SERVED SEPTEMBER 10, 2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

RECURRENT TRAINING CENTER, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. (CP09GL0008) 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS NO. (FAA-2009-0971) 

G 

SFi 

EIVED 

> 1 7 2010 

iG DOCKET 

; ^ -••-.:;• • ; 

-r po o 

e n CA> 

oo 

APPLICATION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES AND OTHER EXPENSES 

PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (EAJA) 

COMES NOW Applicant, RECURRENT TRAINING CENTER, INC., by and through 

its counsel, BARNETT LAW OFFICES, P.C., pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §504 and 14 C.F.R. §14 

hereby applies for attorney fees and other expenses incurred in The Matter of Recurrent Training 

Center, FAA Docket No. (CP09FL0008). The Initial Decision of Administrative Law Judge 

Richard C. Goodwin ("Decision") was served August 11, 2010. (See attached Exhibit A, 

Decision) The Decision found that the allegations of the FAA ("Agency") were not proven and 

the Complaint was dismissed. According to 14 C.F.R. § 14.20(c)(4), an initial decision is 

considered to be a final decision if no petition for reconsideration is filed on the last day on 

which such a petition could be filed. The FAA did not timely file an appeal within 10 days of 

the initied decision (i.e. by August 23, 2010), at which time the initial decision became final for 

purposes of this application. Accordingly, this application is timely and appropriate in 
accordance with 14 C.F.R. §14.20(a) as it is filed no later than 30 days after the final disposition 

of the proceedings. The following points are made in support of this application: 

1. HISTORY OF THE MATTER 

1. On September 21,2009, Applicant, Recurrent Training Centers, Inc. ("RTC") was 

advised through a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to 

assess a civil penalty in the amount of $3,850. 

2. On October 5,2009, the FAA received RTC's timely written request for a hearing. 

3. RTC holds and at all times mentioned herein held an Air Agency Certificate Number 

R9KS949K for an approved Provisional Pilot School with a Special Preparation 

Courses rating issued by the FAA. 

4. RTC also holds and at all times mentioned herein held Training Center Certificate 

Number R9KX049K with Training Specifications to conduct training courses with 

respect to 14 C.F.R. 142. 

5. On or about January 16,2008, RTC certified that Mr. VanBerkom successfiilly 

completed an Instrument Proficiency Check ("IPC") and on December 17,2007, RTC 

certified that Mr. Moore successfiilly completed an Instrument Proficiency Check. 

These IPCs were performed in a Flight Training Device ("FTD"), Level 1, 3, or 6. 

6. Circling Approaches and Landing fi-om a Straight-in or Circling Approach maneuvers 

caimot be performed with a Flight Training Device ("FTD") Level 1, 3 or 6. 

7. FTD Level 1,3 and 6 are the FTDs approved for RTC. 

8. The IPC's given to both pilots did not test for Landing fi-om a Straight-in or Circling 

Approach maneuvers. 

9. The Complainant asserted that an IPC must test for all the Instrument Rating Practical 

Test Standards ("PTS"). The PTS includes Landing from a Straight-in and Circling 

Approach maneuvers. 

10. The Agency argued that RTC committed three violations for the FAR's: 

a. §141.41(b)(3), 

b. §141.83(a)(l)and 

c. $61.57(d) 
11. RTC argued that the language of 61.57(d) is clear and unambiguous on its face and 

that an IPC need only include "a representative number of tasks". 

12. The Court found that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the matter 

could be decided on questions of law (See attached Exhibit A, Decision, I. Para. 7). 

13. The Court stated in its decision that all allegations hinged upon an evaluation of the 

language of 14 C.F.R. §61.57(d). (See attached Exhibit A, Decision, III. Para.. 2) 

14. The Court fiirther stated in its decision that the proper reading of 14 C.F.R. §61.57(d) 

requires accomplishment of a "representative number" of PTS tasks - not all of them, 

and not necessarily the ones named in the PTS chart. (See attached Exhibit A, 

Decision, III. Para. 4) 

15. The Agency's position would effectively delete the words "representative number" 

and the manifest intent of the regulation would thus be thwarted. (See attached 

Exhibit A, Decision, III. Para. 4) 

16. The Court fiirther stated that the Agency relied on statements fi-om the PTS which do 

not have the force of law. Because the PTS lacks legal effect, it may not impose 

duties not compelled by the plain words of 14 C.F.R. §61.57(d). (See attached Exhibit 

