UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N , 7 5^- , FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N ^^ ^ ' '* TM 

## HEARIN G DOCKE T Federa l Aviatio n Administration ,

Complainant , V . Su n Ques t

Executiv e Ai r

Charter , Inc . Respondent. FA A Docke t N o CP0 8 WP000 4 (Civi l Penalt y Action )

DM S No . FAA-2008-023 8 Complainant' s Appea l Brie f Pursuan t t o 1 4 CF RSectio n 13.233 , th e Complainan t file s thi s brie f perfectin g it s appea l o f

th e writte n initia l decisio n i n thi s matte r tha t wa s issue do n January 26 , 2010 .

Statemen t o f th e Cas e An dRelevan t

Stipulate dFact s Th e Complainan t

allege di n it s Amende dComplain t date dMarc h 31 , 200 8 th e following : Responden t a t al l time s mentione di n th e Amende d Complain t

hel dan ai r

carrie r certificat e authorizin g i t

t o operat e unde r

par t 13 5 o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulations . After a n inspection , conducte do n Marc h 18 , 2005 , severa l problem s wer e foun dwith th e flight an dduty tim e record s for

Respondent' s pilots . I t

wa s allege dthat

durin g th e month s o f January , February £in

dMarc h o f

2005 , Mark

Smit h — wh o wa s th e o

~ 0 • : ..•./" J

• - 1 - - J ;;/JC"" 5 l a

— 1 3= - 0 ; ^President , Chie f Pilot , Chec k

Pilo t an dLin e Captai n for

Responden t

an d wh o wa s aLo s Angele s Polic e Departmen t polic e helicopte r

pilo t - wa s use da s apilo t

b y Responden t

i n part 13 5 operations . I t

wa s als o allege dtha t Fran k Kratze r (no w deceased ) wh o wa s th e Respondent' s Directo r o f Operation s wa s use da s apilo t i n Respondent' s par t

13 5 operations . Th e Complainan t

allege dtha t

Respondent' s aircraf

t flight log s an dth e flight an dduty tim e record s fo r Mark Smit h reveale dtha t

o n January 24 , 2005 , h e wa s o n duty wit h th e Responden t fo r 1 1 hours , fle w 3. 8 hour s charte r an dgav e flight

trainin g t o anothe r

o f Respondent' s pilot s fo

r 1. 3 hours . I t wa s allege dtha t

th e 1. 3 hour s o f

flight trainin g wa s no t

recorde d o n Mr . Smith' s Su n Ques t flight an dduty tim e recor dfo

r January 24 , 2005 . Thus , i t wa s allege dtha t

Respondent' s record s faile dt o provid e accurat e informatio n i n sufficien t

detai l t o determin e whethe r Mr . Smith wa s i n complianc e with th e par t

13 5 flight

an dduty limitation s for

that date . Complainan t

als o allege dtha t

th e Marc h 9 , 200 5 flight log s fo r aircraf t "N717HT " showe dthat

Mark Smit h spen t 1. 5 hour s givm g achec k rid e t o anothe r

compan y pilo t

an dlate r tha t day operate dth e aircraf

t o n a 1.9-hou r charte r flight. I t wa s allege dtha t

Respondent' s record s fo

r pilo t flight tim e onl y reflecte dth e 1.9-hou r charte r flight o n tha t dat e an dthus . Respondent s record s faile dt o provid e accurat e informatio n i n sufficientdetai l t o determin e whethe r Mr . Smith wa s i n complianc e with th e par t 13 5 flight an dduty tim e limitation s for tha t date . I t wa s als o allege d(an dthes e are th e allegation s relevan t t o thi s appeal ) tha t

Respondent' s flight

an dduty tim e record s for Mr . Smith di dno t reflec t an y o f hi s pilo t flight tim e for th e Lo s Angele s Polic e Departmen t (LAPD) . I t

wa s allege dtha t

flight tim e flown b y Mr . Smith for th e LAP D constitute d"othe r

commercia l flying" an dmus t b e tracke db y Respondent . Th e Complainan t

allege dtha t

durin g th e month o f

Februar y 2005 , Mr . Smit h serve da s pilo t

for th e LAP D o n severa l date s with atota l flight tim e fo r th e month o f 50. 4 hours . I t

wa s allege dthat

Respondent' s failure t o kee p a recor do f Mr . Smith' s pilo t

flight tim e for th e LAP D mad e Responden t unabl e at an y tim e t o determin e i f

Mr . Smit h wa s i n complianc e with th e flight an dduty limitation s foun di n part 135 . Th e Complainan t

allege dtha t

Responden t

violate dsectio n 135.63(a)(4)(vii ) whic h provides , i n pertinen t part , tha t eac h certificat e holde r shal l kee p at

it s principa l busines s offic e .. . an individua l recor do f eac h pilo t use di n operation s unde r thi s part , includin g th e followin g informatio n - th e pilot' s flight tim e i n sufficient

detai l t o determin e complianc e with th e flight tim e limitation s o f

thi s part .O n Apri l 23 , 2008 , Responden t filedit s Amende dAnswer . I n regar d t o th e issue s tha t

are th e subjec t

o f Complainant' s appea l now , Responden t admitte dthat

Mr . Smit h flew ahelicopte r

fo r 50. 4 hour s i n February 200 5 for th e LAP D an dtha t

th e Responden t

di dno t trac k thos e flight-time hours . However , Responden t

asserte dtha t

i t wa s no t require dt o kee p arecor do f thos e hour s becaus e suc h operation s fo r th e LAP D wer e "publi c aircraft " operations . Responden t

likene dflights i n LAP D aircraf t t o flights b y Ai r Forc e Nationa l Guar dpilot s i n military aircraft . Responden t asserte dtha t previou s FA A principa l operation s inspector s "approved " o f Mr . Smith' s flights i n th e LAP D helicopter s an dadvise dMr . Smith tha t suc h flying wa s no t a"commercia l flight." Responden t state dtha t

i t di dno t hav e aduty t o kee p record s o f

Mr . Smith' s LAP D flying. A hearin g wa s t o b e conducte do n January 26 , 200 9 before Administrativ e La w Judg e Richar dC . Goodwin . However , o n that date , th e judg e an dth e partie s agree dtha t th e partie s woul dsubmi t astipulate d statemen t o f th e fact s an dwritte n brief s t o th e judg e o n th e lega l issues . Th e partie s eac h submitte dopenin g briefs , repl y brief s an dpursuan t

t o th e judge' s order , supplementa l brief s o n th e lega l issue s i n thi s case . O n January 26 , 2010 , Judg e Goodwi n serve dhi s initia l decisio n i n thi s matter . I n sum , th e judg e foun dtha t Responden t

faile dt o maintai n record s o f pilo tflight/duty tim e i n sufficien t detai l t o determin e complianc e wit h th e flight tim e limitation s i n tw o ways : Firs t h e foun dthat

