--------------------...... 

# Description 

Oklahom Skydiving FAA 2010- 1215 

Agency Exhibits 

1 Answer of Respondent- entered by stipulation - pp 2 

2 FAA Order 2150.3B -entered by stipulation - pp 11 

3 Sta of lana West aka Lana Boler- dtd 7/11/09- pp 2 

4 Photo- Tachometer 8344.3 reading- entered by stipultion - pp 2 

5 Photo- punture of left flap with piece of hardware protruding thru skin - pp 2 

6 Photo- window on l side of AC w/ due tape- pp 2 

7 Photo- right flap showing cracks at center rivets and between two rivets - pp 2 

8 AC Condition Notice dtd 7/11/09- pp 2 

9 Sta of Robert Terry- dtd 9/14/09- pp 2 

10 Photo "Description" 

11 Photo "Authorized release certificate" dtd 7/14/2009 

12 Photo "repair doc 7 /24/09" tac 8385.2 

13 NO MORE EXHIBITS 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

r~...,__., 

.:--.:::; 

~---> 

::< 

"J 

--.. 

uJ 

_J 

10 IN 

X X 

X X 

X X 

X X 

X X 

X X 

X X 

X X 

X X 

X X 

X X 

X X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
----------------------........... 

# Description 

Oklahoma Skydiving FAA 2010- 1215 

Respondent's Exhibit List 

A 8900.1 CHG 0, 9/13/2007, Vol 6, Chap 1, Part 91 Inspection- pp 18 

B NO EXHIBIT 

ro rN 

X X 

C 8900.1 CHG 0, 9/13/2007, VOL14, Compliance and Enforcement, Chap 1- pp 6 x x 

D 8900.1 CHG 83, 9/14/10, Vol 14, Chap 1- pp 20 [OBJECTION=THIS POST DATES VIOLATION) x x 

E NO EXHIBIT 

F NO EXHIBIT 

G NO EXHIBIT 

H NO EXHIBIT 

I Pic of Seat with "seat stop" is machine bolt with nut, in seat rail 

J Pic of Seat with "seat stop" is machine bolt with nut, in seat rail 

K Cessna Parts catalogue, parts list Seats - PP 2 

l 

M 

N 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

X X 

X X 

X X 
d 

'1 

!il 

--,'JI 

ll 

j 

.J 

lj 

' '. 

,, j l 

-----·. -~--~---- q 

~ 

'-j .. 

-------·-

--- ~-------

----- ==-=----===- -

=---==---·-... 

-

----
·, . 

In the Matter of: 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FAA Case No. 2009SW150061 

~ GOVERNMENT ~ · -. EXHIBIT 

fC'Pto.swoo:z., 

. ~ ... . ·- I .. -m······: _ AC,..... -

Oklahoma Skydiving Center FAA Docket CP No.- To Be Assigned 

------------------' Judge- Not Yet Assigned 

ANSWER 

The Respondent files its Answer, under Rule 209 of The Rules of Practice in FAA Civil 

Penalty Actions, 14 C.P.R. §13.209, and states the following: 

Paragraph I. 

Paragraph II( I). 

Paragraph II(2). 

Paragraph Il(3). 

Paragraph II(4). 

Paragraph II(S). 

Paragraph Il(6). 

Paragraph II(7). 

Paragraph II(8). 

ADMITTED 

ADMITTED 

ADMITTED 

Respondent is without sufficient information to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the 

Administrator's Complaint and therefore, denies the same. 

ADMITTED 

ADMITTED 

ADMITTED 

Respondent is without sufficient information to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the 

Administrator's Complaint and therefore, denies the same. 

Respondent is without sufficient information to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the 

Administrator's Complaint and therefore, denies the same. 

z.o' 2.-0 { r o 

~ 

m EXHIBIT i 0 A ·I ~~- /0 ·lr;). 
Paragraph II(9). Respondent is without sufficient information to fonn a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the 

Administrator's Complaint and therefore, denies the same. 

Paragraph Il(l 0). Respondent is without sufficient information to fonn a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 1 0 of the 

Administrator's Complaint and therefore, denies the same. 

Paragraph 11(11). Respondent is without sufficient information to fonn a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the 

Administrator's Complaint and therefore, denies the same. 

Paragraphs II(12)(a-c).DENIED. 

Paragraph III (1 ). DENIED. 

Paragraph III (2). DENIED. 

Respondent respectfully requests that the administrative law judge enter an order 

dismissing the Administra~or's Complaint. 

Dated: /2-1;.../0 

Respectfully submitted, tEft-, 

Bret A. Glenn 

Counsel for Respondent 

414 N.W. 4th Street, Suite 200 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 

( 405) 702-4980 

( 405) 702-4984 fax 
• I 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date mailed, by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, 

an original and one copy of the foregoing Answer addressed to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attn: Docket Hearing Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2Wl 000 

800 Independence A venue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

And further, that I have this date mailed, by regular mail, a copy of the foregoing Answer 

addressed to: 

Gregory S. Lander 

Attorney, Safety Enforcement Branch 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Blvd. 

Fort Worth, Texas 76137-0007 

Dated: /2-J-L£) /b:::(_ 

Bret A. Glenn 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

National Policy 

SUBJ: FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program 

. 

ORDER 

2150.38 

Effective Date: 

10/01/07 

This order contains policies, procedures, and guidelines for the Federal Aviation Administration's 

compliance and enforcement program. The order also articulates the FAA's philosophy for using 

various remedies, including education, corrective action, informal action, remedial training, 

administrative action, and legal enforcement action, to address noncompliance with statutory and 

regulatory requirements enforced by the FAA. It provides for the public a written statement of the 

Administrator's policy guidance for imposing sanctions for violations of such requirements. 

The order is used at all levels by agency personnel who are engaged in the investigation, reporting, 

and processing of enforcement actions. It applies to all offices with regulatory responsibilities. 

This revision of the order comprehensively updates policies, procedures, guidance, and assignments of 

responsibility. It reorganizes the order in a manner more useful for agency personnel and is available 

electronically to agency personnel and the public. The revision amends agency sanction guidance to 

conform to statutory changes resulting from Vision lOOCentury ofAviation Reauthorization Act and 

incorporates guidance into the agency's compliance and enforcement program order on policies and 

programs that have developed since the last comprehensive order revision in 1988. Those include 

policies relating to the FAA's exercise of its authority to administratively assess civil penalties and 

guidance on the agency's voluntary safety programs. 

A workgroup of agency personnel from the field and headquarters with extensive experience in 

statutory and regulatory enforcement reviewed the agency's policies and programs in this area to 

produce this comprehensive revision of the agency order on its compliance and enforcement program. 

Distribution: A-W-I;A-W (AT/PS/SM)-2;A-W (PP/AM/SF/ 

GCIFS/IANS)-3;A-XYZ (A T/AF/CS)-2;Z-X (AS/AM/GC/FS)-3; 

A-Y (AM/ARIGC)-3;A-Z (AM/AN/GC)-3;A-FAC/FACIFCS-O; 

A-F AFIFA T/FIA-O(L TD);ZFS-325 

Initiated By: AGC-300 '20\~ 01 l0 

~-

0> 

EXHIBIT <0 

ill 

:;; 

1&-r 6 

0 

<0 

0 

!1 

& ;. ;J. .. ~ 
10/01/07 

Appendix B 

Table of Sanctions 

All Enforcement Programs 

Except Hazardous Materials 

Part One - Abbreviations and Definitions 

2150.38 

I. Applicability. This table of sanctions applies to violations that occurred on or after 

October 1, 2007. For violations occurring before October I, 2007, FAA enforcement personnel 

apply the sanction guidance principles in FAA Order 2150.3A using up to the statutory 

maximum sanction amount in effect at the time of the violation. 

2. Abbreviations. The following abbreviations are used in this Table: 

APIS means approved production inspection system 

AIW means airworthiness 

A WC means airworthiness certificate 

BTS means Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security 

!A means inspection authorization 

LE means law enforcement 

PC means production certificate 

STC means supplemental type certificate 

TC means type certifiyate 

TFR means Temporary Flight Restriction 

TSA means Transportation Security Administration 

3. Definitions: 

a. A continuing violation arises when a specific violation occurs over more than one day 

or over more than one flight. It also may involve a violation that is ongoing,for example, an 

ongoing refusal to provide required records to the FAA for inspection. Punitive sanctions are 

appropriate for continuing violations that are not currently ongoing. Sanction guidance for 

these violations is set forth in-·paragraphs 6 and 7. (multiple acts or multiple violations) of 

chapter 7. A combination of punitive and remedial sanctions is appropriate when continuing 

violations are ongoing. 

b. Violation committed by a small business concern. Section 503 of Vision IOO---Century 

of Aviation Reauthorization Act (CARA) amended 49 U.S.C. § 4630I to change the civil 

penalty amounts the FAA may seek for violations that occur on or after December 12, 2003; 

the law sets different limits on the civil penalties the FAA may seek for violations by small 

business concerns, as opposed to violations by other entities. Vision I 00 CARA gives small 

business concern the same meaning as in the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. § 632). Section 

632 defines small business concern as an enterprise "which is independently owned and 

operated and which is not dominant in its field of operation." The Small Business 

Administration regulations implement the Small Business Act and define business concern as 

B-1 ~l I 
10/01/07 2150.38 

"a business entity organized for profit, with a place ofbusiness located in the U.S., and which 

operates primarily within the U.S. or which makes a significant contribution to the U.S. 

economy through payment of taxes or use of American products, materials or labor." 13 

C.F.R. § 121.105. The SBA regulations further define small business concern in tables, 

describing each kind of entity by its economic activity or industry, and listing the limit for 

small by annual receipts or, more commonly, number of employees. {The size limits generally 

are established under the North American Industry Classification System {NAICS).) For the 

complete list, see 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 or the SBA's website at wwvv.sba.gov. Thus, if a person 

meets the definition of business concern and has annual receipts or the number of employees 

within the applicable SBA limit, it is a small business concern, and the FAA will determine the 

civil penalty using the applicable range. Limits for common aviation entities follow (in 

numbers of employees, unless otherwise noted). 

