JEFFREY

### M. HARPER FAAOFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL 1601 LINDAVE., SW RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 TELEPHONE: (425) 227-2161 FACSIMILE: (425)227-1007 

# RECEIVED
AUG 15 2014 HEARING DOCKET UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Inthe Matter of: SkyWestAirlines, 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 FAACase No. 2011NM060047 DMS No. FAA-2012-0873 FAA Case No. 2011NM060063 DMS No. FAA-2012-0874 FAA CaseNo. 2011NM060038 DMS No. FAA-2012-0904 FAACaseNo. 2011NM060081 DMS No. FAA-2013-0617 FAACaseNo. 2011NM060095 DMS No. FAA-2013-0619 FAACase 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 ofthe flights at issue inthese consolidated cases and the actual baggage and cargo loaded onthe aircraft. Respondent's Post-Trial Brief, Page 5. 1 Since the FederalAviation Regulations and Respondent's weight and balance program both require that the records documenting the weight and balance be based on the actual loading ofthe 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. Itis difficult to understand this argument, since the violations are based onthe failure ofRespondent's ground personnel to follow approved procedures. These failures indisputably occurred, as shown by the unrebutted testimony ofComplainant's witnesses and Respondent's records thatthe actual loading ofthe aircraft conflictwith 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 ofthe actual aircraft loading, and the exhibits ofthe 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 ofthese 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 ofbaggage ofiloaded from each ofthese flights differed from what was recorded onthe flight crews' copies ofthe Cargo Load Reports (CLR)." 2 A"=>" marks a hyper link to the cited document. 3 Respondents asks, regarding Flight 4540 (March 3, 2011, Missoulato Salt Lake City), "Where was the violation?" It claims the station copy ofthe 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 onthe 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 ofSkyWestAirlines, 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 ofevidence proves that operating an aircraft with unknown weight and balance poses a significant safety risk. Tills evidence includes:

• The testimony ofRespondent's expert witness, 

### Mr. Salamone, Tr. 282:7- 291 :3,-acknowledging:
1. The effects ofweight and balance on aircraft performance; 2. Operation outside the center ofgravity limits is "outside ofmanufacturer's design and approved envelope" and that therefore, one would need the testimony of"atest engineer ofsome type;" 3. Respondent's pilots rely onthe accuracy ofthe Cargo Load Report inpreparing
a flight's load manifest; 4. Safe operation requires the weight and balance ofthe aircraft be within operating limitations; 5. It is importantto knowthe weight and balance ofthe aircraft is withinthe operation limitations before takeoff;

• The testimony ofRespondent's witness, 

### Mr. Brown, a Certified Flight Instructor, Tr. 321:9-17,-admittinghe would not endorse a solo flight for a studentpilot who had not determined the weight and balance ofthe aircraft prior to departure;

• FAAWeight & Balance Handbook, FAA-H-8083-1A=>-describing effects of weight and balance on aircraft performance;

• The testimony ofComplainant's expert witness, 

### Mr. AndrewAyers, Tr. 188:6- 189: 15,-testifyingto the adverse aircraft performance that results from an overweight aircraft;

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

# 8 WARNING- INACCURATE LOADING, REPORTING, OR FAILURE TO REPORT INFORMATION COULD CAUSE ISSUES WITH AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCEAND HANDLING, RESULTING IN THE ENDANGERMENT OF HUMAN LIFE. and;

Complainant's Post-Trial Brief Inthe Matters ofSkyWestAirlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA·2012·0868/ 0869/0872/0873/0874/ 0904, ·2013·0617/ 0619 Page 3 of 12 JEFFREYM. HARPER, FAAArTORNEY TEL: (425) 227·2161 FAX: (425) 227-1007• The Complaints andAnswers in each ofthese eight cases, 

### see, e.g.DMS No. FAA-2012-0869,**Complaint""~** II.lO,Answer""**~** II.lO--alleging and admitting the "INACCURATE LOADING

..." warning is inits manual. Despite this crush ofevidence, Respondent attempts to characterize its violations of safety regulations as being 

### de minimus, 4because the FAApermits the use ofaverage
. weights. Respondent's Post-Trial Brief, Page 11. Respondent notes that, despite its regulatory violations, its aircraft all fortuitously remained within their weight andbalance 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 ofa sanction, and the absence ofsuch an accident is not
cause for lenience. Respondent cites no authority for the proposition that a civil penalty is unwarranted in the absence ofactual harm. The rule is not that the absence ofactual harm is mitigating-the rule is the presence ofactual harm is aggravating. 

