SERVE D JUN E 3,201 0 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . I N TH E MATTE RO F DARB Y AVIATION , INC . Respondent . FA A DOCKE T NO . CP08SO002 6 (Civi l Penalt y Proceeding ) DM S NO . FAA-2008-119 2 ADMINISTRATIV E LA WJUDGE' S INITIA LDECISIO N Darb y Aviation , Inc . i s afirmtha t i s certificate dt o conduc t flight operation s unde r

Part 13 5 o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s (FAR ) fi-om th e airport

at Muscl e Shoals , Alabama . I t operate s severa l aircraft , includin g aLear Je t Mode l 35 , aGulfstrea mmode l GA-115 9 an daBel l mode l 206 B helicopter . On e o f

it s pilot s i s Elto n H . Darby . Mr . Darb y i s rate di n al l thre e o f th e type s o f

aircraft . A s apilo t

fo r acarrie r tha t carrie s passenger s for hire , Mr . Darb y i s require db y th e FA Rt o pas s anumbe r o f test s a s prescribe db y th e regulations . Ther e i s th e annua l tes t o f apilot' s knowledg e prescribe db y § 135.293(a ) o f th e FAR , th e annua l tes t o f th e pilot' s competenc y prescribe db y § 135.293(b ) o f th e FAR , th e semiannua l chec k o f th e pilot' s proficienc y i n operation s unde r instrumen t

flight rule s a s prescribe db y § 135.29 7 (applicabl e onl y t o pilot s tha t operat e unde r

IF R conditions ) and , a s prescribe di n § 135.29 9 o f th e FAR , th e aimua l chec k o f th e pilot' s abilit y t o fly t o an dfromth e airport s an dover at leas t on e o f th e route s h e wil l us e durin g th e upcomin g perio do f time . I n thi s proceeding , w e ar e primaril y concerne dwit hMr . Darby' s qualification s unde r

th e requiremen t

for an annua l tes t

o f hi s knowledge , a s prescribe di n § 135.293(a ) o f th e FAR . Hi s employe r

i s charge dwith violatin g § 135.293(a ) b y usin g Mr . Darb y a s apilo t durin g period s whe n hi s qualification s t o serv e i n tha t capacity ha dlapsed . Specifically , th e complain t i n thi s proceedin g charge dth e Responden t wit husin g Mr . Darb y W!O Na s apilo t durin g aperio dwhe n h e wa s overdu e for th e annua l tes t

o f hi s knowledg e prescribe db y § 135.293(a) . A civi l penalty o f $32,20 0 wa s sought . A hearin g wa s hel dbefor e m e i n Washington , D.C . o n Marc h15-16 , " ^ 2010 . A t th e conclusio n o f

th e hearing , I aske dth e partie s whethe r the y wishe dt o submi t

post-hearin g briefs . Counse l fo r th e Complainan t

indicate d tha t h e woul db e satisfie dt o res t hi s cas e o n post-hearin g closin g ora l argument ; however , counse l for th e Responden t

insiste dtha t

sh e would prefer t o file awritte n brie f

Accedin g t o he r

request , I se t

deadline s fo

r submissio n o f

simultaneou s post-hearin g briefs . Th e Complainant' s brie f wa s receive do n time . Bu t th e Respondent , i n spit e o f it s insistenc e at

th e hearin g o n writte n briefing , di dno t submi t atimel y brief. Hence , ther e wil l b e n o repl y briefs , an dth e cas e i s no w rip e fo r decision . T o understan dth e issue s raise db y th e parties , i t i s necessar y t o conside r §135.29 3 a s awhole . Sectio n 135.29 3 read s a s follows : (a ) N o certificat e holde r

may us e apilot , no r

may an y perso n serv e a s apilot , unless , sinc e th e beginnin g o f th e 12** ^ calendar monthbefore that

service , tha t

pilo t ha s passe dawritte n o r

oral test , give n b y th e Administrato r o r an authorize dchec k

pilot , o n tha t pilot' s knowledg e i n th e followin g areas — (1 ) Th e appropriat e provision s o f part s 61 , 91 , an d13 5 o f thi s chapte r

an dth e operation s specification s an dth e manua l o f th e certificat e holder ; (2 ) Fo r eac htyp e o f

aircraf t t o b e flown b y th e pilot , th e aircraf t power-plant , majo r

component s an dsystems , majo r appliances , performanc e an doperatin g limitations , standar dan d emergenc y operatin g procedures , an dth e content s o f th e approve dAircraf

t Fligh t Manua l o r

equivalent , a s applicable ; (3 ) Fo r eac htyp e o f

aircraf t t o b e flown b y th e pilot , th e metho do f

determinin g complianc e withweigh t an dbalanc e limitation s for

takeoff , landin g an de n rout e operations ; (4 ) Navigatio n an dus e o f ai r navigatio n aid s appropriat e t o th e operatio n o r

pilo t authorization , including , whe n applicable , instrumen t

approac hfacilitie s an dprocedures ; (5 ) Ai r traffi c contro l procedures , includin g IF R procedure s whe n applicable ;(6 ) Meteorolog y i n general , includin g th e principle s o f frontal systems , icing , fog , thunderstorms , an dwindshear , and , i f appropriat e fo

r th e operatio n o f

th e certificat e holder , hig h altitud e weather ; (7 ) Procedure s for

— (i ) Recognizin g an davoidin g sever e weathe r situations ; (ii ) Escapin g fromsever e weathe r situations , i n cas e o f inadverten t

encounters , includin g low-altitud e windshea r (excep t tha t rotorcraf t pilot s ar e no t

require dt o b e teste do n escapin g fro mlow-altitud e windshear) ; an d (iii ) Operatin g i n o r

near thunderstorm s (includin g bes t penetratin g altitudes) , turbulen t ai r (includin g clear

ai r turbulence) , icing , hail , an dothe r potentiall y hazardou s meteorologica l conditions ; an d (8 ) Ne w equipment , procedures , o r techniques , a s appropriate . (b ) N o certificat e holde r

may us e apilot , no r

ma y an y perso n serv e a s apilot , i n any aircraf t unless , sinc e th e beginnin g o f

th e 12 * calendar

monthbefor e tha t

service , tha t pilo t ha s passe dacompetenc y chec k give n b y th e Administrato r

o r an authorize dchec k

pilo t i n tha t clas s o f aircraft , i f

single-engin e airplan e othe r tha n turbojet , o r

tha t typ e o f aircraft , i f

helicopter , multiengin e airplane , o r turboje t airplane , t o determin e th e pilot' s competenc e i n practica l skill s an dtechnique s i n tha t

aircraf t o r clas s o f aircraft . Th e exten t

o f th e competenc y chec k

shal l b e determine db y th e Administrato r o r authorize dchec k

pilo t conductin g th e competenc y check . Th e competenc y chec k

may includ e an y o f

th e maneuver s an d procedure s currentl y require dfor th e origina l issuanc e o f

th e particula r pilo t certificat e require dfor

th e operation s authorize d an dappropriat e t o th e category , clas s an dtyp e o f aircraf t involved . Fo r

