11/01/2011 1G:09 FAX 2024935142 

11/01/2011 13:54 4252271007 

FAA + DMS 

ANM7 

21002/037 

PAGE 02/36 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

e 

ID 

11 

13 

13 

14 

15 

1$ 

17 

IB 

19 

30 

21 

32 

23 

24 

25 

2S 

27 

2B 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

3d 

35 

35 

37 

36 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

4£ 

47 

48 

49 

50 

SI 

52 

53 

JEFFREY M.HAKPER 

FAA OFFICE OF REGIONAL COXJMSEL 

J 601 LIND AVENUE SOUTHWEST 

RENTON. WASHINGTON 98057 

TEI,BPHONE: (425)227-21,61 

FACSIMILE: (425) 227-1007 

"MEMT OF 

iSPORWION 

'{OPERATiONS 

!V - 2 ~'AA "J- cy 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

Sky West Airlines, Inc. 

FAA DOCKET Not Assigned 

FAA Case No. 20UNM060010 

DMSNo.FAA-20n-04g6 

MOTION FOR DECISION 

Judge: Richard C. Goodwin 

To: Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

MOTION FOR DECISION, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Pursuant to section 13.218(f)(5) of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Rule of 

Practice in Civil Penalty Proceedings, 14 C.F.R. § 13.21S(f)(5), the Admioistrator of the FAA . 

files this Motion for Decision, 

.Introduction 

The FAA is entitled to a decision as a matter of law because there are no genuine issues 

of material fact; this Court should grant the Administrator's Motion for Decision. As stated in the 

Complaint, Sky West Airlines, Inc. (Respondent) loaded baggage on a flight which was noi 

properly documented as required by the carrier's operations specifications. As a result, 

Respondent operated the aircraft when the total weight of the aircraft was not properly computed 

and the load tnauifest was incorrect. None of the toateiial fects in this case are disputed. 

Procedural Background 

OnJtrae 16,201), the Administrator issued the Complaint in this case. On July 15,2011, 

Respondent answered the Complaint, admitting to all the relevant facts in the case -with tl^e 

Motion fi>rOeeijHon 

SVyWest Airlines-FAA Case No. 20JONM060Q10, 

DMS No, FAA-21Ml-04«6 

Page 1 oft4 

JBFFBBY M, HAUPBEI. FAA ATTORNEITEL: (425) 227-21«l; FAX: (425) 227.1007 
11/01/2011 1G:09 FAX 

11/01/2011 13:54 

2024935142 

425227100? 

FAA * DMS 

ANM7 

121003/037 

PAGE 33/36 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

IS 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

29 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

3S 

3S 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

* 6 

47 

46 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

exception of allegation number 13.' On October 11, 20 U, Respondent filed an Amended 

Answer, which again admitted all relevant facts except number 13. In the Amended Answer, 

Respondent raised a number of aJBSnnative defenses, which fall into two categories; 

1) allegations the sanction is excessive, and 2) allegations Respondent has done everything 

possible, 

Statement of Facts 

On November 17,2010, Respondent's personnel at Denver Inteinational Airport, 

Colorado loaded three "heavy" bags^ onto N702SK, which was then operated as FUght 6573 

bound for Yampa Valley Airport, Colorado. Complaint 1.10,11,12 and First Amended Answer 

II.l 0,11,12. The Cargo Load Report (CLR) for the flight only reflects one "heavy" bag rather 

than the three actually loaded on the aircraft. Complaintlll andFirst Amended Answer II.ll. 

Respondent is a Part 119 certificate holder and conducts its operations undei Part 121. 

Complaint I.l and First Amended Answer II. 1. Respondent is authorized to use N702SK, a 

Bombardier CL-600-2C10 aircraft, in its operations. Complaint L2 and First Amended Answer 

II.2. Respotident's Operations Specifications require that Respondent's aircraft be loaded in 

accordance with Standand Practice 4100 (W&B Manual). Complaint 1.3 and First Amended 

Answer II.3. That manual requires the loading agent to enter the number of standard checked and 

heavy checked bags onto the CLR for the flight Complaint L6,1.8 and First Amended Answer 

II.6 and II.8. Heavy bags are those that weigh between 50 and 100 pounds. Complaint L5 and 

First Amended Answer 11,5. Proper loading of an aircraft is critical to flight safety, as recognized 

in the W&B Manual which states: 

^WARNING - INACCURATE LOADING, REPORTING, 

OR FAILURE TO REPORT INFORMATION COULD 

CAUSE ISSUES WITH AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE AND 

HANDLING, RESULTING IN THE ENDANGERMENT OF 

HUMAN LIFE. 

Complaint 1.9 and First Amended Answer 11.9, 

None of these facts are disputed by Respondent. 

' Respondent answered paragraph 13 by staling it was without sufScient mfoimation or knowledge to fbim a. belief 

as to the trutb of the allegation, and therefore denJed it. 

' A "heavy bag" is defined as any bug wejghijjgmore than 50 pomds, but 1MS than 100 pounds. Answer JI.5. 

Motion for Decison 

SkyWesi Airlines - FAA Case X o. 3010NM06(M 10, 

DMS No. FAA-201 1-0486 

Paee2on4 

JBFTKEY M. HARPER. FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (4.23)237-2161; FAX; (425) 227-1007 
11/01/2011 16:09 FAX 2024935142 

11/01/2011 13:54 4252271007 

FAA * DMS 

flNM7 

21004/037 

PAGE 04/36 

1 

2 

•3 

4 

5 

e 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

le 

17 

IB 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

3€ 

37 

36 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

4S 

46 

47 

46 

49 

SO 

51 

52 

53 

Respondent's W&B Manual states that load manifests are generated using the data from 

the CLR. Exhibit 1, Sky West W&B Manual, Load Manifest Procedures. The load manifest in 

this case reflects a total cargo weight that is identical to the incorrectly calculated wdght listed 

on the CLR for the flight. Exhibit 2, CLR and Load Manifest for Flight 6573. 

The FAA alleges that as a result, Respondent operated a flight without an accurate load 

manifest, when the total weight of the aircraft was not calculated under approved procedures, and 

the aircraft was not loaded according to an approved schedule. 14 C.F.R. §§ 121.693(a), (c), and 

(d). As a consequence of these violations, Respondent operated an aircraft in violation of its 

operBtions specifications and operated as a direct air carrier in violation of its operations 

specifications. 14 C.RR. §§ 119.5(B) and (1). 

Two Orders Assessing Civil Penalty (Orders) were served to the Respondent before the 

events addressed in this case,^ Those Orders involved substantially similar facts, i.e., improperly 

documenting baggage and other cargo carried aboard Part 121 flights conducted by Respondent"* 

Respondent has operating revenues in excess of $100 million,* It employs more than 1,500 

employees.^ It has the financial ability to pay the penalty proposed in this case.^ 

Argument 

/. Standard for Decision 

"The administrative law judge shall grant a party's motion for decision if the pleadings, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, matters that the administrative law judge has 

officially noticed ... show that there is no genuine issue of material feet and that the party making 

the motion is entitled to a decision as a matter of law. The party making the motion. -. has the 

burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material feet disputed by the parties." 

14 C.F.R§ 13.218(f)(5). 

^ Exhibit 3, Orders Assessing Civil Penalty; Response 10 Complainant's Initial Discovery Request, Request for 

Admission 'Kos. 9 and 10. 

^ Exhibit 4, Airline Quarterly Fbancial Review (3rd Quarter 2D10), page 27;^ Exhibit 5, S)?yWest Airlines' 2010 

Annual Report, page 101;' Response to Complaiaani's Initial Discovery Request, Request for Admission No. 1. 

'Exhibit 5, page 17; Response to Complainant's Initial Discovery Request, Request for Adnission No. 2. 

Response to Complainant's Initial DSscpvery Requesrt, Request for Admission No. 3. 

Mfttion for Decision 

Sky West Airlines - FAA Case No. 201ONM060010, 

DMS No. FAA-2 0 1J -0i?6 

Page 3 of 14 

ffiFFREY M. HAXreH. F AA ATTQRNEY 

TEL; (425)227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
11/01/2011 16;09 FAX 2024935142 

11/01/2011 13:54 4252271007 

FAA + DMS 

ANM7 

1005/037 

PAGE 05/36 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

e 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

IS 

1« 

17 

16 

19 

30 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

36 

3? 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

SO 

51 

S2 

53 

2. Merits 

Respondent has admitted all the material fects alleged in the Complaint. Respondent's 

personnel loaded three "heavy bags" into the aircraft at Denver International Airport, Only one of 

those bags was documented on the CLR for the flight, contrary to the requirements of the 

Respondent's W&B Manual, as incorporated into Respondent's operations specifications by 

reference, and the requirements of 14 C,F.R. § 121.693. As a consequence, the aircraft was 

operated in violation of Respondent's operations specifications with an inaccurate load manifest 

and a total weight that was iijaccurate because it was not calculated using approved procedures. 

The only substantive fact denied is whether an FAA inspector observed three bags being 

unloaded from Flight 6573 following its arrival at Yampa Valley Airport. Complaint 11.13. As 

Respondent admits Paragraph n.l 1 of the Complaint — alleging the loading of three "heavy" 

bags but documenting only one of them — the allegation found ai Paragraph 11.13 of the 

Complaint is not required to establish that Respondent in^roperly loaded and operated ftie 

aircraft in violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) and its operations specifications. 

a. 14 C.F.R. § 119.5(g) 

Iliis FAR prohibits a person from operating as an air carrier in violation of its 

operations specifications. Respondent admits that it operates as an air carrier. Answer 11.1. It 

admits that its W&B Manual is incorporated by reference into its operations specifications. 

Answer II.3. The W&B Manual, in turn, requires the number of standard checked and heavy 

checked bags be entered on the CLF- Answer IL6 and II.8. Flight 6573 took place on 

November 17 with tht«e heavy bags on. board- only one of-wdiich was entered on the CLR. As 

Respondent operated as an air carrier in violation of its operations specification requiring the 

nianber of "heavy" bags to be noted on the CLR, a violation of section 119.5(g) is established, 

b. 14 C.F.R§ 119.5(1) 

Section 119.5(1) prohibits a person from operating an aircraft under Part 121 in 

violation of operations specifications. As discussed in paragraph a above. Respondent operated in 

violation of its operations specifications. The aircraft in question was operated under Part 121 as 

Flight 6573. Answer 11.10 and 12. On a plain reading of Section 119.5(1), Respondent's 

operations specifications, and the admitted facts, Respondent violated Section 119.5(1). 

Motion for DecisioA 

SJeyWesi Airlines - FAA Case No. Z010NM060010, 

DMS-Mo. FA\.20n-OAM 

Plage4of 14 

JEFTREY M HAKPER, FA > ATTCHiK£V 

TEL: (425)227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-J007 
11/01/2011 16:09 FAX 2024935142 

11/01/2011 13:5d 4252271007 

FAA + DMS 

ANM7 

@|006/037 

PAGE 06/36 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

B 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IB 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

3a 

3d 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

4B 

49 

50 

51 

&2 

53 

c. 14 C.F.R. §121.693 

Section 121.693 requires that the load manifest contain the weight of the aircraft, 

ftiel and oil, cargo and baggage, passengers and crewmembers, as computed under approved 

procedures, 14 C.F,R. §§ 121-693(a) and (c). Additionally, a properly calculated weight is 

required to show the aircraft is loaded such that the center of gravity is within approved limits. 

14 C.F.R§ 121.693(d), 

Approved procedures were not used to complete the CLR. Answw II.6 and E.8. 

The data from the incorrectly completed CLR was used to generate the load manifesL Exhibit 2. 

As a result, the load manifest did not reflect the total weight of the aircraft, as computed 

according to approved procedures, and the load manifest could not ensure the tdir^rall'' s center of 

gravity was wjthjn approved limits, 

d- Merits - Conclusion 

Respondent has admitted all of the material facts; there is no dispute regarding 

them, and the Admimstrator is entitled to a decision as a matter of law. 