### See, e.g., In the Matter ofM & 

### R Helicopters, LLC, DMS No. FAA-2010-1211, Initial Decision"' at 5 (June 18, 2012) (Finding lack ofoperation ofan aircraft under Part 135 following maintenance by an individual not subjected to drug testing was "afortuitous circumstance") 

### aff'dFAAOrder 2013-4"" (September 5, 2013); 

### In the Matter of Texas ArmyNational Guard, DMS No. FAA-2009-1045, Initial Decision"" at 5 (May 20, 2011) (failure ofhazardous material shipped in violation ofhazardous materials regulations to ignite is "fortuitous" not mitigating) 

### aff'dFAA Order 2012-3"" (May 22, 2012); FAA Order 2150.3B,"" Chapter 7, Paragraph 4.e.l ("And it is notmitigating when a violation does not result in actual harm; that is simply fortuitous."). Respondent further argues that FAAAdvisory Circular (AC) l20-27E"" permits a 2% margin oferror. Respondent's Post-Trial Brief, Pages 11-12.5A review ofAC l20-27E shows Respondent misrepresents its contents.
The figure "two percent" ("2%") appears inAC 120-27E inthree places. 6 In each location, the figure appears in the context ofweight 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 weightprogram, so these

4 Respondent's Post-Trial Brief, Page 2, Table ofContents. 5 "Here, none oftbe flights at issue exceeded the 2% margin specified in theAdvisory 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) 227-1007provisions are inapplicable to Respondent. 7 Exhibit R-1-1, SP 4100, Chapter 3, Paragraph 5 ("StandardAverage Weights A. Table 1 shows the average weights used in the SkyWest Airlines Weight and Balance Program.A description ofthese standard average weights is found inFAAAC 120-27"). None ofthe provisions authorizes the 2%
error inbaggage loading Respondent claims. Respondent offered Exhibit R-4, 8 allegedly showing Delta's weight andbalance program provides for the regulatory reliefRespondent seeks-presumably to showthat ifDelta
can do it, Respondent should be able to do it too. Exhibit R-4 is irrelevant; Respondent is required to abide by its weight andbalance program, notto pick and choose isolated provisions from the programs ofother 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. Onthe contrary, Respondent's violations reflect a serious safety risk, which warrantthe sanction sought by Complainantfor the reasons described inparagraph 3.3.2 ofits Post-Trial Brief.""



### 2.2. Respondent's failure to implement aspects ofits 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 oferror. Exhibit R-5-1. Respondent's request, however, was rejected, in part because, in the view ofthe Certificate Management Office, the request did not comply

7 AC 120-27E lists four ways for an operator to determine the weight ofpassengers and bags: 1. StandardAverage 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. Ofthese four options, Respondent uses StandardAverage Weights (hased on FAA survey), not Survey Weights (hased on Respondent's survey). As Respondent uses StandardAverage 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 ifExhibit R-4 were relevant, it carries zero weight. The exhibit is facially incomplete, consisting ofonly two pages labeled "5.6.10" and "5.6.11; "Respondent's witness testified it was incomplete. Tr."" 320:12-321 :2. Whatthe rest ofthe document might say that might inform the Court's understanding ofthe 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 ofSkyWestAirlines, 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 seekreview ofthis 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 ofweight to the basic operating weight ofeach 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 itfrom baggage miscount violations." Id 