Manufacturing 

Aircraft- 1,500 employees 

Aircraft engine and part- 1,000 employees 

Other aircraft part and equipment - I, 000 emp Ioyees 

Air transportation 

Scheduled passenger- 1,500 employees 

Scheduled freight- 1,500 employees 

Nonscheduled passenger- 1,500 employees 

Nonscheduled offshore marine passenger - $25.5 million annual receipts 

Nonscheduled freight- 1,500 employees 

Nonscheduled offshore marine freight- $25.5 million annual receipts 

Other nonscheduled - '$6.5 million annual receipts 

Support activities - $6.5 million annual receipts 

Flight Training- $23.5 million annual receipts 

Airport operations 

Airport operator, organized for profit- $6.5 million annual receipts 

Other operations, excluding air traffic control - $6.5 million annual receipts 

Note that the following guidance uses large business concern for some civil penalty ranges. 

That is not a statutory or regulatory term for purposes of FAA enforcement. It includes each 

business concern that exceeds the maximum limit for small business concern, as well as any 

other entity that does not meet the definition of"small business concern." 

c. Civil Penalty Ranges. For the purpose of this table, when civil penalty action is 

recommended and described as Minimum, Moderate, or Maximum, the penalty ranges are 

defined in subparagraphs ( 1) through (9) of this paragraph. Note that the middle of each 

recommended sanction range would be for a single violation without aggravating or mitigating 

factors. · 

B-2 ~ I ! ( 
10/01/07 2150.38 

(1) VIOLATION COMMITTED BY U.S. AIR CARRIERS OR U.S. COMMERCIAL 

OPERATOR. 

CLASSIFICATION OF AIR CARRIER AND OPERATOR 

GROUP I- Each air carrier operating under part 121 or part 135, with an annual operating 

revenue of $1 00;000,000 or more. Operating revenue is determined by reference to DOT's 

"Air Carrier Industry Scheduled Service Traffic Statistics Quarterly." See 

http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/index.html, and click on "Airline Financial Review." 

GROUP II- Each air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 with an annual 

operating revenue of less than $100,000,000, or under part 135 with an annual operating 

revenue of less than $100,000,000, ifthe 135 operator has 50 or more pilots and 25 or more 

aircraft on its operations specifications. Operating revenue is determined by reference to 

DOT's "Air Carrier Industry Scheduled Service Traffic Statistics Quarterly." 

GROUP III- Each air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 135 with 6 to 49 

pilots or 6 to 24 aircraft. 

GROUP IV- Each air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 135 with no more 

than 5 pilots and no more than 5 aircraft. 

GROUP I - large business concern 

Maximum 

Moderate 

Minimum 

'$18, 750-$25,000 

$10,000-$18,749 

$2,000-$9,999 

GROUP I- small business concern (for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. 

§ 4630l(a)(5)(A)): 

Maximum 

Moderate 

Minimum 

$8,250-$11,000 

'$4,400-$8,249 

$1,100-$4,399 

GROUP I- small business concern (for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 4630l(a)(l)(A) 

or (B) but not under 49 U.S.C. § 4630l(a)(5)(A)): 

Maximum 

Moderate 

Minimum 

$850-$1, I 00 

$650-$849 

$500$649 

GROUP II -large business concern: 

B-3 
10/01/07 2150.38 

Maximum $16,250-$25,000 

Moderate $8,750-$16,249 

Minimum $1,850-$8,749 

GROUP II- small business concern (for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A)): 

Maximum 

Moderate 

Minimum 

$8,250-$11 ,000 

$3,850-$8,249 

$935-$3,849 

GROUP II- small business concern (for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(1)(A) 

or (B) but not under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A)): 

Maximum $750-$1,100 

Moderate $450-$ 749 

Minimum $250 $ 449 

GROUP III -for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A): 

Maximum $7,150-$11,000 

Moderate $3,300-$7,149 

Minimum $825-$3,299 

GROUP III- for violations co'vered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(1)(A) or (B) but not under 49 

U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A): 

Maximum 

Moderate 

Minimum 

$650-$1' 100 

$400-$ 649 

$150-$ 399 

GROUP IV -for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A): 

Maximum $4,400-$11,000 

Moderate $2,200-$4,399 

Minimum $550-$2,199 

GROUP IV- for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(1)(A) or (B) but not under 49 

U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A): 

Maximum 

Moderate 

$500-$1' 100 

$300-$499 

B-4 
10/01/07 2150.38 

Minimum $100-$299 

(2) VIOLATION COMMITTED BY PART 129 OPERATOR 

Maximum $18,750-$25,000 

Moderate $10,000-$18,749 

Minimum $2,000-$9,999 

(3) VIOLATION COMMITTED BY PART 125 OPERATOR. 

Large Business Concern: 

Maximum $16,250-$25,000 

Moderate $8,750-$16,249 

Minimum $1,850-$8,749 

Small Business Concern (for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A)): 

Maximum $8,250-$11,000 

Moderate $3,850-$8,249 

Minimum $935-$3,849 

Small Business Concern (for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(l)(A) of (B) but 

not under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A)): 

Maximum 

Moderate 

Minimum 

$750-$1,100 

$450-$749 

$250$449 

(4) VIOLATION COMMITTED BY AIR AGENCY(INCLUDING REPAIR STATION). 

Large Business Concern: 

. Maximum $16,250-$25,000 

Moderate $8,750-$16,249 

Minimum $1,850-$8,749 

Small Business Concern (for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A)): 

Maximum $7,150-$11,000 

Moderate $3,850-:$7,149 

Minimum $935-$3,849 

B-5 
10/01/07 2150.38 

Small Business Concern (for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(1)(A) or (B) but 

not under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A)): 

Maximum 

Moderate 

Minimum 

$750-$1' 100 

$450-$749 

$250$449 

(5) VIOLATION COMMI1TED BY AIRPORT OPERA TOR. 

Large Business Concern: 

Maximum $18,750-$25,000 

Moderate $10,000-$18,749 

Minimum $2,000-$9,999 

Small Business Concern (for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 4630l(a)(5)(A)): 

Maximum 

Moderate 

'Minimum 

$8,250-$11,000 

$4,400-$8,249 

$1,100-$4,399 

Small Business Concern (for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(l)(A) or (B) but 

not under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(f1)(5)(A)): 

Maximum $850-$1, 100 

Moderate $650-$849 

Minimum $500 $649 

(6) LARGE BUSINESS CONCERN-- DOES NOT HOLD CERTIFICATE 

Maximum $18,750-$25,000 

Moderate $10,000-$18,749 

Minimum $2,000-$9,999 

(7) SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN- DOES NOT HOLD CERTIFICATE 

For violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A): 

Maximum $4,400-$11,000 

Moderate $2,200-$4,399 

Minimum $550-$2,199 

B-6 
10/01/07 2150.38 

For violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(1)(A) or (B) but not under 49 

U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A): 

Maximum $500-$1, 100 

Moderate $300-$499 

Minimum $100-$299 

(8) VIOLATION RELATING TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF A HAZARDOUS 

MATERIAL (14 CFR), THE REGISTRATION OR RECORDATION OF AN 

AIRCRAFT NOT USED TO PROVIDE AIR TRANSPORTATION, 

THE LIMITATION ON THE CONSTRUCTION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF A 

LANDFILL, OR THE SAFE DISPOSAL OF A LIFE-LIMITED AIRCRAFT PART. 

Large Business Concern (if entity is not within a more specific category, for example, 

Group I Air Carrier or Operator): · 

Maximum $16,250-c$25,000 

Moderate $8,750-$16,249 

Minimum $1,850-$8,749 

Small Business Concern (if not within a more specific category for example, Group II 

Air Carrier or Operator) or Individual: 

For violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 4630l(a)(5)(A): 

'{' 

Maximum $4,400-$11,000 

Moderate $2,200-$4,399 

Minimum $5 50-$2, 199 

For violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(l)(A) or (B) but not under 49 

U.S.C. § 4630l(a)(5)(A}: 

Maximum 

Moderate 

Minimum 

$500-$1, I 00 

$300-$499 

$100-$299 

(9) OTHER VIOLATION COMMITTED BY AN INDIVIDUAL. 

AIRMAN SERVING AS AN AIRMAN- INDIVIDUAL SERVING IN CAPACITY OF AN 

AIRMAN. ALL VIOLATIONS EXCEPT THOSE LISTED IN (8). 