Respondent' s record s concernin g it s pilots ' flight tim e faile dt o recor dwhe n flight tim e began an d ende dan dthu s th e Responden t coul dno t

determin e wha t

res t wa s require d (i n term s o f

whe n i t ha dt o begi n an dho w lon g th e res t perio dha dt o be) . Second , th e judg e foun dtha t Respondent' s failure t o trac k trainin g an d chec k ride s a s "othe r

commercia l flying" don e b y Mark Smith , fo

r Respondent , violate dsectio n 135.63 . A s i s relevant

t o thi s appeal , th e judg e foun dtha t Mark Smith' s service , a s apilo t

for th e LAP D for

50. 4 hour s i n February 2005 , di dno t hav e t o b e tracke do r

recorde db y th e Respondent . Th e judg e foun dthat th e LAP D aircraf

t wa s a"publi c aircraft " an dthat".. . a s such , i s no t subjec t t o FA A jurisdiction. " Se e AL J initia l decisio n a t pag e 6 . I n support

o f hi s decision , th e AL J cite d4 9 US C Sectio n 40102(a)(41)(D ) an dU.S . v . Aer o Spacelines , Inc , 36 1 F.2 d916 , 92 1 (9 * Cir . 1966) . Th e la w judg e reduce dth e civi l penalty t o $500 0 du e t o th e totalit y o f th e circumstances . Th e Regiona l Counse l for th e Western-Pacifi c Regio n filed atimel y notic e o f appea l o f Judg e Goodwin' s decision .Issue s

1 . Whethe r

Judg e Goodwi n erre di n findin g tha t th e FA A doe s no t hav e an y jurisdictio n ove r publi c aircraf

t operations ? 2 . Whethe r

Judg e Goodwi n erre di n findin g tha t th e LAP D aircraf

t wer e "publi c aircraft " i n vie w o f amisunderstandin g o f

th e la w an di n vie w o f

th e absenc e o f

an y evidenc e —o n afligh t b y fligh t basi s - tha t

Mar k Smith' s LAP D helicopte r flight s i n Februar y 200 5 wer e eligibl e fo r

"publi c aircraft " status ? 3 . Whethe r

a n ai r carrie r mus t trac k an drecor dfligh t

tim e - a s "othe r commercia l flying " ~ accumulate db y on e o f it s pilot s whe n suc h flyin g i s conducte dfo r apolic e departmen t

(regardles s o f whethe r th e particula r

fligh t i s publi c aircraf

t o r civi l aircraft ) an dth e pilo t

i s pai db y th e polic e departmen t fo r suc h flight ? 4 . Whethe r

th e AL J erre di n reducin g th e civi l penalt y amount ?

Argumen t

1 . Judg e Goodwi n erre di n findin g tha t th e FA A doe s no t

hav e an y jurisdictio n ove r

publi c aircraf

t operations . Judg e Goodwi n erre di n finding that "publi c aircraft " operation s ar e no t subjec t t o FA A jurisdiction . Se e AL J initial decisio n at pag e 6 . Base do n hi s erroneou s conclusion , h e foun dtha t Responden t

di dno t hav e t o compl y with sectio n 135.63(a ) with regar dt o recordin g Mark Smith' s flight

o n behal f o f th e LAPD . Id . A s athreshol dmatter , nothin g i n Titl e 4 9 o f th e U S Cod e bar s th e FA A fi-omregulatin g publi c aircraf t operation s —especiall y i f suc h operation scoul dendange r "civi l aircraft " operations . Th e FA A ha s th e statutory authority t o ".. . promot e th e safet y o f civi l aircraf

t i n ai r commerc e ..[b y adoptin g rules ] tha t

th e [Administrator ] finds necessary for safet y i n ai r commerc e an dnationa l security. " See , 4 9 US C sectio n 44701(a)(5) . I f a publi c aircraf

t operatio n woul dendange r th e operatio n o f

civi l aircraft , th e FA A ha s th e statutory authority t o adop t rule s governin g publi c aircraf t operatio n i f

suc h rule s ar e necessary for th e safet y o f civi l aircraf

t operations . Whil e i t i s tru e tha t

th e FA A ha s chose n no t

t o impos e airma n certificatio n requirement s o r airworthines s certificatio n requirement s o n th e pilot s o r th e aircraf

t use di n publi c aircraf

t operations , i t

woul db e amistak e t o conclud e that

th e FA A ha s n o statutory authority t o regulat e publi c aircraf t operation s an di t

woul db e amistak e t o conclud e tha t th e FA A ha s no t issue dregulation s tha t

appl y t o an y "aircraft " operatio n —includin g publi c aircraf

t operation s —i n U S airspace . A . Th e FA A Ha s Issue dRule s That Appl y T o Operator s o f

Al l Aircraf t Conductin g Flight s i n U S Airspace , Includin g Publi c Aircraf t Operations . I t i s importan t

t o not e tha t

althoug h aflight

tha t ha s "publi c aircraft " statu s i s no t

subjec t t o man y safet

y regulation s —e.g. , th e pilo t doe s no t hav e t o hol da

n FA A pilo t

certificat e an dth e aircraf t nee dno t hav e an FA Aairworthines s certificat e —i t i s nonetheles s subjec t

t o thos e FA A regulation s tha t

ar e addresse dt o th e operator s o f "aircraft" . I n othe r

words , whil e som e FA A regulation s ar e onl y directe dt o th e operators o f "civi l aircraft " (e.g. , 91.701 , 91.7 , 91.17 ) othe r FA A rule s ar e directe dt o th e operator s o f

