.04/01/201 0 09:4 4 FAX 202493514 2 FAA DMS 0001/01 8 

SERVED MARCH 23, 2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTOK D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

RECURRENT TRAINING CENTER, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. (CP09GL0008) 

% 

<r.> 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

OMS NO. (FAA-2009-0971) 

-• A'-r-j"* . •i'< .r<- •'< •=>-«*^**' ' 

up:^3 0 

O) 

HSAB^f^SDOC'^ 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR DECISION 

COMES NOW Respondent, RECURRENT TRAINING CENTER, INC., by aD.d through 

its counsel, BARNETT LAW OFFICES, P.C, pursuant to 14 CFR §13.218(f)(5) hereby files its 

MOTION FOR DECISION in the instant matter, and states as follows: 

This matter arises out of an investigation conducted by inspectors of the Springfield, 

Illinois Flight Standards District Office as to whether Recurrent Training Center (herein RTC) 

was properly conducting Instrument Proficiency Checks (IPC) in RTC's Flight Training Device 

(FTD). Two instrument proficiency checks were given to two diiferent pilots and it is these two 

IPC's that are at issue in this matter. RTC certified both pilots had successfiilly competed the 

IPC's, 
04/01/2010 09:44 FAX 2024935142 FAA V DMS il002/01 8 

The FAA has alleged that RTC was not equipped or authorized under RTC's Air Agency 

Certifications to perform these IPC's because, according to the Administrator, in order to 

perform an IPC all TASKS (TASKS are titles of knowledge areas, flight procedures, or 

maneuvers appropriate to an AREA OF OPERATION) in the Practical Test Standards (PTS) 

book must be tested, including Circling Approaches and Landing from a Straight-in or Circling 

Approach. RTC acknowledges that its FTD is not authorized to conduct circling approaches and 

landing fi-om circling approaches, however, RTC contends these circling maneuvers are not 

necessary for a successfiil completion of an IPC. Further, RTC had previously received the 

express consent and authority from the Administrator under FAR Part 142 to conduct IPC's in 

RTC's FTD's. 

RTC argues, based upon the plain meaning of the Federal Aviation Regulations, the 

Administrators own FAA ORDER 8900.1 (FSIMS Handbook), a Legal Interpretation Letter 

written by an FAA staff attorney, FAA Advisory Circular 61-98A as well as a change to the 

pertinent FAR that would have otherwise been unnecessary, that not all PTS TASKs are 

mandatory and, accordingly, it ha-s conducted both IPC's in accordance with Federal Aviation 

Regulations. 

The FAA fiirther alleges that, if in fact these IPC's were properly conducted in 

accordance with 14 CFR part 61.57(d), that RTC has violated portions of 14 CFR part 141 to the 

extent that RTC did not comply with its approved training course. RTC argues that it conducted 

these IPC's outside of its normal certificate syllabus and pursuant to 14 CFR part 61.57(d) only, 

and for the reasons set forth below, brings this Motion for Decision and respectfiilly requests this 

Court to dismiss the instant Complaint in its entirety. In amplification of the foregoing, RTC 
04/01/2010 09:44 FAX 2024935142 FAA . DMS i003/01 8 

relies upon the Statement of Facts, Argument, Citation of Authorities, and Conclusion set forth 

below. 

L 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

1. On September 21, 2009, Complainant, the Federal Aviation Administration 

("FAA"), issued their Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty in the above-referenced matter. 

2. On September 30, 2009, pursuant to 14 CFR § 13.16(h), RTC timely 'served its 

Request for Hearing in this matter. 

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

Number R9KS949K for an approved Provisional Pilot School with a Special Preparation Courses 

rating issued by the Federal Aviation Administration. 

4. RTC also holds and at all times mentioned herein held Training Center C'crtificate 

Number R9KX049K with Training Specifications to conduct training courses with respect to 14 

CFR 142. 

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

completed an Instrument Proficiency Check and on December 17, 2007, RTC certificcJ that Mr. 

