### DEPARTMEN T O F ~ *"^' " ' ^ ' TlANSPORTATWOR

E TH E U.S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N 

### - p i ^ TKE i 0PERATf^w'"ora6/ e Chie f Administrativ e Law Judg e Ronni e A . Yoder 20I0NO V ? 3 P 1=5 3

I n th e matte r

o f BRENDA N AIRWAYS , LLC , d/b/aUSA300 0 Airline s

Responden t DM S No. : FAA-2009-003 2

FA A Docke t

No. : CP09EA000 7 FA A Cas e No. : 2008EA17003 8 MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR Y JUDGMEN T o r

DECISIO N an d MOTIO N T O DISMIS S 91.13(a ) AMENDMEN T T O COMPLAIN T Come s no w th e Respondent , Brenda n Airways , LL C d/b/ aU S A 3 00 0 Airline s [hereinafter

"USA 3 000" ] an dMOVE S th e Administrativ e La w Judg e t o dismis s al l charge s agains t

th e Respondent . Followin g th e recen t

amendmen t

t o th e Complaint , ther e ar e tw o remainin g charge s unde r

Par t an dtw o remainin g charge s unde r Part 43 . Th e Par t

9 1 charge s ar e identica l t o thos e tha t

wer e alread y decide di n th e relate dcas e Babbit t v . Sxirratt . B y usin g collatera l estoppe l an dth e Babbit t v . Surratt , th e Part

9 1 claim s shoul db e dismissed . Th e Part

4 3 allegation s ca n b e decide do n th e fac t tha t th e Administrato r

ha s admitte dtha t

h e doe s no t

kno w ke y fact s tha t

woul db e necessar y t o suppor t th e Part 4 3 allegations , includin g th e fac t tha t th e Administrato r

canno t poin t t o an y maintenanc e tha t wa s incorrectl y performe db y US A 3000 , an dcanno t dra w alin k

betwee n th e spoile r issu e an dan y maintenanc e performe db y US A 3000 . 

# .:: D

Content s L Fact s 3 A . Introductio n 3 B . Th e Administrato r Fail s t o Identif

y What Maintenanc e Wa s Improperl y Performe d4 C . Th e Cas e Agains t

th e Pilot s 6 II . Argumen t

7 A . Standard s fo r

Dispositiv e Motio n 7 1 . Issue s Previousl y Decide dan dSubjec t t o Collatera l Estoppe l 8 RESPONDENT S MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR Y Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e JUDGMEN T La w Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei n Pag e I 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## 2 . Issue s tha t Ar e No t Subjec t to Collatera

l Estoppel 8 B . Th e 91.7(a) ClaimMus t

B e DismissedBecaus e of

Collatera l Estoppel 9 1 . Element s of

Collatera l Estoppel 9 2 . Analysi s of

Collatera l Estoppel Argumen

t Wit h Respec t to th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(a ) Claim1 0 C . Th e 91.13(a) ClaimMus t

B e Dismissedfo

r Statut e o f Limitation s Reason s (Motion to Dismiss ) 1 4 D . Th e 91.13(a ) ClaimMus t

Als o B e Dismisse dDu e t o Collatera l Estoppel (Motion fo r Summar y Judgment

) 1 6 1 . The Issu e Decide din th e Prior Proceedin g i s Identica

l Wit h th e Issu e Presentedin th e Second1 6 2 . The Part

y Agains t Who mCollatera

l Estoppel i s Asserte dWas aPart y in th e Prio r Litigatio n 1 7 3 . Th e Prior

Ad j udicatio n Endedin aFina

l Judgmen t o n th e Merit s 1 8 4 . The Administrator

(the Part y Agains t Who mth e Doctrin e i s Asserted) Ha da Fai r Opportunit

y to Litigat

e th e Issu e Becaus e th e Administrator wa s aPart

y t o th e Prio r Litigatio n 1 8 E . Conclusio n of

Collatera l Estoppel Argument s 1 9 F . Th e 1 4 C.F. R§ § 43.13(a ) an

d43.13(b ) Claim s Mus t

B e Dismisse d1 9 1 . Lega

l Standard s fo

r th e Par t 4 3 Claim s 1 9 2 . The Administrator

Bear s th e Burde

n to Demonstrat

e Significan

t Probativ e Evidenc e in Suppor

t o f It s Positio n 2 0 3 . The Administrator

Doe s Not Sa y Wha t Maintenanc e Wa s Performed Inadequately 2 1 4 . Th e Administrator

Doe s No t Know s Wh

o Put th e Spoiler s I

n Maintenanc e Mod e an dDoe s No t

Know Ho w o r Whe n th e Spoiler s Wer

e Put in Maintenanc e Mod e 2 2 5 . Othe

r Possibl e Cause s Mak

e i t Inappropriat

e to Assum

e Causatio n 2

4 6 . US A 300 0 Di dNo t

Perfor mth e Maintenanc e tha

t wa s ConsideredInadequat

e 2 5 G . Statemen

t Concernin g Par

t 12 1 Claim s 2 6 III . Conclusio n 2 6 CERTIFICAT E OF SERVIC E 2 8 APPENDI X A : Potentially Moot

Par t 12 1 Argument s 2 9 A . Th e 1 4 C.F. R§ § 121.153(a)(2 ) an d121.628(a)(5 ) Claim s Mus t B e Dismisse d Becaus e th e Flight

Wa s Outsid e th e Scop e o

f Par t 12 1 2 9 RESPONDENT' S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y Washington Aviation Group , P C an dth e JUDGMEN

T La w Office s o f

Jason A . Dickstein Page 2 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## B . Applicatio n o f th e Collatera

l Estoppel Argumen

t to th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.153(a)(2 ) Clai

m3 2 DECLARATIO

N O F JOSEP H MILLE R3 3 Joseph Mille

r Exhibit s 3 8 APPENDI X C : Judg e Fowler' s Decisio n i n Babbit t v . Surrat t APPENDI X D : NTSB' s Decisio n Affirmin g Babbit t v . Surrat t (on appeal ) APPENDI X E : NTSB' s Decisio n Affirmin g Babbit t v . Surrat t (o n reconsideration ) APPENDI X F : Complainant' s Firs t

Respons e to Respondent' s Firs t Se t o f Interrogatories , Request s fo

r Productio n of

Documents , andRequest s fo r Admissions , Respons e to Interrogatorie s #1-1 3 (page s 1-4 ) APPENDI X G : Complainant' s SecondRespons e t o Respondent' s Firs t Set of Interrogatories , Request s fo r Productio n of

Documents , an

dRequest s fo

r Admissions , Respons e t o Interrogator

y #1 8 an dReques t fo r Productio n #1 1



## I . Fact s A . Introductio n Thi s i s acas e abou

t a n Airbu s A32 0 aircraf

t known by U.S . registr

y N265A V ["Th e Aircraft"] . The Aircraf

t wa s ownedb y ILFC , an

dit wa s operate dunde

r leas e by US A 3000 . See Declaratio n of Joseph Mille

r a t ^^ j 3-5 . US A 3000' s leas e o n Th

e Aircraf t wa s coming to a

n end . Se e i da t ^ 6 . It i s normal , a t th e endof such alease , t

o put th e aircraf t int o heav y maintenanc e in orde

r to retur n i t to th e conditio n require dby th e lease . Se e i dA t th e en dof th e maintenanc e cycle , suc h alease daircraf

t woul db e returne dto th e lessor . Se e i da t T[ | 6-10 . I

n thi s case , thi s wa s exactly wha

t wa s occurrin g in th e Spring of 2008 . I d US A 300 0 contracte dwit

h AA Rto perfor mlease-endheavy maintenanc e o n Th e Aircraft . See i da

t T [ 6 . Thepurposeoftheheav y maintenanc e wa s to mak e The Aircraf

t read y to b e returne dt

o ILFC . Seei dat^^6-10 . ILF C als o contracte dwit

h AA Rto perfor mcertai n wor

k to mak e th e aircraf

t read y fo r th e nex t lesse e (Stat

e Transpor t Russia) . Se

e i da t Ti t 34-35 . RESPONDENT' S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T Page 3 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dth e La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## O n Ma y 15,2008 , test s o n th e aircraf t confirmedtha

t th e spoiler s wer

e in operationa l mode . Se

e i da t ^ ^ 12-14 . O n Ma y 17,2008 , Th

e Aircraf t wa s flown o

n amaintenanc e acceptanc e flight. Babbit t V . Surratt . EA-5514,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 a t + 1 n. 2 (March 23,2010) . Th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight wa s flown by tw o pilot s - Captain Ton y Scot Surrat t an d Captain Fran

k Willia mWalker . A maintenanc e acceptanc e flight i s a n operationa

l tes t of th e maintenanc e performed . 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.407(b) . B . Th e Administrato r Fail s t o Identify Wha t Maintenanc e Wa s Improperl y Performe d I n th e Complaint , th e Administrato r claime dthat : "Prio r to th e flight, maintenanc e wa s performe do n th e aircraf t i n whic h th e spoiler serv o actuator s fo

r lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive were place di n th e maintenanc e mode. " Complain t a t Allegatio n 4 o f

Sectio n II . US A 300 0 sough

t discover y o n thi s allegation , andasked : "Interrogator

y #1 : Allegatio n 4 o f

section I I of th e Complain

t contend s tha

t th e spoile r serv o actuator s wer

e place di n th e maintenanc e mod

e durin g maintenance . O n wha t dat e an ddurin g wha

t maintenanc e operatio n wer e th e spoile

r serv o actuator s place din th e maintenanc e mode? " Respondent' s Firs t Se t of Interrogatories , Request s fo r Productio n of

Documents , an

dRequest s fo

r Admissions . Interrogator

y #1 . Th e Administrator

answeredby admitting that : "th e Complainan

t doe s no t kno w th e exact

dat e of th e maintenanc e .. . th e Complainan

t doe s no t kno w durin g wha

t maintenanc e operatio n th e spoile r serv o actuator s wer

e place di n th e maintenanc e mode , howeve r i t appear s tha

t th e maintenanc e wa s performedby AAR. " Complainant' s Firs t Respons e t o Respondent' s Firs t

Se t of Interrogatories . Request s fo r Productio n of

Documents , an dRequest s fo

r Admissions . Respons e to Interrogator y #1 . Th e par t o f thi s respons e tha

t blame s AA

Rfo r placin g th e spoiler s in maintenanc e mod e i s inconsisten

t wit h document s produce dby th e Administrator in respons e to discover y in thi s case . I

n severa l FA A Progra mTrackin g andReportin g Subsyste m RESPONDENT S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T Page 4 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dthe La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### (PTRS ) Dat aSheet , provide di n respons e t o US A 3000' s discover y request , th e

Administrato r

admi t tha t th e FAA' s ow n investigator s coul dnot determin e tha t

an y AA R employe e pu t

th e spoiler s i n maintenanc e mode : "05-20-200 8 T O 06-16-200 8 - CONDUCTE D INVESTIGATIO N REGARDIN G TH E ALLEGE D IMPROPE RMAINTENANCE . COUL D NO T PROV E THA T AN Y AA REMPLOYE E PERFORME D TH E IMPROPE RPOSITIONIN G O F TH E LEF T WIN G SPOILER S 3 AN D 5 T O TH E MAINTENANC E MODE. " FA A PTR S recor dfi-omInspecto r LX C for EI R2008SO19022 0 (al l capital s i n original ) (Foun di n Appendi x G t o thi s Motion) . Th e discover y evidenc e show s tha t th e Administrato r

doe s not kno w wh o place d th e spoiler s i n th e maintenanc e mode ; an dth e Administrato r canno t sho w tha t

an y AA R employe e place dth e spoiler s i n th e maintenanc e mode . Thi s i s acritica l evidentiary failure , becaus e ther e i s als o n o evidenc e tha t an y maintenanc e was incorrectl y performed . Instead , th e Administrato r relie s o n th e propositio n tha t th e spoiler s wer e i n maintenanc e mode , an dwork s backward s t o assum e al l o f th e othe r fact s abou t

th e allegatio n - th e relationshi p betwee n performanc e o f som e maintenanc e an dth e spoiler s arriva l int o maintenanc e mod e (causation ) i s assumed , an dals o th e propositio n tha t maintenanc e was improperl y performe d(th e allege dcausa l act ) i s als o assumed . Th e Administrato r

canno t reasonabl y clai mtha t

h e ha s foun dadditional fact s t o support th e allegatio n tha t

US A 300 0 performe dmaintenanc e incorrectl y (allegatio n fou r i n th e Complaint) , becaus e i n interrogator y #2 , US A 300 0 asked : Interrogator y #2 : Pleas e identif y al l o f th e fact s tha t

yo u conten dsupport Allegatio n 4 o f

sectio n I I o f

th e Complaint . Respondent' s Firs t Se t o f Interrogatories . Request s for Productio n o f

Documents , an dRequest s for Admissions . Interrogator y #2 . I n respons e t o this , th e Administrato r explained : Prio r t o th e flight

ther e wer e severa l indication s i n th e cockpi t suggestin g tha t

lef t an dright win g rol l spoiler s 3 an d5 wer e no t operational , durin g th e flight thes e rol l spoiler s di dno t

function , an dafter

th e flight i t was determine dthroug h visua l inspectio n tha t

th e spoile r

serv o actuator s wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mode . Complainant' s Firs t

Respons e t o Respondent' s Firs t Se t o f Interrogatories . Request s for

Productio n o f

Documents , an dRequest s for Admissions . Respons e t o Interrogator y #2 . RESPONDENT' S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T Page s Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dthe La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### I t i s clear tha t th e Administrator' s positio n i s tha t th e onl y evidenc e o f

an y imprope r maintenanc e i s th e fac t

tha t th e spoiler s (i n som e identifie dway ) ende du p i n maintenanc e mode . Bu t

nowher e i n thi s answe r

doe s th e Administrato r

specif y an y fact s t o support th e allegatio n tha t

US A 300 0 performe dmaintenanc e incorrectly . An da s w e se e i n th e enforcemen t

cas e agains t

th e pilots . Judg e Fowle r

disagree dwit h th e Administrator' s contentio n concernin g pre-fligh t indication s o f

failures . C . Tii e Cas e Agains t th e Pilot s Th e Administrato r

brough t certificat e suspensio n actions , includin g 1 4 C.F.R . § § 91.7(a ) an d91.13(a ) charges , agains t th e tw o pilot s o n thi s flight. Th e matte r wa s hear d before th e honorabl e Chie f Judg e Fowler . Judg e Fowle r

foun dtha t

th e pilot s di dnot

kno w tha t

th e spoiler s wer e inoperativ e a t th e tim e o f

take-off. Se e Babbit t

v . Surratt . SE-18562 , 200 9 NTS B LEXI S 10 6 at *12 , *14 , *1 6 (Septembe r

2,2009) . H e foun dtha t

th e pilot s leane dtha t

th e spoiler s wer e inoperativ e after

take-off. Id . a t

* 13- * 14 , * 17 . H e foun dtha t i t wa s reasonabl e for

th e pilot s t o hav e continue dthei r maintenanc e acceptanc e flight. Id . at" ' 14," ' 17-18 . Judg e Fowle r note dtha t

th e pilot s di dnot

hav e knowledg e o f

an imairworth y conditio n durin g th e flight. I da t

* 10 . Becaus e th e pilot s di dnot hav e knowledg e o f

a n unairworth y conditio n a t

th e tim e o f

takeoff , ther e wa s n o violatio n o f 91.7(a ) a t

th e tim e o f

takeoff . Id . a t * 14 . Becaus e th e QR H permitte dcontinue dflight upo n learnin g o f

inoperativ e spoilers , an dn o othe r

resourc e provide dcontrar y guidance . Judg e Fowle r hel dtha t ther e wa s n o violatio n o f

91.7(a ) afte r

th e tim e o f

takeoff . I dat * 14- * 15 . Judg e Fowle r specificall y foimdtha t

eac h pilo t

di dno t operat e th e aircraf

t i n acareles s maime r

s o a s t o endange r th e lif e o r propert y o f

anothe r an dtherefor e di dnot

violat e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.13(a) . Idaf^H , *17-18 . O n appeal , th e Nationa l Transportatio n Safet y Boar d(NTSB ) affirme dJudg e Fowler' s rulings . Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5514,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 a t *26-'*2 7 (Marc h 23,2010) . Th e Boar dagree dtha t th e pilot s ha dth e discretio n t o continu e wit h th e flight, an dtha t th e decisio n was reasonable . I dat *26-*21 . Th e Administrato r

petitione dfor

reconsideratio n o f

th e Board' s decision , an dth e Boar daffirme dthei r

ow n decision . Babbit t

v . Surratt . EA-5527,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 RESPONDENT S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T Page 6 Washington Aviation Group , P C an dthe La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## (June 25,2010) . O n reconsideration , th e Boar dclearly state dtha

t th e Administrator

ha d faile dt o prov e tha

t th e pilot s ha

dknowledg e of

a n unairworth

y conditio n prio r

t o take

off . I da t *2 . Th e Boar

dexplaine dtha

t the evidenc e showedtha

t th e pilot s ha

da "green " ECA

M (free o f error messages ) prio

r t o take-of f I da t *6-*7 . The Boar

dstated tha t th e pilot s di dno t

know , nor shoul dthe

y hav e reasonably known , tha t th e aircraf t wa s i n a n unairworth

y condition . I da

t *9- * 10 . The Boar

dconclude s tha

t th e pilot s acted reasonabl y i n their decision s (the

y di dnot act recklessly nor

carelessly) . I da

t * 13 . 

## II . Argumen t A . Standard s for

Dispositiv e Motio n Th e Administrativ e La

w Judg e shal

l gran t aparty' s motio n fo

r decisio n i f

th e evidenc e show s tha

t (1 ) ther e i s n o genuine issu e of

materia l fac t and(2 ) tha

t th e part y makin g th e motio n i s entitle dt

o adecisio n a s amatte

r of law . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(5) . A Motion fo

r Decisio n i s adjudicatedimde r th e sam e standard s a s amotio n fo

r summar y judgment . Summar

y judgment

i s appropriat

e whe n ther e i s n o genuine issu e of

materia l fac t an dth e movin g part

y i s entitle dto judgmen

t a s amatte r of la w (Se e 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(5) ; cf

. Fed . R . Civ . P . 56(c) ) o

r whe n no reasonabl e decision-make r could retur n averdic t fo r th e nonmoving party . Anderson v . Libert y Lobby . Inc. . 47 7 U.S . 242 , 24 8 (1986) . On e o f th e main purpose s of

asummar y judgment

motio n i s to dispos e o

f factuall y unsupporte dclaims . Se

e Anderson . 47 7 U.S . a

t 249 ; Celotex Corp . v . Catrett . 47 7 U.S . 317,323-2 4 (1986) . I n thi s motion , US A 300 0 ha s th e burden o f showing tha

t ther e i s n o genuine issu e o f

materia l fac t disputedby th e parties . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(5) . Although th e cour t mus t examine th e evidenc e in th e ligh t mos t favorable t o the non-moving part

y anddra w all reasonabl e inference s in tha t party' s favor , i f

(a s i n thi s case ) ther

e ar e no relevant

fact s supporting th e non-movin g party' s position , ther e i s nothing to constru e in it s favor . See , e.g . Griffit h v Willia mPen n Broadcastin g Co. . 4 F.R.D . 475 , 47 7 (E.D . Pa . 1945) . A dispositiv e motion , an dit s opposition , ma

y no t rel y RESPONDENT' S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T Page 7 Washington Aviation Group , P C an dth e La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## o

n amer e assertion s or

unsupporte dclaims . I

n R e Horizo n Ai

r Industries . Fed . Av . Dec . 1996-24 . 1 . [ssue s Previousl y Decide dan dSubjec t t o Collatera l Estoppe l I n thi s case , th e onl

y materia l fact s tha t ar e arguabl y in disput e ar e fact s tha t hav e bee n decidedi

n a n earlie r cas e an dar e subject to th e doctrine of

collatera l estoppel . Becaus e they hav e alread

y been decided , th e Administrator i s estoppe dfro

mdenying th e facts a s they hav e been foun din th e earlie

r case . Thus , thos e materia

l fact s ar e no t reasonabl y in dispute . I n particular , th e Administrator ha s alread y full y litigate dth e § 91.7(a) an

d§ 91.13(a ) claim s agains t

th e pilot s of

th e Aircraf

t (claim s III(c ) an

dIll(d ) of th e Amended Complaint) . Th

e Nationa l Transportatio n Safet

y Boar dfoun dtha t neithe r of thos e claim s couldb e sustaine dagains t

th e pilots . A s th e pilot s ar e th e onl y relevan t agent s of th e ai r carrie r fo r purpose s o f

thes e claims , no agen

t of th e Responden

t coul dhav e committed thes e violation s an

dthu s th e Responden

t didno t commi t thes e violations . 2 . Issue s tha t

Ar e No t Subjec t t o Collatera l Estoppe l Except wit h respec t to affirmative defenses , the Administrator bear s th e ultimat

e burde n of proo f i n civi l penalt

y cases . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.224(a) . O n issue s wher

e th e non-movan

t (the FAA , i

n thi s case ) bear s th e ultimat e burde n of proo f a t trial , th e non-movan

t ma y no t defea t amotio n fo

r summar y judgment

by relying upon evidenc e tha

t i s "merel y colorable " o

r "no t significantl y probative. " Anderson . 47 7 U.S . a

t 249-5 0 (emphasi s added) . Accor dSummers v . A . Teicher

t & Son . 12 7 F.3 d1150,115 2 (9 * Cir . 1997) . To th e contrary , th e non-movan t mus t presen t "significan t

probativ e evidenc e tendin g t o suppor t th e complaint. " Summers . 12 7 F.3 d a t 1152 . Summar

y judgment

shouldb e grantedagains t

th e complainan

t whe n th e complainan

t "rest[s ] o n hi s allegation s .. . without an y significan

t probativ e evidenc e tendin g t o suppor t th e complaint. " Anderson . 47 7 U.S . a t 249 . RESPONDENT S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T Page s Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dthe La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## Wit h respec t t o th e Par t 4 3 claim s tha

t th e Administrator

ha s allege din thi s case , th e Administrator

canno t present significan t probativ e evidenc e tendin g t o suppor t th e allegation s of

th e complaint . I

n fact , a s discusse din thi s brief , th e Administrator

ha s admittedtha

t afte r investigation , it

stil l doe s not

have an y evidenc e t o suppor

t allegation s tha t wouldb e necessar

y t o provin g aPar

t 4 3 claimagains t

US A 3000 , lik

e whethe r US A 3000 actuall

y wa s th e perso n who performedo r authorize dth e 'inadequat

e maintenance ' action s allegedi n th e Complaint ! B . Th e 91.7(a ) Clai mMus t B e Dismisse dBecaus e o f Collatera l Estoppe l US A 3000 i s acorporat

e entit y andtherefor

e it s action s ar

e th e action s of

it s agents ; it s knowledg e i s th e knowledg e o f it s agents . US A 3000 ha

dtw o agent s o n th e aircraf

t wh o wer e operatin g th e aircraf

t o n behal f of the company . The

y wer e Captain Surrat

t an dCaptain Walker . The Administrato

r ha s alread y imsuccessfiill

y brough t certificatio n action s agains t thes e tw o pilots . A s par

t o f th e decisio n in thos e actions , the NTS B foun dtha t neithe r Captain Surrat t nor Captain Walke

r knew tha t th e spoiler s wer

e in maintenanc e mode . Furthermore , th e NTS B foun dit wa s reasonabl e tha

t th e pilot s di dno t

kno w of th e spoiler s being in maintenanc e mode . Basedo n lac

k o f knowledge , th e Boar

dfoun dtha t th e tw o pilot s coul dno t

hav e violated91.7(a

) becaus e the

y di dno t kno w (o r reasonably shoul dhav e known ) o f th e spoile r issue s unti l they wer

e in th e air , an

dthey didno t

kno w tha t th e spoiler s wer

e in maintenanc e mod

e unti l afte r th e flight wa s over . 1 , Element s o f

Collatera l Estoppe l Collatera l estoppel prevent s apart

y fi:omrelitigatin g a

n issu e afte

r th e part y ha s ha daful l an dfai r opportunit

y t o presen t it s cas e i n aprior proceeding . It

bar s re litigatio n o f

a n issu e of fac t or la w tha t wa s actuall

y litigate dan

dresolve di

n aprior cour t RESPONDENT S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y Washington Aviation Group , P C an dth e JUDGMEN

T La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstein Page 9 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## determination , even i f th e issu e recur s i n th e context o f adifferen t claim . E.g . Taylor

v . Sturgell , 55 3 U.S . 880 , 89 2 (2008) . Collatera l estoppel ha s fou

r elements : 1 ) th e issu e decide di n th e prior proceedin g i s identica

l wit h th e issu e presente din th e second ; 2 ) th e part y agains t whomcollatera

l estoppel i s asserte dwa s apart y in aprior , actual , litigation ; 3 ) th e prio r

adjudicatio n endedi n afinal judgment on th e merits ; and , 4 ) th e part y agains t who mthe doctrin e i s asserte dha dafai r opportunit

y to litigat e th e issu e (e.g . i

t wa s eithe r apart y to th e litigatio n or

i n privit y to aparty) . E.g . Swerso n v . IBM . 47 2 F.3 d1072,107 8 (9t h Cir . 2007) ; see als o Parklane Hosier y Co . v . Shore . 43 9 U.S . 32 2 (1979) , Blonder-Tongu e Lab , v . Univ . of 111 . Found. . 40 2 U.S . 313,323-324(1971) .

2 . Analysi s o f

Collatera l Estoppe l Argumen t Wit h Respec t

t o th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(a ) Clai m

a ) Th e Issu e Decide di n th e Prio r Proceedin g i s Identica l Wit h th e Issu e Presente di n th e Secon d I n thi s case , th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91. 7 allegatio n b y th e Administrator

i s identica

l t o th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91. 7 issu e tha

t wa s raise din th e prior

Surrat t an dWalke r case . Se e Babbit t v . Surratt . 200 9 NTS B Lexi s 106 (Septembe r 2,2009) , affirme

don appea l EA-5514,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 (March 23,2010) , motio n fo r reconsideratio n denie d"EK-SSll , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 (June 25,2010) . Th e final decisio n o f

th e tiial judge , a s well a s th e denia l of th e Administrator' s appea

l to th e Boar

dandth e denia

l o f th e Administrator' s motion fo r reconsideratio n ar

e attache da s appendice s to thi s Motion . I n bot h cases , th e allegation s ar

e base dupon aUS A 3000 maintenanc e acceptanc e flight of a n Airbu s A32 0 o n Ma

y 17,200 8 fromMiam

i Intemationa

l Airport . Compar

e RESPONDENT S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T Page 1 0 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dthe La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D

C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## Babbit

t v . Surratt . EA-5514,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 a t "^ 1 (Marc h 23,2010 ) (identifying th e flight) witii In th e matte r of Brenda n Airways . LLC . FA

A Docket No . CP09EA0007 , Complain t a t paragraph 11(3) (Januar

y 14,2009 ) (identifying th e sam e flight in th e cas e a

t bar) . Bot h th e prior cas e andthi s cas e ar

e dealin g wit

h th e sam e flight. Bot h case s allege dtha

t th e flight in questio n wa s operate di n a n unairworth

y fashio n in violatio n of

1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(a) . Compar e Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5514,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 a

t * 1 n. 2 (March 23,2010 ) (explainin g tiiat th e pilot s wer

e charge d wdt h violatin g sectio n 91.7(a) wit h respec t t o th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight) wit h I n th e matte r of Brenda n Airways . LLC . FA

A Docke t No . CP09EA0007 , Complain t a t paragraph Ill(e ) (Januar

y 14,2009 ) (chargin g US A 300 0 wit h violatin g sectio n 91.7(a

) wit h respec t to th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight). Cas e la w ha s hel dtha

t a n allegatio n of

asectio n 91.7(a

) violatio n (allegin g unairworth y operatio n of

a n aircraft ) ha s aknowledg e elemen

t (i t i s no t astric t liabilit y offense) . Se

e Administrator

v . Parker . 3 NTS B 2997,299 8 (1980) ; Garve y v . Frost . NTS B Orde

r No . EA-468 0 a

t 2 (July 01,1998 ) (Docke

t SE-14781) ; Nunn v . Hinson . 199 4 W L 80807 6 (Novembe

r 07,1994 ) (NTS B Docke

t 207-EAJA-SE-13563) . The behavio r of pilot s chargedwit

h airworthines s violation s shouldb e measure dby wha t the pilot s knew o

r shoul dhav e known abou

t th e aircraft , wit

h thi s standar

drequirin g th e pilot s t o hav e reacte dreasonably andprudently t o information o f

which they ar

e aware . Richard s v . Olsen . NTS B Orde r No . EA-3743,199 2 W

L 37135 9 a

t 2 (NTS B Novembe

r 23,1992 ) (Docke

t SE-10883) . I t ha s lon g bee

n recognize dtha

t acorporatio n ca

n onl y ac t throug h it s officers an

d agents . E.g . Ne w Yor

k C . «f e H . R . R . Co . v . UnitedStates . 21 2 U.S . 481.49 5 (1909 V Fidelit y & Deposit

Co . v . Courtaiev . 18 6 U.S . 342 , 36 1 (1902) . The longstandin g genera l rul e i s tha t acorporatio n i s charge dwit h th e knowledg e of

th e agen t acquire db y th e agen t in th e cours e of

th e principal' s business . E.g . Curtis . Collin s & Holbrook Co . v . UnitedStates . 26 2 U.S . 215,22 2 (1923) . Thus , in orde

r to prov e tha

t US A 3000 ha s th e requisit e knowledg e in orde

r to b e foun dculpabl e o f

aviolation , th e Administrator mus t prov e tha t US A 3000' s agent s ha

d th e requisit

e knowledge . I

n othe r words , th e corporatio n ha s n o knowledg e fo r purpose s RESPONDENT' S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P

C an dth e JUDGMEN

T La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstein Page 1 1 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## o

f thi s analysi s excep t

th e knowledg e o f

it s ow n employees , th e pilot s who operate dth e aircraft . Surrat

t an dWalke r wer e th e pilot s on boar

dth e aircraf

t s o their knowledg e i s th e knowledg e tha

t mus t b e use da s th e corporat

e knowledge . Respondent' s Interrogator y #1 9 i n thi s matte

r aske d "I s i t th e Administrator' s contentio n tha t Responden

t wa s aware , befor

e take-of f an dduring th e flight, tha

t th e spoiler s wer

e no t functioning properly ('aware') ? I f th e answe r to thi s questio n i s 'yes, ' the n pleas e identif

y eac h natura

l perso n wh

o wa s 'aware ' an

didentif y an y fact s o r evidenc e tha

t support s th e Administrator' s claimtha t th e individua

l wa s 'aware.' " Th e Administrator

responde dto tha

t interrogator

y wit h th e following statement : "Bot h o f th e pilot s who operate dth e aircraf t durin g th e flight

either wer e awar e tha t th e aircraft' s ECA

M indicate dtha

t lef t an dright win g rol l spoiler s 3 an

d5 wer e no t operational . Furthermor

e if th e pilot s actually performe daflight contro l chec k they woul dhav e been awar e tha t th e spoiler s wer

e no t functioning properl

y prior t o takeof f Th e fact s ar

e tha t th e pilot s admit

they sa w th e ECA

M indications , th e ECA

M syste mwa s functionin

g properly , i f

th e ECA M syste mi s fimctionin g properl y th e ECA

M will show tha

t thes e spoiler s ar

e no t operationa

l if they ar e pu t i n th e maintenanc e mode , th e flight contro l check

require s th e pilot s to tes t

th e spoilers , an

di f th e spoiler s serv o actuator s fo r th e spoiler s ar

e i n the maintenanc e mode then th e spoiler s will no t function durin g th e flight

contro l check. " I t i s clea r fro mthi s respons e tha

t th e Administrator

agree s tha

t th e pilots ' knowledg e concemin g th e airworthines s issue s i n thi s cas e i s th e only knowledg e tha t i s relevan t in thi s case . Becaus e th e pilots ' knowledg e wa s acritica l decidin g elemen

t o f th e prior case , an di s ake y elemen t of th e cas e a t bar , th e knowledg e issu e decide din th e prior proceeding i s identica

l wit h th e knowledg e issu e tha

t i s presente di n thi s matter .