"aircraft " (e.g. , 91.13 , 91.11 , 91.111,91.115 , 91.119 ) an dthu s appl y t o al l operators o f

aircraf t regardles s o f

whethe r aparticular

flight doe s o r doe s no t hav e publi c aircraf

t status . Rule s that

appl y t o th e operators o f "aircraft " (i.e. , rule s tha t

d o no t distinguis h betwee n "civi l aircraft " operation s an d"publi c aircraft " operations ) generall y speaking , regulat e ho w th e operato r

o f an y aircraf

t wouldmaneuve r

an doperat e i n airspace . Se e e.g. , 1 4 CF Rsection s 91.111,91.113 , 91.115 , 91.117 , 91.119 , 91.121 , 91.130 , 91.131 , 91.133 , 91.135 , 91.137 , 91.139(c) , 91.141 , 91.173 , 91.177 , 91.17 9 91.181 , an d91.18 3 o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulations . I f governmen t

aircraf t operation s ~ tha t

happe n t o hav e publi c aircraf t statu s o n aparticular

flight ~ di dno t

hav e t o compl y wit h th e regulation s liste di n th e previou s paragraph , tha t woul db e aprescriptio n fo r deadl y chaos . Fo r

example , occasionally , th e FA A wil l issu e aNO T A M forbiddin g th e operatio n o f

aircraf t ove r o r i n th e vicinity o f

an y areavisite db y th e Presiden t o f th e Unite dStates . Se e 1 4 CF Rsectio n 91.141 . Th e prohibitio n i n tha t sectio n i s no t

limite dt o th e operators o f civi l aircraft . I t

applie s t o th eoperator s o f "aircraft. " I t

i s simpl y amistak e t o thin k tha t th e FA A doe s no t regulat e publi c aircraf

t operation s - albei t

t o alesse r

exten t tha n civi l aircraf

t operations . Furthermore , eve n i n regar dt o externa l loa doperation s an dagricultura l operations , whic h ar e governe db y FA A part s 13 3 an d13 7 respectively , th e FA A specificall y use s th e phras e "publi c aircraft " i n orde r t o excus e thos e operation s fromth e certificatio n standard s o f thos e parts , bu t

no t th e operatin g rule s o f

thos e parts . Thus , i n sectio n 133.1(c)(5) , th e FA A provide s tha t

th e certificatio n rule s o f

part 13 3 d o no t

appl y t o " aFederal , Stat e o r local governmen t

conductin g operation s with publi c aircraft" . Necessarily , tha t

means tha t

onl y subpart

B o f part 13 3 doe s no t

appl y t o publi c aircraf

t operation s wherea s provision s i n subpart s C o f tha t part woul dappl y t o publi c aircraf t externa l loa doperations . Se e als o FA A Interpretatio n 1991-25 , issu e numbe r 1 generally . Federa l Aviatio n Decision s (Clark , Boardman , Callaghan , 1991) . I n regar dt o agricultura l operations , th e FA A specificall y excuse s "publi c aircraft " operation s fromsome , bu t no t all , o f th e safet y rule s i n part

137 . Se e e.g. , 1 4 CF Rsection s 137.11(c ) an d137.29(d)(whic h excuse s pubUc aircraf t operation s fromsome , bu t no t al l o f th e operatin g rule s i n subpart C t o par t 137) .1 0

B y wa y o f

on e final example , th e FA A rule s establishin g Prohibite d Area s an dRestricte dArea s forbi dan y perso n fromoperatin g "a n aircraft " i n thos e area s contrary t o th e term s i n th e regulation s establishin g thos e areas . Se e e.g . 1 4 CF Rsection s 73.1 3 an d73.83 . I f Judg e Goodwi n i s correc t tha t th e FA A doe s no t

hav e th e statutory authority t o regulat e an y aspec t o f publi c aircraf

t operations , the n stat e an dloca l governmen t aircraf t operation s woul dno t

b e prohibite dfro mflying ove r Camp Davi dan dcertai n military base s tha t hav e airspac e designate da s Prohibite dArea s o r Restricte dAreas . Th e FA A rule s regardin g Prohibite dArea s an dRestricte dAre aappl y t o al l aircraf t operations , includin g publi c aircraf t operations . Furthermore , whe n military pilots , wh o fly military aircraf t whic h hav e publi c aircraf t status , violat e FA A safet

y rules . Congres s specificall y provide dtha t th e FA A forwardth e result s o f

it s investigatio n o f

suc h violation s t o th e military for appropriat e handling . Se e 4 9 US C sectio n 46101(b) . I f FA A rule s di dno t appl y t o thos e publi c aircraf t operation s conducte db y th e military i n U S airspace , ther e woul db e n o nee dt o hav e astatutory provisio n instructin g th e FA A t o forwar dcomplaint s abou t member s o f

th e Arme dService s t o th e appropriat e military official .1 1 B . Th e FA A Ha dan dHa s th e Statutory Authorit y T o Issu e Safet y Rule s Governin g th e Operation o f Al l Aircraf

t i n U S Airspace , Includin g Thos e Flight s That Hav e Publi c Aircraf

t Status . Th e FA A wa s create di n 195 8 i n larg e measur e t o provid e acentralize d focu s fo r aviatio n an dreplac e an ineffectiv e syste mo f diffuse dauthoritie s tha t ha devolve dove r

time. ' Th e legislativ e history o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Ac t o f 195 8 (no w substantiall y recodifie dunde r Titl e 4 9 o f

th e Unite dState s Code) , make s clear

tha t Congres s wa s creatin g an independen t agenc y wit h "plenar y authority " over

th e nation' s airspace . Se e S . REP . NO . 1811 , 85 * Cong. , 2 dSess . 7 (1958) . Th e repor t notes , o n pag e 10 , tha t

th e bil l t o creat e th e FA A i s intende dt o addres s tw o ftindamental deficiencie s i n th e Federa l Government' s aviatio n responsibilities , on e o f whic h i s a"lac k

o f clear statutory authority for

centralize dairspac e management.... " Id . Page s 1 3

- 1 5 o f th e report , concernin g "Centralize dAirspac e Management, " provid e aclear perspectiv e o f

th e Congressiona l inten t

i n creatin g th e FA A - "Th e presen t legislatio n propose s t o clear awa y thi s ambiguity onc e an dfo r al l b y vestin g unquestionabl e authority for al l aspect s o f

airspac e managemen t

i n th e Administrato r

o f th e ne w agency. " (pag e 14) ; "[T]h e Administrato r i s

' Prior to 1958 , the function s of

the FA A wer e splintered- th

e Civil Aeronautic s Authorit y unde r th e Departmen

t o f Commerce possessedday-to-da y ai r traffic control responsibilities ; the Civi l Aeronautic s Boar dpossessedacciden

t investigation an

dsafet y regulator

y responsibilities ; an

dAirway s Modernization Boar dha dresponsibilit

y fo r planning an

ddeveloping asyste

mo f ai r navigation facilities ; an

da n interagency Au

" Coordinating Committe

e had , unti l shortl

y before , reviewedall matters involving th e us e o f airspace .1 2

als o give n plenary authorit y i n th e matte r o f ai r traffi c rule s ... " (pag e 15) ; [T]h e bil l propose s t o ves t i n asingl e Administrato r plenar y authority for airspac e management . I f suc h authority i s onc e agai n fractionalizedan d mad e subjec t