5. Sanction 

Contrary to respondent's asserted affirmative defense, the sanction sought in this case is 

neither "excessive" nor does it violate FAA policy, 

a. Standard 

Under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(1), "a person is Hable to the United States 

Government for a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 for violating... (B) a regulation 

prescribed or order issued under any provision to which clause (A) of this paragraph applies," 

The authority for issuing Parts .119 and 121 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulation includes 

49 U.S.C. Chapters 401, 441, and 447, all of which are covered by clause (A). 49 U.S.C. 

§ 46301(a)(1)(A), 14 C.F.R. Parts 119 and 121 (Preamble), 

In determining an appropriate civil penalty, the Administrator considers a variety 

of factors: 

1) The nature and circumstances of the violation, 

2) The extent and gravity of the violation, 

3) The person's degree of culpability, 

4) The person's history of prior violations, 

Motion for Decision 

SfcyWesl Airlines-FAA CaieNo. 2010NM060010, 

DMS No. FAA'20t 1-04S6 

P»ge5Dfl4 

JBKEKEyM. HARPER, .FAAAnORNEy 

TEL; (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
11/01/2011 16 

il/kJi/l^Ul l 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

a 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

43 

43 

44 

AS 

46 

47 

•4a 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

10 FAX 

13: 54 

2024935142 

4252271007 

FAA * DMS 

ANM7 

21007/037 

PAGE 07/36 

5) The person's ability to pay the civil penalty, 

6) The effect on the person's ability to stay in business, and 

7) Otiier matters as justice may require. 

In the Matter ofWarhelaw 's Air Ventures, Inc., FAA Order No. 2000-3 at 16-17 n. 22 and 21 

(February 3,2000). 

The Administrator has the burdeai of justiiying the amount of civU penalty sought. 

14 CF.R. § 13,224(a); In the Matter of Luxemburg^ FAA Order 1994-18 (June 22,1994) at 4. To 

guide the FAA's prosecutorial discretion, the FAA has promulgated penalty guidelines, which 

are found in FAA Order 2150.3B Chapter 7 ai\d Appendix B dated October 1,2007 (Sanction 

Guidance). The Sanction Guidance contains tables that establish specific penalty ranges for 

different types of violations.* The starting point for a sanction determination is the tniddle of the 

sanction range. Sanction Guidance, Appendix B, Paragraph 3.c. The Complainaut's sanction 

determination does not, however, reflect a fixed mathematical computation; in. addition to the 

published penalty ranges, it takes into account thirteen factors set forth in Chapter 7, paragraph 4 

of the sanction guidance, which address the issues set forth in Warhzloyi? 

These factors are used to adjust the sat>ction upward or downward fix>m tl\e middle of the 

recommended range. The FA A Order reflects the Administrator's general views about appropriate 

civil penalties; civil penalties must reflect the totality of the circumstances surroundixig the 

violations. FoJsom 's Air Service. Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-11 (November 6,200S), The weight to 

be given to each of these factors is within the discretion of the Complainant; "the Complainant 

maintains relative prosecutorial discretion in determining the case's final aggregate weight in 

proposing the level of civil petwlty." In the Matter of William A. Luier, Jr., FAA Docket No. 

' Sanction Guidance, Appendix B. 

'' Those &6tOTS are; 

a. Nature of tihc violation; 

b. Wtether the violation was inadvertcut and not 

delJbcrau; 

c. The cMtifkate holder's level of experience; 

d. The attitude of the violator; 

e. The degree of hazard; 

f. Whether there was action taken 1^' the 

emplo^fer or other ooifaority agalUjt tbe 

employee that coiomitcod the violadon(s); 

Motion for Decision 

SJcyWesi Airtipes - FAA Case No. 2010NW060010. 

DMS No, FAA-201 )-04M 

Page 6 of 14 

g. Use of the certificate; 

h. Violation history; 

i. Dccisiomal )x»; 

j . Ability to absorb the sanction; 

k. Consistency of Sanction; 

L whether the violation was reporwd 'voluntarily; 

and 

m. Corrective Action. 

iKfFHEvM. HAMa«,FAAATroRMEr 

TEt,: (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
11/01/2011 16:10 FAX 2024935142 

11/01/2011 13:54 4252271007 

FAA * DMS 

ANM7 

21008/037 

PAGE 08/36 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

1 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

IS 

16 

17 

IB 

13 

20 

21 

23 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

y.'i 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

3C 

37 

3B 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

46 

45 

50 

51 

52 

53 

CP09SW000g, 2010 WL 1989430 (May 13, 2010) (Order of Chief Judge Yoder Granting 

Complainant's Motion for Summary Judgment). Although a Department of Transportation 

Administrative Law Judge is not statutorily bound to follow the Administrator's guidance, "[a]n 

administrative agency is entitled to substantial deference in assessing the civil penalty appropriate 

for a violation of its regulations. The Administrator's choice of a sanction is not to be overturned 

unless it \s unwarranted in law or without justification in feet." NL Industries, Inc. v. Dept. of 

Transportation, 901 F.2d 141,144 (D.C. Cir. 1990). 

Further, the Administrator has the ability to impose the FAA's sanction policy on appeal 

if the assessed civil penalty is not consistent with the policy. In the matter ofWarbeloyv 's Air 

Ventures, Inc., FAA Order No. 2000-3 (February 3,2000) at 20; In the matter of Northwest 

Airlin&s, FAA Order No. 1990-37 CMovember 7,1990) at 8-9. 

b. AiJirmative Defenses 

Respondent raises seven affiimative defenses: 

1. The sanction sought is unwarranted. 

2. The case is unwaxrartted, 

3. Aircraft performance was not actually 

affected by the errant weight and 

balance information 

4. Respondent has taken subsequent 

remedial measures. 

5. The average weight program, by its 

nature, permits use of weight and 

balance intbmiation at odds with the 

actual weight of the aircraft. 

6. Respondent's actions were an honest 

mistake. 

7. Respondent has taken all action 

required to prevent fijtnre weight and 

balance issues. 

The first two defenses are virithout merit As discussed above, the case is 

warranted; even Respondent admits the violations occurred. As discussed below the sanction is 

appropriate, as it comports wi^Thc Administrator's policy on sanction — and any deviations 

have been, to Respondent's benefil. 

The third and fifth defenses amount to a ''no harm, no foul" exculpatory theory. 

These defenses are also meiitiess. The Administrator does not allege that some actual harm 

occurred as a result of Respondent's actions, or that the operating limitations of the aircraft were 

actually exceeded. The absence of an actual impact of safety is merely "fortuitous," had actual 

harm occurred, that would have been an aggravating factor- FAA Order 2150.3B, Chi5>ter 7, 

Motion for Decision 

SkyWest Airlines-FAA CwcNo. 2010NMO60O1O, 

DMS No. FAA-201 l-04g6 

P«BB7ofl4 

JEFFREY M. ?1AHPEK, FAA ATTORJUEY 

TEL; (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-IO07 
11/01/2011 16:10 FAX 2024935142 

11/01/2011 13:54 4252271007 

FAA + QMS 

ANM7 

0009/03 7 

PAGE 09/36 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

7 

a 

9 

la 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

IS 

17 

IB 

IS 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

2B 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

•41 

43 

43 

44 

4S 

46 

47 

46 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

Paragraph 4.e.l;'° /n the Matter ofStebbinsAviationr Inc., FAA Order No. 2006-3 at 5, 2006 WL 

465373; In the Matter of Aero National, Inc., FAA Order No. 2000-26 at 4, 2000 WL 1874245; 

Cf FAA v. Teas Army National Guard, 2011 WL 2001S29 at 4; FAA v. Federal Expr&ss, Inc., 

2011 WL 1206090 at 7 (absence of actual harm in HAZMAT proceedings is fortuitous, not 

exculpatory). 

Advisory Circular 120-27E provides a way for an air carrier's to use average 

weights in the air carrier's W&B program. However, in order to use average weights, an 

"operator must be vigilant to ensure that the weight and balance control program reflects the 

reality of aircraft loading."'' Applying that requirement to this case, an operator must make sure 

the weight and balance of the aircraft is calculated using the actual number of bags loaded onto 

the aircraft. Additionally, for medium-cabin aircraft, as here, the AC120-27E considers weight 

variations as small as five pounds as being significant enough to be documcnted,^^ To use 

average weights, an operator must develop a loading schedule that is typically more restrictive 

than the manufacturers limits — because it must account for variations in weight and balance.^^ 

The loading schedule is the "method for,- documenting aircraft weight and balance.., to ensure 

tiie aircraft will remain within all required weight and balance limitations.. ."'^ Without an 

accurate baggage count, this insurance is lost. In sum, while AC120-27E may allow the use of 

average weights, it assumes that the baggage count is accurate — which simply did not occur in 

this case. 

The fourth, sixth, and seventh defenses asserted are irrelevant Respondent does 

not "get a pass" simply because the regulations prove difiSailt to comply with or Respondent 

believes it has done everything possible to ensure compliance. Compliance with the FARs is 

mandatory, not precatory. FAR 119.5(g) does not read "All persons should try tiieir best to 

operate as a direct air earner or commercial operator in compliance with appropriate operations 

specifications." It strains credulity that Respondent appears to believe the inability of their 

persoTuje) to accurately count, a skill mastered by most in Kindergarten, is so difficult that they 

can do no more to ensure compliance widi their approved, weight and balance program. 

Respondent asserte their actions have shown "adequate compliance levels" and that all steps have 

10 "And it a not midgaiing -vi^hen a riolation docs not result in actual hann; that is simply fomiiious.'^ 

^' AC120-27E, Piragraph 4.b. 

'*AC120-27E, Paragraph 101 (Table M) 

" AC120-27B, Paragraph 105 .b 

'*AC120-27E, Appendix I, Paragraph 12. 

Motion for Decision 

SkyWest Airlines - FAA Case No, 2010NM060010, 

DMS No. FAA-2011^0486 

Pose? of M 

JEFFREY M. HARPER, FAA ArtasaJBY 

TEL: (425) 227-21^1; FAX; («5 ) 227-1007 
11/01/2011 16:10 FAX 2024935142 

ll/Bl/2011 13:54 4252271007 

FAA •> DMS 

ANM7 

iaOIO/037 

PAGE 10/36 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

€ 

7 

8 

S 

11 

12 

13 

14 

IS 

16 

17 

10 

13 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

4S 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

been taken to "avoid repeated mishaps." The only acceptable adequate compliance level is 100% 

— Respondent fell short of that standard here. 

c. Multiplicity 

Complainant has charged respondent with violating 14 C.F.R. §§ 119.5(g), 

119.5(1), 121.693(a), 121,693(c), and 121.693(d). Complainant concedes, however, that the 

concept of multiplicity limits the number of those violations which may be considered in 

determining an appiopriato sanction. This case involves at least two separate violations. The test 

is "whether each [violation] requires proof of a fact which the other does not." Ball v. U.S., 470 

U.S. 856,861 (1985); Blockbvrger v. C/.^., 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932); In the Matter of James 

Walsh, 2008 WL 926620 at 9 (March 31,2008); In the Matter ofFolsom 's Air Service, Inc., 

2006 WL 13 ] 6970 at 11 (May 3,2006) (stating that one violation that incorporates the others 

may not be considered as a separate violation for determining the amount of the sanction). 

Sections 119.5(g) and 119.5(1) are separate violations, as each requires proof of a 

fact the other does not. Section 119.5(g) provides that "[n]o person may operate as a direct air 

carrier or as a commercial operator without, or in violation of, an appropriate certificate and 

appropriate operations specifications- •." Section 119.5(1) states "[n]o person may operate an 

aircraft under this part. Part 121 ofthis chapter, or Part 135 of this chapter in violation of an air 

carrier operating certi.ficate, operating certificate, or appropriate operations specifications..." 

