JEFFREY M. HARPER 

FAA OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL 

1601 LIND AVE., SW 

RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 

TELEPHONE: (425) 227-2161 

FACSIMILE: (425)227-1007 

RECEIVED 

AUG 1 5 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

Sky West Airlines, Inc. 

DMS No. FAA-2012-0868 

FAA Case No. 2011NM060073 

DMS No. FAA-2012-0869 

FAA Case No. 20 11NM060072 

DMS No. FAA-2012-0872 

FAA Case No. 2011NM060047 

DMS No. FAA-2012-0873 

FAA Case No. 2011NM060063 

DMS No. FAA-2012-0874 

FAA Case No. 2011NM060038 

DMS No. FAA-2012-0904 

FAA Case No. 2011NM060081 

DMS No. FAA-2013-0617 

FAA Case No. 2011NM060095 

DMS No. FAA-2013-0619 

FAA Case No. 2012NM060014 

Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Complainant's Rebuttal Brief 
1. Liability has been established: Respondent admits there were 

discrepancies, and therefore violated the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

Respondent concedes there were discrepancies between the records documenting the 

weight and balance of the flights at issue in these consolidated cases and the actual 

baggage and cargo loaded on the aircraft. Respondent's Post-Trial Brief, Page 5. 1 Since 

the Federal Aviation Regulations and Respondent's weight and balance program both 

require that the records documenting the weight and balance be based on the actual 

loading of the aircraft, Respondent impliedly concedes that the violations occurred. 

Despite having conceded the violations occurred, Respondent then claims "the rampers 

followed approved procedures." Respondent's Post-Trial Brief, Page 5. It is difficult to 

understand this argument, since the violations are based on the failure of Respondent's 

ground personnel to follow approved procedures. These failures indisputably occurred, as 

shown by the unrebutted testimony of Complainant's witnesses and Respondent's records 

that the actual loading of the aircraft conflict with Respondent's records. Complainant's 

Post-Trial Brief,=>2 Appendices A and B (citing to the record). 

However Respondent chooses to spin it, from the evidence--the unrebutted testimony of 

the FAA's witnesses regarding observations of the actual aircraft loading, and the exhibits 

of the Cargo Load Reports and load manifests-it is clear that Respondent committed the 

violations alleged. Complainant's Post-Trial Brief,=>~ 2. Respondent does not 

meaningfully challenge that conclusion, 3 

nor can it, given its characterization of these 

violations as "inescapable" stating they "will always occur." Respondent's Post-Trial 

Brief, Pages 10-11 and 38. 

1 "There is no dispute that the amounts of baggage ofiloaded from each ofthese flights differed from 

what was recorded on the flight crews' copies of the Cargo Load Reports (CLR)." 

2 A"=>" marks a hyper link to the cited document. 

3 Respondents asks, regarding Flight 4540 (March 3, 2011, Missoula to Salt Lake City), "Where was 

the violation?" It claims the station copy of the CLR shows there was no violation. 

Respondent's conclusion is contrary to the evidence. The revised station copy contains a different 

error which, had the station copy been used to calculate the cargo weight on the load manifest, would 

have resulted in an incorrect weight. Exhibit R-21; Tr. 196:4-197:11."" Whichever documents are 

considered more credible, there are inconsistencies which demonstrate that, as with all the other 

flights, Respondent failed to abide by its approved weight and balance program. 

Complainant's Post-Trial Brief 

In the Matters of Sky West Airlines, Inc. 

DMS Nos. FAA-2012-0868/ 0869/0872/0873/0874/ 

0904, -2013-0617/0619 

Page 2 of 12 

JEFFREYM. HARPER, FAAAITORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2161 

FAX: (425) 227-1007 
2. Complainant seeks a sanction that is reasonable and warranted. 