Maximum $850-$1,100 

B-7 
.. 

10/01/07 

Moderate 

Minimum 

$650-$849 

$500-$649 

OTHER INDIVIDUAL- NOT SERVING IN CAPACITY OF AIRMAN. 

For violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A): 

Maximum $4,400-$11 ,000 

Moderate $2,200-$4,399 

Minimum $550-$2,199 

2150.38 

For violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(l)(A) or (B) but not under 49 

U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A): 

Maximum $500-$1, 1 00 

Moderate $300-$499 

Minimum $100-$299 

(1 0) ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING VIOLATIONS. 

Large Business Concern: 

Maximum ,$18,750-$25,000 

Moderate $10,000-$18,749 

Minimum $2,000-$9,999 

Small Business Concern or Individual (for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 

4?301(a)(5)(A): 

Maximum $8,250-$11,000 

Moderate $4,400-$8,249 

Minimum "$1, 100-$4,399 

Small Business Concern or Individual (for violations covered under 49 U.S.C. § 

46301(a)(l)(A) or (B) but not under 49 U.S.C. § 4630l(a)(5)(A): 

Maximum 

Moderate 

Minimum 

$850-$1' 100 

$650-$849 

$500$649 

B-8 
10/01/07 2150.38 

d. Pending compliance or corrective action; injunctive relief. For many kinds of violations, 

there may be circumstances where the FAA should not allow the offending entity to continue to 

operate or to continue in business. Examples include a certificate holder that does not allow an 

FAA inspector to inspect the holder's operation or facilities, or an unapproved manufacturer 

that produces aircraft parts in violation of 14 C.F .R. § 21.303. In that circumstance, suspension 

of an entity's certificate or other approval, pending compliance or corrective action, or 

injunctive relief against an entity that does not hold an FAA approval, would be appropriate. 

In egregious circumstances revocation of the entity's certificate or other approval may be 

warranted. Such action or relief may be considered in addition to the assessment of a civil 

penalty as recommended in the following tables. 

Furthermore, amendment or modification of a certificate or approval may be appropriate in the 

circumstance where a definitive part of the offending entity's operation can be safely excluded 

from the operational approval. An example is an approved aircraft parts manufacturer that 

makes multiple kinds of parts, but has quality control problems for only one kind of part. Such 

action may be considered in addition to the assessment of a civil penalty as recommended in 

the following tables. 

Part Two - Sanction Guidance Tables 

1. U.S. Air Carriers, U.S. Commercial Operators, Part 125 Operators, and Part 129 

Operators. 

; 

Fig. B-1-a. Maintenance Manual 

Fig. ~-1-b. A/W Directive 

Fig. B-1-c. Operations Specifications 

Fig. B-1-d. Facilities and Equipment 

Fig. B-1-e. Maintenance and Inspection Organization 

Fig. B-1-f. Training Program 

Fig. B-1-g. Maintenance or Aircraft. Paperwork 

Fig. B-1-h. Performance of Maintenance 

Fig. B-1-i. SF AR 36 ~. 

Fig. B-1-j. Records and Reports 

Fig. B-1-k. Dispatch and Flight Release Rules 

Fig. B-1-1. Operation ofunairworthy aircraft 

· Fig. B-1-m. Provisions specific to passenger-carrying 

Fig. B-1-n. Provisions specific to flight deck crew 

Fig. B-1-o. Other provisions 

Fig. B-1-p. Operations at airports requiring slots 

2. Personnel of Air Carriers, Commercial Operators, and Part 125 Operators. 

Fig. B-2-a. Maintenance, including inspection 

Fig. B-2-b. Inspection 

8-9 
,· i I 

10/01/07 

Fig. B-2-c. Records and Reports 

Fig. B-2-d. Flight operations 

Fig. B-2-e. Other provisions applicable to individual certificate holders 

Fig. B-2-f. Other Air Carrier Personnel 

2150.38 

3. Individuals and General Aviation- Owners, Pilots, Repair Stations, Pilot Schools, 

Maintenance Personnel. 

Fig. B-3-a. Owners and Operators Other Than Required Crewmembers 

Fig. B-3-b. Repair Stations 

Fig. B-3-c. ID Plate Violations 

Fig. B-3-d. Part 141 Pilot Schools 

Fig. B-3-e. General Aviation Maintenance Personnel 

Fig. B-3-f. Student Operations 

Fig. B-3-g. Flight Instructors 

Fig. B-3-h. Other Violations 

Fig. B-3-i. Weather Operations 

Fig. B-3-j. 14 C.P.R. 91.13(a), Careless or reckless operation so as to endanger (independent 

violation) 

Fig. B-3-k. Passenger operations 

Fig. B-3-1. Acting or attempting to act as a crewmember under the influence of drugs or 

alcohol; consumption of alcohol before operating an aircraft 

Fig. B-3-m. Crime; security risk; falsification 

Fig. B-3-n. Miscellaneous 

Fig. B-3-o. Operations at Airports Requiring Slots 

Fig. B-3-p. Unruly passengers 

Fig. B-3-q. Other Violations by Passengers 

4. DUI/DWI Program, Falsification of Drug Convictions and Airman Medical 

Certificate Violations. 

Fig. B-4-a. Sanctions related to DUI/DWI Program 

Fig. B-4-b. ·Airman Medical Certificate Violations 

Fig. B-4-c. Drug convictions"- no falsification in.volved 

5. Drug and Alcohol Testing Violations. 

Fig. B-5-a. Drug and alcohol testing violations 

Fig. B-5-b. Coverage 

Fig. B-5-c. Pre-employment drug testing 

Fig. B-5-d. Random drug and alcohol testing 

Fig. B-5-e. Post-accident drug and alcohol testing 

Fig. B-5-f. Reasonable cause drug and reasonable suspicion alcohol testing 

Fig. B-5-g. Return to duty drug and alcohol testing 

B-10 
. ,

; 

Inspector Statement 

Lana West 

July 11,2009 

~ GOVERNMENT ~ EXHIBIT 

fCP!D~J~~O 

On Saturday, July 11, 2009, Inspector Robert Terry and I arrived at the Skydiving 

Oklahoma facility (hangar) located at the Cushing, OK airport to do follow-up 

surveillance on an earlier visit that occurred in March of 2009. The hangar was open and 

we entered from the roadside walking through the hangar toward the ramp. We observed 

approximately 20 or more people in the facility. Some of the people were getting ground 

skydiving instruction and others were donning parachutes. We saw a Cessna 206 aircraft 

in front of the hangar. Inspector Terry inquired at their front desk to speak with the pilot 

of the aircraft. While he was waiting for the pilot, we noted a large dry-erase board 

affixed on the wall behind the front desk. On the board were at least 4 rows of scheduled 

flights with a least 7 flights in each row. Names of the pilot and skydivers were listed in 

each block in the row . 

Inspector Terry checked the credentials of the pilot while I began a ramp inspection of 

the aircraft, N4682F. I noted the aircraft tach time was 8344.3. The owner, Jack Reeves, 

drove up and acknowledged us and then asked the pilot if he needed fuel. I began to 

perform a ramp inspection of the aircraft and noted several discrepancies. There were 

bolts with locknuts installed fmger-tight as seat stops on the pilot's seat. I lifted up the 

layer of padding lying on the floor of the aircraft to inspect the installation of a backrest 

on the co-pilot's seat rails. There was a small bolt pushed through a hole in the backrest 

bracket into a hole in the seat rail. No safety was installed in the bolt to prevent it from 

coming out. I showed inspector Terry and the pilot the installation and noted that when 

the bolt was removed; the backrest would slide easily forward under the instrument panel 

and into the rudder pedals. We discussed the safety concerns with the installation. I 

asked the pilot if that was the correct installation of that backrest, and he stated he wasn't 

sure and that he never looked at it before then. I advised him to contact the mechanic to 

determine if the installation was correct. I continued the ramp inspection and noted the 

left flap had a hole punctured in it with the head of a screw partially protruding out and 

appeared to be lodged in the skin. I noted there was duct tape on a left side window and 

inspected the window further. I found the duct tape covering a crack that split the 

window in two vertically with another cra~k emanating from a vent installed in the 

window going forward into the vertical crack. The right flap was found to have several 

cracks in the forward skin. Inspector Terry took photographs of all of the discrepancies. I 

located the pilot, David Harbold, and showed him the discrepancies, and asked him if he 

intended to fly the aircraft in this condition. He went back into the facility. 