RESPONDENT S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T Page 1 2 Washington Aviation Group , P C an dth e La w Office s of

Jaso n A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## b ) Th e Part y Agains t WhomCollatera l Estoppe l i s Asserte dWa s aPart y i n th e Prio r Litigatio n Th e Administrator

of th e Federa

l Aviatio n Administration , agams t who mthi s collatera l estoppel i s asserted , wa s th e Complainan t in th e Surrat

t andWalke

r case . Th e matte r wa s actually litigate di

n atwo-da y trial . Babbit

t v . Surratt . EA-5514,201 0 NTS B LEXIS 3 1 a

t * 1 (March 23,2010) .

c ) Th e Prio r

Adjudicatio n Ende di n aFina l Judgmen t o n th e Merit s Babbit t v . Surrat t andWalke

r ende din afinal

judgment o n th e merits . Se

e Babbit t v . Surratt . 200 9 NTS B Lexi s 106 (Septembe r 2,2009) . The Boar

ddeniedbot

h a n appea l andamotio n fo

r reconsideratio n of

th e appeal . Se

e Babbit t v . Surratt , EA

5514 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 (Marc h 23 , 2010 ) (affirmin

g o n appeal) , an

dBabbit t v . Suiratt . EA-5527,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 (June 25,2010 ) (motio n fo r reconsideratio n denied) . Th e final decisio n in th e prior cas e wa s tha

t Surrat t andWalke

r - th e tw o pilot s flying th e aircraf

t - di dno t have th e requisit

e knowledg e to suppor

t th e contentio n tha

t eithe r ha dviolate d1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(a ) by flying a

n imairworth

y aircraft ; th e Boar

dfoun d tha t US A 3000' s agents , th e pilots , di dno t hav e th e requisit

e level of knowledg e to violat e sectio n 91.7(a) . Babbit

t v . Surratt . EA-5527,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 a t * 1 0 (June 25,2010 ) (explainin g tha

t th e pilot s di dno t

kno w tha t th e aircraf t wa s unairworthy , an

d the y therefor e di dno t hav e th e requisit

e knowledg e in orde

r to satisf y th e knowledg e elemen t of asectio n 91.7(a) allegation) .

RESPONDENT' S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T Page 1 3 Washington Aviation Group , P C an dthe La w Office s o f

Jason A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 20007 'Tel : 202-628-677 6

## d ) Th e Administrato r (th e Part y Agains t

Who mth e Doctrin e i s Asserted ) Ha daFai r Opportunit y t o Litigat e th e Issu e Becaus e th e Administrato r wa s aPart y t o th e Prio r Litigatio n Th e Administrator

o f th e Federa

l Aviatio n Administration , agains t whomthi s collatera l estoppel i s asserted , vigorously arguedth e knowledg e issu e in th e prior case . I n fact, th e Administrator

appeale don tha

t issue , an dmovedfo

r reconsideratio n on th e knowledg e issue . See , e^ . Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5527,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 a t * 9 (June 25,2010 ) (affirmin

g tha t th e pilot s "didno t

know , nor shoul dhav e known , tha

t th e aircraf t wa s n a n unairworth

y condition") . Becaus e th e centra l issu e upo n which collatera l estoppel i s foundedha s bee n full y litigate dan

dappealed , it

woul dno t b e a n injustic e to rely n th e prior

rulin g concemin g thi s issue . I n summary , th e doctrin e o

f collatera l estoppel applie s i n thi s cas e becaus e i n a prio r adjudication , th e NTS B foun dtha t th e pilot s didnot

hav e th e requisit

e knowledg e to sustain a n allegatio n of

a1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(a

) violatio n concemin g th e sam e flight tha t i s a t issu e in thi s case . Th

e Administrator' s answe

r t o interrogator

y 1 9 make s i t

clea r tha t ther e ar e no othe r agent s throug h who

mth e US A 3000 coul dhav e acted , tha t wouldhave ha drelevan t knowledg e relate dto th e airworthines s of th e aircraft . Consequently , US A 300 0 coul dno t

possibly hav e violate dsectio n 91.7(a ) becaus e none of

it s agent s hav e th e requisit e knowledg e to sustai n suc

h a n allegatio n of

violation . C . Th e 91.13(a ) Clai mMus t B e Dismisse dfo r

Statut e o f Limitation s Reason s (Motio n t o Dismiss ) O n Octobe r 19,2010 , th e Administrator announcedtha

t h e wa s amending th e Complain t to include a91.13(a

) claim . Thi s shoul db e treate dbot h a s aMotio n fo

r Summar y Judgment/Decisio n andals o a s aMotio n t o Dismis s tha

t i s bein g filedi

n lie u o f a n Answe r t o th e Octobe

r 1 9 amendment . Th e Orde r of Chie f Administrativ e La

w Judge , serve din thi s cas e on Februar y 19 , 2009 , require dall amendment s t o b e filed by April 20,2009 . Thi s amendmen t failedto RESPONDENT S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T Page 1 4 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dthe La w Office s o f

Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D

C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## mee

t tha t deadline. ' Notic e i

n th e for mof a n answe r wouldno t b e du e unti l o

r unles s thi s Motion to Dismis s wa s granted . Therefor e thi s Motio n to Dismis s th e 91.13(a ) claim s take s th e plac e of

th e Answe

r t o th e 91.13(a

) claim . Th e imderlying allegation s of

thi s cas e happenedon o

r befor e Ma y 17,2008 . E.g . Complain t a t 13 . US A 300 0 wa s no t

apprise dtha

t asectio n 91.13(a) violatio n woul db e claime da s apar

t of thi s cas e unti l th e Octobe

r 19,201 0 Amendment . Suc h aclaimwa s not par t of an y o f th e earlie r pre-Complain

t notices . Civil penalt

y claim s mus t

b e initiate dwithi n th e two-yea r stattit e of limitations . 4 9 U.S.C. § 46301(d)(7)(C) . A civi l penalt y actio n i s initiate dby sendin g anotic e of propose dcivi l penalt

y to th e perso n chargedwit

h aviolatio n 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.16(f) . Notic e of th e 91.13(a

) claimwa s no t

mad e unti l mor e tha n tw o year s afte

r th e allege deven

t ha doccurred . The 91.13(a) claimmus t therefor e b e dismisse da s untimely . Th e Administrator

claim s "inadverten

t error " in failing to include th e 91.13(a ) allegatio n o f

violation . However , th e Complain t wa s first serve dJanuar

y 6,2009 , an

di t wa s areproductio n of

th e Notic e of

Propose dCivi l Penalt

y tha t wa s first serve dAugus t 21 , 2008 , s o th e Administrator' s so-calle derror ha s bee n circulatin g fo

r ove r tw o years . I f thi s really wa s a

n inadverten

t error , then it

shoul dhav e been correcte dyear s ago . Furthermore , ther

e i s N O claimtha

t th e reaso n fo

r late-filing th e claimwa s becaus e th e Administrator

wa s unabl e to file it

earlier . Becaus e ther

e i s no reasonabl e basi s fo

r th e delay , an dbecaus e th e Amendmen

t violate s th e Court' s Orde

r o f Februar y 19,2009 , th e Cour t shoul dno t

exercis e an

y discretio n i n acceptin g th e late-file dadditio n t o th e Complaint . Th

e 91.13(a ) claimmus t

b e dismisse da s untimely .

' Th e Responden

t als o late-fileda

n amendment ; bu

t th e Responden

t ha dgoo dcause . Th

e Responden

t filed notic e of the defens e of

collatera l estoppel o

n Augus t 30th , 2010 , whe

n tha t defens e becam

e ripe . Thi s was afte r the 200 9 deadline imposedb y the Court' s Order ; however , th e collatera l estoppel argumen

t di dnot becom e rip e unti l August

24 , 2010 , whe

n th e tim e fo r appealing the underlying decisio n of the Boar dha d passed(one o f

the element s o f

collatera l estoppel i s finality of

the judgmen

t upo n whic h collatera l estoppe l i s based) . Th e Responden

t ha s not filed notic e o

f the defens e of

collatera l estoppe l wit h respec t to thi s caus e of action unde

r § 91.13(a) , becaus e the caus e of actio n was not

asserteduntil Octobe

r 19,2010 , afte

r notic e of tha t defens e ha

dbee n filed. Thi s documen

t serve s a s notic e o

f the assertion of

suc h adefens e i

n respons e to th e § 91.13(a

) claim . RESPONDENT S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dth e JUDGMEN

T La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstei

n Page 1 5 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### D . Th e 91.13(a ) Clai mMus t Als o B e Dismisse dDu e t o Collatera l Estoppe l (Motio n fo r Summar y Judgment ) A s wit h th e § 91. 7 claim s discusse dabove , th e § 91.13(a ) clai mwa s full y litigate d i n th e prio r

Surratt an dWalke r

case . Se e Babbitt

v . Surratt . 200 9 NTS B Lexi s 10 6 (Septembe r

2,2009) , affirme do n appea l EA-5514,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 (Marc h 23 , 2010) , motio n fo r

reconsideratio n denie dEA-5527,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 (Jun e 25 , 2010) . Th e collatera l estoppe l argumen t tha t applie s t o th e § 91. 7 clai mi s incorporate d b y reference , an da n abbreviate dsimimary o f th e argumen t

a s i t applie s t o th e § 91.13(a ) clai mfollows . 1 . Th e Issu e Decide di n th e Prio r Proceedin g i s Identica l Wit h th e Issu e Presente di n th e Secon d I n thi s case , th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.13(a ) allegatio n b y th e Administrato r i s identica l t o th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.13(a ) issu e tha t wa s raise di n th e prio r

Surratt an dWalke r

case . I n bot h cases , th e allegation s ar e basedupo n th e sam e US A 300 0 maintenanc e acceptanc e flight

o f an Airbu s A32 0 o n May 17,200 8 fi-omMiam i Intemationa l Airport . Bot h allegation s clai mtha t

th e flight i n questio n was flown i n acareles s o r reckles s manner . Compar e Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5514 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 at * 1 n. 2 (Marc h 23,2010 ) (explainin g tha t th e pilot s wer e charge dwith violatin g sectio n 91.13(a ) with respec t t o th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight) v^dt h I n th e matte r

o f Brenda n Airways . LLC . FA A Docke t

No . CP09EA0007 , Amende dComplain t at paragrap h Ill(d ) (January 14,2009 ) (chargin g US A 300 0 wit h violatin g sectio n 91.13(a ) wit h respec t t o th e sam e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight). I t ha s lon g bee n recognize dtha t acorporatio n ca n onl y ac t throug h it s officer s an d agents . E.g . Ne w Yor

k C . & H . R . R . Co . v . Unite dStates . 21 2 U.S . 481,49 5 (1909) ; Fidelity & Deposi t

Co . v . Courtney . 18 6 U.S . 342 , 36 1 (1902) . Th e longstandin g genera l rul e i s tha t

acorporatio n i s charge dwit h th e knowledg e o f th e agen t acquire db y th e agen t i n th e cours e o f

th e principal' s business . E.g . Curtis . Collin s & Holbroo k Co . v . Unite dStates . 26 2 U.S . 215,22 2 (1923) . RESPONDENT' S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y Washington Aviation Group , PC an dthe JUDGMEN

T La w Office s o f

Jason A . Dickstei

n Page 1 6 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### Thus , i n orde r t o prov e tha t

US A 300 0 ha s th e requisit e knowledg e i n orde r t o b e foun dculpabl e o f

areckles s o r

careles s flight

violation , th e Administrato r mus t prov e tha t US A 3000' s agent s ha dth e requisit e knowledge . I n othe r words , th e corporatio n ha s n o knowledg e for

piupose s o f

thi s analysi s excep t

th e knowledg e o f

it s ow n employees , th e pilot s wh o operate dth e aircraft . Surratt an dWalke r

wer e th e pilot s o n boar dth e aircraf t s o thei r allege dreckles s o r careles s behavio r

woul db e th e behavio r

tha t mus t b e analyze da s th e corporat e behavior . I n Paragrap h 2 0 o f

th e Complaint , th e Administrato r claime d"Durin g th e flight, th e aircraf

t was operate di n acareles s o r reckles s manne r

s o a s t o endange r

th e lif e o r propert y o f

another. " Amende dComplain t at ^ 2 0 (October

19 , 2010) . I n orde r

t o bette r gaug e th e scop e an dreaso n for th e factual allegation , Respondent' s Interrogator y # 7 i n thi s matte r

aske dth e Administrato r

t o "Pleas e identif

y al l o f th e fact s tha t

yo u conten d suppor t Allegatio n 2 0 o f

sectio n I I o f

th e Complaint. " Th e Administrato r

responde dt o tha t

interrogatory wit h th e statement , "Se e th e abov e an dth e Complaint. " Neithe r th e complain t

no r th e othe r answer s t o th e interrogatorie s identif

y an y perso n wh o acte di n acareles s o r reckles s manner . Onl y th e pilot s action s ar e describe d"above " th e answe r t o interrogator y 7 , s o ther e i s n o othe r perso n whos e behavio r

coul dreasonabl y b e withi n th e scop e o f wha t th e Administrato r claim s t o hav e bee n reckles s o r careles s i n th e 91.13(a ) claim . Becaus e th e pilots ' behavio r wa s acritica l decidin g elemen t o f th e prio r case , an d i s ake y elemen t

o f th e cas e at

bar , th e reckless/careles s behavio r issu e decide di n th e prio r proceedin g i s identica l wit h th e reckless/careles s behavio r issu e tha t

i s presente di n thi s matter . 2 . Th e Part y Agains t Who mCollatera l Estoppe l i s Asserte d Wa s aPart y i n th e Prio r Litigatio n Th e Administrato r

o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , agains t who mthi s collatera l estoppe l i s asserted , was th e Complainan t i n th e Surrat t

an dWalke r

case . Th e RESPONDENT' S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T Page 1 7 Washington Aviation Group , P C an dth e La w Office s o f

Jason A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## matte

r wa s actually litigate din atwo-da y trial . Babbit

t v . Surratt . EA-5514 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 a

t •* ! (March 23,2010) . 3 . Th e Prio r

Adjudicatio n Ende di n aFina l Judgmen t o n th e Merit s Babbit t v . Surrat t an dWalke r endedin afinal

judgment on th e merits . See Babbit t v . Surratt . 200 9 NTS B Lexi s 106 (Septembe r 2,2009) . Th

e Boar ddenie dbot

h a n appea l andamotio n fo

r reconsideratio n o f

th e appeal . Se e Babbit

t v . Surratt . EA

5514 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 (Marc h 23,2010 ) (affirmin

g on appeal) , an

dBabbit t v . Surratt . EA-5527 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 (June 25,2010 ) (motio n fo r reconsideratio n denied) . Th e final decisio n i

n th e prior cas e wa s tha

t Surrat t an dWalke r - th e tw o pilot s flying th e aircraf

t - di dno t act i n areckles s or

careles s manne

r an dtherefor e di dno t violat e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.13(a) . Babbit t v . Surratt . SE-18562 , 200 9 NTS B LEXI S 10 6 a t "•14 , * 17-1 8 (Septembe

r 2,2009 ) (specificall

y finding tha

t each pilo t didno t operat e th e aircraf t in acareles s manne

r s o a s t o endange r th e lif e o r propert y o f another) ; see als o Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5514 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 (Marc h 23,2010 ) (denyin g th e FAA' s appea

l o f th e § 91.13(a

) charge) , an

dBabbit t v . Surratt . EA-5527,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 (Jun e 25,2010 ) (denying th e FAA' s motio n fo r reconsideratio n o f

th e § 91.13(a ) charge) . 4 . Th e Administrato r (tli e Part y Agains t

Who mth e Doctrin e i s Asserted ) HadaFai r

Opportunit y t o Litigat e th e Issu e Becaus e th e Administrato r

wa s aPart y t o th e Prio r Litigatio n Th e Administrator

of th e Federa

l Aviatio n Administration , agains t whomthi s collatera l estoppe l i s asserted , vigorously arguedth e knowledg e issu e in th e prio r case . I n fact , th e Administrator

appealedo n tha

t issue , an dmovedfo

r reconsideratio n on th e knowledg e issue . See , Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5527,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 (Jun e 25 , 2010) . Becaus e th e centra

l issu e upon which collatera l estoppel i s foimde

dha s been full

y RESPONDENT S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dthe JUDGMEN

T La w Office s o f

Jason A . Dickstein Page 1 8 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## litigate dandappealed , it wouldno t b e a n injustic e t

o rel y n th e prio r

rulin g concemin g thi s issue . I n summary , th e doctrin e of collatera l estoppel applie s i n thi s cas e becaus e in a prior adjudication , th e NTS B foun dtha t th e pilot s on the flight

di dno t ac t recklessly o

r carelessly in violatio n of

1 4 CF R91.13(a) . The Administrator' s answe r t o interrogator

y 7 make s it clea r tha t ther e ar e n o othe r agent s through who

mth e US A 300 0 coul dhav e acted , tha t th e Administrator

migh t claimactedrecklessly o

r carelessly wit

h respec t t o th e cas e a t bar . Consequently , US A 300 0 coul dno t possibly hav e violate dsectio n 91.13(a ) becaus e none of

it s agent s acte din violatio n of tha t regulation . E . Conclusio n o f

Collatera l Estoppe l Argument s In ligh t o f th e fact tha t each of th e element s o

f collatera l estoppe l hav e bee n me

t wit h respec t to th e above-describe dclaims , th e cour t shouldb e boundb y th e prior facttia l fmding s of

th e NTS B wit

h respec t to thi s matter . • Th e Administrativ e La

w Judg e shoul dfind tha

t th e knowledg e elemen

t o f th e airworthines s claim , whic h wa s full y litigate din the Surrat

t andWalke

r case , ha s been show n to b e missin g an

dtha t therefor e th e airworthines s clai munde r 91.7(a ) mus t b e dismissed ; • Th e Administrativ e La

w Judg e shoul dfindtha

t Th e Aircraf t wa s no t flovm recklessly o

r carelessly , basedo n th e ful l litigatio n of

tha t issu e in th e Surrat

t an d Walke r case , andtha

t therefor e th e reckles s o

r careles s flight

clai munde

r 91.13(a ) mus t b e dismissed ; and

• Th e Administrativ e La

w Judg e shoul dholdtha

t therefor e th e claim s i n thi s cas e brough t imde r section s 91.7(a) an

d91.13(a ) shouldb e dismissed . F . Th e 1 4 C.F.R . § § 43.13(a ) an d43.13(b ) Claim s Mus t B e Dismisse d 1 . Lega

l Standard s fo r

th e Par t 4 3 Claim s Th e Administrator

ha s allege daviolatio n o

f 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(a) . Tha t section states , in relevan

t part : RESPONDENT' S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T Page 1 9 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P

C an dth e La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### (a ) Eac h perso n performin g maintenance , alteration , o r preventiv e maintenanc e o n a n aircraft , engine , propeller , o r applianc e shal l us e th e methods , techniques , an dpractice s prescribe di n th e curren t manufacturer' s maintenanc e manua l o r Instruction s fo r

Continue dAirworthines s prepare db y it s manufacturer , o r othe r methods , techniques , an dpractice s acceptabl e t o th e Administrator , excep t a s note di n Sec . 43.16 . I n orde r t o prov e aviolatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(a) , th e Administrato r mus t alleg e (1 ) tha t

th e Responden t

ha s use dcertai n methods , techniques , o r practices , an d(2 ) tha t th e Respondent' s methods , techniques , o r practice s faile dt o mee t

astandar do f

th e Administrato r

o r wer e otherwis e no t

acceptabl e t o th e Administrator . Th e Administrato r

ha s als o allege daviolatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(b) . Tha t sectio n states : (b ) Eac h perso n maintainin g o r altering , o r

performin g preventiv e maintenance , shal l d o tha t

work i n suc h amanne r

an dus e material s o f

suc h aquality , tha t

th e conditio n o f

th e aircraft , airframe , aircraf t engine , propeller , o r

applianc e worke do n wil l b e a t

leas t equa l t o it s origina l o r

properl y altere dconditio n (wit h regar dt o aerodynami c function , structura l strength , resistanc e t o vibratio n an d deterioration , an dothe r

qualitie s affectin g airworthiness) . A s with th e 43.13(a ) claim , a n integra l elemen t t o a43.13(b ) clai mi s th e allegatio n tha t

th e Responden t

performe dth e maintenance . Sectio n 43.13(b ) onl y applie s it s performanc e standar dt o "eac h perso n maintainin g o r alterin g o r

performin g preventativ e maintenance, " s o i t mus t b e necessary t o identif

y amaintenanc e i n orde r t o fm daviolation .

2 . Th e Administrato r Bear s th e Burde n t o Demonstrat e Significan t

Probativ e Evidenc e i n Suppor t o f It s Positio n Excep t wit h respec t

t o affirmativ e defenses , th e Administrato r bear s th e ultimat e burde n o f proo f i n civi l penalt y cases . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.224(a) . A s discusse di n sectio n A. 2 o f thi s brief , supra , th e Administrato r ha s an obligatio n t o presen t significan t probativ e evidenc e i n favo r o f it s position . Despit e thi s burden , th e Administrato r ha s faile dt o b e abl e t o eve n identif y amaintenanc e operatio n tha t wa s incorrectl y performed .

RESPONDENT' S MOTIO

N FORSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T Page 2 0 Washington Aviation Group , P C an dth e La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## Moreover , th e allege devidenc e o f imprope r maintenanc e i s limite donl y to th e fac t tha t tw o spoiler s wer

e place din th e maintenanc e mode , an dth e Administrator

ha s admittedtha

t he ha s n o ide awh

o place dth e spoiler s i n th e mamtenanc e mode . Th e Administrator

ha s admitte dtha

t h e cannot point to an y maintenanc e operatio n tha t wa s improperly performed , an dhe cannot

prov e tha t th e spoiler s wer

e place di n th e maintenanc e mod

e durin g an

y maintenanc e operatio n (a s opposedt o som e sor t o f vandalism , or

unrelate dthir

dpart y action , fo

r example) . 3 . Th e Administrato r Doe s No t

Sa y Wha t Maintenanc e Wa s Performe dInadequatel y I n th e Complaint , th e Administrator ha s completely failedt o alleg e tha t US A 300 0 performedth e maintenanc e in question . Instea dof allegin g tha

t US A 3000 performe dmaintenance , th e Administrator state s tha

t maintenanc e wa s performed (Complain t a t 4) , an dthen offer

s th e conclusio n tha

t "b y virtu e of

th e foregoing , [US A 3000 ] performedmaintenance. " Complain t a t ^ 7 . Th e reaso n fo

r thi s incomplet

e segue i s simple . US A 300 0 di dno t perfom i an y inadequat

e maintenanc e in thi s case . I n interrogator

y #1 , US A 3000 askedth e Administrator to identif y th e improperl

y performe dmaintenanc e activit

y tha t i s a t th e roo t of th e Par t 4 3 allegations : Interrogator

y #1 : Allegatio n 4 of

sectio n II of

th e Complain

t contend s tha

t th e spoile r serv o actuator s wer

e place dmth e maintenanc e mod e durin g maintenance . O n wha t dat e an ddurin g wha

t maintenanc e operatio n wer e th e spoile

r serv o actuator s place di n th e maintenanc e mode ? Th e Administrator

answeredb y admittin g tha t "th e Complainan

t doe s no t kno w th e exac t

dat e of th e maintenanc e .. . th e Complainan

t doe s no t kno w durin g wha

t maintenanc e operatio n th e spoile r serv o actuator s wer

e place di n th e maintenanc e mode , howeve r it appear s tha

t th e maintenanc e wa s performedby AAR. " Complainant' s Firs t Respons e to Respondent' s Firs t

Se t of Interrogatories , request s fo r Productio n o f

Documents , andRequest s fo

r Admissions , Respons e t

o Interrogator

y #1 . I t i s obviou s fro

mthi s tha

t th e sole 'evidence ' supporting th e Administrator' s allegation tha

t som e maintenanc e wa s performedimproperly i s th e fac t tha t th e spoiler s RESPONDENT S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dth e JUDGMEN

T La w Office s o f

Jason A . Dickstei

n Page 2 1 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D

C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## wer

e late r fovm di n th e maintenanc e mode . Bu t th e spoiler s coul dhav e been place din tha t mod e by non-maintenanc e personnel a t th e airpor

t throug h anon-maintenanc e activity . The spoiler s coul dhav e bee n place di

n tha t mod e durin g maintenanc e performe dunde r th e order s o f

ILF C (th e aircraf

t owne r wh o wa s takin g possessio n o f the aircraf t afte r th e maintenanc e wa s complete ) and/or Stat e Transpor

t Russi a(the nex

t lessee) , becaus e ILF

C ha dordere dwor

k to b e performedo n th e aircraft . The spoiler s couldhav e been place din tha t mod e b y vandals . Th

e conclusio n tha

t US A 3000 maintenanc e mus t

hav e been improperl

y performedmerely becaus e th e spoile r servo s wer e in th e maintenanc e mod

e assume s tha

t it wa s onl y durin g aUS A 300 0 maintenanc e activit y tha t thi s "maintenanc e mode " switch ma y b e activated ; an

dthi s conclusio n i s simpl y no t reasonabl e in ligh

t of the othe r possibilities . The Administrator' s conclusio n i s actuall y unreasonabl e in ligh

t of th e fac t tha t th e FA A ha s diligently investigate dthi s cas e an dwa s unabl e t o identif

y an y US A 300 0 maintenanc e activit y durin g which the spoiler s coul dhav e been lef t in th e maintenanc e mode . Se e supraa t pp . 4- 6 of thi s brief . The Administrator

fail s t o sa y tha t th e maintenanc e performedin thi s cas e wa s performe dunde r th e directio n of

US A 3000 , becaus e th e tas k tha t wa s performed(an

d tha t ledto th e spoile

r issue ) wa s no t

performedunde

r US A 3000' s direction . 4 . Th e Administrato r Doe s No t

Knovir s Wh o Pu t

th e Spoiler s I n Maintenanc e Mod e an dDoe s No t Kno w Ho w o r

Whe n th e Spoiler s Wer e Pu t

i n Maintenanc e Mod e N o on e know s who put

th e spoiler s i

n maintenanc e mode . The FA A doe s no t conten dtha t US A 300 0 performedimprope r maintenanc e themselves . Th e FA A contend s tha

t US A 300 0 i s responsibl e fo r AAR' s actions , becaus e AA Ri s US A 3000' s maintenanc e contractor . Th e problemwit

h thi s contentio n i s tha

t there i s no evidenc e tha t AA Rdi danythin g wrong ! In discovery , US A 3000 requeste dcopie s o f relevant document s tha

t th e Administrato

r intend s t o put

int o evidence . Th

e FAA' s Progra

mTrackin g andReporting Subsyste m(PTRS ) DataSheet , provide din respons e to thi s discover y request , admi

t tha t RESPONDENT' S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T Page 22 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dth e La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 20007 -Tel : 202-628-677 6

## th e FAA' s own investigator s couldnot determine tha

t an y AA Remploye e put

th e spoiler s i n maintenanc e mode : "05-20-200 8 T

O 06-16-200 8 - CONDUCTE D INVESTIGATION REGARDIN G TH E ALLEGE

D IMPROPE

RMAINTENANCE . COUL D NO T PROV

E THA T AN Y AA REMPLOYE

E PERFORME

D TH E IMPROPE

RPOSITIONING O

F TH E LEF T WIN G SPOILERS 3 AN

D 5 TO TH

E MAINTENANC

E MODE. " FA A PTR S recor

dfromInspector

LX C fo r EI R2008SO19022 0 (all capital s i n original ) (Foxm

di n Appendix G to thi s Motion) . Th e PTR S recor

dgoe s o n to say : "DU E T O TH E LACK O F DOCUMENTATIO

N REGARDIN

G WHEN , WHO , WH Y AN D HO W WER E TH E SPOILERS POSITIONE D I N TH E MAINTENANC

E MODE , IT I S NO T POSSIBL E FORTHI S INSPECTORT O BLAM E ANYON

E FORTH

E IMPROPE

RPOSITIONING O

F TH E SPOILERS . " FA

A PTR S recor

dfromInspectoT-LX

C fo r EI R2008SO19022 0 (all capital s i n original ) (Foundi n Appendix G to thi s Motion) . A secondPTR S recor

dconcemin g th e investigatio n wa s als o provide din discovery . Tha

t documen t explain s tha

t th e inspector

interviewe dmanagemen

t an d employees , andcheckedwor k cards , an dcoul dfindno circumstance s i n which non complian t maintenanc e occurred . FA A PTR S recor

dfro mInspector

LA B fo r EI R 2008SO190220 (Foundi n Appendix G to thi s Motion) . The inspector specifiedtha

t th e "investigatio n didno t

produc e evidenc e of

an y wrongdoing on th e par

t of AAR. " Id . I n addition , US A 3000' s interrogator y 1 0 asked Interrogator

y 10 : I s i t th e Administrator' s contentio n tha t th e aircraft' s lef

t wing rol l spoiler s thre e an

dfive wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mod

e durin g maintenanc e performedb

y U S A 3 000 ? I n respons e to interrogator

y 10 , th e Administrator

replied : Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.36 3 i

t i s th e Administrator' s contentio n tha t Brenda n Airway s i s responsibl e fo r al l maintenanc e performedon th e aircraft . Th e Administrato r

doe s no t

kno w wha t

individual s place dth e lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive i n th e maintenanc e mod e prio r t o flight , howeve

r it i s th e Administrator' s contentio n tha t Brenda n Airway s i s responsibl e fo r thi s maintenance , [emphasi s added] . RESPONDENT' S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T Page 2 3 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dthe La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## Th e Administrator' s document s show s tha t ther e i s n o evidenc e tha

t AA R performe dan y maintenanc e improperly . Th e Administrator

admit s tha

t he simpl y doe s not kno w wh

o place dth e spoiler s in th e inoperativ e mode . Ther e i s absolutely no evidenc e tha

t anyone unde

r US A 3000' s contro l put

thos e spoiler s in maintenanc e mode . US A 3000' s interrogatorie s 1-1 3 al l ask th e Administrator

to identif

y th e maintenanc e activit

y tha t wa s improperly performed . Th e answer s mak

e it clea r tha t th e Administrato

r cannot point to an y maintenanc e tha

t wa s improperly performed . Complainant' s Firs t

Respons e to Respondent' s Firs t Se t of Interrogatories , request s fo r Production of

Docvmients , an

dRequest s fo

r Admissions . Response s to Interrogatorie s #1

- 13 . I n fact , th e Administrator

specificall y admit s tha

t "[T]h e Complainan

t doe s no t kno w during wha

t maintenanc e operatio n th e spoile r serv o actuator s wer

e placedi

n th e maintenanc e mode. " Complainant' s Firs t Respons e to Respondent' s Firs t Se t of Interrogatories , request s fo r Productio n of

Documents , an

dRequest s fo

r Admissions . Respons e to Interrogator

y #1 . 5 . Othe r

Possibl e Cause s Mak e i t Inappropriat e t o Assum e Causatio n I f th e Administrator

canno t identif y th e causatio n of

th e allege doffense , then th e Administrator

i s no t free t o ascrib e culpabilit

y to anyone tha

t i s close . Wha

t th e Administrato

r i s tryin g t o d

o her e i s akin to th e doctrine of

re s ips aloquitor , bu

t re s ips a loquito r "doe s no t appl y whe n ther e i s a n intermediar

y caus e whic h coul dhav e produced the injury. " Rg , Sam s v . Wal-Mar t Stores . 22 8 Ga . App . 314 , 31 6 (Ga . Ct . App . 1997 ) (refusin g to permit

aplaintif f to us e re s ips aloquitu

r to fill th e evidentiar

y gap , wher

e ther e wa s onl y proo f of th e occurrenc e o f

a n injury , v^thout

more , an dholdin g tha

t a n injur y alone "i s insufficien

t t o establis h liability") . I

n thi s case , however , ILF

C wa s having wor

k performedo n it s aircraf

t (N26 5 AV ) unde

r it s direction , andthi s i s jus t on e of severa l possibl e intermediat

e actor s tha

t coul dhav e been th e responsibl e causa l source s of th e switch fromoperationa l mod e to maintenanc e mode . See Joseph Mille r Declaration a

t ^ ^ 33-4 2 (explainin g wh

y it i s possibl e tha

t th e spoiler s wer

e repositione d b y ILFC' s agent s durin g ILF C painting) . RESPONDENT' S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dthe JUDGMEN

T La w Office s o f

Jason A . Dickstein Page 2 4 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## h i addition , re s ips aloquitor require s proo f

of negligenc e in orde

r t o permit th e assumption o f

causation , an

dther e i s n o allegatio n of

negligenc e on th e par

t of US A 3000 . Th e evidenc e make s i t

clea r tha t th e Administrator

doe s no t kno w who place dth e spoiler s in maintenanc e mode . US A 300 0 als o doe s no t kno w wh o place dth e spoiler s i n maintenanc e mode . Bu

t investigation s by AAR , US A 300 0 andth e FA A all confir

mtha t ther e i s no evidenc e tha

t th e spoiler s wer

e place din maintenanc e mod e during a maintenanc e activit

y performedby AAR . An

dth e allegation s o f

th e complain

t an dof th e discover y response s d

o no t sugges t tha t an y othe r US A 300 0 agen

t coul dhav e don

e this . I f aprincipl e i s accuse do f

th e agent' s malfeasance , but th e accuse

r cannot prov e the agent' s malfeasance , then th e principl e cannot b e culpabl e fo

r non-existen

t allegation s o f malfeasance . Evidentiar

y la w simpl y doe s no t

permit th e Cour t to assum e tha t a maintenanc e activit

y wa s improperl

y performedin th e absenc e of an y evidenc e of imprope r performance . 6 . US A 300 0 Di dNo t

Perfor mth e Maintenanc e tha t wa s Considere dInadequat e Ther e i s n o allegatio n in thi s cas e tha t US A 300 0 performedmaintenanc e tha t lea dto th e spoiler s bein g place di n maintenanc e mode . Instead , th e allegatio n (a s state d i n the Adminisfrator' s answe r to US A 3000' s interrogator y two ) seem s to b e tha

t AA R performe dmaintenance , an

dtha t it wa s improperl

y performed . Bu

t ther e i s n o evidenc e of imprope r maintenanc e by AAR , an

dth e FAA' s ow

n PTR S record s andletter s to AA R sugges t tha t AA Rcommitte dno violation . Thus , it canno t b e tru e tha

t US A 3000 i s liabl e fo r aviolatio n committe dby AA Ra s it s maintenanc e contractor . Th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.1 3 claimmus t b e dismissed , becaus e th e governmen t cannot identif y amaintenanc e activit

y tha t wa s improperl

y performed , andit

cannot dra w a connection between th e spoiler s bein g lef t in the maintenanc e mod

e an dan y maintenanc e activit y performedb y US A 30 0 o r b y an y US A 300 0 agent . RESPONDENT' S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T Page 25 Washington Aviation Group , P C an dthe La w Office s o f

Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D

C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## G . Statemen t Concernin g Par t

12 1 Claim s Shortl y befor e thi s Motio n wa s filed, w e receive dth e Administrator' s withdrawa l o f th e Par t 12 1 claims . Thi s ha s moote dou r (already-drafted) argvmient s concemin g th e Par t 12 1 claims . W

e ar e mindfii l of th e fac t tha t th e Court' s Februar

y 19 , 200 9 Orde

r forbad e lat e amendments , andfo

r thi s reason , th e mootedPar t 12 1 claim s hav e been includeda s a

n Appendi x t o thi s Motion . Pleas e conside r the mt o b e asserte di f

an donl y if th e Cour t choose s to rejec t

th e Administrator' s withdrawa l of th e Par t 12 1 claims . 