Elements 

No Person may 

Operate as a direct air earner / commercial operator 

Operate an aircraft under 119,121, or 135 

Without or in violation of a certificate and operations 

specifications 

In violation of air carrier operating certificate, operating 

certificate, or appropriate ops specs 

n 9.5(g) 

X 

X 

X 

il9.5G) 

X 

X 

X 

The critical distinction is tiiat 119.5(g) regulates opeiHtions as an COT- carrier; 119.5(1) regulates 

the operation of an aircraft. 

Thus, under the Blockburger test, ] 4 C.F.R. §§ 119.5(g) and 119.5(1) arc 

considered separate violations for sanction purposes. This case therefore, for sanction purposes. 

I^ilotion for Decision 

SVyWest Airlines-FAA Case Ho. 2010MMl)60O10. 

DMS No. PAA-20 J X -0486 

Page 9 of 14 

JEFFREY M. HARTER, FA A ATT0R>reY 

TBL; (425)227-2161; FAX- (425) 227-1007 
11/01/2011 16:10 FAX 2024935142 

11/01/2011 13:54 4252271007 

FAA * DMS 

ANM7 

21011/037 

PAGE 11/36 

1 

2. 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

a 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

IS 

15 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

2S 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

«7 

48 

49 

SO 

51 

S2 

53 

involves at least two violations, each of wiiich is subject to the maximum S25,000 civil penalty. 

The Administrator seeks a total penalty of $33,000 — the equivalent of $16,500 per violation. 

d. Ability to Absorb Sanction 

The size of an air carrier is a relevant consideration in determining the carrier's 

ability to absorb a sanction; the size of the carrier goes to that ability. Sanction Guidance, 

Chapter 7, Paragraph 4.j.^^ The Sanction Guidance tabic accounts for the six of the air carrier by 

establishing general sanction ranges for different sized air carriers. Sanction Guidance, Appendix 

B, Par^raiph 3.c.(l). Respondent advertises itself as "the world's largest independentiy-owned 

regional airline, providing service throughout North America.^^ Respondent, as a Part 121 air 

carrier with armual operating revenue in excess of SI 00 million, is classified as a Group 1 air 

carrier. Id For (jroup I air carriers, published sanction ranges are: 

Minimum Sanction $2,000 - $9,999 

Moderate Sanction $10,000 - $18,749 

Maximum Sanction SI8,750 - $25,000 

Id. 

e. Degree of Hazard 

The Sanction Guidance Table B-1 in Appendix B of the sanction guidance 

provides guideline civil penalties for U.S. Air Carriers, For "opetBdion contrary to ops specs," 

two guidelines are given,, one for violations amounting to "technical noncompliance," a second 

for "likely potential or actual adverse effect on safe operation. There is a difference because 

Chapter 7, Paragraph 4.e of the Sanction Guidance states thai the degree of hazard presented by a 

violation is a factor in selecting an appropriate sanction. 

A discussion of the aircraft performance implications of improper loading can be 

found in the FAA Weight &.Balance Handbook, FAA-H-8038-1A, Chapter 1 (Exhibit 6).^' 

Among the potential hazards listed there are: 

• Excessive Structural Loads • Degraded Climb Performance 

'* Paragraph 4.j. reads, in part "Tberefore, the FAA uses tur canier size as one means of eniming a relatively 

equivalent deteirent effect on each aii canier tliat violates the sxme FAA regulation." 

'* Slo'Wcst Airlines Fact Sheet at http://www.9kvwest.coin;me(jjq/SkvWe5t^Airlines-Fact-Sheet.DbD. last visited 

August 2,2011. 

The complete manual is publieally available athttpi/Ayww fi^a.grtv/Tibtnrv/inannflJfif'flircraft/niedia/ 

faa-h.S083-laLPdf. laat visited August 3.2011. 

Motion for Decision 

Sky West Airlines- FAA Ctse No. 201ONM060010, 

DMS No. FAA-20 1 1-0486 

PagelOofU 

JEFTREY M. HACTBR. FAAATTOKNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2161; FAX : (423) 227-1007 
11/01/2011 16:11 FAX 2024935142 

11/01/2011 13:54 4252271007 

FAA + DMS 

ANM7 

1012/03 7 

PAGE 12/36 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

Ifi 

17 

IS 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

38 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

36 

39 

40 

41 

42 

4 3 

44 

45 

46 

47 

43 

4S 

50 

51 

52 

53 

Reduced Range 

Higher takeoff speeds 

Longer takeoff distances 

Reduced service ceiling 

Exceeding center-of-gravity limits 

Higher landing speeds 

Longer landing distances 

The safety implications where aircraft p^ormance is worse than expected are 

clear. Respondent is aware of the potential or actual adverse effect inaccurate aircraft loading can 

have on safe operation, as shown by the paragraph from the W&B Manual which warns of the 

possibility of "the endangerment of human life^*" as a result of "issues with aircraft performance 

and handling." Unquestionably, these types of violations have the potential for an advei^je effect 

on safe operation, making the second guideline the appropriate guideline. 

The sanction range provided for "Operation contrary to ops specs — likely 

potential or actual adverse effect on safe operation" is listed as "Moderate to Maximum. Sanction 

Guidance, Appendix B, Figure B-l-c(3). The middle ofthis range, which provides the starting 

point for determining an appropriate sanction, is $17,500 per violation.*^ Sanction Guidance, 

Appendix B, Paragraph 3.c. 

f. Violation History 

As described above, Respondent has a substantial violation history for violations 

lelating to improperly loaded aircraft. A history of violations is among the fectors examined by 

the Agency in detennining whether a given violation should be aggravated or mitigated for 

sanction purposes is the Respondent's violation histoiy. Sanction Gmdanoc, Chapter 7, 

Paragraph 4,h, A violation histoiy is considered to be aggravating, partictilarly where, as here, the 

violations involve the same or similar regulations and are factually similar. Id at Paragrs^h 

4,h.(a), A short period of time between the violations is also aggravating. Id. 

" At least one aircnft operated in Part 121 service has crashed resulting in loss of human life where axrcraft loading 

was a causal factor—Air Midwest Flight 5481, departing Chrloae/Dottgliis TntcmatioTisl Airport on January 8, 

2003. NTSB repon available at: h^tp://\^^ww•nt!^b•^^yy/aviationque^v/^pdex•a5p;ltas NTSB No, DCA03MA022, last 

visited August 3, 2011. 

'* The boRoni of the moderate range for a Group 1 air carrier is Si 0,000, tte top of the maximum range for a Group I 

air carrier is $25,000, ttie .middle of the range is found by (510,000 + S25,000)/2 - S17,S00. Sanction Guidance, 

AppendixB, Parjgraph 3.c.(l). 

Motion for Decision 

sky Wan Airlines:-FAA Caae No. 201CJNMOW010, 

DMS Ko. FAA-2011.04«6 

Page 11 of 14 

JfiFFREv M. HAWSH, FAA ATTCWNEY 

TEL: (425)227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
11/01/2011 16:11 FAX 2024935142 

11/01/2011 13:54 4252271007 

FAA + DMS 

ANM7 

i013/037 

PASE 13/36 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

e 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

2fl 

29 

30 

31 

37 

33 

34 

35 

3S 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

4a 

49 

50 

51 

S2 

S3 

Each of the previotis Orders address violations stemming from improperly 

documenting the cargo and baggage actually loaded into the aircraft Although there are slight 

variances in the specific regulations cited in the orders, the gist were violations of 14 CF.R. 

§§ 119.5 and 121.693. The two Orders addressed four flights which took place between 

December 5,2008 and March 17.2009 — on average, one flight eveiy 34 days.^° The repeated 

and ongoii^ nature of the violations is evidence that the sanctions historically imposed have not 

had the desired deterrent effect. Subsequent sanctions should be a deterrent to future violations; a 

penalty should represent a sanction greater than simply a cost of doing business. 

g. Consistency of Sanction 

Perversely, the histoiy in this case has actually inured to respondent's benefit, 

despite its aggravating nature. Chapter 7, Paragraph 4± of the Sanction Guidance states that 

consistency of sanction is one of the Agency's goals in deiermining a sanction. Before the events 

addressed in the case occurred, respondent was served with two Orders Assessing Civil Peivalties 

in cases involving violations of Section 121.693 and associated Section 119.5 violations. The 

penalties actually assessed in. those cases, on a per violation, per flight basis, are as follows: 

Date Civil Penalty, 

Order per Violatiou, 

Served per Flight 

Cas e Numbe r 

2009NM060023 

2009NM060050 

9/28/^2009 

9/28/2009 

$1666,66 

S5.000 

The average assessed penalty across all these cases is S2>500/violation/fligbt — a 

scant fiaction of the low end of the Sanction Guidelines range for these violations. Consistency 

with these past cases is a primary factor driving the proposed penalty in this case below the 

median of the Sanction Guidance range. 

h. Sanction- Conclusion 

The Administrator's requested sanction in this case is neither arbitrary nor 

capricious. It is within the range published by the Administrator in the Sanction (juidance. In 

fact, it Is less than the middle of that range, which is taken to be the starting point of any 

^' Since March 17,2009, SkyWest has conducted other flights in violation of 121.G93. However, Ihc Orders in those 

cases were not issued until aAer Novemher 17,2010 (when flic fli|rht m question' in thi case took place). Chapter 7, 

Paragraph 4Ji(2) of the Sanction Guidance provides liiai a case must be finalized hefbre it can fe considered as a 

violation Iiistory. Thus, those flights were not considered to be aggravating in this particular case. 

Motion for Decision 

SkyWcst Airlines - FAA Case No, 2010NM060010, 

DMS No, FAA-20n-04«S 

Page 12 of 14 

JEFFREY M. HARPER. FAA ATTORNEV 

TEL-. (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
11/01/2011 16:11 FAX 

11/01/2011 13:54 

2024935142 

4252271007 

FAA * DMS 

ANM7 

21014/037 

PAGE 14/36 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

S 

7 

S 

s 

10 

11 

12 

1^ 

14 

15 

IS 

17 

le 

IS 

20 

21 

23 

23 

24 

25 

2S 

27 

2a 

23 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

36 

as 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

4S 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

S3 

determination of sanction. It is neither unwarranted in law nor without justification in fact. 

Despite ample aggravating evidence, any purported "deviation" ftom the Sanction Guidelines 

inured to Respondent's benefit, in tide form of a lower-than-median sanrtion.^^ Accordingly, the 

Administrative Law Judge should defer to the Adjninistrator's selection of sanction under NL 

Industries, Inc., 901 F.2d at 144, and enter an Order assessing the fiiU $33,000 penalty sought in 

the Complaint. 

Exhibits 

1. Load Manifest Procedures, from SkyWest W&B Manual 

2. CLR and Load Manifest for Flight 6573 of November 17,2010 

3. Orders Assessing Civil Penalty 

4. Airline Quarterly Financial Review (4tii Quarter 2010), page 27 

5. SkyWest AirHnes 2010 Annual Report, pages 17 and 101 

6. FAA Weight & Balance Handbook, FAA-H-8038-1A, Cliapter 1, Pages 1 ^ 

7. Advisory Circular 120-27E, Pages ii, 1,5; Appendix 1, Page 1 

Conclusion 

For the reasons stated above, the FAA rcspectftilly requests that this Court grant this 

Motion for Decision. There are no genuine issues of material fact; tiie sanction sought is 

appropriate under the facts. In the alternative, if further litigation is warranted, the pleadings 

establish that any hearing in this case be limited to the sanction, as all the substantive facts ofthis 

case have been established. 

tftilly submitted this 1 st day of November, 2011. 

Je^eyM. Harper 

F A A Attorne y 

" The FA A has authority to settle cases below those proposed in the Notice of Proposed Q"vil Penalty. ?AA Order 

2150.3B, Charter 7, Paragraph 3.b, citing Heckler v. Cheney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). 

Motion for Dceisiion 

Sky West Airlines - FAA Case N«. 201ONM060010. 