At that time, Mr. Reeves returned and I showed him the discrepancies. He stated that he 

didn't understand why his mechanic would return to service an aircraft with the incorrect 

seat stops installed, as they had been there for years. After some discussion as to what 

the correct seat stops were, he declared that the bolts were much stronger than the flimsy 

Cessna seat stops. He stated the backrest installation was correct, but could not produce 

any data to support his claim. He stated it had been installed like that for years and did 

not see any problems because the person sitting on the backrest attach bracket would put 

lOP 

1 

")OF ·1- ~OR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ~· 0°' lfl' ,l> 

PAGE \ ·Public AvailabiHty tob :iie------~ dfte~tned under 5 u.s.c • EXHIBIT ' Page I of2 

I A·3 

j.f-to·(;). . ~-
downward pressure on the bolt and hold the bolt in place. He did not think the cracked 

window was a safety item. He then requested that the next time we decide to do a ramp 

inspection on the aircraft, we should schedule it for a Wednesday so he could correct the 

items then without it affecting his business. I e{(plained that we perform ramp 

inspections ·on any given day, and all aircraft are expected to be in airworthy condition 

for flight. I advised him to contact his mechanic to determine which seat stops would be 

correct for installation and to address the other discrepancies. He placed the call to his 

mechanic and then proceeded to tell us that his mechanic agreed with him that the bolts 

were much stronger than the Cessna seat stops. After some discussion, Mr. Reeves went 

and borrowed one correct stop after which he became belligerent with us. I reminded 

him he still needed one more stop. He then removed the backrest. Mr. Reeves then 

declared that he had decided the aircraft was in airworthy condition and was going to 

proceed with his flights. I advised him he might be in violation of the regulations if he 

elected to fly, and he stated he wanted clarification. I contacted my supervisor, Weeg 

Castello, and advised him of the situation. I then issued a condition notice to the aircraft 

with the discrepancies noted, and explained it to Mr. Reeves as I gave him a copy. We 

then left the facility. 

Inspector Terry and I went to the local FBO. Approximately 15 minutes later, we 

observed the aircraft taxi by the FBO with a pilot and at least two skydivers onboard. We 

observed the aircraft take off just a few minutes after that. 

Lana West 

Aviation Safety Inspector 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

•Public Availability to be 

dtter.tned under 5 u.s.c 562" Page 2 of2 
,, 

I ' . 

., 

• t ...,..r .. ,.,~ .... --·. 
-J 

Photo was taken by Inspector West on July 11, 2009 at approximately 9:20am of the 

center window on the left side ofN4682F which is cracked with duct tape installed. 

Photo was taken with a Cannon Powershot digital camera. 
/ 

\ '-_) 

cr 
Photo was taken by Inspector West on July 11, 2009 at approximately 9:25am of the 

underside of the left flap ofN4682F showing the hole punctured aft of the inboard flap 

track (note: photo is taken looking toward the aircraft). Photo was taken with a Cannon 

Powershot digital camera. 

,·.I, 
i 

l 

r 
0 

~ \ t 

;;;;;;.: t}Ff!~lt\l . ·'r_) 1 it ;.>: .. 1 l r:, i 

.'.: ;>_~L_ i<1~d U.J&.,:r 5 

I 

~ EXHIBIT 

I 4-1 ~l·;o.(r ~ 

ONlY 

f e-;rttfv :ntr (r. 

;\:. "'tt~: ~Q.}i.t 

~ 

-

c 

~ ~· 

rJ 

·~ 
Photo was taken by Inspector West on July 11, 2009 at approximately 9:25am of the 

underside of the right flap ofN4682F showing the multiple cracks in the lower skin 

(note: photo is taken looking aft). Photo was taken with a Cannon Powershot digital 

camera. 

. ... . ' ; .. ~ . 

:.i-' 
I 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

AIRCRAFT CONDITION NOTICE 

(See Privacy Act Statement on Reverse) 

Make 

{j 

Registration number 

N4632F 

Serial number 

~ GOVERNMENT ~ EXHIBIT , {CP ( 5~ ao~o ~ 

·-

p~~Oz.B~ 1 

NOTE. 1. The Items listed below ( are) <Dare not) considered to be mmlnent hazard .to safety. 2. Operation of the.alrcraft prior to correction 

will) <Owlll not) be contrary to pertinent Federal Aviation Regula· 1 

to s. 3. A Special Flight Permit (I{) will) ( n will not) be required j 

to be Issued prior to operation if corrective actro"O has not been taken. 

4. A Spechil Flight Permit may be obtained from the Qfflce named below. 

2 .. l·· 

~- . 

. ·FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

ctet~Mitted under 5 u.s.c 552" .. ~ '·- -~ 

The owner/lessee copy of this form was 'f] mailed .)~{]delivered. 

FAA Form 8620-1 (3-77) FORMERLY FAA FORM 8320-4 AND FAA FORM 8320-7 1 

EXHIBIT 
FOR YLwR INFORMATION 

A limited Inspection of this aircraft was conducted 

In accord with Section 609 of the Federal Aviation Act 

of 1958, as amended, to determine the continued airworthiness of the aircraft and as an advisory service 

to the owner/lessee. This inspection should not be 

construed as a complete inspection since only certain 

areas of the aircraft were inspected. We would appre- ciate your cooperation in completing and signing the 

certificate below. The certification should then be forwarded to the FAA offic·e shown on the reverse so 

that FAA can be assured that the Aircraft Condition 

Notice was received by the owner/lessee and that 

corrective action has been accomplished. 

CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION ·"'· .. 

I certify that an Items Indicated on the Aircraft Condition Notice 

have been corrected, replaced, or repaired and that required entries 

have been made. In the appropriate maintenance records pursuant 

to Parts 43 and ~1 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

SIQnal.ure of ownerneaee Phone No. 

Addreas 

Theconactlons werecomple1edon'-------:~~----Md were 

accompllahed by: Date 

Name 

· ;:. ~.- .- ;>. ~,.·_; · j:+v--; ~.tv.~.·"' ... :·;~-· --:-:::-----

certlflcl!,tlt "J;"_ype( t~o~ .-. , .. ; . :. • . . •. . , RaUnga 

PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT 

rne lr.fonnatlon on thia form Is requeeted under authority of the Fedei"'ll 

Aviation Act (Section 609/. Submission of all the data Ia voluntar· -~e 

!i.!rcraft Condition Notice ie Initiated bY the FAA field Inspector and I .l• 

v!c1&d t'l the owner/lessee when unsatlsfa~tory aircraft condltloos exist The 

certmcatlon lnfonnation Ia needed to assure the FAA that unaatlsfactory almraft 

conditions heve been corrected. There Is no penality for falh.are to complete ar.d 

return _the certification to FAA; however, operation of an aircraft In an unalrwcrthy 

oonciltlon Is in violation of Fedtral Aviation Regulations. 
I 

Inspector Statement 

Robert R. Terry, Aviation Safety Inspector 

Oklahoma City Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) 

September 14, 2009 

I, Robert R. Terry, currently assigned as an Operations Inspector in the OKCFSDO make the following statement. 

On Saturday, July 11, 2009, I accompanied Airworthiness Inspector Lana West 

to a Sky Diving Operator at the Cushing Airport in Cushing, Oklahoma. As we 

approached the facility, we noted that there were many people in the area who 

appeared to be there for sky diving. We saw a Cessna 206 aircraft, N4682F, 

parked on the ramp area in front of the hangar where the sky diving business is 

. located. We went into the hangar where I asked to speak with the pilot and the 

owner of the business, Mr. Jack Reeves. 

I was told that the pilot was Mr. David Harbold. I introduced myself to Mr. 

Harbold and asked if he was to fly the aircraft that day for the sky diving 

operations. He answered that he was; I then asked to see his Pilot, Medical 

Certificates and a picture I D. All of his Certificates and ID were in order. After 

speaking with the pilot, I and Inspector West went out to the aircraft where she 

conducted an Airworthiness ramp inspection. 

During her inspection of the aircraft, she noted several possible problems. It was 

during her inspection that the aircraft owner and owner of the sky diving 

business, Mr. Jack Reeves, approached us. Inspector West showed Mr. Reeves 

that the seat that was used by the jumpers on the right front side of the aircraft 

was not properly secured. Mr. Reeves stated that the seat was secure and it 

would not move. When he was shown that the bolt holding the seat did not have 

a nut on it, he stated that it was secure and that it would not move. He was 

asked about duct tape that was used to repair a crack in a cabin window, an area 

in a flap where a screw had made a hole from the inside of the flap, seat stops 

that appeared to be improper and other concerns that Inspector found. 

Mr. Reeves became increasingly aggravated with Inspector West and me and 

insisted that the aircraft was in an airworthy condition. Mr. Reeves obtained seat 

stops and insisted that his stops were better than the approved stops from · 

Cessna. Mr. Reeves asked if he flew the aircraft would he get into trouble with 

the FAA. He was told by Inspector West that he may be in violation of the FAR's &~ 

if the aircraft flew. At this point Mr. Reeves was becoming more aggravated. ~~..J 

Inspector West issued a Condition Notice on the aircraft and we left the area. 2-0) wt ( iJ 

Before Inspector West and I left the airport property, we stopped by the local 

Fixed Based Operator (FBO). While we were in the FBO, we saw N4682F, tax 

out to the active runway and depart about 15 minutes after we had left the sky 

diving business. 

~ EXHIBIT 

~ . A ·f ~ 1-to·t:JlOP I/ 

. ·-'7 

PAGE..../-OF~ 
Robert R Terry 

Aviation Safety Inspector-Operations 

OKC FSDO 

I 

J . 

iOP I/ 

PAGE _d.. oF~ 
\/\. 

, I 

. i \ 

'·. 

