BEFORETHE. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In the matter of the cancellation ofthe 

Air Taxi authority issued to: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket DOT -OST -2012-0022 

VIH COUGAR HELICOPTERS, INC. 

REDACTED VERSION 

) 

) ___________________________ ) 

OPPOSITION OF PETROLEUM HELICOPTERS, INC., NORTHERN PIONEER 

HELICOPTERS LLC, AND SOLOY HELICOPTERS LLC TO VIH COUGAR 

HELICOPTERS, INC. AND CONSTRUCTION HELICOPTERS, INC.'S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF FINAL ORDER AND FOR A HEARING 

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to: 

John Longstreth 

Timothy Hobbs 

K&L.Gates LLP 

1601 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006-1600 

202-778-9100 (fax) 

john.longstreth@klgates.com 

tim.hobbs@klgates.com 

202-661-6271 

206-370-7664 
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

W ASHINGTONt DC 

In the matter ofthe cancellation of the 

Air Taxi authority issued to: 

VIH COUGAR HELICOPTERS, INC. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

------------------------~-) 

Docket DOT -OST -2012-0022 

REDACTED VERSION 

OPPOSITION OF PETROLEUM HELICOPTERS, INC., NORTHERN PIONEER 

HELICOPTERS LLC, AND SOLOY HELICOPTERS LLC TO VIH COUGAR 

HELICOPTERS, INC. AND CONSTRUCTION HELICOPTERS, INC.'S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF FINAL ORDER AND FOR A HEARING 

Continuing its campaign to delay the inevitable revocation of its air tax exemption 

authority due to its flagrant non-compliance wi~ U.S. citizenship requirements, VIH Cougar 

Helicopters, Inc. ("VIH Cougar''), joined by Construction Helicopters, Inc. ("CHI"),1 has moved 

for reconsideration ofthe Department's Final Order in this proceeding, Order 2013-6-8, revoking 

that authority effective September 9, 2013. There is no basis for the Motion and it should be 

denied? 

1 CHI has not previously participated in this docket and its participation in the pleading is unexplained. 

CHI is not a shareholder in Vlli Cougar, though its President and sole owner Christopher Turner set up a 

holding company to receive, for $10, a 76% "ownership" share in VIH Cougar. That 76% share was 

transferred to Mr. Turner's holding company from the lawyer for the VIH Group of companies controlled 

by Mr. Kenneth Norie, whom the Department has also found to actually control VIH Cougar. 2 VIH Cougar's motion is untimely under 14 C.F.R. § 302.14(a)(2). VIH Cougar nevertheless asks that 

the Department rule by July 16, 2013. VIH Cougar waited three weeks to file its motion; yet for 

unexplained reasons seeks a decision within only two weeks. · the · to 

schedule its business at VIH 

1 
I. The Motion Directly Contravenes the Department's Express Direction That 

Reconsideration Motions Will Not Be Entertained 

The Department's Final Order states clearly that "since we have allowed for objections to 

our tentative findings, we will not entertain a petition for reconsideration of this order."3 As the 

Order sets out in Appendix A, VIH Cougar filed at least four separate pleadings and made at 

least two supplemental evidentiary submissions in response to the Department's tentative 

conclusion that its air taxi exemption authority should be revoked. VIH Cougar has had many, 

many bites at the apple. And as Order 2013-6-8 correctly found, none of these submissions 

provided any basis whatsoever on which to alter the Department's conclusion that VIH Cougar 

does not meet the applicable U.S. citizenship requirements. Indeed, the material confirmed, in 

numerous ways, VIH Cougar's origins and continuing operations as a front company controlled 

by a Canadian citizen for the purpose of unlawfully engaging in U.S. air transportation. 