2.1. A significant safety risk is posed by these violations. 

An overwhelming amount of evidence proves that operating an aircraft with unknown 

weight and balance poses a significant safety risk. Tills evidence includes: 

• The testimony of Respondent's expert witness, Mr. Salamone, Tr. 282:7-

291 :3,-acknowledging: 

1. The effects of weight and balance on aircraft performance; 

2. Operation outside the center of gravity limits is "outside of manufacturer's 

design and approved envelope" and that therefore, one would need the testimony 

of "a test engineer of some type;" 

3. Respondent's pilots rely on the accuracy ofthe Cargo Load Report in preparing 

a flight's load manifest; 

4. Safe operation requires the weight and balance of the aircraft be within 

operating limitations; 

5. It is important to know the weight and balance of the aircraft is within the 

operation limitations before takeoff; 

• The testimony of Respondent's witness, Mr. Brown, a Certified Flight Instructor, 

Tr. 321:9-17,-admitting he would not endorse a solo flight for a student pilot 

who had not determined the weight and balance of the aircraft prior to departure; 

• FAA Weight & Balance Handbook, FAA-H-8083-1A =>-describing effects of 

weight and balance on aircraft performance; 

• The testimony of Complainant's expert witness, Mr. Andrew Ayers, Tr. 188:6-

189: 15,-testifying to the adverse aircraft performance that results from an 

overweight aircraft; 

• Respondent's Exhibit R-1-1, SP 4100, Chapter 4, ~ 1l.B-containing the warning: 

8 WARNING- INACCURATE LOADING, REPORTING, OR FAILURE 

TO REPORT INFORMATION COULD CAUSE ISSUES WITH 

AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE AND HANDLING, RESULTING IN THE 

ENDANGERMENT OF HUMAN LIFE. 

and; 

Complainant's Post-Trial Brief 

In the Matters of SkyWestAirlines, Inc. 

DMS Nos. FAA·2012·0868/ 0869/0872/0873/0874/ 

0904, ·2013·0617/ 0619 

Page 3 of 12 

JEFFREY M. HARPER, F AAArTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227·2161 

FAX: (425) 227-1007 
• The Complaints and Answers in each of these eight cases, see, e.g.DMS 

No. FAA-2012-0869, Complaint""~ II.lO,Answer"" ~ II.lO--alleging and 

admitting the "INACCURATE LOADING ... " warning is in its manual. 

Despite this crush of evidence, Respondent attempts to characterize its violations of 

safety regulations as being de minimus,4 because the FAA permits the use of average . 

weights. Respondent's Post-Trial Brief, Page 11. Respondent notes that, despite its 

regulatory violations, its aircraft all fortuitously remained within their weight and balance 

operating limitations. Respondent's Post-Trial Brief, Pages 14-29 (citing to testimony of 

Mr. Salamon and Exhibit R-3-2 passim). 

What Respondent's argument fails to acknowledge is that a fatal aircraft accident is not a 

prerequisite to the imposition of a sanction, and the absence of such an accident is not 

cause for lenience. Respondent cites no authority for the proposition that a civil penalty is 

unwarranted in the absence of actual harm. The rule is not that the absence of actual harm 

is mitigating-the rule is the presence of actual harm is aggravating. See, e.g., In the 

Matter of M & R Helicopters, LLC, DMS No. FAA-2010-1211, Initial Decision"' at 5 

(June 18, 2012) (Finding lack of operation of an aircraft under Part 135 following 

maintenance by an individual not subjected to drug testing was "a fortuitous 

circumstance") aff'dFAA Order 2013-4"" (September 5, 2013); In the Matter of Texas 

Army National Guard, DMS No. FAA-2009-1045, Initial Decision"" at 5 (May 20, 2011) 

(failure of hazardous material shipped in violation of hazardous materials regulations to 

ignite is "fortuitous" not mitigating) aff'd FAA Order 2012-3"" (May 22, 2012); FAA 

Order 2150.3B,"" Chapter 7, Paragraph 4.e.l ("And it is not mitigating when a violation 

does not result in actual harm; that is simply fortuitous."). 

Respondent further argues that FAA Advisory Circular (AC) l20-27E"" permits a 2% 

margin of error. Respondent's Post-Trial Brief, Pages 11-12.5 A review of AC l20-27E 

shows Respondent misrepresents its contents. 

