.04/01/201 0 09:4 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A DM S 0001/01 8

SERVE D MARC H 23 , 201 0 U.S . DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTO K

D.C . I N THE MATTEROF RECURREN T TRAININ G CENTER , INC . FA A DOCKET NO . (CP09GL0008 ) % <r. > (Civi l Penalt

y Action ) OM S NO . (FAA-2009-0971 ) - • A'-r-j" * . •i' < .r< - •' < •=>-«*^**' ' 

## up:^ 3 0 O ) 

## HSAB^f^SDOC' ^

RESPONDENT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO N COME S NOW Respondent , RECURREN T TRAININ G CENTER , INC. , b y aD. dthroug h it s counsel , BARNETT LA W OFFICES , P.C , pursuan t to 1 4 CF R§13.218(f)(5 ) hereb y file s it s MOTIO N FO RDECISIO N i n th e instan t

matter , an dstate s a s follows : Thi s matter

arise s out o f a n investigatio n conducte dby inspector s o f th e Springfield , Illinoi s Fligh t

Standard s Distric t

Offic e a s t o whethe r

Recurren t

Trainin g Cente r

(herei n RTC ) wa s properl y conductin g Instrumen t Proficienc y Check s (IPC ) i n RTC' s Fligh t Trainin g Devic e (FTD) . Tw o instrumen t

proficienc y check s wer e give n t o tw o diiferen t pilot s an dit

i s thes e tw o IPC' s that are at issu e i n thi s matter . RT C certifie dboth pilot s ha dsuccessfiill y compete dth e IPC's ,04/01/201 0 09:4 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A V DM S il002/01 8

Th e FA A ha s allege dtha t

RT C wa s not

equippe do r

authorize dunde r

RTC' s Ai r

Agenc y Certification s t o perfor

mthes e IPC' s because , accordin g t o th e Administrator , i n orde r t o perfor ma n IP C al l TASK S (TASK S are title s o f knowledg e areas , fligh

t procedures , o r maneuver s appropriat e t o a n AREA O F OPERATION ) i n th e Practical Tes t Standard s (PTS ) boo k mus t b e tested , includin g Circlin g Approache s an d Landin g fromaStraight-i n o r Circlin g Approach . RT C acknowledge s tha t it s FT D i s no t

authorize dt o conduc t

circlin g approache s an d landin g fi-omcirclin g approaches , however , RT C contend s thes e circlin g maneuver s are no t necessar y for asuccessfii l completio n o f a n IPC . Further , RT C hadpreviousl y receive dth e expres s consen t

an d authorit

y fromth e Administrato r

under FA RPar t 14 2 t o conduc t

IPC' s i n RTC' s FTD's . RT C argues , base dupo n th e plai n meanin g o f th e Federal Aviatio n Regulations , th e Administrator s ow n FA

A ORDER8900. 1 (FSIM S Handbook) , aLegal Interpretatio n Lette r writte n b y a

n FAA staf

f attorney , FA A Advisor

y Circula r 61-98 A a s wel l a s achang e t o th e pertinen t FARthat woul dhav e otherwis e bee n unnecessary , tha t no t al l PT S TASK s ar

e mandator y and , accordingly , i t

ha- s conducte dbot h IPC' s i n accordanc e wit h Federal Aviatio n Regulations . Th e FA A fiirther

allege s that , i f

i n fac t thes e IPC' s wer e properl y conducte di n accordanc e wit

h 1 4 CFRpart

61.57(d) , tha t

RT C ha s violate dportion s o f 1 4 CF Rpar t 14 1 t o th e exten t that RT C di d no t

compl y wit

h it s approve dtrainin g course . RT C argue s tha t i t conducte d thes e IPC' s outsid e o f

it s normal certificate syllabu s an dpursuan t t o 1 4 CF Rpar

t 61.57(d ) only , an dfo r th e reason s se t

fort h below , bring s thi s Motio n fo r Decisio n an drespectfiill y request s thi s Court t o dismis s th e instan t

Complain t

i n it s entirety . I n amplificatio n o f th e foregoing , RT C04/01/201 0 09:4 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A . DM S i003/01 8

relie s upo n th e Statement

o f Facts , Argument , Citatio n o f Authorities , an dConclusio n se t fort h below . L STATEMEN T O F FACT S 1 . O n September

21 , 2009 , Complainant , th e Federal Aviatio n Administratio n ("FAA") , issue dthei r