Throughout the Department's careful and lengthy consideration of this matter, legitimate 

U~S. operators such as Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. ("PHI"), Northern Pioneer Helicopters LLC, 

and Soloy Helicopters LLC have been subjected to continuing illegal competition from VIH 

Cougar. Particularly in light of the blatancy of VID Cougar's violations, which warrant strong 

sanctions in addition to revocation of its air taxi authority,4 the Department's action is long 

overdue, and any additional delay would be especially unwarranted. 

Order 2013-6-8, at 18 n.49. 4 The Department states that it has referred various issues concerning the activities of VIR Cougar and the 

VIH Group to the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings for appropriate action, Order 2013-6-

8 at nn. 33 & 48. · 

2 
·II. The Motion for Reconsideration Is Meritless In Any Event 

Even if the Motion were considered and accepted notwithstanding the Department's prior 

direction and its untimeliness, it provides no basis on which to alter the Department's 

conclusions. Rather, like many . of Vlli Cougar's prior submissions, it strengthens the 

Department's conclusion that VIH Cougar's authority should be revoked. 

A. The Motion Is Based On The Department's Purported Failure To 

Consider Material That VIR Cougar Did Not Provide For The 

Record 

The primary basis of the Motion for Reconsideration is that the Final Order failed to 

consider by Mr. Turner 

- The short answer to this contention is that if VIH Cougar wanted that material 

considered in this proceeding it could have sought to provide it at that time. Instead, VIH 

Cougar chose to rely on the record as it was completed after its final submission on January 3, 

2013. 

VIH Cougar does not provide any authority suggesting that the Department was not 

entitled to act on the basis of ~e record before it in this proceeding, much less that it was 

somehow obligated to seek out and address information that VIH Cougar was surely aware of 

(its counsel having represented Mr. Turner but chose not to provide. 

Likewise, there is no basis, and VIH Cougar cites none, for the assertion that the Final Order is 

"replete with errors" bec~use it relies on thy record of this proceeding rather than. incl)lding the 

extra record material VIH Cougar now seeks to introduce after the fact. 

VIH Cougar also faults the Department for taking it at its word that CHI provides 

contract services to VIH Group as well as VIH Cougar, claiming that this is based on a 

5 Motion, at 1. 

3 
typographical error in a document VIH Cougar provided.6 VIH Cougar chides the Department 

for not recognizing that this statement was erroneous. Again, the appropriate time for VIR 

Cougar to have advised the Department of an error in its own submission was when the 

submission was made, not months later .. But in any event, as discussed next; even if all this 

information were considered there would still be no basis for the Department to change its order 

revoking VIH Cougar's air taxi authority. 

B. The Material VIH Cougar Belatedly Seeks To Add To The Record 

Fully Supports The Department's Conclusion That Vffi Cougar's 

Air Taxi Authority Must Be Revoked. 

A review of Mr. Turner's -.suggests why VIH Cougar decided not to introduce 

it into the record previously, even though it now seeks to do so in a last ditch effort to head off 

the Department's Final Order. 

In other words, VIH Cougar represents that the target has moved since the time of the 

submissions on which the Department relied in its Final Order, and claims that the Department 

must take these belated (and previously undisclosed) changes into account by revising its Final 

Order. 

VIH Cougar has things exactly backwards. The changes to which 11r. Turner refers, 

even assuming they are an adequate basis to reverse the Department's determination, which they 

are not, are not evidence of a lack of control over VIH Cougar by the VIH Group. -. 

6 Motion, at I, 3 n.2. 

4 
In fact, discloses much that confirms the Department's conclusion that 

VIH Cougar's presentation of itself as an independent U.S. company is a sham. -

Whatever the original purpose, the fact remains that, as found in the Final Order 

VIH Cougar's purpose has always been to service .the U.S. operations of the 

same customers VIH Group serv.ices in Canada. Indeed, the VIH Group's website initially held 

out VIH Cougar as a direct subsidiary of VIH Group. 11 

Dkt. No. DOT-OST~2012-0022-0050 (May 4, 2012); at Exhibit A. 