## III . Conclusio n The Par t 9 1 claim s foun

din th e AmendedComplain t hav e bot h been full

y litigatedagains t

th e pilot s (who ar

e th e onl y relevan t agent s of US A 3000) , an

dth e NTS B foun dtha t (1 ) th e pilot s di dkno w abou t th e spoile r malfunction befor

e th e aircraf

t took off , (2 ) th e pilot s actedreasonably in continuin g th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight afte r obtaining knowledg e o f

th e spoile r malfunction , an

d(3 ) th e pilot s di dno t

act recklessly o r carelessly wit

h respec t to th e flight. Fo

r purpose s of

th e cas e agains t

US A 3000 , th e pilot s wer e th e only relevan

t agent s of US A 3000 wit

h respec t t o th e Par t 9 1 allegation s agains t US A 3000 . Unde

r th e doctrin e o f

collatera l estoppel , th e Par

t 9 1 claim s have ahead y been decide dagains t

th e Administrator , an

dtherefor e th e Adminisfrato

r i s estoppedfromraisin g th e sam e Par t 9 1 issue s agains t

US A 3000 . The Par t 4 3 claim s foun

di n th e AmendedComplain

t bot h assum e tha t US A 3000 actedthrough AA

Ri n violatin g th e maintenanc e standards . Bu t th e Administrator

carmo t poin t to an y maintenanc e activit

y tha t wa s improperl

y performed , an

dth e Administrator ha s n o evidenc e to suppor

t th e contentio n tha

t th e spoiler s wer

e position s to the maintenanc e mod

e durin g amaintenanc e operatio n performedb y US A 3000 or unde r US A 3000' s direction . The tw o Par t 4 3 allegation s agains t

US A 300 0 shouldals o b e dismissed . Fo r th e reason s statedabove , th e fou r claim s foun

din th e AmendedComplain t shouldb e dismissed . RESPONDENT' S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T Page 2 6 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P

C an dth e La w Office s o f

Jason A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTE

D thi s 22ndda

y o f October , 2010 . WASHINGTO

N AVL\TIO N GROUP , P

C AN D TH E LA W OFFICE S O

F JASO N A DICKSTEI

N



## B y h Jaso n Dickstei n shington Aviatio n Group , PC an dthe i w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsin Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000

7 Tel : (202 ) 628-677 6 Attorney fo

r Responden

t Brenda n Airways , LL

C d/b/ aU S A 3 00 0 Airline s

RESPONDENT S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T Page 27 Washington Aviation Group , P C an dth e La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## BEFOR E TH E U S DEPARTMEN

T O F TRANSPORTATIO

N Th e Honorabl e Chief

Administrativ e La

w Judg e Ronnie A. Yode

r I n th e matte

r of BRENDA N AIRWAYS , LLC , d^/ aU S A 3 00 0 Airiine s

Responden

t DM S No. : FAA-2009-003 2 FA A Docket No. : CP09EA0007 FA A Cas e No. : 2008EA17003 8 CERTIFICAT E OF SERVIC E

Th e undersigne dhereb y certifie s tha t sh e causedth e attache d

• MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR Y JUDGMEN T o r

DECISIO N an dMOTIO N T O DISMIS S 91.13(a ) AMENDMENT T O COMPLAIN T t o b e filed a

t th e addresse s liste dbelo w b y two-da y FedE x service , on th e dat

e indicate dbelow . Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 600 Independenc e Avenue , S W Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit

e 2W1000 Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke

t Clerk , AGC-43 0 An d t o b e servedo n th e person s a t th e addresse s liste dbelo w by th e sam e metho da s th e filing method , on th e dat

e indicate dbelow . DavidM . Cohen , Attorney Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e of th e Regiona

l Coimsel , EAL- 7 1 Aviation Plaz a Jamaica , N

Y 1143 4 Tel : (718 ) 553-327 0 Fax:(718)995-569 9 Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La

w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 Roo mE12-32 0 U S Departmen

t of Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jersey Avenue , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Tel : (202 ) 366-214 2 Fax : (202 ) 366-753 6

Kat t Stanle y Octobe r 22.201 0 Dat e

CERTIFICAT

E O F SERVIC E Page 2 8 Washington Aviation Group , P C an dth e La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## APPENDI

X A : Potentiall y Moo t

Par t 12 1 Argument s Shortl y befor e thi s Motio n wa s filed, w e receive dth e Administrator' s withdrawa l of th e Par t 12 1 claims . Thi s appear s to hav e moote dou r (already-drafted) argument s concemin g th e Par t 12 1 claims . W e ar e mindfu l of th e fac t tha t th e Court' s Februar

y 19,200 9 Orde

r forbad e lat e amendments , andfo

r thi s reason , it

i s possibl e tha

t th e Cour t coul dpotentiall y forbidth e Administrato

r fro mwithdrawin g th e Par

t 12 1 claims . Th e potentially-moote dPar

t 12 1 claim s hav e bee

n includedfo

r us e only i f

they ar e not moot . Pleas e conside

r themto b e asserte di f

an donl y if th e Cour t choose s to reject

th e Administrator' s withdrawa

l of th e Par t 12 1 claims . A . Th e 1 4 C.F.R . § § 121.153(a)(2 ) an d121.628(a)(5 ) Claim s Mus t B e Dismisse dBecaus e th e Fligh t Wa s Outsid e th e Scop e o f Par t 12 1 Th e flight in questio n wa s amaintenanc e acceptanc e flight. Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5514 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 a

t * 1 n. 2 (March 23 , 2010) . A maintenanc e acceptanc e flight i s a n operationa l tes t o f th e aircraf t following heavy maintenance . 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.407(b) . A n aircraf t tha t ha s undergone heav

y maintenanc e caimot

b e usedfo

r carriag e unti l afte

r tha t operationa

l tes t ha s bee n completed . Id . (ther

e i s a n exceptio n to thi s requiremen t in subsectio n (c ) wher

e grovin d test s and/o r inspectio n ca

n b e use dt o verif y airworthiness) . Par t 12 1 of th e FAA' s regulation s i s limite din it s applicability . It applie s to domestic , flag, an dsupplementa

l operations . 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.1(a) . Th e definition s o f

thes e term s foun

di n Par t 11 9 ar e applicabl e to par

t 121 . 1 4 C.F.R . § 119. 3 (explaining tha t th e definition s pertain to al l o f Subchapte

r G) .

APPENDD C A (Par t 12 1 Claims ) Pag e 2 9 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dthe La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D

C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## A maintenanc e acceptanc e flight i s no t adomesti c operation . Domesti c operation i s define din 1 4 C.F.R . § 119. 3 t o include onl y scheduledoperations. ^ A "schedule doperation " i s limitedt o passenger-carryin g operations . 1 4 C.F.R . § 119.3 . The operatio n i n questio n in thi s cas e wa s no t

apassenger-carryin g operatio n s o it was no t aschedule doperatio n (such operation i s precludedbefor

e completin g th e operationa l chec k describe din 91.407(b)) . Thu s it wa s no t a domesti c operatio n a s tha

t ter mi s usedi n th e Par

t 12 1 regulations . A maintenanc e acceptanc e flight i s no t aflag operation . Flag operatio n i s define din 1 4 C.F.R . § 119. 3 to include only schedule doperations. ^ A "schedule doperation " i s limitedto passenger-carrying operations . 1 4 C.F.R . § 119.3 . Th e operatio n in questio n in thi s cas e wa s not apassenger-carrying operatio n s o it wa s no t ascheduledoperatio n (suc h operatio n i s precluded

^ Domestic operatio n mean s an y scheduledoperatio n conductedb y an y person operatin g an

y airplane describedi

n paragrap h (1 ) o f thi s defmitio

n a t location s describedi

n paragrap h (2 ) o f thi s defmition : (1 ) Airplanes : (i ) Turbojet-poweredairplanes ; (ii ) Airplane s having apassenger-sea t configuratio

n o f mor e tha n 9 passenge

r seats , excludin

g eac h crewmembe

r seat ; or (iii ) Airplane s havin g apayloa dcapacit y of mor e tha n 7,500 pounds . (2 ) Locations : (i ) Betwee n an y point s within the 4 8 contiguou s State s of the Unite dState s o

r the District

o f Columbia ; o

r (ii ) Operation s solel

y within th e 4 8 contiguou s State s of th e UnitedState s o

r the District

of Columbia ; o

r (iii ) Operation s entirely within an y State , territory , o

r possessio n of

th e UnitedStates ; o

r (iv ) Whe n specificall

y authorize db

y th e Administrator , operation s between an y poin t withi n the 4 8 contiguou s State s of

th e UnitedState s o

r th e District of Columbi aan

dan y specificall

y authorizedpoin

t locatedoutsid

e th e 4 8 contiguou s State s of the UnitedState s o

r the District

of Columbia . 1 4 C.F.R . §119.3 . ^ Fla g operatio n mean s an

y scheduledoperatio n conductedb y an y person operating an

y airplane describedi

n paragrap h (1 ) o f thi s definition a

t th e location s describedi

n paragrap h (2 ) of thi s definition : (1 ) Airplanes : (i ) Turbojet-poweredairplanes ; (ii ) Airplane s havin g apassenger-sea t configuratio

n o f mor e tha n 9 passenge

r seats , excludin

g eac h crewmembe

r seat ; o r (iii ) Airplane s havin g apayloa dcapacit y of mor e tha n 7,500 pounds . (2 ) Locations : (i ) Betwee n an y poin t within the Stat

e o f Alask ao r the Stat e o f Hawai i o r an y territor y o r possession of

th e UnitedState s an

dan y poin t outsid e the Stat e o f Alask aor tiie Stat e o f Hawai i o r an y territor y or possessio n of

th e UnitedStates , respectively ; o r (ii ) Betwee n an y poin t within the 4 8 contiguou s State s o f the UnitedState s o

r the District

o f Columbi aan

dan y poin t outsid e the 4 8 contiguou s State s o f the Unite dState s an

dth e District of Columbia . (iii ) Betwee

n an y poin t outsid e the U.S . an

danothe r poin t outsid e th e U.S . 1 4 C.F.R . §119.3 . APPENDI X A (Par t 12 1 Claims ) Washington Aviation Group , P C an dth e Page 3 0 La w Office s o f

Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

## befor

e completing th e operationa l chec k describe din 91.407(b)) . Thu s it wa s no t aflag operation a s tha

t ter mi s use din th e Par

t 12 1 regulations . A maintenanc e acceptanc e flight i s no t asupplementa

l operation . Supplementa l operation i s definedi n 1 4 C.F.R . § 119. 3 t o includ e onl y conmio n carriag e operatio n fo r compensation or

hire.' * Operatio n of

th e aircraf t i n commo n carriag e operatio n fo

r compensation o r hir e i s specificall

y preclude dbefor

e th e completio n of

th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight. 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.407(b) . Thu s it wa s no t asupplementa

l operatio n a s tha

t ter mi s usedin th e Par

t 12 1 regulations . I f the Administrator

wer e to appl y 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.153(a)(2 ) to maintenanc e acceptanc e flights, i t wouldcreate acatch-2 2 situation , in which th e purpos e o f th e flight i s to confir

m airworthiness , but

b y finding aconditio n tha t neededto b e remedie ddurin g thi s operationa l test , the ai r carrie r woul db e identifying aviolatio n of 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.153(a)(2) . Thi s wouldmak e ever y effor t t o compl y witi i 14C.F.R . § 91.407(b ) apotentia l violatio n of

§ 121.153(a)(2) . Luckily , th e Administrator doe s no t nee dto rea dit s regulation s i

n suc h aconflicting maimer . Becaus e amaintenanc e acceptanc e flight i s no t adomestic , flag, o

r supplementa

l operation , it

i s no t covere dv^thi n th e scop e o f Par t 121 . Rather , it

i s considere dto b e a

n operation withi n th e scop e of th e Par t 9 1 operatin g rules .

* Supplementa

l operatio n mean s an

y commo n carriag e operation fo

r compensation o

r hir e conductedwit

h an y airplan e describedi

n paragraph (1 ) of

thi s defmitio

n tha t i s atyp e of

operatio n describedi

n paragrap h (2 ) o f thi s definition : (1 ) Airplanes : (i ) Airplane s having apassenger-sea t configuration o

f mor e tha n 3 0 seats , excluding eac

h crewmembe

r seat ; (ii ) Airplane s having apayloa dcapacit y o f mor e tha n 7,500 pounds ; o

r (iii ) Each propeller-powere dairplane havin g apassenger-sea

t configuration of

mor e tha n 9 seats an dles s tha n 3 1 seats , excluding eac

h crewmembe

r seat , tha t i s als o usedi

n domestic o

r flag operation s an

dtha t i s s o listedi

n the operation s specification s a s require db y §119.49(aX4) fo

r thos e operations ; o

r (iv ) Eac h turboje t poweredairplane having apassenge r sea t configuration o

f 1 o r mor e an dles s tha n 3 1 seats , excluding eac

h crewmembe

r seat , tha t i s als o usedi

n domesti c o

r flag operation s an dtha t i s s o listedi

n the operation s specification s a s require db y §119.49(a)(4 ) fo

r thos e operations . (2 ) Type s of

operation : (i ) Operation s fo

r whic h the departur

e time , departur

e location , an

darriva l location ar

e specificall

y negotiate dwit

h the custome

r o r th e customer' s representative ; (ii ) All-carg o operations ; o

r (iii ) Passenger-carrying publi c charte r operation s conductedunde r par t 38 0 o f thi s title . 14 C.F.R . §119.3 . APPENDI X A (Par t 12 1 Claims ) Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dth e Page 3 1 La w Office s o f

Jason A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 20007 -Tel : 202-628-677 6

### Becaus e th e flight i n thi s cas e wa s aPart 9 1 operation , an dnot

an operatio n covere d withi n th e scop e o f

Par t 121 , th e allegation s o f

violatio n o f

regulation s unde r

Part 12 1 shoul db e dismissed . B . Applicatio n o f

th e Collatera l Estoppe l Argumen t t o th e 1 4 C.F.R

- § 121.153(a)(2 ) Clai m Th e FA A ha s allege dtiiat US A 300 0 operate dTh e Aircraf t i n violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . § 121.153(a)(2) . Tha t

sectio n states , i n relevan t part : (a ) Excep t

a s provide di n paragrap h (c ) o f thi s section , n o certificat e holde r ma y operat e a n aircraf t unles s tha t

aircraft — (2 ) I s i n a n airworth y conditio n an dmeet s th e applicabl e airworthines s requirement s o f thi s chapter , includin g thos e relatin g t o identificatio n an dequipment . A s wit h th e 91.7(a ) airworthines s claim , an airworthines s clai munde r § 121.15 3 include s knowledg e a s a n element . FA A v . Empir e Airlines , Inc. , FA A Docke t No . CP94NM0064 , 199 5 FA A LEXI S 39 9 a t

*25-*2 6 (Marc h 3 , 1995 ) (explainin g tha t th e remedia l purpos e o f acivi l penalty woul dno t

b e promote db y assessin g penaltie s i n th e absenc e o f knowledge) . I f

th e pilot s ha dknow n o f

th e issue s befor e take-off , the n unde r

traditiona l agenc y theorie s th e ai r carrie r ma y hav e bee n liable , bu t

th e pilot s i n thi s cas e di dnot hav e th e requisit e knowledg e t o hav e forme dafoundatio n fo r a n airworthines s violation . Th e argumen t for dismissing th e 121.153(a)(2 ) clai mi s therefor e th e same . I t i s als o importan t

t o not e tha t

instea do f

meetin g it s burden , th e Administrato r generall y allege dtha t

th e lega l conclusio n tha t th e aircraf

t wa s unairworthy , withou t offerin g factua

l allegation s o r

objectiv e standard s t o support thi s claim . Therefore , th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.153(a)(2 ) allegatio n shoul db e dismisse dbecaus e prio r cas e foun dtha t

th e knowledg e elemen t

o f a n airworthines s violatio n doe s not exis t i n ou r fac t pattem .

APPENDI X A (Par t 12 1 Claims ) Page 3 2 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dthe La w Office s o f

Jason A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### BEFOR E TH E U.S . DEPARTMEN T OF TRANSPORTATIO N Th e Honorabl e Chie f

Administrativ e La

w Judg e Ronni e A . Yode

r

I n th e matte r

o f BRENDAN AIRWAYS , LLC , d/b/ aUSA300 0 Airline s

Responden t DM S No. : FAA-2009-003 2

FAA Docke t

No. : CP09EA000 7 FAA Cas e No. : 2008EA17003 8 

## DECLARATIO N OF JOSEP H MILLE R

I , JOSPEP H MILLER , under penalt y o f perjury , declare a s follows : 1 . I a ma n employe e o f

Brendan Airways , whic h doe s busines s unde r th e nam e US A 300 0 Airlines .

2 . I serv e a s th e Directo r

o f Maintenanc e fo

r US A 3000 . 3 . Prio r t o Apri l 2008 , US A 300 0 hadbee n operatin g a n A32 0 aircraf

t bearin g U S registr y N265A V ("th e Aircraft " o r "N265AV") . 4 . Th e Aircraf

t wa s owne db y Intemationa l Leas e Financ e Corporatio n ("ILFC") . 5 . Th e Aircraf

t wa s lease db y ILF C t o US A 3000 . 6 . Durin g th e Sprin g o f

2008 , th e leas e on th e Aircraf t wa s comin g t o a

n end , s o US A 300 0 hire dAARCor p t o perfor

mlease-en dheav y maintenanc e o n th e aircraf t i n orde r t o b e abl e t o retur

n i t t o th e lesso r

(ILFC ) a t th e en do f

th e lease . 7 . Th e maintenanc e on N265A V a t AA Rtoo k

plac e durin g Apri l 200 8 an dMa y 2008 . 8 . Th e maintenanc e performe db y AARfo r US A 300 0 wa s performe daccordin g t o US A 3000' s writte n instruction s fo r completin g th e work . 9 . There i s n o evidenc e that AARdiverge dfro

mth e wor

k instruction s provide db y US A 3000 , in completin g th e US A 300 0 work .

APPENDI X B (Declaratio n o f

Jo e Miller ) Pag e 3 3 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C andth e Law Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### 10 . A t th e tim e tha t

th e Aircraf

t wa s provide dt o AARt o perfor mlease-en dheav y maintenance , US A 300 0 ha dn o furthe r inten t tha t th e aircraf

t woul deve r

agai n b e operate dfo

r revenu e servic e b y US A 3000 , becaus e th e leas e wa s comin g t o a n end . 11 . O n Ma y 15 , 2008 , w e move dth e aircraf t andperforme da

n engin e chec k

a s par t o f th e movement , becaus e that sort o f chec k i s norma l t o perfor mbefor e taxiing . 12 . Durin g th e May 15 , 200 8 engin e check , w e als o checke dth e contro l surfac e operatio n becaus e tha t

i s anormal pre-movemen t check . 13 . Th e Ma

y 15 , 200 8 contro l surfac e operatio n chec k include dachec k

o f th e spoiler s (a s wel l a s othe r

contro l surfaces) . 14 . Th e Ma

y 15 , 200 8 contro l surfac e operatio n chec k wa s successful , wit

h n o failure s andn o erro r

messages . I ca

n therefore verif

y tha t th e spoiler s wer e operational durin g thi s check . 15 . O n Ma

y 17 , 2008 , Captai n Frank Willia mWalker an dCaptai n Ton y Sco t

Surrat t were taske dwit

h performin g amaintenanc e acceptanc e tes t flight o f th e Aircraft . 16 . Th e maintenanc e acceptanc e tes t flight o f th e Aircraf

t was operate dou t

o f Miam i Intemational Airpor

t (MIA ) - it

departe dan dreturne dt o MIA . 17 . Walker

an dSurrat

t wer e bot

h employee s o f

Brendan Airways , whic h doe s busines s under

th e nam e US A 300 0 Airlines . 18 . Captai n Surratt , Captai n Walker an dI reviewe dth e releas e t o servic e documentation , an dthe n th e tw o pilot s proceede dt o th e aircraft , where the y eac h performe da separate wal k

aroun dt o ensur e tha t

th e aircraf

t wa s i n proper conditio n 19 . It i s no t possibl e t o se e whethe r

th e spoiler s ar

e i n maintenanc e mod e fro

mth e ground . 20 . Afte

r th e walk-around , th e pilot s entere dth e cockpit . 21 . Durin g th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight, I wa s presen t in th e cockpit . APPENDI X B (Declaratio n o f

Jo e Miller ) Pag e 3 4 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suite 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6

### 22 . Durin g th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight, th e pilot s discovere dthat tw o set s o f th e spoiler s wer e inoperative .

23 . Afte r discoverin g th e spoile r

malfunctio n durin g th e flight, th e pilot s consulte d th e guideline s foun din th e Quic k Referenc e Handboo k

(QRH ) fo r tw o set s o f

spoiler s inoperative .

24 . Th e QR H manual calle dfo r anorma l landin g a

t ful l flaps, wit

h n o spee dincrease , whe n tw o set s o f

spoiler s ar e inoperative . I t als o include s amultiplie r

for minimu mmnwa

y length , whic h MIA easil y met . N o furthe r guidanc e i s provide di

n th e QR H fo

r tw o set s o f inoperativ e spoilers .

25 . Afte r landing , w e analyze dth e aircraf t andfoundthat

tw o o f th e spoiler s were in maintenanc e mode .

26 . W e communicate dwit h AARabou t

thi s finding (spoiler s foundi n maintenanc e mode) . 27 . AA

Rreporte dt o u s tha

t AA Rperforme dacomplet e revie w o f thei r documentatio n t o identif

y whe n th e spoiler s coul dhav e bee n place din th e maintenanc e mode . 28 . Base do n thei r

review , AA Rconclude dtha t the y coul dfind n o circumstance s unde r whic h th e spoiler s coul dhav e bee n place di n th e maintenanc e mod e durin g a n AAR maintenanc e operation .

29 . AA Rinforme dUS A 300 0 tha t th e FA A haddroppe dth e investigatio n o f AA R whe n it became clea

r tha t ther e wa s n o evidenc e that anyon e fro

mAA Rplace dth e spoiler s i n maintenanc e mode .

30 . We performe darevie w o f th e maintenanc e operation s performe db y AA Ro n N265AV , includin g arevie w o f th e maintenanc e records . 31 . W e coul dno t

findany poin t

durin g th e maintenanc e in whic h th e spoiler s coul d hav e been lef

t i n th e maintenanc e mode , becaus e operational check s o f th e spoiler s mad e it impossibl e fo

r th e spoiler s t o hav e bee n lef t in th e maintenanc e mod e before Ma y 15,2008 . APPENDI X B (Declaratio n o f

Jo e Miller ) Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C andth e Pag e 3 S La w Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suite 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6

### 32 . Becaus e o f th e Ma y 15,200 8 successfu l contro l surfac e operatio n check , w e believ e tha t

i t i s likel y tha t

th e spoiler s wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mod e betwee n tha t May 15t h chec k an dth e Ma

y 17t h flight. 33 . N o US A 300 0 maintenanc e wa s schedule dt o b e performe do n th e Aircraf t between th e operational chec k on Ma y 15t h an dth e flight

o n Ma y 17th . 34 . Immediatel y before th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight, ther e wa s evidenc e that AA Rhadperforme dwor

k o n th e Aircraf

t o n th e order s o f

ILFC , th e aircraf

t owner . 35 . Wor k performe db y AA

Rfo r ILF C wa s no t

performe dunder

US A 300 0 instmctions , an dwa s no t

performe dunder

US A 3000' s control . 36 . Throug h discovery , w e hav e obtaine dacop y o f th e Apri l 16,200 8 agreemen t between AA Ran dILF C fo r th e wor k performe don N265A V a t ILFC' s direction . That Agreement

i s attache da s a

n exhibi t t o thi s Declaration . 37 . Throug h discovery , w e hav e obtaine dacop y o f th e Invoic e sen t

b y AARt o ILF C fo r th e wor k performe do n N265A V a t ILFC' s direction . That

Invoic e i s attache da s a

n exhibi t t o thi s Declaration .

38 . Throug h discovery , w e hav e obtaine dacop y o f th e Part s Consumptio n Report b y AA Rt o ILF C fo

r th e wor k performe don N265A V a

t ILFC' s direction . Tha

t Part s Consumptio n Repor t list s part s consume ddurin g th e wor k performe do n N265A V at ILFC' s direction , an dit

i s attache da s a

n exhibi t t o thi s Declaration . 39 . Th e Part s Consumptio n Report make s it clea r that pain t wa s amon g th e supplier s bough t andconsume dfo

r N265A V under

ILFC' s direction . 40. 1 believe , bu t

I canno t prove , that

th e spoiler s wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mode by painter s wh o painte dth e liver y o f State Transpor

t Russi ao n th e Aircraf

t betwee n Ma

y 15t h andMa y 17th . 41 . US A 300 0 pai dfo

r th e fuselag e t o b e painted , bu t US A 300 0 wa s no t

responsibl e fo r paintin g th e wing s (an ddi dno t caus e th e wing s t o b e painted) . APPENDI X B (Declaratio n o f

Jo e Miller ) Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e Pag e 3 6 LawOfficeso f Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### 42 . I t i s norma l fo r th e leasin g company t

o orde r wor k don e o n thei r ow n aircraf t a t th e en do f alease , s o tha

t th e aircraf t ca n b e mad e read y fo r th e next lessee . 43 . Paintin g o f

th e nex t lessee' s liver

y o n the Aircraf

t wing s (where th e spoiler s ar e located) wa s don e a

t ILFC' s expens e an

daccordin g to ILFC' s instructions . I declar e unde r penalt y o f perjur y unde r th e law s o f

th e Unite dState s tha

t the foregoing i s tru e an

dcorrect . EXECUTE D on th e 22ndda

y o f October , 2010 . 