th e purpose s o f

thi s paragraph , type , a s t o an airplane , mean s an y on e o f agrou p o f

airplane s determine db y th e Administrato r

t o hav e asimilar

mean s o f propulsion , th e sam e manufacturer , an dn o significantl y differen t handlin g o r flight characteristics . Fo r

th e purpose s o f

thi s paragraph , type , a s t o ahelicopter , mean s abasic mak e an dmodel .(c ) Th e instrumen t proficienc y chec k

require db y §135.29 7 may b e substitute dfo r th e competenc y chec k

require d b y thi s sectio n for

th e typ e o f

aircraf t use di n th e check . (d ) Fo r th e purpos e o f

thi s part , competen t

performance " o f aprocedur e o r

maneuve r

b y aperso n t o b e use da s apilo t require s tha t

th e pilo t b e th e obviou s maste r

o f th e aircraft , with th e successfti l outcom e o f th e maneuve r

neve r i n doubt . (e ) Th e Administrato r

o r authorize dchec k

pilo t certifie s th e competenc y o f

eac hpilo t

wh o passe s th e knowledg e o r flight chec k i n th e certificat e holder' s pilo t records . (f ) Portion s o f

arequire dcompetenc y chec k ma y b e give n i n an aircraf

t simulato r

o r othe r approve dtrainin g device , i f approve db y th e Administrator . A fe w noteworth y point s emerg e fromafacial analysi s o f §135.293 . First . Th e sectio n prescribe s tw o different testin g regimes . Th e first i s ates t o f th e prospectiv e pilot' s knowledge . Th e item s t o b e teste dar e describe di n paragrap h(a ) o f th e section . Paragrap h(b ) o f § 135.29 3 provide s fo

r ates t o f th e pilot' s competency . A pilo t wh o successfiill y complete s on e o f th e test s i s no t

qualifie dunles s an dunti l h e passe s th e secon dtest , an daPart 13 5 carrie r

tha t use s suc hapilo t i s i n violatio n o f

th e FAR . Second . Th e provision s o f § 135.293(a ) an d(b ) ar e disjunctive . Ther e i s n o languag e i n th e regulatio n tha t require s bothtest s t o b e take n at th e sam e tim e o r

t o b e administere db y th e sam e person . Although , th e knowledg e tes t prescribe db y § 135.293(a ) i s ofte n give n durin g th e pilot' s annua l "chec k ride, " t o determin e hi s o r he r proficienc y unde r

§ 135.293(b) , ther e i s nothin g i n th e languag e o f th e regulation , o r

elsewhere , tha t

require s th e tw o test s t o b e administere d o n th e sam e occasion . Th e Complainant' s sedulou s insistenc e tha t § 135.293(a ) require s th e knowledg e tes t t o b e passe do n th e occasio n o f th e putativ e pilot' s annua l "chec k ride " finds n o support

i n th e languag e o f

th e regulation . No r

i s ther e any fiinctional reaso n wh y th e tw o test s canno t

b e administere dseparately , a s lon g a s eac hi sadministere db y arepresentativ e o f th e Administrato r

(i.e. , an authorize dFA A employee ) o r an authorize d"chec k

pilot. " Third . Sectio n 135.293(a ) doe s no t requir e awritte n tes t

o r requir e th e question s aske dan danswer s give n t o b e preserve db y the " certificat e holde r

tha t employ s th e pilot . A s th e regulatio n plainl y states , th e tes t

o f th e pilot' s knowledg e may b e eithe r ora l o r written , s o tha t i n th e even t

o f an ora l test , ther e may b e n o pape r trai l created . Thi s doe s no t

mean , however , tha t

ther e woul db e n o evidenc e tha t th e tes t wa s give n o r

passed . Paragrap h(e ) o f § 135.29 3 require s th e perso n wh o administer s ates t tha t th e pilo t ha s passe dt o certif

y tha t fac t "i n th e certificat e holder' s pilo t records. " Fourth . Th e requiremen t

for an annua l tes t

o f apilot' s "competency " ca n b e waive di f th e pilo t ha s take n an dpasse dth e instrumen t

proficienc y tes t

require dunde r

§ 135.29 7 for

th e sam e typ e o f aircraf t tha t wouldotherwis e b e use dfor th e pilot' s chec k

rid e unde r §135.293(b) . Tha t

i s th e clear

mandat e o f

paragrap h(c ) o f §135.29 3 ("Th e instrumen t proficienc y chec k

require db y §135.29 7 ma y b e substitute dfor

th e competenc y chec k

require db y thi s sectio n for th e typ e o f

aircraf t use di n th e check." ) Contrar y t o th e argumen t o f Respondent' s counse l durin g he r openin g statemen t

at th e hearing , ther e i s n o provisio n i n th e regulatio n for substitutio n o f

th e instrumen t

proficienc y tes t

i n lie u o f th e tes t o f th e pilot' s knowledg e unde r § 135.293(a) . Thi s mean s tha t eve n thoug hapilo t

ma y hav e passe dth e instrumen t

proficienc y chec k

t o determin e hi s o r

he r qualification s t o fiy unde r instrumen t

fiight rules , h e o r

sh e mus t stil l pas s th e annua l knowledg e tes t prescribe db y § 135.293(a) . Fifth . Sectio n 1 3 5.293(c)' s provisio n for substitutio n o f

th e instrumen t

proficienc y tes t

unde r §135.29 7 for

th e competenc y chec k unde r §135.293(b ) contain s amajo r ambiguity . Th e ambiguit y derive s fromth e fac t

tha t whil e th e competenc y chec k mus t b e passe d o n an annua l basis , successfti l completio n o f th e instrumen t proficienc y chec k

i s goo dfor

onl y si x months . Th e partie s ar e at loggerhead s over

th e questio n whethe r

apilo t wh o ha s satisfie dth e requiremen t

for an annua l competenc y chec k unde r § 135.293(b ) b y substitutin g hi s o r

he r successfti l completio n o f th e §135.29 7 instrumen t

proficienc y chec k

mus t thereafte r

pas s anothe r

competenc y chec k si x month s later , whe n th e currenc y o f th e pilot' s instrumen tproficienc y chec k expires. ' Thi s i s no t

an issu e tha t

mus t b e decide d i n th e curren t

proceeding . However , i t arise s withrespec t

t o an allie d cas e tha t wa s decide do n cross-motion s for summary judgmen t

an dis , at thi s writing , pendin g o n appea l before th e Administrator . Both partie s agre e tha t

Mr . Darb y ha dsuccessfull y passe dth e test s require db y § § 135.293(a ) an d135.293(b ) o n Septembe r 14 , 200 6 an dSeptembe r