Fina l Notic e o f

Propose dCivi l Penalt

y i n th e above-reference dmatter . 2 . O n Septembe

r 30 , 2009 , pursuan t

t o 1 4 CFR§ 13.16(h) , RT C timel y 'servedit s Reques t for Hearin g i n thi s matter . 3 . RT C hold s an dat al l time s mentione dherei n hel da n Ai r Agenc y Certificate Numbe r R9KS949 K

fo r a n approve dProvisional Pilo t Schoo l wit

h aSpecia l Preparatio n Course s ratin g issue db y th e Federal Aviatio n Administration . 4 . RT C als o hold s andat all time s mentione dherei n hel dTrainin g Cente r C'crtificat e Number R9KX049 K

wit h Trainin g Specification s to conduc t trainin g course s wit

h respec t t o 1 4 CFR142 . 5 . On or

abou t Januar y 16 , 2008 , RT C certifie dtha t Mr . VanBerko msuccessfiill y complete da

n Instrumen t

Proficienc y Chec k

an do n December

17 , 2007 , RT C certificc

J tha t Mr . Moore successfully complete da n Instrument

Proficienc y Check . 6 . RT C wa s equippe dan dauthorize dpursuan t t o Federal Aviatio n Regulatio n an d FA A Order

t o perfor mthes e Instrumen t

Proficienc y Check s usin g Fligh t Trainin g Device s a s set fort h more fiilly below .04/01/201 0 09:4 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S i004/01 8

II . ARGUMEN T AN D CITATIO N O F AUTHORITIE S A

- Standar dfo r

Motio n fo r

Decisio n Accordin g t o 1 4 CF

R§13.218(f)(5 ) " A part

y may make amotio n for

decision , regardin g al l o r any part o f th e proceedings , a

t an y tim e before th e administrativ e law judg e ha s issue da n initia l decisio n i n th e proceedings . Th e administrativ e la w judg e shal l gran t

aparty' s motio n fo

r decisio n i f

th e pleadings , depositions , answer s t o interrogatories , admissions , matter s thii t th e administrativ e la w judg e ha s officiall y noticed , o r evidenc e introduce ddurin g th e hearitiig sho w tha t ther e i s n o genuin e issu e o f material fact

an dtha t th e part y makin g th e motio n i s entitle dt o a deci.sion a s amatte r

o f law. " RT C "ha s th e burde n o f showin g that

ther e i s n o genuin e issu e o f material fac t

dispute db y th e parties. " Id . Th e non-movin g party defeat s amotio n for decisio n b y respondin g wit h som e faictua

l showin g whic h create s agenuin e issu e o f material fact . & Ilardin n v . Gray , 9 F.3 d150,15 4 (D-C . Cir . 1993 ) (discussin g standar dfor summar y judgmen t

unde r Fed . R . Civ . P . 56) . Bu t

a motio n for

decisio n ma

y not b e defeate dby amer e assertio n o f unsupporte dclai mtha t

factua l controvers y persists . AlyeskaPipelin e Servic e Co . v . U.S . E.P.A. , 856F.2d309 , 31 4 (D.C . Cir . 1988) . An y factua

l assertion s mad e i n affidavit s o r othe r exhibit s submitte di n support o f th e movin g party' s motio n for decisio n shal l b e accepte da s tru e unles s th e non-movin g party controvert s suc h fact s throug h affidavit s o r othe r documentar

y evidence . Se e Gary v . Washingto n Metr o Are aTransi t Auik , 88 6 F . Sum . 7 8 (D.D.C . 1995) .04/01/201 0 09:4 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + QM S 0005/01 8

A s mor e fiill

y describe dbelow , n o genuin e issu e a s to an y material fac t exist s cojacemin g th e charge s that

Recurren t

Trainin g Center , Inc . acte din amanne r contrar y t o it s Ai r

Agenc y Certificate o r

Federa l Aviatio n Regulations . Sinc e th e pleadings , admissions , regulation s an d order s establis h tha

t ther e i s n o genuin e issu e a s l o an y materia l fac t t o b e resolve dregardin g a n allege dviolatio n o f

1 4 CF R141.41(b)(3) , 1 4 CFR141.83(a)(1 ) and1 4 CFR6l.57(d) , Responden t

Recurren t

Trainin g Center , Inc . i s entitle dt o judgmen t a s amatte r

o f law . B . AL L TASK s Containe dI n Th e Instrumen t Ratin g Practica l Tes t

Ar e NO T Require dT o Successfull y Conduc t a n IP C Base dupo n th e clea

r an dunambiguou s languag e o f th e pertinen t

FAR , FAA Order 8900. 1 (FSIM S Handbook ) (See Reques t t o Admi t Fact s Nos . 1-4) , arecen t

chang e t o th e pertinen t FAR , Advisor

y Circula r 61-98 A (Se e Reques t

to Admit Fact. s Nos . 7-8) , an

dalega l interpretatio n lette r

drafle db y th e FAA (Se

e Reques t l o Admit Fact s Nos . 5-6 ) i t

i s clea r that th e accomplishmen t

o f al l TASK s containe di n th e Instrumen t Ratin g Practical Tes t

are no t require d t o successfiill y conduc t

a n Instrumen t

Proficienc y Check . 1 . 1 4 CF R6L57(d ) I s Clea r an dUnambiguou s O n It s Fac e 1 4 CF R61.57(d ) (See Beques t