# '^%ak Jo e Miller USi 4 iOO O Directo r

o f Maintenanc e

APPENDI X B (Declaratio n o f Jo e Miller ) Pac e 3 7 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW . Suit e 50 3 Washington . D C 2000 7 'Tel ; 202-628-677 6

# Josep h Miller

Exhibit s

APPENDI X B (Declaration of

Jo e Miller ) Pag e 3 8 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dthe La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D C 20007 • Tel : 202-628-677 6EXHIBI T E ; STATKMKNTOFWQR K Thi s AIRCRAF T STATEMFiN T O F WOR K i s cmcrc d int o b y an d betwee n AA R AIRCRAF T SERVICE S - MIAMI . INC . (Formerl y AVBORN E HKAV Y MAINTENANCE , INC. ) an d INTERNATIONA L LEAS E FINANC E CORPORATION . Th e icmi s o f Ih c Genera l Tenn s Agreemen t date d Februar y 17 , 200 6 ar c hereb y incorporate d herei n b y reference . Capllaiir.c d term s use d herei n shal l hav e Jh c meaning s give n t o Ihc min ili c Genera l Term s Agrcemcnl . SECTIO N 1 : DESCRIPTIO N O F AIRCRAFT/EQUIPMEN T Model : A32 0 Seria l Number : ^ TA$M^2

- 7 ^^r \ Rcgisiralion : N265A V SECTIO N 2 : DESCRIPTIO N O F WOR K 1. 1 I'li c scrvicci i t o b e provide db y Avboni c fo r th e C'ustontcr'j i A32 0 nirenif l wit h .serial numbe r WSN57 7 ar c n s follows : A . Accomplis h th e AirNVDrihiiics s DircciivcK/b'crvic c niillctiiis . alonj } wit h iii:secllaiicoi » inodincnttoiis/iiuinllaiion! ! (Cnbit i Siirvoitlmic e System , Kixc dELT , EPt. , httcrio r Roconrij>itratioi i nn d Sctti r & Piilii i o f

it w AficniR'i t

\vh>B$ , horiwnla l liUbilizc r an d rii9cla|i u lugo/livcr> ' stripes) , pe r th e Wor k Pnukiitf c supplie dl o Avboni c Plens o «c c ih c rullo\viii) < pnue s fo r

tall y jiliec l o f

ni l Ih c Itcmi i include di n th e Wor k P.iclcni>c , alon g wit h dcinil s oi l th e aitcni A pain i livery . 1. 2 Al l assocjnie diion-roiiiin e niiding s gcncmic db y eac h Alnvorthincsi i Direclive/Scrvic o Biillciin s an dniodincaiions/instnllatioii s wil l b e pcrromic do n n lini o aiu l niatcria l bniiis . 1. 3 Al l pans , materials , kit s an droCibl c rcquircnicni s associate dwit h lhi ( work.sco|> o ar c exclude d fro mili c (Ixcdbi dpric e an dwil l b e handle do n aliin c an dinntcrio l biisis . l.' l An y additiona l iiein s nddc dt o th e wor k scop e tha t

ar c no t liiile di n ih c wor k

piickas c a s sliow n i n followin g page s nriliL s AgrvX'ineni , wil l b e flecQm|)h'ii-hcdo n tinic-antUinaicrla l basis . 1. 5 Al l non-roniin e ND T work . SI D mapping/repair.^ , part- i rabiicniiun s pe r cngiiiccrin| > dntwings , pain t louch-tip , .x<rays , fue l tan k work , welding , mnehiiung , specialize dloolinji , aircra Rpolishing , alon g wit h al l OM J an dinlioini dlo g items , ar c no t include di n lli o fixe dbi dpric e aii dwil l b e pcrromic do n atim e an dinalerin i basis . SECTIO N J : FIXE D BI D PRICIN G 11t c ri-xc dbi dpric e l o cove r Ih c Wor k Package , a s show n i n (li e follawin g page s |K r Ih c term s aw l condition s a s state d:il)o\- c i n Sectio n 2 o f thi s Agreemen t

wil l b e $91,440 . SECTIO N 4 : STRAIGH T TIM E HOURL Y RAT E Tli c Straigh t

Tim e hourl y latra r

rol e fo r thi s projec t

wil l h e S4S.(J 0 pe r

ma n hour . A

H othe r hourl y charge s mi dmarkup s wnl

j b e pe r th e Genera l Term s Agrecmc mdate dI'ebruar y 17,2006 .SECTIO N 5 : SCHEDULE D REDELIVER Y DAT E Avboni c estimate s tha

i Ili c durniio n ofilii s workscop c an dscr\>ice s wil l lak e . S day s to complete . Al l siiaii

limc s quote db

y Avborno , whethe r

orall y o r in wriling , shal l b e csiinviie s To r tim e o r completion . I N WITNES S WHERHOF , Ih c partie s hav e cause dthi s Agreemen t l o b e cxcctilc db

y lliei r duly nuihorizc d rcprcscntalix'cs . AA K Aircrnl' t

Service s - Miiuiii , jj|;ic , liituriiniioiiA l Lcns c Kiiinnc c Corporiitio n



# <7 . Signnlurc : J ^ J^- ^ Signaliirc ; 

## Title : {/P

- ^/^' ^ -ma : <2)^}.^cAr''^/7.^^'"-Ca^(

# OAA R

Aircraf t Service s —Miam i FA A Repai rStatio n i t )^4R64 M 530 0 N W 36t h Stree t P O Bo x 52-260 2 Miami . F L 3315 2 www.aarcorp.m m refep/ione ; (305 ) 871-210 4 Accountin g Fax : (786 ) 265-436 0 Purchasin g Fax : (786 ) 265-436 2 

# INVOIC E

Bil l To : Attn : Mr . Rlchai d Poutier , Senio rV P - Technica l Internationa l Leas e Financ e Corporatkx i 1025 0 Constellatio n Blvd . Suit e 340 0 Lo s Angelas , C

A 9006 7 UNITE D STATE S Tel. : 310-788-199 9 Fax:310-788-199 0 Shippe d To : Attn : Mr . Rk^har

d PouUer, Senk

Y V P • Technica l Internationa l Leas e Finance Corporatio n 1025 0 Constellatio n Blvd . Suit e 340 0 Lo s Angelas , C

A 9006 7 UNITE D STATE S Tel. : 310-788-199 9 Fax:310-788-199 0 IMNTW/ONo . Custome rP.O . Invoic e Dat e Du e Dat e Shi p Vi a F.O.B , Shippe d Dat e Ou rContac t 28108 4

Jul-17-200 8 Aug-16-200

8 ORIGI N Jul-17-200 8 

# ilijlilllliillliiliillliiil l No. : 00374 1 Pg- i Sol d To : Accoun t No . [6 ] Attn : Mr . Rfchard Poulier , Senio rV P - Technica l Intemationa l Leas e Rnanc e Corporatto n 1025 0 Constellatio n Blvd . Suit e 340 0 Lo s Angelas , C A 9006 7 UNITE D STATE S Tel. : 310-788-199 9 Fax:310.788-199 0 Remi t Paymen t To : AA R Cor p 530 0 N W 36t h Stree t P O Bo x 62-260 2 Miami, . F L 3315 2 Tel. : Telephone : (305 ) 871-210 4 Fax ; Accountin g Fax : (786 ) 265-436 0 Projec t f :W.0.28108- 4 Conlrtct « : ILF

C RESPONSIBILri Y Release d :YE S C . Labe l 4 : AIRCRAF T N285A V Licens e No . :N/A Expire s :N/

A Domesti c AW B InflAW B Origi n Transpor t Nationalit y Trlpegh t Term s : NET 30 Alk»JCarpaneU i i Lin e 1 Detai l o f Charge s Cn d

Car d No . : (F-FINAL3 ] ACCOMPLIS H MISC . CUS T CardNo.F-FINAL 3 ACCOMPUS H MISC . CUSTOME R REQUES T O N A / NOTE : SE E BREAKDOW N O F CHARGE S O N ATTACHE D SHEET . ADDITIONA L FREIGH T CHARGE S MA

Y FOLLOW . Charqe s Summar

y A32 1 Labo r :N2 6 Qt y Ordere d )ME R REQUES T O N A «

1.0 0 E A )A V Shippe d N265A V 1.0 0



### 1 1

8(iaHomt,StiirAoaMtitM l Uni t Pric e $ 144,216.190 0 E A Amoun t $144,216.1 9

$144,216.1 9 Su b Total : $144,216.1 9

Total : lUSD l S 144.216.1 9 Ca(iyi<oM{c ) PENTAOO N 2«o g S««w«ra,ln c onoiNM .AA R AIRCRAF T SERVICE S MIAM I W O 28108. 4 A/CN26SA V PART S CONSUMPTIO N REPOR T ILF C RESPONSIBILITY 6/25/200 8

IITE M NUMBE R •PAR T NUMBE R 

### 1405 6 NR586 6 DESCRIPTIO N RTVWHITE"CRC " QTY S T !i TM 

# m^ m U M

E A UNI T COS T

12.7 0 EX

T COS T 12.7 0 622-5222-02 0 NR586 6 RECEIVER-AD F E A 5,800.0 0 5,800.0 0 CS3204B2. T NR586 6 SEALAN T E A 14.7 0 58.8 0 A4031PR W NR587 2 PUCARD-EXI T SIG N 1 2 E A 

### 9.9 0 118.8 0 

# [^i^ii^[^ii^iMiiii[?iMi^^^»iiiMMa i ^ ^ 236 0 SS I OI L ENGIN E (Q ) 

# ^ 1 1 2 4 E A ££

£ 9.4 2 

# 5# ^

226.0 8 PITOT.COVER S SS 1 PITOT.COVE R E A 

### 10.0 0 40.0 0 S-10002-130 0 SS 1 LIF E VES T 2 0 E A 40.0 0 800.0 0 NSA938152SA200 0 NR501 1 SOCKE T AIRBU S STANAR D P E A 

### 10.0 0 50.0 0 D92S112280120 0 NR501 5 PUT E ASSY , BLANKIN G E A 210.0 0 420.0 0 EPOXO.88T1 0 NRS01 5 EPOX Y ADHESIV E 10.0 1 FASTWELDIOD. S NR501 5 FASTWELD1 0 E A 17.7 7 17.7 7 NSA935805-2 0 NR501 5 CONDUI T 

### FT 32.9 5 98.8 5 NSA935805-2 4 NR501 5 CONDUI T 1 0 F T 23.3 2 233.2 0 10P20-44M-F/K4 G NR301 6 PRIME R 1 0 K T 483.4 0 4.834.0 0 7139VYY-POCCN R (A32 0 NR301 6 DECA L E A 240.0 0 240.0 0 7139VYY-ROSSIYA(A32 t NR301 6 DECA L E A 240.0 0 240.0 0 ECL-G-1116 1 NR301 6 PAPYRU S WHIT E K T 411.8 5 823.7 0 EGL-G-1116 1 NR301 6 PAPYRU S WHIT E KT 411.8 5 2.471.1 0 EGL-G-1116 1 NR301 6 PAPYRU S WHIT E K T 411.8 5 2,882.9 5 ECL-G-164 9 NR301 6 PAINT , SIGNA L WHIT E KT 669.5 0 1,339.0 0 ECL-G-2622 9 NR301 6 PAINT , SIGNA L BLU E KT 767.3 5 

### 1,534.7 0 ECL-G-363 7 NR301 6 PAINT , TRAFFI C RE D K T 

### 987.7 5 1.975.5 0 ECL-G-688 8 NR301 6 SIGNA L ORANG E K T 327.0 2 327.0 2 ECL-G-9 2 NR301 6 PAINT , TRAFFI C BLAC K KT 213.3 0 426.6 0 PACKAGING , HAZMA

T NR301 6 HAZMA T PACKAGIN G 3 2 E A 22.5 0 720.0 0 ABS0305KA2-1 1 NR501 6 SECTION-HOS E 111897IT L 3 0 F T 15.0 0 

### 450.0 0 MS20006-2 0 NR501 6 BOLT E A 

### 7.5 1 15.0 2 MS20006-2 2 

### NR501 6 BUSHIN G E A 17.7 8 NSA936830-2 2 NR501 7 SPLIC E 1 0 E A 47.0 3 470.3 0 1405 5 NR501 8 CLEAR.RTV E A 11.9 5 11.9 5 DP I 0 0 NR501 8 ADHESIV E E A 8.9 0 8.9 0 E0404-0 2 NR501 8 LAM P 2 5 E A 5.3 9 134.7 5 P10 8 NR501 8 TAPE , DOUBL E SID E CLOT H 2 4 E A 13.9 9 335.7 6 RDAX493 1 NR501 8 SE B TERMINA L P L E A 75.0 0 600.0 0 

### m^f M 1405 5 NR503 6 CLEAR.RTV E A 11.9 5 11.9 5 D252732670020 0 

### NR503 6 FORKASSY252 4 E A 164.0 0 328.0 0 D252732670020 0 NR503 6 FORKASSY252 4 E A 164.0 0 164.0 0AA R AIRCRAF T SERVICE S MIAM I W O 28108^

4 A/ C N265A V PART S CONSUMPTIO N REPOR T ILF C RESPONSIBILIT Y 6/25/200 8

TOTA L 34.129.1 9 MATERIALS 28,249.1 9

## APPENDI

X C : Judg e Fowler' s Decisio n i n Babbit t v . Surrat t

APPENDI X C (Judg e Fowler' s Decision i n Babbit t v . Washingto

n Aviatio n Group , P

C an dthe Surratt ) La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D

C 20007 -Tel : 202-628-677 6Pag e 1 

# ^ LexisNexis '

3 o f 3 DOCUMENT S J . RANDOLPH BABBITT , ADMINISTRATOR , Federal Aviatio n Administration , Complainant , v . TON Y SCO T SURRATT an dFRAN K WILLIA M WALKER , Respondent s NUMBER : Docke t

SE-18562 , SE-1856 3 Nationa l Transportatio n Safet y Board 200 9 NTS B LEXI S 10 6 DATE : Septembe

r 2,200 9 ACTION : [*1 ] ORA L INITIA L DECISIO N ISSUEDBY : Willia

mE . Fowler , Jr. , Chie f

Administrativ e La

w Judg e JUDG E FOWLER 20 0 Chestnu t

Stree t Courtroo m30 0 Philadelphia , Petmsylvani a Wednesday , Augus t 12,200 9 Th e above-entitle dmatte r

cam e o n fo

r hearing , pursuan t

t o notice , a

t 10:0 0 a.m . BEFORE : WILLIAM E . FOWLER , JR. , Chie f Administrativ e La

w Judg e APPEARANCES : O n behal f o f th e Administrator : RUSSEL L CHRISTENSEN , ESQ . Federa l Aviatio n Administratio nPag e 2 2009NTS B LEXI S 106 , * 1 170 1 Columbi aAvenu e Colleg e Park , Georgi a3003 7 On behal f o f th e Respondents : JASO N DICKSTEIN , ESQ . Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P.C . an dth e La w Offic e o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 2123 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , N.W . Suite 50 3 Washington , D.C . 2000 7 202-628-677 6 JESSIC A STUBBS . ESQ . Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P.C . an dth e La w Offic e o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 2123 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , N.W . Suit e 50 3 Washington , D.C . 2000 7 202-628-894 7 Thi s ha s bee n aproceedin g before th e National Transportatio n Safet y Boar dhel dpursuan t

t o th e provisio n o f

th e Federa l Aviatio n Ac t

o f 195 8 a s tha

t Ac t wa s subsequentl y amende do n th e appeal s o f Tony Sco t

Surrat t andFrank Willia mWalker fromOrder s o f

Suspensio n date dApri l 8,2009 , issue db y th e Regional Counsel , Souther n Regio n o f th e Federal Aviatio n [*2 ] Administration , whic h purport s t o suspen dResponden t Surratt' s airlin e transpor

t pilo t certificate number

(omitted ) fo

r aperio do f

18 0 days , an dals o Responden t Walker' s airlin e transpor

t pilo t certificate number (omitted ) fo

r aperio do f

18 0 days . Thi s ha s bee n aconsolidate dproceedin g on th e appeal s o f Respondent s Surrat

t an dWalker . Th e Administrator' s Order s o f Suspensio n a s dul y promulgated , pursuan t t o th e Nationa l Transportatio n Safet y Board' s Rule s o f

Practic e i n Ai r

Safet y Proceedings , a s I mentione dearlier , wa s issue db y th e Regional Counse l o f th e Souther n Regio n o f

th e Federal Aviatio n Administration . Thi s matte r

ha s bee n hear dbefore thi s Unite dState s Administrativ e Law Judg e an di s provide db y th e Board' s Rule s o f Practice , specificall y Sectio n 821.4 2 o f thos e rules , whil e i t

i s no t mandatory , accordin g t o tha t sectio n o f

th e rules , tha t a s th e Judg e i n thi s proceedin g I issu e a n Oral Initial Decision . I' mgoin g t o d o that at thi s time . Followin g notic e t o th e parties , thi s matte r cam e o n fo

r trial o n Augus t

11t h an d12t h i n Philadelphia , Pennsylvania . Th e Complainant

i n thi s proceedin g wa s ver y abl y represente db y Counselo r Christensen , Esquire , o f

th e Regional [*3 ] Counsel' s Office , Southern Regio n o f th e Federal Aviatio n Administration . Th e Respondent s wer e represente db y Counselor s Dickstei n an dStubbs , Esquire , andbot h hav e don e aver

y admirabl e job , I migh t

add . Bot h partie s hav e bee n afforde dth e opportunit y t o offe r evidence , t o call , examine , an dcross-examin e witnesses . I n addition , th e partie s wer e afforde dth e opportunit y t o make fina

l argumen t

i n suppor t o f thei r respectiv e positions .Pag e 3 200 9 NTS B LEXI S 106 , ^ 3

I hav e reviewe dth e testimon y an dth e documentar y exhibit s adduce db y counsel . Th e Administrato r ha s ha d 2 1 Exhibits . Th e Responden t

ha s ha d1 1 Exhibits . Th e Administrato r ha s ha dth e testimon y o f

fou r witnesses . Th e Respondent

ha s ha dth e testimon y o f

thre e witnesses . Tw o o f

thos e witnesse s o f

th e Responden t

wer e th e tw o Respondents , themselves . Responden t Surrat t an dResponden t

Walker . I hav e reviewe dth e totality o f th e testimon y an dth e documentar y exhibits , anda s yo u kno w th e burde n o f proo f i n aproceedin g o f

thi s typ e i s o n th e Administrator . Th e Administrato r

ha s se t fort h tw o Order s o f

Suspensio n here wit

h 2 1 specifi c paragraph s se t i n th e Order s agains t Captai n Tony Sco t

Surratt , an dagains t

Captai n Frank

Willia mWalke r there were 1 2 paragraphs . ['^4 ] I'mgoin g t o try t o b e a s brie f an da s concis e a s I can . Thi s cas e in my humbl e estimatio n rise s o r fall s o n what

th e tw o Respondent s knew , what knowledg e the y possesse dprio r

t o takeof f o n Ma y 17th , 2008 , fromMiami Intemationa l Airport . W e hav e th e testimon y o f

fou r witnesse s o n behal f

o f th e Administrator , Witnes s Laurenc e Johnson , Principal Operation s Inspector ; Witnes s Phili p Stauffe r i s als o aPrincipal Operation s Inspector , Witnes s Thoma s W . Welsh , wh o i s a n Inspecto r

at USA300 0 Airlines , th e compan y we'r e dealin g wit h in thi s proceedin g an dwitnes s Frank Miller . Al l fou r o f thes e gentleme n ar e exceedingl y experienced . Inspecto r Stauffe r wa s declare dt o b e a

n expert , particularl y i n maintenance , maintenanc e engineering . An dt o make alon g stor y short , th e witnesse s o f

th e Administrato r

al l testifie dvalidl y an dsubstantiate dmany o f th e numbere d paragraph s set

fort h in bot h Order s o f

Suspensio n agains t

Responden t

Surrat t andResponden t

Walker . Respondent

ha dthre e witaesses . Responden t Surratt , Responden t

Walker , an dWitnes s Pau l O . Dow , Jr. , wh o wa s qualifie da s a

n expert . Witnes s Do w ha s 4,30 0 hour s in th e A32 0 an dha s 11,00 0 hour s a s a n airlin e transpor

t certificate dpilot . [*5 ] I hav e reviewe dth e testimon y in thi s case . Th e tw o Respondent s hav e testifie dan don e o f th e Administrator' s witoesses , Mr . Fran k

Miller , ha s testifie dtha

t prio r t o takeoff , eve n thoug h th e Respondent s i n thi s aircraf t kne w there were spoiler

difficulties , spoiler s 3 an d5 were , a s counse l fo r th e Administrato r

ha s abl y stated , locke dout . Respondent s an dothe r

member s presen t

i n th e aircraf

t includin g Witaes s Mille r wh o ha s testifie do n behal f o f th e Administrator , tha

t compute r button s wer e rese t

an dtha t th e ECAM pane l prio r

t o takeof f wa s green . Th e pilots . Respondent

Walke r wa s th e flyin g pilot . Responden t Surrat t wa s tendin g t o th e othe r

dutie s o f aFirs t Officer . Th e evidenc e her e i n m

y determinatio n i s persuasive , logical , an dcompeUing that th e ECAM pane l prio r

t o takeof f o r jus t befor e takeof f wa s gree n o r

clear , however

yo u wan t t o dee mi t whe n thi s flight

too k of f fromMiam

i Intemational Airport . Some 10,15,2 0 minute s later , message s cam e o n th e ECA M o f th e spoile r

problems . Th e flying pilot , o r

I shoul dsa

y pilots , converse dabou t

thi s problem , referre dt o th e QRH , Quic k Referenc e Handbook , whic h i s th e Nationa l Operatio n Manual referenc e boo k an ddecide dsinc e [*6 ] the y ha dn o prio r knowledg e before the y too k of f wit h thes e spoile r

difficulties ; that

eve n sinc e the y the n ha dknowledg e o f th e spoiler difficulties , tha

t the y woul dprocee dwit

h thei r flight, a s the y did , approximatel y tw o hour s o r more before the y attempte dthei r

first landing , whic h ha dt o b e aborte dbecaus e a s yo u hav e hearddurin g th e testimon y in thi s proceeding , th e lef

t win g fenc e a s th e testimon y ha s stated , a s oppose dt o th e Administrator' s Orde r whic h say s th e lef

t wingtip , scrape dth e runway . So , th e first attemp t at landin g wa s aborte dandthere wa s asecon duneventfu l landing . I hav e heardanumbe r

o f thes e cases , not

simila r t o thi s one , bu t

m y poin t i n raisin g thi s i s ther e wa s n o accident , n o damage , n o injuries , n o fatalities , an dtha t t o me i s alway s abi t

refreshin g t o hav e acas e like thi s becaus e s o many time s the y ar e jus t

th e opposite .Pag e 4 200 9 NTS B LEXI S 106,'* 6 Th e burde n o f

proof , a s I state dearlier , i s o n th e Administrato r to prov e b y afair

an dreasonabl e preponderanc e o f th e probative , reliable , an dsubstantial evidence , th e charge s an dallegation s a s se t fort h i n thes e Order s o f

Suspension . I t i s my determinatio n di e Administrator' s evidenc e a s to what th e Respondent s kne w prio r [*7 ] t o takeoff

, th e Administrator' s evidenc e i s lackin g base do n th e totality o f wha t we'v e ha ddurin g th e cours e o f thi s tw o day proceeding . We'v e ha dth e testimon y o f bot h Respondents , a s wel l a s th e las t witnes s o f

th e Administrator , Mr . Frederic k Miller , wh o i s th e Directo r o f Maintenanc e fo

r USA300 0 Airlines , wh o concurre dwit h th e tw o Respondents ' testimon y tha t immediatel y prio r

t o takeof f th e ECAM pane l wa s clear , i f no t green . There wa s som e testimon y that i t wa s green . An dthereb y an dthereupo n th e flight too k off . Administrator' s witnesse s hav e testifie dt o th e opposit e resul t concemin g th e ECAM pane l prio r t o takeof f an d notic e t o th e pilots , bu t

I don' t believe , an di t

i s my determinatio n tha

t th e Administrator' s cas e i s persuasiv e an d compellin g enoug h t o rebu t th e total testimon y adduce do n th e Respondent s sid e o f th e case . We ca n look a t thi s case , I believ e i n anothe r way . Bot h Respondent s ar e airlin e transport rate dcertificate dpilot s wh o ar e hel dt o th e highes t degre e o f care , judgment , an dresponsibility . Now , th e evidenc e i s o n th e Respondents ' side , 1 believe , in thi s cas e tha

t th e Respondent s di dno t

kno w when the y too k

of f th e ful l situatio n o f

th e spoilers . [•'8 ] Thre e witnesses , a s I mentioned , hav e testifie dth e ECAM pane l wa s clear , indicate dgreen , an dthe y too k off . Now , th e questio n afte

r tha t come s dow n t o what

di dRespondent s Surrat

t an dWalke r

d o whe n the y go t

th e messag e durin g th e flight

some 20,2 5 minute s late r abou t th e inoperabl e spoilers . Responden t Surratt i s th e Pilot-in-Comman do f

thi s flight. Responden t

Walke r wa s th e flying pilot . A s Pilot-in-Command , Captai n Surrat t withi n th e real mo f

hi s authorit

y a s Pilot-in-Command , continue dth e flight a s oppose dto th e contentio n o f th e Federal Aviatio n Administration , tha t whe n the y wer e afforde dthi s messag e durin g th e flight abou t th e spoiler

situatio n tha

t the y immediatel y en dan dabor t th e flight. Administrator' s A-7 , whic h i s alette r Januar y 11,2008 , t o Inspecto r

Laurenc e Johnso n issue db y Josep h Guhin , Directo r o f Safet y an dRegulator

y Complianc e fo

r USA300 0 Airlines , an dI wil l rea dacertai n portio n o f tha t letter . Th e fourt h paragrap h o n th e first

pag e o f thi s Exhibi t

A- 7 sai ddurin g th e flight contro l check , durin g th e tax i checklis t th e cre w note dthere wa s a

n ECAM cautio n o f

LAF degrader . It

wa s cleare db y resettin g th e spoile r elevate dcomputer

SEC pus h buttons . Accordin g ["'9 ] t o bot h Captai n Surratt

an dJo e Miller , thi s cautio n i s no t uncommon , an dwa s quickl y cleared . Th e aircraf

t ha daclean uppe r

ECAM pag e prio r

to th e uneventfu l takeoff

. Whil e airbome , durin g routin e pag e call-up s th e ECA M pane l displaye dsymmetrical spoile r 3 , 5 Lef t Rspoiler ambe r indications . Durin g th e flight apilo t lef t th e cockpi t

an dreturnednotin g tw o spoiler s o n th e lef t win g wer e floating. A USA300 0 Airlin e Inspector' s employe e too k som e picture s o f

thos e spoilers , note dthat

th e radder

tri mgoin g ou t o f limits , an dCaptai n Walke r disengage dth e autopilo t

andmanuall y trimme dth e aircraft . Th e paragrap h goe s o n t o sa y abou t somewha t difficult y there wa s in landin g th e aircraf t an dwit h th e scrap e o f

th e ranway b y th e lef

t win g fence . A s I mentioned , th e totality o f th e seve n witnesse s tha

t hav e testifie din thi s proceeding , amon g th e four , on e wa s designate da

n expert . Inspecto r

Johnson , an dther e wa s on e exper t witaess , Pau l O . Dow , on behal f o f th e Respondent . Yo u ma y recal l Witaes s Dow , wh o wa s presen t durin g th e cours e o f

thi s proceeding , sai dthat

h e concurre d wholeheartedl y wit

h th e action s o f

Respondent s Surrat

t andWalker

an dhi s testimon y als o encompasse dth e ['*10 ] situatio n tha

t ha s often occurre do n amaintenanc e acceptanc e tes t flight whic h ha s th e aircraf

t involved , whic h ha s bee n lai du p fo r quite awhile , tha

t i t i s no t unconmio n fo

r th e thing s tha

t occu r i n th e flight

we'r e conceme dwit

h here tha tPag e 5 2009NTSBLEXIS106,'*1 0 di doccur , an da s bot

h th e Respondent s an dWitaes s Mille r testified , thi s cautio n a s the y exercise db y resetting th e computer button s whic h cleare dth e ECAM pane l an dallowe dthe mt o takeof f i n a n uneventfu l takeof

f wit h n o problem s i n thei r

mind . An da s the y hav e bot h testifie dto , bot

h Respondent s wer e no t

cognizan t

o f aseriou s spoiler proble munti l durin g th e flight, the y wer e late r notifie dan dthe y mad e thei r decisions , particularl y Responden t Suirat t a s Pilot-in-Command , t o continu e th e flight, whic h the y did . An dothe r than th e win g fenc e scrapin g th e ranway on th e secon dlandin g attempt , th e landin g wa s uneventfu l an da s I said , fortanately , thi s wa s merel y a n inciden t an dno t a n accident . S o that , ladie s an dgentlemen , a s I sai dI though t th e Respondents ' cas e successfull y rebutte dth e Administrator' s case . Much ha s bee n mad e o f th e utilizatio n o r

non-utilizatio n o f

th e minimu mequipmen t

lis t prio r t o takeoff . I thin k th e Respondent s [•11 ] successfull y wer e persuasiv e an dcompellin g i n thei r evidenc e that

th e minimu mequipmen t

lis t wa s no t applicabl e o r

apropo s sinc e th e ECAM pane l wa s cleare dan dth e Respondent s too k of f accordingly . S o that , ladie s an dgentlemen , I' msur e yo u ge t th e drif t o f m y decisio n her e no w whic h t o us e acolloquialism , Respondent s hav e carrie dth e day . An dI wil l make m y specifi c followin g Finding s o f Fac t an dConclusion s o f

La w accordingly . Takin g u p first

Captai n Ton y Sco t

Surratt , hi s Orde r

o f Suspension . 1 ) Respondent

Surrat t admit s an di t

i s foundthat

h e wa s an di s th e holde r

o f airlin e transpor

t pilo t certificate number (omitted) . 2 ) Th e Responden t

admit s an di t

i s foundtha

t al l time s relevan t

herei n h e wa s employe da s apilo t fo r Brenda n Airways , LLC . Th e remainin g Paragraph s 3,4 , 5,6 , an d7, 1 wil l no t spel l thos e ou t

becaus e th e Responden t

ha s admitte dal l o f thos e allegation s a s se t

fort h i n Paragraph s 3,4 , 5 , 6 , an d7 . An dI wil l findan dadmi t accordingl y where thos e numbere dparagraph s ar e concemed . 8 ) It i s foundtha

t th e ambe r

LA F degrade dmessag e o n th e aircraft' s ECA M pane l come s o n whe n there i s afailur e o f on e o f th e aircraft s spoile r

serv o jacks . 9 ) It i s foun dtha t [ * 12 ] durin g th e flight

bu t prio r to takeof f th e ECAM pane l indicate dthat th e followin g win g rol l spoiler s were no t

operational and/o r

locke dout . It

i s my determinatio n that

designate dParagraph s C an dD dealin g wit h th e right win g spoiler s numbe r

3 an d5 wer e foundaccordingly . 10 ) It i s foundtha

t durin g th e flight

bu t prio r t o takeof f Responden t

Surrat t wa s no t awar e that

th e aircraft' s ECA

M indicate dtha

t th e followin g win g rol l spoiler s were no t operational an dwere blocke dout , bu t that th e right win g spoiler number 3 an dright

win g spoile r

numbe r 5 were indicate daccordingly . I t i s my determinatio n tha

t appropriate actio n wa s taken to clea

r th e ECAM pane l an dth e takeof f quickl y followe dthereafter . 11 ) It i s foundthat

pursuan t t o th e aircraft' s minimu mequipmen t list , th e aircraf

t canno t b e dispatche dwhe n tw o o r more spoiler s o n eithe r

win g ar e in a

n inoperabl e condition . But base do n th e totality o f

th e evidenc e andth e fact s an d circumstance s we'v e ha dadduce ddurin g th e cours e o f thi s proceeding , th e minimu mequipmen t lis t immediatel y prio r t o takeof f wa s no t operabl e an dshoul dno t

hav e bee n invoke dat

th e tim e prio r

t o takeoff , an dwa s no t

invoked . 12 ) Th e Respondent s admi t

[""n ] an di t

i s foun dtha

t notwithstandin g th e above , durin g th e flight th e Respondent Surrat t operate dth e aircraf

t durin g th e takeof

f wit h n o knowledg e o f

th e followin g inoperativ e instraments : C andD o f Paragrap h 12 , whic h i s th e right win g rol l spoile r

numbe r 3 , andD , th e right

win g rol l spoile r

numbe r 5 . 13 ) It i s foundthat

durin g th e flight

an dafte r 2 0 minute s afte

r takeoff , th e ECAM pane l onc e agai n indicate dtha t th e followin g win g spoiler s wer e no t operational and/o r

wer e locke dout : C an dD a s se t fort h i n Paragrap h 1 3 o f

tha tPag e 6 2009NTS B LEXI S 106 , •1 3 Order . 14 ) I t i s foundthat

durin g th e flight

th e flying pilot , Frank

Willia mWalker , disconnecte dth e autopilo t becaus e th e radder tri mwa s no t

operatin g properl y an dwa s ou t o f range . 15 ) It i s foundan dth e Responden t admit s tha

t durin g th e flight

Responden t

wa s informe dthat

tw o flights [sic ] o n th e lef t win g were floating b y aperso n wh o ha dvisuall y inspecte dth e lef t win g whil e o n boar dth e aircraft . 16 ) It i s foundthat

durin g th e flight

whe n Responden t

first attempte dt o lan dth e aircraf t at Miam i Intemational Airport , th e aircraft' s lef

t win g fenc e contacte dth e runway causin g damag e t o th e lef t win g fence . 17 ) Th e Responden t

admit s an di t

[ • 14 ] i s foundtha

t durin g th e abov e reference dinoperabl e ring rol l spoiler s durin g th e flight

you r first landin g attemp t

wa s aborted . 18 ) Durin g th e flight

i t i s foun dthat

th e Respondent s operate dth e aircraf t whic h the n wa s i n a

n unairworth y conditio n bu t

th e Respondent s ha dn o notic e unti l tha t tim e that th e aircraf

t wa s in an unairworth y condition . 19 ) I t i s foundthat

durin g th e flight

th e Responden t

Surrat t faile dt o discontinu e th e flight afte r th e unairworthy mechanical , electrical , o r

stractara l conditio n occurre dwit h referenc e t o th e conditio n o f th e spoilers . 20 ) I t i s foundthat

durin g th e flight

th e Responden t

di dno t operate th e aircraf

t i n acareles s manne r

s o a s t o endanger th e lif e o r property o f

another . 21 ) I t i s foundb y reasons o f

th e foregoing , th e Responden t di dno t violat e th e followin g aviatio n regulation s an d I' mincorporatin g b y referenc e a s se t fort h i n Paragraph s A , B , C , an dD o f Paragrap h 2 1 o f

th e aforesai dOrder

o f Suspensio n a s i t

wa s base do n th e totality o f th e evidence , couple dwit h th e documentary exhibits , that ther e wa s a non-violatio n o f