12 , 2006 . Th e test s wer e give n for th e purpos e o f qualifyin g Mr . Darb y t o fly hi s employer' s helicopte r (th e Septembe r 14 , 200 6 check ) an dit s tw o turbo-je t powere daircraf

t (th e Septembe r 12 . 200 6 check). ^ Thi s establishe dSeptembe r a s Mr . Darby' s "base " month for purpose s o f

hi s annua l tests . Unde r §135.30 1 o f

th e FAR , acrewmembe r wh o i s require dt o tak e an annua l tes t

o r flight chec k i s allowe dt o d o s o durin g th e calendar month s before , durin g an dafter hi s o r he r "base " month . Thi s create dathree-calendar-monthwindo w for Mr . Darb y t o satisf

y hi s annua l testin g an dflight chec k requirements . I f

h e passe dth e knowledg e an dproficienc y test s a t an y time s betwee n Augus t 1 , 200 7 an dOctobe r

31 , 2007 , h e wa s considere dt o hav e satisfactoril y complete dbothtests . Thi s "grac e month " provisio n mean t tha t Mr . Darb y wa s du e for

anothe r annua l tes t

o f hi s knowledg e (an d competency ) o n o r

befor e Octobe r

31 , 2007 . I f

apilo t passe s on e o r botho f th e test s durin g th e "grace " month , hi s complianc e withth e regulatio n revert s bac k

t o hi s "base " month . Thus , i f Mr . Darb y ha d passe dth e knowledg e tes t i n Octobe r

2007 , h e woul db e deeme dt o hav e complie dwith th e testin g requiremen t a s o f Septembe r

30 , 2007 . If , o n th e othe r

hand , apilo t

passe s th e tes t

durin g th e monthbefor e th e bas e month(e.g. , durin g Augus t 2007 , i n Mr . Darby' s case , hi s employe r ma y elec t

t o adjus t hi s bas e montht o th e earlie r monthi n whic hth e test s wer e complete do r t o leav e th e bas e monthwher e i t wa s befor e th e tes t

o r test s wer e completed . Bu t i f apilo t fail s t o compl y wit h th e testin g requiremen t durin g th e yea r

plu s th e grac e period , hi s non-complianc e with§ 135.293(a ) begin s o n th e las t da y o f hi s o r he r bas e month . I n Mr . Darby' s case , accordin g t o th e FAA , h e

' Th e FAA' s positio n a

t the hearin g was tha

t the substitution i s goodfo

r onl y six months , afte

r whic h th e pilot must eithe r pas s a§ 135.293(b ) proficiency tes t o r anothe r IF Rcompetency check . Se e Darb y Aviation e

t al . Docke t Nos . CP08SO002 6 etal. , "Administrativ e La w Judge' s Orde

r Grantin g Motio n fo r Summar y Dispositio n an

dSevering Proceeding, " servedFebruar y 6,2009 . ^ Th e test s wer e administeredb

y tw o chec k pilot s employedb

y the Respondent . Shortl

y afterward , th

e FA A revokedth e authorit

y of thes e me n to serve a s chec

k pilots .wa s i n violatio n o f th e FA Rwith respec t

t o an y Par t

13 5 flight

h e mad e a s apilo t

o n o r after Octobe r 1 , 200 7 an dbefor e h e successfull y complete dth e tes t

o f hi s knowledg e a s require db y § 135.293(a) . A t th e hearing , th e FA A presente dirrefragabl e evidence , i n the " for mo f Respondent' s Fligh t

Operation s Records , showin g tha t Mr . Darb y ha dbee n th e pilo t

o f flights unde r

Part 13 5 durin g th e perio d after th e en do f

Septembe r

2007.^ * Th e record s ar e Exhibit s C-l , C-2 , C- 3 an dC-4 ; twent y Par t 13 5 flights ar e documented . I t appear s that Mr . Darb y wa s th e pilo t

i n comman do n al l bu t

on e o f thes e flights. Aviatio n Safet

y Inspecto r

Jame s Fox, ^ wh o sponsore dthes e documents , testifie dtha t

ther e migh t

b e a s man y a s 2 9 o r

3 0 illega l flights. Tr . 117 , 197 . Hi s testimon y i s confusin g o n thi s point , however , becaus e i t

appear s tha t

h e wa s testifyin g abou t

allege d violation s o f

both subsectio n (a ) an d(b ) o f §135.293 , whil e th e charge s levele dagains t

th e Responden t

i n th e FAA' s complain t involve donl y allege dviolation s o f subsectio n (a ) o f

tha t sectio n o f

th e FAR . Th e FA A als o place dint o evidenc e th e Tabl e o f Sanction s foun di n FA A Orde r

No . 2150.3 B (Ex . C- l 1) . It s witnes s Fox , th e Inspecto r wh o investigate dth e Respondent' s allege dnon-complianc e withth e FAR , testifie dtha t th e offens e withwhic hth e Responden t wa s charged , "Us e o f

unqualifie dcrewmember, " wa s assigne da "Maximum " civi l penalt y i n Figur e B-l-a , foun do n pag e B-1 5 o f th e Orde r an dthat , i n turn , generate dapenalty rang e o f $850- $ 1,100 pe r violatio n i n accordanc e withth e instruction s pertainin g t o a"Grou p I " smal l busines s concern foun do n pag e B- 3 o f th e sam e Order . Th e Responden t

di dno t sponso r an y evidenc e tha t

woul dten dt o contradic t Mr . Fox' s analysi s o n thi s point . A s woul dnormall y b e th e cas e with an y Chie f Pilo t wh o i s rate di n thre e differen t

aircraft , Mr . Darb y wen t throug hanumbe r

o f trainin g an dtestin g program s at o r abou t th e time hi s § 135.293(a ) knowledg e tes t

too k place . Man y o f

thes e program s ar e documente d i n For m8410' s foun di n hi s trainin g file o r otherwis e elucidate di n "SeeTr . 110-12 . ' Inspecto r Fo x was , a t th e tim e of the hearing , employeda

t th e FAA' s Alabama-Northwes t Florid aFligh

t Standard s District

Offic e an dwas the Principa

l Operation s Inspecto

r i n charg e of

the Respondent' s compliance .preparatio n fo r th e hearin g i n thi s case . I n Januar y 2007 , Mr . Darb y attende dsimulato r

trainin g conducte dat

CA E SimuFlit e an dwa s certifie dt o hav e successfiill y complete dtrainin g unde r §135.29 7 o f th e FAR , i^ , hi s instrumen t proficienc y test . Se e Ex . C-6 . I n he r openin g statemen t

at th e hearing , counse l for

th e Responden t strenuousl y asserte dtha t

th e provision s o f

§ 135.293(c ) allo w thi s achievemen t

t o b e substitute dfor

th e § 135.293(a ) tes t

tha t th e FA A no w say s wa s overdu e whe n Mr . Darb y pilote dth e flights i n question . O n thi s issue , th e Responden t i s clearl y wrong . A s w e hav e note dabove , th e tw o tes t requirement s ar e quit e distinc t an dseparate . A s th e Administrato r sai dwhe n h e adopte dth e rule s tha t w e no w se e i n §§135.293(a ) an d135.293(c) , "th e subject s o f thes e test s ar e no t

identica l an dth e tw o ora l o r writte n test s ar e no t give n fo r th e sam e purpose. " Th e tes t unde r § 135.293(a ) cover s subject s whic har e generall y applicable , suc ha s groun dtrainin g requirements . Th e tes t unde r § 135.297(c ) i s an equipmen t tes t relate dt o operationa l procedure s i n whic hth e pilo t mus t demonstrat e competenc y befor e bein g use dunde r