II + J; ' -

'' 1, ·r 

/ (" 

).-~;r.~;~j· 'I l: :I 

_:)'! v: ( ': f 

L~; , . .-· ,'1 .' '·' .. I'' j . 1' :l -' 
·:;;. ~-.~~:· 

--- ----._.._ "'.NILe~~!:-~\. ___ . \- ~ 

.A..} ---{ r4--~ 

-~. 

........ 1 

t~-, ~~ :s: f. ------.. ... ,.-'-" 

:~; --..~--

t'.J 

_,. 

'"") ~:.::.. 7 -· =t , ... ,:i ' n -.. ·"·' .. ~".;_J 

~· (_1'"~ ::: ... ~· ~-~ ..... 

' -;;~: 0 ·~ .. _.,.,.1~-~ 

' ·~-J llia~1n'::. -~· ---...; ..__ ... ~. 

··-.; ,.....,,.; ty!".; - ...... --., _ ~~:-

,.._, 

~ .. "'•' .. ' ~-...... I 

~· 

;;?,' ...::... 

,..... 

·-" 

·.l-... ~-.... - .,.. . .... ..... _...__...- - -· 

-

........ ,.,. 

t~--~-. ..... 

'i 

.. ' .... '-

r 1 ' ~ ' )' " . ·.r·.·--

1~11 ' ~ ' 

-.;;., 1, .... ;-"' ,... 

.. 

t.· ',· 

' . 
C~lROINC. TOD.A'''S 

· J FUQHT : 

.: :_1;' .: .. } ~un\) tach 81 X 5.2 1:<.~~4:J.led 111:1. Brake vvh~el ~kinoer & 

" {·\I L '1dt?L bled brake ~y~ltrrL Rt~Ia:ce:~ parZc bral{e hrmille_ Clea 

~-~';'i..h:'-~d f~l'itencr~ in aft dlt;d ofbattt:ry box. ltlstalled u~w c~~ 

~..)n pi IL 't~ ~eat. Rtplacl!d R--r_ Tire \Vith cu~tomer suppli~d tire. '"' 

in~pecred f..Ll perC ;\R 14 part 91 .. 207d. Replaced batt~ry goc 

Repl.ic~d ~\L 'r'X"2fJR alter~l1dtcr "vith rebuilt/exchanged unit fh 

1~rcrafr acces'-tnri~, I #td:l'-~ :..:orJ!ol hinges and pulleys cita·:G~.d 

.:: ieaned cunnectJ( ;n"' ~!t.t\. K.(u \\heel bearings. CW AD 87 -::::;-c_ ~~\ ·~ i ~uaJ inspect ton du~ :! ; ! ! jr · hrs CW AD 85-10-02 ~?'.~~~~ 7 

. 1 • J - . r r ~ C'l.' AD76 , ..,. .. ""·J- 1 ' JIJ\. ny \ J~ua Jn~pe~tJi .ii· ~Juc · :; · J; hr~ vv -: .. - ~~·~ ~ 

;}.::tch ~J\. ()perati·)n.:tl ch~ .. ·:.~ r1 1 1': :r1 t'lJ hr~ l ce~~:·;. :·- -,--: 

,nspected J,\ \\'a 11 ''J hr :n~..,pt..:r t ;! :r: .~1r1i.l :. d',. d~lc····-, .. ~· .. ·~·i •. :..: 

cond•;· on .· t , .A ,/ --..."'· l lct I -'\ • ~-· J ( •. .... /. A../' f / ~ "' 

C~)rlor'dA sy;;tad A&f;:i{/ii t I 7X 

(i • s Restoration Service Inc . ' ~' 

~OR OFFtCIAL USE ONLY 

"Public ~vail~ofl ~ts cube 

t!te~1ned under ~ u.s.C 552· 
' 

i I 

I 

I 

i 

i 

' I 

: 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

j 

l 

I 

I 

-~·---.. ..... _-~ 

- I 

&J_o ~ E r.~,) 1$ I / 

-

i 
( 

8900.1 CHGO 

VOLUME 6 SURVEILLANCE 

CHAPTER 1 PART 91 INSPECTIONS 

Section 4 Conduct a Part 91 Ramp Inspection 

9/13/2007 

6-87 PROGRAM TRACKING AND REPORTING SUBSYSTEM (PTRS) ACTIVITY 

CODE. 1661 

6-88 OBJECTIVE. The objective of this task is to determine that an airman or operator is in 

continuing compliance with Title 14 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR) during an 

actual operational situation. Successful completion of this task results in an indication in district 

office files of either a satisfactory or an unsatisfactory inspection. 

6-89 GENERAL. An operations inspector conducts ramp inspections on airmen and aircraft 

operating under various 14 CFR parts. This section deals with 14 CFR part 91 operators, which 

are by far the most numerous. Ramp inspections involving other 14 CFR parts are found in the 

appropriate related task heading. 

A. Definitions. 

1) For the purposes of this chapter, an operator may be a pilot, executive/corporate 

operator, airagency, etc. 

2) A ramp inspection is defmed as surveillance of an airman, operator, or air agency 

during actual operations at an airport or heliport. 

B. Inspector Conduct. The inspector shall always have identification available, since an 

airman or operator may or may not know an inspector. 

1) For special considerations concerning surveillance at fly-ins, airshows, and other 

gatherings of general aviation aircraft and ainnen, see Chapter 11, Section 10 (this volume), 

Surveillance of an Aviation Event, subparagraphs 6-23 73Al-4. 

\, 

""-, 2) An inspector must not board any aircraft without the knowledge of the crew or 

'-....__ operator. Some operators may_ prefer to have a company representative present to answer 

questions. ~--

3) If the surveillance will delay a flight, the inspector should use prudent judgment 

whether or not to continue. 

4) The inspector should also bear in mind that he or she may not be able to complete 

all items on every ramp inspection. 

C. Common Reasons for a Ramp Inspection. Ramp inspections may result when the 

inspector: 

• Observes an unsafe operation in the traffic pattern or in the ramp. 

1 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use 
8900.1 CHGO 9/13/2007 

• Is notified by A TC of an unsafe operation. 

• Conducts normal surveillance. 

D. Ramp Inspections Planned for a Specific Operator. Most ramp inspections are not 

planned for a specific operator; however, when they are planned, the inspector should review the 

office files. Some of the reasons a ramp inspection might be planned include: 

• Recurring complaints 

• Suspected violations of 14 CFR 

• Special emphasis program required by the regional office or headquarters 

E. Title 14 CFR Part 135. Procedures and details of a part 135 ramp inspection are 

found in chapter 2 of this volume. 

F. Additional Background. When conducting a ramp inspection of an 

executive/corporate operator or a part 125 deviation holder, see Section 1 (this chapter), Inspect 

an Executive/Corporate Operator. 

6-90 RAMP INSPECTION JOB AIDS. The part 91 ramp inspection job aid (Figure 6-5) is a 

job aid provided for the inspector's use in accomplishing this task. This job aid is used when 

conducting a ramp inspection of a single pilot, a flight instructor, an air agency, or other less 

complex ramp inspections. The executive/corporate operator ramp inspection job aid (refer to 

Related Task #55, Inspect an Executive/Corporate Operator) should be used for corporate 

operators of large and turbine powered or turbojet aircraft or part 125 deviation holders. If the 

operations inspector is accompanied by an airworthiness inspector, then the "aircrew" section is 

for the operations inspector's. use, and the "aircraft" section is for the airworthiness inspector's 

use. 

6-91 AIRWORTHINESS COORDINATION. If an airworthiness inspector is not available 

for the inspection and suspected airworthiness discrepancies are discovered during the 

inspection, the operations inspector must coordinate with an airworthiness inspector at the 

district office to determine the disposition of the discrepancy. This should be accomplished 

before completing the inspection. 

6-92 DISCREPANCIES FOUND DURING INSPECTION. The inspection should be 

continued unless a discrepancy is discovered that would affect the safety of flight or dispatch of 

the aircraft which may result in a violation of 14 CFR. All discrepancies must be noted on the 

job aid and discussed with the operator. The inspector may explain how to correct discrepancies 

foutid during the inspection, but the inspector should keep in mind that it is the operator's 

responsibility to ensure that items are in compliance with 14 CFR. 

A. Responsibility for Airworthiness. The airworthiness of the aircraft is the 

responsibility of the pilot (part 91, section(§) 91.3) and monitored by airworthiness inspectors. 

However, if an operations inspector finds an obviously unairworthy aircraft, it is the 

responsibility of the operations inspector to see that an Aircraft Condition Notice (FAA 

Form 8620-1) is issued. If accompanied by an airworthiness inspector, he or she may issue FAA 

2 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use 
8900.1 CHG 0 9/13/2007 

Form 8620-1. However, an operations inspector may have to contact the nearest Flight Standards 

office to have an airworthiness inspector issue the notice. 

B. FAA Form 8620-1. The form (Figure 6-6) is in triplicate. The top and middle sheet 

(both white) go to the airworthiness unit, which mails the original to the owner/lessee and retain 

the second. The buff-colored card must be placed on the aircraft where the operator can easily 

see it. 

6-93 PILOT DOCUMENTS. When asked to present airman and medical certificates, a pilot 

may present a radio license formerly required by the FCC or make a statement that he or she 

does not have one. The FCC has determined that pilots are no longer required to have this license 

unless flying internationally. 

