 

Antonia Garci~, Paralegal Specialist 

Enforcement Division, Western Team 

Lawndale, CA 

4 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

NARRATIVE/SUPPLEMENTAL 

CHP 556 (Rev. 7-90) OPI 065 

DATE OF INCIDENT/OCCURRENCE I TIME (2400} 

11/15/2014 0007 "X" ONE "X" ONE 

0 Narrative 0 Collision Report 

I NCIC NUMBER 

9314 

I OFF~CER 1.0. NUMBER 

015945 TYPE SUPPLEMENTAL rx- APPUCABLE} 

0 BA Update 0 Fatal 

IZI Supplemental IZI Other: FAA 0 Hazardous Materials 0 School Bus 

CrTY..COUNTY/JUDIC!AL DISTRICT 

Richmond/Contra Costal 

LOCATION/SUBJECT 

Over Hilltop Dr. all-80/Kenneth Rumberger 

1. SUMMARY {FACTS} 

Page of 2 

NUMBER 

D Hit and Run Update 

IZI Other: FAA laser form 

REPORTING OJSTRICTfBEAT I CITATION NUMBER 

STATE HIGHWAY RELATED 

0 Yes 1Zl No 

2. This SU[l[llemental re[lort is being Qre[lared to clarify my QOSition, involvement in and resQonses in the laser beam 

3. guestionnaire regarding a laser vs. aircraft incident on November 15, 2014. 

4. On that date I was on dutv, in uniform and emQloyed as a Qeace officer with the California Highway Patrol. I was 

5. and am assigned as an officer/helicoQter Qilot with the CHP's Golden Gate Division Air O[lerations Unit based at 

6. Napa Airport. 

7. On 111!5/14 I was flying as the Qilot-in-command (single Qilot} of a marked CHP/law enforcement helico[lter, a 

8. EuroCO[lter AS-350 B3 registration N34!HP, "H-32". The crew consisted of myself and my [lartner, Officer W. 

9. Lowe,# I 9436, a non-Qilot Flight Officer/Paramedic who is also a [leace officer. I was using Night Vision Goggles 

10. (NVG's} during the flight. 

11. At aQQroximately 0007 hours we were on Qatrol over the Ci!)' of Richmond near HilltoQ Dr. and I-80 freeway. At 

12. an altitude of a1:11:1roximately 1200' MSL, we were struck by a green laser light. The beam entered the cock12it 

13. windshield from a ground 12osition from the left/front of the aircraft. Though my NVG's were in the down 12osition 

14. the beam entered from the left side hitting my naked eye. The beam a12I:leared to track the helico12ter as we were in 

15. a left hand tum and the beam struck the aircraft a second time from the front. The beam shined brightly and caused 

16. me tem12ora!:):' flash blindness. When it shined through the 12lexiglass it "scattered" and was disorienting/distracting 

17. besides causing tem1:1orary blindness. When the beam subseguently hit the aircraft from the front, I lifted my left 

18. hand from the collective control to block/minimize the beam and had to use my [leriQheral vision only to see ahead. 

19. U12on return to Na12a I ex12erienced 12ain/irritation/redness to [lrimarily my left eye. 

20. 

21. 

Z2. . 

23. 

24. 

25. 

26. 

27. 

28. 

29. 

30. 

31. 

PREPARER'S NAME and 1,0 NUMBER DATE REVIE'NER'S NAME 

P. Gavitte #15945 08/25/16 

Use previous ed1t1ons unbl depleted 

rATE 

Exhibit C-1 

1 

Chp556_1114.paf 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

NARRA TIVEISUPPLEMENTAL 

CHP 558 (Rev 7-90) OPI 065 

DATE OF INCIDENT/OCCURRENCE l T!ME (2400) 