Moore successfully completed an Instrument Proficiency Check. 

6. RTC was equipped and authorized pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulation and 

FAA Order to perform these Instrument Proficiency Checks using Flight Training Devices as set 

forth more fiilly below. 
04/01/2010 09:44 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS i004/018 

II. 

ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITIES 

A- Standard for Motion for Decision 

According to 14 CFR §13.218(f)(5) "A party may make a motion for decision, regarding 

all or any part of the proceedings, at any time before the administrative law judge has issued an 

initial decision in the proceedings. The administrative law judge shall grant a party's motion for 

decision if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, matters thiit the 

administrative law judge has officially noticed, or evidence introduced during the hearitiig show 

that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the party making the motion is entitled to a 

deci.sion as a matter of law." RTC "has the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of 

material fact disputed by the parties." Id. 

The non-moving party defeats a motion for decision by responding with some faictual 

showing which creates a genuine issue of material fact. & Ilardinn v. Gray, 9 F.3d 150,154 

(D-C. Cir. 1993) (discussing standard for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56). But a 

motion for decision may not be defeated by a mere assertion of unsupported claim that factual 

controversy persists. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 856F.2d309, 314 (D.C. Cir. 

1988). Any factual assertions made in affidavits or other exhibits submitted in support of the 

moving party's motion for decision shall be accepted as true unless the non-moving party 

controverts such facts through affidavits or other documentary evidence. See Gary v. 

Washington Metro Area Transit Auik, 886 F. Sum. 78 (D.D.C. 1995). 
04/01/201 0 09:4 4 FAX 2024935142 FAA + QMS 0005/01 8 

As more fiilly described below, no genuine issue as to any material fact exists cojaceming 

the charges that Recurrent Training Center, Inc. acted in a manner contrary to its Air Agency 

Certificate or Federal Aviation Regulations. Since the pleadings, admissions, regulations and 

orders establish that there is no genuine issue as lo any material fact to be resolved regarding an 

alleged violation of 14 CFR 141.41(b)(3), 14 CFR 141.83(a)(1) and 14 CFR6l.57(d), 

Respondent Recurrent Training Center, Inc. is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

B. ALL TASKs Contained In The Instrument Rating Practical Test Are 

NOT Required To Successfully Conduct an IPC 

Based upon the clear and unambiguous language of the pertinent FAR, FAA Order 

8900.1 (FSIMS Handbook) (See Request to Admit Facts Nos. 1-4), a recent change to the 

pertinent FAR, Advisory Circular 61-98A (See Request to Admit Fact.s Nos. 7-8), and a legal 

interpretation letter drafled by the FAA (See Request lo Admit Facts Nos. 5-6) it is clear that the 

accomplishment of all TASKs contained in the Instrument Rating Practical Test are not required 

to successfiilly conduct an Instrument Proficiency Check. 

1. 14 CFR 6L57(d) Is Clear and Unambiguous On Its Face 

14 CFR 61.57(d) (See Bequest to Admit Facts No.?. 9-10) reads in pertinent part: 

d) Instrument proficiency check. 

Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, a person who 

does not meet the instrument experience requirements of paragraph 

(c) of this section within the prescribed time, or within 6 calendar 

months after the prescribed time, may not serve as pilot in 

command under IFR or in weather conditions less thzin the 

minimums prescribed for VFR until that person passes an 

instrument proficiency check consisting of J representative 

number of tasks (emphasis added) required by the instrument 

rating practical test. 