Sectio n 91.23(a) , Sectio n 91.213(a) , an dSectio n 91.7(a) , an dSectio n 91.7(b ) o f th e aforesai dFedera

l Aviatio n [•IS ] Regulations . 22 ) Thi s Judg e finds that

safet y in ai r commerc e o r

ai r transportatio n an dth e publi c interes t doe s no t require th e affirmatio n o f

th e Administrator' s Orde r o f Suspensio n a s t o Captai n Tony Scot t Suiratt , date dApri l 8th , 2009 , becaus e o f th e previousl y allude dt o non-violation s o f th e fou r PAR S section s mentione dearlier . ORDE R IT I S ORDERED AN D ADJUDGE D THAT th e Administratoi' s Order o f Suspensio n a s t o Captai n Tony Scot Surratt , date dApri l 8th , 2009 , be , an dth e same , hereb y i s dismisse dan dreversed . Thi s order i s issue db y WilliamE . Fowler , Jr. , aUnite dState s Administrativ e Law Judge . ADMINISTRATIV E LA

W JUDGE FOWLER : A s t o Captai n Frank Willia mWalke r I wil l no w procee dt o make th e followin g specifi c Finding s o f Fac t an dConclusion s o f

Law . 1 ) Tha t Responden t

Walke r admit s Paragraph s 1 , 2,3,4 , 5,6 , an d7 , an dI incorporat e thos e admission s o f th e Responden

t Walke r b y referenc e a s thos e numbere dparagraph s 1 throug h 7 , pertainin g t o th e Administrator' s Order o f Suspensio n ar

e se t fort h regardin g Responden t

Walker . 8 ) I t i s foundtha

t th e ambe r

LAF degrade dmessag e o n th e aircraft' s ECAM pane l cam e o n a s i t di dwhe n there wa s afailur e o f on e o f th e aircraf

t [ • 16 ] spoiler

serv o jacks . 9 ) Durin g th e flight

bu t prio r t o takeof f i t i s foun dtha

t th e ECA M pane l indicate dtha

t i t wa s clea r an dgree n eve n though th e right

win g spoile r

numbe r 3 an dright

win g spoiler

number 5 hadbee n locke dou t

an dbot h Respondent s a s they hav e testified , th e ECAM pane l wa s subsequentl y cleare dwit h th e aforementione dfou

r gree n indicator s andth ePag e 7 200 9 NTS B LEXI S 106 , • 1 6 takeof f proceeded . 10 ) I t i s foun dtha t

durin g th e flight

bu t prio r t o takeoff

. Responden t

Walke r wa s no t aware that

th e ECAM pane l hadindicate dthat

th e rol l spoiler s wer e no t

operational and/o r

were locke dou t

becaus e computer s wer e reset clearin g th e aforesai dECAM pane l enablin g th e Respondent s t o takeof f wit h apparentl y th e spoiler s proble mno t bein g problematical at

tha t time . 11 ) It i s foun dthat

pursuan t t o th e aircraft' s minimu mequipmen t Us t whic h i s acknowledge db y it s pilot s tha t th e aircraf t canno t b e dispatche dwhe n tw o o r more spoiler s o n eithe r

win g ar e i n a

n inoperabl e condition , th e Respondents , bot h Surrat t an dWalker , wer e no t

knowledgeabl e becaus e th e ECAM pane l state dclearanc e o r i t wa s gree n fo

r themt o mak e th e takeof

f a s the y did . 12 ) Th e Responden t

admit s notwithstandin g th e above , tha t durin g [•I7 ] th e flight

Responden t

Walker operate d th e aircraf t durin g takeof

f an dthereafter

wit h th e followin g inoperativ e instrument s an dI' mincorporatin g b y reference under Paragrap h 12 , Paragrap h C an dD right win g rolle r

an dth e right

win g rol l spoiler s numbe r 3 an d5 . 13 ) I t i s foundthat

durin g th e flight

an dwithi n 2 0 minute s afte r takeof f th e ECAM pane l onc e agai n indicate dtha t th e followin g right

win g spoiler s wer e no t

operational and/o r

were locke dout

—right win g spoile r

number 3 an dright win g spoiler

numbe r 5 . A s th e evidenc e woul dindicate , thi s i s th e first knowledg e tha

t bot h Respondent s ha dwhere th e ECA M pane l wer e conceme dtha t the y ha dany knowledg e o f th e spoile r

problem . 14) I t i s foundthat

durin g th e flight

whe n Respondent s first

attempte dt o lan dth e aircraf t a t Miam i Airport , th e aircraft' s lef

t fenc e connecte dwit

h th e runway causin g damag e t o th e lef t win g fence . 15 ) I t i s foundthat

du e t o th e abov e reference dinoperabl e wingti p spoiler s durin g th e flight you r first landin g attemp t wa s aborted . 16) Th e Responden t

operate dth e aircraf

t i n a n unairworth y condition , bu t ha dn o knowledg e at

th e tim e whe n i t first becam e unairworth y that i t wa s unairworthy . 17 ) Durin g [•IS ] th e flight th e Responden t

di dno t operate th e aircraf

t i n acareles s maime

r s o a s t o potentiall y endanger th e lif e o r property o f

another . B y reaso n o f

th e foregoing , ther e wa s anon-violatio n o f th e Federal Aviatio n Regulation s an dI' mincorporatin g b y referenc e thos e section s withou t spellin g the mout . Sectio n 91.13(a) , Sectio n 91.213(a) , an dSectio n 91.7(a ) a s there wa s anon-violatio n o f

thes e section s b y Responden t Walker . 18 ) Thi s Judg e finds that

safet y in ai r commerc e o r

ai r transportatio n an dth e publi c interes t doe s no t requir e th e affirmatio n o f

th e Administrator' s Order o f Suspensio n date dApri l 8th , 2009 , a s i t applie s t o Responden t

Walker du e t o th e non-violatio n b y Responden t Walke r o n th e aforesai dmentione dregulation s allude dt o tha t were no t violate db y Respondent

Walke r base do n th e totality o f

th e evidence , couple dwit h th e I documentar

y exhibit s a s afforde ddurin g th e cours e o f

thi s proceeding . ORDER I T I S ORDERED AN D DECREE D THA T th e Administratoi' s Order o f Suspensio n a s t o Captai n Frank Willia m Walker i s hereb y reverse dan ddismisse dbecaus e o f th e non-violation s o f

th e aforementione dFederal Aviatio n Regulations . Thi s Order

i s issue db y WilliamE . Fowler , [ • 19 ] Jr. , Unite dState s Administrativ e La w Judge . EDITED ON Septembe r

2,200 9Page s 200 9 NTS B LEXI S 106 , ^1 9 WILLIA M E . FOWLER , JR . Chie f Administrativ e La

w Judg e APPEAL JUDGE FOWLER : Where bot h Respondent s ar e concemed . Captai n Surrat t an dCaptai n Walker , on th e issu e o f appeal , eithe r

party ma y appeal th e Judge' s Oral Initial Decision . Th e Notic e o f

Appeal , i f

there i s one , ha s t o b e filedwithi n te n day s followin g th e issuanc e o f th e Judge' s Ora

l Initial Decisio n whic h wa s issue do n Augus t 12th , 2009 . In orde r t o perfec t th e appeal , th e Appellan t

mus t file abrie f

withi n 5 0 day s o f

th e Judge' s Oral Initial Decisio n settin g fort

h th e Appellant' s objection s t o th e Judge' s Oral Initial Decision . Th e Notic e o f

Appeal an dth e brie f

shal l b e filedwit

h th e Nationa l Transportatio n Safet y Board , Offic e o f

Judges , 49 0 L'Enfan

t Plaza , Eas t

Soutiiwest , Washington , D.C , 20594 . If n o appeal t o th e Boardfromeithe r party i s received , o r

i f th e National Transportatio n Safet y Boar do f

it s ow n volitio n doe s no t

file amotio n t o revie w th e Judge' s decisio n withi n th e time allowed , the n th e Judge' s decisio n shal l becom e final. Timel y filing o f

suc h a n appeal , however , shal l sta y th e order

a s set fort h i n th e Judge' s decision . Off[^20 ] th e record. (Of f th e record. ) JUDGE FOWLER : Le t

th e recordindicat e tha

t counse l fo

r th e Administrato r

ha s state dthat

th e Administrato r

wil l b e filing aNotic e o f

Appeal fromth e Judge' s Oral Initial Decision . If there' s nothin g further , a

t thi s tim e I woul ddeclar e th e hearin g closed . But before w e g o of

f th e record , I woul d like to thank

counse l fo

r th e Administrator , a s wel l a s counse l fo r th e Respondent s fo

r thei r very able , industrious , an d eradit e effort s o n behal f

o f thei r respectiv e clients . I woul dals o like t o expres s m y thank s to al l th e witaesse s fo r thei r help , assistance , an dcooperatio n durin g th e cours e o f thi s proceeding . Than

k yo u al l very much . We stan dadjourned . (Whereupon , th e hearin g in th e above-entitle dmatte r wa s closed. ) CERTIFICATE Thi s i s t o certif

y that th e attache dproceedin g befor e th e NATIONAL TRANSPORTATIO N SAFET Y BOAR D I N TH E MATTEROF : Tony Sco t Surrat t an d Fran k Willia mWalke r DOCKET NUMBER : SE-18562 ; SE-1856 3 PLACE : Philadelphia ; Pennsylvani aPag e 9 200 9 NTS B LEXI S 106 . ^2 0 DATE : Augus t

12,200 9 wa s hel daccordin g t o th e record , an dtha t thi s i s th e original , complete , tra e an daccurat e transcrip t whic h ha s bee n compare dt o th e recordin g accomplishe dat th e hearing . Timotiiy[^21 ] J . Aticinson , Jr . Officia l Reporte r Lega l Topics : Fo r relatedresearc h an dpractic e materials , se e th e followin g lega l topics : Transportatio n La

w Ai r TransportationCertificatesAirman CertificatesTransportatio n La w Ai r TransportationPersonnelGeneral OverviewTransportatio n La w Ai r TransportationU.S . Nationa l Transportatio n Safet y BoardProcedure s

## APPENDI

X D : NTSB' s Decisio n Affirmin g Babbit t v . Surrat t

(o n appeal )

APPENDI X D (NTSB' s Decision i

n Babbit t v . Surratt ) Washington Aviation Group , P C an dthe La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D

C 20007 -Tel : 202-628-677 6Pag e 1 

# LexisNexis *

2 o f 3 DOCUMENT S J . RANDOLP H BABBITT , Administrator , Federal Aviatio n Administration , Complainant , v . TON Y SCO T SURRAT T an dFRAN K WILLIAM WALKER , Respondent s NUMBER : Order

No . EA-5514 ; Docket s SE-1856 2 an dSE-1856 3 Nationa l Transportatio n Safet y Board 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 DATE : Marc h 23 , 2010 , Adopte d ACTION : [•I ] OPINIO N AND ORDE R ISSUEDBY : National Transportatio n Safet y Boar d SERVED : Marc h 24,201 0 Th e Administrato r

an drespondent s hav e appeale dfromth e oral initial decisio n o f Chie f Administrativ e La

w Judg e Willia mE , Fowler , Jr. , issue do n Augus t 12,2009 , followin g a2-da y evidentiar

y hearing , n l Th e law judg e foundtha t th e Administrato r

di dno t prov e th e allegation s i n th e complaint , in whic h th e Administrato r charge drespondent s wit

h operatin g a

n Airbu s A32 0 whil e i t

wa s in a n unairworth y condition . n 2 Th e Administrato r allege dtha

t respondents committe dth e regulatory violation s whe n the y operate dth e A 3 2 0 o n Ma y 17,2008 , o n amaintenanc e acceptanc e flight tha t departe dfro

man dretumedt o Miam

i Intemationa l Airport , i n whic h tw o spoiler s o n eac h win g o f th e aircraf

t were inoperative . Th e Administrator' s complain t ordere dasuspensio n o f

respondents ' airlin e transpor t pilo t (ATP ) certificate s fo

r aperio do f

18 0 day s each . We den y th e Administrator' s appeal , an ddismis s respondents ' appeal , base d o n their lac k o f timelines s i n filing th e appeal brief . [*2 ] n l A cop y o f

th e initial decision , a

n excerp t fromth e hearin g transcript , i s attached .

n 2 Th e Administrato r

charge dbot

h respondent s wit

h violatin g 1 4 C.F.R . § § 91.7(a) , whic h prohibit s operatio n o f acivi l aircraf

t tha t i s no t in a n airworth y condition ; 91.13(a) , whic h prohibit s careles s o r reckless operation s s o a s t o endange r

th e lif e o r property o f

another ; and91.213(a) , whic h state s that , excep t a s otherwis e provided , n o perso n ma

y take of f a n aircraf t wit h inoperativ e instmment s o r equipmen t

installe dwithou t

meetin g th ePag e 2 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 31 , ^ 2 requirements o f

§ 91.213. Th e Administrato r als o charge dResponden t

Surrat t wit h violatin g § 91.7(b) , whic h state s that th e pilot-in-comman d(PIC ) o f acivi l aircraf

t shal l discontinu e th e flight whe n unairworth y mechanical , electrical , o

r stractara l condition s occur . I n th e order s o f

suspension , whic h th e Administrato r issue do n Apri l 8,2009 , an dsubmitte da s th e complaint s i n thi s case , th e Administrato r allege dthat , prio r

t o takin g off

, a n amber "LAF DEGRADED " n 3 messag e appeare do n th e aircraft' s Electroni c Centralize dMonito r (ECAM ) i n th e cockpit , an dtha t suc h amessag e appear s whe n afailur e o f on e o f th e aircraft' s spoile r

servojack s ha s occurred . [^3 ] Th e complaint s furthe r state dthat , als o prio r

t o takeoff , th e ECA M indicate dthat

spoile r Nos . 3 an d5 o n bot

h th e lef t andright wing s wer e no t

operational and/o r

wer e locke dout , an dtha t respondent s wer e aware o f thi s indication . Th e complaint s allege dtha t th e aircraft' s Minimu mEquipmen t Lis t (MEL ) doe s no t

allo w operatio n o f

th e aircraf

t whe n tw o o r

more spoiler s o n eithe r

win g ar e i n an inoperabl e condition . Th e complaint s als o allege dthat , notwithstandin g th e indication s o n th e ECAM , respondent s too k off , an dthat , withi n 2 0 minute s o f

takin g off , th e ECAM onc e agai n indicate dtha t th e spoiler s at

issu e wer e no t

operational and/o r

wer e locke dout . Th e complaint s state dthat , durin g th e flight, aperso n wh o ha dvisuall y inspecte dth e lef t win g whil e onboardth e aircraf

t informe drespondent s tha t tw o spoiler s on th e lef

t win g were "floating, " andtha t respondents aborte dthei r

first landin g attemp t

at Miam i afte r th e aircraft' s lef

t win g ti p contacte dth e runway an dcause ddamag e t o th e lef t win g tip.

n 3 Th e evidenc e i n th e recor dprovide s tha t th e acrony m"LAF " indicate s "loadalleviatio n function. " [•4 ] A t th e hearing , n4 th e Administrato r calle dfou

r witaesse s t o testif

y andpresente dnumerou s exhibits . Th e FA A principal operation s inspecto r fo r respondents ' employer , US A 300 0 Airways , Laurenc e Johnson , a s wel l a s a n FAA principal avionic s inspecto r fo r genera l aviatio n repai r

stations , Phili p Stauffer , bot h testified . Inspecto r

Johnso n identifie da

n FAA-approve dchecklis t applicabl e t o US A 3000' s operatio n o f A320s , a s wel l a s aportio n o f th e FAA-approve dflight

cre w operatin g manua

l tha t applie s to US A 3000' s operatio n o f A320s . Exhs . A- 2 an dA-3 . Inspecto r Johnso n testifie dtha

t bot h checklist s requir e checkin g th e flight control s prio r

t o takeoff , an dtha t checkin g th e spoiler s involve s th e captai n movin g th e stic k i n th e cockpi t

whil e th e copilo t

observe s th e ECA

M fo r indication s tha t th e spoiler s move di n respons e t o th e captain' s inpu t on th e stick . Inspecto r

Johnso n state dtha

t th e flight control s tha t th e pilot s mus t

chec k includ e th e spoilers , an dtha t Airbu s define s spoiler s a s aprimary flight control . Tr . at

44 . Inspecto r Johnso n testifie dtha

t th e ECAM shoul ddispla

y fou r gree n arrow s o n eac h side , indicatin g that al l spoiler s are workin g normally . Inspecto r Johnso n [•S ] opine dthat , i f th e ECAM indicate s a

n abnormalit

y wit h th e spoilers , th e pilo t shoul drefe

r t o th e manual s t o interpre t wha t h e o r sh e observe s o n th e ECAM , an dcontac t th e maintenanc e department

abou t th e abnormality . Inspecto r Johnso n state dtha

t apilo t ca n re-se t th e ECAM b y pressin g abutton . Inspecto r Stauffe r testifie dthat

th e ECAM shoul dno t

displa y gree n unles s th e spoiler s hav e a"health y hydrauli c pressure. " Tr . at

96 .

n4 Prio r t o hearing , th e law judg e consolidate dth e cases , andbot h partie s filedmotion s fo

r summar y judgmen t unde r ou r Rule s o f Practice . Th e la

w judg e denie dbot

h motions , base do n hi s determinatio n tha t genuin e issue s o f material fact

existe dconcemin g whethe r respondent s kne w that

th e aircraf

t wa s i n a n unairworth y conditio n prio r t o an ddurin g th e flight

at issue . A s such , th e la

w judg e ordere dahearin g fo r th e case . Inspecto r Johnso n furthe

r testifie dthat , i f

aspoile r i s in "maintenanc e mode " i n an A320 , the n i t wil l no t respondt o input fromth e cockpi t

becaus e i t

wil l no t hav e [^6 ] hydrauli c pressure ; similarly . Inspecto r Stauffe r state dthat

aspoilerPag e 3 2010NTS B LEXI S 31,^ 6

canno t respon dt o input s fromth e cockpi t whe n i t i s i n suc h amanua

l position . Inspecto r

Stauffe r testifie dtha

t a n aircraft' s spoiler s shoul dneve r b e in maintenanc e mod e fo r flight, accordin g t o th e US A 300 0 Airbu s Manual . Tr . at 94 ; Exh . A-9 . Inspecto r

Johnso n state dthat , i f

th e spoiler s o n a

n A32 0 ar e no t

functioning , the n thi s circumstanc e change s th e lif t anddra g component s o f

th e wing . Therefore , Inspecto r Johnso n testifie dtha

t apilot' s discovery tha

t spoiler s are no t fimctioning shoul dcaus e th e pilo t t o conside r

immediatel y retumin g t o asuitabl e locatio n fo r landing . Inspector s Johnso n andStauffe

r bot h testifie dthat

respondent s shoul dno t

hav e take n of

f i n th e A 3 2 0 afte

r receivin g th e ECA

M waming , becaus e the y coul dno t kno w ho w th e aircraf

t woul dfly an dlan di n suc h aconfiguration . Inspecto r Stauffe r state dtha t th e FAA receive dastatemen t fromUS A 300 0 indicatin g that , afte r th e Ma y 17,200 8 flight, the y foundth e spoiler s in amanual position . n 5

n 5 Tr . a t 96 , 100,102 ; Exh . A-1 0 (e-mai l messag e fromJo e Miller , directo r o f maintenanc e an dengineerin g fo r US A 3000 , statin g that

employee s fromUS A 300 0 discovere dth e spoiler s i n "maintenanc e mode " afte r th e flight). 1*7 ] Inspecto r Stauffe r identifie dtabula

r dat afromth e flight

dat arecorde r

(FDR ) o n th e A32 0 at

issue . Exh . A-11 . Inspecto r Stauffe r testifie dthat

th e dat aindicate s that

th e pilot s performe dth e flight contro l check s prio r

to takeoff , and that , durin g th e checks , hal f th e spoiler s responde dt o input s fromth e cockpi t normally , whil e th e othe r hal f di dnot . Base don thi s FD Rdata . Inspecto r Stauffe r opine dthat

th e flight contro l chec k

wa s unsuccessful , an dtha t th e ECA M mus t hav e show n spoile r

number s i n amber , rathe r than green , an dindicate dthat th e spoiler s wer e inoperative . Inspecto r Stauffe r als o state dthat

th e FD Rdat aindicate s tha t respondent s continue dwit h th e flight, rather

than takin g th e aircraf t bac k t o th e gate fo

r maintenance . Inspecto r

Stauffe r als o identifie dexcerpt s fromth e ME L applicabl e t o th e A32 0 a t issue , an dtestifie dtha

t th e ME L require s eigh t

operativ e spoiler s fo

r flight, an ddoe s no t

allo w spoiler

Nos . 3 and5 t o b e inoperative . O n cross-examination . Inspecto r Stauffe r identifie dacop y o f

a197 6 airframe an dpowerplan t manual , whic h categorize s spoiler s withi n asecondar y group o f

contro l surfaces . Th e Administrato r

als o calle dThoma s Welsh , aquality [•S ] inspecto r o f aircraf t fo r US A 300 0 wh o wa s o n th e Ma y 17,200 8 flight, t o testify . Inspecto r Wels h state dtha

t h e sa w spoiler Nos . 3 and5 floating u p approximatel y S t o 1 0 inche s o n th e lef

t win g abou t

1 5 t o 2 0 minute s int o th e flight. Inspecto r Wels h testifie dthat , base do n ho w hig h h e observe dth e spoiler s floating, h e kne w tha t the y di dno t

hav e hydrauli c fluid. Inspecto r Wels h als o state dthat , afte r they were on th e ground , h e checke dth e aircraft' s actaato r an dsa w spoiler Nos . 3 an d5 i n "M " mode , whic h indicate d tha t th e pilo t coul dno t contro l the mwit

h input s fromth e cockpit . Th e Administrato r

conclude dth e case-in-chie f b y callin g Jo e Miller , wh o wa s i n th e cockpi t wit h respondents on th e flight in question , t o testify . Mr . Mille r confirme dtha

t h e an dth e pilot s sa

w th e "LA F DEGRADED " messag e o n th e ECA M prio r t o takeoff , bu t tha t thi s messag e di dno t

indicat e aseriou s proble mt o sto p the mfromtakin g off . Mr . Miller fiirther state dtha t h e rese t th e spoile r

elevato r computer s (SEC ) in a

n attemp t t o clea r th e "LAF DEGRADED " message , andthat , whe n h e an drespondents di dno t se e any amber

warning s appea

r o n th e ECAM , the y proceede dwit h th e takeoff

. Mr . Mille r

recalle d[^9 ] that , durin g th e flight, th e aircraf t "[had ] some yaw t o it, " s o the y tume dth e autopilo t of f an dre-trimme dth e aircraf t Tr . at 223 . Mr . Miller

als o recalle dthat , onc e the y ha dreache da n altitad e o f about 39,00 0 feet , a

n observe r

informe dthe mthat

h e sa w tw o spoiler s floating o n th e lef t wing . Mr . Mille r

testifie dtha

t Respondent

Surrat t consulte dth e Quic k

Referenc e Handboo k

(QRH ) i n th e cockpit , an ddetermine dtha t the y coul d continu e wit

h th e flight, bu t

woul dnee dt o increas e thei r landin g distance . Mr . Miller describe dth e first

attempte d landin g a s "unnerving " (Tr . at 226) , an drecalledthat , afte r landing , a

n inspectio n group that

h e directe dinforme dhim tha t tw o o f th e spoiler s wer e in "M " mod e (Tr . a t 228) . Mr . Miller

opine dthat

th e ECAM wa s fault

y i n tha t i t di dno t register th e spoiler s a s inoperative , an dtha t i t wa s reasonabl e fo

r respondent s t o think

tha t i t wa s aspuriou s message . Mr . Miller

state dthat

h e di dno t

believ e respondents reacte di n a n unreasonabl e manner

unde r th e circumstances .Pag e 4 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 31 . ^ 9

I n respons e t o th e Administrator' s case , respondents bot h testifie do n thei r

ow n behal f

Bot h respondent s state dtha

t the y hadconducte dseveral previou s maintenanc e acceptanc e [ • 10] flights, an dthe y bot h hav e hel dAT P certificate s wit h typ e ratings i n A320 s fo

r alength y perio do f

time . Responden t

Surrat t recalle dthat , durin g th e flight contro l check s tha t the y performe dprio r

t o takin g off

, the y notice dseveral waming s o n th e ECAM , includin g a n audibl e chim e andmessag e indicatin g tha t spoile r Nos . 3 an d5 wer e inoperative . Afte r resettin g th e SEC , Responden t Surrat t state d tha t they agai n "go t

multipl e wamings, " an dthe n reset a n additional set

o f computers . Finally , Responden t Surrat t recalle dtha

t the y "ha dnothin g lef

t excep t for LAF degraded, " whic h h e describe da s no t unusual . Tr . at

287 . n 6 Bot

h respondent s testifie dthat

a n A32 0 can safel y take of

f whil e thi s messag e i s on , an dtha t the y ha dsee n th e messag e o n other flights. Bot

h respondent s als o state dthat the y believe dthe y only sa w th e "LAF DEGRADED " messag e prio r t o takin g off , an dtha t the y di dno t

kno w that

spoile r Nos . 3 and5 were in maintenanc e mod e unti l afte r th e flight.

n 6 Respondent

Surrat t testifie dtha

t Airbu s originall y intende dth e "LAF DEGRADED " messag e to eas e turbulence , bu t

tha t i t ha dnever

successfull y fimctionedto d o so . Tr . a t 287 . [•11 ] Approximatel y 2 0 t o 2 5 minute s int o th e flight. Responden t Surrat t testified , an ECA

M messag e appeare d indicatin g that

spoile r Nos . 3 an d5 wer e inoperative , an dthat h e cleare dth e ECAM whil e Responden t Walker operate d th e aircraft . Responden t

Surrat t recalle dreferencing th e QRH , whic h h e describe da s indicatin g tha t thi s wa s "n o problem, " andthat

h e nee dno t

lan dth e aircraf

t immediately , bu t

tha t the y shoul dus e a " 1.1 5 .. . runway multiplier. " Tr . at 290 . n 7 Respondent

Walke r state dtha t th e ECAM als o di dno t

direc t the mt o lan dimmediately ; Responden t Walker opine dtha t landin g earlie r

woul dno t

hav e mad e adifferenc e wit h regar dt o th e spoile r

issue . Responden t

Surrat t testifie dtha

t the y continue dth e flight, bu t that th e wamin g remaine don . n 8 Responden t Surrat t als o state dtha

t h e di d no t consul t th e MEL durin g th e flight, bu t that , ha dh e know n tha

t spoiler Nos . 3 an d5 were inoperativ e prio r t o th e flight, h e woul dhav e reference dth e MEL an dno t take n off .

n 7 On cross-examination . Responden t Surrat t acknowledge dtha

t th e QR H doe s no t

addres s th e specifi c situatio n i n whic h spoile r

Nos . 3 an d5 are i n maintenanc e mod e durin g aflight. [•12 ]

n S Responden t

Surrat t opine dtha

t continuin g th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight hadothe r benefits , suc h a s burnin g of f fuel an dprovidin g th e opportunit y to identif

y other potentia l problem s wit

h th e aircraf

t afte r i t had undergon e maintenance . Wit h regardt o th e landing . Responden t Surrat t recalle dtha

t th e aircraf

t "seeme dt o bounce " o n thei r first approach , andtha t i t "har droll[ed ] left, " s o h e firewalledth e throttle s an dinitiate dago-around , afte r whic h the y ha

dasuccessfti l approach . Tr . a

t 291 . Responden t

Surrat t testifie dtha

t th e aircraf

t sustaine ddamag e t o it s vertica l win g ti p vents . A t th e conclusio n o f

hi s testimony . Responden t Surrat t identifie danewsletter

that Airbu s release d2 month s afte r th e flight a t issue , whic h instract s pilot s t o perfor mane w flight

contro l chec k

i f the y hav e an y indicatio n o f spoile r problems . Exh . R-7 . Bot h respondent s als o identifie dcopie s o f report s an dth e National Aeronautic s an dSpac e Administratio n (NASA ) receipt s tha

t the y submitte dunde r

th e Aviatio n Safet

y Reportin g Progra

m(ASRP ) followin g th e flight a t issue . n 9

n 9 Under th e ASRP , th e Adminish-ator ma y waiv e th e impositio n o f

asanction , despit e th e finding o f aPag e 5 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 31,^1 2 regulator y violation , a s lon g a s certai n othe r requirement s are satisfied . Aviatio n Safet y Reportin g Program , Advisor y Circula r 00-46 D at