11115/2014 0007 ·x~aNe "X" ONE 

0 Narrative D Collision Report 

I NCIC NUMBER 

9314 

I OFFICER 1.0. NUMBER 

015945 TYPE SUPPLEMENTAL jlr APPUCABLE} 

0 BAUpdate 0 Fatal 

IZl Supplemental 181 Othec FAA 0 Hazardous Materials 0 School Bus 

CITY/COUNTY/JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

Richmond/Contra Costa/ 

LOCATION/SUBJECT 

Over Hilltop Or. at l-80/Kenneth Rumberger 

1. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES 

Page 2 of 2 

NUMBER 

D Hit and Run Update 

181 othec fAA laser fonn REPORTING DISTRICT/BEAT I CITATION NUMBER 

STATE HIGHWAY RELATED 

0 Yes 181 No 

2. I answered "no" in the guestionnaire to the guestions, "Did the laser illumination incident interfere with }'OUr 

3. Qerformance of Qilot or crewmember duties during the flight?" and "Did the laser illumination incident disru[Jt }'OUr 

4. mission?". Due to the number of incidents and safe!}' concerns related to laserillumination I have conducted 

5. training to mitigate disorientation. Part of this training is to "aviate" first, kee[J the aircraft fl}'ing to [Jrotect m}' 

6. crew, m}'selfand [Jersons/[JroQertv on the ground. In this case "aviating" included the mitigating resQonse of taking 

7. m}' hand off a control {collective} to block the laser beam. It also included having to view the forward Qath of the 

8. aircraft with QeriQheral vision onl}' as well as lowering my vision to inside the cock[Jit to make sure I 

9. didn't lose control. Regarding the second guestion of "Did the laser illumination incident disruQt }'OUr mission?". 

10. I answered "no" as I took the guestion to mean, did we divert from an active call {IJursuit, search etc.} to handle the 

11. laser incident. While we were not on another active call, we were on an active Qatrol flight which includes security 

12. checks of infrastructure such as bridges, refineries, (JOWer stations etc. and we did divert from this securi\)' Qatrol to 

13. recover from the laser illumination and follow the SUS(Ject and have ground officers affect an arrest. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25. 

26. 

27. 

28. 

29. 

30. 

31. 

PREPARER'S NAME and LD. NUMBER 

P. Gavitte #15945 

DATE REVIEWER'S NAME 

08/25/16 

.. Use previous edttions until depleted 

DATE 

Exhibit C-1 

2 

Chp556_1114_pdf 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

NARRA liVE/SUPPLEMENTAL 

DATE OF INCIDENT TIME 

11/15/2014 0020 

Nbc NUMBER OFFICER 1.0. NUMBER 

1478 14-17058 

PAGES I OF S 1 

1 SUMMARY: 

2 On Saturday, November 15, 2014 at approximately 0007 hours, 1 was on patrol as a Flight Officer in 

3 CHP Helicopter H-32 with my partner Officer/Pilot Gavilte, ID #15945, flying along 1-80 eastbound in a 

4 shallow left tum at approximately 1200 feel over the city of Richmond. 

5 As we were flying, I noticed a bright green flash from my front left side. I immediately recognized this flash 

6 to be that of a green laser being pointed at our aircraft. I knew it to be a laser pointer as I have been 

7 illuminated with a green laser before while in the aircraft. I told the pilot we were being lased, and we were 

8 immediately lased another lime, now from a head on position to the aircraft, as the laser appeared to be 

9 tracking the helicopter. The area from where the laser was coming appeared to be the intersection of 

10 westbound Hilltop Drive and the on-ramp to 1-80 eastbound. I saw the laser was coming from the driver 

11 side window of a light colored sedan which was the only vehicle at the intersection, stopped at the red light. 

12 When the light turned green, the stv continued on Hilnop Drive at a high rate of speed until it caught up to 

13 several cars and had to slow down. The s/v then stopped in the left tum Jane of Hilnop Drive, preparing to 

14 make a left tum onto Robert Miller Drive. I asked Richmond Police Department Dispatch for any available 

15 unit in the area to assist in conducting an enforcement stop on the vehicle. Three ground units responded 

16 to the Intersection of HIIHop Drive at Robert Miller Drive before the light turned green for the s/v to tum left 

17 onto Robert Miller Drive. When the light turned green, the s/v quickly turned left and changed lanes, 

18 rapidly accelerating from traffic. The s/v then made a left turn onto Birmingham Drive, followed by a right 

19 turn onto Lancaster Drive, followed by another left turn onto Southampton Court. The s/v went to the end 