t o Admi t Fact s No.? . 9-10 ) read s i n pertinen t part : d ) Instrumen t

proficienc y check . Excep t a s provide di n paragrap h (e ) o f thi s section , aperso n wh o doe s no t mee t th e instrumen t

experienc e requirement s o f paragrap h (c ) o f thi s sectio n withi n th e prescribe dtime , o r withi n 6 calenda

r month s afte

r th e prescribe dtime , ma

y no t serv e a s pilo t

i n comman dunder

IFRo r i n weather

condition s les s thzi

n th e minimum s prescribe dfo

r VF Runti l tha

t perso n passe s a

n instrumen t

proficienc y chec k

consistin g o f

J representativ e number o f task s (emphasi s added ) require dby th e instrumen t ratin g practica l test . (1 ) Th e instrumen t

proficienc y chec k

mus t be — (i ) I n a n aircraf t that i s appropriate t o th e aircraf t category ;04/01/201 0 09:4 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * OM S iOOe/01 8

(ii ) Fo r othe r than aglider , in aflight

simulato r O T flieht trainin g devic e (emphasi s added ) that i s representativ e o f

th e aircraf

t category ; Th e languag e o f

1 4 CF R61.57(d ) i s clea

r andunambiguou s andshoul db e give n th e definitio n o f

th e plai n languag e use dwithi n it , namel y that a"representativ e numbe r

o f tasks " fromth e PT S nee db e accomplishe dt o successfull y complete a n IPC . There i s nothin g confusin g abou t

th e languag e o f

th e statute . Further , th e interpretatio n th e Administrato r allege s in thi s cas e woul db e me t

i f th e word s " arepresentativ e number " wer e delete dfiromth e statute , thereb y renderin g thei r

definitio n meaningless . Givin g awor dn o meanin g i s contrar

y t o establishe drule s o f

construction . For

instance , a s th e Supreme Cour t ha s state d"[i] n interpretin g astatute , acour

t shoul dalway s turn t o on e cardinal cano n befor e al l others . [CJourt s mus t prcsimi e tha t

alegislatur e say s i

n astamte wha

t i t mean s an dmean s in astatut e wha t i t say s i}a&K: ' Connecticu t

Nationa l Ban

k V , Germai n 112S.Ct . 1146 , 1149(1992) . Ther e i s a presumptio n that

th e legislature intende dt o us e th e actua l word s i t utihze s in th e statute , whic h i n turn , a s note dare intende dt o b e utilize di n th e ordinar y an dcommo n meanings . Sutherland , Statutory Construction , 6t h editio n (200 0 revision ) Volum e 2 A a t sectio n 47.27 , pp . 338 . Norma n .J . Singer . "Unde r

Chevro n .. . i f

astatut e i s unambiguou s th e statute governs; . - " Stinso n v Unite dStates , 11 3 S . Q . 191 3 (1993) . Indeed , "[wjhe n th e word s o f astatut e ar e unambiguous , the n th e first

cano n i s als o th e last ; judicia l inquir y i s complete. " Id . T o illustrat e thi s poin t

conside r FA Rpar t 61.65(8 ) whic h provide s n o discretio n fo r a CF l t o selec t

arepresentativ e numbe r

o f TASK s t o b e performed . Thi s omissio n reinforce s th e languag e o f

FAR61.57(d) . Specifically , a s i t relate s t o statutor

y construction . Congres s i s presume dt o ac t

intentionall y an dpurposel y whe n i t include s languag e i n on e sectio n bu t omit s i t 1 Chevro n U.S.A. , Inc . v . Natura l Resource s Defens e Council , Inc . 46 7 U.S . 837 . 863 , (1984) .04/01/201 0 03:4 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A •> • DM S 121007/01 8

i n another . Estat e o f

Bel l v . Commissioner , 92 8 F.2d901 . 90 4 (9ih Cir , 1991) . Thi s ha s als o bee n state dtha t "whe n Congres s include s aspecifi c ter mi n on e sectio n o f

astatut e bu t

omit s i i i n anothe r sectio n o f

th e same Act , i t

shoul dno t

b e implie dwhere i t

i s excluded . Arizon aElectri c Powe r Co'O p v . Unite dStates , 81 6 F . 2d . 136 6 1375 , (9t h Cir , 1987) . Thus , when writin g th e requirement s for

th e Instrumen t

Ratin g in 61.65(8 ) ther e i s n o discretio n give n t o th e exjiminer , however , ther e i s discretio n give n t o th e instructo r i n 61,57(d)

- Als o not e tha t subparagiap h (ii ) o f §61.65(8 ) specificall y limit s th e us e o f a n FT D t o onl y aportio n o f th e test . Thi s limitatio n i s not expres.se dunde r