A, Decision, III Para. 6) 

17. Moreover, the Court stated, 14 C.F.R. §61.57(d) requires no explaining or 

supplementation by reference to extrinsic documents. As such, the arguments of the 

Agency are beside the point. (See attached Exhibit A, Decision, III Para. 7) 

18. Lastly, the Court decided that the allegations of the Complaint were not proven and 

the Compliant is "hereby dismissed". (See attached Exhibit A, Decision, III Para. 8) 

II. APPLICANT IS THE PREVAILING PARTY 

The attached Decision (Exhibit A) and Pomts 12 and 14 thru 18 above clearly establish 

that the Applicant is the prevailing party. 

III. THE POSITION OF THE FAA WAS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY JUSTIFIED 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §14.04, the applicant points out that the position of the Agency was not 

substantially justified as indicated by points 14 thru 17 above. The Agency was not substantially 
justified in attempting to discern or clarify the meaning of 14 C.F.R. §61.57(d) by reference to 

other regulations, directives and interpretations. The Co\ul rejected any such assertions. The 

Court also stated that the operative meaning of 14 C.F.R. §61.57(d) was clear and unambiguous. 

(See attached Order, III. Para. 4) It is apparent then, that the FAA knew or should have known 

that 14 C.F.R. §61.57(d) was clear on its face. Accordingly, the position of the Agency, that 

RTC was required to do more than the requirements of the regulations, was not substantially 

justified. 

IV. RTC IS A "PARTY" WITH A NET WORTH NOT EXCEEDING 

$7 MILLION AT THE INITL4TION OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. 

Pursuant tol4 C.F.R. §14.03, RTC is a "party" as defined in 5 U.S.C. 504(b)(1)(B) and 5 

U.S.C. 551(3). Further, pxorsuant to 14 C.F.R. §14.11, RTC is a corporation employing less than 

500 employees with a net worth of less than $7 million at the initiation of these proceedings. 

RTC is in the business of providing training to pilots m flight training devices and at the 

initiation of these proceedings engaged approximately 19 employees. In the one-year period 

prior to the date on which this proceeding was initiated, the Applicant did not transfer any assets 

or incur any obligations that reduced the net worth of the Applicant below the applicable net 

worth ceiling. 

A detailed exhibit showing the net worth of the Applicant at the mitiation of these 

proceedings is attached. (See Exhibit B.) 

V. TOTAL FEES AND COSTS FOR WHICH AN AWARD 

IS SOUGHT: $19,416.80 

4 
Documentation of attorney fees paid or payable to Charles R. Bamett, III along with 

other expenses is attached. (See Exhibit C.) Pursuant tol4 C.F.R. §14.05(c), the following shall 

be considered in determining the reasonableness of the fees sought for an attorney: 

1. Charles R. Bamett, III as the owner of Bamett Law Offices, P.C. is in private practice 

and concentrates his practice in aviation law. His customary fee for such services is $200 per 

hour. 

2. The prevailing rate for similar services in the community in which Bamett Law Offices, 

P.C. is located is substantiated by the attached affidavits from two other attorneys who also 

practice aviation law in the same commxmity. (See attached affidavits at Exhibits D and E) 

3. The time actually spent in representation of RTC is documented in the attached 

Exhibit C. 

4. The time spent on this matter was reasonable in light of the difficulty or complexity of 

the issues in the proceeding; and 

5. Such other factors as may bear on the value of the services provided would include Mr. 

Bamett's extensive background in aviation, which includes over 10,000 flight hours logged as an 

Airline Transport Pilot and a Masters Degree in Aeronautical Science from Embry Riddle 

Aeronautical University. Mr. Bamett is also a panel attomey of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association Legal Services Plan and as such has received specific training and education 

regarding representation of clients in matters concerning the FAA. 

Documentation of fees paid or payable to John M. Killeen is attached. (See Exhibit F). 

Pursuant tol4 C.F.R. § 14.05(c), the following shall be considered in determining the 

reasonableness of the fees sought for an agent: 
John M. Killeen is the President of RTC and provided research and analysis of FAA 

publications, regulations and other controlling guidance in this matter. His customary fee for 

such services is $102 per hour. 