The figure "two percent" ("2%") appears inAC 120-27E in three places. 6 In each 

location, the figure appears in the context of weight surveys: when the FAA will resurvey 

to determine new average weights, when an air carrier with a survey weight program can 

revert to using average weights, and the minimum sample size for a weight survey. 

Respondent does not use survey weights; they use an average weight program, so these 

4 Respondent's Post-Trial Brief, Page 2, Table of Contents. 

5 "Here, none oftbe flights at issue exceeded the 2% margin specified in the Advisory Circular." 6 Page iii, 'I[ 7; Page 23, Table 2-4; Page 27, 'If 216. 

Complainant's Post-Trial Brief 

In the Matters ofSkyWestAirlines, Inc. 

DMS Nos. FAA-2012-0868/ 0869/0872/ 0873/0874/ 

0904, -2013-0617/0619 

Page 4 ofl2 

lEFFREYM. HARPER, FAAAITORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2161 

FAX: (425) 227-1007 
provisions are inapplicable to Respondent. 7 Exhibit R-1-1, SP 4100, Chapter 3, 

Paragraph 5 ("Standard Average Weights A. Table 1 shows the average weights used in 

the Sky West Airlines Weight and Balance Program. A description of these standard 

average weights is found in FAAAC 120-27"). None of the provisions authorizes the 2% 

error in baggage loading Respondent claims. 

Respondent offered Exhibit R-4, 8 allegedly showing Delta's weight and balance program 

provides for the regulatory relief Respondent seeks-presumably to show that if Delta 

can do it, Respondent should be able to do it too. Exhibit R-4 is irrelevant; Respondent is 

required to abide by its weight and balance program, not to pick and choose isolated 

provisions from the programs of other air carriers it likes best.9 

Respondent argues it deserves a mitigated sanction by claiming the violations bore 

minimal safety risk-an argument it can only make by contorting the law, the evidence, 

and logic. On the contrary, Respondent's violations reflect a serious safety risk, which 

warrant the sanction sought by Complainant for the reasons described in paragraph 3.3.2 

of its Post-Trial Brief."" 

2.2. Respondent's failure to implement aspects of its proposed weight and balance 

manual revisions which were within its control indicates Respondent is focused 

on the bottom line, not on safety. 

Respondent argues that it is entitled to a revision to its weight and balance program which 

would allow it a baggage tolerance. Respondent's Post-Trial Brief, Section V. 

Respondent requested a revision to its weight and balance program which would allow a 

margin of error. Exhibit R-5-1. Respondent's request, however, was rejected, in part 

because, in the view of the Certificate Management Office, the request did not comply 

7 AC 120-27E lists four ways for an operator to determine the weight of passengers and bags: 

1. Standard Average Weights (based on survey's performed by the FAA), 2. Average Weights Based on 

Survey Results (survey weights, survey performed by operator), 3. Segmented Passenger Weights 

(under which baggage weight is calculated using either standard average bag weights or actual 

weights), and Actual Weight. AC 120.27E, Pages 17-30, n 201-222. Of these four options, 

Respondent uses Standard Average Weights (hased on FAA survey), not Survey Weights (hased on 

Respondent's survey). As Respondent uses Standard Average Weights, the only party to this case to 

whom the 2% figure applies is Complainant. 

8 Exhibit R-4 was admitted over Complainant's objection. 

9 Even if Exhibit R-4 were relevant, it carries zero weight. The exhibit is facially incomplete, 

consisting of only two pages labeled "5.6.10" and "5.6.11; "Respondent's witness testified it was 

incomplete. Tr."" 320:12-321 :2. What the rest of the document might say that might inform the 

Court's understanding of the provisions Respondent cites is unknown. Nor did the foundation for the 

exhibit establish its currency. Tr."" 308:19-310:3. 

Complainant's Post-Trial Brief 

In the Matters of Sky West Airlines, Inc. 

DMS Nos. FAA-2012-0868/ 0869/0872/0873/0874/ 

0904, -2013-0617/0619 

Page 5 of 12 

JEFFREY M. llARPER, F AAAITORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2161 

FAX: (425) 227-1007 
with 14 C.F.R. § 121.693(a). Exhibit R-5-3, ~.1. 10 The record shows that Respondent did 

not seek review of this conclusion by submitting a Part 11 petition for exemption. 