§61. 5 7(d ) (ii) . FAR§61.65(8 ) state s i n pertinen t part : (8 ) Pas s th e require dpractical tes t o n th e area s o f

operatio n i n paragrap h (c ) o f

thi s sectio n in— (i ) An airplane , helicopter , o r powered-lif

t appropriate t o th e ratin g sought ; o r (ii ) A fligh

t simulato r o r aflight trainin g devic e appropriate t o th e ratin g sought

an dfo r th e specifi c maneuver

o r instrumen t

approac h procedure performed . I f

a n approve dfligh t

trainin g devic e i s use d fo r (he practica l te.it , th e instrumen t approac h procedure s conducte din tha t

fligh t trainin g devic e ar e limite dt o on e precisio n undon e nonprecisio n approach , provide dth e fligh t trainin g devic e i s approvedfo r

th e procedur e performe d(emphasi s added) . 2 . FAA Orde r

8900.1 , Fli^ t

Standard s Informatio n Managemen t Syste m (FSIMS ) Handboo k

Paragrap h 5-26 3 B y th e authorit

y veste di n th e Administrato r i n accordanc e wit

h Titl e 4 9 o f

Unite dState s Code , Subtitl e I , Chapter

1 , §106 , th e FAA promulgate s "regulations , rules , orders , circulars , bulletins , an dother

officia l publications" . Pursuan t

t o that authority , th e FSIM S Handboo k i s a n FAA Order

that "direct s th e activitie s o f

Aviatio n Safet

y Inspector s (AS! ) wh o ar e responsibl e fo r th e certification , technical administration , an dsurveillanc e o f air carriers , certai n other

ai r operator s wh o conduc t

thei r operation s i n accordanc e wit h th e appropriate par

t o f Titi e 1 4 o f

th e04/01/201 0 09:4 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A^ DM S 1^008/01 8

Cod e o f Federal Regulation s (1 4 CFR) , certificate dairme n an dother aviatio n activities." ^ FAA Order s are no t

optional procedure s o r

techniques ; the y ar

e mandator

y procedure s t o b e followe d a s written . Simpl y put , a n Order i s a n order . FAA Order

8900. 1 a t paragrap h 5-26 3 RECENT INSTRUMENT EXPERIENCE , flTL E 1 4 CF R§ 61.5 7 read s i

n pertinen t

part : B . Instrumen t

Proficienc y Check . An instrumen t proficienc y check mus t b e accomplishe din acategor y o f aircraf t i n whic h th e pilo t

i s rate dan dshal l consis t

o f on e o r al l o f th e procedure s an d maneuver s fr-o

mth e instrumen t

pilo t practica l tes t

standard s (emphasi s added) . Not e tha t th e Order speak s directl y t o th e PT S thereb y explainin g ho w th e ambiguou s languag e o f

th e PT S shoul db e interpreted . In th e instan t case , thi s FAA Order , authore dan d publishe dby th e FAA , clearl y allow s a n instructo r

t o hav e discretio n in th e selectio n o f th e procedure s an

dmaneuver s (TASKs ) require dby th e instrumen t pilo t practical tes t

stand;ard s whil e conductin g a

n IPC . Th e PTS , o n th e othe r hand , i s aset

o f standard s that

i s use db y evaluator s t o determin e a

n applicant' s abilit

y t o hol daparticula

r ratin g o r certificate . Th e PT S itsel f i s ambiguou s i n it s languag e a s evidence dby th e languag e pertainin g to Instrumen t Proficienc y Checks : Instrument Proficienc y Check . 1 4 CFRpar t 6L57(d ) set s fort h th e requirement s for

a n instrumen t

proficienc y check . Th e perso n givin g that

chec k shal l us e th e standard s an dprocedure s containe di n thi s PT S whe n administerin g th e check , A representativ e number

o f TASKs , a s determine db y th e examiner/instructor. , mus t

b e selecte dt o assure th e competenc e o f th e applican t

t o operate i n th e IF Renvironment . A s aminimum , the applican t mus t demonstrat e th e ability t o perfor mth e TASK

s a s liste din th e abov e char t

(emphasi s added /

2 FA A Orde r 8900.1 , FSIM S Handboo k para . 1-1 .04/01/201 0 09:4 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DMS 0009/01 8

Note , th e PT S state s " arepresentativ e number o f TASKs , a s determine db y th e examiner/instructor " andthe n contradict s itsel f whe n i t suggest s amore restrictiv e "minimum " t o whic h a n applican t

mus t demonstrate th e abilit

y t o perfor mTASK s i n achart . Th e PT S doe s no t even .stat e tha t th e applican t

mus t demonstrate th e abilit

y t o perfor mal l th e TASK s a s liste di n that same chart . It

become s clea

r then , that th e evaluato r

use s th e PT S merel y a s guidanc e t o determin e i f

a n applicant

shoul dsuccessfiilly pas s th e evaluation . It i s no t intende dt o flinctio n wit h th e inflexibilit