5 
The identity. of VJH Cougar and. the VIH Group for these customers was expressly 

acknowledged by Mr. Turner 

This acknowledgement 

-

also puts the lie to VIH Cougar's assertions with respect to 

Mr. Bill MacDonald, the Canadian citizen who acted as the General Manager of Vlli Cougar 

while simultaneously managing U.S. operations for another of Mr. Norie's subsidiaries,-

12 - at 243-44 (emphasis added). 

13 See Dkt. No. DOT-OST-2012-0022-0050 (May 4, 2012) at 12. 14 Motion, at Ex. A, at 3-4, 10, 15. 

15 Order 2013-6-8 at 14. 

6 
Mr. Turner's - confirms the correctness of the Department's Final Order in 

many other ways as well. 

1. 

2. 

-

3. 

16-95. 

17 Jd. at 244-245. 

18 !d. at 227, 239; see id,. at 72-74. 19 Id. at 84, 238; see id. at 196-197. 20 !d. at 78-79, 83, 85. 

7 
4. 

how companies in a true arm's length relationship would be expected to behave. 

8 
5 . 

. 6. 

25 Jd at 196. 

26 Jd. at 149, 151. 

27 Jd at 59-60, 73. 28 I d. at 63-65 .. 29 Final Order at 6. 3

a -·at 98-99, 107. 31 Id at 100-101. 

9 
7. 

In light of all of this, and of the many other findings the Department has as made, VIH 

Cougar's suggestion that consideration of Mr. Turner's - would require a reversal of the 

Department's Order (were the Department required to consider it, which it is not), is entirely· 

without basis. VIH Cougar's suggestion that the Department's Final Order is "replete with 

errors" because it did not take account of assertions made in that deposition is likewise without 

basis, and unjustly attempts. to impugn the Department's thorough consideration of this matter. 

32 !d. at 62, 67. 33 Id. at 126-128, 1 

34 !d. at 243-244 

10 
C. The Department's Final Order Correctly Relied Upon The Record 

Before The Agency. 

None of the 17 enumerated "factual errors" in the Final Order alleged by VIH Cougar 

reflects an erroneous characterization of the record before the agency as of January 3, 2013 when 

VIH Cougar made its final submission to the Department in this proceeding.35 In particular, VIH 

Cougar challenges the Department's findings that it has obtained inventory, services and 

empioyees from VIH Group. 36 Yet VIH Cougar's own explanation of these asserted "errors" 

makes clear that VIH Cougar is simply referencing matters that are not of record. For instance, 

VIH Cougar states: 

The Department's Final Order was based on the record before the agency through VIR 

Cougar's final submission on January 3, 2013. ·Reconsideration is not appropriate as to matters 

that could have been brought to a decisiomaker's attention earlier but were not.41 VIH Cougar 

35 See Motion, Ex. A. 36 See. Motion, Ex. A, at 4~~. 7-8, 12. 37 Motion, Ex. A, at 5. 38 !d., Ex. A, at 8 (emphasis added). 39 !d., Ex. A, at 12 (emphasis added). 40 !d., Ex. A, at 13. 41 See 14 C.F.R. § 302.14(b); see also Silvas Air Lines, Order Denying Petition for Reconsideration, 88 

C.A.B. 1207, 1209, 1981 WL 29693 (Mar. 30, 1981) (applying predecessor to § 302.14 to deny 

reconsideration in circumstances similar to those here, stating that, "Withholding information which could 

have been discovered earlier until after the Board has made its decision frustrates the purposes of the 

Rule, the need for notice, for finality of Board action, and for preservation of Board resources."); cf In 

11 
had many months after the Department's Order to Show Cause to provide information and advise 

the Department as to the fixes it proposed, and the Department acted on the record VIH Cougar 

provided. The rules properly recognize that proceedings cannot go on indefinitely while parties 

backfill with material they could and should have presented earlier, and those rules have 

particular application to this proceeding, in which VIH was given many, many opportunities to 

make its case. 