Respondent's Post-Trial Brief, Page 30.11 

Nor did Respondent "resubmitO its proposal to add a specified amount of weight to the 

basic operating weight of each aircraft." Respondent's Post-Trial Brief, Page 31. 

Respondent claims doing so would be "meaningless, as Complainant states that even this 

would not have excused it from baggage miscount violations." Id Resubmitting the 

proposal is only meaningless if Respondent's goal is to gain regulatory immunity. Viewed 

from a safety perspective, however, Respondent would have realized the purported gains 

to safety it claims its proposal would have provided-by prospectively dispatching its 

aircraft using a weight and balance envelope that accounts for the specified error. 

Respondent's failure to resubmit its proposal without the provisions that would exculpate 

its violations is further evidence that the purpose of its original proposal was not to 

improve safety, but to improve Respondent's bottom line-by gaining regulatory 

immunity from its pervasive and ongoing failures to follow its approved weight and 

balance program. 

In a footnote, Respondent asserts that any suggestion Respondent should consider 

"'delaying departures' ... reflects a substantial lack of awareness oftoday's airline 

operating environment." Respondent's Post-Trial Brief, Page 35, Footnote 36. It claims 

there is "no evidence that [delaying departures] would be feasible or effective."12 This 

claim fails. Respondent argues its violations should be mitigated because they arise as the 

result of "inescapable human factors." Respondent's Post-Trial Brief, Pages 10-11. One 

10 "Under Sky West's proposal, the load manifest would not comply with 14 CFR § 121.693(a), even if 

the airplane were loaded correctly, because of the built-in 'error."' 

11 Respondent misrepresents Complainant's argument by stating Complainant "erroneously 

characterizes Sky West's communications with the FAA as a request for exemption," citing 

Complainant's Post-Trial BrieF at 22-23. A cursory read of that portion of the brief shows 

Complainant is arguing the exact opposite: "3.4.1.1. There is no evidence Respondent requested an 

exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 121.693 .... Despite the availability of this process [Part II petition for 

exemption], there is no evidence in the record that Respondent ever requested an exemption from 

121.693." 

12 In support ofthis claim, Respondent argues that it only handles its own ground handling in 20--30% 

of its operations, the remainder being handled under contract with its codeshare partners. Exhibit R-9 

details which partner handled baggage loading for which flights. From a regulatory standpoint, 

however, Respondent is, as it always has been, I 00% responsible for its ground handling. Whether a 

particular function is performed in-house or contracted out, Respondent remains responsible for the 

acts or omissions of its agents. In the Matter ofUSAir, Inc., FAA Order No. 1992-70"" at 4 

(December 17, 1992). Any argument to the contrary speaks to a deficient compliance attitude, 

warranting a higher sanction. Complainant's Post-Trial Brief, 1]3.4.5. 

Complainant's Post~ Trial Brief 

In the Matters of Sky West Airlines, Inc. 

DMS Nos. FAA-2012-08681 0869/0872/087310874/ 

0904, -2013-061710619 

Page 6 of 12 

JEFFREYM. HARPER, FAAA:rTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2161 

FAX: (425) 227-1007 
of those factors, which Respondent ignores, 13 is the time pressure faced by ground 

handling personnel. Tr."" 410:22-411:1,436:18-437:2. Ramp personnel face pressure to 

get aircraft "turned around" quickly. Tr."" 215:15-19. 

If, as Respondent argues, the hostile14 environment of the ramp is a human factor which 

"inescapabl[y]" causes these violations, 15 and if, as the record shows, one aspect of that 

hostile environment is pressure to get aircraft turned around quickly, then it is reasonable 

to conclude reducing time pressure by delaying departures or allowing more time for 

aircraft to be turned around wonld reduce the errors. Respondent has declined to do so. 

Instead, Respondent asks this Court to mitigate the sanction for human factors reasons, 

while expecting the Court to excuse its failure, for economic reasons, to remove one of 

those human factors from the equation. 