6-94 PILOT CONDITION. If an inspector has reason to suspect a pilot or other required 

crewmember under the influence of alcohol, see section 6 of this chapter. 

6-95 AIRCRAFT DOCUMENTS. Following are considerations when examining aircraft 

documents, including registration and airworthiness certificates and approved flight manuals. 

Discrepancies found concerning the airworthiness or registration certificates shall be brought to 

the attention of the operator, documented, and given to the airworthiness unit for action. 

A. N-Numbers. TheN-number on the registration certificate must match theN-number 

on the airworthiness certificate. 

B. Registration Certificate. If the registered owner has changed you may see a 

temporary registration (Pink Slip) which is good for 120 days. If the ownership has changed 

without a Pink Slip or theN-numbers do not match, the registration is not valid. 

C. Radio Station License. An aircraft FCC radio license is required although the FAA 

does not regulate the requirement. The license may be for that particular N-number or a fleet 

license. The expiration date of the license is in the upper right hand comer. Any discrepancy 

concerning the radio license should be brought to the attention of the operator only. 

D. Flight Manual. An Aircraft Flight Manual is required to be on board the aircraft 

(§ 91.9) along with the appropriate markings and placards. 

E. Weight and Balance Information. Weight and balance documents, including a list 

of equipment, must be on board the aircraft. Some multiengine operators have Minimum 

Equipment Lists (MELs) with a letter of authorization issued by a district office. These constitute 

a supplemental type certificate for the aircraft and must be on board. The inspector should 

compare inoperative equipment to the MEL to assure compliance. (Refer to Related Task #58, 

Approve a Minimum Equipment List.) 

F. Airworthiness Certificate. The certificate most often seen by an inspector is a 

standard airworthiness certificate, which is issued for normal, utility, acrobatic, and transport 

category aircraft. A restricted, limited, or experimental certificate must be accompanied by a list 

3 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check FSIMS to verifY this version is current prior to use 
8900.1 CHG 0 9/13/2007 

of limitations and conditions (sections(§§) 21.183-191) necessary for safe operation. A Special 

Flight Permit (Ferry Permit) is issued to aircraft that may not be airworthy but are capable of safe 

flight under certain conditions which are listed and issued with the permit(§§ 21.197, 91.203, 

and 91.213 ). Review the list of limitations and conditions to assure a valid airworthiness 

certificate. TheN-number on the certificate must match the N-number on the fuselage to be 

valid. 

6-96 FOREIGN PILOTS OR AIRCRAFT. An operator with a foreign pilot certificate and 

an aircraft registered in the same foreign country (e.g., Canadian pilot, Canadian-registered 

aircraft) may operate in the U.S.; however, the holder of a foreign pilot certificate may not 

operate a U.S. registered aircraft here without first receiving a U.S. pilot certificate. (refer to 

Related Task #29, Issue an Airman Certificate on the Basis of Foreign License.) The foreign 

pilot may show a current medical of his or her country or a U.S. medical. 

6-97 IFR HELICOPTER OPERATIONS. Mo·st rotorcraft are certificated VFR only. Under 

Special Federal Regulation (SF AR) 29-4 some rotorcraft have been approved for IFR. Operators 

holding approval issued before March 2, 1983, under SFAR 29 through SFAR 29-4 may 

continue to use that approval until surrendered, revoked, or otherwise terminated, or there is a 

change in aircraft ownership. After March 2, 1983, the new applicant must have met all 

certification requirements of 14 CFR part 27 (Normal Category Rotorcraft) or 29 (Transport 

Category Rotorcraft). 

A. Helicopter Documents. A letter of approval (Figure 6-7) with a list of limitations is 

issued for the helicopter. This letter, list of limitations, and a copy of SF AR 29-4 combine to 

become a Supplemental Type Certificate for the rotorcraft and must be on board in the Rotorcraft 

Flight Manual. 

B. Pilot Documents. The operator may be approved for a one-pilot or a two-pilot crew 

as listed in the letter of approval. 

1) Each pilot must have an instrument- helicopter rating on his or her pilot 

certificate. 

2) Each pilot mu~t have a current instrument proficiency check accomplished in one 

of the rotorcraft listed on the letter of approval. The initial instrument proficiency check must 

include a check in each type rotorcraft authorized. Subsequent 6-month checks must be in at least 

one type of rotorcraft in rotation. 

3) A single pilot operation must have demonstrated ability using a Stability 

Augmentation System (SAS) or an autopilot. 

4) The pilot may produce an FAA Form 8410-3, Airman Competence/Proficiency 

Check if the check was done under part 135 or a logbook endorsement (or copy of one). If a pilot 

took this check in the calendar-month before or after the month in which it was due, the check is 

considered to have been done when due. 

4 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use 
( 

8900.1 CHGO 9/13/2007 

6-98 CATEGORY 111111 AUTHORIZATIONS. Category II/III operators under part 91 are 

issued an authorization with provisions which remain in effect one year. Operators with 

approved maintenance programs may be renewed for two years. (Refer to Related Task #59, 

Approve Category II or III Approach Minimums and Manual.) 

A. Aircraft Documents. The authorization or a facsimile must be on board. The 

operator must comply with a Category II/III manual which must also on board. Category II/III 

authorizations other than part 91 are authorized by Operations Specifications. 

B. Pilot Documents. Category II/III operators must use a PIC and, in some cases, an Sl. 

The PIC must have a Letter of Authorization based on a practical test. Initially the PIC must be 

checked in each type airplane authorized. Each 6 months thereafter the PIC must be checked in 

at least one type to renew all types. However, an authorization for any particular type aircraft 

cannot be renewed beyond 12 months after the practical in that type. If the pilot passes a 

practical test for renewal the month before expiration, he or she is considered to have passed 

during the month the authorization expired. There is no grace month as in part 125 or 135. A 

Part 135 Airman Proficiency Check, FAA Form 8410-3, endorsed for Category II or III or a 

logbook endorsement (or facsimile of one) may be substituted for a letter of authorization. 

6-99 PREREQUISITES AND COORDINATION REQUIREMENTS. 

A. Prerequisites. This task requires knowledge of the regulatory requirements of 

parts 61 and 91 and FAA policies and qualification as an aviation safety inspector (operations). 

B. Coordination. This task requires coordination with the airworthiness unit and with 

the airman records section of AFS-760, Airmen Certification Branch. 

6-100 REFERENCES, FORMS, AND JOB AIDS. 

A. References. 

• 14 CFR parts 1, 63, 67, and 125 

• FCC Part 87 

• Category II/III authorization and manual, if applicable 

• PTRS Field Office Manual 

B. Forms. 

• FAA Form 8000-36, PTRS Transmittal Form 

• FAA Form 8620-1, Aircraft Condition Notice (Figure 6-6) 

C. Job Aids. Sample letters and figures 

6-101 PROCEDURES. 

A. PTRS. Open PTRS file. 

5 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use 
( 

8900.1 CHG 0 9/13/2007 

B. Pre-Inspection Activities. 

1) Review the office file on the operator to determine if any prior violations of 

14 CFR, past complaints, or inspection reports exist. 

2) Note review findings and any areas of emphasis on the part 91 job aid. 

C. Location of Inspection. Proceed to the airport where the ramp inspection will be 

conducted. Determine whether or not it is necessary to identifY FAA presence to the airport 

operator or other operators on the airport (Figure 6-8). Use the part 91 job aid to conduct the 

ramp inspection. 

D. Inspect Airman Documents. 

1) Inspect airman certificates to determine appropriate ratings and limitations for the 

type of operations being conducted. 

2) Determine if certificates are genuine and legible. (See Volume 5, Chapter 2, 

Part 61 Certification of Pilots and Flight Instructors, Section 1, General) 

3) Inspect airman medical certificates to determine if they are current and the 

appropriate class. Check for a Statement of Demonstrated Ability, if required, on the medical 

certificate. 

4) If available, examine pilot logbooks (or other reliable records) to determine 

recency of experience and qualifications, such as: 

• Biennial flight review 

• Instrument proficiency check 

• PIC proficiency check 

5) If applicable, inspect pilot Category II and/or Category III authorization letters for 

currency.(§ 91.189) 

6) Note any discrepancies on the job aid. 

E. Record Aircraft Information. Record theN-number, make and model, and whether 

leased or owned on the job aid. If the vehicle is an ultralight, see Related Task #66, Inspect an 

Ultralight Vehicle. 

F. Inspect Aircraft. (Applies to all aircraft) 

1) Determine that the proper airworthiness certificate is displayed at the cabin or 

cockpit entrance. Note that it is legible to passengers and/or crew. 

6 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use 
( 

8900.1 CHG 0 9/13/2007 

2) Examine the registration certificate to ensure that it is issued for that specific 

aircraft. Determine that the N-number on the certificate matches the N-number on the aircraft. 

Check that the certificate is issued to the present owner of the aircraft. 

3) Check the radio station license and note its expiration date. If it has expired, 

inform the operator of the pertinent FCC requirements. 

4) Determine that there is a current, approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) on 

board the aircraft. 

5) Determine if there is current weight and balance information in the aircraft by 

examining the AFM. Compare equipment listed on the weight and balance form to the actual 

equipment installed. 