P 9 c (Feb . 26 , 1997) . Th e Progra minvolve s filing arepor

t wit h NASA , whic h ma

y obviate th e impositio n o f

asanctio n wher e (1 ) th e violatio n wa s inadverten t an dno t deliberate ; (2 ) th e violatio n di dno t involv e acriminal offense , accident , o r actio n founda

t 4 9 U.S.C . § 44709 ; (3 ) th e perso n ha s no t bee n foun di n any prio r

FA A enforcement

actio n t o hav e committe daregulator y violatio n fo

r th e pas t 5 years ; an d (4 ) th e perso n complete s an dmail s awritte n report o f th e inciden t

t o NAS A withi n 1 0 day s o f th e violation . [*13 ] Respondent s als o calle dPau l Do w t o provid e exper t testimon y o n th e subjec t

o f A32 0 operations . Mr . Do w state d tha t Airbu s aircraf

t ar e know n fo

r bein g subjec t

t o spuriou s message s afte r undergoin g heav y maintenance , a s th e aircraf t at issu e ha dundergone . Mr . Do w opine dthat respondent' s belie f

that th e aircraf

t wa s fit fo r takeof f wa s reasonable , andtha

t th e QRH doe s no t

advis e pilot s t o lan da

n aircraf t whe n tw o set s o f

spoiler s ar e inoperative , bu t insteadonl y provide s a

n increase dfactor

fo r landin g distance . Mr . Do w furthe r testifie dthat

th e MEL i s no t

applicabl e durin g flight. A t th e conclusio n o f

th e hearing , th e law judg e issue da n ora l initia l decision , i n whic h h e determine dthat th e Administrator' s evidenc e tha t respondent s kne w that

spoiler Nos . 3 an d5 wer e inoperativ e prio r t o flight wa s "lacking. " Initial Decisio n a

t 523-24 . Th e law judg e hel dtha t th e testimon y a

t th e hearin g establishe dtha t th e ECA M pane l wa s "clear , i f no t green, " prio r

t o takeof f (id . at 524) , an dtha

t respondents ' testimon y tha t th e "LA F DEGRADED " wamin g i s no t areason fo

r concer n wa s persuasive . Th e law judg e als o mentione dtha t Mr . Do w ha dtestifie dthat h e concurre d wit h th e action s respondents [ • 14 ] too k unde r th e circumstances . Th e la w judg e conclude dtha

t th e ME L wa s no t applicabl e t o th e aircraf

t at issue , becaus e respondents cleare dth e ECAM panel . Th e law judg e di dno t findtha t Respondent

Surrat t ha derre di n choosin g t o continu e wit h th e flight, a s th e secon dlandin g di dno t resul t i n substantial damag e o r seriou s injury . Th e law judg e determine dtha t respondent s ha doperate dth e aircraf t whil e i t wa s i n a n unairworthy condition , bu t that the y di dno t

kno w that

i t wa s unairworthy , an dtherefore di dno t violat e th e regulations , a s charged . Respondents ' Appeal Respondent s fileda

n appeal brief

, in whic h the y argu e tha

t th e la w judg e erre di n no t

grantin g thei r

motio n fo

r summar y judgmen t

prio r t o th e hearing . Th e Administrato r submitte damotio n t o dismis s respondents ' appeal , on th e basi s tha t their appeal brie f

wa s untimely . Th e certificate o f servic e attache dt o respondents' appeal brie f indicate s tha

t the y serve dth e brie f

on Octobe r

8,2009 . Afte

r filing th e notic e o f

appeal , ou r

Rule s o f Practic e stat e tha

t a n appealin g part y mus t perfec t th e appeal b y filing a

n appeal brie f

withi n 5 0 day s afte

r th e dat e o f

th e initial decision . 4 9 C.F.R . § 821.48(a) . In th e cas e at

[•IS ] issue , th e law judg e issue dth e ora l initia l decisio n o n Augus t 12 , 2009 . Therefore , th e parties ' deadlin e for

perfectin g thei r

appeal s b y filing thei r

brief s wa s Octobe r

1,2009 . Respondent s hav e no t filed a motio n fo r leav e t o submi t

thei r appeal brie f

late , base don goo dcause , an dthe y d o no t mentio n thei r

lac k o f timelines s i n thei r appeal brief

. Respondent s di dno t

repl y t o th e Administrator' s motio n t o dismis s thei r appeal . Unde r

ou r Rule s o f Practice , w e gran t

th e Administrator' s motio n an dthereb y dismis s respondents' appeal . nl O

nl O See , e.g. . Administrato r v . Hooper . 6 NTS B 55 9 (1988) . Th e Administrator' s Appea l On appeal , th e Administrato r argue s tha

t several aspect s o f

th e law judge' s decisio n ar e erroneous . Th e Administrato r

first contend s that

th e la w judg e di dno t

explai n what

evidenc e h e accepte do r

rejected , andfaile dt o addres s th e issu e tha

t respondents di dno t

successfull y complete aflight confro l chec k

becaus e th e ECAM di dno tPag e 6 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 31 , •I S displa y fou r gree n arrows ; i n thi s regard , [ • 16 ] th e Administrato r argue s tha

t th e law judge' s finding tha t n o ECA M waming s displaye dprio r

t o flight i s contrar y t o th e overwhelmin g weigh t o f th e evidence . Th e Administrato r als o assert s tha t th e evidenc e establishe s that respondents ha dsufficien

t knowledg e o f

th e inoperabl e spoiler s prio r t o takin g off . Th e Administrato r

point s ou t

that neithe r respondent

testifie dthat

the y observe dagree n ECAM display upo n manipulatin g th e sidestic k i n th e cockpit , bu t

tha t the y testifie dtha

t the y sa w gree n display s onl y afte r Mr . Miller complete dmultipl e resets o f th e computer s i n th e cockpit . Th e Administrato r

fiirther argue s that

th e la w judg e erre dwhe n h e faile dt o explai n wh y h e believe dth e MEL wa s inapplicable , an dtha

t thi s interpretatio n i s contrar y t o § 91.213(a) , whic h prohibit s operatio n o f a n aircraf t wit h inoperativ e equipment , unles s th e equipmen t appear s o n th e MEL . Th e Administrato r als o challenge s th e law judge' s determinatio n tha

t Responden t

Surratt' s decisio n t o continu e wit h th e flight

wa s reasonabl e unde r

th e circumstances , a s Respondent

Surrat t becam e cognizan t

o f aseriou s spoile r

proble mdurin g th e flight, an dbecaus e respondent s provide d n o suppor t fo r thei r contentio n [•I7 ] that

th e QR H permitte dcontinue doperatio n wit h floating spoilers . Th e Administrato r

contend s that

respondent s hav e acavalie r attitad e concemin g aviatio n safety , an dtha t Responden t Surratt' s continuatio n o f

th e flight for 3 hoiu ^ afte

r h e leame dtha

t th e spoiler s were malfiinctionin g i s indicativ e o f thi s attitade . Lastiy , th e Administrato r assert s that

th e circumstance s warran t a180-da y suspensio n o f

respondents ' ATP certificates . Respondent s contes t eac h o f th e Administrator' s arguments , an durg e u s t o affir mth e law judge' s decision . Wit h regardt o th e Administrator' s appeal , w e agre e tha t th e la w judg e di dno t

fully explai n th e fundamenta l reason s fo r som e o f th e conclusion s h e made . Th e law judg e di dno t explicitl y discus s whethe r h e foun drespondents ' testimony more credibl e tha

n th e Administrator' s witaesses ' testimony , bu t hi s decisio n seem s t o indicat e tha t respondent' s andMr . Dow' s testimon y forme dth e basi s for hi s decision . W e hav e lon g hel dthat w e defe r t o law judges ' credibilit

y determinations , absen t

ashowin g that

th e determination s wer e arbitrary , capricious , o r contrary t o th e weigh t

o f th e evidence , n l 1 I n th e cas e at hand , th e ke y determinatio n tha t th e law [•IS ] judg e articulate dwa s hi s belie f tha t respondents sa

w gree n o n th e ECAM , an dtherefore believe dtha t th e previou s waming s o n th e ECAM , includin g th e "LA F DEGRADED " waming , wer e spurious . ni l Administrato r

v . Nickl , NTS B Order

No . EA-528 7 a

t 6 (2007 ) (citin g Administrato r v . Kocsis . 4 NTS B 461 , 46 5 n.2 3 (1982) ; se e als o Administrato r v . Smith , 5 NTS B 1560 , 156 3 (1986) ; Administrato r v . Sanders , 4 NTS B 106 2 (1983)) . Section s 91.7(a) , 91.13(a) , an d91.213(a ) I n reviewin g th e la

w judge' s decisio n an dconsiderin g respondent' s appeal , w e ar e mindfu l o f th e fact that th e Administrato r

ha s th e burde n o f

provin g that

th e aircraf

t wa s unairworth y b y apreponderanc e o f th e evidence . nl 2 In case s in whic h th e Administrato r allege s tha

t a n operato r ha s violate d1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(a) , w e hav e lon g hel dtha t th e standar dfo r airworthines s consist s o f

tw o prongs : (1 ) whethe r

th e aircraf

t conform s t o it s typ e certificate an dapplicabl e Airworthines s Directives ; [^19 ] an d(2 ) whethe r th e aircraf

t i s in aconditio n fo

r saf e operation . nl 3 Wit

h regardt o th e first pron g o f th e test , w e recogniz e tha t operator s ma y chec k

th e aircraf

t fo r conformanc e with it s typ e desig n and , where i t doe s no t conform , th e ME L ma

y nevertheles s permi t

operatio n o f

th e aircraft . nl 4 W e hav e als o concluded , however , tha

t whe n small , insignifican t

deviation s ar e present , a

n aircraf t ma y stil l substantiall y confor mt o it s typ e design . nl 5 Wit

h regar dt o whethe r

a n aircraf t i s in aconditio n fo

r saf e operation , w e hav e recognize dthat , "[t]h e ter m 'airworthiness ' i s no t

synonymou s wit

h flyability." nl 6 Moreover , i n determinin g whethe r an aircraf t i s airworth y i

n accordanc e wit

h th e aforementione dstandard , th e Boar dconsider s whethe r th e operato r

kne w o r shoul dhav e know n o f any deviatio n in th e aircraft' s conformanc e wit h it s typ e certificate . nl 7Pag e 7 2010NTS B LEXI S 31 , ^1 9 nl 2 Administrato r

v . Van De r

Horst , NTS B Orde r

No . EA-517 9 at

3 (2005) ; se e als o Administrato r v . Schwandt , NTS B Orde r

No . EA-522 6 at

2 (2006 ) (i t

i s th e Board' s rol e t o determine , afte r reviewin g th e evidenc e th e Administrato r presents , whethe r

th e Administrato r

ha s me t th e requisit e burde n o f

proof) . [•20 ] nl 3 Administrato r

v . Doppes , 5 NTS B 50 . 5 2 n. 6 (1985 ) (citin g 4 9 U.S.C . § 1423(c)) ; se e als o Administi:ator v . Anderson , NTS B Orde r

No . EA-397 6 at

2 (1993) ; Adminisb-ator

v . Nielsen , NTS B Orde r

No . EA-375 5 a t

4 (1992) ; Administrato r

V . Copsey , 7 NTS B 1316 , 1317(1991) . nl 4 Se e generall y Anderson , supr anot e 13 , a t 4 n. S (statin g that , "[t]h e ME L contain s item s tha t ma y b e inoperativ e withou t

renderin g th e aircraf

t unairworthy") . nl S Administrato r

v . Frost , NTS B Orde r

No . EA-468 0 (1998) ; Administrato r v . Calavaero . Inc. . 5 NTS B 1099 . 110 1 (1986) . nl 6 Doppes , supr anot e 13 , at 5 2 n.6 . n l 7 See , e.g. . Administrato r v . Yialamas , NTS B Order No . EA-511 1 (2004) ; Administrato r v . Bernstein , NTS B Order No . EA-412 0 at

5 (1994) ; se e als o Administi^to r v . Easton , NTS B Order

No . EA-473 2 a

t 2 (1998 ) (acknowledgin g that

significant

risks exis t

whe n apilo t

fail s t o confir

mtha t a n aircraf t i s airworthy followin g maintenance) . I n th e cas e at

hand , th e Administrato r

di dno t [^21 ] introduc e th e typ e certificate dat ashee t int o evidence , bu t

di d provid e relevan t

excerpt s fromth e MEL , whic h establis h tha t th e aircraf

t di dno t confor mt o th e applicabl e airworthines s standards . In an y event , give n tha t bot h prong s o f

th e airworthines s standar dar e required, th e Administrato r

ma y prevai l i n airworthines s case s withou t introducin g th e typ e certificate , bu t b y provin g tha

t th e aircraf t wa s no t i n aconditio n fo

r saf e operation . Th e evidenc e i n thi s cas e establishe s that th e A32 0 wa s no t

performin g in asaf e manner . nl 8 In addition , at th e hearing , both respondents acknowledge dtha t Airbu s di dno t

inten dfo r th e aircraf t t o fly wit h tw o pair s o f

spoiler s i n "M " mode , an dtha t suc h aconditio n rendere dth e aircraf t unairworthy . nl 9 Overall , th e evidenc e in thi s recordestablishe s tha t th e aircraf

t di dno t fulfill bot h prong s o f

th e airworthines s test . nl S See , e.g. , Tr . a

t 223-26 , 291,372 ; Exh . R- S a t 2 (Respondent

Walker' s narrativ e descriptio n o f flight in ASR P report , in whic h h e stated , " I wa s th e flying pilo t an dnotice dsevera l time s durin g th e flight th e radder tri mwa s goin g ou t

o f rang e makin g th e autopilo t hav e troubl e holdin g th e aircraf t stabl e .. . Durin g approac h I notice dth e aircraf

t wa s slopp y an dsluggis h o n th e controls") . [•22 ] nl 9 Tr . at

32 8 (discussio n o f

ME L requirements) , 378-7 9 (Responden t Walker' s statement s tha

t respondents discovere dthat

aircraf t ha dbee n unairworth y durin g th e flight); se e als o Exhs . A-I 2 (relevan t excerpt s from MEL) , R- 7 (Airbu s newslette r wamin g abou t

spoiler issues) . A s discusse dabove , w e hav e previousl y hel dtha t w e wil l als o conside r

whethe r aresponden t

kne w tha t an aircraf t wa s in a n unairworth y conditio n whe n h e o r sh e operate dth e aircraft . In Administrato r v . Thibert , NTS B Order

No . EA-530 6 (2007) , w e hel dthat th e Administrato r

faile dt o prov e tha

t th e responden t

kne w o r shoul dhav e know n tha

t th e Bel l helicopter

h e operate dha dabroke n lateral cycli c contro l serv o moun t bracke t an dacor k inserte di n th e engin e oi l quic k drai n i n lieu o f

a n approve dpart . W e determine dtha t th e Administrato r

di dno t prov e tha t th e respondent

kne w o r shoul dhav e know n abou t

thes e discrepancies , becaus e th e perso n wh o performe dmaintenanc e o n th e aircraf t ha dno t informe dth e responden t

o f any discrepancies , an dbecaus e man y flight stadent s wh o wer e mechanic s accompanyin g th e respondent

performe d[^23 ] pre-flight inspection s an ddi dno t

discove r th e discrepancies . I n Thibert , w e cite dPage s 2010NTS B LEXI S 31 , ^2 3 Yialamas , supr anot e 17 , fo r th e "kne w o r

shoul dhav e known " standard ; i n Yialamas , w e determine dtha t th e respondent' s relianc e o n maintenanc e certification s indicatin g tha t th e aircraf

t wa s airworth y an dsaf

e t o fly wa s reasonable an dshowe dthat th e respondent

di dno t kno w o f th e discrepancie s a

t issu e i n tha

t case . n20

n2 0 Id . a t 6- 7 (citin g Bemstein , supr anote 17 , at 5 , an dstatin g that , t o prov e aviolatio n o f § 91.7(a) , "th e Administrato r

mus t sho w tha t th e airma n operate da

n aircraf t tha t h e kne w o r

reasonabl y shoul dhav e know n wa s no t airworthy") . I n hi s oral initial decisio n i n thi s case , th e law judg e indicate dtha t h e believe dth e Administrato r neede dt o prov e tha t respondents ha dactaa l knowledg e o f th e fac t that th e spoiler s wer e malfunctioning . Initia l Decisio n at 523-24 . However , our

preceden t establishe s that

w e d o no t

determin e onl y whether

a n airma n hadactaa l knowledg e o f a discrepancy , bu t

that w e als o consider

[^24 ] whethe r

th e airman shoul dhav e know n o f th e discrepancy . Eve n base do n thi s standard , th e Administrato r ha s no t provide dsufficient

evidenc e t o compe l u s t o findtha t respondent s shoul dhav e know n tha

t th e spoiler s wer e malfiinctioning . Th e Administrator' s evidenc e consist s o f indication s that

th e ECA M displaye dsevera

l wamings prio r

t o takeoff

. However , respondent s an dMr . Miller testifie dtha t

resettin g th e SEC cause d thes e waming s t o clear . In addition , th e Administrato r presente dn o evidenc e t o refut e respondents ' assertio n tha t A320 s are subjec t

t o spuriou s wamings , suc h a s th e "LAF DEGRADED " messag e tha t th e ECA M displayed , followin g heav y maintenance . Th e Administrato r als o di dno t

provid e evidenc e t o establis h tha t th e ECA M wa s fimctionin g properly ; give n tha t th e FD Rdat ashowe dtha t respondent s performe dth e flight contro l check s wherei n the y move dth e sidestic k t o chec k th e spoilers , an dthat

some o f th e spoiler s di dno t

respon dappropriately , th e Administrato r shoul dhav e provide devidenc e t o sho w conclusivel y that th e ECAM displaye dvali dmessage s at al l times. n2 1 Whil e Inspecto r Stauffe r explaine dho w th e ECA

M works , an dth e photograph s o f th e re-creatio n o f

th e [^25 ] flight

indicate dtha

t a fimctioning ECAM woul ddisplay appropriat e message s whe n th e spoiler s are malfunctioning , n o on e coul destablis h tha t th e ECA M functione da s intende do n thi s particula r flight. Thi s lac k

o f evidence , combine dwit

h th e law judge' s assessment

tha t respondents ' testimon y tha t the y neve r

saw amber

number s o n th e ECAM prio r t o takeof f wa s credible , lead s u s to conclud e that

th e Administrato r

di dno t sho w tha t respondent s kne w o r

shoul dhav e know n tha

t th e spoiler s wer e i n "M " mod e prio r

t o takin g off

. n2 1 Th e Administrato r

di dno t provid e evidenc e t o explai n ho w respondent s an dMr . Mille r onl y sa w th e "LAF DEGRADED " waming . Accordin g t o th e evidenc e i n th e record , th e ECAM shoul dhav e displaye d amber-colore dnumber s indicatin g exactl y whic h spoiler s were malfunctioning . Instead , however , al l thre e witaesse s i n th e cockpi t

consistentl y testifie dthat

th e ECA M onl y displaye dth e "LA F DEGRADED " waming . Th e Administi:ator

di dno t challeng e respondents ' testimon y tha t thi s wamin g i s know n a s an advisor y message , rather tha n amessag e indicatin g tha t th e aircraf

t i s unairworthy . [•26 ] At severa l point s i n th e appeal brief , th e Administrato r

emphasize s tha

t respondent s coul dno t

hav e ha dasuccessfu l flight contro l chec k

i n accordanc e wit

h th e mandator

y checklists , becaus e i t

wa s impossibl e fo

r th e spoiler s t o hav e reacte di n respons e t o input s fromth e cockpit . Th e Administrator' s evidenc e o n thi s issu e i s persuasive . See , e.g. , Tr . a t 56-57,96,103-104 ; Exhs . A-2 , A-3 . However , th e Administrato r ha s no t charge drespondent s with violatin g an y regulatio n tha

t require s adherenc e t o suc h checklists . Instead , th e Administrato r charge drespondent s wit

h operatin g a

n aircraf t whil e i t wa s i n an unairworth y condition , an dwhil e i t hadamechanical , electrica l o r stractara l problem . I

n thi s case , th e Administrato r

faile dto establis h anexu s betwee n th e checklis t requirement s an dth e regulation s charged . Sectio n 91.7(b )Pag e 9 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 31 , ^2 6 Wit h regardt o th e Administrator' s § 91.7(b ) charg e agains t Responden t

Surratt , w e agre e wit

h th e law judge' s determinatio n tha

t Responden t

Surratt , a s PI C o n th e flight at issue , hadth e discretio n t o continu e wit h th e flight. Under th e circumstance s o f

thi s flight. Responden t

Surratt' s decisio n t o continu e wit h th e flight

wa s no t unreasonable , i n ligh t [•27 ] o f th e fact tha t i t behoove dhi mt o lan dth e aircraf t wit h les s fue l tha n th e amoun t

th e aircraf

t carrie donl y 2 0 minute s into th e flight. Moreover , th e Administrato r di dno t introduc e evidenc e t o sho w that th e QRH o r

an y other record s functione dt o prohibi t continuatio n o f

th e flight. W e als o not e tha t i t woul db e unreasonabl e t o consider th e MEL a s mandator

y durin g th e flight, an dth e Administrato r ha s provide dn o authorit

y establishin g otherwise . 

### ACCORDINGLY , I

T I S ORDERE D THAT : 1 . Respondents ' appeal i s dismissed ; 2 . Th e Administrator' s appeal i s denied ; an d 3 . Th e la w judge' s decision , reversin g an ddismissin g th e Administrator' s order s o f suspension , i s affirmed . HERSMAN , Chairman , HART , Vic e Chairman , an dSUMWALT , Member o f th e Board , concurre di n th e abov e opinio n an dorder . JUDG E FOWLERSE-1S56 3 20 0 Chestau t

Stree t Courtroo m30 0 Philadelphia , Pennsylvani a Wednesday , Augus t 12,200 9 Th e above-entitle dmatte r

cam e o n fo

r hearing , pursuan t

t o notice , a

t 10:0 0 a.m . BEFORE : WILLL\ M E . FOWLER , JR. , Chie f Administrativ e La

w Judg e APPEARANCES : On behal f o f th e Administrator : RUSSEL L CHRISTENSEN , ESQ . Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 170 1 Columbi aAvenu e Colleg e Park , Georgi a3003 7 [^28 ] On behal f o f th e Respondents : JASO N DICKSTEIN , ESQ . Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P.C . an dth e La w Offic e o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei nPag e 1 0 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 31,^2 8 2123 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , N.W . Suite 50 3 Washington , D.C . 2000 7 202-628-677 6 JESSIC A STUBBS , ESQ . Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P.C . an dth e La w Offic e o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 2123 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , N.W . Suit e 50 3 Washington , D.C . 2000 7 202-628-894 7 ORA L INITIAL DECISIO N Thi s ha s bee n aproceedin g before th e National Transportatio n Safet y Boardhel dpursuan t

t o th e provisio n o f

th e Federa l Aviatio n Ac t

o f 195 8 a s that

Ac t wa s subsequentl y amende do n th e appeal s o f Tony Sco t

Surrat t an dFrank Willia mWalker fro mOrder s o f

Suspensio n date dApri l 8 , 2009 , issue db y th e Regiona l Counsel , Southe mRegio n o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , whic h purport s t o suspen dResponden t Surratt' s airlin e transpor

t pilo t certificate numbe r (omitted ) fo

r aperio do f

18 0 days , andals o Responden t Walker' s airlin e transpor

t pilo t certificate number (omitted ) fo

r aperio do f

18 0 days . Thi s ha s bee n aconsolidate dproceedin g o n th e appeal s o f Respondent s Surrat

t an dWalker . Th e Administrator' s Order s o f Suspensio n a s dul y promulgated , pursuan t t o th e Nationa l Transportatio n Safet y [•29 ] Board' s Rule s o f

Practic e i n Ai r

Safet y Proceedings , a s I mentione dearlier , wa s issue db y th e Regional Counse l o f th e Southe mRegio n o f

th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration . Thi s matter

ha s bee n hear dbefore thi s Unite dState s Administrativ e La w Judg e an di s provide db y th e Board' s Rule s o f Practice , specificall y Sectio n 821.4 2 o f thos e rales, whil e i t

i s no t mandatory , accordin g t o tha t sectio n o f

th e rales, tha t a s th e Judg e in thi s proceedin g I issu e a n Oral Initial Decision . I' mgoin g t o d o that at thi s time. Followin g notic e t o th e parties , thi s matter cam e o n fo

r trial o n Augus t

1 Ith an d12t

h in Philadelphia , Pennsylvania . Th e Complainant

i n thi s proceedin g wa s ver y ably represente db y Counselo r Christensen , Esquire , o f

th e Regional Counsel' s Office , Southe mRegio n o f th e Federal Aviatio n Administration . Th e Respondent s wer e represente db y Counselor s Dickstei n an dStabbs , Esquire , an dbot h hav e don e aver

y admirabl e job , I migh t

add . Bot h partie s hav e bee n afforde dth e opportanity t o offe r evidence , t o call , examine , an dcross-examin e witaesses . I n addition , th e partie s wer e afforde dth e opportunit y t o make final argumen t

i n suppor t o f thei r respectiv e positions . I hav e reviewed[^30 ] th e testimon y andth e documentar y exhibit s adduce db y counsel . Th e Administrato r ha s ha d 2 1 Exhibits . Th e Responden t ha s ha d1 1 Exhibits . Th e Administrato r ha s ha dth e testimon y o f

fou r witaesses . Th e Respondent

ha s ha dth e testimon y o f

thre e witaesses . Tw o o f

thos e witaesse s o f

th e Responden t

were th e tw o Respondents , themselves . Responden t Surrat t an dResponden t

Walker .Pag e 1 1 2010NTSBLEXIS31,^3 0

I hav e reviewedth e totality o f th e testimon y an dth e documentar y exhibits , an da s yo u kno w th e burde n o f proo f i n aproceedin g o f

thi s typ e i s o n th e Administrator . Th e Administrato r

ha s set fort h tw o Order s o f

Suspensio n her e wit

h 2 1 specifi c paragraph s se t in th e Order s agains t Captai n Tony Sco t

Sxuratt , an dagains t

Captai n Frank

Willia mWalker ther e were 1 2 paragraphs . I'mgoin g t o try t o b e a s brie f an da s concis e a s I can . Thi s cas e i n m

y humbl e estimatio n rises o r fall s o n wha

t th e tw o Respondent s knew , what knowledg e the y possesse dprio r

t o takeof f o n Ma y 17th , 2008 , fromMiami Intemational Airport . We hav e th e testimon y o f

fou r witaesse s o n behal f

o f th e Administrator , Witaes s Laurenc e Johnson , Principal Operation s Inspector ; Witaes s Phili p Stauffe r i s als o aPrincipal Operation s Inspector , Witaes s Thoma s [^31 ] W . Welsh , wh o i s a

n Inspecto r

at USA300 0 Airlines , th e compan y we'r e dealin g wit h in thi s proceedin g an dwitaes s Fran k Miller . Al l fou

r o f thes e gentleme n ar e exceedingl y experienced . Inspecto r Stauffe r wa s declare dt o b e a

n expert , particularl y in maintenance , maintenanc e engineering . An dt o mak e alon g stor y short , th e witaesse s o f

th e Administrato r

al l testifie dvalidl y an dsubstantiate dman y o f th e numbere d paragraph s se t

fort h i n bot h Order s o f

Suspensio n agains t

Responden t

Surrat t andResponden t

Walker . Respondent

ha dthre e witaesses . Responden t Surratt , Responden t

Walker , an dWitaes s Pau l O . Dow , Jr. , wh o wa s qualifie da s a

n expert . Witaes s Do w ha s 4,30 0 hour s i n th e A32 0 an dha s 11,00 0 hour s a s a n airlin e transpor

t certificate dpilot . I hav e reviewe dth e testimon y in thi s case . Th e tw o Respondent s hav e testifie dan don e o f th e Administrator' s witaesses , Mr . Frank

Miller , ha s testifie dtha

t prio r t o takeoff , even thoug h th e Respondent s i n thi s aircraf t kne w there were spoiler

difficulties , spoiler s 3 an d5 were , a s counse l fo r th e Administrato r

ha s abl y stated , locke dout . Respondent s an dothe r

member s presen t

i n th e aircraf

t includin g Witaes s Miller

wh o ha s testifie do n behal f [^32 ] o f th e Administrator , that

compute r button s were rese t

an dthat th e ECAM pane l prio r

t o takeof f wa s green . Th e pilots . Respondent

Walke r wa s th e flying pilot , Responden t Surrat t wa s tendin g t o th e othe r

dutie s o f aFirs t Officer . Th e evidenc e her e i n m

y determinatio n i s persuasive , logical , an dcompellin g that th e ECAM pane l prio r

t o takeof f o r jus t befor e takeof f wa s gree n o r

clear , however

yo u wan t t o deemi t

whe n thi s flight

too k of f fh) mMiam

i Intemational Airport . Som e 10,15,2 0 minute s later , message s cam e o n th e ECAM o f th e spoile r

problems . Th e flying pilot , o r

I shoul dsa

y pilots , converse dabou t

thi s problem , referre dto th e QRH , Quic k Referenc e Handbook , whic h i s th e National Operatio n Manual referenc e boo k an ddecide dsinc e the y ha dn o prio r knowledg e befor e the y too k

of f wit h thes e spoile r

difficulties ; tha

t eve n sinc e the y the n hadknowledg e o f th e spoile r

difficulties , tha t the y woul dprocee dwit

h thei r flight, a s the y did , approximatel y tw o hour s o r more before the y attempte dthei r first landing , whic h hadt o b e aborte dbecaus e a s yo u hav e hear ddurin g th e testimon y in thi s proceeding , th e lef t win g fenc e a s th e testimon y ha s stated , a s oppose dt o th e Administrator' s [^33 ] Order whic h say s th e lef

t wingtip , scrape dth e runway . So , th e first

attemp t at landin g wa s aborte dan dthere wa s asecon duneventfu l landing . I hav e heardanumbe r

o f thes e cases , no t

simila r t o thi s one , bu t

m y poin t in raising thi s i s ther e wa s n o accident , n o damage , n o injuries , n o fatalities , an dtha t t o me i s alway s abi t

refreshin g t o hav e acas e lik e thi s becaus e s o many times the y ar e jus t

th e opposite . Th e burde n o f

proof , a s I state dearlier , i s o n th e Administrato r t o prov e b y afai

r an dreasonable preponderanc e o f th e probative , reliable , andsubstantial evidence , th e charge s an dallegation s a s se t fort h i n thes e Order s o f

Suspension . I t i s m y determinatio n th e Administrator' s evidenc e a s to what th e Respondent s kne w prio r t o takeoff , th ePag e 1 2 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 31,^3 3 Administrator' s evidenc e i s lackin g base don th e totality o f wha t we'v e haddurin g th e cours e o f thi s tw o day proceeding . We'v e ha dth e testimon y o f bot h Respondents , a s wel l a s th e las t witaes s o f

th e Administrator , Mr . Frederic k Miller , wh o i s th e Directo r o f Maintenanc e fo

r U S A 3 00 0 Airlines , wh o concurre dwit h th e tw o Respondents ' testimon y tha t immediatel y prio r

t o takeof f th e ECAM pane l wa s clear , i f no t green . There wa s som e testimon y [^34 ] tha t i t wa s green . An dthereb y an dthereupo n th e flight too k off . Administrator' s witaesse s hav e testifie dt o th e opposite resul t concemin g th e ECAM pane l prio r t o takeof f an d notic e t o th e pilots , bu t