20 of the court and then slowly turned around and began coming back towards lancaster Drive. By this lime, 

21 I was able to direct the units to where the s/v was, and as the s/v made a left tum back onto Lancaster 

22 Drive, the Richmond Police Officers conducted an enforcement stop after I confirmed they were behind the 

23 right vehicle. From the time we were lased, until the time the enforcement stop was made, I never lost 

24 sight of the s/v. The primary unit, callsign 1 Lincoln 8, was Officer Shanks #1478. He identified the driver 

25 as Kenneth Ray Rumberger and ultimately placed him under arrest for violation of 247.5 PC- Pointing a 

26 Laser Pointer at an Aircraft. The green laser was located and later booked Into evidence at the Richmond 

27 Police Station. (Refer to Officer Shanks's arrest report for details involving his arrest and evidence booking) 

28 

29 RECOMMENDATIONS: 

30 I request this supplemental be added to Officer Shanks's report to assist in the prosecution of Kenneth Ray 

31 Rumberger for the crime of247.5 PC- Pointing a Laser Pointer at an aircraft. 

PREPARED BY 

W.LOWE I OFFICER 

I.O.NUMBER 

019436 

DATE 

11/15/2014 

REVIEWER'S NAME DATE 

Exhibit 1 

1 
I certify this IOP is a 

Certified true copy. 

David T. Jensen 

Dated 1/9/2015 

Exhibit 1 

2 
Federal Aviation 

Administration 

LASER BEAM EXPOSURE 

QUESTIONNAIRE 

Complete questionnaire and e-mail to: laserreports@faa.gov 

OR send via fax to FAA Washington Operations Center Complex (WOCC). (202) 267-5289 A TIN: DEN 

CONTACT INFORMATION 

Name of pllot/crewmember reporting 

I Peter Gavilte 

E-mail address and phone number (e.g., home, cell, worl<) 

I pgavitte@chp.ca.gov (707) 257-0103 wor1< 

What seat In the cockpit were you occupying atthe thne of the laser beam exposure? 

('Left r. Right (' Jumpseat (' Alght Engineer ('Other/Not applicable 

How many crewmembers on the flight had laser light shined directly In their eyes? 

(' None (the laser light beam did not directly enter anyone's eyes) 

(' One (i' Two (' Three ('Four or more 

Note: If any other ctewmember had direct exposure to the laser light In their eyes, each person exposed should 

complete their own copy of this FAA Laser Beam Exposure QuesOonnalre 

FLIGHT INFORMATION 

Flight number, call sign and aircraft registration number (e.g., SWA572, soulhwes~ N287WN) 

I "H-32" N341 HP 

Aircraft Make and Model (e.g., Boeing 737, Cessna 172, Airbus A320, BAE Jelstream 32, Demler 328) 

I AEC AS-350 helicopter 

Category of aircraft 

('Airplane (i' Rotorcraft (' Ughter than air ('Other (spoclfy) 

Type of operation 

(' Commercial AvlaDon (' General Aviation (' Military (i' Law Enforcement 

.------------------------------, ('Medical ('News Reporting ('Other (specify) L---------------------l 

Data of laser Incident 

'No

vember 15, 2014 I Please enterdateoflaser Incident In Month Day, Year format (e.g, July 27, 20U). OR mou .. click In L. c.:;_.;_.::..:.:....;.;:.:..:~c.:;_---'· the data field tc display a drop down arrow to view calendar and make your selection. The calendar 

selection is optimized for PC's and may not be available on a Mac. 

Time of laser Incident (enter Unlversalllme Coordinated (UTC/Zulu) fonmat rounded to the nearest frve minutes) 

~ :~ l/TC/Zulu 

.:··· :·i··· .. 