6) If applicable, check the MEL to determine that it has: 

a) Been issued by N-number and serial number to the aircraft operator 

b) A Letter of Authorization from a district office; check deferred items for 

placards and dates (Refer to Related Task #58, Approve a Minimum Equipment List.) 

7) If a Letter of Deviation from part 125 has been issued, ensure that a true copy is in 

the aircraft. 

8) If the aircraft is leased, determine that a copy of the lease agreement or contract is 

being carried in the aircraft. Note the expiration date on the lease and determine if the lease is 

still valid. · 

9) If applicable, determine that copies of the approved Category II or Category III. 

authorization and manual are in the aircraft. 

a) Review the Category II/III authorization and provisions. 

b) Check that the aircraft make, model, and N-number is listed. 

c) Consider any instrument, airport, or weather requirements listed there or in the 

manual. 

1 0) If the aircraft operates under a letter of authorization for North Atlantic (NAT) 

Minimum Navigation Performance Specification (MNPS) airspace, determine if the letter is 

carried on board the aircraft. 

11) Determine if pertinent and current aeronautical charts are available. 

12)Ask the operator what type of instrument operations are conducted, for example: 

ILS, DME, RNAV. Determine ifthe required radio and navigational equipment is installed for 

the specific operations conducted. 

7 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use 
( 

8900.1 CHG 0 9/13/2007 

G. Inspect Aircraft. 

1) Determine the general airworthiness of the aircraft by inspecting the aircraft's 

exterior in a manner similar to a preflight inspection. 

2) Inspect seats and safety belts for installation and condition. 

3) If applicable, determine if a current VOR Equipment Check has been performed. 

4) Determine if an ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitter) is installed. Check the 

expiration date of the battery. 

5) Determine that the aircraft identification plate exists and is secured to aircraft 

fuselage exterior. (§ 45.ll(a)) 

H. Inspection Items for Large and Turbine-Powered Multiengine Airplanes Only. 

In addition to the items in subparagraphs F1 through 12 and G 1 through 4, inspect the following 

items: 

1) Determine if the aircraft has an emergency checklist available to the flight crew. 

2) Determine if the aircraft has one engine inoperative climb performance data 

available to the flight crew. 

3) Determine if pertinent and current aeronautical charts are available. 

4) Determine if a flashlight having two D-sized cell batteries, or equivalent, is 

accessible from the pilot station and in good working order. 

5) If the operator conducts overwater operations, determine that the required radio 

equipment is installed(§ 91.511). 

6) For transport category aircraft only, have the operator demonstrate that the aural 

speed warning device is in operating condition. 

7) Have the operator activate the smoking and safety belt signs. Determine if they 

are in operable condition. Check operation from the cockpit and the cabin. If applicable, at this 

time conduct the altitude alerting system or device check. 

8) Note whether the operator uses passenger briefmg cards to supplement oral 

briefings. If so, inspect the cards for location and correct information(§ 91.519). 

9) Determine if appropriate emergency equipment is on board the aircraft(§ 91.513). 

1 0) If the operator conducts overwater operations, inspect the following survival 

equipment for installation and condition: 

8 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use 
8900.1 CHG 0 9/13/2007 

• Life preservers with approved survivor locator light (for each occupant) 

• Life rafts with approved survivor locator light (amount should accommodate 

the number of occupants of the aircraft) 

• Pyrotechnic signaling devices (for each life raft) 

• Emergency radio signaling device 

• Lifeline 

• Appropriately equipped survival kit 

I. Inspection Items for Turbojet Powered Civil Airplanes Only. In addition to the 

items in subparagraphs F 1 through 12, G 1 through 4, and HI through 10, inspect the altitude 

alerting system or device for installation and operation. Conduct this test at the same time the 

smoking/safety belt sign and aural speed warning device test is accomplished. 

J. Inspection Discrepancies. If a discrepancy is discovered during the inspection, enter 

it on the appropriate job aid in the remarks section. 

1) Inform the operator of the discrepancy. Advise the operator that if the aircraft is 

operated without correcting the discrepancy, he or she may be in violation of 14 CFR. 

2) If necessary, issue FAA Form 8620-1 (Figure 6-6). 

a) Attach the bottom card (buff) on the aircraft by the string. Place it so that the 

operator will easily see it. 

b) Return the top and middle sheet (both white) to the airworthiness unit. 

K. Review Job Aid. Upon completion ofthe inspection, review the job aid for any 

suspected violations. If an enforcement investigation is necessary see Related Task # 182, 

Conduct an Investigation to Determine Compliance. 

L. Conclude Inspection. 

1) Discuss any pertinent safety information with the pilots or operator. 

2) Return any documentation. 

3) Advise the pilot or operator of any upcoming accident prevention or other safety 

meetings. 

4) If no discrepancies were found, compliment the pilot or operator. 

M. PTRS Report. Send a followup letter of correction (Figure 6-9) with a suspense date 

to remind a pilot or operator of noted discrepancies. Complete FAA Form 8000-36 in accordance 

with the PTRS field office manual. If the pilots or aircraft are not based in the inspector's 

district, forward a copy of the PTRS report and the job aid to the appropriate district office. 

N. District Office File. File the job aids in accordance with normal office procedures. 

UNCONTROLLED COP~ WHEN DOWNLOADED c; \ l~ Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use 1 
( 

8900.1 CHG 0 

9/13/2007 

6-102 TASK OUTCOMES. Completion of this task results in one or more of the following: 

• An indication in the district office files of a satisfactory inspection 

• An indication in the district office files of an unsatisfactory inspection 

• A letter of correction 

• An aircraft condition notice 

• Information package sent to another district office 

6-103 FUTURE ACTIVITIES. 

• A pilot or operator may be subject to a compliance investigation if the inspection 

reveals a possible violation of 14 CPR. 

• A followup inspection may be conducted to determine if any noted discrepancies have been corrected. 

RESERVED. Paragraphs 6-104 through 6-118. 

10 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check FSIMS to verifY this version is current prior to use 
8900.1 CHG 0 

Figure 6-5, Part 91 Ramp Inspection Job Aid 

PILOT NAME/ADDRESS INSPECTION LOCATION 

INSPECTOR NAME 

AIRCREW INFORMATION 

CERTIFICATES AIRMAN 

Name Grade Ratings Number 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

INSPECTION ITEMS s u REMARKS 

Pilot Certificates 

Pilot experience/qual. 

Biennial Flight Review 

AIRCRAFT DOCUMENTS 

Airworthiness Certificate 

Registration Certificate 

Radio Station License 

Operating Limitations 

Weight/Balance Information 

Minimum Equipment Ust 

Issued by N-Number 

Issued by Serial Number 

Letter of Authorization 

Inoperative Equipment 

Aeronautical Charts 

11 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use 

9/13/2007 

DATE OF 

INSPECTION 

MEDICAL 

Class Date 
( 

8900.1 CHG 0 9/13/2007 

BASIC AIRCRAFT DATA PAGE TWO 

N-Number Make/Model OWnadJl.eased (91.54) 

INSPECT AIRCRAFT s u REMARKS 

General Airworthiness 

ELT Battery 

VOR Check 

Seats/Safety Belts 

INSPECTION RESULTS 

REMARKS 

REGION DISTRICT OFFICE INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE 

12 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use 
8900.1 CHG 0 

Figure 6-6, FAA Form 8620-1, Aircraft Condition Notice 

13 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check FSIMS to verifY this version is current prior to use 

9/13/2007 
( 

8900.1 CHG 0 

0 ATTENTION 0 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION u.. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRA110N 

AIRCRAFT CONDmON NOTICE f'lli08 0 

tsee Privacy Act Statement on Rflvetae) 

Reglatratlon number MUG 

5erlal number Model 

NOTE. 1. The Items liSted below {Dare) (Dare not) conaldentd to be 

an Imminent hazard to safety. 2. Operation ol the aircraft prior to correotlon ~will) (l:dwtlleot) be contrary to Drtlnent"Federal Aviation Retula• 

ons. 3. A peclal Flight Permit ( will) ( hJ wHI not) be requlrld 

to be laaued Prior to operation If corrective act on baa not been ta1cen. 

4. A Special Flight Permit may be obtained from the office named beloW. 

The ownerllesaee copy ot this form waa Omai/H 0dellvetH. 

InsPeCtor (Sionalurwl Ar8a CIOde/ltJIIrlllftO. 

Office address Region 

DIIIIICI 

FAA Form 8820·1 (3-77) FORMERLY FAA FORM 832CHAND FAA FORIIIISII0-7 . 

14 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use 

9/13/2007 
( 

8900.1 CHGO 9/13/2007 

Figure 6-7, IFR Helicopter Letter of Approval 

ABC Construction, Inc. 

1234 Any Street 

USA 

Gentlemen: 

ABC Construction, Inc., is authorized by this approval to conduct helicopter operations under 

instrument flight rules (IFR) in accordance with Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SF AR) 

No. 29, and the limitations contained herein. A copy ofthis approval and a copy ofSFAR 

No. 29-4 will be set forth as a supplement to the rotorcraft flight manual, along with those 

operating limitations considere~ necessary for the safe operation of the rotorcraft in IFR 

operations, as incorporated in the operating limitations section. This letter of approval, the 

operating limitations, and a copy of SF AR No. 29-4 constitute a supplemental type certificate 

and must be on board the aircraft. 