DMS No. FAA.20] 1-0486 

Page 13 of Id 

JBFfKEY M. HARPER. FAA ATTOHNEV 

TEL: (A25) 227-2261; FAX: (425) 227-] 007 
11/01/2011 16:11 FAX 2024935142 

11/01/2011 13:54 4252271007 

1 

2 

i 

4 

5 

S 

7 

e 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

IS 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

33 

24 

as 

26 

27 

28 

25 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

3e 

37 

38 

3d 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

4S 

4£ 

47 

4B 

50 

51 

52 

53 

FAA + DMS 

ANM7 

0015/037 

FASE 15/36 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby cerofy that the foregoing Motion for Decision has been served via facsimile and 

Certified Mail — Retum Receipt Requested this date, to the following: 

The Honorable Richard C, Goodwin 

OfSce of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Rm E12-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: (202)366-2139 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright BuUding- Suite 2W1000 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave. SW, 

Washington, DC 20591 

FAX: (202)493-5142 

Todd Emerson, Esq. 

SkyWest Airlines 

AM S. tUver Road 

St George, UT 84790 

TCL: (435)634-3530 

FAX: (435) 634-3505 

Michael Dworkin, Esq. 

Michael L. Dworkin and Associates 

465 California Street 

San Francisco, C A 94104 

TEL: (415)421-2500 

FAX: (435)421-2560 

DATED this Ist day ofNovember, 2011. 

MOIFAIR (3flN 

Office of Regional Counsel (ANM-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

(425)227-2160 

Motion for Decision 

SkyWest AirUucj - FAA Case No. 2010NM060010, 

DMS .No, FAA-2011 -0486 

Po«el4ofU 

jErraEVM. HXRTCR, FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
11/01/2011 16:11 FAX 2024935142 

11/01/2011 13:54 4252271007 

FAA + DMS 

ANM7 

@l016/037 

PAGE IS/36 

1 f i LI ^ >« « 

TEMPORARY REVISION W&B 10-4 

WEIGHT & BALANCE OPS MANUAL SP 4100 

Page; 1 of 1 

Date: 18 OCT iO 

, r^i \:> , ;• LOA D MANIFEST.PRO.CEpURES . ,r • 

• INSERT THIS TR FOLLOWING PAGE a-8 IN CHAPTER 3 of the Weight A Balance 

•^ Operations Manual SP 4100 and retain unfri the manual is revised. • 

•• - -3,.'•\-^' , • . • i •:'• ' ' • 

3. Lo^ d Manifes t (ManUsil and ACARS ) 

.'1 , 

» 

..V;;,:-

1 r 

1 

' -y. 

t'-'f.!^/-:;'•'•:• r:r-

<'0":t V , • 

•;•& , 

The load manifest Is the doc,ument that correctly reflects the aircraft loaded 

weight and includes fuel, passengers, baggage, and csargo for each flight. The 

load manifest is a tvwo-part manual form orACARS-generated. 

A) AGARS-generated load manifests are created on CRJ aircraft and used 

when availible. When ACARS is not available (e.g., EMB ' 120 aircraft 

^ or INOP ACARS on CRJ aircraft}, a manual load manifest must be 

oompleted, 

ACARS-generated load manifests are input, transmitted, acceFpted. and 

' acknowledged.by the PIC; -,, ., •!-' 

1) The PIC must c^rry a printed copy oflhe ACARS Load Manifest to the 

destinatjoh.' ^^' '" ' J f: hi 

a) 

25 

if the ACARS printer is .inoperative, the PIC must fransfer the 

Ipformation on to a Marwal LoiJ-i^flanifesit and cany to the 

•destination,'. 

1 

C. 

The flight deck crewmember uses ttje informatiDn from the CLR to 

construct'the ACARS load manifest y.!; • , 

Manual manifests are completed by th^ flight deck crew and signed by the PIC. 

??, 

sn 

.s: , , 

V1\ 

The original load manifest is retumed^tdthe CS ground operations agent 

and the copy canned to the destiT»at|oii by the PIC. 

The flight deck'Crewmember uses the. Information from f] i CLR to 

construct the manual load manifest' •.'..."'. 

D.^^Any change to the aircraft load configuration,, once the load/manifest has been 

'..-d completed, is at (he discretion and approval^of thePIC, The PIC Is responsible 

,;;i; forj-evlsing the load manifest and notifying Station Operajtion^.of ^ny changes 

•.'"•pffbr to leaving the ramp area. t. !'• ' 

E.;'' The PIC must initialize the ACARS-generated load manifestior sign Ihe 

^ ~manual load manifest.. 

R When an error is made on any form used In the Weight and Balance Program, 

• • ^ the employee completing the form musJ draw a single line through the errxir., 

and write the correction (legibly) next to tha error and Initial. The error must 

not be obliterated. 

G. Manual load manifests are located in the aircraft library or in the administration 

office of any crew base. Additional supplies can be ordered through the station 

..-i supply vendor, ' ••'• - " ^^ 

H. Load manifests are electronically stored for 90 days in a database maintained 

, by the Information Technology (IT) Department. 

• V . 

,V''^'' 

•r^^^.'-^-H 'y:'il 

Exhibit 1 
n/01/201 1 18:11 FAX 2024935142 

li/m/:^ai l 13:54 4252271007 

FAA -> DMS 

ANM7 

2)017/037 

PAGE 17/36 

FflflhtO 

CARGO LOAD REPORT 

Pat0 statron DeesL "ATCST 

.' '// . -.' /:•'- • Vr .:ii?2 XI 

AgwTtLPl^W •'"u .• 

|l>>U|d>»»^1»a»W»IOw»t«Mff«iMi»ltlgl»<r<n»f>inrwwci«l»rf<ii«U»^|i>lbtWiwp|»afii<Cai)»Mii«(PgMC| 

Baggaqe Informalion Oniv 

— 1 LI.I-.JX-. JJUIl W"EEIIES?:H*B i«Kist7.T5ss:«Bi 

[Siandard Checked 

Hwvy Checked -^..,.,..,,,. 

iPlarresjcie ValetrService (terns ^.0 - ' ' ^ 

' ' • 

CARGOtVPE 

:argo (nfortnation Only 

Freight (lb.) 

Mail (lb.) 

COMAr(fbr)'' ' 

Ballast (lb.) 

Other (lb.) 

"S^Si Tjgg 

jncwSQ-:.'!:„••:• 

Total Car9oVifeiaMOi\ly 

(Buo w wrighl petindudedL 

TOTAL ^ :.^ Adlifts: / Children^- Infants:, 

Circle A5 Applicable 

aatiy (Mcnenzu HoMllly A»f 

>iyie» 

JwcNNffld '* ^ 

JNS7> 

PHO 

WD 

FWO 

FWD 

FWD 

AFT 

AFT 

wr 

AFT 

AFT . 

Otner Ifiinrmddm 

, 

/ ' • 

' 

Exhibit 2 
n/01/201 1 16:12 FAX 2024935142 

±±/vL^.ivi i id:D4 4252271207 

FAA •» DMS 

ANM7 

12018/037 

PAGE 18/36 

CRJ700 

Flight 

Date 

Depart 

Destination 

N-702SK 

6S73 

11/17/10 

KDEN 

KHDN 

Weight and Balance Request Downlink: 

Additional Crew: 

Total Adults: 63 

Total Children; 0 

Infants: 0 

Zon»A: 20 

Zone B: 11 

Zone C: 11 

2on« D: 12 

Zone E; 12 

Zone F; 7 

Forward Cargo: 600 

Aft Cargo: 1680 

Weirht and Balance Data Uplinkr 

NLinib«r Adults: 63 

Number Children: 0 

Number Infants: 0 

Cargo Weight: 22a0 

ACM:0 

ACARS MESSAGE TRAFHC AUDIT: 

2010-11-17 

1S;20:28Z 

N702Sfr 6573 DEN HDN D-M32 Takeoff 

Manifiest 

eB,R,6573^EN,25,17R,DRY,0OOO0„,0,^3,0,0,1041 

r 

AeroData Manifest w&s Request 

Message version: B 

ACARS Hardwares R 
11/01/2011 1G:12 FAX 2024935142 

11/81/2011 13:54 4252271007 

FAA 

ANM7 

* DMS 21019/037 

PAGE 19/36 

Flight : 6S73 

Origin ; KDEN 

Runway 1 : 25 

Runway 2: 17R 

Runway 1 Condition: DRY 

wind String: OOOOO 

Outside Air Temp: 

Altimeter (QNH): 

Anti-ic e Code: 0 

Additional crew: 

Total Adults: 63 

Total Children: 0 

infants: 0 

Zone A: 10 

Zone B: 11 

Zone c: 11 

zone D: 12 

Zone E: 11 

zone F: 7 

Forward cargo; 600 

AfT cargo; 1680 

Fuel On Board: S&OO 

C»ptAin ID: 012047 

*END Formatted Data* 

2010.11-17 

18:20;33Z 

N702SK M34 DEN HDN U-M34 Takeoff/Rerf 

Data 

3 6573,1,1320,00000,-1,30.24,63,0,0,2280,0,5800,65; 

H3S0,38,82.7,B,125A30,137,87,5A122,127,136,665« 

H350,3a,a2.7,8,12S,130,137,e7,5,8,122,127,136,6658 

Aerooata. raieeof f oaia 

Fligh t Mumber: 6S73 

F i t Release Number: 1 

Report Tini«: 1820 

Wind string : OOOOO 

Outside A1r Temp; - 1 

Altinete r CQNH): 30.24 

Number Adults; 63 

Number Children: 0 

Number infants : 0 

cargo weight: 2280 

ACM; 0 

FXiel On Board: SftOO 

Gross Takeoff weight: 65278 

Gross Takeoff wgt c<5: 21.5 

Zero Fuel weight: 59478 

zero Fuel weight CG: 7,2.9 
11/01/2011 18:12 FAX 2024935142 

11/01/2011 13:54 4252271007 

FAA 

ANM7 

+ DMS 21020/037 

PAGE 26/36 

o 

U.S. Department 

Of Transportation 

Federal Avlatioii 

Adminlstratioa 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Colorado. Idaho, Montana, Renton, Washington 98057 

Oregon, Utah, Washington, Tel: (425)227-1417 

Wyoming Fax; (425) 227-1007 

SC0TT,M0KRIS@FAA.<3OV 

September 28, 2009 FAA Case No. 2009NM060023 

SERVED: REGULAR and CERTIFffiD MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REOXJESTED 

TO: Mr. Russell Childs 

President 

SlcyWest Airlines 

444 South River Road 

St. George, Utah 84790 

ORDER ASSESSING CIVIL PENALTY 

On July 17,2009, SkyWest was advised through a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that 

the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $17,500. 

After consideration of all the available information, including the information SkyWest presented 

at the August 19, 2009, informal conference, it has been determraedthat: 

1 - SkyWest Airlines, Inc., (hereinafter SkyWest), is now and was at all times material hereto 

the holder of Scheduled Air Canier Certificate No. SWIAOllA, and conducts its 

operations per FAR Part 121. 

2. SkyWest Operationa Specification A098, requires that loading be accomplished per 

SkyWest's Weigjit & Balance Operations Manual (W&B Manual), 

3. SkyWcst's W«&B Manual Part XH SP4100, contains the loading schedtJes and 

instructions for SkyWest's Bombardier model CL-600-2B19 aircraft. 

4. SkyWest W&B Manual, Part XII, SP4100, rev. 5, chap. 1, para. 8.B.22 identifies Heavy 

Check Bags as that baggage that weighs more than 50 pounds but less than 100 pounds. 

5. SkyWest W&B Manual Part XII, SP4100, rev. 5, chap. 2, para, 2.C. requires the loading 

agent to mark on the CLR the weighi of standard checked bags and ihe weight of checked 

heavy bags, and that any checked bag that meets tibe heavy bag criteria is accounted for on 

the Cargo Load Report (CLR) as a heavy bag. 

