03/04/201 1 14:1 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A ^ nu ^ '^'" ^ ^ DM S 0001/00 9

UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D C In th e Matte r

of i SU N QUES T EXECITTIV E AI RCHARTER . IN C FAAOrderNo.201 M Docke t No , CP08WP0004 - - • "Orl j FDM S No . FAA-2008-02 3 8 ^ 0 ?|§ 2 Served : Januar

y 5,201 1 ' ^ ^^- ' RESPONS E T O ORDE RREQUESTIN G FURTHE RBRIEFIN G Pursuan t t o th e Administrator' s Order serve dJajnuar

y 5 , 2011 , respondeni submit s thi s memorandu mdealin g wit h th e meanin g o f

"othe r commercia

l flying " a s use di n 14CF

RSectio n 135.267 . I t ha s bee n previousl y emphasize di n th e earlie r meniorajid athat

th e instant proceedm g i s no t

agains t Captain . Mar

k Smit h for any allege dviolation . The instant

cas e deal s solel y wit

h a n allege dviolatio n o n th e pa n o f Sun Ques t Executiv e Ai r

Charter , Inc . I t

charge s th e company with failur e t o trac k non compan y flying, namel y flights b y Captai n Smit h wit h th e Lo s Angele s Polic e Department .

' Material s file di

n th e FA A Hearin g Docke t (excep t fo r material s file di n scbcurit

y cases ) are als o availabl e for

viewin g a t

th e followin g Jntamet

address : -Hnvw.ree^tlationy , gn ui 03/04/201 1 14:1 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A . n« ^ ? i • ^'^' ^ * DM S 1002/00 9

A s detaile dhereafter , th e only rational meanin g o f "othe r commercia

l flying*' 3 5 use di n Pa n 13 5 i s flying fo r th e sam e company . Th e Agenc y ha s seize do n dict ai

n unrelate dcases , out

of contex t as b e applie dt o th e instan t case , t o argu e that

th e non-commercia l flying mean s an y othe r non-military flyingLogi c say s tha t

ih c identica l commo n sens e reasonin g ha s t o appl y t o al l publi c flying. Ther e i s nothin g i n th e regulation s o r ruling s whic h differentiat e betwee n variou s type s o f

publi c flying. T o th e contrary , th e statut e creatin g th e FA A exempt s fi:omth e FA A jurisdictio n overpubU c flying fromth e regulatory scheme .

Ther e appear s t o b e n o cas e squarel y dealin g wit h th e problem , bu t

reason , a s wel l a s commo n sense , make s it clea r that th e Agenc y i s attemptin g b y administrativ e fiat

t o chang e th e defmition s se t fort h i n th e Aviatio n Ac t

itsel f as well a s it s ow n prio r

rulings . A s detaile dhereafter , al l previou s ruling s hav e foreclose dthi s attemp t

for th e "came l t o pu t

it s nos e in th e tent" . Th e Agenc y agree s that

flying fo r the,military coul dnot , b y definition , constitut e flying fo r th e03/04/201 1 14:1 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* QM S 1003/00 9

entit y whic h i s charge dwith trackin g time . Ho w i s military flying different from other publi c flying? Ther e i s a t

leas t on e cas e which , withou t

analysis , seem s t o sa

y thai . th e FA A ma y hav e jurisdictio n ove

r some publi c flying. Analyse s o f th e case , however , sho w tha t

th e allege dexceptio n i s no t a n exceptio n a

t all . Contro l o f

th e airspac e i s entirel y differen t fromcontrollin g pilot s an dair operators . Jus t

becaus e th e FA A ha s jurisdictio n over

mos t airspace , i t

doe s no t mea n tha t

i t ha s jurisdictio n on everythin g an danythin g dealin g wit h aviation . Th e statut e i s crysta l clea r a s t o wha t

i s an di s no t

withi n th e domai n o f

th e FAA . Analysi s o f

al l th e case s dealin g wit

h th e subjec t

findfo r th e FAA when an donl y whe n th e operato r "wh o i s charge dwit

h th e dul y t o trac k

tim e ha s

some opportunit

y t o actuall y trac k

th e time . Analysi s o f

th e case s demonstrate s this .03/04/201 1 14:1 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A . nii o ^ ^ QM S 0004/00 9

I n Richar dMartineUi (sic ) Macxindol U ther e i s aclea

r implicatio n tha t th e contex t

o f th e cas e wa s regardin g a

n instructo r

a t aflight schoo l whic h als o wa s a13 5 certificat e holder .

I n Rya n Koepp , asimila

r situatio n wa s presented . Tli e questio n wa s whethe r givin g instruction , whic h clearl y coul dno t hav e beca n i n apubli c airplane , coul dconstitut e "othe r

commercial flyin g time" . Th e Agenc y dos s no t contend , andthe fact s woul dbeli e it , tha t Smith' s flying fo

r th e L.A.P.D , involve dan y kin d

o f instruction , whethe r

fo r compensatio n o r

otherwise . Th e lette r t o Jef f J . Jacober , likewis e i s unpersuasivc . I t deal s wit h flight tim e tha t obviousl y ha dt o hav e bee n assigne db y th e 1 3 S operato r itsel f Captai n Smith' s flight

tim e fo r th e L.A.P.D , wa s no t

assigne dt o hi mb y Su

n Quest ; i t wa s controlle dsolel y b y th e L.A.P.D . I n th e lette r

t o th e N.E . - FSDO , th e issut j i n contex t

deal t with a compan y holdin g mor e than on e typ e o f certificate , namely , aflight schoo l an da 13 5 operator . That

kin do f compan y ha

dth e abilit

y t o an dshoul dtrac k

th e time o f03/04/201 1 14:1 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* QM S 12005/00 9

it' s assigne dpilots . There , i n th e languag e o f th e opinion , ih t

sam e pilo t represente dwhil e th e compan y wa s onl y ". . -wearitr g adifferen t

ha t a t th e tim e o f th e assignment... "