(1) The instrument proficiency check must be— 

(i) In an aircraft that is appropriate to the aircraft category; 
04/01/201 0 09:4 4 FAX 2024935142 FAA * OMS iOOe/01 8 

(ii) For other than a glider, in a flight simulator OT flieht training 

device (emphasis added) that is representative of the aircraft 

category; 

The language of 14 CFR 61.57(d) is clear and unambiguous and should be given the 

definition of the plain language used within it, namely that a "representative number of tasks" 

from the PTS need be accomplished to successfully complete an IPC. There is nothing 

confusing about the language of the statute. Further, the interpretation the Administrator alleges 

in this case would be met if the words "a representative number" were deleted firom the statute, 

thereby rendering their definition meaningless. Giving a word no meaning is contrary to 

established rules of construction. For instance, as the Supreme Court has stated "[i]n interpreting 

a statute, a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. [CJourts must 

prcsimie that a legislature says in a stamte what it means and means in a statute what it says 

i}a&K:' Connecticut National Bank V, Germain 112S.Ct. 1146, 1149(1992). There is a 

presumption that the legislature intended to use the actual words it utihzes in the statute, which 

in turn, as noted are intended to be utilized in the ordinary and common meanings. Sutherland, 

Statutory Construction, 6th edition (2000 revision) Volume 2A at section 47.27, pp. 338. Norman 

.J. Singer. "Under Chevron .. . if a statute is unambiguous the statute governs;. - " Stinson v 

United States, 113 S. Q. 1913 (1993). Indeed, "[wjhen the words of a statute are unambiguous, 

then the first canon is also the last; judicial inquiry is complete." Id. 

To illustrate this point consider FAR part 61.65(8) which provides no discretion for a 

CFl to select a representative number of TASKs to be performed. This omission reinforces the 

language of FAR 61.57(d). Specifically, as it relates to statutory construction. Congress is 

presumed to act intentionally and purposely when it includes language in one section but omits it 

1 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 467 U.S. 837. 863, (1984). 
04/01/201 0 03:4 4 FAX 202493514 2 FAA •>• DMS 121007/018 

in another. Estate of Bell v. Commissioner, 928 F.2d901. 904 (9ih Cir, 1991). This has also been 

stated that "when Congress includes a specific term in one section of a statute but omits ii in 

another section of the same Act, it should not be implied where it is excluded. Arizona Electric 

Power Co'Op v. United States, 816 F. 2d. 1366 1375, (9th Cir, 1987). Thus, when writing the 

requirements for the Instrument Rating in 61.65(8) there is no discretion given to the exjiminer, 

however, there is discretion given to the instructor in 61,57(d)- Also note that subparagiaph (ii) 

of §61.65(8) specifically limits the use of an FTD to only a portion of the test. This limitation is 

not expres.sed under §61.5 7(d) (ii). 

FAR §61.65(8) states in pertinent part: 

(8) Pass the required practical test on the areas of operation in 

paragraph (c) of this section in— 

(i) An airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift appropriate to the rating 

sought; or 

(ii) A flight simulator or a flight training device appropriate to the 

rating sought and for the specific maneuver or instrument approach 

procedure performed. If an approved flight training device is used 

for (he practical te.it, the instrument approach procedures 

conducted in that flight training device are limited to one precision 

undone nonprecision approach, provided the flight training device 

is approvedfor the procedure performed (emphasis added). 

2. FAA Order 8900.1, Fli^t Standards Information Management System 

(FSIMS) Handbook Paragraph 5-263 

By the authority vested in the Administrator in accordance with Title 49 of United States 

Code, Subtitle I, Chapter 1, §106, the FAA promulgates "regulations, rules, orders, circulars, 

bulletins, and other official publications". Pursuant to that authority, the FSIMS Handbook is an 

FAA Order that "directs the activities of Aviation Safety Inspectors (AS!) who are responsible 

for the certification, technical administration, and surveillance of air carriers, certain other air 

operators who conduct their operations in accordance with the appropriate part of Titie 14 of the 
04/01/2010 09:45 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS 1^008/018 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), certificated airmen and other aviation activities."^ FAA 

Orders are not optional procedures or techniques; they are mandatory procedures to be followed 

as written. Simply put, an Order is an order. 

FAA Order 8900.1 at paragraph 5-263 RECENT INSTRUMENT EXPERIENCE, flTLE 

14 CFR § 61.57 reads in pertinent part: 

B. Instrument Proficiency Check. An instrument proficiency check 

must be accomplished in a category of aircraft in which the pilot is 

rated and shall consist of one or all of the procedures and 

maneuvers fr-om the instrument pilot practical test standards 

(emphasis added). 