2. The time actually spent in research and analysis of issues involving this matter is 

dociraiented in the attached Exhibit F; and 

4. The time spent on this matter was reasonable in light of the difficulty or complexity of 

the issues in the proceeding. 

All fees requested are for work performed after the issuance of the complaint. 

VI. CONCLUSION 

For all of the foregoing reasons, this Court should find that the Applicant is the prevailing 

party in this matter, that the Applicant meets the economic threshold qualification criteria of the 

EAJA, that an attomey client relationship exists and that attomeys fees and other expenses were 

incurred, and that the Agency (FAA) was not substantially justified in the litigation which led to 

this appeal when it failed to properly follow the plain language of 14 CFR §67.51(d) in applying 

the terms "representative number of tasks" when considering what should required of the 

Applicant to conduct Instrument Proficiency Checks in a Flight Training Device. Subsequently, 

the award of fees is warranted in the interests of justice. 

WHEREFORE, the Court should order the Agency to pay to tiie Applicant, $19,416.80, the 

amount requested in this application. 
• CERTIFICATE OF VERIFICATION 

Under penalty of perjury as provided by law the undersigned certifies that the information set 

forth in this APPLICATION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORIVEY FEES AND OTHER 

EXPENSES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (EAJA) are uaie and 

correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief and as to such matters 

the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true. 

Dated this ' ^ day of September, 2010. 

John..^ 

President 

Recurrent Training Center 

315SDunlap 

Savoy, IL 61874 
List of Attached Exhibits 

Exhibit Number 

A 

B 

D 

E 

F 

Docimient 

Initial Decision of Administrative 

Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

Net Worth Statement of Recurrent 

Training Center 

Attomey Fees of 

Charles R. Bamett, III 

Affidavit of Phillip A. Prossnitz, Esq. 

Affidavit of John Scott Hoff, Esq. 

Invoices of John M. Killeen 

Number of Pages 

2 

1 

1 

2 

Dated: September 10,2010 

Respectfiilly submitted. 

Charles R. Bamett, m 

BARNETT LAW OFFICES, P.C. 

1664 Moorland Lane 

Crystal Lake, Illinois 60014-2985 

(815)356-8647 

(815) 356-7042 (FAX) 

' Attomey/^r y^plicant 

Recurrent Training Center, Inc. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Reply Brief was served via US Regular Mail 

as follows: 

ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000 

FAX: 202-493-5142 

ONE COPY 

Briana Martino, Complainant's Counsel 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7M 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 

TEL: 847-294-7713 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attomey-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Dated this 10* day of September, 2010. 

5harles Rf Ba6ei 

Attomey for Applicant 
SERVED AUGUST 11,2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION. 

Complainant, 

V. 

RECURRENT TRAINING CENTER, INC. 

Respondent. 

FAA Docket No. CP09GL0008 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0971 

INITIAL DECISION 

OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RICHARD C. GOODWIN 

Found: The allegvtioiis wme mat proven. The Comj^bint will be dismissed. 

I. Background 

Respondent Recurrent Training Center, Inc. ("Respondent" or "RTC") is an 

Air Agency certificated for an approved Provisional Pilot School ynth a Special 

Preparation Courses rating, it also held, during the period under review, a 

Training Center Certificate with Training Specifications to conduct training 

courses under 14 C.F.R. §142. 

RTC and the Complainant, the Federal Aviation AdministFation 

("Complainant," TAA." or "the agency") agree on the fad s underlying the 

charges in the Complaint They sutmiitted. per my order, an Agreed Upon 

StEifement of Facts ("StErtement of Fads'). 

In the parties' Statement of Fads, dated April 23,2010 (Complainant's 

Exhibit A-1), they concur that RTC certified that two pilots, VanBerkom and 

Moone, had sucoessfiiily completed Instrument Proficiency Checks ("IPC"), on 

January 16, 2008, and Decemtier 17, 2007, respectively. The IPCs v/ere 

performed in a Flight Train«ig Devfce ("FTP") Level 1, 3, or 6. Those are the 

FTDs approved ibrRtC.t^ ^ , 3 or 6 rriay be used for drding 

approaches or landing from a straight-in or drding approach maneuvers. The 

IPCs given to RTC's pik>ts dkl not test for tiiese skills. 

EXmBTTA 
After this point the FAA and RTC part ways. 