### Resubmitting the proposal is only meaningless ifRespondent'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 aircraftusing 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 ofits original proposal was notto 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 ofawareness 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 claimfails. 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 SkyWest's proposal, the load manifest would not comply with 14 CFR § 

### 121.693(a), even if the airplane were loaded correctly, because ofthe built-in 'error."' 11 

### Respondent misrepresents Complainant's argument by stating Complainant "erroneously characterizes SkyWest's communications with the FAA as arequest for exemption," citing Complainant's Post-Trial BrieF at 22-23. Acursory read ofthatportion ofthe briefshows 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 ofthis process [Part II petition for exemption], there is no evidence in the record thatRespondent everrequested an exemption from 121.693." 12 

### In support ofthis claim, Respondent argues that it only handles its own ground handling in 20--30% ofits operations, the remainder being handled under contract with its codeshare partners. Exhibit R-9 details which partnerhandled baggage loading for which flights. From aregulatory standpoint, however, Respondent is, as it always has been, I00% responsible for its ground handling. Whether a particular function is performed in-house or contracted out, Respondentremains responsible for the acts or omissions ofits 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 ahigher sanction. Complainant's Post-Trial Brief, 1]3.4.5. Complainant's**Post~**Trial Brief In the Matters ofSkyWestAirlines, 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) 227-1007ofthose 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 ofthe ramp is a human factor which "inescapabl[y]" causes these violations, 15 and if, as the record shows, one aspect ofthat 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 beturned around wonld reduce the errors. Respondenthas 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 ofRespondent'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 inthese 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 ("Amiscount is not necessarily the result oflack oftraining, but is rather the product ofhuman factors and the ramp environment.") 16 See. e.g., Tr."" 442:10-21 and 444:10-11 (testimony ofMs. Aiken). Complainant's Post-Trial Brief Inthe Matters ofSkyWest 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) 227-10071. 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 "Whatwill it take to induce [Respondent] to comply?" DMS No. FAA-2009-0180, Initial Decision, 2009 WL 4796753 (December 11, 2009), 

### aff'd FAAOrder 2012-2"" (May 22, 2012). Prior, smaller, sanctions have not had an adequate deterrent effect. Complainant's PostTrial**Brief,""~** 3.3.5 andAppendix 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 ofviolations 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 ofissues on [SkyWest] 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 actiontaking place 7 months later in July 2009). 19 The record shows Respondent failed to take steps to address causes ofthe violations within its control, such as the time pressure faced byramp personnel. See paragraph2.2. 2

# °

Complainant sets aside the question ofwhether 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 ofRespondent'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 ofSkyWestAirlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA-2012-0868/ 0869/0872/0873/0874/ 0904,-2013-0617/0619 Page 8 of 12 JEFFREY M. HARPER, FAAAITORNEY TEL: (425)227-2161 FAX: (425) 227-1007multiple violations. 21 Complainant's Post-Trial

### Brief,""~ 3.3.3. Despite its protestations to the contrary, Respondent's actions indicate it is more focused onthe bottom line than
on achieving the level ofsafety required by aviationregulations. 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 shownby the evidence in the record:
Claim Evidence inthe Record "

...SkyWest operated 

### See, e.g. DMS No. FAA-2012-0869,**Answer""',~** III.l5 aircraft

..." ("In response to Paragraph 15, SkyWest admits it operated N744SK as Flight 1160 to COS"); other Answers admitting to operation offlights alleged.
"

... without knowing 

### See, e.g., DMS No. FAA-2012-0869,**Answer"",~** III.12 what was aboard

..." ("In response to Paragraph 12, SkyWest is without sufficient information or knowledge from which to form
a beliefas to the truth ofthe allegation that SkyWest's personnel at IAH loaded 3 5 standard checked bags onto N744SK, andtherefore denies same"); otherAnswers denying alleged loading ofaircraft on grounds that 

### itis without sufficient information orbelief.
"

...thereby endangering the lives ofsome 750 people

..." Exhibits C-2, -4, -6, -9,-12,-14,-17,-19,-22,-25,-28,- 30, -33, and -35 (Load manifests documenting the number ofpassengers aboard the flights) (summarized in Complainant's Post-Trial Brief,"" Appendix D).