y o f a n FAA Order , no r

shoul dit . I

f tha t wer e th e case , fe

w applicant s woul d b e abl e t o fly th e "perfect " chec k ride under

an unforgivin g se t

o f standards . I n thi s case , th e Administrato r ha s chose n t o ignore a

n Order an dinstead , us e merel y suggeste dguidanc e a s t o th e appropriat e conduc t o f RTC . Whil e i t

i s convenien t

for th e Administrato r

t o argu e accordingly , h e shoul db e reminde dthat "[t]h e wel l inlentionc dadvic e o f agovernmen t

employe e doe s no t

estoppe l the government. " (0PMv . Richmond , 49 6 U S 414 , 11 0 S.Ci . 2456 ) I

n other words , althoug h th e advic e provide dby th e inspector s a t th e Springfiel d FSD O i s founde do

n th e wel l intentione dbelie f tha t th e PT S i s th e controllin g authorit y i n thi s matter , th e undeniabl e fac t i s th e governmen t

ha s promulgate da

n Order whic h i n contrar

y t o thei r position . Despite th e goo dintention s o f th e inspector s t o follo w th e PTS , i t i s supersede d by FAA Order

8900. 1

3 . 1 4 CF R61.57(D ) Wa s Recentl y Change dT o Requir e Al l Task s T o B e Performe dDurin g a n IP C A s o f October 20 , 2009 , th e languag e o f FA R61.57(d ) (Se

e Reques t t o Admi t Fact s No . 11 ) wa s modifie dt o mak e i t mandator y tiiat all TASK s containe di n th e Practica l Tes t Standard s04/01/201 0 09:4 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S @010/01 8

b e accomplishe dfo

r a n Instrumen t

Proficienc y Check , Th e ne w regulatio n read s (i n pertinen t part ) a s follows :

§ 61.57(d ) Recen t

flight experience : Pilo t

i n command . (d ) Instrumen t

proficienc y check . Excep t a s provide di n paragrap h (e ) o f thi s section , aperso n wh o doe s no t mee t th e instrumen t experienc e requirement s o f paragrap h (c ) o f

thi s sectio n withi n th e 1 2 calenda r month s precedin g th e mont h o f th e flight ma y no t serv e a s pilo t

i n comman dunder

IF Ro r i n weathe r

condition s les s tha n th e minimum s prescribe dfor VF Runti l havin g passe da n instrumen t

proficienc y chec k

tha t conslit s o f

th e area s o f operatio n an dinstrumen t

task s require di

n th e instrumen t

ratin e practica l te.it

standard s (emphasi s added) . Thi s chang e t o th e very FARi n questio n woul dnot hav e bee n necessary , ha dth e languag e o f

th e previou s versio n alread y mad e mandator y th e requiremen t

t o accompli.s h all o f th e TASK s containe di n th e PTS . Th e fac t tha t th e Administrato r

mad e thi s chang e i s fiirthe r evidenc e that

th e requiremen t

di dno t exis t prio r t o th e ne w rulemaking . Hadi t bee n aclea

r requiremen t

prio r t o th e change , th e chang e woul dno t hav e bee n necessary . O n o r abou t Ma y 13,200 3 RT C wa s issue da n Operation s Specification s certificat e t o operat e under

th e authority o f

1 4 CFRPart

142 t o conduc t

flight training

- (Se e Complain t ^3 ) Pursuan t t o tha t certificate , RT C wa s give n expres s permissio n b y th e Administrato r t o conduc t IPC' s in RTC' s Fligh t

Trainin g Devices . It

i s interestin g t o not e tha t

th e versio n o f

1 4 CFR 61.57(d ) whic h i s a

t th e cor e o f

thi s argumen t

wen t int o effec t

i n 1997 . N o regulator

y change s wer e mad e t o 1 4 CF

R61.57(d ) unti l Octobe r

200 9 whe n th e regulatio n wa s amende dt o no w requir e al l th e PT S TASK s t o b e complete ddurin g a n IPC .

1 004/01/201 0 09:4 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * OM S 121011/01 8

4 . Advisory Circula r

61-9S A Give s Discretio n T o Th e Instructo r Notwithstandin g th e plai n an dunambiguou s languag e o f th e FAR's , Advisor

y Circula r 61-98 A furthe

r support s th e positio n tha t arepresentativ e number

o f TASK s ma

y b e selecte d fro mth e PTS . TTi

c A C read s i n pertinen t

part : (firs t pag e o f AC ) 1 . PURPOSE . Thi s advisor y circula r (AC ) provide s informatio n for certificate dpilot s an dflight instructor s t o us e i n complyin g wit h th e flight

revie w require dby Federal Aviatio n Regulation s (FAR ) §61.56 , th e recen t

fligh t experienc e requirement s o f FAR §61.57 , an dth e genera

l limitation s containe di n FAR§61.3 1 (d) , (e ) an d(g) . (Chapte r 3 pag e 11 ) CHAPTER3 . INSTRUMENT COMPETENC Y CHEC K d . A s a n ai di n selectin g maneuver s andprocedure s for th e competenc y check , th e CF I ma y wis h t o revie w th e lis t