While many words were spilled at the hearing on the subject of Respondent's safety 

culture, 16 the actions Respondent chose to take or not take drown them out. As a business, 

Respondent exists to make a profit for its shareholders, and the actions Respondent has 

taken in these cases indicate it is motivated by those financial, not safety, concerns. 

2.3. Contrary to Respondent's assertions, it has taken no meaningful corrective 

action. 

Finally, Respondent claims its "corrective action" warrants mitigation. Respondent's 

Post-Trial Brief, Section VI. This claim has already been debunked. Complainant's PostTrial Brief, Pages 24-28. 

To be mitigating, a Respondent must show its action swiftly and comprehensively 

corrected the violations. In the Matter of Sevens Paint & Wallpaper Co., FAA Order 

No. 2001-6"" at 5-6 (May 16, 2001). Respondent's efforts have failed on every prong: 

13 Respondent's Post-Trial Brief, Page 42 ("The aircraft ramp presents a challenging environmentnoise, vibration, temperature swings, distractions, psychological, social, biological and other factors 

that come into play that can alter and limit human performance," excluding time pressure from the 

extensive list.) 

14 Tr."" 410:20-22 ("[Q:] And, is the ramp a relatively hostile environment? [A:] Yes ... "). 

15 Respondent's Post-Trial Brief, Pages 10-11; Respondent's Post-Trial Brief, Page 41 ("A miscount is 

not necessarily the result of lack of training, but is rather the product of human factors and the ramp 

environment.") 

16 See. e.g., Tr."" 442:10-21 and 444:10-11 (testimony of Ms. Aiken). 

Complainant's Post-Trial Brief 

In the Matters of Sky West Airlines, Inc. 

DMS Nos. FAA-2012-0868/ 0869/0872/0873/0874/ 

0904, -2013-0617/0619 

Page 7 of12 

JEFFREY M. HARPER, F AAAITORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2161 

FAX: (425) 227-1007 
1. Its efforts failed to correct the violations-violations are continuing to occur.17 

2. ·Its efforts were not swift; 18 

3. Its efforts were not comprehensive. 19 

As a result, its efforts warrant no mitigation. 

2.4. The law, and FAA policy, when applied to these facts, warrant a substantial 

penalty. 

Respondent asks "The only question is how much should it cost when it [regulatory 

violations] inevitably happen.''20 Respondent's Post-Trial Brief, Page 11. The question 

this Court should answer is "What will it take to induce [Respondent] to comply?" DMS 

No. FAA-2009-0180, Initial Decision, 2009 WL 4796753 (December 11, 2009), aff'd 

FAA Order 2012-2"" (May 22, 2012). 

Prior, smaller, sanctions have not had an adequate deterrent effect. Complainant's PostTrial Brief,""~ 3.3.5 and Appendix D; Motion for Judicial Notice,"" Exhibits 5-10; DMS 

No. FAA-2011-0485, Initial Decision"" (May 2, 2013); DMS No. FAA-2011-0486, Order 

Granting In Part Complainant's Motion for Decision"" (December 2, 2011); DMS 

No. FAA-2011-0779, Initial Decision"" (May 2, 2013). Thus, at a minimum, an adequate 

sanction would be greater than in those cases. 

Respondent's violations may have an adverse effect on safe operation. Complainant's 

Post-Trial Brief,""~ 3.3.2; supra~ 3.1. Respondent has a lengthy history of violations of 

this type. Complainant's Post-Trial Brief,""~ 3.3.5 and Appendix D. Each flight involved 

17 See, e.g., Tr. 423: 1--{i ("[Q:] ... Isn't it true that those audits show that there is still an issue with 

weight and balance, these sorts of issues on [Sky West] aircraft today? [A:] There are errors that do 

occur, that's correct.'' 

18 See, e.g., Motion for Judicial Notice,"" Exhibit 5 (First cited violation occurring on 

December 5, 2008); Exhibit R-6-1 (first attempt at corrective action taking place 7 months later in 

July 2009). 

19 The record shows Respondent failed to take steps to address causes of the violations within its 

control, such as the time pressure faced by ramp personnel. See paragraph 2.2. 