Exhibit 3 
11/01/2011 1G:12 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 

ANM7 

12021/037 

PAGE 21/36 

SkyWest Airlinci. lao. 20O9>JMO6O023 

Sqptembcr 23,2009 

Page 2 

6. On December 5, 2008, SkyWest conducted flight 6657 usins civil aircraft N912SW, a 

Bombardier, model CL-^00-2B19, from Chicago, Illinois to Winnipeg, Canada, 

7. This flight carried five heavy bags that were not accounted for on the CLR, 

8. On December 8, 2008, SkyWest conducted fli^ 6653 using civil aircraft N958SW, a 

Bombardier model CI^600-2Bl 9, from Salt Lake City, Utah to Denver, Colorado. 

9. The flight referenced in paragraph 8 above was carrying one (1) heavy bag that was not 

accounted for on its CLR. 

10. 

IL 

On December 9,2008, SkyWest conducted fligjht 5873 vising civil aircraft N713SK, a 

Bombardier model CL-600-2B19, from Little Rock, Arkansas to Denver, Colorado. 

The fli^t referenced in paxagr^h 10 above was carrying three (3) heavy bags that were 

not accounted for on its CLR. 

By reason of the foregoing circumstances, SkyWest violated, on three occasions, viol.aled Section 

119,5(g) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR) in that, as a direct air caitier, it operated 

in violation of an appropriate operations specificationNOW. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 49 U.S-C. Section 46301(a) and (d), that 

SkyWest be and hereby is assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $10,000. 

SkyWest is hereby ordered to pay, immediately, the assessed amount by mailing or delivering a 

certified check or money order in the amount of $10,000, payable to 'The Fedatal Aviation 

Administration," FAA/MMAC, AMZ-350 Wp/NM, P-0. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 

73125. tn the alternative, SkyWest may pay its civil penalty with a credit card or a bank account 

debit over the Internet. To pay electronically, visit the web site at https://www.pav.eov. Under 

the Search Public Forms option type in "FNM-FINEl." Click on *TAA Civil Penalty Payments -

Northwest Mountain Region," SkyWest must then complete the requested information and click 

"Continue." SkyWest will then be directed to enter its credit card or bank account debit 

information. To use the bank account debit SkyWest will need its bank routing number, accotmt 

number, and check number. 

The amount of civil penalty assessed in tiiis Order oonstitutea a debt owed to the United States. 

SkyWest now exhausted its right to seek review of the validityor amount of this debt If this 

debt is not ^aid in full within 30 days of your receipt ofthis Order, the debt is considered 

delinquent. For delinquent debts. Federal Regulations [49 CFR Section 89.23) requires us to 

charge interest, from the date of delinquency, at a fixed annual rate of 6% along with an 

adm^strative charge of $12.00/month, rq>re5enting the costs of administrative coUection, 

Furthermore, if the full amount assessed is not paid in )[ull within 90 days of delinquency, wc arc 
11/01/201 1 16:1 2 FAX 202493514 2 FAA * DMS 0022/03 7 

11/01/2011 13:5d 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 22/36 

SkyWest Airlines, Inc. 20O9NMO60023 

September 28, 2009 

Page 3 

required to assess an additional penalty at an annual rate of 6%, accrumg from the date of 

delinquency. Delinquent dsbts may be reported to consumer reporting agencies or commercial 

credit bureaus, which could adversely affect SkyWest's credit rating. Nonpayment ofthis debt 

may ultimately result in referral to a collection agency, the Jhtcmal Revenue Service, or to the 

United States Department of Justice for enforced collection. 

Regards, 

DWIGHT S. WILLIAMS 

Regional Counsel 

SttE-Moiris 

FAA Attorney 

Enclosure: Signed Setriement Agreement 

cc: Todd C. Emerson 

MC/mc 
11/01/2011 16:12 FAX 2024935142 

n/01/2011 13:54 4252271807 

FAA 

ANM7 

+ DMS 21023/037 

PAGE 23/36 

t^ 

U.S. Depaitment 

Of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Adtniaistratton 

OCBce of Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region 

Colorado., Idaho, Montana, 

Oregon, Utah, Washjngtojx, 

Wyoming 

1601 Land Avenue S.W. 

Renton, Washington 98057 

Tel: (425)227-1417 

Fax:(425)227-1007 

SCOrr.MORRlS@FAAGOV 

September 28, 2009 FAA Case No. 2009NM060050 

SERVED: CERTITED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT KBOUESIED 

TO: Mr. Russell Childs 

President & COO 

SkyWest Airlines 

444 Soufli River Road ' 

St. George, UT 84790 

ORDER ASSESSING CIVIL PENALTY 

On June 29, 2009, SkyWest was advised through a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty thai the 

FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $12,000. 

After consideration of all the available information, including the information SkyWest presented 

at the June 30, 2009, informal conference, it has been determined that: 

1. SkyWest Airlines, Inc. ("SkyWesf) is now and was at all times material hereto the holder 

of Scheduled Air Carrier Certifrcatc No, SWIAOI lA, and conducts its operations per FAR 

Part 121. 

2. SkyWest Operations Specification D085 authorizes SkyWest to use civil aircrait N7'i5SK, 

a Bombardier CL-600-2C10, in the conduct of its Part 121 operations. 

3. SkyWest Operations Specification A098 requires that loading be accomplished per 

SkyWesf s Weight & Balance Operations Manual ("W&B Manual"). 

4. SkyWest's W&B Manual, SP 4100, Part Xtl, contains the loading schedules and 

instructions for SlyWest's Bombardier CL-600-2C10 aircraft. 

5. SkyWest'5 W&B Manual, SP4100, Part XTL, Chapter 1, para. 8.B.22, Revision 05, defines 

Heavy Checked Bags as any bag weighing more than 50 pounds, but less than 100 pounds.. 

6. SkyWest's W&B Manual, SP 4100, PartXn, Chapter 5, para, 9-F,10, Revision 05, requires 

the total number of heavy checked bags to be entered on the Cargo Load Report C*CLR"). 

7. SkyWest's W&B Manual, SP 4100. Part XH, Chapter 2, para. 2.C. 1, Revision 05, requires 

the loading agent to mark on the CLR the weight of standard checked bags and the weight 

of checked heavy bags, and to account on the CLR as a heavy bag any checked bag that 

meets the heavy bag criteria. 
11/01/2011 16:12 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 21024/037 

11/01/2011 13:54 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 24/36 

SkyWest Airlines, Lie. 

Septetnber 28, 2009 

Page 2 

8. SkyWest's W&B Manual, SP 4100, Part XH, Chapter 5. para. 12.A.2, Revision 05, requires 

the loading agent to ensure that the assigned weights recorded on the CLR accurately reflect 

what has been loaded on the aircraft, 

9. On March 17,2009, at Chicago O'Hare International Airport (Xhicago"), SkyWest loaded 

passengers and checked bags onto Fli^t 6371 bound for Aspen-Pitkin County, Sardy Field, 

Colorado ("Aspen"). 

10. SkyWest's personnel in Chicafio identified one (1) heavy checked bag and marked the bag 

with a heavy bag tag, but did not account for the heavy bag on the CLR for Flight 6371. 

11. SkyWesttKereafter operated Flight 6371 to Aspen, Colorado. 

12. Upon the arrival of Flight 6371 iu Aspen, Colorado, an FAA Aviation Safety Inspector 

conducted an inspection. The Inspector saw the heavy bag tag on flie heavy bag, but 

discovered SkyWest failed to account for the heavy bag on ftie CLR for Flight 6371, 

By reason of the foregoing circumstances, SkyWest violated the following Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR): 

a. Section 119.5(g), in that, as a direct air carrier, it operated in violation of an 

appropriate operations specification. 

b. Section 119.50), in that, it operated an aircraft under Part 121 in violation of an 

appropriate oporations specification. 

c. Section 121.693(a) and (c), in that, it operated a fliglht without a load manifest that 

accurately reflected the weight of the baggage, and whose total wcigjht was not 

computed under approved procedures. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Section 46301(a) and (d), that 

SkyWest be and hereby is assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $10,000. 

SkyWest is hereby ord«ed to pay, immediately, the assessed amount by maiUng or delivering a 

certified chock or money order in the amount of JIO.OOO, payable to "The Federal Aviation 

Administration," FAA/MMAC, AMZ-350 WP/NM, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 

73125. In the alternative, SkyWest may pay its civil penalty with a credit card or a bank account 

debit over the Internet. To pay electronically, visit the web site at httDS://www.pav.gov. Under 

the Search Public Forms option type in 'TNM-FINEl." Click on *TAA Civil Penalty Payments -

Northwest Mountain Region." SkyWest must then complete the requested infoimation and click 

"Continue." SkyWest will then be directed to enter its credit card or bank account debit 

information. To use the bank account debit SkyWest will need its bank routing nmnber, account 

number, and check number. 
•r*A + DMS @1025/03T 

11/01/2011 16:12 FAX 2024935142 FAA "'^^ 

.^.-- , ^^^j . j.o.j^ u.^o^j!.fivy3/ ANM7 PAGE 25/36 

SkyWest Airlines, Inc. 

September 28, 2009 

Page 3 

The amount of civil penalty asses^ in this Order constitutes a debt owed to the United Stales. 

SkyWest now exhausted its right to seek review of the validity or amount ofthis debt If this 

debt is not paid in Ml within 30 days of your receipt ofthis Order, the dd>t is considered 

delinquent. For delinquent debts. Federal Regulations [49 CFR Section 8923) requires us to 

charge interest, from the date of delinquency, at a fixed annual rate of 6% along with an 

administrative charge of 512.00/monfh, repiresenting the costs of administrative collection. 

Purthermote, if the full amount assessed is not paid in ftill within 90 days of delinquency, wc arc 

required to assess an additional p^alty at an annual rate of 6%, accruing from the date of 

delinquency. Delinquent debts may be reported to consumer reporting agencies or commercial 

credit bureaus, which oould adversely affect SkyWest's credit rating. Nonpayment of this debt 

may ultimately result in referral to a collection agency, the Ihtemal Rev^ue Service, or to the 

United States Department of Jtwtice for cnjbrced collection. 

Regards, 

DWIGHT S. WILLIAMS 

Regional Counsel 

By ^-_ _ 

((ScottR Morris 

FAA Attorney 

Enclosure; Settlement Asreement - Signed 

cc: Todd C. Emerson 

MC/mc 
11/01/2011 16 

11/01/2011 

13 FAX 

13:54 

2024935142 

4252271007 

FAA + DMS 

ANM7 

2)026/037 

PAGE 2&/3& 

QUARTERLY FINANCIAL & TRAFFIC REVIEW 

SYSTTEM OPERATIONS 

SkyWest Airlines 

.. , . 

FTEMS 

1 

2 

3 

•4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

18 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

FINANCIAL RESULTS: «Mlinons) 

Operating RBvenues 

Operating Expensas 

Operating Profit (Loss) 

N«t Income (Loss) 

TRAFFIC; ffiWons) 

RPMs - Scheduled Svc. 

ASMS - Scheduled Svc. 

Overall RTMa (All Svc) 

Overall ATMs (All Svc.) 

YIELD S UNIT COST & PROFITS: fCents) 

Operatrng Revenue per RTM 

Operating Expense per RTM 

Operating Profit (Loss) per RTM 

Operating Expense per ATM 

Passenger Revenue per RPM 

RNAh^ClAL RATIOS: 

Operating Revenues to Total Investment 

Times Interest Earned 

Current Assets to Cuffent Uabilitles 

No. of Days Cash Coverage of Cash Exp. 