I don' t believe , an di t

i s m y determinatio n tha

t th e Administrator' s cas e i s persuasiv e an d compellin g enoug h t o rebu t th e total testimon y adduce do n th e Respondent s sid e o f th e case . We ca n look a t thi s case , I believ e i n anothe r way . Bot h Respondent s ar e airlin e transport ratedcertificate dpilot s wh o are hel dt o th e highes t degre e o f care , judgment , an dresponsibihty . Now , th e evidenc e i s o n th e Respondents ' side , I believe , i n thi s cas e that

th e Respondent s di dno t

kno w whe n the y too k

of f th e fiill sitaatio n o f

th e spoilers . Thre e witaesses , a s I mentioned , hav e testifie dth e ECAM pane l wa s clear , indicate dgreen , andthe y too k off . Now , th e questio n afte

r that come s dow n t o what

di dRespondent s Surrat

t an dWalke r

d o whe n the y go t

th e messag e durin g th e flight

some 20,2 5 minute s later abou t th e inoperabl e spoilers . Responden t Surrat t i s th e Pilot-in-Comman do f

thi s flight. Responden t

Walke r wa s th e flying pilot . A s Pilot-in-Command , Captai n Surrat t withi n th e real mo f

hi s authorit

y [^35 ] a s Pilot-in-Command , continue dth e flight a s oppose dt o th e contentio n o f th e Federal Aviatio n Administration , tha t whe n the y wer e afforde dthi s messag e durin g th e flight abou t th e spoile r

situatio n tha

t the y immediatel y en dan dabor t th e flight. Administrator' s A-7 , whic h i s alette r January 11,2008 , t o Inspecto r Laurenc e Johnso n issue db y Josep h Guhin , Directo r o f Safet y an dRegulator

y Complianc e fo

r USA300 0 Airlines , an dI wil l rea dacertai n portio n o f tha t letter . Th e fourt h paragrap h o n th e first

pag e o f thi s Exhibi t

A- 7 sai ddurin g th e flight contro l check , durin g th e tax i checkUs t th e cre w note dther e wa s a

n ECA M cautio n o f

LA F degrader . I t

wa s cleare db y resettin g th e spoile r elevate dcomputer

SE C pus h buttons . Accordin g t o bot h Captai n Surrat

t an dJo e Miller , thi s cautio n i s no t uncommon , an dwa s quickl y cleared . Th e aircraf

t hadaclean uppe r

ECAM pag e prio r

t o th e uneventfu l takeoff

. Whil e airbome , durin g routin e pag e call-up s th e ECA M pane l displaye dsymmetrical spoile r 3 , 5 Lef t Rspoiler ambe r indications . Durin g th e flight apilo t lef t th e cockpi t

an dretumednotin g tw o spoiler s o n th e lef t win g were floating. A USA300 0 Airlin e Inspector' s employe e too k some pictare s [^36 ] o f

thos e spoilers , note dtha

t th e radder

tri m goin g ou t o f limits , an dCaptai n Walke r disengage dth e autopilo t

an dmanuall y trimme dth e aircraft . Th e paragrap h goe s o n t o sa y abou t somewha t difficult y there wa s in landin g th e aircraf t an dwit h th e scrap e o f

th e ranway b y th e lef

t win g fence . A s I mentioned , th e totality o f th e seve n witaesse s tha

t hav e testifie din thi s proceeding , amon g th e four , on e wa s designate da

n expert . Inspecto r

Johnson , an dthere wa s on e exper t witaess , Pau l O . Dow , o n behal f o f th e Respondent . You ma y recal l Witaes s Dow , wh o wa s presen t durin g th e cours e o f

thi s proceeding , sai dtha

t h e concurre d wholeheartedl y wit

h th e action s o f

Respondent s Surrat

t an dWalker

an dhi s testimon y als o encompasse dth e sitaatio n tha t ha s ofte n occurre do n amaintenanc e acceptanc e tes t flight whic h ha s th e aircraf

t involved , whic h ha s bee n lai du p fo r quite awhile , that

i t i s no t uncommo n fo

r th e thing s that

occur i n th e flight

we'r e conceme dwit

h her e that

di doccur , an da s bot h th e Respondent s an dWitaes s Mille r testified , thi s cautio n a s the y exercise db y resetting th e computer button s whic h cleare dth e ECA M pane l an dallowe dthe mt o takeof f in a n uneventfu l takeof

f with [^37 ] n o problem s i n thei r mind . An da s the y hav e bot h testifie dto , bot

h Respondent s wer e no t

cognizan t o f aseriou s spoile r

proble munti l durin g th e flight, the y wer e late r notifie dan dthe y mad e thei r decisions , particularl y Responden t Surrat t a sPag e 1 3 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 31,^3 7 Pilot-in-Command , t o continu e th e flight, whic h the y did . An dothe r than th e win g fenc e scrapin g th e runway o n th e secon dlandin g attempt , th e landin g wa s uneventfii l an da s I said , fortanately , thi s wa s merel y an inciden t an dno t a n accident . S o that , ladie s an dgentiemen , a s I sai dI though t th e Respondents ' cas e successfiill y rebutte dth e Administrator' s case . Muc h ha s bee n mad e o f th e utilizatio n o r

non-utilizatio n o f

th e minimu mequipmen t

lis t prio r t o takeoff

. I think th e Respondent s successfull y wer e persuasiv e an dcompellin g i n thei r evidenc e tha

t th e minimu mequipmen t

lis t wa s no t applicabl e o r

apropo s sinc e th e ECAM pane l wa s cleare dan dth e Respondent s too k of f accordingly . S o that , ladie s an dgentlemen , I' msure yo u get th e drif t o f m y decisio n her e no w whic h t o us e acolloquialism . Respondent s hav e carrie dth e day . An dI wil l make my specifi c followin g Finding s o f Fac t an dConclusion s o f

La w accordingly . Takin g u p first

Captai n Ton y [^38 ] Sco t Surratt , hi s Order

o f Suspension . 1 ) Respondent

Surrat t admit s an di t

i s foun dthat

h e wa s an di s th e holde r

o f airlin e transpor

t pilo t certificate numbe r (omitted) . 2 ) Th e Responden t

admit s an di t

i s foundtha

t al l time s relevan t

herei n h e wa s employe da s apilo t fo r Brenda n Airways , LLC . Th e remainin g Paragraph s 3,4 , 5 , 6 , an d7, 1 wil l no t spel l thos e ou t

becaus e th e Responden t

ha s admitte dal l o f thos e allegation s a s se t

fort h i n Paragraph s 3,4 , 5,6 , an d7 . An dI wil l findan dadmi t accordingl y wher e thos e numbere dparagraph s ar e concemed . 8 ) It i s foun dtha t th e ambe r

LA F degrade dmessag e on th e aircraft' s ECA M pane l come s o n whe n ther e i s afailur e o f on e o f th e aircraft s spoile r

servojacks . 9 ) I t i s foundtha

t durin g th e flight

bu t prio r t o takeof f th e ECA M pane l indicate dthat

th e followin g win g rol l spoiler s were no t

operational and/o r

locke dout . I t

i s my determinatio n tha

t designate dParagraph s C andD dealin g wit h th e right win g spoiler s numbe r

3 an d5 wer e foundaccordingly . 10 ) It i s foundtha

t durin g th e flight

bu t prio r t o takeof f Responden t

Surrat t wa s no t aware tha t th e aircraft' s ECA

M indicate dthat

th e followin g win g rol l spoiler s wer e no t operational [^39 ] an dwer e blocke dout , bu t tha t th e right win g spoiler number 3 an dright

win g spoile r

numbe r 5 wer e indicate daccordingly . I t i s my determinatio n tha

t appropriate actio n wa s take n t o clea

r th e ECAM pane l an dth e takeof f quickl y followe dthereafter . 11 ) I t i s foundtha

t pursuan t t o th e aircraft' s minimu mequipmen t list , th e aircraf

t canno t b e dispatche dwhe n tw o o r mor e spoiler s o n eithe r

win g ar e i n a

n inoperabl e condition . But base do n th e totality o f

th e evidenc e an dth e fact s an d circumstance s we'v e hadadduce ddurin g th e cours e o f thi s proceeding , th e minimu mequipmen t lis t immediatel y prio r t o takeof f wa s no t operabl e an dshoul dno t

hav e bee n invoke dat

th e tim e prio r

t o takeoff

, an dwa s no t

invoked . 12 ) Th e Respondent s admi t

an di t i s foundtha

t notwithstandin g th e above , durin g th e flight th e Responden t

Surrat t operate dth e aircraf

t durin g th e takeof

f wit h n o knowledg e o f

th e followin g inoperativ e instraments : C an dD o f Paragrap h 12 , whic h i s th e right win g rol l spoiler

numbe r 3 , an dD , th e right

win g rol l spoile r

number 5 . 13 ) It i s foundtha

t durin g th e flight

an dafte r 2 0 minute s afte

r takeoff , th e ECA M pane l onc e agai n indicate dtha t th e followin g win g spoiler s wer e no t [^40 ] operationa l and/o r

wer e locke dout : C an dD a s se t fort h i n Paragrap h 1 3 o f tha t Order . 14) I t i s foun dtha t durin g th e flight

th e flying pilot , Frank

Willia mWalker , disconnecte dth e autopilo t becaus e th e radder tri mwa s no t

operatin g properl y an dwa s ou t o f range .Pag e 1 4 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 31 , ^4 0 15 ) I t i s foundan dth e Responden t admit s that

durin g th e flight

Responden t

wa s informe dtha

t tw o flights [sic ] o n th e lef t win g were floating b y aperso n wh o ha dvisuall y inspecte dth e lef t win g whil e o n boar dth e aircraft . 16) It i s foundtha

t durin g th e flight

whe n Responden t

first attempte dt o lan dth e aircraf t at Miam i Intemational Airport , th e aircraft' s lef

t win g fenc e contacte dth e ranway causin g damag e t o th e lef t win g fence . 17 ) Th e Responden t

admit s an di t

i s foim dtha t durin g th e abov e reference dinoperabl e ring rol l spoiler s durin g th e flight you r first landin g attemp t

wa s aborted . 18 ) Durin g th e flight

i t i s foun dtiiat

th e Respondent s operate dth e aircraf t whic h the n wa s i n a

n imairworthy conditio n bu t

th e Respondent s ha dn o notic e unti l that tim e tha t th e aircraf

t wa s i n a n unairworth y condition . 19 ) I t i s foun dtha t

diuin g th e flight

th e Responden t

Surrat t faile dt o discontinu e th e flight afte r th e unairworthy [•41 ] mechanical , electrical , o r stractura l conditio n occurre dwit h referenc e t o th e conditio n o f th e spoilers . 20 ) I t i s foundthat

durin g th e flight

th e Responden t

di dno t operate th e aircraf

t i n acareles s maime

r s o a s t o endanger th e lif e o r property o f

another . 21 ) It i s foundb y reasons o f

th e foregoing , th e Responden t di dno t violat e th e followin g aviatio n regulation s and I'mincorporatin g b y referenc e a s se t fort h i n Paragraph s A , B , C , an dD o f Paragrap h 2 1 o f

th e aforesai dOrder

o f Suspensio n a s i t

wa s base do n th e totality o f th e evidence , couple dwit h th e documentar

y exhibits , tha

t there wa s a non-violatio n o f

Sectio n 91.23(a) , Sectio n 91.213(a) , an dSectio n 91.7(a) , an dSectio n 91.7(b ) o f th e aforesai dFederal Aviatio n Regulations . 22 ) Thi s Judg e finds tha t

safet y i n ai r commerc e o r

ai r transportatio n an dth e publi c interes t doe s no t require th e affirmatio n o f

th e Administrator' s Order o f Suspensio n a s t o Captai n Ton y Scot t Surratt , date dApri l 8th , 2009 , becaus e o f th e previousl y allude dt o non-violation s o f th e fou r PAR S section s mentione dearlier . ORDE R IT I S ORDERED AN D ADJUDGE D THA T th e Administrator' s Order o f Suspensio n a s to Captai n Tony Scot Surratt , date dApri l 8th , [^42 ] 2009 , be , an dth e same , hereb y i s dismisse dan dreversed . Thi s order i s issue db y Willia

mE . Fowler , Jr. , aUnite dState s Administrativ e La w Judge . ADMINISTRATIV E LA

W JUDG E FOWLER : A s t o Captai n Frank Willia mWalke r I wil l no w procee dto mak e th e followin g specifi c Finding s o f Fac t an dConclusion s o f

Law . 1 ) Tha t Responden t

Walke r admit s Paragraph s 1,2 , 3,4,5,6 , an d7 , an dI incorporate thos e admission s o f th e Respondent

Walker b y referenc e a s thos e numbere dparagraph s 1 throug h 7 , pertainin g t o th e Administrator' s Orde r o f Suspensio n are se t

fort h regardin g Responden t

Walker . 8 ) I t i s foundtha

t th e amber

LA F degrade dmessag e o n th e aircraft' s ECAM pane l cam e o n a s i t di dwhe n there wa s afailur e o f on e o f th e aircraf

t spoile r serv o jacks . 9 ) Durin g th e flight

bu t prio r t o takeof f i t i s foim dtha t th e ECA M pane l indicate dthat

i t wa s clea r an dgree n eve n though th e right

win g spoile r

numbe r 3 andright

win g spoiler

number 5 ha dbee n locke dou t

an dbot h Respondent s a s the y hav e testified , th e ECAM pane l wa s subsequentl y cleare dwit h th e aforementione dfour gree n indicator s an

dth e takeof f proceeded . 10) I t i s foundthat

durin g th e flight

bu t prio r t o takeoff

. Responden t

Walke r [^43 ] wa s no t

aware that

th e ECA M pane l hadindicate dtha

t th e rol l spoiler s wer e no t

operational and/o r

wer e locke dou t

becaus e computer s were reset clearin g th e aforesai dECA M pane l enablin g th e Respondent s t o takeof f wit h apparenti y th e spoiler s proble mno t bein gPag e 1 5 2010NTS B LEXI S 31,^4 3 problematical at

that time . 11 ) It i s foundtha t

pursuan t t o th e aircraft' s minimu mequipmen t lis t whic h i s acknowledge db y it s pilot s that th e aircraf t canno t b e dispatche dwhe n tw o o r more spoiler s on eithe r

win g ar e i n a

n inoperabl e condition , th e Respondents , bot h Surrat t andWalker , wer e no t

knowledgeabl e becaus e th e ECA M pane l state dclearanc e o r i t wa s gree n fo

r the mt o mak e th e takeof

f a s the y did . 12 ) Th e Responden t

admit s notwithstandin g th e above , tha t durin g th e flight

Responden t

Walker operate dth e aircraf t durin g takeof

f an d thereafter

wit h th e followin g inoperativ e instrament s an dI' mincorporatin g b y reference under Paragrap h 12 , Paragrap h C an dD right win g rolle r

an dth e right

win g rol l spoiler s numbe r 3 an d5 . 13 ) I t i s foundtha t

durin g th e flight

an dwithi n 2 0 minute s afte r takeof f th e ECAM pane l onc e agai n indicate dthat th e followin g right

win g spoiler s wer e no t

operational and/o r

were locke dou t

~ right [^44 ] win g spoiler

number 3 an d right win g spoiler

numbe r 5 . A s th e evidenc e woul dindicate , thi s i s th e first knowledg e that

bot h Respondent s ha d where th e ECA

M pane l wer e conceme dthat the y ha dany knowledg e o f th e spoile r

problem . 14) I t i s foundtha t

durin g th e flight

whe n Respondent s first

attempte dt o lan dth e aircraf t a t Miam i Airport , th e aircraft' s lef

t fenc e connecte dwit

h th e ranway causin g damag e t o th e lef t win g fence . 15 ) It i s foundthat

du e t o th e abov e reference dinoperabl e wingti p spoiler s durin g th e flight you r first landin g attemp t wa s aborted . 16) Th e Responden t

operate dth e aircraf

t i n a n unairworth y condition , bu t hadn o knowledg e a

t th e time whe n i t first became unairworth y tha

t i t wa s unairworthy . 17 ) Durin g th e flight

th e Responden t

di dno t operat e th e aircraf

t i n acareles s manne r

s o a s t o potentiall y endange r th e lif e o r propert y o f another . B y reaso n o f

th e foregoing , ther e wa s anon-violatio n o f th e Federal Aviatio n Regulation s an dI' mincorporatin g b y referenc e thos e section s withou t spellin g the mout . Sectio n 91.13(a) , Sectio n 91.213(a) , an dSectio n 91.7(a ) a s ther e wa s anon-violatio n o f

thes e section s b y Responden t Walker . 18 ) Thi s Judg e finds that

safet y [^45 ] in ai r

commerc e o r

ai r transportatio n andth e publi c interes t doe s no t requir e th e affirmatio n o f

th e Administrator' s Orde r o f Suspensio n date dApri l Sth , 2009 , a s i t applie s t o Responden t

Walke r du e t o th e non-violatio n b y Responden t Walke r o n th e aforesai dmentione dregulation s allude dt o tha t were no t violate d b y Respondent

Walke r base do n th e totality o f

th e evidence , couple dwit h th e documentar

y exhibit s a s afforde ddurin g th e cours e o f

thi s proceeding . ORDE R IT I S ORDERED AND DECREE D THAT tiie Administrator' s Order o f Suspensio n a s t o Captai n Frank William Walker i s hereb y reversedan ddismisse dbecaus e o f th e non-violation s o f

th e aforementione dFederal Aviatio n Regulations . Thi s Order

i s issue db y WilliamE . Fowler , Jr. , Unite dState s Administrativ e La w Judge . EDITE D O N September

2,200 9 WILLIA M E . FOWLER , JR . Chie f Administrativ e Law Judg e Lega l Topics :Pag e 1 6 2010NTS B LEXI S 31,^4 5 Fo r relatedresearc h an dpractic e materials , se e th e followin g legal topics : Transportatio n La

w Ai r TransportationCertificatesAirworthines s CertificatesTransportatio n La w Air TransportationU.S . National Transportatio n Safet y BoardProceduresTransportatio n LawAi r TransportationU.S . Nationa l Transportatio n Safet y BoardReport s

## APPENDI

X E : NTSB' s Decisio n Affirmin g Babbit t v . Surrat t

(o n reconsideration )

APPENDI X E (NTSB' s Reconsideration Decision i n Washingto

n Aviatio n Group , P

C an dth e Babbit t v . Surratt ) La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6Page l 

# 0 LexisNexJs'

1 o f 3 DOCUMENT S J . RANDOLP H BABBITT , Administiator , Federal Aviatio n Administi-ation , Complainant , v . TON Y SCO T SURRATT an dFRAN K WILLL\ M WALKER , Respondent s NUMBER : Order

EA-5527 ; Docket s SE-1856 2 an dSE-1856 3 Nationa l Transportatio n Safet y Board 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 DATE : Jun e 25,2010 , Adopte d ACTION : [•I ] ORDE RDENYIN G RECONSIDERATIO N ISSUEDBY : National Transportatio n Safet y Board SERVED : Jun e 28 , 201 0 Th e Administrato r

seek s reconsideratio n o f

ou r opinio n andorde r

i n thi s case , NTS B Orde r No . EA-5514 , serve d Marc h 24,2010 . In tha

t decision , w e affirme dth e law judge' s order , i n whic h h e grante drespondents ' appeal . Th e la w judg e determine dtha

t th e Administrato r

faile dt o prov e bot

h tha t respondents operate da

n Airbu s A32 0 whil e i t

wa s in a n unairworthy condition , n l an dthat Responden t

Surrat t violate d1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(b ) when , a s pilot-in-comman d (PIC) , h e di dno t

discontinu e th e flight

afte r leamin g tha

t tw o set s o f

th e aircraft' s spoiler s wer e "floating. "

n l Th e Administrato r

charge dbot

h respondent s wit

h violatin g 1 4 C.F.R . § § 91.7(a) , whic h prohibit s operatio n o f

acivi l aircraf

t that i s no t i n a n airworth y condition ; 91.13(a) , whic h prohibit s careles s o r reckles s operation s s o a s t o endange r th e lif e o r property o f

another ; an d91.213(a) , whic h state s that , excep t a s otherwis e provided , n o perso n may take of f a n aircraf t wit h inoperativ e instrament s o r equipmen t

installe dwithou t meetin g th e requirements o f § 91.213. [•2 ] I n particular , th e law judg e determined , an dw e affirmed , tha t th e Administrato r

di dno t adequatel y rebut

th e testimony o f

bot h respondent s an dJo e Miller , amechani c i n th e cockpi t wit h respondents , that

the y believe dth e Electroni c Centralize dMonito r (ECAM ) in th e cockpi t

onl y displaye daLAF DEGRADE D messag e afte r respondents an dMr . Miller

reset th e spoile r

elevato r computer s (SEC) . We determine dtha t th e LAF DEGRADED messag e di dno t fimction t o advis e respondents that tw o set s o f

spoiler s hadbee n lef

t i n "maintenance " (o r

"manual" ) mod e prio r

t o th ePag e 2 2010NTS B LEXI S 56 , ^ 2 flight. n 2 Therefore , w e conclude dtha t th e Administrato r

hadno t prove dthat

respondent s kne w o r

shoul dhav e know n tha t th e aircraf

t wa s i n an unairworth y conditio n prio r t o takin g off

. n 2 Se e NTS B Orde r

No . EA-551 4 a

t 9 n.6 , an dsurroundin g text . We als o rejecte dth e Administrator' s argument that Responden t

Surrat t shoul dhav e lande dth e aircraf t a s soo n a s h e leame dtha

t tw o set s o f

spoiler s wer e "floating. " Becaus e th e flight wa s amaintenanc e acceptanc e flight, [^3 ] w e found reasonable respondents ' argument s that ther e were benefit s t o continuin g th e flight, suc h a s identifyin g othe r potential maintenanc e issue s an dbumin g of f fuel . We base dthi s determinatio n largel y o n ou r readin g o f

th e definitio n o f

PI C i n 1 4 C.F.R . § 1.1 , n 3 finding tha t th e PI C ha s significant

discretio n to choos e whethe r t o continu e aflight

whe n faced wit h circumstance s o f

thi s nature . n 3 Titi e 1 4 C.F.R . § 1. 1 define s "pilot-in-command " a s aperso n who , "(1 ) Ha s final authority an d responsibilit

y fo r th e operatio n an dsafet

y o f th e flight; (2 ) Ha s bee n designate da s pilo t i n comman dbefor

e o r durin g th e flight; an d(3 ) Hold s th e appropriat e category , class , an dtyp e rating , i f appropriate , fo

r th e conduc t

o f th e flight." Se e generall y Administrato r v . Jeffreys . 4 NTS B 681 . 68 2 (1982 ) (statin g that aPI C i s th e pilo t

wh o possesse s ultimat e decisional authority regardin g th e flight). Th e Administrato r

no w petition s u s t o reconside r our original decision , o n several bases . Th e Administrato r [^4 ] argue s tha t ou r "factaal findings" in th e original opinio n are inconsisten t wit h th e evidenc e i n th e record , particularl y wit h regar dt o ou r assessmen t

that th e evidenc e indicate dtha t th e ECA M ultimatel y displaye donl y aLAF DEGRADED wamin g an

dtha t th e LAF DEGRADE D wamin g di dno t clearl y indicate aproble mwit h th e spoilers . Th e Administrato r fiirther assert s tha

t respondents ' failure t o complete asuccessfti l flight contro l chec k

demonstrate dthei r

feilure t o ac t reasonabl y andpradently , an dthat th e Airbu s newslette r

tha t came into evidence , whic h concem s ECAM wamings , fiirthe r indicate dtha

t respondent s shoul dhav e successfull y complete daflight contro l chec k

prio r t o takin g off

. Th e Administrato r

als o contend s that

w e erre din finding that

th e Administrato r

shoul dhav e "conclusively " establishe dtha t th e ECA M wa s functionin g properl y prio r t o an ddurin g th e flight, andtha t w e erre din determinin g tha t Responden t Surrat t ha dth e discretio n t o continu e wit h th e flight. Respondent s oppos e th e Administrator' s arguments , an durg e u s t o reject th e petition . Sectio n 821.S0(c ) o f

ou r Rule s o f Practic e require s tha

t petition s fo

r reconsideratio n "stat e briefl y an dspecificall y th e [•S ] matter s o f

recor dallege dt o hav e bee n erroneousl y decided , an dth e groun do r ground s relied upon. " Furthermore , § 821.50(d ) provide s that th e Boardwil l no t

consider , an dwil l summaril y dismiss , repetitiou s petition s fo r reconsideration . Th e argument s that th e Administrato r

raises i n th e petitio n a

t issu e her e ar e no t

base do n ne w matter , bu t consis t o f assertion s that

ou r origina l decisio n containe dincorrec t factaal andlegal conclusions . Althoug h th e petitio n appear s somewha t repetitiou s o f

th e argument s th e Administrato r mad e o n appeal , w e wil l addres s th e assertions , in th e interes t

o f ensurin g tha

t our decisio n on thi s reconsideratio n reques t i s clear . We first not e tha t th e central issu e i n thi s cas e revolve daroun dwha t th e ECAM displaye dprio r t o takeoff . Th e Administrator' s petitio n state s that respondents ' andMr . Miller' s testimon y wa s contradictory , becaus e the y di dno t consistenti y testif

y tha t th e ECAM displaye donl y th e LAF DEGRADED messag e immediatel y prio r t o flight. In suppor t o f thi s argument , th e Administrato r cite s severa l portion s o f

th e record . Thos e citations , however , refer t o testimony concemin g variou s waming s tha t occurre dwhe n Responden t Walke r an d[^6 ] Mr . Mille r

reset th e SEC . Th e testimony indicate dthat , whe n re-bootin g th e SEC , certai n waming s woul dflash an dthe n clear . Al l waming s cleare d excep t th e LAF DEGRADE D waming , whic h respondent s an dMr . Mille r determine dt o b e spurious , give n tha t th e aircraf t ha drecently undergon e heav y maintenance . A s w e state di n ou r original opinion , bot

h respondent s an dMr . Miller testifie dtha

t th e ECA M displaye dgree n message s afte r the y rese t

th e SEC , otiier

tha n tiie LAF DEGRADEDPag e 3 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 56 , ^ 6

message , indicatin g t o the mthat th e aircraf

t wa s i n a n airworth y condition . Th e Administrator , o n th e othe r hand , argue s that respondent s shoul dhav e bee n awar e o f amechanical proble mwit h th e aircraf

t becaus e o f

th e cleare dwaming s o n di e ECAM an dtiie LA F DEGRADE D message . A s w e discusse di n ou r

original opinion , th e law judg e determine dtha t respondents' an dMr . Miller' s testimon y concemin g th e gree n message s o n th e ECA M wa s credible . NTS B Order No . EA-551 4 a

t 15 . Th e Administrato r

di dno t convinc e u s tha

t thi s determinatio n wa s arbitrary , capricious , o r contrar y to th e weigh t

o f th e evidence . Therefore , w e deferre dt o th e law judge' s determinatio n tha t respondent s an dMr . Mille r observe dgree n message s appea r [^7 ] o n th e ECA M prio r t o takeoff . Th e Administrato r

no w appear s t o asser

t a s wel l tha

t respondent s shoul dno t

hav e take n of

f wit h th e LAF DEGRADED messag e displayin g o n th e ECAM . However , th e onl y evidenc e th e Administrato r presente dat th e hearin g concemin g th e impor t o f th e LAF DEGRADED messag e wa s th e opinio n o f FAA principa l avionic s inspecto r fo r general aviatio n repai r

stations , Phili p Stauffer , wh o state dtha t th e purpos e o f

th e ECA M i s t o displa

y informatio n concemin g variou s flight controls . n4 Inspecto r

Stauffe r di dno t stat e that th e LA F DEGRADED messag e mean t tha t spoiler s wer e locke ddow n o r inoperative . O n th e contrary , bot h respondent s an dMr . Miller , wh o i s th e directo r o f maintenanc e fo

r respondents ' employer , USA3000 , testifie dtha t receivin g aspuriou s LAF DEGRADED messag e wa s no t

uncommo n afte

r a n aircraf t hadundergon e heav y maintenance . A s w e state di n th e original opinion . Respondent

Surrat t als o testifie dtha

t Airbu s originall y intende dth e LA F DEGRADE D messag e t o assis t in easin g tarbulence, bu t

tha t i t ha dnever

successfull y functione dt o d o so . We d o no t believ e that

w e erre di n determinin g tha t th e evidenc e wa s insufficient t o sho w tha

t th e LA F DEGRADED messag e [•S ] informe drespondent s th e aircraf t wa s in a n unairworthy condition . n 4 Inspecto r

Stauffer' s testimon y concemin g th e ECA M include dth e following : Q . What i s tiie purpos e o f

th e ECAM ? A . It' s go t tw o purposes . I t

ha s tw o display s there . Th e uppe r on e i s primaril y th e on e tha t display s engin e informatio n t o th e upper , th e central tw o displays . I t woul db e that

one . Th e botto mon e i s use dt o cal l u p different syste mpages , eithe r

manuall y o r

automaticall y b y th e aircraf t whe n fault s occur . Q . Now , whe n yo u sa

y syste mpages , wha

t d o yo u mea

n b y syste mpages ? A . Th e lowe r

scree n ca n displa y an y number

o f page s liste dfromhydraulics , wheels , doors , oxyge n pressure . In thi s cas e what' s relevan t fo r u s i s th e flight

contro l pag e whic h i s automaticall y calle dwhe n yo u hav e afault relevan t t o i t o r whe n th e flight

cre w doe s thei r

flight contro l check . ADMINISTRATIV E LA

W JUDGE FOWLER : Thi s woul dinclud e th e spoilers , correct ? THE WITNESS : That

woul ddispla

y tiie spoilers , yes . ADMINISTRATIV E LA W JUDGE FOWLER : Al l right. TH E WITNESS : That

woul ddisplay al l th e flight controls . You r

Honor . Tr . a t 88-89 . [•9 ] Th e Administrator' s petitio n als o include s th e argument that w e hav e inconsistentl y applie dou r cas e la w concemin g 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(a) . In thi s regard, a s w e state di n th e original opinion , w e hav e lon g hel dtha t th e standar d fo r airworthines s consist s o f

tw o prongs : (1 ) whethe r

th e aircraf

t conform s t o it s typ e certificate an dapplicabl e Airworthines s Directives ; an d(2 ) whethe r th e aircraf

t i s in aconditio n fo

r saf e operation . In determinin g whethe r a n aircraf t i s airworth y in accordanc e wit h th e aforementione dstandard , w e wil l conside r whethe r th e operato r

kne w o r shoul dhav e know n o f

an y deviatio n i n th e aircraft' s conformanc e wit h it s typ e certificate . Se e case s cite dat NTS B Order No . EA-551 4 a

t 1 7 n.l7 . I n tills case , w e affirme dth e law judge' s conclusio n that respondent s di dno t

know , no r

shoul dhav e known , tiiat tiie aircraf t wa s i n a n unairworth y condition . Th e la w judg e foundrespondents ' an dMr . Miller' s testimony , tha t the y al lPag e 4 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 56 , ^ 9 believe dtha

t th e LAF DEGRADE D messag e wa s a n ordinar y spuriou s message , t o b e credible . I n addition , Mr . Miller , a s th e directo r

o f maintenanc e wit

h many year s experienc e concemin g maintenanc e issue s i n a n Airbu s A320 , wa s i n th e cockpi t

an d[ • 10 ] di dno t

believ e th e LA

F DEGRADE D messag e wa s acaus e fo r concem . Base do n thes e facts , w e agree dtha t respondent s di dno t

kno w tha t th e aircraf

t wa s unairworthy , andw e considere dthi s knowledg e element in reaching ou r

conclusio n tha

t respondent s di dno t

violat e § 91.7(a) . Th e Administrator' s reliance o n Administrato r v . Olsen , NTS B Order

No . EA-374 3 (1992) , concemin g th e knowledg e elemen t

i s misplaced . I

n Olsen , th e responden t

wa s in th e uniqu e positio n o f havin g bee n th e pilo t

o f th e aircraf t a t issu e a s wel l a s performin g maintenanc e o n th e aircraf t a s it s mechani c shortl y before th e flight at issue . Wit

h regardto th e knowledg e element , w e state da s follows : We ar e no t

imposin g astandar do f

stric t liability whe n w e hol dtha t respondent' s behavio r

i s t o b e measure dagains t

what h e personall y kne w o r

shoul dhav e know n abou t th e aircraft , bot

h a s it s pilo t

an d a s amechani c wh o ha drecentl y bee n involve di n it s maintenance . Such astandar dmerel y expect s responden t

t o react reasonabl y an dpradentl y t o informatio n o f whic h h e i s o r

shoul dhav e bee n aware (fixi mwhateve r

source) . Id . at 5-6 . Th e Administrato r

argue s that

respondent s di dno t

ac t reasonabl y an dpradentl y becaus e [ • 11 ] the y di dno t complete asuccessfu l flight check . However , respondent s conten dthat Responden t

Walke r complete daflight

chec k n S andtha t the y believe dtha t

th e aircraf

t wa s in a n airworth y conditio n prio r t o takin g off

. Th e Administrato r

attempt s t o prov e tha t respondents violate d§ 91.7(a ) becaus e the y di dno t complet e aflight

contro l chec k

subsequen t

t o clearin g th e ECA M wamings , andtherefore di dno t ac t reasonabl y an dpradently . Thi s argument i s inconsequential , however , becaus e th e reasonabl e an dpraden t standard , a s articulate di n Olsen , i s merel y aconsideratio n i n th e overal l "kne w o r shoul dhav e known " analysis . Th e Administrator' s petitio n doe s no t overcom e ou r

conclusio n that

respondents' testimony tha

t the y di dno t

know , no r

hav e reaso n to believe , tha t th e spoiler s were inoperativ e prio r t o takeof f wa s credible . A s w e state di n ou r original opinion , w e hav e lon g hel dtha t w e wil l consider

whethe r aresponden t

kne w o r shoul dhav e know n o f

th e unairworth y conditio n o f a n aircraf t i n determinin g whether

h e o r sh e ha s violate d§ 91.7(a) . Th e Olse n opinio n di dno t chang e thi s standard , bu t

insteadexplicitl y rejectedth e applicatio n o f astric t liability standard . n S O n thi s issue , th e recor dcontain s th e followin g colloqu y betwee n Responden t Walke r an dhi s attorney : Q . Okay . Di dyo u perfor

many flight

contro l checks ? A . Yes . Q . An ddi danythin g unusual occu r durin g you r

flight contro l check ? A . No . Tr . a t 366 . Responden t

Walke r the n testifie dtha

t Responden t

Surrat t complete daflight

contro l chec k

tha t indicate daproble mwit

h spoile r nos . 3 and5 , bu t

tha t Responden t

Surrat t an dMr . Mille r

wer e abl e t o clea

r th e wamin g tha

t displaye don th e ECA

M b y resettin g th e SEC . Tr . at 366-67 . [*12 ] Th e Administrato r

als o argue s that , i n our

opinio n below , w e impose daburde n that i s impossibl e fo

r th e Administrato r

t o fulfill whe n w e state dtha t th e Administrato r

faile dt o establis h tha

t th e ECAM worke dproperly . We disagre e wit

h thi s assertion . Th e burde n i s o n th e Administrato r t o prov e eac h elemen t

o f eac h offens e charged . I

n th e cas e a t hand , th e Administrato r

wa s awar e tha

t respondent s an dMr . Mille r testifie dtha t

the y believe dth e aircraf

t wa s airworthy becaus e th e ECA M onl y displaye dth e LA F DEGRADE D wamin g prio r t o takeoff , afte r the y rese t

th e SEC . In rejectin g th e Administrator' s argument s o n appeal , w e indicate dtha t th e Administrato r

coul dhav e strengthene dhi s cas e b y establishin g tha

t th e ECA M properl y displaye dmessages . Thi s lac k o f evidenc e wa s on e o f

what w e believe dt o b e severa l shortcoming s in th e Administrator' s case . W e specificall y rejec t th e Administrator' s notio n tha t w e ar e imposin g a

n unreasonabl e burde n o n th e Administrato r t o presen t

evidenc e tha

t th e equipmen t

in questio n operate dPage s 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 56 , ^1 2 properl y throughou t

th e flight. In th e contex t

o f thi s case , w e believ e evidenc e alon g suc h line s woul dhav e bee n necessar y t o rebut adequatel y th e testimon y o f respondent s [•IS ] an dMr . Miller concemin g wha t

the y observe do n th e ECAM . Th e Administrator' s final argument , tha t Responden t

Surrat t di dno t hav e th e discretio n t o continu e wit h th e flight, i s als o withou t

merit . We state di n ou r

origina l opinio n that

Responden t

Surratt , a s PIC , acte dreasonabl y i n continuin g th e flight, a s h e too k

advantag e o f

th e opportanity to lan dwit h les s fuel , andh e utilize dth e Quic k Referenc e Handboo k o n th e aircraft , whic h allow s landin g th e aircraf t wit h inoperativ e spoiler s afte

r applyin g amultiplicatio n factor t o calculate th e necessar

y lengt h o f ranway. Th e Administrato r provide s n o new evidenc e concemin g thi s conclusion , bu t instea dagai n simpl y argue s tha t Responden t

Surratt acte dunreasonably . W e disagree dwith thi s contentio n i n ou r original opinion , an dw e likewis e rejec t i t now . 