2

° Complainant sets aside the question of whether these violations are "inevitable" or merely ones 

which Respondent would prefer not to continue expending resources on to remedy. That is an open 

question, in light of Respondent's failure to take steps to address the time pressure that contributes to 

the "hostile ramp environment" that is within Respondent's ability to eliminate by adjusting its flight 

schedule. See paragraph 2.2. 

Complainant's Post-Trial Brief 

In the Matters of Sky West Airlines, Inc. 

DMS Nos. FAA-2012-0868/ 0869/0872/0873/0874/ 

0904,-2013-0617/0619 

Page 8 of 12 

JEFFREY M. HARPER, F AAAITORNEY 

TEL: (425)227-2161 

FAX: (425) 227-1007 
multiple violations.21 Complainant's Post-Trial Brief,""~ 3.3.3. Despite its protestations 

to the contrary, Respondent's actions indicate it is more focused on the bottom line than 

on achieving the level of safety required by aviation regulations. Paragraph 2.2, above. 

Respondent argues Complainant's arguments use "evidentiary-lacking horrifies." 

Respondent's Post-Trial Brief, Page 28, Footnote 26. Respondent's contention is fanciful, 

as shown by the evidence in the record: 

Claim Evidence in the Record 

" ... Sky West operated See, e.g. DMS No. FAA-2012-0869, Answer""',~ III.l5 

aircraft ... " ("In response to Paragraph 15, Sky West admits it 

operated N744SK as Flight 1160 to COS"); other 

Answers admitting to operation of flights alleged. 

" ... without knowing See, e.g., DMS No. FAA-2012-0869, Answer"",~ III.12 

what was aboard ... " ("In response to Paragraph 12, Sky West is without 

sufficient information or knowledge from which to form 

a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Sky West's 

personnel at IAH loaded 3 5 standard checked bags onto 

N744SK, and therefore denies same"); other Answers 

denying alleged loading of aircraft on grounds that it is 

without sufficient information or belief. 

" ... thereby 

endangering the lives 

of some 750 

people ... " 

Exhibits C-2, -4, -6, -9,-12,-14,-17,-19,-22,-25,-28,-

30, -33, and -35 (Load manifests documenting the 

number of passengers aboard the flights) (summarized in 

Complainant's Post-Trial Brief,"" Appendix D). 

21 Respondent conflates operation as an air carrier with operation of an aircraft. Respondent's PostTrial Brief, Page 9, Footnote 8. On the contrary, air carriers operate as air carriers in many regulated 

ways that do not involve flight, e.g. performing maintenance (Part 121, Subpart L), training of flight 

and ground personnel (Subpart N), dispatching flights (Subpart U), keeping records (Subpart V), and 

loading baggage (121.693). 

Complainant's Post-Trial Brief 

In the Matters of Sky West Airlines, Inc. 

DMS Nos. FAA-2012-0868/ 0869/0872/0873/0874/ 

0904, -2013-0617/ 0619 

Page 9 of 12 

JEFFREYM.IlARPER, FAAAITORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2161 

FAX: (425) 227-1007 
Claim 

" .. .ignoring potential 

safety hazards 

affecting aircraft 

performance ... " 

" ... that Sky West's 

operations were 

tantamount to 'test 

flights ... "' 

" ... Sky West continues 

to operate aircraft 

without knowing their 

correct weight and 

balance ... " 

" ... violations are 

occurring even 

now ... " 

Evidence in the Record 

See, e.g., Tr. 282:7-291:3=> (testimony of Respondent's 

expert acknowledging potential safety hazards of 

unknown weight and balance) FAA Weight & Balance 

Handbook, FAA-H-8083-1A =>(effects of weight and 

balance on aircraft performance); Tr. 188:6-189: 15=> 

(testimony of complainant's expert regarding safety 

hazards of unknown weight and balance); Exhibit R -1-1, 

SP 4100, Chapter 4, ~ ll.B (warning inaccurate weight 

and balance could result in endangerment of human life). 