containe d i n Appendi x 3 . I

t mus t b e emphasize dthat

thi s lis t shoul dno t

b e considere dalMnclusiv c an di s no t intende dt o limi t

aCFl' s discretio n in selectin g appropriat e maneuver s an dprocedure s (emphasi s added) . It i s simpl y illogical andcontrar y l o commo n sens e t o infe r arequiremen t

tha t AL L th e TASK s require db

y th e PT S ar

e t o b e accomplishe dafte

r readin g thi s Advisor

y Circulai* . Thi s Advisor y Circula r i s authore dan dpublishe db y th e FAA ; however , th e FAA ha s chose n t o ignor e it s plai n languag e i n th e instan t case . I t i s als o wort

h notin g that

A C 61-98 A wa- s publishe din 199 1 an

dth e languag e o f

6L57(d ) wa s efifcetiv

e i n 1997 . Thi s woul dseemt o contradic t th e FAA' s positio n tha t

the y never

intende dt o allo w aful

l IP C in a n FT D a s approximatel y 1 8 year s hav e passe dan dthi s AC ha s no t bee n revise do r

rescinded .

1 104/01/201 0 09:4 5 FAX 202493514 2 FA A ^ DM S @1012/01 8

5 . A Lega l Interpretatio n Lette r Drafte dB y Th e FA A Contem];>Iatc s Th e Us e O f

FTD' s T o Conduc t

IPC's . I n aLegal Interpretatio n Lette r date dDecembe r

18 , 200 8 prepare db y Adriann e Wojcik , a n Attorne y in th e Regulation s Divisio n o f th e Offic e o f

th e Chie f Counsel , an dwa s coordinate d with th e Offic e o f

Fligh t Standards . I n thi s letter , Ms . Wojci k write s "boti i § § 61.57(e) ( 1 ) an d 61.57(d)(1)(h ) explicitl y state tha t approve dFTD s may b e use dt o mee t th e recen t

flight experienc e requirements , a s lon g a s agiven FT D i s approve dfo r such trainin g an dproficienc y check . Generally , al

l appropriat e endorsement s fo r passin g th e instrumen t

proficienc y check , whic h woul db e otherwis e give n i f th e chec k wer e passe di n a

n aircraft , ca

n als o b e give n whe n on e passe s th e chec k

b y usin g a

n FTD , a s lon g a s th e FT D represent s th e appropriat e aiicraf t categor y for th e instrumen t

privilege s sought. " Clearly , thi s Interpretatio n Lette r contemplate s th e us e o f a n FT D t o conduc t

a n IPC . C . Th e Instrumen t

Proficienc y Check s Wer e Accomplishe dI n Accordanc e Wit h 1 4 CF R6l.57rD ) No t 1 4 CF RSectio n 141 . Th e Administrato r

ha s als o alleged , tha

t eve n i f th e cheek s wer e properl y conducte d pursuan t t o 1 4 CFR61.57(d) , RT C wa s onl y abl e t o conduc t th e check s pursuan t

t o 1 4 CFR Sectio n 14 1 an daccordingl y RT C was no t equippe dt o conduc t

suc h check s withi n th e scop e o f it s trainin g cours e (se e Complain t ^5) . RTC , i f

requeste dto perfor

ma n Instrumen t

Proficienc y Chec k pursuan t t o 1 4 CF R61.57(d) , i s allowe dt o do s o a s lon g a s i t flilly complie s wit

h 1 4 CFR 61.57(d ) an di t

i s clearl y conducte doutsid e th e scop e o f it s pilo t schoo l trainin g course . RT C i s prohibite dfiromadvertisin g that i t ma y conduc t a n IP C withi n it' s trainin g program , however , th e

1 204/01/201 0 09:4 5 FAX 202493514 2 FA A * QMS 21013/01 8

FAR' S allo w th e accomplishmen t o f th e IP C i f

conducte dproperl y i n accordanc e wit h 1 4 CF R 61.57(d) . I n particula

r 1 4 CFR141.2 3 read s in pertinen t part : § 141.2 3 Advertisin g limitations . (a ) Th e holde r

o f apilo t .<ichoo l certificate o r

aprovisional pilo t schoo l certificate ma

y no t make any statemen t

relatin g t o it s certificatio n an drating s that i s fals e o r

designe dt o mislea dan y perso n contemplatin g enrollmen t i n tha t school . (b ) Th e holde r

o f apilo t schoo l certificate o r

aprovisional pilo t schoo l certificat e ma

y not advertis e tha t

th e schoo l i s certificate d unles s i t clearl y differentiate s betwee n course s tha t hav e bee n approve dunde r

part 14 1 o f thi s chapte r

andthos e tha

t hav e no t bee n approve dunde r

part 14 1 o f thi s chapter . Accordingly , a s lon g a s RT C doe s no t advertis e tha