Note that the Order speaks directly to the PTS thereby explaining how the ambiguous 

language of the PTS should be interpreted. In the instant case, this FAA Order, authored and 

published by the FAA, clearly allows an instructor to have discretion in the selection of the 

procedures and maneuvers (TASKs) required by the instrument pilot practical test stand;ards 

while conducting an IPC. The PTS, on the other hand, is a set of standards that is used by 

evaluators to determine an applicant's ability to hold a particular rating or certificate. The PTS 

itself is ambiguous in its language as evidenced by the language pertaining to Instrument 

Proficiency Checks: 

Instrument Proficiency Check. 14 CFR part 6L57(d) sets 

forth the requirements for an instrument proficiency check. The 

person giving that check shall use the standards and procedures 

contained in this PTS when administering the check, A 

representative number of TASKs, as determined by the 

examiner/instructor., must be selected to assure the competence of 

the applicant to operate in the IFR environment. As a minimum, the 

applicant must demonstrate the ability to perform the TASKs as 

listed in the above chart (emphasis added/ 

2 FAA Order 8900.1, FSIMS Handbook para. 1-1. 
04/01/201 0 09:4 5 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS 0009/01 8 

Note, the PTS states "a representative number of TASKs, as determined by the 

examiner/instructor" and then contradicts itself when it suggests a more restrictive "minimum" to 

which an applicant must demonstrate the ability to perform TASKs in a chart. The PTS does not 

even .state that the applicant must demonstrate the ability to perform all the TASKs as listed in 

that same chart. It becomes clear then, that the evaluator uses the PTS merely as guidance to 

determine if an applicant should successfiilly pass the evaluation. It is not intended to flinction 

with the inflexibility of an FAA Order, nor should it. If that were the case, few applicants would 

be able to fly the "perfect" check ride under an unforgiving set of standards. 

In this case, the Administrator has chosen to ignore an Order and instead, use merely 

suggested guidance as to the appropriate conduct of RTC. While it is convenient for the 

Administrator to argue accordingly, he should be reminded that "[t]he well inlentioncd advice of 

a government employee does not estoppel the government." (0PMv. Richmond, 496 US 414, 

110 S.Ci. 2456) In other words, although the advice provided by the inspectors at the Springfield 

FSDO is founded on the well intentioned belief that the PTS is the controlling authority in this 

matter, the undeniable fact is the government has promulgated an Order which in contrary to 

their position. Despite the good intentions of the inspectors to follow the PTS, it is superseded 

by FAA Order 8900.1 

3. 14 CFR 61.57(D) Was Recently Changed To Require All Tasks To 

Be Performed During an IPC 

As of October 20, 2009, the language of FAR 61.57(d) (See Request to Admit Facts No. 

11) was modified to make it mandatory tiiat all TASKs contained in the Practical Test Standards 
04/01/201 0 09:4 5 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS @010/01 8 

be accomplished for an Instrument Proficiency Check, The new regulation reads (in pertinent 

part) as follows: 

§ 61.57(d) Recent flight experience: Pilot in command. 

(d) Instrument proficiency check. Except as provided in paragraph 

(e) of this section, a person who does not meet the instrument 

experience requirements of paragraph (c) of this section within the 

12 calendar months preceding the month of the flight may not 

serve as pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions less 

than the minimums prescribed for VFR until having passed an 

instrument proficiency check that conslits of the areas of 

operation and instrument tasks required in the instrument ratine 

practical te.it standards (emphasis added). 

This change to the very FAR in question would not have been necessary, had the 

language of the previous version already made mandatory the requirement to accompli.sh all of 

the TASKs contained in the PTS. The fact that the Administrator made this change is fiirther 

evidence that the requirement did not exist prior to the new rulemaking. Had it been a clear 

requirement prior to the change, the change would not have been necessary. 