t o committe e o r

pane l decision , th e evi l wil l b e continued. " (pag e 15) . Id . Furthermore , 4 9 U.S.C . § 40103(b) , state s tha t th e Administrato r

o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n shal l develo p plan s an dpolic y for th e us e o f th e navigabl e airspac e an dassig n b y regulatio n o r orde r th e us e o f airspac e a s necessary t o ensur e th e safet y o f aircraf t an dth e efficient

us e o f airspace . Th e statut e ftjither state s tha t

th e Administrato r

shal l prescrib e ai r traffi c regulation s o n th e flight o f aircraf t for : (1 ) navigation , protecting , an didentifyin g aircraft ; (2 ) protectin g individual s an dpropert y o n th e ground ; (3 ) usin g th e navigabl e airspac e efficiently ; an d(4 ) preventin g collisio n betwee n aircraft , betwee n aircraf t an dlan do r

wate r vehicles , an dbetwee n aircraf

t an dairborn e objects , (emphasi s added) . Base do n th e plai n languag e o f th e statute , th e Administrato r i s charge dwith "ensurin g th e safet y o f aircraft, " bot

h civi l an dpublic , i n th e us e o f U.S . airspace . I n vie w o f th e foregoing , th e FA A ha dth e statutory

^ Th e "evil " tha

t th e Senat e Repor t allude s to includedthe chao s tha t develope dbefor e 195 8 whe

n i t was not clea r who , i.e. , aparticula

r civilia n agenc y o r the military , ha

dth e sol e authorit y ove r ai r traffic , airspac e an

dothe r aviation safet

y issues . Th

e chao s le dt o aviation accidents , including midai r collisions .1 3

authority t o regulat e ho w al l aircraf t operators operat e i n U S airspac e i n orde r t o avoi dmidai r

collision s an di n orde r

t o protec t

peopl e o n th e ground . Sectio n 4010 3 o f

Titl e 4 9 provide s bot

h adequat e authority for

th e rule s liste dearlie r

i n thi s brie f

tha t appl y t o th e operatio n o f "aircraft" , an dfor imposin g operatin g requirement s o n anyone , includin g publi c aircraf t operators , t o ensur e th e safety o f civi l aircraf

t operations . Sectio n 44701(a)(5 ) o f

Titl e 4 9 require s th e Administrato r t o promot e saf

e flight o f civi l aircraf

t i n ai r commerc e b y prescribin g regulation s an dminimu m standard s for

othe r practices , methods , an dprocedure s th e Administrato r finds necessar y fo

r safet y i n ai r commerc e an dnationa l security . Th e FA A promote s th e saf e flight o f civi l aircraf

t b y regulatin g an y aircraf t operatio n tha t

directl y affect s o r

may endange r

safet y i n ai r commerce . Relyin g o n thi s authority , an dth e authority i n sectio n 40103 , th e FA A establishe doperatin g rule s for rotorcraf t externa l loa doperation s i n par t 133 , an dagricultura l aircraf t operation s i n part

137 . I t i s tru e tha t

th e certificatio n rule s i n Subpart B o f part s 13 3 an d13 7 expressl y exclud e publi c aircraf

t operators." ^ However , asimilar exceptio n doe s no t

exis t for th e operatin g rules . Publi c aircraf t operators ar e require dt o compl y with th e

' Se e Federal Aviatio

n Decisions , 1992-21 , 1991-2 5 (Wes t Publishing Co.) . * Section s 133.1(c)(5 ) an

d137.11(c ) exemp

t publi c aircraf

t operator s fro

mthe requiremen

t to hol da n operating certificat

e whe n conducting publi c aircraf

t operations .1 4

man y o f th e operatin g rule s i n part s 13 3 an d13 7 i n th e sam e way tha t the y ar e require dt o compl y with man y o f th e flight rule s i n Subpart

B o f par t 91. ^ Whe n Congres s authorize dth e FA A t o prescrib e regulation s an dstandard s fo r "th e operatio n o f

aircraf t tha t directl y affect s o r

may endange r

safet y i n ai r commerce " i t

mad e n o distinctio n betwee n whethe r th e regulate daircraf

t wa s civi l o r

public . C . Judg e Goodwi n Misrea dth e Ninth Circuit' s Decisions . Judg e Goodwi n cite dU.S . v . Aer o Spacelines , Inc. , 36 1 F.2 d916 , 92 1 (9" " Cir . 1966 ) a s authority for hi s finding that

th e FA A ".. . doe s no t

hav e jurisdictio n over

publi c aircraft. " Se e AL J initia l decisio n a t p . 6 . Judg e Goodwin' s relianc e o n Aer o Spaceline s for thi s propositio n i s misplaced . I n adecisio n subsequen t

t o Aer o Spacelines , th e Nint h Circui t recognize dth e limitation s o f

it s holdin g i n tha t

case . Se e U.S . v . Christensen , 41 9 F.2 d 1401 , 140 3 (9 * Cir . 1969) . Th e Nint h Circui t characterize dit s languag e i n Aer o Spaceline s a s "dicta " whe n th e Court , i n Christensen , wrote : [T]hi s court

wa s no t concerne di n Aer o Spacelines , Inc . wit h regulation s o f

th e FA A relatin g t o flight rules , no r

with instruction s for mAi r Traffi c Control . Dict afromtha t cas e shoul dno t

b e controllin g o n ou r

presen t analysis . W e therefor e distinguis h it . Ou r researc h ha s reveale dtha t Congres s recognize dth e importan t nee dfo r

' Se e the first paragraph unde

r par t A o f thi s argumen

t fo r alist of som e of thos e rule s i

n Par t 91 .1 5

flight rule s an dinstruction s fi*omAi r Traffi c Contro l t o b e applicabl e uniforml y t o al l aircraft . U.S . V . Christiansen . 41 9 F.2 d1401 , 140 3 (9 * Cir . 1969) . (emphasi s added )