IFR . 4 3 Fed . Reg . 3677 4 (1978) . I t i s true , a s th e Responden t point s out , tha t

i n an allie dcas e involvin g acivi l penalt y clai magains t Darb y Aviatio n i n Docke t No . CP08SO0025, 1 grante dRespondent' s motio n for summary dispositio n an dheld , i n an orde r issue dFebruary 26 , 2009 , tha t successfu l completio n o f

th e IF Rproficienc y chec k coul db e substitute dfor

th e competenc y chec k

mandate db y § 135.293(b ) o f th e FAR. ^ Bu t

th e Februar y 26 , 200 9 orde r di dno t rul e tha t th e IF R competenc y chec k

coul db e substitute dfo

r th e knowledg e tes t require db y § 135.293(a) . A s indicate dabove , th e languag e o f th e regulation , a s wel l a s th e preambl e issue dwhe n th e regulatio n wa s * Darb y Aviation . Docke

t Nos . CP08SO002 6 e

t al . "Administrative La

w Judge' s Orde

r Granting Motio

n fo r Summar y Disposition an

dSevering Proceeding. " I als o ruled , a t leas t implicitly , tha

t the substitution allowe dunde r § 135.293(c ) wouldlast

fo r the ful l yea r during whic

h acompetency chec

k i s required , notwithstanding th e fac

t tha t the instrumen

t proficiency tes t

mus t b e taken an

dpasseda t six-mont h intervals . I adher

e to tha t vie w no w (notwithstanding the Complainant' s contrar y position) , o

n th e theor y tha t a"substitution " i s i

n lie u of the requiremen

t fo r whic h i t i s substituted .adopted , mak e i t abundantl y clear

tha t th e requiremen t

for ates t o f a pilot' s knowledg e i s distinc t fromth e requiremen t

o f achec k o f th e pilot' s proficiency . Th e regulatory provisio n i n § 135.293(c ) refer s t o substitutio n o f

th e IF Rproficienc y tes t

for onl y th e competenc y chec k foun di n § 135.293(b) . I t doe s no t permi t apilo t who , lik e Mr . Darby; * ha dsuccessfull y complete dth e competenc y chec k t o omi t th e knowledg e tes t

for an y perio do f

time . Tha t

wa s m y rulin g at

an earlie r stag e o f thi s proceeding , whe n I denie danothe r dispositiv e motio n b y th e Respondent. ^ I adher e t o tha t rulin g now . A t th e hearing , th e Responden t contende dtha t

Mr . Darb y satisfie dth e requiremen t

for an annua l tes t

o f apilot' s knowledg e when , i n Januar y 2007 , h e attende daSimuFlit e simulato r trainin g program . However , th e recor do f simulato r

check s documentin g Mr . Darby' s trainin g an dtestin g at SimuFlit e doe s no t

indicat e that

h e wa s teste do n al l o f

th e subject s describe di n § 135.293(a ) whil e h e attende dtha t

program . Th e for

mha s space s for

th e testin g organizatio n t o recor dcompletio n o f th e § 135.293(a ) test , eithe r o n al l subject s o r

o n th e tw o subject s tha t

ar e specifi c t o aparticular typ e o f aircraft . Neithe r

o f thos e boxe s i s checke do n Exhibi t C-6 . Hence , I mus t conclud e tha t

th e requisit e test s wer e no t administere dwhil e Mr . Darb y wa s at

SimuFlite . Th e nex t occasio n t o whic hw e com e i s achec k recorde do n Exhibi t C-9 . Thi s For m8410- 3 document s achec k tha t wa s undertake n i n ahelicopte r ( aBel l 206) . Th e chec k pilot' s nam e wa s Richar dE . Parke r

who , s o fa

r a s th e recor dshows , wa s an authorize d chec k pilot . Se e Ex . C- l for

th e designatio n o f

Mr . Parke r

a s achec k airman. ^ Th e for

mstate s tha t

Mr . Darb y "Demonstrate dCurren t Knowledge " a s require dunde r FA R135.293(a ) a s o f

Apri l 26 , 2007 . Th e for mals o indicate s that

anothe r tes t o f Mr . Darby' s knowledg e woul db e du e a s o f

Apri l 30 , 2008 . I t

clearl y refer s t o ates t

unde r § 135.293(a) . Ther e i s als o i n th e recor dastatemen t b y Mr . Parke r sayin g tha t

h e gav e Mr . Darb y ates t "conducte di n accordanc e with

' Administrative La

w Judge' s Orde

r Ruling o n Cross-Motion s fo

r Summar y Disposition , issuedJanuar y 7 , 2010 . * O n Jul y 7 , 2007 , the FA

A rescinde dthe authorit

y o f thre e o f Respondent' s pilots , Messrs . Darby , Joh n Morrison an

dDan e Rheinschmidt , to act

a s chec k airmen . Se

e Ex . R-9 . Althoug

h the FAA' s lette

r indicate s tha

t the reason fo

r the rescissio n was tha

t th e Responden

t didnot have enoug

h checking activit

y t o warran t achec k airman , nothing was saidabou t the statu s o

f Mr . Parke r who , presumably , remained authorizedto continue a s achec k pilo t fo r th e helicopte r i n Respondent' s fleet .FA R135.293(a ) 1 throug h 8 an dFA R135.299(a ) i n aVF RBel l 20 6

helicopter , N28ED. " Ex . R-13 . I t i s clear , however , tha t

th e Apri l 26 , 200 7 testin g coul dno t hav e covere dal l o f

th e subject s liste di n § 135.293(a) . Thi s i s th e cas& becaus e tw o o f

thos e subjects , foun di n subparagraph s (a)(2 ) an d (a)(3) , requir e th e perso n bein g teste dt o expoun dcorrectl y upo n certai n subject s pertainin g t o "eac h typ e o f aircraf t t o b e flown b y th e pilot. " I n orde r

t o examin e Mr . Darb y o n thos e subjects , th e perso n administerin g th e tes t

- Mr . Parke r

i n thi s cas e - wouldhav e t o hav e bee n rate di n th e typ e o f

aircraf t Mr . Darb y wa s t o hav e flown i n hi s capacity a s Chie f

Pilo t for th e Respondent . Whil e i t i s clea r tha t Mr . Parke r wa s qualifie dt o tes t