Tr.=> 285:16-286:17 (testimony of Respondent's expert 

that opining on effects of weight and balance outside 

aircraft operating envelope would require a "test engineer 

' of some type," thereby implying such a flight would be a 

test flight). 

Tr.""' 423:11-423:6 (testimony of Respondent's witness 

Mr. Barclay "[Q:] Isn't it true that those audits show that 

there is still an issue with weight and balance, these sorts 

of issues on [SkyWest] today? [A:] There are errors that 

do occur, that's correct."i2 

I d. 

Contrary to Respondent's claims, Complainant's arguments have ample evidentiary 

support. In light of all of these aggravating factors, a sanction of $40,000 per each of the 

14 flights is warranted, as explained in Complainant's Post-Trial Brief, Paragraph 3. 

22 Inexplicably, Respondent reads into tbis testimony tbe exact opposite meaning, averring tbat it 

supports tbe proposition that claiming "violations are occurring even now" is "outlandish." 

Respondent Post-Trial Brief, Page 28, Footnote 26. Errors in baggage counts imply a breach of 

Respondent's weight and balance program, so the fact that errors continue to occnr means violations 

are as well. 

Complainant's Post-Trial Brief 

In the Matters of Sky West Airlines, Inc. 

DMS Nos. FAA-2012-0868/ 0869/0872/0873/0874/ 

0904,-2013-0617/0619 

Page 10 of 12 

lEFFREVM.IlARPER, FAAA:rTORNEV 

TEL: (425) 227-2161 

FAX: (425) 227-1007 
3. Conclusion 

Respondent admits committing these violations. Yet Respondent still seeks to avoid 

meaningful consequences from placing the lives of over 750 members of the flying public 

at risk by asking this Court to impose, at most, a de minimus sanction. Respondent didn't 

know the weight of the aircraft (calculated using approved procedures) before the flights, 

after the flights, or even now. See, e.g., DMS No. FAA-2012-0869, Answer,"",, 1223 

and 14?4 

Complainant's requested sanction is neither arbitrary nor capricious; it comports with the 

Administrator's published Sanction Guidance, and is grounded in law and the facts of this 

case-including previous cases involving this Respondent that failed to have an adequate 

deterrent effect. 

Complainant respectfully requests an Initial Decision finding the violations occurred and 

imposing the total $560,000 sought by Complainant. 

Respectfully submitted this 11th day of August, 2014. 

23 "In response to Paragraph 12, Sky West is without sufficient information or knowledge from which 

to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Sky West's personnel at IAH loaded 36 standard 

checked bags onto N744SK, and therefore denies same." 

24 "In response to Paragraph 14, Sky West is without sufficient information or knowledge from which 

to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that the inaccurate data on the CLR was used to 

construct the A CARS load manifest for Flight 1160, and therefore denies the same." 

Complainant's Post-Trial Brief 

In the Matters of Sky West Airlines, Inc. 

DMS Nos. FAA-2012-0868/ 0869/0872/0873/0874/ 

0904, -2013·0617/0619 

Page 11 of 12 

JEFFREY M. HARPER, F AAArTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227·2161 

FAX: (425) 227-1007 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Complainant's Rebuttal Brief has been served via email 

and Certified Mail- Return Receipt this date, to the following: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: (202) 366-2139 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

richard.goodwin@dot.gov 

Todd Emerson, Esq. 

Sky West Airlines 

444 South River Road 

St. George, UT 84790 

TEL: (435) 634-3530 

FAX: (435) 634-3505 

temerson@skywest.com 

Michael Dworkin, Esq. 

Michael L. Dworkin and Associates 

465 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

TEL: (415) 421-2500 

FAX: (435) 421-2560 

mdworkin@avialex.com 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Complainant's Post Trial Brief has been served 

Certified Mail- Return Receipt and facsimile this date, to the following: 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue Southwest 

Washington, DC 20591 

FAX: (202) 493-5142 

Dated this 11th day of August, 20 14><:7 

//·> ~ ~ ,' 1/:.....l' ~Cu vc...c-~ TerriE Kirk 

Office of Regional .Counsel (ANM-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

(425) 227-2007