Whil e i t migh t b e tru e tha t

th e FA A di dno t

hav e aregulation , i n 1966 , tha t explicitl y use dth e phras e "publi c aircraft" , i t i s highl y likel y tha t

th e FA A ha dregulation s i n 196 6 that regulate dth e operatio n "aircraft " withou t an y qualifyin g o r

limitin g languag e lik e "civi l aircraft " o r "publi c aircraft" . Furthermore , whethe r

year s ag o o r

currently , th e implicatio n o f writin g som e rule s tha t ar e limite dt o th e operators o f "civi l aircraft" , mean s tha t othe r rule s tha t ar e no t s o limite dals o appl y t o "publi c aircraft " operations . Thus , aflight tha t ha s "publi c aircraft " statu s i s onl y excuse dfromth e rule s tha t ~ o n thei r fac e ~ ar e solel y directe dt o operator s o f "civi l aircraft" . Operator s o f publi c aircraf

t flights ar e no t

excuse dtoda y (an dwer e no t excuse di n 1966 ) fromrule s that

appl y t o operators o f

"aircraft" . Moreover , a s previousl y discussed , toda y wher e th e FA A explicitl y us e th e phras e "publi c aircraft " i n it s safet

y rules , i t doe s s o t o specificall y excus e suc h operation s fromsome , bu t

no t all , o f th e relevant

regulations . Se e e.g . 1 4 CF RSection s 133.1(c)(5) , 137.11(c) , an d137.29(d) . Thus , th e judg e erre di n concludin g tha t th e FA A lack s statutory authority t o regulat e publi c aircraf t operations . Furthermore , t o th e exten t1 6

tha t th e judge' s decisio n ca n b e rea dthat th e FA A canno t

requir e an ai r carrie r t o trac k an dcoun t

nonai r carrie r activitie s b y it s pilots , whic h coul d adversel y fatigu e it s pilots , simpl y becaus e tha t nonai r carrie r activity possibl y wa s activity relate dt o th e operatio n o f apubli c aircraf

t flight (wherei n th e pilo t

wa s pai dfo

r hi s services) , th e judg e misconstrue s th e purpos e o f

th e safet y regulation s cite db y th e FAA . Th e purpos e o f

th e 135.63(a ) rul e cite dagains t th e Responden t

an dth e purpos e for

th e flight tim e limitation s impose do n Respondent , a s apart 13 5 operator , are no t

t o enhanc e th e safet

y o f "publi c aircraft " operations . Instead , thos e safet

y rules , whic h mandat e th e trackin g an dcountin g o f "othe r commercia l flying" ar e designe dt o enhanc e o r maintai n th e safet

y o f Respondent' s part

13 5 operation s an dth e par t 12 1 an dpar t

13 5 operation s o f othe r employers , tha t

migh t us e pilot s lik e Mar

k Smith wh o ar e moonlight-pilot-employee s for others . A s th e Unite dState s Court o f Appeal s for

th e Secon dCircui t

recognize di n construin g th e Federa l Aviatio n Ac t

o f 195 8 (mos t

o f whic h ha s bee n codifie dint o Titl e 4 9 o f th e U S Code) , "Th e Administrato r

di dno t ac t unreasonabl e i n placin g greate r limitation s o n .. . pilot s flying planes carryin g larg e number s o f passenger s wh o hav e n o opportunity t o selec t apilo t o f thei r ow n choice . Th e Federa l Aviatio n Ac t contemplate s jus t

suc h distinction s betwee n regulation s governin g "ai r commerce " an dthos e governin g othe r ai r transportation. "1 7

Ai r Lin e Pilot s Associatio n v . Quesada , 27 6 F.2 d89 2 (2"" ^ Ci r 1960) . Thus , i t wa s erro r for th e judg e t o rul e tha t

th e FA A ha s n o jurisdictio n over publi c aircraf

t operation s an di t

wa s erro r fo r th e judg e to , i n essence , rul e tha t FA A ai r carrie r safet y rule s canno t

forc e ai r carrier s t o coun t

towar d th e flight tim e limitation s i n part

13 5 tha t flight tim e accrue db y thei r moonlightin g pilots , fo

r compensatio n o r

hire , a s "othe r

commercia l flying".

2 . Judg e Goodwi n erre di n finding tha t th e LAP D aircraf

t wer e "publi c aircraft " i n vie w o f amisunderstandin g o f

th e la w an di n vie w o f th e absenc e o f

an y evidenc e —o n aflight b y flight basi s - tha t Mar k Smith' s LAP D helicopte r flights i n Februar y 200 5 wer e eligibl e fo r

"publi c aircraft " status . Judg e Goodwi n seem s t o mistakenl y believ e tha t an y an dal l polic e departmen t

aircraf t are "publi c aircraft. " I n support o f hi s decisio n h e cite s onl y on e o f

tw o relevan t

statutory provision s dealin g explicitl y with "publi c aircraft " an dh e cite s dict ai n th e Aer o Spaceline s decisio n b y th e Ninth Circuit . A s previousl y discussed , th e judg e misconstrue dth e impac t o f tha t decision , a s limite db y th e Nint h Circui t itsel f i n th e Christense n case . Moreover , i n th e decade s sinc e Aer o Spacelines , Congres s ha s amende dth e "publi c aircraft " statutory provision s anumbe r o f times . Th e judge' s finding tha t al l o f th e LAP D flights wer e "publi c aircraft " wa s i s erroneou s fo r severa l reasons .1 9

operation s underg o aflight b y flight analysi s t o determin e whethe r th e purpos e o f

th e flight wa s "fo r commercia l purposes " (i f i t i s fo r "commercia l purposes " the n tha t

flight operate db y agovernmenta l entity doe s no t hav e publi c aircraf

t status ) an dwhethe r

th e purpos e o f

th e flight wa s for som e statutory governmenta l purpos e (a s se t fort h i n 4 9 US C Sectio n 4012 5 —i n whic h cas e anoncommercia l governmenta l flight wouldge t "publi c aircraft " status). ^ Whe n th e governo r

o f astat e wa s kille di n a

n aircraf t operatio n i n th e 1990 s an dwhen , unde r

th e the n existin g law , i t

wa s determine dtha t

th e aircraf t ha d"publi c aircraft " status . Senato r Larry Pressle r

introduce d legislatio n t o amen dth e law . Se e FA A Advisory Circular "Governmen t Aircraf t Operations " No . 00-1.1 , date dApri l 19 , 199 5 whic h i s availabl e t o everyon e o n th e FA A websit e an dwhic h provide s som e o f th e legislativ e history concernin g thi s mater . Th e stat e governo r wa s kille dwa s o n an aircraf t operate db y hi s stat e an dth e flight's purpos e wa s t o transport th e governo r t o ameeting . Senato r