FINANCIAL ppRC^NTftgES: 

Operating Profit (Lo^) to Operating Revenu 

Net Income to Stockholders Equity 

Corporate Return on Investmenl 

Debt to Total Investment 

PASSENGER LOAD FACTOR: fSch. Svc, 7 

Actual 

Breakeven 

EmoloYment & Productjvitv; 

Employment, Total Weighted Avg CY 

Overall RTM's per Employee (000) 

QUAKtfi 

2D10/12 

479.0 

441.1 

37.9 

15.4 

3.3 

4.1 

0.3 

0.6 

146.5 

134,9 

11.6 

79.3 

14.45 

• 

* 

p 

7.9 

* 

79.2 

75.1 

9.052 

36,1 

K EkDtO 

2668/^2 

426.5 

394.0 

3? 5 

13.1 

3.0 

3.S 

0,3 

O.S 

143.2 

132.3 

10.9 

76.9 

14.08 

« 

V 

« • 

• • 

76,2 

73.9 

8,846 

34.5 

12 MONTHS ENDED I 

2010/12 

1,904.5 

1,759,8 

144.7 

57.7 

13.3 

16,7 

1.3 

2.3 

143.6 

132.7 

10.8 

78.0 

14,14 

o.es 

2,73 

2.17 

112.6 

7.6 

5.02 

, 5.0 

47.6 

79.2 

74.3 

8,978 

147.7 

2010/W 

1,852,0 

1,712.7 

139.3 

55,4 

13.0 

16.4 

1,3 

2.2 

142.8 

132.0 

10.7 

77,4 

14.05 

0.85 

2.68 

2.24 

114.5 

7.5 

4.65 

4,e 

48.1 

79.0 

74.0 

8,877 

146,1 

2010/06 

1,792,5 

1,S53,6 

133.0 

52.8 

12.6 

16.0 

1,3 

2.2 

141.8 

131.3 

10.5 

77.0 

13.95 

0.84 

2.68 

2,30 

92.7 

7.4 

4.68 

4.9 

48.6 

79.0 

74.5 

8,7S4 

144.2 

2010n>3 

1.756.1 

1,618.9 

137.1 

59.4 

12,2 

15.6 

1.2 

2.1 

144.0 

132.7 

11.2 

77.6 

14.15 

0.85 

2.98 

2.26 

67.5 

7.8 

5.32 

5,2 

49.4 

78,7 

74.3 

8,700 

140.2 

2009/12 

1.731.3 

1,591.3 

140.0 

60.4 

11.7 

15.0 

1.2 

2.0 

147.7 

135.3 

11.9 

78.8 

14.53 

0.07 

3.06 

7?5 

88,4 

8.1 

5.46 

5.3 

47.8 

78.1 

73.2 

8,716 

134.5 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

Operating Revenues (%) 

Operating Expanses (%) 

Operating Profit (Loss) (\t\ Millions $) 

Net Income (Loss)(in Millions $) 

RPMs (Sch. Svc) (%) 

ASMS (Sch. Svc.) (%) 

Operating Revenues per RTM (%) 

Operating Expense per RTM (%) 

Passenger Revenue per RPM fSch. 5vc,)(% 

CHANGE OVER ObMh-AR 

12.3 

11.9 

5,4 

2.3 

9.7 

8.3 

2.3 

2.0 

2.6 

-1,6 

-5.8 

3,4 

-0.8 

13.2 

12.0 

-15.7 

-16,7 

-16,1 

10,0 

10.6 

4,7 

.2.5 

13.1 

11.6 

-2.8 

-2.3 

-2.7 

ABLE PERI 

5.7 

6.0 

2.7 

-5.8 

14.0 

12.5 

-7.3 

-7.0 

-7.4 

OOlSMdN 

-:i.r 

-4,0 

1.3 

-7.2 

14.4 

11.6 

-15.8 

-16.1 

-16.0 

ThS EARLIER 

-io.7 

-11.7 

5.0 

-3.8 

10.9 

7.6 

-19.5 

-20.4 

•19.8 

-16.1 

-17.2 

-0.6 

-13.0 

5.1 

2.6 

-20.1 

-21.2 

-20.4 

27 

Exhibit 4 
11/01/2011 16:13 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS 1027/037 

11/01/2011 13:54 4252271067 ANM7 PAGE 27/36 

EzprcssJef s employee groups and on njaJDTajning productive employee relations. The integration of 

BxpfessJei and Atlantic Soiitfaeast worlcforccs will be chailcnging. Completing the integranon of tli« 

workforces of the two aiiiines will require the tcaohxdon of poteotially difficult issties relating to 

representation of various work groups aud the relative seniority of The work groups at each canier. 

Uneq>ecied delays or expenses or other challenges to integrating the workforces could impact the 

anticipated synergies fiom the eon)bjioa.tion of Atlantic Southeast and EzpressJei and affect otu^ 

SnaDcdal performance. 

As of December 31, 2010, SkyWest and SlcyWest Airlines collecdvcjy cniployed 9,067 full-time 

eqiiiwalent employees consisting of 4,475 pilots and flight attendants, 2,956 customer sexvict personnel, 

1,146 mechanics and other matntcaance persoimel, and 490 administration and support personnel. 

None of these employees arc currently rcpreseoted by a union. We are awjire, however, that coHectrvc 

bargaining group organization efiorts ainong SkyWest Airlise$' employees occur from time to time and 

we antidpaie that such efforts will continue in the future. Xf unionization efforts are successful, we may 

be subjected to risks of work interruption or stoppage and^or incur additional expenses associated with 

increased union representation of our employees. Neiibcr SkyWest nor StyWest Airlines hae ever 

experienced a work stoppage due to a strike or other labor dispute, and we consider SlgfWest Airlines' 

rclailonshtps with its employees to be good. 

GoTOTiinent Itegnlation 

All interstate air carriers, including SkyWest Airlines, Atlantic Southeast and ExpressJet, are 

subject to regulation by the U.S. Department of "^ansportation (the "DOT"), the U.S. Federal 

Aviation Administration (the "FAA") and other governmental ageodes. Regulations promulgated by the 

DOT primarily relate to economic aspects of air service. The FAA requires operating, air worthineiss 

and other certificates; approval of persotmel who may engage in flight, maintenance or operating 

activities; record-keeping procedures in accordance with FAA requirements; and FAA approval of flight 

training and retraining programs. Generally, governmental agencies enforce their regalations through, 

among other ways, certifications, which are necessary for the continued operationa of SkyWest Airlines, 

Atlantic Southeast and ExprctsJet, and proceedings, which can result in dvfl or criminal penalties or 

revocation of operating authority. The FAA can also issue maintenance directives and other mandatoiy 

orders relating to, among other things, grounding of aircraft, inspection of aircraft, installation of new 

safety-related items and the mandatoiy removal and replacement of aircraft parts. 

We believe SkyWest Airlines, Atlantic Southeast and E^ipreBsJat arc operating in compliance with 

FAA regulations and hold all operating and airworthiness certificates and licenses which are necessary 

to conduct their respective operations. We incur substantial cwts in maintaining cmieni certifications 

and otherwise complying with the lows, rul.e$ aud regulations to which Slq'West Airiincs, Atlantic 

Southeast and ExpressJet are subject SkyWest Airlines', Atlantic Southeast's and EXprcssJct's flight 

operations, maintenance programs, record keeping and training programs are conducted under FAA 

approved procedures. SkyWest Airlines, Atlantic Southeast and ExpressJet do not currently operate at 

any airports where landing slots are restricted. 

All ait cazriers are required to comply with federa] laws and regulations pertaining to noise 

abatement and engine emissions. AH air carriers are also subject to certain provisions of the Federal 

Communications Act of 1934, as amended, because of thcii epcteusjve use of radio and other 

communication facilities. SkyWest Airlines, Atlantic Southeast and ExpressJet are also subject to certain 

other fedeiai and state laws relating to protection of the environment, labor relations and equal 

employment opportunity. We beb'eve SkyWest Airiincs, Atlantic Southeast and ExpressJet are in 

compliance in all material respects with these laws aijd regulations. 

17 

Exhibit 5 
11/01/2011 16:13 FAX 2024935142 

11/01/2011 13:54 4252271007 

FAA + DMS 

ANM7 

2)028/037 

PAGE 28/36 

SKYWEST, INC AND SUBSIDIARIES 

NOTES TO CONSOUDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (ConHnvcd) 

DECEMBER 31, 2010 

(13) Qnanferiy Fioancial Data (Unandited) 

Unaudited summarized financial data by quarter for 2010 and 2009 is as follows (in thousands, 

except per share data): 

V»r Ended D«c«inb«r 3L, »>10 

Flni 

Quarter 

Operating revenues (000) $632,243 

Operating income (000) 42,421 

Net iDCoroe (000) 15,014 

Net income per common share: 

Basic $ 0,27 

DUuted 0.26 

Weighted average common shares: 

Basic: 55,855 

Diluted: 56,864 

Vfryi 

Quntr 

Operatbg revenues (000) ' $672,642 

Operating income (000) 40,824 

Net income (000) 9^372 

Net income per common share: 

Basic S 0.17 

Diluted 0,16 

Weighted average common shares: 

Basic: 56,546 

Dflured: 57,427 

DBOMld 

Q«*lt«r 

$649,759 

49,288 

18,655 

0,33 

0.33 

55,936 

56,71$ 

Third 

Quitc r 

$686,858 

SR,?32 

25,474 

0.46 

0,45 

55,901 

56,804 

Foarth 

Qurte r 

$796,285 

51,835 

37,207 

0.68 

0.67 

54,747 

55,719 

Veat Eadcd I>ce«nib«r 31,11X19 

Second 

Qwrtcr 

S69S,S23 

59,769 

26;219 

$ 0.47 

0.46 

55,657 

56^58 

Third 

Qwrtti: 

$637,748 

63,253 

28,566 

$ 03.1 

0.50 

55,605 

56,652 

F»wlli 

<iwuta 

5604,401 

4«,349 

19^01 

$ 0:35 

0.34 

55,606 

56,621 

•9tai 

$2,765,145 

201,826 

96,350 

1.73 

1.70 

55,610 

56,526 

Vnr 

$2,613,614 

212,195 

83,658 

$ 1.50 

1.47 

55,854 

56,814 

101 
11/01/2011 1B;13 FAX 2024935142 

11/01/2011 13:54 4252271007 

FAA •> DMS 

ANM7 

§1029/037 

PAGE 29/3& 

Weight and Balance Control Chapter O 

There are many factors th&t lead to effidcnt and &afc 

operation of airoaft. Among these vital factors is proper 

weight and balance cowrol. The weight and balance 

system commonly employed among aircraft consists of 

three equally important elements; The veighing of the 

aircraft, the maintaining of the weight and balance records, 

and (he piT>per loading; of the aiiciafL An inaccuracy in any 

one of these clemcnis nolMej ihe purpose of die whole 

syaiem. The final loading calculaUons wi.ll be meaningless 

if either the aircraft has been improperiy weighed or the 

records concain an error. 

Improper loading cuu dawn the cffidcncy of an aircraft 

Iroai the standpoint ef altitude, nuneaverability, rate 

of climb, and speed. It may even be the cause of failure 

to complete tibe flight, or for that mattet, failure to start 

the flight Because of abnormal stresses placed upon che 

straduie of an improperly loaded aircraft, or because of 

changed flying characteristics of the aircraft, loss of life 

and destiucuon of valuable equipment may result. 

The responsibility for proper vdgh t and balance control 

begins with the engineers and designers, ^ d extends to the 

aircraft mechanics thai maintain the aircraft and die pilots 

who operate them. 

Modem aircraft arc engineered utI1i7.ing .statE-of-the-^rt 

technology «»d materials to acTiicve maximum reliability 

and peribnnance for the intended category. As much 

care and e^tpotise must be exercised in operating and 

mainiaining these efficient aircraft as was taken in their 

design and maaufacttning. 

The de-signets of an aircraft have set fee maximum wdght, 

based on the amount of lift the wit^s or rotors can provide 

under the operation oo&dilioBs for which the aircraft 

is designed The shuctural strength of the aircraft also 

limits the manmum weight the ajicraft can »fely e3.try. 

The ideal locatJon of the center of gravity (CG) was vo y 

corcfiilly determined by the designers, and the maximum 

deviation allowed from this specific location has been 

CBleulAted. 

The manufaeoirer provides (he aircraft operator with ihc 

empty weight of the aiictBft and the locaiiOQ of its emptyweigjit center of gna^vity (EWCG) at ihe time the certified 

aircraft leaves the factoiv- AmaTeur-bnih aiicraft must have 

this jjiforraation dereinni:<ed and available at tlie time of 

ccrtificailon. 