Complainant asserts tfiat an IPC must test for all the Instrument Rating 

Practical Test Standards ("PTS"). The PTS indudes drding approaches and 

landing from a straigfrt-in or cirding approadi maneuvers. As stated, 

Respondents approved FTDs were not permitted to test for these abilities and 

did not Because R^sondent certified tiiat the pilots successfully completed 

their respective IPCs but failed to test for the described skills, the agency argues 

that RTC committed three vrolattons of the FARs: 1) section 141.41(b)(3), which 

requires that each FTD used to obtain flight training oedit have Administrator 

approval; 2) section 141.83(a)(1), obligating each prov^ional pilot school to 

comply with its trainihg'courge; arKl 3) section 61.57(d), which mandates that an 

IPC must indude "a representative numt)er of taste required by the instrument 

rating practical test" The agency asks for a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. §46301 

of $3,850. 

Respondent counters that the IPCs it conducted were complete and 

conform to FAR requirements. The language of section 61.57(d) means that an 

IPC need not indude every conceivable tesk, it states. RTC contends that it 

committed no vtolation. But even if violations are found, Resporujent argues, its 

compliant attitude arK) the mootness of ttie central question^ compel the 

conduston tiiat rK> dvil penalty is warranted. 

Pursuant to my Order on Motions of Ajpn\ 5, 2010 - which denied 

Respondents Motion for Deciston and Complainants response to same and 

Complainants own Motion for Dedskin — the parties filed briefs on the issues 

presented. I find that there are no genuine issues of material fa d and that the 

mattftpmiay hft/ieiAtetLiMa-qifftgHnngof law. The case vwll t)e decided_by Initial 

Dedston pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13,201 et seq.^ 

II. Arguments 

Both parties zero in on language in §61.57(d) describing what a pilot must 

do to qualify to (^}erate uruler IFR Onstrument fligttt rute) or less-4harv-minimum 

VFR (visual flight rule) conditions. As noted, flie regulation mandates tiiat a pilot 

must pass an IPC "cons»tir^ of a repr^^ntative numtier of tasks required by the 

instrument rab'ng practical test." 

The agency asserts ttiat the quoted language incorporates by its terms 

"instrument rating practical test" into the regulaljon. Tfie instrument rating 

' See n. 4, p. 4. 

* Complainant filed an Opening Brief ("CompL Br.'O, Respondent sulnaitted a Reply Brief ("Re^. Br."), 

and because die burden of proof is on die agency, Compl^nt was pennitted to. and did, file a Response to 

Respondent's Reply Brief CX^ompL Reply Br."). The parties attadiied ediibits to their briefe. 

Complainant's exhibits b^in widi '^A" followed by the exhibit number, and Respomtent's exhibits b^ n 

widi^R." 
practical test in turn, references an FAA directive conteining the contents of that 

test The directive is entitied "The Instrument Rating Practical Test Standards" 

("PTS"). The PTS states that adherence to the regulations and to itself "is 

mandatory for evaluation of instrument pilot applicants." (FAA-S-8081-4D). The 

PTS states further that "at a minimum, the applicant must demonstrate the ability; 

to perform the tasks listed in tiie above charT - which tasks include the 

referenced skills that RTC admittedly did not test The "representative tasks" 

descrit}ed in tiie regulations. Complainant condudes, must indude the skills 

listed in the PTS diart (Compl. Br., pp. 3-5). Since the approach and maneuvers 

descrit>ed cannot be tested in RTC's autiiorized FTDs, RTC, the agency states, 

must be found in violation of §61.57(d). Violation of the other regulations 

charged in tiie Complaint must fottow. 

Respondent, fioming in on tiie same regulatory language, counters that 

the phrase "a representative numt>er of tasks' is dear and unambiguous, it 

means exactly what it says: to successfully complete an IPC, a representative 

number of tasks from ftie PTS must t>e accomplisfied. Complainants position, it 

argues, effiectively exdses tfie quoted language from the regulation — and by 

doing so, vtoiates establisfied rules of construction (Resp. Br., p. 5). Words are 

to be interpreted in tfieir common and ordinary meanings. Respondent states; 

appl^ng that prindple here compels tiie conduston tfiat Respondent was under 

no obligation to test tiie pitots for each and every maneuver listed and descrik>ed 

in tiie PTS (Resp. Br., p. 8). tt ^ true that the approach^ and maneuvers that 

tiie PTS requires an appKicant to perform indude those whose acknowledged 

omission form tiie basis for Complainants diarges. But a command of the PTS 

cannot trump the language of the regulation itself. RTC states. 

lit- Decision 

I find and condude that Respondent committed no violations. The 

Comptaint will t>e dismesed. 