Pressle r di dno t lik e th e ide athat

a governmen t

aircraf t operatio n woul d-a t

th e tim e an di n thos e circumstance s

* Thi s i s not

a n exhaustive discussion o

f the exception s to publi c aircraf t status , including change s mad e to th e la w a t the urging o

f the Departmen

t of Defens e to mak

e mos t troop transpor

t charte r operation s b

y ai r carriers "civi l aircraft " operations , wher e befor e suc h militar y charte r operation s ha

d"publi c aircraft " status .1 8

I t appear s tha t

th e judg e erroneousl y believe s that i n orde r t o correctl y appl y th e la w i n orde r

t o mak e a"publi c aircraft " flnding, h e ha dt o loo k at th e situatio n o n a n aircraf t b y aircraf

t basi s t o determin e whethe r a Governmenta l entity operate daparticular aircraft . Thus , i t

appear s tha t

th e judg e hel dthat

i f aGovernmenta l entity , her e th e LAPD , operate s aircraft , the n thos e aircraf

t ar e "publi c aircraft. " Thi s wa s erro r becaus e unde r

th e curren t statutory provision s (an dthos e that existe di n 200 5 whe n th e violation s a t

issu e arose ) dealin g with publi c aircraft , man y governmenta l aircraf t operation s are no t

eligibl e fo

r "publi c aircraft " status . I n othe r words , toda y (an di n 2005 ) th e inquiry o n whethe r asituatio n i s a"publi c aircraft " situatio n o r

a"civi l aircraft " situation , doe s no t tur n solel y o n wh o (o r what ) operate s th e aircraft . Instead , th e inquiry - very generall y speakin g - ha s thre e parts : First , i s th e Governmen t (directl y o r

i n som e instance s b y contract ) conductin g th e aircraf t operation ? Second , i s th e aircraf t operatio n "fo r

commercia l purposes " o r not ? And , thir ddoe s tha t operatio n mee t

a"governmenta l fimction" purpos e a s outline di n 4 9 US C Sectio n 40125 ? I n othe r

words , man y governmenta l aircraf t operation s hav e "civi l aircraft " status . Th e analysi s i s no t whethe r th e governmen t

own s th e aircraf t o r whethe r th e governmen t

operate s th e aircraft . Th e aircraf t itsel f i s no t a"publi c aircraft" . Instead , th e la w require s tha t governmen t

aircraf t2 0

- merel y hav e a"publi c aircraft " leve l o f safety . H e wante dgovernmenta l aircraf t operation s t o hav e "civi l aircraft " statu s —eve n i n noncommercia l situation s —unles s th e governmenta l aircraf t operatio n wa s t o accomplis h a governmenta l ftmction. Se e generall y 4 9 US C Sectio n 4012 5 whic h i s title d "Qualificatio n for

Publi c Aircraf

t Status " an dse e FA A Advisor y Circular "Governmen t

Aircraf t Operations " No . 00-1.1 , date dApri l 19 , 1995 . Th e FAA' s Advisor y Circular 00-1. 1 wa s issue di n majo r par t t o explai n th e FAA' s interpretatio n o f th e amendment s tha t

Senato r Pressle r an dother s mad e t o th e la w regardin g publi c aircraf t b y enactmen t

o f th e Independen t Safet y Boar dAc t

Amendment s o f

199 4 (P.L . 103-411) . A s th e FA A explaine di t

it s advisor y circular , th e genera l purpos e o f th e 199 4 amendment s wa s t o "exten dFA A regulatory oversigh t t o som e governmen t aircraf t operations. " Advisor y Circular 00-1. 1 at pag e 2 . Significantly , th e FA A state dthat".. . Congres s determine dthat government-owne daircraft , whic h operat e fo

r commercia l purpose s o r

engag e in th e transpor t

o f passengers , shoul db e subjec t t o regulation s applicabl e t o civi l aircraft. " Id . (italic s adde dt o emphasiz e th e poin t tha t i f th e LAP D helicopte r

operatio n

' As ha s bee

n discussedi

n mor e detail i n th e Complainant' s argumen

t concerning issu

e numbe r 1 , i t should b e notedtha

t althoug h afligh t tha t ha s "publi c aircraft " statu s i s not subject t o man y safet y regulation s — e.g. , the pilot

doe s not have to holda

n FA A pilot certificat e an dth e aircraf t neednot have a n FA A airworthines s certificat

e —i t i s nonetheles s subjec

t t o thos e FA A regulation s tha

t ar e addressedto th

e operator s o

f "aircraft" . I

n othe r words , while som

e FA A regulation s ar

e onl y du-ecte dto th e operators o

f "civil aircraft " (e.g. , 91.701 , 91.7 , 91.17 ) othe r FA A rule s ar e directedt

o the operator s of

"aircraft " (e.g. , 91.13 , 91.11 , 91.111 , 91.115 , 91.119 ) an dthu s appl y t o all operator s o

f aircraf t regardles s o

f whethe r a particula r fligh t doe s o r doe s no t hav e publi c aircraf

t status .2 1

wa s merel y t o transpor t

th e Chie f o f Polic e fi"omon e poin t

t o anothe r

poin t for ameetin g —an di f

tha t di dno t mee t th e "governmenta l fimction " analysi s i n th e statute , the n tha t flight woul dno w (an dsinc e 1994 ) hav e "civi l aircraft " status) . Fo r purpose s o f

th e lega l issue s o n appea l here , th e FA A advisory circular cite dabov e provide s th e FAA' s interpretatio n o f th e relevan t statutory fi-amework. A t

th e tim e o f

th e 199 4 amendment s an da t th e tim e th e advisory circular

wa s publishe di n 1995 , th e definitio n for "publi c aircraft " an dth e "governmenta l fimction " languag e wer e al l containe di n the n Sectio n 40102(a)(37 ) o f Titl e 4 9 o f

th e U S Code . Sinc e that time , Congres s edite dTitl e 4 9 i n regar dt o th e publi c aircraf t provisio n (an dadde d som e othe r

provisions , especiall y i n regar dt o certai n airlin e flights chartere d b y th e DO D t o carry soldier s t o hav e "civi l aircraft " statu s tha t are no t relevan t for thi s case ) b y movin g th e la w abou t publi c aircraf

t int o tw o section s o f

tha t Titl e o f th e U S code , t o wit : 4 9 US C section s 40102(a)(41 ) an d40125 . I n vie w o f

th e FAA' s ow n Advisory Circular interpretin g statutory provisions . Judg e Goodwi n erre dt o th e exten t tha t h e foun dtha t

th e LAP D flights b y Mar k

Smith wer e "publi c aircraft " solel y becaus e the y wer e conducte db y agovernmenta l entity (an dno t "fo r commercia l purposes " a s2 2

tha t phras e ha s bee n interprete dove r th e years) . I n fact , th e la w require s a flight b y flight analysi s suc h tha t

som e flights b y agovernmenta l entity — eve n th e LAP D —coul dhav e civi l aircraf t statu s i f th e purpos e o f

th e flight i s simpl y t o transpor t

passenger s (e.g. , th e Chie f o f Polic e o r th e Mayor ) t o a speakin g engagement

an dth e flight

i s no t typ e o f flight tha t wouldge t "publi c aircraft " statu s unde r th e example s liste da s "governmenta l function " an da s expounde dupo n b y th e FAA . ^ Furthermore , th e recor ddoe s no t reflec t tha t th e judg e ha dan y evidenc e befor e hi mtha t

th e purpos e fo

r eac h o f th e LAP D flights conducte db y Mark

Smit h me t th e "governmenta l function " tes t i n 4 9 US C sectio n 40125 . Th e Responden t raise dth e "publi c aircraft " issu e a s a n affirmativ e defense . Th e Respondent , therefore , shoul dhav e presente d evidenc e i n support

o f hi s affirmativ e defens e tha t suc h flights ha dpubli c aircraf t statu s unde r