t i t i s offerin g IP C a s par

t o f it s trainin g progra man d"clearl y differentiate s betwee n courses, " apilot , alread y enrolle di n RTC' s trainin g programma

y as k for a n IP C t o b e conducte dsimultaneously . Simultaneou s trainin g i s expressl y allowe dan dpromote db y th e FAA a s indicate db y th e FAA' s ow n FSIM S Orde r whic h read s i n pertinen t

part : 5-25 9 COMBININ G FLIGH T REVIEW S AND COMPETENC Y CHECKS . A pilo t ma y elec t t o combin e require dflight review s an dchecks . Fo r example , apilo t

wh o satisfactoril y demonstrate s competenc y i n an aircraf

t requirin g more tha n on e pilo t (part 6 1 , § 61.58 ) ma

y als o us e tiiis demonstratio n t o mee t th e flight revie w requiremen t o f par t 6 1 , § 61,5 6 . Fo r

th e purpose s o f

th e flight review , asingl e showin g o f

competenc y i n any aircraf t shal l suffic e for

al l other categorie s o r

classe s o f

aircraf t fo r whic h th e pilo t

i s rated . Demonstration s o f

competenc y ma y als o b e associate dwit h proficienc y check s require db y 1 4 CFRpart 12 1 or 13 5 , or whe n th e airman i s applyin g for a n additional categor

y o r clas s o f pilo t certificat e o r

fo r atyp e rating .

1 304/01/201 0 09:4 5 FAX 202493514 2 FA A ^ DM S i014/01 8

Th e Administrator' s positio n i s base do n th e presumptio n tha t th e Instrumen t

Proficienc y Check s were no t

clearl y differentiate dbetwee n course s tha t wer e conducte dpursuan t

t o par t 141 . Th e presumptio n i s invali dbase dupo n a n examinatio n o f

th e trainin g record s o f

th e tw o pilot s in question . A

t th e reques t

o f th e AdminisiTaior' s counsel , RT C produce dth e trainin g record s an d logboo k entrie s documentin g th e successfia l completio n o f

th e tw o pilot s Instrumen t

Proficienc y Check s (Se e Reques t

to Admi t Fact s Nos . 12-13 ) A s plainl y indicate do n th e fac e o f th e logboo k entries , i n order

to differentiate betwee n courses , RT C clearl y stampe da n entr y tha t th e Instrumen t

Proficienc y Check s wer e accomplishe dpursuan t t o 1 4 CF R61.57(d) . Thi s situatio n i s analogou s t o th e customer wh o enter s arestauran t

whic h hold s itsel f

ou t t o th e publi c a s asteakhouse . Thi s steakhous e onl y advertise s that i t serve s steaks . However , afte r consumin g asteak , th e custome r the n ask s for

an dreceive s adessert . Th e steakhous e doe s no t advertis e the y sel l dessert ; however , they arc fully license dt o d o s o b y th e FDA . Th e FD A require s tha t

the y advertis e onl y tha t

the y are asteakhouse . I n th e instan t case , w e hav e tw o customer s (pilots ) wh o purchas e atrainin g programa s par t o f RTC' s part

14 1 pilo t school . Whil e a t RTC , the y as k

fo r an dreceiv e a

n IP C i n accordanc e with part 6 1 57(d ) an d simultaneousl y complet e RTC' s part 14 1 trainin g program .

III . CONCLUSIO N Th e Administrato r

allege s that

RT C ha s violate dFAR61.57(d ) becaus e that regulation , accordin g t o th e Administrator , require s a n Instrumen t

Proficienc y Chec k

t o consis t o f ALL th e TASK s containe di n th e Practical Tes t Standards , includin g circlin g approache s whic h canno t b e conducte di n RTC' s Fligh t Trainin g Devices . T o allo w th e Administrator' s interpretatio n t o b e

1 404/01/201 0 09:4 6 FAX 202493514 2 FA A ^ DM S i015/01 8

cogent , woul db e aki n t o an FARstatin g "a n applican t

mus t b e 1 7 year s o f

ag e t o tes t

fo r a n instrumen t

rating , whil e a

t th e same time, th e PT S statin g al l applicant s mus t demonstrat e the y ar c a t leas t 2 1 year s o f

ag e t o obtai n a

n instrumen t

rating" . T o hav e amor e restrictiv e interpretatio n applie db y wa y o f a n ambiguou s PT S i s illogical an dcontrar y t o th e rule s o f statutor y construction . RT C doe s no t

conten dtha

t i t i s equippe dt o conduc t

acirclin g approac h i n it s Fligh t Trainin g Device , RT C doe s contend , however , tha t not AL L o f th e TASK s containe di

n th e Instrumen t

Ratin g Practica l Tes t

Standard s are require dt o successfiill y complet e a n Instmmen t Proficienc y Check , RF C base s it s positio n firmly on th e plai n languag e o f FAR61,57(d) , whic h a t th e time o f

th e Instrumen t

Proficienc y Checks , allowe dth e instructo r t o choos e fro ma REPRESENTATrV E numbe r o f TASK s containe di n th e Instrumen t Ratin g Practica l Tes t Standards . Thi s plai n languag e interpretatio n i s fiirther supporte dby cas e la w regardin g statutor y coniJtruction . I n addition , th e FA A itsel f support s RTC' s positio n wit h document s authore dan dpublishe dby th e FA A whic h include :