Exhibit 2 

1 
Time of day during laser incident 

Nighttime, on or after midnight local time 

Location of aircraft during laser Incident (Fixed Radial Distance (FRO) from navald or airport, OR add la1/long coordinates) 

Helicopter was just south of the Intersection of Hilltop Dr. and 1-60 freeway in the City of Richmond, CA 

Estimated geographic locaUon of the laser source (e.g.,lhe laser source relative to KDFW approach end of runway 35L 

was approximately 220 degree redial and 2 miles. You can also provide estimated !at/long coordinates) 

the laser source was from within a vehicle stopped at the Intersection of Hilltop Dr. and 1-80 

Approximate altitude of the alrcneft above ground level (AGL) 

1501 - 1000 Feet AGL 

Primary direction of flight at the time of the laser Incident 

\N 

IS 

r-r.w 

\SW 

\NE 

rse 

\E 

\W I None!Hover 

What phase(s) of flight wene you In during the laser Incident? (cheok all that apply) 

D Taxi D Takeoff D Climb to altitude 1Z1 Cruise allituda 

D Descant 0 Final approach 0 Landing D Low-altitude (<500ft. AGL) level flight 

D Hover D Other (specify) 

EFFECT ON FLIGH f 

Interference: Did the laser Illumination Incident Interfere with your performance of pilot or crewmember duties 

during the flight? 

('Yes r- No 

If you selected "Yes" above, how did the laser Illumination Interfere with your pilot or onawmember dulles? 

Flight Path: Did the laser Illumination cause the pilot/crew member to change the aircraft flight path? 

I No change In flight path r- Minor or non-adverse change I Majer or adverse change 

Disruption of Mission: Answer this question ONLY If you were conducting law enforcemenl, medical or military flight 

operations during the time of the laser illumination Incident. Did the laser Illumination Incident disrupt your mission? 

\Yes r- No 

If you selected "Yes' above, how did the laser illumination Interfere with your mission? 

The flight was on operational patrol and was returning towards Napa, the home base. The flight diverted from returning 

Exhibit 2 

3 

" 
I certify this lOP is a 

Certified true copy. 

David T. Jensen 

/7-rcvz-- Dated 1/9/20JS 

Exhibit 2 

4 
LASER INFORMATION 

Color of the laser light? (If multi-colored, check all that apply) 

a Red a Blue m Green 0 Yellow a orange [ill While a Purple 

0 Other (specify) 

Tracking: Did the laser beam appear to deliberately track the aircraft? 

(i Yes ('No l' Unsurelother (specify) ----~----------------------------~ 

Cockpit Illumination: Did the laser beam enter through the windscreen and Illuminate any part of the cockpit? 

(i Yes ('No ('Other (specify) 

Eye exposure: Old the the laser beam light shine directly Into one or both of your eyes? 

(' Old not shine Olrec1ly In my eyo(s) ("'Shined a little in my aya(s) (0 Sll!nod brightly In my eye(s) 

EFFECT ON YOUR EYE(S} f\nsv.e1 qt est1ons 1:!'310\'J ONLY If :he laser be<1rn sh•nccl a l11ti8 or bngh·ty 1n ym:r :::ye\s) 

Old you experience any adverse VISION EFFECTS* from the exposure? (check all that may apply) 

D Did net experience edverse vision effects 

121 Glare (c:oold not see past the light while It was In your eye(s)} 

121 Temporary flash blindness andlor after Images (similar to a camera nash) 

D One or more blind spots (spots In vlsuel field Jasfing longer than 5-10 minutes) 

0 Blurry vision 

D Significant loss 0

of'-n"'Jg:::h.:...t v'-Js'-lo'-n-------------------------~ D ather (specify} 

L-----------------------------------------~ 

'Examples of common vision effects 

Glare: A temporary disruplfan In vision caused by the presence of a bright light (such as an oncoming cor's headlights) within 

on Individual~ field of vision. Glore lasts only as long as the bright light Is octuo//y present within the Individuals field of vision. 

Flash blindness: A temporary VIsual Interference effect that persists after the source of the Illumination has ceased, simflarto 

o bright cam em flash. 

Afterimage: An Image that remains In the VIsual field after an exposure to a btlght light. 

Blind spot: A temporary or permanent loss of vision ofpott oft he visual field. Unlike an afterimage, a blind spot does not 

fade, 01 fades very slowly (taking many minutes, hours or days to fade out). 

