12/09/201 1 10:1 0 FA X 202a935U 2 FA A - OM S giOOl/OO G

BETTMAN N HOGU E 

### & DiEDRICH , PROF . LLC

FSAKKA . BETTMANN

" TlN'AM . Hor.UR

MICHAE L G.DiEDmc H

• ALI O AflMnTKn i s MEn n ^i;!.-. ! ATfOIiI^EYi> A T LA W 150 6 MOUNTAIN " VIE

W ROAD . SUIT

E 10 1 PAPI D cm' , SOUT H DAKOT A 5770:-J5A 9 TE L (6U5 ) 343-866 2 FA X (605 ; i4R-Pnft 6 v.-u'v . rcstiltliTw.co

m Novembe r

28 , 201 1 

# RECEIVE D DE C 

### - 5 201 1 

# HEARIN G DOCKE T Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 80 0 Independenc e Ave . S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Re : Federa l Aviatio n Admin , v . Rushmor e Helicopters . Inc . FA A Docke t

No . CP10GL000 2 DM S No . FAA-2010-002 3 Ou r Fil e No . 665.0 0 Dear Hearin g Docke t

Clerk : Enclose dpleas e fin d th e origina l an d tw o copie s o f Appellant' s Brie f

i n th e above-captione dcase . Sincerely , BETTMAN N HOGU E & DTEDRICH ,

Professiona l LL C

Fran k K . Bettman n : ^ :^ . ~ n c.r. <

FAB/mk s Enc . cc : Joh n Stuart , Jr. ' (w/enc. ) Clien t (w/enc. )

F.xyr.rifnc.e . • Integrit y • Result s12/09/201 1 10.1 0 FAX 202493514 2 FA A - DM S 21002/00 8

Serve d November

28 , 201 1 

# RECEIVE D U.S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N „

OFHC E O F HEARING S Ut t ' 6 ZOf f 

## WASHINGTON,DC . HEARIN G DOCKE T

FE:PERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATION ,

C omp l ainani/Appe l lee , V . RUSHMOR E HELICOPTERS , INC .

Respondent/Appellant . FAADOCKETNO . CP10GL000 2 (Civi l Penalt

y Action ) DM S No . FAA-20in-002 3

APPELLANT' S BRIE F STAIEMENTOFCAS E Th e Complaint

o f th e Federa

l Aviatio n Administratio n ("Complainant, " "FAA, " or "th e Agency") , a s amended , assert s tha t Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc . ("Respondent " or "Rushmore" ) violate dFedera

l Aviatio n Regulation s ("FARs" ) an d sough t acivi l penalt

y of $25,000 . Specifically , th e Complaint assert s Rushmor

e violate d th e following FAR s (bot h i n 1 4 CFR) : sectio n 91.7(a) , whic h prohibit s th e operatio n o f acivi l aircraf

t unles s i t i s i n a n airworthy condition ; an dsectio n 91.13(a) , which prohibit s aperso n fromoperatin g a n au-craf t i n acareles s maime r s o a s t o endanger

lif e an dproperty . A hearin g wa s hel do n Apri l 27 , 2011 . Administrativ e La w Judg e Richar

d C . Goodwi n hel dth e fact s an dcircumstance s of the cas e justif

y violation s o f

each coun t

and . allowin g fo

r mitigatin g an

daggravatin g factors , warrant a n assessment

agains t Rushmor e of $22,500 . Th

e Initia l Decisio n o f

Administrativ e La

w Judg e Richard C . Goodwin wa s serve d o n October 3 ,12/09/201 1 10:1 0 FAX 202493514 2 FA A - DM S 0)003/00 8