PHI pointed out at length in its Motion for Final Disposition the various arrangements 

whereby VIH Cougar was wholly dependent upon VIH Group for assets, maintenance, 

personnel, and business opportunities.42 VIH Cougar never disputed the factual basis of PHI's 

contentions. In fact VIH Cougar openly acknowledged the pervasive relationships between it 

and VIH Group but asserted that those relationships were completely irrelevant to the inquiry 

before the Department: "PHI's reliam;e on the fact- fully disclosed by VIH Cougar- that VIH 

Cougar leases helicopters and purchases certain services from companies affiliated with Mr. 

Norie, and pays for those leases and services, is unavailing."43 Yet VIH Cougar n0w f~ults the 

Department for failing to recognize recent, extra-record evidence about how VIH Cougar 

modified some of. these relationships that it previously claimed were irrelevant to this 

proceeding. The Department properly relied upon the facts in the record before it. 

the Matter of Sorens.en Grain Company, Inc., Docket No. DOT-FHWA-1997-2537, Order Denying 

Petition for Reconsideration (Apr. 22, 2004), at 2-3 ("The purpose of a petition for reconsideration is not 

to provide a party with a second opportunity to submit that which it was required to have submitted 

earlier. It is to allow the party to argue that, based upon the evidence submitted, the decision issued was 

in error."). · 42 PHI's Motion for Final Disposition, Docket No. DOT-OST-2012-0022-0088 (Oct. 31, 2012), at 5-7, 9-

10. 

43 VIH Cougar's Response to PHI's Motion for Final Disposition, Docket No. DOT-OST-2012-0022-

0090 (Nov, 9, 2012) at7. 

12 
D. Asserted "Factual Errors" In The Final Order Are In Any Event 

Simply VIH Cougar's Disagreements With The Department's 

Conc1usions 

Seeking to create the false impression that the Final Order is somehow infirm, VIH 

Cougar repeatedly tries to characterize as "factual errors" its disagreement with conclusions the 

Department drew based on uncontested facts in the record.· 

Three of the 17 purported errors (Motion, Ex. A, Nos. 3, 7 and 15) in the Final Order 

involve the role of Bill MacDonald, the Canadian citizen who at one point ran both Cougar and 

VIH Cougar' 

- But of course the lease is linked to a specific aircraft. This is a distinction without 

a difference and does not change the fact that VIR Group unlawfully engaged in cabotage by 

providing both aircraft and crew to VIH Cougar for use in U.S. operations. 

44 Motion, Ex. A, at 15 (emphasis added). 

13 
Several more Of the purported "errors" relate to the Department's findings that the 

various contracts between VIH Cougar and VIH Group affiliates were not arm's length 

transactions.45 VIH Cougar asserts that these agreements were arm's length merely because they 

were negotiated by Mr. Turner, did not mandate VIH Cougar to use VIH Group's services, and 

could be terminated by VlH Cougar. The Department acknowledged these facts in the Final 

Order but found them unconvincing, noting that the agreements are "nearly identical" to those 

that Mr. Steeper negotiated and allow VIH Cougar to "request various services from VIH Group 

on a cost-plus basis or fee basis" but on unspecified or vague terms that indicate the agreements 

were not in fact negotiated at an arm's length basis.46 And as noted above, Mr. Turner's • 

-reflects numerous other ways in ~hich VIH Cougar fails to keep at arm's length from 

Mr. Norie. 

VIH Cougar's other asserted factual "errors" are barely worth discussing. VIH Cougar 

asserts it was not really "obligated". to hire 

VIH Cougar takes issue with the 

statement that ~~all of the Rescue Specialists used in its operations are contractors provided by 

Cougar," VIH 

Cougar asserts that:the~artment somehow erred in stating that VIH Cougar failed to disclose 

the role of Larry Lippert.byTesponding that Mr~ Lippert has smce 

45 1d. Nos. 5, 7, 11. 46 Final Order at 12. 47 Motion, Ex. A, No. 13. 48 Id., No. 9. 