Mr . Darb y o n hi s knowledg e o f th e subject-matte r

o f subsectio n (a)(2) ^ an dsubsectio n (a)(3)' ° with respec t t o th e Bel l 20 6 helicopter , ther e i s n o evidenc e tha t Mr . Parke r wa s authorize dt o administe r ates t o n thes e subject s withrespec t t o eithe r o f th e tw o turbo-je t

aircraf t Mr . Darb y wa s t o fly. An di t i s Mr . Darby' s operation s i n th e turbo-je t aircraf t tha t ar e th e gravame n o f th e FAA' s charge s i n thi s case . Thi s bring s u s t o th e thir do f th e check s administere dt o Mr . Darb y after

th e dat e when , accordin g t o th e FAA , h e successfull y complete dhi s mos t

recen t tes t unde r § 135.293(a) . Thi s wa s aJun e 25 , 200 7 chec k rid e i n th e Learje t

2 5 administere db y Joh n Morrison , on e o f th e Respondent' s erstwhil e chec k pilots . Th e Form8410- 3 documentin g thi s testin g i s i n evidenc e a s Exhibi t

C-8 . Accordin g t o Mr . Morrison' s testimon y a s a witnes s for

th e Respondent , h e teste dMr . Darb y o n th e subject s prescribe db y §135.297(a ) durin g thi s chec k ride . Tr . 501 . And , indeed , awritte n tes t

sai dt o hav e bee n contemporaril y complete db y Mr . Darb y wit h100 % accurac y wa s offere dan dreceive di n evidenc e a s Exhibi t R-3 . A s th e Complainan t point s out , however , th e purporte dwritte n tes t

i s date dApri l 2 , 2007 , mor e tha n tw o month s prio r t o th e dat e o n th e For m8410-3 . Mor e t o th e point , however , i s

' Le. , "the aircraf

t powerplant , majo

r components an

dsystems , majo

r appliances , performanc e an d operating limitations , standar dan demergency operating procedures , an dthe content s of

th e approved Aircraf t Fligh t Manua l o r equivalent..." . ' ° Le, , "the metho dof

determining complianc e wit h weigh t an dbalanc e limitation s fo

r takeoff , landing an

d e n rout e operations. " 1 0th e fac t tha t th e bo x labele d"Typ e o f Check " o n th e for

mi s marke dt o indicate tha t

Mr . Morriso n believe dtha t h e wa s testin g Mr . Darb y onl y with respec t

t o th e subject s covere db y § 135.29 9 o f th e FAR . i.e. , t o determin e whethe r

Mr . Darb y wa s capabl e o f flying on e o f

th e route s h e wouldfly i n th e Learjet . Th e bo x labele d"FA R135.293 " i s no t checked , a s i t

woul db e i f

Mr . Morriso n believe dh e wa s administerin g th e requisit e tes t o f Mr . Darby' s knowledg e durin g th e chec k flight. Hence , I mus t

conclud e tha t

thi s piec e o f

evidenc e i s insufficien t

t o prov e tha t

Mr . Darb y too k

an dpasse dth e § 135.293(a ) tes t durin g th e Apri l 25 , 200 7 flight check . Th e nex t candidat e fo

r consideratio n i s atraining-and-testin g sessio n Mr . Darb y attende di n Augus t o f 200 7 at aschoo l operatedb y afirmcalle dSimCo mi n Orlando , Florida . Th e primar y purpos e o f th e schoo l wa s t o allo w pilot s wh o flew corporate-typ e je t aircraf t t o b e checke dou t

o n SimCom' s flight

simulator.' ' Mr . Darb y attende d th e July-Augus t

200 7 sessio n fo

r check s o n hi s proficienc y t o fly th e Learje t operatedb y th e Respondent . Befor e th e progra mstarted , SimCo minsiste do n obtainin g th e approva l o f th e Respondent' s FA A Principa l Operation s Inspecto r for th e attendanc e o f

it s pilots . A form , entitle d"Recor do f Approve dInstructors/TCE's/Chec k Pilots, " wa s sen t t o FA A Inspecto r

Jame s Fo x (Respondent' s Primary Operation s Inspector) , wh o signe di t o n Jul y 31 , 200 7 an dreturne di t t o th e school . Se e Ex . R-15 , p . 2 . Th e for mUstedth e name s o f

nin e instructor-pilots , si x o f

who mwer e indicate da s chec k pilots . A t

th e conclusio n o f

th e training-and-testin g session , on e o f th e SimCo m chec k pilot s (Richar dRomer o b y name ) certifie dtha t h e ha dteste d Mr . Darb y o n th e subject s specifie di n §135.293(a)(2 ) an d(a)(3 ) o f th e FAR , a s wel l a s thos e calle dou t i n §135.297 . Se e Ex . C-R-18 . Th e Responden t

say s tha t i f w e pu t th e SimCo mtrainin g togethe r with th e testin g performe dpreviously , whe n Mr . Parke r checke dMr . Darb y ou t

i n th e helicopter , w e wil l findtha t Mr . Darb y ha dfully satisfie dth e requirement s o f § 135.293(a) . Th e FA A raise s severa l objection s t o thi s argument . Th e Complainan t insist s tha t

th e

" Not e tha t §135.293(f

) o f the FA Rprovide s tha

t par t of th e requiredcompetency chec k ma y b e give n i n a n aircraf t simulato r "i f approvedb

y the Administrator. " I do not interpre t thi s languag e a s prohibiting the administration o f

the knowledg e tes t

requiredunde

r § 135.293(a

) during apilot' s simulato

r training , providing tha

t the person administering the tes t i s arepresentative o

f the Administrato

r o r a n authorized chec k pilot . 1 1SimCo mtrainin g di dno t qualif y unde r § 135.293(a ) becaus e Richar d Romero , th e SimCo mchec k pilo t wa s no t a n "authorize dchec k

pilot " withi n th e meanin g o f

tha t provisio n o f

th e FAR . I d o no t

findthi s argumen t persuasive . Althoug h Inspecto r

Fox , durin g hi s testimony , sedulousl y insiste dtha t

hi s approva l o f

th e SimCo mtrainin g sessio n di dno t includ e approva l o f

Romer o o r

hi s colleague s a s chec k

pilots , i t

i s difficul t t o dra w an y othe r

conclusio n upo n readin g th e for m(Ex . R

18 ) tha t h e signed . I t

appear s o n it s fac e t o approv e Romer o an dsom e othe r SimCo memployee s a s authorize dt o administe r th e test s prescribe db y § 135.29 3 o f th e FAR . Mr . Fox' s testimon y wa s tha t hi s signatur e o n th e for

mwa s intende donl y t o signif y hi s approva l fo

r us e o f th e SimCo mfacilitie s bu t di dno t approv e th e chec k

pilot s liste do n tha t

sam e form.' ^ However , i t i s difficul t

t o thin k o f an y reaso n wh y eac h o f

th e SimCo mchec k

pilot s woul dhav e t o b e liste d individuall y unles s i t

wa s t o allo w Inspecto r

Fo x t o revie w th e abilitie s o f

eac hon e o f

them . Inspecto r

Fo x sai dtha t

i f h e ha dreall y don e so , h e woul dhav e signe dth e spac e provide dbesid e eac hname;'" * i t seem s t o me , however , tha t tha t typ e o f designatio n wouldb e use d onl y i n acas e wher e th e PO I ha ddetermine dt o approv e some , bu t no t all , o f th e chec k

pilot s o n th e list . Certainly , SimCom , th e party tha t devise dth e form , though t tha t Inspecto r Fox' s inten t

wa s t o approv e a s chec k airme n al l o f

th e instructor s whos e name s appeare do n th e form . Se e Ex . R-14 . S o di dDarb y Aviation' s Directo r o f Operations , Joh n Morrison , wh o ha dsen t th e for mt o Inspecto r