2011 . Appellan

t filednotic e of

appea l o n October 14 , 2011 . Th e Administrator o f th e Federa

l Aviatio n Administratio n ha s jurisdictio n of thi s appea

l pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.233 . FACTUA L BACKGROUND Rushmor e i s aPar t 9 1 commercia

l ai r tou r operato r locate d i n Keystone , Sout

h Dakota . HT , p p 18-19 . I n th e late afternoo n o f Augus t 6 , 2009 , commercia

l pilo t Rober t Lero y Leffer

t ("Pilo t Leffen" ) discovere dtha

t th e fue l ca p o n aBell 20 6 helicopter

tha t he wa s i n comman d of an dhadoperate dtha

t da y ha damissin g fue

l cap . Complaint ; Answer . Th e helicopter

i s owne d b y Rushmore . Complaint ; Answer . A t hi s ow n initiative , Pilo t

Leffer t place d duc t

tap e over th e fue l filler por t an dfle w th e helicopter

fromKeystone , Sout

h Dakotat o nea

r Custer ^ Sout h Dakota , whic h i s approximatel y a10-mil e trip . Complaint ; Answer . O n th e mornin g o f

th e followin g day , Augus t 7 , 2009 , a s th e pilot-in-comman d o f th e helicopte r a t issue , Pilo t

Leffer t mad e th e decisio n tha

t th e helicopter , wit

h duc t tap e temporaril y over the fUe l fille r port , wa s airworthy i

n tha t state base d o

n informatio n fromthe manufacture r tha t th e fije l ca p wa s no t astructura

l component

o f th e helicopter

an d base d o

n th e lo w friel level s maintained . HT , pp . 73-74 . Afte r makin g th e determinatio n tha t th e helicopter

wa s airworthy , Pilo t

Leffer t proceede dto operate th e helicopter . HT , pg.74 . Followin g th e incident , th e FA A initiate d a

n enforcement

actio n agains t

Pilo t Leffert' s Commercia

l Fixe dWing , Singl e Engin e Helicopter Certificat e allegin g violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . 91.7(a) . HT , pg . 76 . Th e FA A i s als o allegin g Rushmor e violate d 1 4 C.F.R . 91.7(a ) an d 91.13(a ) du e t o Pilo t

Leffert' s above-describe dactions . Complaint .

ISSUE S PRESENTED 1 . Whethe r

th e Administrativ e i.a w Judge' s findin g an d conclusio n tha t Responden t

ha doperate dte n flight s wa s supporte d b y appropriat e an d sufflcicn t evidence . Appellan t

state s tha t

i t wa s not .12/09/201 1 10-1 0 FA X 2024935U 2 FA A ^ DM S 0004/00 3

20 6 helicopter.. . ha

doperate dten flights..." . Initia l Decision , p . 5 . Tha

t i s no t th e case . Rushmor e Presiden t

Michael Jaco b wa s th e only witnes s calle d b y Rushmore . HT . Th e FA A neve r questione dMichae l Jaco b about whether the lo g a t issu e wa s fo

r Augus t 7 , 2011 . Th e pilot , calle db y Complainant , sai dhe didn' t remember

doin g tha t man y flights . Therefore , n o Rushmore witnesse s acknowledge dth e Bel l 20 6 helicopter operate d te n flight s o

n Augus t 7 , 2009 . Th e onl y evidenc e presente db y th e FA A i n regar dto whether

i t ha d to correc t

fligh t lo g wa s th e hearsa

y obtaine db

y th e FA A investigato r

wh o sai d h e talke d to Ms . Welle r an d she wa s th e one wh o tol dhimth e lo g showin g te n flight s ha d a n incorrec t

date . Pilo t Leffen , calle db

y th e FAA , testifie d o

n direc t examinatio n tha

t he di d no t

recal l pilotin g ten flight s o

n Augus t 7 , 2009 . Q : D o yo u kno w ho

w many flight s yo u took

o n Avigus t 7i h of'0 9 wit

h duc t tap e ove r th e fue l port ? A : Accordin g to th e records , there wa s about ten flights. T don' t

remember

doin g . tha t many , bu t tha t was , apparently , th e case . HT , pp . 76-77 . When Pilo t Leffen sai d"accordin g t o th e records^' , wa s h e merely operatin g o