14 
- None of these inconsequential and meritless complaints warrants reconsideration of 

the Final Order. 

The remaining factual "errors" raised by VIH Cougar are either premised on recent, extra 

record evidence that only provides further support for the Department's conclusions as discussed 

above, 5° or stem from an alleged typographical error in VIH Cougar's own filing that similarly 

does not change the fundamental problems the Department found and thus provides no cause for 

reconsideration. 51 

VIH Cougar thus continues its pattern of providing inconsistent and contradictory 

statements to the Department in connection with this proceeding, while at the same time making 

false as.serti~ns that it is the Department that has somehow acted improperly. -

As has often been the case in 

the past, even VIH Cougar (and now apparently CHI as well) evidently have trouble keeping 

track of their pervasive relationships with the VIH Group. 

III. Conclusion 

VIH Cougar has failed to offer any sound basis whatsoever for reconsideration of the 

Department's conclusion that VIH Cougar's air taxi exemption authority should be revoked, and 

the Motion for Reconsideration should be denied. The Department should continue its 

investigation into the sanctions appropriate for VIH Cougar's and VIH Group's violations, past 

49 Id., Ex. A, No. 14. 50 See id., Nos. 4, 6, 10, 12, 14. 51 See id., Nos. 1, 2, 3, 11, 16, 17. 52 Motion, Ex. A, p. 4. . 53 See id. at 16 ("the only services that CHI provides [to VIH Group] are to GAO FBO Services, Inc., 

beginning on May 1, 2013 and consisting of an FBO manager and three linemen"). 

15 
and continuing. The Department should also maintain vigilance to assure that Mr. Norie and his 

companies are not allowed to reap gains from their illegal activities through ongoing 

arrangements with VIH Cougar or, after its authority is terminated, with CHI. Mr. Norie's 

apparent problem now is how to extricate himself from the illegal structures he has created while 

still trying to capture the value of the investments he made as the true owner in interest of the 

' illegal entity VIH Cougar. The Department should make sure he does not get away with that. 

Dated: July 12, 2013 Respectfully submitted, 

John Longstreth 

Timothy Hobbs 

K&L Gates LLP 

1601 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20016 

Counsel for Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., Northern 

Pioneer Helicopters LLC, and Salay Helicopters 

LLC 

16 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that I have on this 12th day of July 2013 served the foregoing Opposition of Petroleum 

Helicopters, Inc., Northern Pioneer Helicopters LLC, and So loy Helicopters LLC to VIH Cougar 

Helicopters, Inc. and Construction Helicopters, Inc.'s Motion for Reconsideration of Final Order 

and for a Hearing upon the persons listed below, and have also filed a redacted version 

electronically in the docket of this proceeding: 

Susan L. Kurland 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Aviation and International Affairs 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Room W96-495 

Washington, DC 20590 

Lauralyn Remo 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Aviation and International Affairs 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Room W96-495 

Washington, DC 20590 

Peter Lynch, AGC-300 

Asst. Chief Counsel for Enforcement 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave. SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

William J. Weber 

Certification Section Manager 

FAAAFS-900 

45005 Aviation Drive Suite 131 

Dulles, VA 20166 

Roy Hardie 

Aviation Safety Inspector 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue SW, Suite 260 

Renton, W A 98057 

17 
David M. Nadler 

David Y. Yang 

Andrew E. Smith 

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 

1825 Eye Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

Telephone: (202) 420~2200 

Facsimile: (202) 420-2201 

nadlerd@dicksteinshapiro.com 

yangd@dicksteinshapiro.com 

smitha@dicksteinshapiro.coni 

Counsel to VIH Cougar Helicopters, Inc. 

John Longstreth 

18