Tfie starting point of my analy ^ must be an evaluation of the language of 

14 C.F.R. §61.57(d), For it is upon the question of whether Respondent 

complied \mth this regulation that all allegatior^ hinge. As noted, the key 

proviskHi of this regulation states that an IPC must indude "a representative 

numt>er of tasks" required by tfie instrument rating practical test. 

in interpreting a regulation, the dedsfonmaker k)oks at its plain language 

and analyzes ftie terms used in accordance with their common, ordinary 

meaning. Whelan v. U.S.. 529 F.2d 1000,1002-03 (Ct.CI. 1976). Regulations 

also shouM t>e construed so ttiat if at all possible, no word or clause is rendered 

superfluous. Canpris of construction state that alt regulatory lariguage be given 

effect iMomfes V. Sobfec/ad Espafiol de AuxiBo Mutuo y Etenefrcen&a, 524 F.2d 

54 (1 Cir. 2008). 
The operative language of this regulation is clear and unambiguous. 

"Representative" in this context means "exemplary of others in the same class; 

typical" (The New American Heritage Dictionary of tiie English Language). 

Stated another way, section 61,57(d) requires IPCs to include tasks typical of 

those required by the instrument rating practical test No more, no less. Tfie .^ 

regulation does not name or descritie particular tests which must be acceptably 

performed for successful IPS completion. Even if (as contended by the agency) 

the PTS is incorporated into §61.57(d). tiie regulation's plain language controls. 

Wfien the words of a regulation are unambiguous, the regulation governs; judicial 

inquiry is at an end. Tesom Hawaii Corp. v. U.S., 405 F.S"^ 1339,1347 (Fed.Cir. 

2005). As such, section 61.57(d). property read, requires accomplishment of a 

"representative number* of PTS tasl^ -^ not all of tiiem. and not nec^sarily the 

ones named in the i^TS chart The interpretation Complainant urges, by 

contrast wouki effectively delete tfie quoted phrase. The manifest intent of the 

regulation would be thus thwarted. This outcome cannot be accepted. 

Hfad Complainant been able to show that tfie tasks Respondent tailed to 

test for — drding ar^roadies or landing from a straigfit-in or drding approach 

maneuvers — were a necessary part of the "repr^^ntative number of tasks" 

required by tfie instrument rating practical test it woukI have prevailed. But it 

cannot do so. Thus its proof tails. 

Comptainants contrary arguments do not sway. The PTS statement upon 

which it so fieavity relies, requiring an IPC applicant to perform all the tasks listed 

in a diart ttierein. does not fi»ve the force of law. tt is contained in a FAA 

document FAA-S-8081-4D, whk:h was not adopted with the protections of 

notice-andl-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Ad ("APA"). 

-Tfie documefit¥ras-notput>lislied-iii.the-Federal l3eg^teL(see 5-jy-S.C., 

§552(a)(1)(D)). tracking legal effect, it may not impose duties not compelled by 

the plain words of §61.57(d).=' 

Moreover, as a regulation understood through its own dear words, 

§61.57(d) requires no explaining or supplementation by reference to extrinsic 

documents. As such, the arguments of Complainant (and Respondent) which 

attempt to dtecem or darify tfie regulation's meaning by reference to otiier 

regulations, directives, and interpretations are t>eside tiie point Tfie parties' 

assertions of this nature are rej€H::ted.^ 

^ Compbmnnt notes fttat the FAA's Fli ^ Standards Infmmation Managemeat System (^FSIMS'O 

handbook (FAA Order 8900.1X cited i^ Respondent to support its argument that an IPC need not test for 

every ta ^ listed in die PTS, considerB itself"guidance." It expressly states durt "[sjhould the guidance in 

diis Older conflict witix 14 CFR, 14 CFR takes precedence..." (Gompl. Reply Br., p. 2; see also Resp. Br., 

p. 4n.3). What is good fin-the goose, ofcoiHse, is good for the gand«-. 