Fox.' ^ A t

th e very least , th e for

mi s ambiguous . An dth e Complainan t i n thi s quasi

crimina l proceedin g mus t bear th e onu s o f

th e ambiguity . I find, therefore , tha t

Mr . Romer o ha dbee n dul y designate da s achec k pilot , qualifie dt o administe r

t o Mr . Darb y th e tes t

o f hi s knowledg e i n accordanc e with§135.293(a ) o f th e FAR . Th e FA A als o claim s tha t an instructor , suc ha s Mr . Parker , wh o i s approve donl y for th e purpos e o f

checkin g apilot' s skill s at th e contro l o f ahelicopte r

i s someho w unqualifie dt o tes t th e sam e pilot' s knowledg e unde r

§ 135.293(a) . Ther e is , however , n o basi s for thi s

' ^ E.g . Tr . 90-94 ; Tr . 188-90 . " Id . a t 90,96-98 . "'Seee^,Tr . 269,283 . " Se e Mr . Morrison' s testimon

y a t Tr . 515 . 1 2clai mi n th e languag e o f th e regulation . I t

i s clear , moreover , that paragraph s (a)(1 ) an d(a)(4)-(8 ) o f th e prescribe dknowledg e tes t nee d no t b e give n repeatedl y eac htim e th e pilo t qualifie s i n adifferen t

typ e o f aircraft . Tha t

i s th e cas e becaus e th e phras e "[fjo r eac htyp e o f aircraf t t o b e flown b y th e pilot " appear s onl y i n paragraph s (a)(2 ) an d (a)(3 ) o f § 135.293 . Onc e ayear

i s enough . Fo r

thi s reason , I findan d determin e tha t

Mr . Darb y wa s adequatel y teste do n hi s knowledg e o f th e subject s specifie di n paragraph s (a)(1 ) an d(a)(4)-(8 ) durin g hi s chec k rid e withMr . Parke r

o n Apri l 6 , 2007 . I als o findtha t

a t variou s time s durin g th e perio dfro mth e en d o f Septembe r

200 6 t o Augus t

o f 2007 , Mr . Darb y di di n fac t pas s th e testin g require db y § 135.293(a) . Th e subject s specifie di n § 135.293(a)(1 ) an d(a)(4)-(8 ) appear t o hav e bee n teste di n Apri l 2007 , whil e th e one s describe di n § 135.293(a)(2 ) an d(a)(3 ) wer e teste dwhe n Mr . Darb y attende dth e SimCo mschoo l at th e en do f

Jul y an dth e beginnin g o f

Augus t o f 2007 . Thes e testin g requirement s appear t o hav e bee n successfull y complete dprio r t o th e date s whe n Mr . Darb y serve da s apilo t o f th e flights withwhic hth e Responden t wa s charged . S o w e no w com e t o th e questio n tha t form s th e cor e o f

thi s case : Ca n apilot , consisten t with th e FAR , complet e som e § 135.293(a ) question s at

on e sittin g and , at

alate r dat e severa l month s off , pas s th e remainin g question s o n th e subsectio n (a ) test , thereb y qualifyin g with respec t

t o th e "knowledge " requiremen t o f §135.293(a) ? Th e FA A argue s strenuousl y tha t apilo t canno t "piec e together " tw o o r

mor e testin g session s t o achiev e complianc e withth e knowledg e requirement . I t appear s t o b e th e Complainant' s theory tha t apilo t mus t qualif y b y passin g awritte n o r ora l tes t i n th e contex t o f asingl e "chec k

ride. " Se e Inspecto r

Fox' s testimon y at

Tr . 173-78 . Th e proble mwit h thi s theor y i s that , a s th e Inspecto r reluctantl y conceded , ther e i s nothin g i n th e tex t o f th e regulation s tha t

lend s credenc e t o it . Se e Id . at

177 . O n it s face , § 135.293(a ) seem s t o allo w apilo t t o pas s th e severa l require dtest s o f hi s o r he r knowledg e at

any tim e the y ar e administered , s o lon g a s the y ar e administered , an d passed , befor e th e en do f th e 12 * calendar

monthprio r

t o th e dat e th e pilo t i s use dt o fly a n operatio n tha t fall s unde r

Par t 13 5 o f th e FAR . 1 3Th e onl y restrictio n o n th e plac e an dtim e o f th e testin g tha t

ca n b e foun di n th e regulatio n i s se t fort hi n paragraph s (2 ) an d(3 ) o f § 135.293(a) . Thos e tw o paragraph s requir e th e perso n bein g teste dt o exhibi t hi s o r he r knowledg e "[f|o r

eac htyp e o f

aircraf t t o b e flown b y th e pilot. " Presumably , th e quote dlanguag e require s th e perso n bein g teste dt o demonstrat e th e requisit e knowledg e i n th e contex t o f a flight o f th e aircraf

t h e o r sh e wil l operat e or , a s wa s th e cas e withMr . Darby , i n aflight

simulato r

approve db y th e Administrator' s representative . Compar e 4 9 C.F.R . § 135.293(f) . Th e remainin g subjects, however , ca n b e teste do n th e ground , i n aclassroo mo r i n an y othe r plac e th e prospectiv e pilo t an dth e chec k

pilo t o r FA A representativ e may findthemselves . Th e absence o f th e phras e "[fjo r eac htyp e o f

aircraf t t o b e flown b y th e pilot " i n subparagraph s (1 ) an d (4)-(8 ) o f §135.293(a ) seem s t o mak e thi s clear . Ther e i s simpl y n o basi s i n th e languag e o f

th e regulatio n fo

r findin g tha t

th e testin g for al l subject s mus t

tak e plac e durin g asingl e chec k flight, muc hles s th e sam e chec k

flight i n whic hth e pilo t

i s give n th e competenc y tes t require dunde r

§ 135.293(b) . Sectio n 135.293(a ) o f

th e FA Rcontain s n o tim e limit , othe r tha n th e requiremen t

tha t th e tes t b e fully an dsatisfactoril y complete d withi n ayear

after th e candidat e ha s successfiill y complete dhi s o r he r previou s test . (Plus , o f

course , th e "grace " month. ) Ther e i s i n th e tex t o f th e regulatio n itsel f

virtuall y n o basi s fo

r holdin g tha t

th e tes t mus t b e take n al l at

on e tim e o r

withi n an y specifi c perio do f tim e othe r tha n th e one-year

period . I t

may b e possibl e t o deriv e suc harul e from§ 135.301(a ) o f

th e FAR , whic hprovide s tha t acre w membe r wh o i s require dt o tak e ates t ma y complet e i t