On or about May 13,2003 RTC was issued an Operations Specifications certificate to 

operate under the authority of 14 CFR Part 142 to conduct flight training- (See Complaint ^3) 

Pursuant to that certificate, RTC was given express permission by the Administrator to conduct 

IPC's in RTC's Flight Training Devices. It is interesting to note that the version of 14 CFR 

61.57(d) which is at the core of this argument went into effect in 1997. No regulatory changes 

were made to 14 CFR 61.57(d) until October 2009 when the regulation was amended to now 

require all the PTS TASKs to be completed during an IPC. 

10 
04/01/2010 09:45 FAX 2024935142 FAA * OMS 121011/018 

4. Advisory Circular 61-9SA Gives Discretion To The Instructor 

Notwithstanding the plain and unambiguous language of the FAR's, Advisory Circular 

61-98A further supports the position that a representative number of TASKs may be selected 

from the PTS. TTic AC reads in pertinent part: 

(first page of AC) 

1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides information 

for certificated pilots and flight instructors to use in complying 

with the flight review required by Federal Aviation Regulations 

(FAR) §61.56, the recent flight experience requirements of FAR 

§61.57, and the general limitations contained in FAR §61.31 (d), 

(e) and (g). 

(Chapter 3 page 11) 

CHAPTER 3. INSTRUMENT COMPETENCY CHECK 

d. As an aid in selecting maneuvers and procedures for the 

competency check, the CFI may wish to review the list contained 

in Appendix 3. It must be emphasized that this list should not be 

considered alMnclusivc and is not intended to limit a CFl's 

discretion in selecting appropriate maneuvers and procedures 

(emphasis added). 

It is simply illogical and contrary lo common sense to infer a requirement that ALL the 

TASKs required by the PTS are to be accomplished after reading this Advisory Circulai*. This 

Advisory Circular is authored and published by the FAA; however, the FAA has chosen to 

ignore its plain language in the instant case. It is also worth noting that AC 61-98A wa-s 

published in 1991 and the language of 6L57(d) was efifcetive in 1997. This would seem to 

contradict the FAA's position that they never intended to allow a full IPC in an FTD as 

approximately 18 years have passed and this AC has not been revised or rescinded. 

11 
04/01/201 0 09:4 5 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS @1012/018 

5. A Legal Interpretation Letter Drafted By The FAA Contem];>Iatcs 

The Use Of FTD's To Conduct IPC's. 

In a Legal Interpretation Letter dated December 18, 2008 prepared by Adrianne Wojcik, 

an Attorney in the Regulations Division of the Office of the Chief Counsel, and was coordinated 

with the Office of Flight Standards. In this letter, Ms. Wojcik writes "botii §§ 61.57(e)( 1) and 

61.57(d)(1)(h) explicitly state that approved FTDs may be used to meet the recent flight 

experience requirements, as long as a given FTD is approved for such training and proficiency 

check. Generally, all appropriate endorsements for passing the instrument proficiency check, 

which would be otherwise given if the check were passed in an aircraft, can also be given when 

one passes the check by using an FTD, as long as the FTD represents the appropriate aiicraft 

category for the instrument privileges sought." Clearly, this Interpretation Letter contemplates 

the use of an FTD to conduct an IPC. 

C. The Instrument Proficiency Checks Were Accomplished In Accordance 

With 14 CFR 6l.57rD) Not 14 CFR Section 141. 

The Administrator has also alleged, that even if the cheeks were properly conducted 

pursuant to 14 CFR 61.57(d), RTC was only able to conduct the checks pursuant to 14 CFR 

Section 141 and accordingly RTC was not equipped to conduct such checks within the scope of 

its training course (see Complaint ^5). RTC, if requested to perform an Instrument Proficiency 

Check pursuant to 14 CFR 61.57(d), is allowed to do so as long as it flilly complies with 14 CFR 

61.57(d) and it is clearly conducted outside the scope of its pilot school training course. RTC is 

prohibited firom advertising that it may conduct an IPC within it's training program, however, the 

12 
04/01/201 0 09:4 5 FAX 2024935142 FAA * QMS 21013/01 8 

FAR'S allow the accomplishment of the IPC if conducted properly in accordance with 14 CFR 

61.57(d). In particular 14 CFR 141.23 reads in pertinent part: 

§ 141.23 Advertising limitations. 