The airframe and poweiplant (A&P) mechanic or 

Tcpainnan whomaLatalits the aiicraft keeps the weight and 

balance records correac, recording any changes Tliat have 

been made because of repairs or alterations. 

The pOot in command of the aircraft has the tesponsthilJiy 

oc every flight to know the maxitnuni allawable weight 

of the aiicraft and its CG limits. This allows the pilot to 

determine on the preflight inspection ihat the aircraft is 

loaded in such a way that the CO is within die allowable 

linuts. 

Weight Control 

Weight is a major factor in (liiplane construction and 

operation, and jt demands tvspcct from all pilots and 

particular diligence by all A&P mechanics and repairmenExcessive weight reduce? the efficient^ of SQ aircraft 

and the .safety marp n available if an emergencor 

condition should arise. 

When an aircraft is designed, it is made as light as the 

required structural strength will allow, and the wings or 

rotors are designed to support the maximum allowable 

weight. When the weight of an aircraft is increased, 

the wings or rotors must produce additional lift and the 

stractutc must nippoit not only the additional static loads, 

but also the dynamic loads imposed by flight maneuvers. 

For exaisple, the wijvgs of a 3,000>poa&d airplane must 

support 3,000 pounds in kvel flight, but when the airplane 

is turned smoothly and sharply nsi:^ a. bank angle of 60". 

the dynamic load xequiies the wings to support twice this, 

or 6,000 pounds. 

Severe uncoordinated maneuvers or flight into turbulence 

can impose dynamic loads ou the structnre great enough 

1-1 

Exhibit 6 
11/01/2011 16;13 FAX 2024935142 

11/01/2011 13:54 4252271007 

FAA + DMS 

ANM7 

0030/037 

PAGE 30/36 

to cauiM failure. Xn accordance with Title 14 of the Code 

of Fulcra] Regulatioiis (14 CFR) pan 23, die structure of a 

normal category aiipUnc must be strtxng enough to sustain 

a load factor of 3.8 times its w«ght. That is. every pound 

of weight added to an aircraft requires that the structure 

be i^ong enough to support an additional 3,8 poimds. 

An aircraft operated in &e utility category must sustain a 

load factor of 4,4, and aerebarie eategoiy aircraft must be 

strong enough to withstand 6,0 dmes (heir weight. 

The life produced by a wing is dctomined by its airfoil 

shape, angle of attack, speed through the air, and the air 

density. When an aircraft cakes off &offl an airport with a 

high density altitude, it must accelerate to a speed faster 

than would bo required at sea level to produce enough 

lift to allow takeoff; therefore, a longer takeoff run i$ 

necessary. The distance needed may be longer than the 

available runway. When operating from a high-density 

ahimde airport, the Pilot's Operating Uandbook (POH) 

or Aitplaoe Flight Manual (AE4) must be consulted to 

determine the maxifflDm weight allowed for the aircraft 

under the conditiona of altimde, tttmperamre, wind, and 

runway conditions. 

Effects of Weight 

Most modern airocat^ are so designed thai jf KU scats 

arc occupied, all baggage allowed by the baggage 

coo^artmeat is carried, and all of d)e fuel tacks arc 

fiill, the aircraft will be grossly overloaded. This type of 

design requires tb« pilot to give great consideration to the 

rcqcdicxncDts of the trip. If maxifflum range is rcquirsd, 

occupants or baggage must be left behind, or if tb.e 

maximum load must be carried, the range, dictated by the 

amount of fiJel on board, must be reduced. 

Some of the problems caused by overloading an aircraft 

ore: 

* the aircraft will need a higbcr takeoff speed, whieh 

rcsvlts in a longer takeoff run. 

* both the rate and angle of climb wHl be reduced. 

* the service ceiling will be lowered, 

* the cruising speed will be reduced. 

* fte cruising range will be shortened. 

* maneuverability will be decreased, 

' a longer landing roll will be requtred because the 

landing itpced will be higher. 

- ej^cessive loads will be imposed on the soncmre, 

especially xhc landing gear. 

The POH or AFM includes tables or charts that give iha 

pilot an indication of the performance expected for any 

weight An important part of careful prefii^t planning 

includes a check of these charts to detennine the aircraft is 

loaded so the proposed flight can be safely made. 

Weight Changes 

Tlte ma^^imum allowable weight for im aircraft is 

determined by design consideradoos. However, the 

maximum operational wei^ t may be less than the 

maximimi allowable weight due to snch considerations as 

high-density altimde oc high-drag field conditions caused 

by wet grass or water on the runway, Tlic maximum 

operational weight may also be limited by the departure or 

arrival airport's runway ki^gih. 

One iffipotiani prcfli^ht consideiatioiji is the dism'bution 

of the load in the alrcrsfL Loading the aircraft so the gross 

weight it: less than the manmum allowable is not enough 

This weight must be distributed to keep the CG within the 

hmits specified in the POH or AFM. 

If the CG is too Ear forward, a heavy passenger can 

be moved lo one of the rear seats or baggage can be 

shifted from a forward baggage coinpanmentto a rear 

compartment If ihe CG ijj too far aft, passeogor weight or 

baggage can be shifted forward. TTie fuel load should be 

balanced laterally: the pilot should pay special attention 

to the POH or AFM regarding ibe operation of the fuel 

system, in order to keep the aircraft balanced in fljgbt, 

Wdght and balance of a helicopter is fsc more critical 

than for an airplane With some helicopters, they may be 

propcdy loaded for takeoff, but near the end of a long 

ffight whco the fiicl tanks u c almost empty, the CG tnay 

have shifted enough for the helicopter to be out of balance 

laterally or longiiudinally. Before making any long flight, 

the CG with the fijel available for landing most be checked 

to ensure it wiD be within the allowable fans'!. 

Airplanes with tandem seating normally have a Umit^on 

re<]uiring solo flight to be made &om the ffont seat in 

some airplanes or the rear scat in others. Some of the 

smaller helicopters also require solo flight be made from a 

specific seat, either the nght, left, or center. These seating 

limitations wiD be noted by a placard, usually on the 

instrument panel, aod they should besitrictly adhered to. 

As an aircraft ages, its weight usually increases dne to 

tra^h and dirt coUeetiiig in bard-to-reacb locations, and 

moistvie absorbed is the cabin iiuul^tian. This grotvth in 

weigtrt is normally small, but it can only be detecroined by 

accurately weighing the aircraft 

1-2 
11/01/2011 1G:14 FAX 2024935142 

11/81/2011 13:54 4252271007 

FAA * DMS 

ANM7 

21031/037 

PAGE 31/36 

Changes of flxed equipment may have a major effect upon 

the weight of the aircraft. Many aiinaft arc overloaded by 

the installation of excra radios or instnwieDts, Fbimnately, 

the replacement of older. he«vy eleetrenie equipment with 

newe^ hghier types results in a weight reduction. This 

weight change, however helpiial, wilj probably cause the 

CG to shift and this must be computed and annotated in 

the weight and balance record. 

Repairs and alteration are the major sources of weight 

changes, and it is the responinbility of the A&P mechanic 

or repairman making any repair or alteration to know tbc 

weight and location of these changes, and to compute the 

CG and record the new empty weight and EWCG in the 

aircraft weight and balance reeord. 

UHic newly calculated EWCG Should happen to fall 

outside the EWCG range, it will be necessary to perform 

adverse loading check. This will lequire a forward and 

rearward adverse-loading check, and a maximum weight 

check. These weight and balancs extreme conditions 

rcpitscnt die maximum forward and rearward CG position 

for the aircraft Adverse loading checkt aie a deliberate 

attempt to load an aircraft in a manner that will create the 

most critical balance condition and still remain within 

the desJEn CG limits of the ainnft If any of the diccks 

fall outside the loaded CG range, the aiiaaft must be 

recoBfigmcd or placarded to prevent the pilot £rom loading 

the aircraft improperly. Iris sometimes possible to install 

fi^ed ballast in order for the aircraft to again operate within 

the normal CG range. 

The A&P mechanic or repairman conducting an annual or 

condition inspection must ensure ihe weight and balance 

data in the aiicraft lecotds is current atid accurate. It 

1$ the lecponnbility of die pilot in cenmand to use the 

Tpo.st current weight and balance data when operating the 

aircraft. 

Stability and Balance Control 

Balance control refers to the localioii of the CG of an 

aircrafL Thi;: is of primary ic^tortance lo aircraft stability, 

which determines safety in flight 

The CG is the point at which the total weight of the aircraft 

is assumed to be concentrated, and tiic CG must be located 

widrin specific limits for safe flight Both laieral and 

loBgiludina] balaoce aj« importint, but the prime concern 

is loQgitudinal balance; that is, the location of the CG 

along the longitudinal or lengthwise axis. 

An ^rplane is designed to have stability that allows it to 

be trimmed so it will maintain straight and level flight with 

hands off the controls, Longitodinal scabillcy is maintained 

by ensuring ihe CG is slightly ahead of the center of lift 

This produces a fixed nose-down force independent of 

die airspeed. This is balanced by a variable nose-up force. 

Which is produeed by a downward aerodynamic force on 

the horizontal tail, surfaces that varies directly with the 

Bir.<9eed. [Figure l-I] 

Fixed 

noee^ewn farce 

Independent of 

sifsoeed 

Variatiie 

noaa-up farc« 

depertdant upon 

airspeed 

Figure 1-L Longitudinal force! 'txiing on an airplane infllihi. 

If a rising air cuneni should cause the nose to pitch up, the 

airplane wiH slow down and the downward force on the 

tail will decrease. The weight concentrated at Che CG will 

pull the nose back dowr. If the nose should drop in flight, 

the airspeed will increase and the increased downward tail 

load wjil bit1,cig the wose back up to level flight 

As long as the CG is maintained within die allowable 

hmits for its weight, the airplane will have adequate 

longitudinal stability and control. If the CG is too far aft, 

it will be too near die center of Hit and the airplane will 

be unstable, and difficult to recover from a .stall. [Figure 

1-2] If the unstable airplane should ever enter a spiiL the 

spin could become flat and recoveiy would be difficult or 

impossible. 

CQ too far aft 

Nose-down 

force 

Pigarc I'XIjfifu CO if too far afrtaihc kiw paD airspeed, there 

might eel be ettough tltvat^ nose-dffn/n auihority to get the nose 

d^tmjbr itcavery. 

ir the CG is loo far Corvcard, the downward tail load wiU 

have to be increased to maintain level flight This increased 

tail load has the same effect as carrying additi.onal weight; 

1-3 
11/01/2011 16:14 FAX 2024935142 FAA 

ANM7 

+ DMS @l032/037 

PAGE 32/3G 

tbc aircraft will havr. to fly at a higher angle of attack, and 

drag will increase. 

A more serious problon caused by the CG being coo far 

forward is the lack of sufficient elevator authority. At slow 

takeoff speeds, the elevator might not produce enough 

nose-up force to rotate and on landing there may not be 

enough elevator force to flare the airplane. [Rgure 1-3) 

Both takeoiF and landing runs will be lengthened if the CG 

is too far forward. 

iiiri r gir^^r" > 

•^CG too f«r 

forwafd 

SBSS:" — 

Insuffleiitnt 

elavfitar 

n03»-vjp 

force 

• 111 mij n 1 k l •»,irllHin m i 33S 

Fignrv .1-3. t/Ae CC ii too far forward, t/tevt will v t be enough 

elevator lose-up force to flare the airplane for landing. 

The ba.<!ic airoaft design assumes that lateral symmetry 

exists. For each item of weight added to the left of the 

centertine of the aircraft (also known as buttock line 

zero, or BL-0), thcrr is generally an equal weight at a 

cotrcspoadisg location on the right 

The lateral balance can be upset by uneven fuel loading 

or bumoff. The position of the lateral CG is not ncrroally 

computed fqr an airplane, but the pilot must be aware 

of the adverse effects that will result ftom a laterally 

unbalanced eonditioiL [Flgnrt I-4] This is corrected by 

using the aileron triin tab until enough fuel haii been used 

from the tank on the heavy side to balance the airplane. 