* Reqacmdent also points ootdiatlhe tangpa^ of §61.57(d) was dnat^ed effective October 20,2009 - after 

the events of diis case—to require an IPCto con^stof "die areas of operation and instrument tasks 

requited" by die PTS (74 Fed.Rje«.^G500,42518 (Ai^ust 21,2009)). ftasscatsdiatdiisdiangerefaifijrces 

its cootention dntdie earlier §61.S7(d) iMignagFt embraced an exenqiliay number of tasks, and not all listed 

in die PTS chart. The change, it states, would not have been necessary had the requirenient to complete all 
The allegations of the Complaint were not proven. The Complaint is 

hereby dismissed.^ 

tichard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative taw Judge 

Attachment — Servk:e Usi. 

PTS tasks been enshrined in die earlier version. Resp. Br., p. 6. Complainant counters that the FAA 

describes the change as a "clarification'' (74 Fed-R^.. p. 42519X suggesting dier^y diat it is not 

substantive (Compl. Br., p. 6). Resolving this argomont is unnecessary in view of my decision, and I 

express no view on it 

' This decision mi^ be iqjpealed to die Administrator of the FAA, The notice of appeal must conform to 

sections 13.210,13.211(e) and 13.233 of die Rules of Practice, which require that a notice of ^peai I) be 

filed not lator dian 10 days (plus an additional five days if mailed) from die service date of diis decision, 

and 2) be perfected with a written brief w memorandum not later dian SO d^ s (plus an additional five, if 

mail ^ from die service date of diis decisicm. The notice of appeal and brief or memorandum must eidier 

be a) maOed to the Fedoal Aviation Administoation, 800 Ind^iend^ice Avenue, S. W., Washington, DC 

20591, Attn: Hearing Dodcet iQlcak, AqC-430, Wilbur WiJghtJBuildhig—Suite 2W1000ror-b) delivered 

personally or via expedited courier service to the Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Indepoidence 

Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washmgton, D.C. 20591, Attn: Hearing Docket 

Clerk, AGC-430. A copy of die notice of appeal and brief or memorandum also must be sent to agency 

cram.cAl .^rvice iipon the presidine jodge is optional. 
FAA Docket No. CP09GL0008 

(Civil Peaoalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Indep^idence AVCTIUC, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC~430 

WUbur Wright Bmlding—Suite 2W1000^ 

ONE COPY 

Charles R. Bamett, HI, Respondent's Counsel 

1664 Moorland Lane 

Crystal Lake, IL 60014-2985 

TEL: 815-356-8647 

FAX: 815-356-7042 

Briana Morgan, Conqtlainant's Counsel 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7M 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 

TEL: 847-294-7313 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Nfoil. For service in penon or by expedrted courier, use the following addres: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 b&peodence Avenne, S.W., Wilbur Wiig^ Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attoition: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 
Recurrent Training Center 

Net Worth 

Sept 1, 2010 

Page 1 of 1 

Printed 9/7/10 

Assets 

Cash 

Bank One Savings 

Busey Savings 

Payroll Checking 

Checking 

Pocket Money 

Cash Box 

Total Cash 

Redevables 

Accounts Recvb 

Total Redevables 

Property 

Simulators 

AST Simulator 

Garmin Trainer 

Fumiture 

Video Equipment 

Tapes 

Computer 

VITs Training Course 

Aircraft Systems Course 

Copy Machine 

Tools 

Total Property 

Total Assets 

Liabilitys 

Loan to John 

Total Liabilitys 

48.130 

3,297 

948 

1.926 

102 

24.351 

78,753 

1,600 

1,600 

118,799 

3.532 

54.820 

27.856 

7,674 

71.801 

38,067 

27,835 

8,683 

5Z 

359,124 

437,477 

61.346 

61.346) 

NET WORTH $376,531 

EXHIBIT B 

John 

Killeen 

Digitally signed by 

John Killeen 

DN: cn=John Killeen, 

o=RTC, ou=President, 

email=john@rtcpilot 

com, c=US 

Date: 2010.09.07 

11:21:35-05'00' 
EXHIBIT C 

ANALYSIS OF ATTORNEY FEES PAID OR PAYABLE TO CHARLES R. BARNETT, III 

TO DEFEND RECURRENT TRAINING CENTER, INC AGAINST CHARGES THAT IT 

ALLEGEDLY VIOLATE 

Date Description 

10/8/2009 Review Complaint and Draft Answer. 