4 9 US C sectio n 40125 . A s th e AL J note di n footnot e 5 o f hi s decision , th e Complainan t di dno t stipulat e tha t

Mark Smith' s LAP D flights wer e "publi c aircraft. "

' I t i s importan

t t o not e her e tha t eve n befor e th e 199 4 statutor y amendment, i

f agovernmenta

l entit y operatedits aircraf

t fo r a"commercia

l purpose " —eve

n unde r the ol dstatutor y provision s dealing wit

h "publi c aircraft"

—suc h "commercia

l purposes " flights b

y governmenta

l entitie s wouldnot

have public aircraf t status , bu t woul dinstea dhav e "civil aircraft " status . Thus , t o th e exten t tha t Judge Goodwi

n foun d tha t a n aircraf t operation' s statu s as "publi c aircraft " o r "civi l aircraft " turn s solel

y o n whethe r a governmenta

l entit y operate s the flight

o r not , h e wa s mistake

n unde r the curren t la w an deve n unde r th e pre-199 4 la

w wherei n "commercia

l purposes " flights b

y the governmen

t wer e considered"civi l aircraft " operations .2 3

Finally , i f an aircraf t operatio n ha d"publi c aircraft " statu s an di f a pilot , lik e Mark

Smith , wa s compensate dfo r tha t flight b y apubli c entity like th e LAPD , the n tha t

flight wa s "othe r

commercia l flying". Sinc e tha t flying woul db e "othe r

commercia l flying", ai r

carrier s ar e require dt o trac k an drecor dtha t

flight tim e unde r

sectio n 135.63(a)(4(vii) . Th e inquiry doe s no t tur n o n whethe r

aflight ha d"civi l aircraft " statu s o r "publi c aircraft " status " i n orde r

fo r th e flight t o b e considere d"othe r

commercia l flying" a s t o th e pilot . Instead , th e inquiry turn s o n whethe r th e pilo t wa s arequire d pilo t for th e flight an dwhethe r

th e pilo t wa s pai dfor

hi s pilotin g services . 3 . A a n ai r

carrie r mus t trac k an drecor dflight

tim e - a s ''othe r commercia l flying" ~ accumulate db y an y o f it s pilot s whe n suc h flying i s conducte dfo r

apolic e departmen t

(regardles s o f

whethe r th e particula r

flight i s publi c aircraf

t o r civi l aircraft ) an dwhe n th e pilo t i s pai db y th e polic e departmen t fo r suc h flight. Th e focu s b y Judg e Goodwi n o n whethe r o r no t Mark Smith' s flights, a s apolic e officer/pilot , fo r th e LAPD , wer e "publi c aircraft " create dared

herring . I t

i s tru e tha t

th e FA A ha s no t

issue dan y rule s tha t

limi t th e Federal , Stat e o r

Loca l government s i n t o regar dflight tim e for governmen t2 4

pilot s wh o ar e conductin g an y part 9 1 operation s fo

r thei r government/employer s (civi l aircraf t o r publi c aircraf

t operations). ' Bu t thi s i s ared-herrin g becaus e th e actual regulatio n promulgate db y th e FA A an dcite db y th e Complainan t i n thi s matte r

wa s directe dt o th e Responden t

a s aPar t 13 5 operator . Th e FA A ha s th e statutory authority t o requir e thos e engage di n ai r commerc e t o consider , evaluate , trac k an ddeal with thing s tha t occur , fo r example , outsid e o f

th e aviatio n environmen t becaus e thos e thing s coul d adversel y affec t

aviatio n safet

y later . Consequently , th e FA A test s fo r th e presenc e o f

certai n illici t

drug s i n safet

y sensitiv e personnel . Evidenc e o f th e presenc e o f

suc h drugs , eve n i f

ingeste dhours , day s o r

week s ago , i s a basi s for preventin g tha t

perso n firomengagin g i n safet y sensitiv e ai r

carrie r work unti l i t can b e demonstrate dtha t th e perso n ha s no t

suffere dadvers e effect s fi*omsuc h dru g use . Similarly , i n th e are ao f anti-fatigu e rule s fo

r pilots , th e FA A ha s issue dsafet y rule s that

limi t th e daily , quarterl y an d annual on-deman dpart

13 5 flight

tim e tha t an y on e ai r

carrie r pilo t can

' However , i t

shoul db e kep t

i n min dthat

i f aStat e o r

Loca l governmen t conduct s acommo n carriag e operatio n i n whic h i t carrie s th e peopl e o r propert y o f

anothe r fo r compensatio n o r

hire , suc h operation s are governe d b y part s 11 9 an d13 5 o r

121 . Consequently , suc h operation s ar e directl y subjec t t o part 12 1 an dpar t

13 5 flight

tim e limitation s fo

r th e benefi t

o f th e revenu e passenger s an drevenu e cargo . Fo r example , som e State s engag e i n compensatio n o r

hir e ai r ambulanc e operations . Suc h operation s ar e subjec t t o part 11 9 an dpart s 13 5 o r