21 Respondent conflates operation as an air carrier with operation ofan aircraft. Respondent's PostTrial Brief, Page 9, Footnote 8. On the contrary, air carriers operate as air carriers inmany regulated ways that do notinvolve flight, e.g. performing maintenance (Part 121, Subpart L), training offlight and ground personnel (Subpart N), dispatching flights (Subpart U), keeping records (Subpart V), and loading baggage (121.693). Complainant's Post-Trial Brief Inthe Matters ofSkyWestAirlines, 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) 227-1007Claim "

...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 inthe Record 

### See, e.g., Tr. 282:7-291:3=> (testimony ofRespondent's expert acknowledging potential safety hazards of unknown weight and balance) FAAWeight & Balance Handbook, FAA-H-8083-1A =>(effects ofweight and balance on aircraft performance); Tr. 188:6-189: 15=> (testimony ofcomplainant's expert regarding safety hazards ofunknown weight and balance); Exhibit R-1-1, SP 4100, Chapter 4,**~** ll.B (warning inaccurate weight and balance could result in endangerment ofhuman life).
Tr.=> 285:16-286:17 (testimony ofRespondent's expert that opining on effects ofweight and balance outside aircraft operating envelope would require a "test engineer 

### ' ofsome type," thereby implying such a flight wouldbe a test flight).
Tr.""' 423:11-423:6 (testimony ofRespondent's witness Mr. Barclay "[Q:] Isn't it true that those audits showthat there is still an issue with weight and balance, these sorts ofissues 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 ofall ofthese aggravating factors, a sanction of$40,000per each ofthe 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 evennow" 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 Inthe Matters ofSkyWestAirlines, 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 ofover 750 members ofthe flying public atrisk by asking this Courtto impose, at most, a de minimus sanction. Respondent didn't knowthe weight ofthe 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 ofthis case-includingprevious cases involving this Respondent that failed to have an adequate deterrent effect. Complainantrespectfully requests an Initial Decision finding the violations occurred and imposing the total $560,000 sought by Complainant. Respectfully submitted this 

### 11th day ofAugust, 2014.

23 "In response to Paragraph 12, SkyWest is without sufficient information or knowledge from which to form a beliefas to the truth ofthe allegation that SkyWest's personnel at IAH loaded 36 standard checkedbags onto N744SK, andtherefore denies same." 24 "Inresponse to Paragraph 14, SkyWest is without sufficient information orknowledge from which to form a beliefas to the truth ofthe allegation that the inaccurate data on the CLR was used to construct the ACARS load manifest for Flight 1160, and therefore denies the same." Complainant's Post-Trial Brief In the Matters ofSkyWestAirlines, Inc. DMS Nos. FAA-2012-0868/ 0869/0872/0873/0874/ 0904, -2013·0617/0619 Page 11 of 12 JEFFREYM. HARPER, F AAArTORNEY TEL: (425) 227·2161 FAX: (425) 227-1007

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Complainant's Rebuttal Briefhas been served via email and Certified Mail- Return Receipt this date, to the following: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 New JerseyAvenue 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. SkyWest 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 andAssociates 465 California Street San Francisco, CA94104 TEL: (415) 421-2500 FAX: (435) 421-2560 mdworkin@avialex.com
I hereby certify that the foregoing Complainant's Post Trial Briefhas been served Certified Mail- Return Receipt and facsimile this date, to the following: Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 FederalAviationAdministration 800 IndependenceAvenue Southwest Washington, DC 20591 FAX: (202) 493-5142
Dated this 11th day ofAugust, 20 14><:7

//·>

# ~**~** ,' 

# 1/:.....l'**~Cu vc...c-~**  TerriE Kirk Office ofRegional .Counsel (ANM-7) FederalAviationAdministration 1601 LindAve. SW Renton, WA 98057 (425) 227-2007