### ACCORDINGLY , I

T I S ORDERE D THAT : Th e Administrator' s petitio n fo r reconsideratio n i s denied . HERSMAN , Chairman , HART , Vic e Chairman , an dSUMWALT , Membe r o f th e Board , concurre din th e abov e order . Lega l Topics : Fo r relate dresearc h an dpractic e materials , se e th e followin g lega l topics : Transportatio n LawAir

TransportationCertificatesAirworthines s CertificatesTransportatio n LawAi r TransportationChartersTransportatio n LawAi r TransportationMaintenanc e & Safet y

## APPENDI

X F : Complainant' s Firs t Respons e t o Respondent' s Firs t Se t o f Interrogatories . Request s fo r Productio n o f

Documents , an dRequest s fo r Admissions . Respons e t o Interrogatorie s #1-1 3 (page s 1-4) .

APPENDI X F (FA A Response s t o Interrogatorie s #1

- Washington Aviation Group , P C an dthe 1 3 (page s 1-4)

) La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 20007 -Tel : 202-628-677 6

### U.S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . 

# QP Y

I n th e Matte r

o f Brenda n Airways , LL C FA A Docke t

No . CP09EA000 7 DM S No . FAA-FAA-2009-003 2 Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e Yode r COIMPLAINANT' S FIRS T RESPONS E T O RESPONDENT' S FIRS T SE T O F INTERROGATORIES . REQUEST S FO RPRODUCTIO N O F DOCUMENTS . AN D REQUEST S FO RADMISSION S Th e Complainan t

reserve s th e righ t

t o supplemen t

th e followin g responses : RESPONS E T O INTERROGATORIE S Interrogator y # 1 Allegatio n 4 o f

sectio n I I o f

th e Complain t

contend s tha t

th e spoile r

serv o actuator s wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mod e durin g maintenance . O n wha t dat e an ddurin g wha t maintenanc e operatio n wer e th e spoile r serv o actuator s place di n th e maintenanc e mode ? Respons e t o Interrogator y # 1 Th e Complainan t

doe s no t kno w th e exac t

dat e o f th e maintenanc e at

thi s time , however , i t i s clear tha t th e spoile r

serv o actuator s wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mod e prio r t o th e flight . Th e Complainan t doe s no t kno w durin g wha t

maintenanc e operatio n th e spoile r serv o actuator s wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mode , however , i t appear s tha t

th e maintenanc e wa s performe db y AAR . Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . §121.36 3 Brenda n Airway s i s responsibl e fo r

thi s maintenance . Interrogator y # 2 Pleas e identif

y all o f th e fact s tha t

yo u conten dsuppor t

Allegatio n 4 o f

sectio n I I o f

th e Complaint . Respons e t o Interrogator y # 2 Prio r t o th e fligh t

ther e wer e severa l indication s i n th e cockpi t suggestin g tha t

lef t an d righ t win g rol l spoiler s 3 an d5 wer e no t operational , durin g th e fligh t thes e rol l spoiler s di dnot fimction , an dafter

th e fligh t i t wa s determine dthroug h visua l inspectio n tha t th e spoile r serv o actuator s wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mode . Interrogator y # 3 Allegatio n 7 o f

sectio n I I o f

th e Complain t

contend s tha t

USA300 0 performe d maintenanc e o n th e aircraft' s lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive . Pleas e identif y th e maintenanc e performe do n eac h o f thos e lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive (limite dt o onl y th e mziintenanc e tha t i s reference db y th e Complaint) , an dstat e th e dat e o r dates o n whic h thi s maintenanc e wa s performed .

### Respons e t o Interrogator y # 3

Se e th e Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 . Interrogator y # 4 Pleas e identif

y all o f th e fact s tha t

yo u conten dsuppor t

Allegatio n 1 2 o f

sectio n I I o f

th e Complaint . Respons e t o Interrogator y # 4 Th e pilot s witnesse dth e ECA M indicat e thi s prio r t o takeoff

, th e ECA M was no t malfunctionin g durin g th e flight, i f th e ECA M i s functionin g properl y i t wil l indicat e tha t win g rol l spoiler s ar e no t operationa l whe n the y ar e i n th e maintenanc e mode , th e spoile r serv o actuator s for

th e win g rol l spoiler s i n questio n wer e i n th e maintenanc e mod e durin g th e flight . Interrogator y # 5 Pleas e identif

y al l o f th e fact s tha t

yo u conten dsuppor t

Allegatio n 1 3 o f

sectio n I I o f

th e Complaint . Respons e t o Interrogator y # 5 Se e th e Respons e t o Interrogator y #4 . Interrogator y # 6 Pleas e identif

y al l o f th e fact s tha t

yo u conten dsuppor t

Allegatio n 1 9 o f

sectio n I I o f

th e Complaint . Respons e t o Interrogator y # 6 Lef t an drigh t win g rol l spoiler s No . 3 an dNo . 5 wer e no t operabl e durin g th e flight an d pursuan t t o th e aircraft' s ME L ther e i s n o circimistanc e i n whic h th e aircraf t ca n b e dispatche dfor

flight whe n thes e spoiler s ar e inoperable , an dwhe n th e spoiler s ar e lef t i n th e maintenanc e mod e aerodynami c force s caus e unwante dmovemen t o f th e spoilers . Als o th e first

landin g attemp t

was aborte dan dth e aircraf t wa s damage ddu e t o th e inoperabl e win g rol l spoilers . Interrogator y # 7 Pleas e identif

y al l o f th e facts tha t

yo u conten dsuppor t

Allegatio n 2 0 o f

sectio n I I o f

th e Complaint . Respons e t o Interrogator y # 7 Se e th e above an dth e Complaint . Interrogator y # 8 I s i t th e Administrator' s contentio n tha t th e flight wa s an operatio n tha t

fall s withi n th e scop e o f Par t 121 ? Respons e t o Interrogator y # 8

### Objection . Vague .

Interrogator y # 9 I f i t i s th e Administrator' s contentio n tha t th e flight wa s an operatio n tha t

fall s withi n th e scop e o f Par t 121 , the n pleas e identif

y al l fact s tha t

suppor t thi s contentio n an dspecif y ho w tha t operatio n fall s withi n th e scop e o f Par t 121 . Respons e t o Interrogator y # 9 Objection. Vague . Interrogator y #1 0 I s i t th e Administrator' s contentio n tha t th e aircraft' s lef

t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mod e durin g maintenanc e performe db y US A 3000 . Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 0 Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . §121.36 3 i t i s th e Administrator' s contentio n tha t Brenda n Airway s i s responsibl e for

al l maintenanc e performe do n th e aircraft . Th e Administrato r doe s not kno w wha t

individual s place dth e aircraft' s lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive i n th e maintenanc e mod e prio r

t o th e flight, however , i t i s th e Administrator' s contentio n tha t Brenda n Airway s i s responsibl e for thi s maintenance . Interrogator y #1 1 I f i t i s th e Administrator' s contentio n tha t th e aircraft' s lef

t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an d five wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mod e durin g maintenanc e performe db y USA3000 , the n pleas e identif

y al l fact s tha t

suppor t thi s contentio n an dspecif y whic h maintenanc e wa s bein g performe dwhe n thes e spoiler s wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mode . Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 1 Se e th e Respons e t o Interrogatorie s No . 1 , 2 , an d10 . Interrogator y #1 2 I f i t i s th e Administrator' s contentio n tha t th e aircraft' s lef

t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an d five wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mod e durin g maintenanc e performe db y U S A 3 000 , the n pleas e identif

y al l fact s tha t

suppor t th e contentio n tha t

th e maintenanc e identifie di n INTERROGATOR Y #1 1 wa s performe db y USA3000 . Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 2 Se e th e Respons e t o Interrogatorie s No . 1 , 2 , an d10 . Interrogator y #1 3 I f i t i s th e Administrator' s contentio n tha t an y othe r

maintenanc e operatio n wa s improperl y performe do n th e aircraft-asid e fromth e aircraft' s lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive bein g place di n (and/o r lef t in ) th e maintenanc e mode-the n pleas e identif y thi s othe r maintenance . Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 3

### Th e Complainant' s onl y contention s abou t imprope r mmntenanc e ar e foimdi n th e Complaint . Interrogator y #1 4 Th e Responden t

ha s asserte dt o th e Administrato r tha t th e Responden t

wa s not awar e o f th e spoile r

issu e unti l th e aircraf

t wa s i n th e air . Assumin g onl y fo r th e purpos e o f

thi s interrogator y tha t

th e Respondent' s assertio n i s correct , (a ) doe s th e FA A conten dtha t th e Responden t

shoul dhav e don e anythin g differentl y upo n discover y o f th e inoperabl e spoilers , an di f

s o (b ) wha t

shoul dh e hav e don e differentl y an d(c ) wha t i s th e objectiv e standar dupo n whic h thi s contentio n o f th e Administrato r

i s based . Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 4 Objection . Thi s Interrogator y seek s informatio n tha t woul dno t

lea dt o th e admissio n o f relevan t o r discoverabl e evidence . Interrogator y #1 5 Pleas e provid e th e identif y an dtelephon e numbe r

(busines s o r

personal ) o f

eac h perso n th e FA A intend s t o cal l a s awitnes s i n thi s matter . Plesis e als o provid e asummary o f th e substanc e o f

th e expecte dtestimon y o f eac h perso n identifie di n respons e t o thi s interrogatory . Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 5 Th e identit y o f

an y witnesse s i s amatte r o f tria l strateg y tha t

ha s no t ye t bee n decided . Th e Complainan t

reserve s th e righ t

t o amen dthi s answe r

a s tria l witnesse s ar e identified . Interrogator y #1 6 Pleas e provid e th e identit y an dtelephon e numbe r (busines s o r

personal ) o f

eac h perso n th e FA A believe s ha s informatio n o r knowledg e relevan t

t o thi s matter . Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 6 Objection . Overbroad . Undul y burdensome . Furthe r thi s Interrogator y request s informatio n tha t

woul dno t

lea dt o th e discover y o f

relev£in t o r admissibl e evidence . Notwithstandin g th e objectio n al l witnesse s wh o testifie di n th e cas e o f Administrato r

v . Surratt an dWalke r

woul dhav e knowledg e relevan t t o thi s matter . Th e telephon e numbe r o f Aviatio n Safety Inspector s Laurenc e Johnson , Constantin e Karamargin , Erni e Scardecchio , an dPhili p Stauffe r i s 610-595-1500 . Interrogator y #1 7 Pleas e identif

y an dprovid e th e telephon e numbe r for eac h exper t

witnes s th e FA A may cal l t o testif

y i n thi s proceeding . Fo r eac h exper t

witnes s identified , pleas e stat e th e subjec t matte r upo n whic h eac h i s expecte dt o testify , summariz e th e substanc e o f suc h expecte dtestimon y (including , withou t limitation , identification o f al l facts , treatises , report s an drecord s tha t

for mth e basi s for

suc h opinion) . Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 7

## APPENDI

X G : Complainant' s Secon dRespons e t o Respondent' s Firs t Se t o f Interrogatories . Request s fo r Productio n o f

Documents , an dRequest s fo r Admissions . Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 8 an dReques t fo r Productio n #11 .

APPENDI X G (FA A Response s to Interrogator y #1 8 Washingto n Aviation Group , P

C an dtiie an dRF P 11 ) La w Office s o

f Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D

C 20007 -Tel : 202-628-677 6

### U.S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERAL AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . I n th e Matte r

o f Brenda n Airways , LL C FA A Docke t

No . CP09EA000 7 DM S No . FAA-FAA-2009-003 2 Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e Yode r COMPLAINANT' S SECON D RESPONS E T O RESPONDENT' S FIRS T SE T O F INTERROGATORIES . REQUEST S FO RPRODUCTIO N O F DOCUMENTS . AN D REQUEST S FO RADMISSION S Th e Complainan t

reserve s th e righ t

t o supplemen t

th e followin g responses : RESPONS E T O REQUES T FO RESfTERROGATORIE S Interrogator y #1 8 Pleas e identif

y an ddocument s an dexhibit s th e FA A intend s t o introduc e int o evidenc e i n th e proceeding . Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 8 I n additio n t o wha t

wa s previousl y submitte dpleas e se e th e document s liste dbelow : 1 . FA A N O Actio n Documen t fo r AA RAircraf

t Service s for

th e inciden t

occurrin g 5/17/0 8 2 . PTR S recor dfrominspecto r LA B fo r EI R2008SO19022 0 3 . PTR S recor dfro minspecto r LX C fo r EI R2008SO19022 0

## RESPONS E T O REQUES T FO RPRODUCTION O

F DOCUMENT S Productio n Reques t

#1 1 Pleas e provide th e entiret

y o f eac h EI Ran dall othe r investigativ e record s associate dwit h th e investigatio n o f

AA Rin relatio n to th e incident s describe di n th e Complaint . For you r referenc e (but

no t to b e construe da s alimitation ) on e relevan t FA A investigatio n file numbe

r ma y b e 2008SO190220 . Respons e t o Productio n Reques t #1 1 The attache ddocument s (reference dabove ) mak e u p th e entir

e file o f cas e numbe

r 2008SO190220 . Respectfull y submitted , Alfi^dR . Johnson , Jr . Regionsi l Counsel By : 

# ^ ^ . . 

# ^/V

o Davi dM . Cohe

n Attorne y Federa l Aviatio n Administration 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 Telephone : 71 8 553-327 0 Facsimile : (718)995-569 9

### CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y tha t o n thi s da y copies o f

th e foregoin g Complainant' s Secon dRespons e t o Respondent' s Firs t

Se t O f Interrogatories , Request s Fo r Productio n o f

Documents , an d Request s Fo r

Admissions , wer e sen t

b y Federa l Expres s Mai l addresse da s follows : Hearin g Docke t Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 (Origina l an dOn e Copy ) Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 Roo mEl2-32 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 (FAX ) 202-366-753 6 Jaso n Dickstei n Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C & La w Office s o f Jaso n Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 (FAX ) 202-628-894 8 

# Date : SE P- 7 201 0 V^: ; vJ^L ^ y LisaHook s Paralega l Specialis t Offic e o f Actin g Regiona l Counse l 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4

# e © 0 © 

# e © © ^^ W U.S . Ddpattmsn t o f Transportatio n 

### f ^ ^ Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 

# DWARNiW G NOTIC E DLETTE R O F CORRECTiO W ElNOACTtO N

_ _ ^ ttACCBmCATENO.t«APPLCA0LB . TYP S « A CSRTO B O , O l 

### DENTIFICATIO N MlHE h h l4ur.tBE R (A W Lift . sdiAk . crc ) NM.«;WS r« _F«S T INITtt L ADDRES S , y y ^ , ~ Z V ADORGS S _ • / I 

### ?B r 

# ihrni s F l 

# h i . ^

DA'TEOFBlRf m AMVMX 4 EIJPU}YEt)(« ^ RELATE D TQAiLESEOVKXArO M PHON E NO . OPCOD E 0CSI6IMT0 R XE4 R 

### AIRCRAFT . ENGINE . PROPELLER . COMPONEN T O R APPLIANC E INVOLVE D tJAK E < klOOE L |NNuiifi£ A SERUU.hO . CAVNE R ADDRES S CIT Y STAT E ZI P COD E > 

### ALLEGE D VI0LATiQN(8 )

- < car e MONT H DA T YEA R TJMElSUiO W WT B UCNT H D* Y YEA R RESIG N OlSCCVERE D OCCURRE D 

### 5/17/0 8 KHCM N 

### 5/19/0 8 

## s o A T LOCATIM I 

### MIAMI , F

L REGUlATKm S SEUCVEDVOIATE D AIRPOR T DESIOmTO R 

### MI A DESCRPTtO N US T ^A - FO R MDACnC N CASE S 

### N/ A

CORfleCTV C ACTIO H - UAYB G CONTHIUC O O H RCtiiERS C 

### N O ACTIO N

MSPECTOR : 

### BURNET T LIND A 817 1 7/1/0 8 USTNAt ^ RflS T NAU E MlwpcrKK t INmAl S no w DAT E CEffir . COD E TYP E SUBTYF C CATEGOR Y SOURC E ACCtOeN T ACTIO N SANCnO N 

# oEBi : PTR S ACTMT Y COD E 

### 2 8 3 0 2 

# iDHDEEQQ a 

# K

PTR S NSraCTO R COOE I 

# DEEI E QSEIL ^ I^IHO T REVIE W DAT E | AOUN . DAT E



# \/ m

# 7 ^ Q R NUf.BC R 

# 0 0 0 B • 0 Q E Q E E l I D

^ Y ^PROGRA M TRACKIN G AN D REPORTIN G SUBSYSTE M DAT A SHEE T (On d PTR S Recor d Require d fo rEac h Uni t o f Wor k a s define d i n th e PPM ) SECTK>Ni-Transmitta l Inspecto rNam e Code : LA B Record 10 : SOt920082l07 2 NPG : Star t Dale : O5/IW20O

8 Oesignato rXEA R Aircraf t Re g ft FllgWf t Activit y Numtwr : 373 3 Statu s (POC) : C Result s (ACEFISTX) : C Affiliate d Designator . Loc/Departur e Poin t Complain t ft Make-Model-Series : A-320-21 2 Simulator/Oevic e ID : Non-CertAcevityNameyCompany : RE F SO 1920081926 4 Airma n Cer

t ft Examine rCer

t # : Applican t Cer

t ft ReclnstructorCertf t Passff=all : Tracking : Loca l Use : Activit y Time : Trigger s teUvily Number : FAR : 14 5 Callu p Date : OosedDate : 06/17/200 8 OTNA : Loc/Antva l Polnt# : Occurrenc e ft l(v:identf t EI R ft 200SSO190220 Acddentf t Name : Name ; Name : Name : Exa m Kind : Miscellaneous : Regiona l Use : Assessment : 0. 0 Repea t tVumbe n Geographic ? Ye s C 8430-13 * Numeri c Misc : Nationa l Use : Trave l Cos t N o S Foreign ? Ye s D N o S SECTIO N 1 1 • Personne l (unlimited ) Personne l Nam e Positio n Bas e Remark s (2 3 Ctiaracters )

SECTIO N I H - Equipmen t (unlimited ) Manufacture r Mode l Seria l # Remark s (2 3 Characters )

SECTIO N I V • COMMEN T (unlimited ) Primar y Are a E Key

Wor t 80 2 Ooiflioc i

Cod e P Comm«n i Tax i (unftntte d length )

RF P t>TR<

s <!r^ig7nn«iQ7ft4 O F t x r INVr^STIGATIO N INCIDF.N T Wm i AA R WHER E T l Ifi Y RETlJRNrs D T O .SERVtCP . A32 0 IKO M USA3000 . A T LAS T CHEC KSPOILERS WER E I N O P POSITION . 05/15/07 . DURIN G CHECKFUGH T O N 05/17/0 7 SPOILE R WA S I N LOCKE D POSmON . INVESnOATIN G T

O DETERMIN E WHER E THI S ADJUSTMEN T I N TH E SPOILE R OCCURRED . WEE KAFTE R INCIDEN T (WEE KO F 5/19/2008 ) WEN T T O /VA R T O TAL KT O MGM T AN D Dat« ; Origlnalo rOffio K Inspecto rSignature : Superviso rInitial* : FA A Forn i 8000-3 6 (6-95 )InspccVo r Nam e Code ; LA B Recor dID : SO1920082107 2 Paec 2 Sectio n IV - Comment

(cont'd ) •Re T Wort Opinio n

Cod e Cornmen t Tex t Primar y Are a 30

2 INTERVIE W 6 TECHNICIAN S WH O WER E WORKIN G O N TH E SPOILER S O F THI S AIRCRAFT .

DISCUSSE D WOR K

ORDER S AN D CHECKE D T O SE E I S AN Y DISCREPANCIE S OCCURRED . FOUN D AIRCRAF T WEN T I N T O B E PAINTE D AFTE RMAINTENANC E TH E ARE A O F TH E SPOILER S WOUL D NO T B E WSTURBE D FRO M TH E PAINTING . AFTE RCHECKIN G MAN Y AA RWOR K TAS K CARDS , INTERVIEWIN G SEVERA L AA R TECHNICIAN S WH O WORKE D I N TH E ARE A O F TH E SPOILER S O F TH E AIRCRAF T AN D WfTNESSE D TH E SPOILE RCHECK , AN D ATTENDIN G SEVERA L MEETING S WIT H AA RMGM T AN D SUPERVISORS . THI S OFFIC E HA S ISSUE D /^ RA LETTE RO F WARNING . THI S OFFIC E CANNO T FIN D WH O O RWHE N TH E AIXEGE D NON-COMPUAN T MAINTENANC E OCCURRED . AGAIN , PM l CARMON A CHECKE D WIT H CHIE F INSPECTO RO F AA RAN D SUPERVISOR S T O SE E WHA T TAS K

CARDS . I F AN Y WER E PRODUCE D B Y AA RBETWEE N 5/1 5 - 5/19/2008 . THER E WER E NONE . A S THI S INVESTIGATIO N DI D NO T PRODUC E EVIDENC E O F AN Y WIUJNGDOIN G O N TH E PAR T O F AA RMAINTENANCE . W E CANNO T INITIAT E A CIVI L PENALT Y VIOLATION . WIL L INITIAT E N O ACTIO N FO RA/\ RT O ENSUR E FUTUR E INCIDENT S D O NO T OCCU RAFTE R TH E MAINTENANC E HA S BEE N PERI'ORMED . N O ACTIO N SNAA P ISSUE D O N 7/01/2008 .PROGRA M TRACKIN G AN D REPORTIN G SUBSYSTE M DATASHEE T (On e PTR S Recor d Require d fo rEac h Uni t o f Wor k a s define d I n th e PPM ) SECTIO N 1-Transmitta l Inspecto rNam e Code : LX C Recor d 10 : SOI920081926 4 NPG : Star t Date : 05/19/200 8 Oesignato rXE4 R Aircraf t Re g ft N26SA V Fligh t ft Activit y Numbe r373 3 Statu s (POC) : C Result s (ACEFISTX) : C Affiliate d Designato r Loc/Deparlur e Point : MI A Complain t ft Make-Model-Series : A-320-21 2 Simulalor/Devte e ID : Non-Cer t Activit y Name/Company : SO19200S2I07 2 AimtanCertf t Examine rCer t ft Applican t Cert« : Re c Instructo rCer t ft Pass/Fail : Tracking ; Loca l Use : Actrvtt y Time : Trigger s Activit y Numbe r FAR : 14 5 Callu p Date : CtosedOalo : 07/01/200 8 OTNA : Loc/Arriva l Pointf t Occurrenc e ft Inciden t ft EI R ft 2008SO19022 0 Acciden t ft Name : Name : Name : Name ; Exa m Kind : Miscellaneous : Regiona l Use : Assessment : 0. 0 Repea t Numbe r Geographic ? Ye s C 8430-1 3 ft Numeri c Misc. : Nationa l Use : OFFHOU R Trave l Cost : N o E l Foreign ? Ye s D N o S SECTIO N I I • Personne l (unlimited ) Personne l Nam e Positio n Bas e Remark s (2 3 Characters )

SECTIO N H I • Equipmen t (unlimited ) Manufacture r Mode l Seria l # Ftemark s (2 3 Characters )

SECTIO N «

V - COMMEN T (unlimited ) Primar y Are a E Key

Wor t 61 7 Opirdo n

Cod e I Comman l Text (unlimile d lenglh )

OS-m-fl R STARTF n IMVPSTinATIO N OPCARniNf ! At 1 FnFr > IMPROPP R MAINTPNAWr P IX V AA R A(RrRAFTSFRVirFS-MIAMtfAARinNN26^AV . 05-20* 8 - PREPARE D AN D SEN T UTTTE R O F INVE.ST10ATI0 N T O AA R 05-20-200 8 T O 06-16-200 8 - CONDUCTE D INVESTIGATIO N REGARDIN G TH E ALLEGE D IMPROPE R MAINTENANCE . COUL D NO T PROV E THA T AN Y AA R EMPLOYE E PERFORME D 1TI E IMPROPE R POSITIONIN G O F TH E LEF T WIN G SPOILER S 3 AN D 5 T O TH E MAINTENANC E Oats : OrfQinata rOffic e Inspecto rSignalufo ; Superviso rIntlials : FA A For m 8000-3 6 (e-»S }Inspecto r

Nam e Code ; LX C Recor dID : SO1920081926 4 Pac e 2 Sectio n I V - Commen t

(cont'd ) Opirtio n Cod e Commen t

Tex t Primar y Ke y

Wort 61 7 .MOD E

05-15-200 8 - A N AlRCR/\n r ENGINE S AN D SYSTEM S OPERATIO N TES T WA S COMPLETE D B Y US A 30 0 PERSONNEL . SPOILER S OPERATIONA L TES T WA S COMPLETE D WIT H SATISFACTOR Y RESULT . FO ROTHE RTHA N A FE W MINO RCORRECTIO N ITEM S AN D TOUC H PAINTIN G (NON E O F WHIC H WA S PERFORME D NEA RTH E LEF T WIN G SPOILER S N O 3 AN D 5) . N O OTHE R MAINTENANC E WA S DOCUMENTE D A S BEIN G PERFORME D B Y AA RDURIN G 05-1 5 AN D 05-17-2008 . O N OS-15-200 8 -TH E AIRCRAF T WA S PARKE D AN D RELEASE D T O TH E CUSTOMER . 05-17-2008 , T l I E USA300 0 FLIGH T CRE W AN D MAINTENANC E PERSONNE L DI D A PREFLIGHT , (A S PAR T O F TH E FLIGH T PREFUGH T CHECKLIST) , THE Y NOTE D TH E LEF T WIN G SPOILER S N O 3 AN D 5 WER E INOPERATIV E AN D TH E RIGH T WIN G N O 3 AN D 5 SPOILER S LOCKED . KNOWIN G TII E EXISTIN G MALFUNCTION , TH E FLIGH T CRE W ELECTE D T O TAK E TH E AIRCRAF T AN D FLE W TH E AIRCRAF T FO ROVE RTHRE E HOURS . UPO N LANDIN G AFTE RFLYIN G FO ROVE RTHRE E HOURS . AA RPERSONNE L INSPECTE D TH E LEF T WIN G SPOILER S AN D DETERMINE D THA T TH E LEF T WIN O N O 3 AN D 5 SPOILER S WER E IN TH E MAINTENANC E POSITION . TH E INVESTIGATIO N DI D NO T REVEALE D WHEN , WHO . WH Y O RHO W WER E TH E SPOILER S POSITIONE D T O TH E MAINTENANC E MODE . DU E T O TH E LAC K

O F DOCUMENTATIO N RBGARDIN G WHEN . WHO , W l l Y AN D HO W WER E TH E SPOILER S POSITIONE D IN TH E MAINTENANC E MODE . H T I S NO T POSSIBIJ

- FO RTHI S INSPECTO RT O BLAM E ANYON E FO RTH E IMPROPE RPOSITIONIN G O F TH E SPOILERS . 07-01-0 8 - A LETTE RO F N O ACTIO N WA S ISSUE D T O AA RAN D TH E CAS E CLOSED .