10/16/2009 Research case law 

10/24/2009 Draft Motion to Dismiss 

10/29/2009 Continue draft of Motion to Dismiss 

10/31/2009 Review Procedural Order. Draft Pleadings. 

11 /4/2009 Finalize Motion to Dismiss 

11/5/2009 Revise MTD. Serve via Certified Mail 

11/19/2009 Review FAA's Response to MTD. Tel conf with cleint. 

Tele conf with FAA 

11/25/2009 Telephone conference with FAA. Tel. conf with client. 

12/9/2009 Review Court Order re MTD. Draft pleadings 

12/15/2009 Review and serve Answer. 

12/17/2009 Tel conf with client. Tel conf with FAA. Draft discovery 

12/28//2009 Draft pleadings. Tel conf with FAA. File motion. 

1/4/2010 Review Order. Tel conf with client. 

1/23/2010 Draft discovery. 

2/12/2010 Review and serve d iscovery. 

2/22/2010 Tel conf with client. Tel conf with F/>^. Draft discovery. 

3/2/2010 Tel conf with client. 

3/9/2010 Review discovery responses. Review FAA discovery 

requests. 

3/15/2010 Tel conf with client. 

3/16/2010 Draft Motion for Decision. Tel conf with client. 

3/18/2010 Revise Motion for Decision. 

3/19/2010 Revise Motion for Decision. 

3/22/2010 Finalize and serve Motion for Decision. 

3/24/2010 Tel conf with client. 

4/7/2010 Tel conf with client. Draft discovery 

4/13/2010 Review statement of facts. 

5/6/2010 Review FAA's Opening Brief. 

5/7/2010 Tel conf with client. Review history of FAR 61.57(d) 

changes 

5/13/2010 Review issues for reply to openinig brief. 

5/18/2010 Draft reply brief. 

5/19/2010 Continue draft of Reply brief. 

5/20/2010 Continue draft of Reply brief. 

5/21 /2010 Finalize and serve Reply brief. 

6/2/2010 Review FAA's Response to Reply brief. Tel conf with 

cleint. 

8/13/2010 Review intial decision. Tel conf with client. 

8/24/2010 Review EAJA issues. Tel conf with client. 

Hours 

2.8 

0.6 

1.5 

1.1 

2.4 

1.0 

2.5 

1.1 

0.5 

2.0 

0.5 

2.0 

1.3 

0.3 

1.5 

0.5 

0.3 

1.0 

0.3 

0.3 

1.2 

1.5 

1.2 

3.0 

0.5 

2.0 

0.3 

0.7 

1.0 

0.5 

0.5 

3.3 

1.5 

0.5 

1.2 

0.5 

1.0 

Amount 

$560.00 

$120.00 

$300.00 

$220.00 

$480.00 

$200.00 

$500.00 

$220.00 

$100.00 

$400.00 

$100.00 

$400.00 

$260.00 

$60.00 

$300.00 

$100.00 

$60.00 

$200.00 

$60.00 

$60.00 

$240.00 

$300.00 

$240.00 

$600.00 

$100.00 

$400.00 

$60.00 

$140.00 

$200.00 

$100.00 

$100.00 

$660.00 

$300.00 

$100.00 

$240.00 

$100.00 

$200.00 
8/31/2010 

9/3/2010 

9/4/2010 

9/6/2010 

9/7/2010 

9/8/2010 

9/9/2010 

Total Research 

Fees 

Tel conf with client. Tel conf re EAJA issues. 

EAJA research 

Review EAJA statutes. 

Draft pleadings. 

Tel conf with client. 

Draft pleadings, affidavits and cost details. 

Draft pleadings, affidavits and cost details. 

Total Atty Fees Charles R. Bamett, III @ $200.00/hr 

John Killeen @ $102.00/hr 

0.5 

0.7 

0.5 

2.9 

0.5 

41 

3.0 

56.1 

79.2 

$100.00 

$140.00 

$100.00 

$580.00 

$100.00 

$820.00 

$600.00 

$11,220.00 

$8,078.00 

Total Expenses US Postage for Certified Mail $118.80 

Grand Total $19,416.80 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISRATION 

AFFIADVIT OF ATTORNEY FEES 

HAVING COME before the undersigned Notary duly authorized to administer oaths, PHILIP A. 

PROSSNITZ, did state under oath after being properly sworn, that the following statements are 

true and accurate. 