Old you experience any adverse PHYSICAL EFFECTS from the exposure? (check all that may apply) 

D Did net experience adverse physical effect& 

0Watertng eye(s) 

1Z1 Eye(s) discomfort or pain 

0 Headache 

0 Feeling of s~ock 

D Disorientation orr.:d.:lzzi=ne:..:ss..:..._ ___________________________ ~ 

0 Other (specify) I scratchiness in left eye 

Did you rub your eye{s) after the exposure? 

(' No significant rubbing CO: Rubbed lhem a littl• 

• . '· . .;:· ··~ F ~·.! '.'' i: .. :·: · 

(' Rubbed them vigorously 

Exhibit 2 

5 
I certifY this lOP is a 

Certified true copy. 

David T. Jensen / -7 ..:----·~/ ~; 

Dated 1/9/2 15 

Exhibit 2 

6 
EYE EXAM RESULTS. A11t,\','t:i ques:1ons bdO'.V ONLY if you had an eye ex em< (liter !lie !r:J~.er mci(Jcn: 

Enter the medical facility name: 

What type of doctor did the primary or most comprehensive examination of your eye(s)? 

I Retinal Specialist 

I Ophthalmologist (medical doctor spsclalizlng In eye haalth) 

I Optometrist (lasts for visual acuity and eye diseases; prescribes and fils glasses/contacts) 

I Optician (fits glasses/contacts) 

I Emergency room doctor, nurse or technician 

I 01her (specify) 

L---------------------------------------------~ 

Describe the resulls of tile medical evaluation: 

LASER INCIDENT REPORliNG 

Did you report the Incident to Air Traffic Control (ATC)? 

(o' Old not report to ATC 

I Reported via aircraft radio communication 

I Reported via phone call 

I Reported vie walk·ln to FAA ATC facility 

I Other (spscily) 

Did you report the laser Incident to an FAA Flight standards (AFS) field office? (e.g., FSDO, CMO, CHDO) 

I Did not report to AFS 

I Reported via aircraft radio communication 

I Reported via phone call 

I Reported via walk-in to FAAAFS field office 

(o' Other {specify) I report forwarded to FAA Special Agent Scott Harris 

If you reported to an FAA AFS field office, enter the name and office location 

'':;··,.: .,; 

Exhibit 2 

7 
I certify this lOP is a 

Certified true copy. 

David T. Jensen 

~!9tlol~-

Exhibit 2 

8 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

Did you have any prior knowledge or training on the hazards and effe<rts of lasers aimed at a pllot/crewmember? 

("None 

(" Basic information about the hazards and effects Of lasers 

(i Detailed, specific lnfonnation 6\lch as how to recognize and reeover from laser illuminations 

(" Simulator training or similar exposure to laser-Hke !Dum! nations in an aviation training environment 

r Other (specify) 

Ple~;f~r.JrGO to'iicill llnY}ill!dltiOnl!l)rifonmatlonor com!llen!S abo~ your fllghtitii~ii!ii~fiiicl~~~!'·r~p~f!)ng, · a~d/ilr.!!,itiftq~mnt outCome: ~ /. > · · •.. ·· ·. · . · · . ' · ' ';. ~ t':T?;'•:, .. ;:";,S' . · 

Did you report the unauthorized laser Illumination Incident to the Domestic Incidents Network (DEN)? 

("No ("Yes 

What local law enforcement agency dld you contact? (Include their pltone number) 

Was an arrest:macl&? 

(" No arras!, or arrest unlikely 

("Maybe, still working the case 

("Yes, arrest was made 

r Arrest status is unknown 

(" Other (specify) 

~--------------------------------------------~ 

SUBMIT COMPLETED FAA LASER BEAM EXPOSURE QUESTIONNAIRE 

Thank you for taking time to complete this questionnaire. Please "save" the completed questionnaire 

and submit to the FAA using one of the two methods described below: 

1. Attach the saved PDF to an e-mail and send to: laserreports@faa.gov 

2. Send via fax to FAA Washington Operations Center Complex (WOCC) • (202) 267-5289 ATTN: DEN 

Exhibit 2 

9 
I certify this lOP is a 

Certified true copy. 

David T. Jensen 

6~:~;~;-

Exhibit 2 

10