121 .2 5 performfor

th e on-deman dai r

carrier . Include di n th e "fligh t time " limitation s calculation s i s tha t flight tim e tha t i s classifie da s "othe r commercia l flying". Par t 135/12 1 flying plu s "othe r commercia l flying" count s towar dth e daily , quarterl y an dannua l flight tim e limit s impose do n part 13 5 on-deman dai r

carriers . Se e 1 4 CF RSectio n 135.267(a ) an d(b) . Tha t "othe r commercia l flying" coul db e part 9 1 ferr y o r positionin g flights tha t

th e pilo t perform s fo

r th e ai r carrie r whe n n o revenu e passenger s o r carg o ar e o n board . Suc h othe r commercia l flying whe n done , for example , at

th e beginnin g o f

th e ai r carrie r pilot' s duty day , count s towar d th e dail y flight

tim e limits . Se e FA A Interpretatio n 1993-9 , Federa l Aviatio n Decision s (Clark , Boardman , Callagha n 1993) . I t count s towar d th e dail y limit s becaus e th e agenc y want s t o avoi do r reduc e th e danger s o f fatigu e tha t

migh t develo p later

i n th e pilot' s duty day whe n revenu e passenger s o r

carg o ar e o n boar dth e aircraf t bein g operate dunde r

part s 12 1 o r 135 . Similarly , "othe r

commercia l flying" include s an y nonmilitary flying (othe r tha n ai r transportation ) tha t

th e pilo t perform s a s arequire dflight crewmembe r

an dfo r whic h h e o r

sh e i s pai dfor

he r pilotin g services . Se e FA A Interpretatio n 1991-45 , Answe r t o Issu e #3 , Federa l Aviatio n Decision s ( Clark , Boardman , Callaghan , 1991) . Thus , i f apilo t moonlight s2 6

b y flying acorporat e aircraf t operatin g unde r

par t 91 , tha t flying i s considere d"othe r

commercia l flying" a s t o th e pilo t whe n tha t

pilo t i s a require dflight

crewmembe r

an dwhe n tha t

pilo t i s compensate dfor

th e pilotin g services . Thus , th e judg e erredi n finding tha t Mark Smith' s LAP D flying wa s no t subjec t t o bein g counte db y th e Respondent , apar t 13 5 operator , for purpose s o f

complyin g with sectio n 135.63 . Th e purpos e fo r th e recordkeepin g rul e cite di n thi s cas e an dth e purpos e for th e underlyin g flight tim e limitation s i n par t

13 5 i s t o reduc e th e chance s o f flight tim e fatigu e i n th e Respondent' s part 13 5 operation s whe n i t

use dMark

Smith . I n issuin g flight

tim e limitations , that

include d"othe r

commercia l flying", th e FA A undoubtedl y wa s concerne dtha t anonpar t 11 9 employe r

o r eve n a part 11 9 employe r

(e.g. , apar t

11 9 employe r

usin g it s pilot s at

th e beginnin g o f th e day o r

th e middl e o f

th e day for

"ferry " flight

o r positionin g flights) an dpossibl y th e pilo t

himsel f woul dpu t

privat e economi c gai n o r flnancial consideration s ove r

th e potential dangerou s consequence s o f alo t o f "othe r commercia l flying"). Thus , th e FA A require s part 13 5 operator s t o trac k

an d coun t (for purpose s o f

par t 13 5 flight

tim e limits ) othe r

commercia l flying conducte db y it s pilots . Se e e.g. , South Aero , FA A Orde r No . 96- 4 (February 13 , 1996) , p.7 .2 7

4 . Th e AL J erre di n reducin g th e civi l penalt y amount . Th e AL J reduce dth e amoun t o f th e civi l penalty becaus e h e di dno t find tha t th e regulation s wer e violate di n regar dt o th e failure b y Responden t t o trac k an drecor dMark

Smith' s LAP D flights a s "othe r commercia l flying". H e als o state dtha t

h e believe dtha t

th e FA A ha dallowe dth e Responden t t o ignor e suc h LAP D flights a s othe r commercia l flying earlier . Th e Complainan t

believe s that

th e judg e erre di n regar dt o th e "publi c aircraft " red-herrin g an dtha t thi s erro r cause dhi mt o mistakenl y conclud e tha t Responden t

di dno t violat e sectio n 135.63(a ) regardin g Mark Smith' s LAP D flying. I f

th e Decisionmake r

agree s that

th e Responden t

violate d sectio n 135.63(a ) for

failin g t o trac k

an drecor dMark

Smith' s LAP D flying a s "othe r commercia l flying" fo

r purpose s o f

adherin g t o part

13 5 "fligh t time " limitatio n provisions , the n Complainan t submit s tha t

th e civi l penalty amoun t shoul db e mor e tha n th e $500 0 amoun t se t b y th e judge . I n vie w o f th e judge' s findings regardin g sanctio n an di n vie w o f th e totalit y o f

th e circumstances , th e Complainan t submit s tha t

a$20,00 0 civi l penalt y fo r al l th e violation s foun dshoul db e impose db y th e Decisionmaker . Conclusio n I n vie w o f

th e foregoing , th e Complainan t respectfiill y request s that th e Administrato r

findtha t Responden t

violate dth e sectio n 135.63(a)(4)(vii ) b y2 8

failin g t o trac k

an dcoun t

Mark Smith' s LAP D flights a s "othe r commercia l flying" for

purpose s o f

keepin g record s i n sufficien t detai l t o determin e whethe r Mr . Smith' s flight

tim e unde r

par t 135 , an dhi s othe r

commercia l flying, wouldo r

wouldno t

excee dth e flight

tim e limitation s i n sectio n 135.267 . Moreover , th e Complainan t request s tha t

th e Administrato r

revers e th e judge' s findings regardin g "publi c aircraft " an drequest s tha t th e Administrato r

findtha t h e ha s th e statutory authority t o regulat e "publi c aircraft " operations , tha t

th e FA A ha s rule s i n plac e that regulat e aircraf

t operations , includin g publi c aircraf t operations , an dtha t

eve n i n Mr . Smith s LAP D flights wer e "publi c aircraft' i n natur e — the y nonetheles s ar e "othe r commercia l flying" an dshoul dhav e bee n tracke dan dcounte db y Respondent . Finally , th e Complainan t request s that

i f th e Decisionmake r grant s thi s appeal , tha t

th e Decisionmake r

impos e acivi l penalt y o f $20,000 . Respectfiill y submitted , Josep h A . Cont e tManager , Ai r

Carrie r an dOperation s La w Enforcemen t

Division , AGC-30 0 Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Washington , D C 2059 1 20 2 26 7 738 1 Counse l for

Complainan t2 9 Certificat e o f

Servic e I hereb y certif

y tha t o n thi s dat e I place di n th e Unite dState s Mail , postag e prepaid , th e origina l o f th e attache ddocumen t

(Complainant' s Appea l Brief

) an d2 copies , addresse dto :
Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washingto n D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g —Suit e 2W100 0

An dacop y sen t

b y fa x an db y Unite dState s Mail , postag e prepaid , atru e cop y addresse dt o
Arthu r Wasserman , Esq . Wasserma n & Mille r 1638 0 Rosco e Blvd. , Suit e 120 VanNuys,C A 91406-122 1 Fax : 80 8 89 5 067 5 Dated : Marc h 16,201 0

Donn aM . Davi s