(a) The holder of a pilot .<ichool certificate or a provisional pilot 

school certificate may not make any statement relating to its 

certification and ratings that is false or designed to mislead any 

person contemplating enrollment in that school. 

(b) The holder of a pilot school certificate or a provisional pilot 

school certificate may not advertise that the school is certificated 

unless it clearly differentiates between courses that have been 

approved under part 141 of this chapter and those that have not 

been approved under part 141 of this chapter. 

Accordingly, as long as RTC does not advertise that it is offering IPC as part of its 

training program and "clearly differentiates between courses," a pilot, already enrolled in RTC's 

training program may ask for an IPC to be conducted simultaneously. Simultaneous training is 

expressly allowed and promoted by the FAA as indicated by the FAA's own FSIMS Order 

which reads in pertinent part: 

5-259 COMBINING FLIGHT REVIEWS AND 

COMPETENCY CHECKS. 

A pilot may elect to combine required flight reviews and checks. 

For example, a pilot who satisfactorily demonstrates competency 

in an aircraft requiring more than one pilot (part 61 , § 61.58) may 

also use tiiis demonstration to meet the flight review requirement 

of part 61 , § 61,56 . For the purposes of the flight review, a single 

showing of competency in any aircraft shall suffice for all other 

categories or classes of aircraft for which the pilot is rated. 

Demonstrations of competency may also be associated with 

proficiency checks required by 14 CFR part 121 or 135 , or when 

the airman is applying for an additional category or class of pilot 

certificate or for a type rating. 

13 
04/01/201 0 09:4 5 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS i014/01 8 

The Administrator's position is based on the presumption that the Instrument Proficiency 

Checks were not clearly differentiated between courses that were conducted pursuant to part 141. 

The presumption is invalid based upon an examination of the training records of the two pilots in 

question. At the request of the AdminisiTaior's counsel, RTC produced the training records and 

logbook entries documenting the successfial completion of the two pilots Instrument Proficiency 

Checks (See Request to Admit Facts Nos. 12-13) As plainly indicated on the face of the logbook 

entries, in order to differentiate between courses, RTC clearly stamped an entry that the 

Instrument Proficiency Checks were accomplished pursuant to 14 CFR 61.57(d). 

This situation is analogous to the customer who enters a restaurant which holds itself out 

to the public as a steakhouse. This steakhouse only advertises that it serves steaks. However, 

after consuming a steak, the customer then asks for and receives a dessert. The steakhouse does 

not advertise they sell dessert; however, they arc fully licensed to do so by the FDA. The FDA 

requires that they advertise only that they are a steakhouse. In the instant case, we have two 

customers (pilots) who purchase a training program as part of RTC's part 141 pilot school. 

While at RTC, they ask for and receive an IPC in accordance with part 61 57(d) and 

simultaneously complete RTC's part 141 training program. 

III. 

CONCLUSION 

The Administrator alleges that RTC has violated FAR 61.57(d) because that regulation, 

according to the Administrator, requires an Instrument Proficiency Check to consist of ALL the 

TASKs contained in the Practical Test Standards, including circling approaches which cannot be 

conducted in RTC's Flight Training Devices. To allow the Administrator's interpretation to be 

14 
04/01/201 0 09:4 6 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS i015/01 8 

cogent, would be akin to an FAR stating "an applicant must be 17 years of age to test for an 

instrument rating, while at the same time, the PTS stating all applicants must demonstrate they 

arc at least 21 years of age to obtain an instrument rating". To have a more restrictive 

interpretation applied by way of an ambiguous PTS is illogical and contrary to the rules of 

statutory construction. 