• FA A Orde r

(emphasi s added ) 8900.1 , als o know n a s th e Fligh t Standard s Informatio n Managemen t

Syste mhandboo k

whic h clearl y state s tha

t a n IP C wil l "consis t

o f ON E O R ALL o f th e procedure s an dmaneuver s fromth e instrumen t pilo t practica l tes t

standard s (PTS). "

• Th e FA A ha s recenti y change dFA R61.57(d ) t o requir e al l o f th e TASK s containe di

n th e PT S b e complete dwhe n accomplishin g a n IPC . A chang e tiiat

woul db e uimecessar

y ha dth e instan t

versio n o f

th e FARhadth e sam e requirement .

1 504/01/201 0 09:4 6 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * OM S ©016/01 8

• Th e FAA' s ow n Advisor y Circula r 61-98 A whic h clearl y state s that a n instructo r

ha s "discretio n i

n selectin g appropriat e maneuver s an dprocedure s for th e competenc y check" .

• Th e FAA' s ow

n Lega l Inteiprctaiion Lette

r date dles s tha n one yea r ag o which clearl

y suite s tha t "approve dFTD s may b e use dt o mee t th e recen t

flight experienc e requirements , a s lon g a s agive n FTD i s approve dfor suc h trainin g andproficienc y check. " I n th e instan t

cajse , th e FAA ha s chose n t o ignor e th e plai n meanin g o f th e FAR' s an d thre e o f it s OAv n publication s i n orde r

t o alleg e aviolatio n o f

FAR61.57(d) . Th e cour

t i n Chevro n U.S.A. , Inc . v . Namra l Resource s Defens e Council , Inc . (46 7 U.S . 837 , 863 , (1984) ) state d"[a] n initial agenc y interpretatio n i s no t instantl y carve di n stone . O n th e contrary , th e agency , t o engag e i

n informe drulemaking , mus t consider varyin g interpretation s an dth e wisdo m o f it s polic y o n acontinuin g basis . Moreover , th e fact tha t th e agenc y ha s adopte ddifferent definition s in different

context s add s forc e t o th e argumen t tha t (h e definitio n itsel f

i s flexible, [...]. " Lastly , th e FAA allege s tha t th e IPC' s coul donl y b e conducte dwithi n th e scop e o f RTC' s trainin g program . Th e Administrator' s positio n o n thi s issu e i s contrar y to th e FAA' s ow n FSIM S Orde r

whic h expressl y provide s fo r th e combinin g o f

competenc y review s an dflight checks . Du e t o th e fac t

that th e FA Rha s bee n recenti y changed , an dRT C i s n o longe r conductin g IPC' s i n it s FTD's , thi s poin t o f la w ha s becom e moo t

bu t for th e loomin g civi l penalt

y facin g RTC . Nonetiieless , RT C di dhav e asoun dbasi s for conductin g IPC' s i n it s FTD s an d respectfiill y ask s thi s court t o dismis s thi s Complaint .

1 604/01/201 0 09:4 6 FA X 202483514 2 FA A ioTTTOT l

WHEREFORE , Responden t ask s thi s Court

t o gran t th e instan t

Motio n to r

Decisio n an d dismis s th e instan t

Complain t

i n it s entirety . Dated ; Marc h 23 , 201 0 Respectfiill y submiiied ,

Charle s R . Bamett , H

I BAKMET T LA W OFFICES , P.C . 166 4 Moorlan dLane Crystal Lake , Illinoi s 60014-298 5 (815)356-864 7 (815 ) 356-704 2 (FAX ) Attorne y fo r Responden t Recurren t Irainin g Center , Inc .

1 704/01/201 0 08:4 6 FAX 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 0018/01 8

CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E Th e undersigne dcertifie s that th e foregoin g Motio n for

Decisio n wa s serve dvi aCertifie d Mail , Retur

n Receip t Requeste da s follows :

ORIGINA L AND ON E COP Y Federal Aviatio n Administmtio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wright Building—Suit e 2W100 0 FAX : 202-493-514 2 ON E COP Y Brian aMartino , Complainant' s Counse l (jxea t Lake s Region , AGL-7 M Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 230 0 Eas t Devo n Avenu e De s Plaines , I

L 60018-469 6 TEL : 847-294-771 3 FAX : 847-294-749 8 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Admim.<,lrativ e La w .Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega

l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6 Date dthi s 23' " day o f

March , 2010 . :baile s R . Baniett , II I Attorne y fo

r Responden t

1 8