i n th e calendar

month befor e o r th e calendar

monthafter

th e completio n i s required . Bu t thi s languag e speak s onl y t o completio n o f th e test . I t

i s designe dt o provid e a"grace " period , a s it s titl e clearl y say s an di t doe s no t b y it s term s prohibi t

portion s o f

th e tes t frombein g complete doutsid e o f th e three-mont hperio di t

describes . FA A Orde r

No . 8400.10 , whic hwa s i n effec t durin g th e relevan t

period , als o refers , albei t obliquely , t o a tim e limi t o f 9 0 day s for

completio n o f

th e knowledg e test.^^ I n connectio n withth e recurren t testin g o f

pilots , th e Orde r

(whic hi s i n evidenc e a s Ex . R-16 ) deal s withth e requiremen t for recurren t trainin g an dtestin g o f

crewmember s who , lik e Mr . Darby , ha d

' * Orde r No . 8400.1 0 was repealedo n Septembe

r 13 , 2007 . 1 4previousl y bee n trainin g an dqualifie dfor thei r jobs . Paragrap h60 3 speak s o f an "eligibilit y period " o f thre e months , consistin g o f th e monthbefor e th e pilot' s "base " month , th e "base " monthan dth e month thereafte r

(i.e. , th e "grace " month) . Th e Orde r als o seem s t o giv e operator s an optio n eithe r t o adop t a"modular " approac ht o periodi c training-and-checkin g o f thei r airma n o r

simpl y t o allo w th e events , includin g testing , t o fall whereve r the y may . I t

seem s clear tha t th e Responden t

di dno t mak e a"modular " election ; i f i t had , thi s cas e woul dneve r

hav e arisen . Ther e ar e anumbe r

o f intractabl e problem s wit hrelianc e o n Orde r No . 8400.1 0 t o support

it s thesi s that

Mr . Darby' s severa l § 135.293(a ) test s di dno t fall withi n th e 90-da y window . Fo r on e thing , th e Orde r

di dno t at an y poin t

explicitl y requir e th e tes t t o b e complete dwithi n aperio do f 9 0 days . Fo r

another , th e Orde r

was , a s Inspecto r Fo x wa s oblige dt o concede , simpl y adirectiv e issue dt o employee s o f

th e FA A wh o wer e authorize dt o administe r th e test s require dunde r

§§135.293 , 135.29 7 an d135.293.299 . B y it s terms , th e Orde r di dno t appl y t o othe r

chec k pilot s wh o wer e authorize dt o administe r

th e knowledg e an dproficienc y tests . Se e Ex . 1 6 at ^ 281 . I t i s on e thin g for

th e Administrato r

t o instruc t

FA A personne l i n th e method s the y wil l us e t o conduc t test s unde r

§ 135.293(a ) o f

th e FAR . I t i s quit e anothe r

t o requir e operators , at

peri l o f substantia l civi l penalties , t o implemen t

amethodolog y tha t

ha s neve r

bee n adopte d withth e protection s o f

notice-and-commen t

rule-makin g unde r

th e Administrativ e Procedur e Act.' ^ And , finally , w e ar e me t onc e agai n withth e mos t

seriou s impedimen t

t o adoptio n o f

th e FAA' s theory o f th e case : th e complet e absenc e o f an y mandator y time-limit , othe r tha n th e requiremen t

for an annua l test , i n th e languag e o f §135.293(a ) o f th e FAR .

" Th e question of

wha t a"modular " training regime n consist s of

i s now pending befor

e the Administrato

r o n appea l fromm y initia l decision i

n Ventur aAi r Services . Inc. . Docke

t No . CPEA000 8 (Septembe r 24 , 2009) . " Se e Tr . 390 . " Th e FAA' s hypothesi s tha

t th e § 135.293(a

) testing requirement s must all b e completeda

t once (or withi n a90-da y window ) fall s afou

l of the APA' s requiremen

t fo r publication of

suc h requirement s i

n the Federa

l Register . Se

e 5 U.S.C . §552(a)(l)(D) . Th e statut e goe s o n to stat e tha t " aperson fe.g. . Darby Aviation ] ma y not i n an y maime r b e requir e to resor t to , o r b e adversel

y affecte dby , amatte

r require dt o b e published i n th e Federa l Registe r an dnot s o published. " 1 5Th e FA A ha s argue dthat , a s a n administrativ e law judge , I shoul d"giv e deference " t o it s vie w tha t th e § 135.293(a ) tes t

mus t b e give n wit h th e § 135.293(b ) proficienc y tes t an dcanno t

b e give n separatel y o r

at variou s time s an dplaces . I n support o f thi s argument , i t cite s languag e fromGarve y v . NTS B an dMerrell , 19 0 F.3 d571 , ' " • 58 0 (D.C . Cir . 1999 ) t o th e effec t that i n asplit-enforcemen t

setting , th e NTS B wa s require dt o defer t o th e FAA' s interpretatio n o f it s ow n safet y regulations , i^ , th e FAR . Th e issu e i n th e instan t case , however , i s no t

whethe r I a mrequire dt o giv e deferenc e t o th e agency' s interpretatio n o f it s regulations . Ofcourselam . Th e issue , rather , i s wha t

th e FAA' s interpretatio n o f it s pilot-testin g requiremen t shal l b e i n th e first

instance . What

th e Complainan t

cite s a s "th e FAA' s interpretation " i s nothin g mor e tha n th e constructio n give n th e regulation s b y th e agency' s enforcemen t armi n thi s ver y case , acas e which , s o fa

r a s th e recor dshows , i s on e o f first impression . T o hol d tha t th e interpretatio n o f

th e enforcemen t

staf f shoul dcarry th e da

y becaus e th e enforcemen t

staf f no w say s s o i s a

n exercis e o f

circular reasoning . Th e enforcemen t staff s vie w i s unsupporte db y an y preceden t i t ha s cite dand , mor e importantly , i s withou t an y basi s i n th e languag e o f

th e regulatio n itsel f I n m y judgment , thi s impedimen t canno t b e overcom e - thoug h th e cas e i s aclos e one . Granted , ther e ar e seriou s adminisfrativ e problem s tha t

aris e i f w e agre e withth e Respondent' s assertio n tha t tw o testin g sessions , som e si x month s apart , satisfie dMr . Darby' s obligatio n t o pas s ates t

o f hi s knowledg e unde r

§ 135.293(a) . A s Inspecto r Fo x pointe dout , permittin g aPart 13 5 operato r

t o giv e it s pilot s test s outsid e th e norma l contex t o f thei r "base " month s makes i t difficul t for th e FAA' s Operation s Inspector s t o monito r complianc e withth e testin g requirement s o f th e FAR . Nevertheless , th e fac t remains , an di t

wil l no t g o away , tha t

nothin g i n th e FA Rexpressl y o r b y inferenc e prohibit s acarrie r fromadministerin g th e requisit e test s at interval s othe r

tha n every twelv e months . No r i s ther e anythin g i n th e FA Rwhic h require s th e tes t o f apilot' s knowledg e a s specifie di n § 135.293(a ) t o b e complete di n on e sittin g o r on e session . Indeed , a lega l opinio n issue db y th e FAA' s Offic e o f Chie f Counse l an dfoun d i n th e recor da s Exhibi t