The deflected trim tab deflects the aileron to produce 

additional lift on the heavy side, but it also produces 

additional drag, and the airplane flie< inefficiently. 

Additional 

iifi and drag 

Additional 

vMlsht 

FiCUTft 1-4. Laieral irnbalanct eausit win; heaviness, vhich may 

be corrected by ducting iht oiUnm. The addixforuil lift eausef 

additional dn t and the ^rptaiie flies bu^eieafy 

Helicopter are affected by lateral imbalance .more than 

airplanes. If a helicopter is loaded with heavy occupants 

and fud on the same side, U could be out of balanoe 

enough to make it unsafe to fly. It is also possible that if 

cKtcmal loads ace carried in such a position to require large 

lateral displacement of the cyclic control to maintain level 

fligjit, the fore-and-aft cyclic control effectiveness will be 

limited. 

Sweptwing airplanes are more critical due to fuel 

imbalance becaose as the fuel is used from the outboard 

tanks, die CG shifts forward, and as it is used ftvim the 

inboard tanks. Hie CG shifts afL (Figure 1-Sl For this 

reason, fncl-ure scheduling in sweptwing airplanes 

operation is critical. 

t>utbeard fuel: 

taiih«»y 

Flfuw 1-5, F'url in iftc unkt ofe sweprnring oirplaru affecB hoth 

lateral and lofigiiudtnal baSanee. As fuel is latdfrom an otaboard 

ranfc (Af CG ihiftt fomanl. 

1-4 
11/01/2011 16:14 FAX 

11/01/2011 13:54 

2024935142 

4252271007 

FAA * DMS 

At*17 

@l033/037 

PAGE 33/36 

AC 120-27E 6/10/05 

3. What doctaments does this AC cancel? 

I This AC cancels AC 120-27D, Aircraft Weighi and Balance Control, dated August 11,2004. 

4. What should an operator consider while reading thb AC? 

a- Accurately calculating an aircraft's weight aiul CG before flight is essential to comply 

with the certification linoits established for the aircraft. These limits inclvide both weight and CG 

limits. By complying with these limiis and operating under fte procedures established by the 

manufecturer, an operator is able to meet the weight and balance requirements specified in the 

aircraft flight manual (AFlvf). Typically, an operator calctJaies takeoff weight by addmg the 

I operational empty weight (OEW) of the aircraft, the weight of the passenger, cargo payload, and 

the weight of fbel. The objective is to calculate the takeoff weight and CG of an aircraft as 

accurately as possible. 

b. When using average weights for passengers and bags, the operator must be vigilant to 

ensure that the weight and balance control program reflects the reality of aircraft loading. The 

FAA will periodically review the guidance in this AC and update this AC if average weights of 

the traveling public should change or if regulatory reqtiirements for carry-on bags or personal 

items should change. Ultjinately, Ae operator is responsible for determining if the procedures 

described in this AC are appropriate for use in its type of operation. 

5. Who should use this AC? 

a. This document provides guidance to both passenger and cargo operators that are either 

required to have an approved weight and balance control program imder parts J 21 and 125, or 

choose to use actual or average aircrafc, passenger, or baggage weights when operating imder 

I part 91, subpart K of part 91, or part 135. The guidance in this AC is useful for anyone involved 

in developing or implementing a weight and balance control program. 

b. As shown in Table 1, the FAA has divided aircraft into three categories for this AC to 

provide guidance appropriate to the size of the aircraft 

TABLE 1. AIRCRAFT CABIN SIZE 

f o r this AC, an aircraft originatty type-certificated with— 

71 or more passenger seats 

30 to 70 passenger seats 

Is considered— 

A large-cabin aircraft. 

A meditmi'-cabin aixcraflt. 

5 to 29 passenger seats A small-cabin aircraft 

NOTE: Aircraft with fewer than five passenger seats must nse actual passenger 

and baggage weights. 

6. Who can use standard average or segmented weights? 

a. Standard Average Weights. Use of 5tandard average weights is limited to Operators of 

multlengine turbine-powered aircraft originally type-certificated for five or more passenger seats 

Page ii 

Exhibit 7 
11/01/2011 16:14 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS 21034/037 

6/10/05 AC 120-27B 

CHAPTER 1- AIRCRAFT WEIGHTS AND LOADING SCHEDULES 

Section 1. Establtfhing Aircraft Weight 

100. How docs an operator establish the initial weight of an aircraft? 

Prior to being placed into service, each aircraft should be weired and the empty weight and CG 

location established. New aircraft are normally weighed at the factory and are eUgible to be 

placed into operation without reweighirg if the weight and balance records were adjusted for 

alterations and modifications to the aircraft unless some othar modification to the aircraft 

warrants that the aircraft be weighed (e.g., paragraph 103c). Aircraft transfeired from one 

operator that has an approved weight and balance program, to another operator with an approved 

program, does not need to be weighed prior to tise by the receiving operator unless more than 

36 calendar-months have elapsed smce last individual or fleet weighing, or unless some other 

modificalion to the aircraft warrants that fhe aircraft be weighed (e.g., paragraph 103c). Aircraft 

transferred, purchased, or leased ftom an operator without an approved weight and balance 

program, and that have been unmodified or only minimally modified, can be pjaced into service 

without being reweighed if the last weighing was accomplished by an acireptable method (for 

example, manufacturer's instructions or AC 43.13-1, Acceptable Methods, TeikhnJques, and 

Practices—Aircraft Inspection and Repair, current edition) within the last 12 calendar-months 

and a weight and balance change record was maintained by the operator. See paragraph 103c for 

a discussion of when it may be potentially unsafe to &il to reweigh an aircraft after it has been 

modified. 

101. How does an operator document changes to an aircraft^s weight and 'balance? 

The weight and balance system should mclude methods, such as a log, ledger, or other equivalent 

electronic means, by which the operator will maintain a complete, current, and tontinuous record 

of the weight and CG of each aircraft. Alterations and changes affecting eitberithe weight and/or 

balance of the aircraft should be recorded in this log. Changes in the amoimt of weight or in tbe 

location of weight in or on the aiicraft should be recorded whenever the weightl change is at or 

exceeds the weights listed in Table 1 -I. 

TABLE 1-1. INCREMENTAL WEIGHT CHANGES THAT SHOULD BE RECORDED 

IN A WEIGHT AND BALANCE CHANGE RECORD 

In the weight change record of 

a— 

Large-cabin aircraft 

Medium-cabin aircraft 

[ Small-cabin aircraft 

Aft operator should record any weight changes 

of— 

+/-10 lb or greater. 

+/- 5 lb or greater. 

+/- 1 lb or preater. 

102. How does the operator maintain the OEW? 

The loading schedule inay utilize tiie individual weight of the aircraft in computing operational 

weight and balance, or the operator may choose to establish fleet empty weights for a fleet or 

group of aircraft. 

Par 100 Page 1 
11/01/2011 16:14 FAX 2024935142 FAA •> DMS 12035/037 

11/01/2011 13:54 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 34/36 
11/01/2011 16:14 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS §1036/037 

11/01/2011 13:54 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 35/36 

6/10/05 AC 12Q-27E 

SectioD 2, Aircraft Loading Schedules 

105. What is a loading schedule? 

a. The loading schedule is used to document compliance wi& the certificated weight and 

balance limitations contained in the manufacturer's APM and weight and balance manual. 

b. The loading schedule is developed by the operator based on its specific loading 

calculation procedures and provides the operational limits for use with tiie operator's weight and 

balance program approved under this AC These approved operational limits are typically more 

restrictive but may not exceed the manufacturer's certificated limits. This is because the loading 

schedule is generally designed to check only specific conditions (e.g., takeoff and zero fuel) 

known prior to takeoff, and nnist account for variations in weight and balance in flight It must 

also account for factors selected to be excluded, for ease of tise, from ftie calculation process. 

Loading the aircraft so tiiat the calculated weight and balance is within l^c approved limits will 

maintain the acmal weight and balance within the certificated limits throughout the flight. 

c. Development of a loading schedule represents a. trade-off between ease of use and loading 

flexibility, A schedule can provide more loading flexibility by requiring more detailed inputs, or 

it can be made easier to use by fiirther limiting the operational limits to account for the 

uncertainty caused by the less detailed inputs. 

d. Several types of loading schedules are commonlyused, including computer programs as 

well as ''paper*' schedules, which can be either graphical, such as an alismnent ("chase around 

chart") system, sb'de rule, or numerical, such as an adjusted weight or index system. 

e. It is often more convenient to compute the balance effects of combined loads at»d to 

display the results by using "balance units" or "index units." This is done by adding the 

respective moments (weight times arm) of each item. Graphing the momentsi results m a "fan 

grid" where lineS of constant balance aims (BA) or percent MAC are closer together at lower 

weights and fijslher apart at higher weights. Direct graphical or numerical addition of the 

balance effects are possible using these .moment values. 

f. To make the magnitude of the numbers mere msDageable, moments can be converted to 

an index unit. .For example: 

, , weight xiSA-datum) ,, 

mdex unit = ^- ^^ '- -t- K 

M 

NOTE: Where datum is the reference BA that will plot as a vertldtl line on 

the fan grid> jli'and JTare constants that are selected by the operator.3/b 

used to scale the index values^ and K is used to set tbe index value of the 

reference BA 

106. How should an operator detennine the weight of each fluid used abbard the aircraft? 

An operator should use one of the following: 

Par 105 ~ "~~~" Page 5 
11/01/2011 16:15 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS @l037/037 

11/01/2011 13:51 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 36/36 

6/10/05 AC 120-27B 

Appendix 1 

APPENDIX 1. DEFINITIONS 

1. Baaic empty weight. The aircraft empty weight, adjusted for variations in standard items. 

2. Carga As used in this advisory circular (AC), cargo refers to everything; carried in the cargo 

compartments of the aircraft. This includes bags, mail, freight, express, and company material. 

It also includes live animals, dangerous goods, and hazardotis materials as stibcategories of the 

above. 

3. Carry-on bag. A bag that the operator allows the passenger to cany onboard. It should be of 

a size and shape that will allow it to be stowed under the passenger seat or in a storage 

compartment The operator establishes tbe exact dimensional limits based on the particular 

aircraft stowage limits. 

4. Certificated weight and CG limits. Weight and center of gravity (CG) limits are established 

at the time of aircraft certification. They are specified in the Applicable aircraft flight rtuinual 

(AFM). 

5. Checked bags. Checked bags are those bags placed m the cargo companxnent of the aircraft 

This includes bags that are too large to be placed in the cabin of the aircraft or duosc bags that arc 

required to be carried in the cargo compartment by regulation, security progrHm, or company 

policy. For bags checked plane-side, see die definition for plane-side loaded! bags. 

6. Cnrtaihnent Creating an operational loading envelope that is more restrictive than the 

manufecturers"' CG envelope, to issura the aircfaft will be operated within liinits during all 

phases of flight Curtailment typically accoimts for, but is not limited to, in-flight movement, 

gear and flap movement cargo variation, ftie] density, fiiel bum-off, and sealing variation. 

I 7. Fleet operatiooal empty weight (POEW). Average operational empty weight (OEW) used 

for a fleet or grotjp of aircraft of the same model and configuration. 

8. Freight Cargo carried for hire in tlxe cargo compartment that is not naailior passenger bags. 

9. Heavy b^s. Heavy bags are considered any bag that weighs more than 50 pounds but less 

than 100 pounds. Bags that are 100 pounds or more are considered freight. 

I 10. Large cabin aircraft Aircraft originally type-certifleated with a maxiraum seating capacity 

of 71 or more passenger scats. 

11. Loading envelope. Weight and CG envelope used in a loading schedule. Loading the 

aircraft within the loading envelope will maintain the aircraft weight and CG' within the 

manufacturer's type-certificated limits throughout the flight. 

12. Ix>ading schedule Method for calculating and documenting aircraft weight and balance 

prior to taxiing, to ensure the aircraft will remain within all required weight and balance 

runitations throughout the flight. 

Page 1