What i s importan t

i s tha t th e earlier

opinion s o f

th e Agenc y hav e mad e it clea r tha t th e tim e whic h mus t

b e tracke di s th e tim e assigne do r withi n th e ke n o f th e 13 5 operator . Th e sam e safet y policie s whic h deal wit h "dut y time " ar e applicabl e t o th e obligation s dealin g wit h 'Ves t tune" . A s t o this , ther e i s substantia l preceden t

an dth e case s all suppor

t respondent' s position . Referencin g quotation s fromth e Agency' s interpretations , th e firs t i s

alette r t o th e manage r

o f th e Lincol n Fligh t

Standard s Distric t

Offic e fromDona.l

d P . Byrne , Actin g Assistan t Chie f Counsel , Regulation s an dEnforcemen t Division . I t states : "I t

i s no t aviolatio n o f

FA RPart 13 5 for apilo t to fly durin g arequire dres t perio dprovide dtha t

tli e flyin g i s

no t assigne db v th e certificate holder [emphasi s added] ;03/04/201 1 14:1 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A^ DH ^ r>.. n

* o" s ig.ooG/oo g

however , it

i s aviolatio n o f

FA R§91. 9 i f th e certificat e holde r allows , o r

th e crewmember

performs , any flying whe n th e pilot' s lac k

o f res t ma y endanger

others- " A s applie di n thi s case , th e same interpretation s advis e furthe r on ih c

sam e issue . I t state s i n part :

"A s ther e i s n o regulator

y mandat e whic h require s acrewmembe r

t o us e th e res t

perio dfo r rest , th e pilo t

ma y performtli e flights yo u hav e described . Th e rul e regardin g "othe r

commercial flying" i s that it may no t b e conducte ddurin g require dres t periods , i f

i t i s assigne db y th e certificate holde r

[emphasi s added] . Specifically , th e prohibitio n agains t

"othe r commercia

l flying" durin g th e require dres t

perio dapphe s to situation s wher e th e certificat e holde r require s th e flving [emphasi s added]. "03/04/201 1 14:1 5 FA X 202493514 2 PA A

, ^ °^ ^ 0007/00 9

Withi n th e sam e se t

o f opinions , th e sam e thinkin g appear s later . Th e opinion s state : ''Wit h th e exceptio n o f other dutie s assigne db v th e certificat e holde r

[emphasi s added ] an d"othe r commercia l flying" assigne db v th e certificate holder ^ [emphasi s added ] th e FAR s d o no t regulat e wha t

an individua l doe s with hi s tim e durin g arequire dres t period . I t i s th e inten t

o f thei r regulatio n t o provid e period s o f rest , however , i t

i s impractica l t

o monito r eac h pilot' s dail y activities . Therefore , althoug h w e woul dencourage apilo t t o

res t durin g thi s period , there i s n o regulatory prohibitio n agains t suc h labor... " Th e issu e i n thi s cas e i s no t anew problem . Ther e i s amemorandu m tha t appeare do n th e A V We b quotin g fromJoh n Allen , th e FA A official wh o

oversee s flight

standards . Th e Agenc y i s no w considerin g ane w Advisory03/04/201 1 14:1 G FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 1008/00 9

Circula r dealin g wit h flight-by-flight basis , i f publi c aircraf

t statu s applies . When

andi f suc h a n Advisor y Circular

i s issued , apparentl y i t

wil l dea l wit h th e defmition s o f

"publi c aircraft" . Th e instan t

matte r ha s been pendin g fo

r abou t 6 years. ^ I t

hadit s genesi s b y aLette r

o f Investigatio n date dOctober 17 , 2005 . I f

ther e wa s an y real doub t that flying engage di n b y Captai n Smit h shoul dhav e bee n tracke db y th e respondent , on e woul dthin k that b y no w ther e woul dhav e bee n acase , opinion , statute , o r regulatio n t o resolv e th e issu e on e wa y o r th e other . Proceedin g b y tia e instant action , i s simpl y administrativ e fiat an damean s o f

non-complianc e wit

h th e Administrativ e Procedur e Ac t andth e safeguard s availabl e t o th e flying publi c tha t i s containe dtherein . Dated : Marc h 3 , 201 1 Respectfiill y submitted , ARTHU RWASSERMA N Attorne y fo

r Responden t

I t becam e dorman t

afte r th e origina l Regiona l Counse l coul dno t com e u p with an y lega l preceden t t o justif y it , the n becam e activ e when,th e ne w Regiona l Counse l resurrecte dit . 803/04/201 1 14:1 G FAX 202493514 2 PA A * ^^ ^ 1009/00 9

Certificate o f

Servic e I , Christin aMerrick , hereb y certif y tha t o n thi s dat

e I both faxe dan dmaile db y Certifie dMai l th e origina l o f th e attache ddocument

(Respons e t o Orde r Requestin g Furthe r

Briefing ) i n th e Matte r

o f Sun Ques t

Executiv e Ai r

Charter , Inc. , Docket

N o CP08WP000 4 an d2 copies , addresse dto : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 In dependenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC'43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building , Suit e 2W100 0 Facsimile : (202)493-514 2 And , I hereb y certif

y tha t acop y o f tha t document wa s sen t b y facsimil e an d certifie dUnite dState s Mail , postage-prepaid , to : Pete r J . Lync h Assistant Chie f Counse l fo

r Enforcement , AGC- 3 0 0 C/ 0 Josep h A . Cont e Counsel fo

r complainan t Enforcement

Division , AGC-30 0 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Facsimile : (202)267-510 6 Dated : Marc h 3,201 1