R-17 , seem s t o indicat e tha t th e agenc y i s comfortabl e with th e administratio n o f th e test s befor e the y ar e

^ ° Se e Tr . 467-68 . 1 6previousl y bee n trainin g an dqualifie dfo r thei r jobs . Paragrap h60 3 speak s o f a n "eligibilit y period " o f thre e months , consistin g o f th e month befor e th e pilot' s "base " month , th e "base " monthan dth e month thereafte r

(i.e. , th e "grace " month) . Th e Orde r als o seem s t o giv e operator s an optio n eithe r t o adop t a"modular " approac ht o periodi c training-and-checkin g o f thei r airma n o r

simpl y t o allo w th e events , includin g testing , t o fall whereve r the y may . I t

seem s clear that th e Responden t

di dno t mak e a"modular " election ; i f i t had , thi s cas e woul dneve r

hav e arisen . Ther e ar e anumbe r

o f intractabl e problem s wit hrelianc e o n Orde r No . 8400.1 0 t o support

it s thesi s tha t

Mr . Darby' s severa l § 135.293(a ) test s di dno t fall withi n th e 90-day window . Fo r on e thing , th e Orde r

di dno t at an y poin t

explicitl y requir e th e tes t t o b e complete dwithi n aperio do f 9 0 days . Fo r

another , th e Orde r

was , a s Inspecto r Fo x wa s oblige dt o concede , simpl y adirectiv e issue dt o employee s o f

th e FA A wh o wer e authorize dt o administe r th e test s require dunde r

§§135.293 , 135.29 7 an d135.293.299 . B y it s terms , th e Orde r di dno t appl y t o othe r

chec k pilot s wh o wer e authorize dt o administe r

th e knowledg e an dproficienc y tests . Se e Ex . 1 6 at ^ 281 . I t i s on e thin g for

th e Administrato r

t o instruc t

FA A personne l i n th e method s the y wil l us e t o conduc t test s unde r

§135.293(a ) o f

th e FAR . I t i s quit e anothe r

t o requir e operators , a

t peri l o f substantia l civi l penalties , t o implemen t

amethodolog y tha t

ha s neve r

bee n adopte d with th e protection s o f

notice-and-commen t

rule-makin g unde r

th e Administrativ e Procedur e Act.' ^ And , finally, w e ar e me t onc e agai n with th e mos t

seriou s impedimen t

t o adoptio n o f

th e FAA' s theor y o f th e case : th e complet e absenc e o f an y mandator y time-limit , othe r tha n th e requiremen t

for an annua l test , i n th e languag e o f § 135.293(a ) o f th e FAR .

' ^ Th e question of

wha t a"modular " training regime n consist s of

i s no w pending befor

e the Administrato

r o n appea l fromm y initia l decision in Ventur

aAi r Services . Inc. . Docke

t No . CPEA000 8 (Septembe r 24 , 2009) . ' ^ Se e Tr . 390 . " Th e FAA' s hypothesi s tha

t the § 135.293(a

) testin g requirements must all b e completeda

t once (o r withi n a90-da y window ) fall s afou

l o f the APA' s requiremen

t fo r publication o

f suc h requirement s i

n the Federa

l Register . Se

e 5 U.S.C . §552(a)(l)(D) . Th e statut e goe s o n to stat e tha t " aperson [e.g. . Darby Aviation] ma y not i n an y manne r b e requir e t o resor t to , o r b e adversel

y affecte dby , amatte

r require dto b e published i n tiie Federa

l Registe r an dnot s o published. " 1 5technicall y du e at o r near th e expiratio n o f

th e one-year

period . Tha t i s wha t appear s t o hav e happene dher e i n th e cas e o f Mr . Darby . Fo r th e foregoin g reasons , I findan dconclud e tha t Elto n H . Darby , apilo t

employe db y th e Responden t a s th e pilot-in-comman d" o f operation s unde r

Part 13 5 o f th e FAR , wa s not , a s charge di n th e complaint , i n violatio n o f §135.293(a ) o f

th e regulation s whe n h e serve di n tha t

capacity durin g th e flights at issu e i n thi s case . I n consideratio n o f

th e foregoing , an dsubjec t t o revie w b y th e Administrato r

o n appea l o r

o n hi s ow n motio n a s provide di n §13.23 3 o f th e Rule s o f

Practic e an dProcedure , 1 4 C.F.R . §13.233 , tha t th e charge s agains t

th e Responden t

Darb y Aviation , Inc . i n th e complain t flledb y th e Complainan t

i n thi s docke t

mus t be , an dthe y hereb y are , dismisse dwit hprejudice . I T I S S O ORDERED .

Isaa c D . Benki n Administrativ e La w Judg e [Note : Thi s decisio n ma y b e appeale dt o th e Administrato r o f th e FAA . Th e Notic e o f

Appea l mus t

b e filedno t

late r tha n 1 0 day s afte r

servic e o f thi s decisio n (plu s five additiona l days , i f thi s decisio n i s serve db y mail) . 1 4 C.F.R . §§13.233(a) , 13.211(e) . Th e appea l mus t b e perfecte d wit h awritte n brie f

o r memorandu mno t

late r tha n 5 0 day s afte r

servic e o f thi s decisio n (plu s five additiona l days , i f thi s decisio n i s serve db y mail) . 1 4 C.F.R . §§13.233(c) , 13.211(e) . Th e Notic e o f Appea l an dbrie f o r memorandu mmus t

b e eithe r

(a ) maile dt o th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 , o r (b ) delivere dpersonall y o r vi aexpedite d courie r servic e t o th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 60 0 Independenc e Ave. , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 , Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 . 1 4 C.F.R . §§13.233(a) , 13.210(a)(2) , (1) . A cop y o f th e Notic e o f

Appea l an d

1 7brie f

o r memorandu mshoul dals o b e sen t t o counse l fo r

th e FA A i n thi s proceeding . 1 4 C.F.R . §13.233(a). ]

1 8FA A Docke t No . CP08SO002 6 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) UPDATE D SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L& ON E COP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y Deann aL . Weidner , Respondent' s Counse l Anderso n & Associates , LL C 50 5 20thStree t

Nort h Financial Center , Suit e 145 0 Birmingham , A L 3520 3 TEL : 205-324-123 0 FAX : 205-322-389 0 E-MAIL : dlweidner@davidbandersonlaw.co m Raymon dVeatch , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Ave . S.W . Washingto n D C 2059 1 TEL : 202-267-967 6 E-MAIL : Raymond.Veatch@faa.gov Th e Honorabl e Isaa c D . Benkin , Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 New Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorne y 202-366-213 9 Lega l Assistan t

202-366-213 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6 E-MAIL : David.Benkin@dot.go v

' Service was b

y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n person o r b y expeditedcourier , us e the follovi^in g address : Federa

l Aviatio n Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 .