f^i^n^Rr^ ^ 

fl&c-3 

JUL 13 1977 

Hooorftble Parr«a S* JffitchcU 

HouBe of Eepre«^it&tlv*« 

Washlogtoiu IX C^ aoSlS 

D»&r Parrcat 

TMs is tn respoaee to yoor ioqulry of SSa^r 11* 1877. reqoftfftiag m« to 

invefiUgBte the maooer la vhlch Air* CardinsI lntemAticnial» Inc.. 1« 

being tre&ted by the Ftcleral Aviatitm AcbniiUstrfttloa (FAA), X have 

looked Into thl* matter woA can apprise jroa of the foUoviisg facta* 

Alra Cardixial Iatematlosial« £K, « a^^e d to the FAA reslooal of£tc« 

la U>8 Angles. CaUfomiai« lor a Cotnm«rciaI O^rator C«rtl£Lcatc 

<atiliziiig large aircraft) vsuier Part 121 of the Federal Aviation Begulatioiu (FAKs). AH applicants for audi certiQcates zauat demoostrate 

that thejr have enough qoalifiled peraounel aa fuU-tlme emplOTees and 

adequate equiponent and procedores to provide the highest degree of 

mifety in conducting operations* Aire Cardinal XntemationaU Inc.» 

met these requirements and the FAA issued the company a Part 121 

Comm^rdsl Operator CertUlcate and appr^rlate Operatlona SpedfleatlCBis on June &, 1976. The FABa also require Part 1X1 certlflcate 

holders to remain equipped uxid able to c«iduct <^rations vith the 

higheet degree oi safety* 

During September l$7d. Aire Cardinal intcmationalj lac , loot 

asccluslre control of its two Dooglaa ZX:*8 aircraft, ceased to employ 

required personnel on a full-time basLs^ and ceased operating. By 

letters dated September 10 and November t$ 1076, froon the FAA to 

Mr* Robert D* Powell, Prestdent* Aire Car^nal bttemational* lao«« 

the company was advised that It should surrender its Commercial 

Operator Certificate if it did not intend to resume operations immediately. By a telephtmd eall oa September 19* 1976^ and a letter dated 

Morember 1&» ie7fi« from Mr* Povell, the FAA was advised that Airs 

Cardinal Intematicntsl, Iac«» wa« secldng new operating capital; hov-

«ver« the Cwnmercial Operator Cartificate was Aot aorreadersd. 

\ 
/ J 

/ 

/ 

On Januar y 21 , 1977, a Notice wajs issued to Air e Cardinal International, 

Inc. , informing the company that the FAA proposed to revoke Its 

Commercia l Operator Certificate for yiolatlanB of Sectlonfl 121.155(c) 

and 121- 59(a) of the FARs. On March 8, 1977, anch an Orde r of ftevocation was Issued (copy enclosed). Air e Cardinal International, Inc. , ha s 

appealed the Orde r of Revocation to the National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB) and the cas e is presently awaiting a heajlng before an 

Administrative LAW Judge. We cannot agre e with a description of Air e 

Cardinal's apparent violations of the FARs aa %ase d upon technicalities. 

... " The requirement for a commercia l operator to have the exclusive 

u s e and control of a t least one aircraft focuses the responsibility upon 

the operator — to the excluaicsi of all othei ^ — to assur e that the aircraft 

receive s prope r maintenance and is kept in an airworthy condition. Th e 

requirement for a commercia l operator to retain key management and 

operaticms personne l a s full-time employees guards against the us e of 

imtrained and inexperienced management officials who have not been 

determined qualified to make important safety judgments. We view these 

regulatory requirements a s paramount safety considerations fully consistent with a commercia l operator's legal obUgation to conduct operations 

with the highest degree of safety. 

Air e Cardinal, through its counsel, filed a Motion with the NTSB to 

dismiss the FAA' B revocation action on grounds that the violations 

alleged wer e merel y technical iand raise d no issue of qualification o r 

safety. On May 11 , 1977, NTSB Administratiave La v Judge Patric k G. 

Geraghty Issued an Orde r denying the Motion to Dismiss (copy enclosed). 

In you r lette r you expressed concem about the procedure s which would 

permi t Aire Cardinal to resume (^erationB. Thei ^ ar e two alternative 

possibilities. If the Orde r of Revocation is affirmed by NTSB, Air e 

Cardinal will be required to apply for a new Part 121 Commercia l 

Operator Certificate. If Air e Cardinal is able to demonstrat e an 

ability to conduct operations in accordance with the safety requirements 

before this cas e is scheduled for hearing, the FAA will have the option 

of changing Its Orde r of Revocation to an Orde r of Suspension. This 

orde r coufi be made retroactive for the period of time that the company 

cease d operations. You must realiz e that a considerable period of 

time has elapsed since Air e Cardinal's last operations. It is our 

responsibUltf to assur e that they ar e presentl y qualified from a safety 

standpoint to operat e under Part 121. I understand that Air e Cardinal 

personne l ar e cooperating in this regar d and our people ar e making their 

best efforts. I ana certain you would agre e that Air e Cardinal should 

not be granted an exemptlcm from the application of the aviation safety 

regulations becaus e it happens to be a minority busineaa enterprise . 
I have hetii assured by the FAA that the rasmnptloa of operaticsis by 

Aire Cardinal laiemaUooal* faic.» as a Part 121 commercial operator* 

Is totally dependent sad cwotli^ent ooly apon that company** ability to 

B»eet the requirem«its of. and cooooply vith« the FARs. 

Sunild you have ftuther QuestioDs in this aaatter* please do not hesitate 

to contact m«« 

&iacaraiy. 

Brock Adams 

fbclosure^ 

BISelfon:AGC-l/Lawson:AHE-7:ct:x63775:5/31/77 

c c : kQZ-Xnn ^ 

AFS-1 

AQ4-3, AQA-3A, S-1/2/30, TGC, XAD, TCI, S-10 

feeC-l-*34 

•^• -