n wha t h e wa s tol db y th e FA

A investigato r

concernin g th e ''record" ? There wa s n o testimon y tha

t he ha dcharg e o f

them , or kne w an>thin g abou t

them . Mor

e notable , h e immediatel y saidI di dno t recal l doin g tha

t many . Mr . Jaco b wa s th e onl y witnes s fo r Rushmor e an dhe wasn' t

aske d abou t

th e records . Therefore , thi s ver y significant poin t boile ddow

n to this : Ther

e i s onl y on

e documen

t tha t support s th e allegatio n ofte n flights. Tha t documen t doe.- ? no t bea r th e sam e dat e a s th e dat

e of th e complaint . There coul dbe only thre e wimesse s who coul d prov e i f tha t document

wa s right or wrong . Thos e woul db e th e Rushmore employe e i n charg e o f

th e document (either Ms . Weller , Mr . Jaco b or

both ) an d th e pilo t himsel f Th e pilo t

sai d h e didn' t recal l doin g tha

t man y tha t day . Mr . Jaco b wa s not

aske d an y question s abou t

i t an d Ms .12/09/201 1 10:1 0 FA X 202493514 2 FA A- DM S 21005/00 8

Weller wa s not called . Certainl y th e us e o f hearsa y t o suppor

t thi s ver y important

fact shoul dnot b e allowe dto sustai n th e Complainant' s burde n o f proo f mthes e case s when there i s doub t

i n th e recordfromdirec t

evidenc e an

d th e FA A coul d hav e simpl y produce dMs . Weller

s o sh e coul dhav e testifie d an d been open to cros s examination . Thi s level of

proo f doe s no t rise t o th e level of

provin g thes e important

facts "b y a preponderanc e o f

reliable , probative , an d substantia l evidence " a s the la

w requires . Th e onl y actual proo f

entere dint

o evidenc e i

n regar d t o th e number

of flight s o n Augus t 7 , 2009 , wa s th e singl e fligh t wimesse d b y th e inspectors . Becaus e th e FA A di d no t prov e te n flights b y apreponderanc e o f reliable , probative , an d substantial evidence , th e civi l penalt

y mus t b e reduce dt o be commensurat e wit h th e namr

e an d exten t

o f onl y one proven violation . 2 . Th e Administrativ e Ld w Judge' s conclu<:io n i n regar d to th e civi l penalt y amoun t wa s no t mad e i n accordanc e wit

h applicabl e law , precedent , an d publi c polic y du e t o failin g t o conside r

al l of th e require d factor s whe n determinin g th e civi l penalty . A n appropriate civi l penalt

y mus t reflec t th e totalit y o f the circumstances . See . e.g. . Folso m' s Ai

r Ser\'\ce . Inc. . FA

A Orde r No . 2008-1 1 (November

6 , 2008) . T o asses s th e totalit y o f th e circumstances , th e followin g factors mus t b e considere d whe

n determinin g th e civi l penalt y amount : (1 ) th e nature an dcircumstance s of th e violation ; (2 ) th e extent an d gravit

y of th e violation ; (3 ) th e respondent' s degre e o f culpability ; (4 ) the respondent' s histor y o f prio r violations , if

any ; (5 ) th e respondent' s abilit y t o pa y th e civi l penalty ; (6 ) th e effect o n th e entity' s abilit

y to sta y i n business ; an

d(7 ) other

matter s a s justic e ma

y require . M . Th e Agenc y bear s the burde

n o f justifyin g th e amoun

t of th e civi l penalt

y i t seeks . Phylli s Jone s Luxemburg , FAA Orde

r No . 1994-1 8 (Jun e 22 . 1994) , p . 6 .12/09/201 1 101 1 FA X 202«35M 2 F M . 0« S ^006/00 ,