1. I am licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois. 

2. As a part of my private practice, I practice aviation law which includes representing 

clients in matters as a result of an FAA Enforcement Action. 

3. My customary rate for this type of work is $250.00 per hour. 

4. If called to testify as to the above-stated information, my testimony would be the 

same. 

AFFIANT FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT 

This 1 day of September, 2010. 

PrtfiKP A. PRTOSSNITZ 

( 

County of McHenry 

State of Illinois 

—771. 

Sworn before me this / day of September, 2010. 

Notary Public ^- ^ 

My Commission Expires: ^St-^ ^ 

0^-CR'-l 3 1 '*''*yP«*'fc-St«eofimnols 

jMyComitiisskyi Expires Feb 09,2013 

EXHIBIT D 
U^ . DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISRATION 

AFFIADVIT OF AITORNEY FEES 

HAVING COME before the undersigned Notary duly authorized to administer oaths. JOHN 

SCOTT HOFF, did state under oath after being properly sworn, that the following statements are 

true and accurate. 

1. I am licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois. 

2. As a part of my private practice. I practice aviation law which includes representing 

clients in matters as a result of an FAA Enforcement .Action. 

3. My customar\' rate for this t\'pe of work is $200 per hour. 

4. If called to testify as to the above-stated information, my testimony would be the 

same. 

AFFIANT FURTHER SAYET H NAUGHT 

This T davof^'^^' ^ .2010. 

/ ' 1. / . • —\'. /{ 

JOHN ^COTT HOFF 

Count)'of Cook 

State of Illinois 

Sworn before me this 1 davof c=^^- , .2010. 

1 ^^ / ^ 

Notary Public ^ 

My Commission Expires: 

EXHIBIT E 
Research and Analysis, John M. Killeen 

812 Arends, Rantoul, II61866 

Bamett Law Offices 

1664 Moorland Ln. 

Crystal Lake, II60014 

Date Descripton 

FAA Enforcement RTC 

61.57(d). 141.41 

141.83(a)(1) 

Hours 

6.5 

3.0 

2.2 

4.5 

4.0 

1.0 

n IPC 7.5 

2.5 

5.5 

7.0 

6.3 

0.5 

4.5 

(b)(3) 

Amount 

663.00 

306.00 

224.40 

459.00 

408.00 

102.00 

765.00 

255.00 

561.00 

714.00 

642.60 

51.00 

459.00 

10/24/2009 

10/26/2009 

10/30/2009 

11/8/2009 

11/9/2009 

11/20/2009 

11/21/2009 

11/27/2009 

11/28/2009 

12/3/2009 

12/6/2009 

12/15/2009 

12/17/2009 

Research FAA web site for IPC info 

Research Federal Register for NPRM for 1996 

Research 14 CFR 61 for similar uses 

Research all prior FTS documents 

Continue research and comparison of PTS 

Research FAA IPC Guidance book 

Search and review FAA orders 8700 for history on IPC 

Research contrary opinions to IPC 

Research FAA Advisory Circulars for IPC 

Research FAA FSIMS Order 8900 

Research InstrumentCompetency prior 1997 

Research USC 553 rulemaking 

Research 14 CFR 141.41 & 141.83 

In ref to FSIMS order 8900 

Total Due 55.0 5610.00 

EXHIBIT F 
Research and Analysis, John M. Killeen 

812 Arends, Rantoul, 1161866 

Bamett Law Offices 

1664 Mooriand Ln. 

Crystal Lake, II60014 

Date Description 

FAA Enforcement RTC 

61.57(d). 141.41(b)(3) 

141.83(a)(1) 

Hours 

3.0 

7.2 

6.5 

1.2 

0.5 

3.8 

I d li d 

2.0 

Amount 

306.00 

734.00 

663.00 

122.40 

51.00 

387.60 

204.00 

3/4/2010 

3/5/2010 

3/9/2010 

3/10/2010 

3/31/2010 

4/17/2010 

5/16/2010 

Research 49 USC 106 for authority of standards 

Research FR for NPRM on 61.57 (d) 

And prior interpretatrans t)efore 1997 

Research Court of Appeals and NTSB 

For similar cases 

Research and locate FSTD numt)ers 

Research 28 USC 2412 

Research FR for NPRM 61.57 comments 

And reasons new law effective 10/09 

Research and review all for conference all documents 

Devetoped in matter 

Total Due 24.2 2468.00