RTC does not contend that it is equipped to conduct a circling approach in its Flight 

Training Device, RTC does contend, however, that not ALL of the TASKs contained in the 

Instrument Rating Practical Test Standards are required to successfiilly complete an Instmment 

Proficiency Check, RFC bases its position firmly on the plain language of FAR 61,57(d), which 

at the time of the Instrument Proficiency Checks, allowed the instructor to choose from a 

REPRESENTATrVE number of TASKs contained in the Instrument Rating Practical Test 

Standards. This plain language interpretation is fiirther supported by case law regarding 

statutory coniJtruction. In addition, the FAA itself supports RTC's position with documents 

authored and published by the FAA which include: 

• FAA Order (emphasis added) 8900.1, also known as the Flight Standards Information 

Management System handbook which clearly states that an IPC will "consist of ONE OR 

ALL of the procedures and maneuvers from the instrument pilot practical test standards 

(PTS)." 

• The FAA has recentiy changed FAR 61.57(d) to require all of the TASKs contained in 

the PTS be completed when accomplishing an IPC. A change tiiat would be uimecessary 

had the instant version of the FAR had the same requirement. 

15 
04/01/201 0 09:4 6 FAX 2024935142 FAA * OMS ©016/01 8 

• The FAA's own Advisory Circular 61-98A which clearly states that an instructor has 

"discretion in selecting appropriate maneuvers and procedures for the competency 

check". 

• The FAA's own Legal Inteiprctaiion Letter dated less than one year ago which clearly suites that 

"approved FTDs may be used to meet the recent flight experience requirements, as long 

as a given FTD is approved for such training and proficiency check." 

In the instant cajse, the FAA has chosen to ignore the plain meaning of the FAR's and 

three of its OAvn publications in order to allege a violation of FAR 61.57(d). The court in 

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Namral Resources Defense Council, Inc. (467 U.S. 837, 863, (1984)) 

stated "[a]n initial agency interpretation is not instantly carved in stone. On the contrary, the 

agency, to engage in informed rulemaking, must consider varying interpretations and the wisdom 

of its policy on a continuing basis. Moreover, the fact that the agency has adopted different 

definitions in different contexts adds force to the argument that (he definition itself is flexible, 

[...]." 

Lastly, the FAA alleges that the IPC's could only be conducted within the scope of 

RTC's training program. The Administrator's position on this issue is contrary to the FAA's own 

FSIMS Order which expressly provides for the combining of competency reviews and flight 

checks. 

Due to the fact that the FAR has been recentiy changed, and RTC is no longer conducting 

IPC's in its FTD's, this point of law has become moot but for the looming civil penalty facing 

RTC. Nonetiieless, RTC did have a sound basis for conducting IPC's in its FTDs and 

respectfiilly asks this court to dismiss this Complaint. 

16 
04/01/201 0 09:4 6 FAX 2024835142 FAA ioTTTOTl 

WHEREFORE, Respondent asks this Court to grant the instant Motion tor Decision and 

dismiss the instant Complaint in its entirety. 

Dated; March 23, 2010 

Respectfiilly submiiied, 

Charles R. Bamett, HI 

BAKMETT LAW OFFICES, P.C. 

1664 Moorland Lane 

Crystal Lake, Illinois 60014-2985 

(815)356-8647 

(815) 356-7042 (FAX) 

Attorney for Respondent 

Recurrent Iraining Center, Inc. 

17 
04/01/201 0 08:4 6 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 0018/01 8 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Motion for Decision was served via Certified 

Mail, Return Receipt Requested as follows: 

ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administmtion 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000 

FAX: 202-493-5142 

ONE COPY 

Briana Martino, Complainant's Counsel 

(jxeat Lakes Region, AGL-7M 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 

TEL: 847-294-7713 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Admim.<,lrative Law .Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Dated this 23'" day of March, 2010. 

:bailes R. Baniett, III 

Attorney for Respondent 

18