Ihi s siz e o f

a n assessment

woul dindee dpresen t

afinancial hardship . I

n fact , th e hardshi p ha s only increase do n th e busines s i n the month s followin g th e hearing . Se e Affidavit o f Mik e Jaco b attached . A s a n aside , an

dto th e extent

that som e of th e financia

l hardship evidenc e pertain s t o matter s tha

t hav e arisen or

develope dfurthe

r afte r th e dat e of hearin g i n thi s matter

(Apri l 27 . 2011) , i t i s note dtha

t th e la w provide s tha

t an y part y ma y petitio n th e FA

A Decisionmaker

t o recon.5ide r o r modif y afinal decisio n an

d orde r is.sue d b y th e FAA . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.234(a) . Whil e i t woul dals o be note dtha

t § 13.234(c } seem s t o no t

be technicall y applicabl e yet becaus e ther e ha s bee n n o petitio n to reconsider aFina l Decisio n of

th e FA A Decisionmaker , i

t ha s been hel d tha t i t i s reasonabl e to appl y th e sam e standard t o a

Q request s t o submi t

new evidenc e tha

t ar e presente dafte

r th e clos e of

the hearing . Se e I

n th e Matte r

o f Blue Ridg e Airlines , FA

A Order No . 99-1 5 a

t 7- 8 (December

22 , 1999 ) (citation s omined) . Th e new evidenc e or

testimon y tha

t Respondent

woul d lik e t o presen t

i s note d i n th e attache daffidavit s o

f Mr . Jaco b an dShelley Dykstra . Respondent state s that , if

remanded , i

t i s believe dtha

t th e outcome of

thi s cas e woul d b e differen t due to th e financia

l hardshi p facing Rushmore . CONCLUSIO N Th e impose dcivi l penalt

y i s no t appropriate becaus e th e evidenc e presente d b y th e FA A prove s onl y one flight

o n Augus t

7 , 2009 , an

d no t ten flights ; th e FA

A faile d t o prov e aseparate independent violatio n of

§ 91.13(a) ; and , the Initia l Decisio n failed to conside r financia l hardship whic h ma

y constimtc ground s fo

r reductio n i

n a n otherwis e appropriate civi l penalty .12/09/201 1 101 1 FA X 202«35U 2 FA A - 0« S 0007/00 3

Fo r th e abov e state dreasons . Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc . respectfully request s tha t th e Initia l Decisio n b e reverse da

s t o its finding s an

d conclusion s tha

t te n flight s occuire do

n Augus t 7 , 2009 , an dtha

t th e Initia l Decisio n b e remande d t o allo w evidenc e t o b e introduce dregardin g Rushmore' s financial hardship . Date dthi s Q^

_da

y of /v»v<^^^[20II .

BETTMAN

N HOGU E & DIEDRICV^ , Professional LL

C Fran k A . Bettmann Attorney s fo

r Plaintif f 1506 Mountai n vie w Road , Suit e 10 1 Rapi d City % SI ) 57702-434 9 (605)348-866 2

CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I hereb y certif

y tha t I have , thi s date , serve d th e forgoing Appellant' s Brie f b y mailin g copie s to th

e followin g addresse s a s follows : Origina l an dTw o Copie s (Regula r Mail ) Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , S D 2059 1 Attention ; Hearin g Docket Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbe r Wrigh t Building , Suit

e 2W100 0 Fax:202-493-514 12/09/201 1 10:1 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A^ DM S [^008/00 8

On e Cop y Mr . Joh n C . Stuart , Jr . Enforcemen t

Div. , AGC-30 0 Offic e o f th e Chie f

Counse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington . D C 2059 1 Ms . Brian aMartin o Grea t Lake s Region , AGL- 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 230 0 Eas t

Devo n Avenu e De s Plaines , I L 60018-469 6 Date dthi s J- K

da y o f A^^V^< ^ 2011 .

BhTTMAN N HOGU E & DIEDRICH ,

Professiona l LL C Fran k A.,6etnnaii n Attorney s fo r

Plaintif f 150 6 Mountai n Vie w Road , Suit e 10 1 Rapi dCity , S D 57702-434 9 (605 ) 348-866 2