LIMITATIONS: 

1. Only those helicopters listed, as follows, will be operated under this approval: (e.g., Bell 

Model206, Serial No. 123245, Registration No. N54321). 

2. For single pilot operation an approved and operable stability augmentation system 

SAS/autopilot may be used i~ lieu of a second in command. Otherwise, the minimum flightcrew 

must include a pilot in command and a second in command. 

a. SAS/autopilot, make (XYZ) and model (123). 

3. Each pilot must hold a rotorcraft-helicopter rating and an instrument helicopter rating (except 

as specified in paragraph 4). 

4. For the purpose -instrument instruction, each pilot in command must hold a flight instructor 

certificate with rotorcraft-helicopter and instrument-helicopter ratings. The second in command 

must hold a pilot's certificate with a rotorcraft-helicopter rating. The second pilot need not 

comply with paragraph 5 of this letter while undergoing the formal training program leading 

toward an instrument-helicopter rating. 

5. Each PIC authorized single pilot approval must have satisfactorily accomplished an instrument 

proficiency check utilizing a stability augmentation system or autopilot in lieu of a second in 

command within the preceding 6 calendar-months. 

6. Each pilot crewmember must have in his/her personal possession evidence of proficiency 

issued by an FAA inspector or authorized check pilot within the previous 6 calendar-months. 

7. Each helicopter operated under instrument flight rules shall meet the instrument and 

15 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use 
( 

8900.1 CHG 0 

9/13/2007 

equipment requirements of 14 CFR section(§) 91.33 and the following additional equipment: 

a. An independently-powered standby attitude indicator. 

b. A heated pitot tube and static port, or equivalent means of preventing airspeed and static 

system malfunction due to icing. 

c. The required instruments per 14 CFR sections(§§) 27.771 and 27.1321, or§§ 29.771 

and 29.1321, as appropriate. 

d. The pilot in command must use a boom mike. The transmitter must be capable of being 

activated through a device located on the flight controls. 

The instruments and equipment must be operable. A complete set of flight controls shall be 

installed and operable at each pilot station, except that single pilot approval will require a set of 

flight controls only at the PIC station. 

8. In accordance with paragraph 4 ofSFAR No. 29-4, fuel reserve required by 14 CFR 

§ 91.23(a)(3) may be reduced to 30 minutes. 

9. ABC Construction, Inc., will provide immediate notification to the Flight Standards District 

Office issuing this approval of any "hazardous" flight conditions encountered during IFR 

operations under SF AR No. 29-4. 

This approval will remain in effect until such time as it is surrendered, revoked, or otherwise 

terminated, or a change in th~ aircraft ownership takes place. 

John P. Brown, 

Manager 

16 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use 
( 

8900.1 CHG 0 

Figure 6-8, Ramp Inspection Flowchart 

Present FAA 10. 

t 

Satisfactory ~ Examine Airman Unsati8factory -

Certificates Note on Job Aid 

1 

+ 

Examine Unsatisfactory -

Satisfactory Aircraft la,ue FAA Form 

Documents 8620-1 

-. 

....__ 

+ . Unaatlafactory -

Satisfactory 14- Inspect Aircraft Issue FAA Form 

8620-1 

1 

+ 

Satlsfectory - Note Determine Unsatisfactory - Note 

Outcome on Job Aid; t4- Inspection Outcome on Job Aid; 

Complete PTRS Results Complete PTRS 

I 

f t 

Letter of Pouible 

Enforcement Correction lnve.tlgetlon 

17 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use 

9/13/2007 
( 

8900.1 CHG 0 9/13/2007 

Figure 6-9, Letter of Correction 

FAA LETTERHEAD 

Addressed to pilot/operator 

Dear ---

This letter is to notify you that an inspection of your [insert either documents or aircraft; if 

aircraft, indicate the make, model, and N-Number] on [insert date of the inspection] at [insert 

location] revealed deficiencies in the following: 

List specific items and the related 14 CFR (e.g., MEL letter of authorization not carried 

on board the aircraft, Ref. 14 CFR § 91.213). 

Your prompt attention to correcting these items is appreciated. Please respond to this office 

within 10 days to indicate your corrective action. If we may be of assistance, please call [include 

telephone number and operating hours of the district office]. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by the inspector conducting the inspection 

18 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use 
i 

I 

1 

diu lZir-() «l h " 

' "l 

! 

< 

I 

:I 

I I 

J 

! 

l 

! 

l 

., 

-. 

' 

' I 

I 

I i 

l 

I 

I 

I 

l 
( 

8900.1 CHG 0 

VOLUME 14 COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO INVESTIGATION AND 

COMPLIANCE-RELATED TASKS 

Section 5 Special Considerations-General Aviation 

9/13/2007 

14-85. GENERAL. The following paragraphs contain information on some compliance areas 

where conflicting policies have frequently occurred. This information should be referenced by 

inspectors when investigating cases related to the special considerations. 

14-86. RECKLESS OPERATION OF AIRCRAFT. Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) section(§) 91.13 provides that, "No person may operate an aircraft in a 

careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another." Neither 49 United 

States Code ( 49 U.S .C.) nor the 14 CFR define "reckless" or "reckless manner." The National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), however, has in several cases dealt with the allegation that 

a particular operations was "reckless" within the meaning of 14 CFR § 91.13 and has thus 

contributed towards a definition of the phrase, "reckless manner." 

A. NTSB Case History. The cases studied by the NTSB indicate that recklessness 

involves deliberate and willful conduct, i.e., conduct that reflects a wanton disregard for others' 

safety. 

1) The inspector can infer a deliberate and willful disregard of the regulations or 

safety standards from the circumstances surrounding a violation. 

a) It need not be established that a pilot intended to be reckless but only that he 

or she intended to engage in deliberate or willful action which resulted in a deviation from 

14 CFR or from safety standards and which created actual or potential danger to the life or 

property of another. 

b). For example, the NTSB said of a pilot whom it found to have been reckless 

when the pilot deliberately operated an aircraft within 50 to 200 feet of another aircraft for a 

period of 5 to 10 minutes-

" ... so long as the respondent intends to do the particular acts complained of, and 

the resulting action widely departs from the norm of reasonably prudent conduct, 

a finding of reckless operation does not require proof of the state of the pilot's 

mind but can be inferred from the nature of [the pilot's] acts or omissions and the 

surrounding circumstances." 

2) In one violation the airmen flew visual flight rules (VFR) in formation and 

proceeded into a mountainous area in instrument flight rules (IFR) conditions at dusk without 

an 

ascertaining 

inoperative 

the 

radio. 

weather 

The 

conditions. 

NTSB declared 

Neither 

that 

pilot 

the conduct 

held an instrument 

of such a flight 

rating 

was 

and 

reckless. 

one aircraft 

The 

had ~ 

......-:-:::; \U 

NTSB found that the conduct was" ... so devoid of basic safe operating practices and adherence ~~ iP1 

to critical safety regulations that it constituted a ~ldess operation." 

1 1 

b 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use 
( 

8900.1 CHGO 9/13/2007 

B. Conduct Deemed Reckless. The fact patterns of some individual cases tried before 

the NTSB provide guidance about the kind of conduct that the NTSB will deem reckless. For 

example: 

1) The pilot of an aircraft, in an attempt to land on a highway in a non-emergency 

situation, approached from the rear and struck a moving truck. The truck was substantially 

damaged, and the person who was sitting in the middle of the front seat of the truck was 

seriously injured. The NTSB, after considering the circumstances surrounding the incident, 

found that the respondent operated the aircraft in a reckless manner. 

2) In another case an airman willfully and deliberately made several extremely close 

passes near a van for the purpose of causing apprehension or bodily harm to the occupants of the 

van. The NTSB wrote, "Such piloting can only be characterized as reckless operation which 

created a serious hazard to the van." 

3) The allegation of recklessness was affirmed by the NTSB in a case where an air 

carrier pilot operating an aircraft in scheduled air transportation took off from an airport after 

being advised that the reported visibility was 1/16 of a mile. The takeoff minimums were 114 of a 

mile. The NTSB held that the" ... knowing violation of one of the standards applicable to air 

carrier pilots forms the basis of the finding of reckless operation." 

4) In another case where the NTSB found recklessness, the pilot violated several 

14 CFR. The airman carried passengers on several flights when not rated in the aircraft, had no 

instruction or experience in the aircraft, the aircraft had not been issued an airworthiness 

certificate nor had been inspected for the issuance of the certificate, the aircraft had not 

undergone an annual inspectibn, and the aircraft carried no identification markings. The NTSB 

considered the entire range of circumstances and the broad areas of noncompliance with the 

regulations under which numerous flights were conducted, many on which passengers were 

carried, a reckless operation. 

5) In another case, the airman was acting as pilot-in-command of an aircraft on a 

VFR, passenger carrying flight carrying parachutists for compensation. The pilot deliberately 

performed an aileron roll. The seriousness of this violation was accentuated by the fact that the 

aircraft was not certificated for aerobatics, two parachutists were in the air when the roll was 

performed, the roll took place at an altitude of 500 to 800 feet over a group of persons on the 

ground, and the flight was made for compensation. The NTSB found the respondent's violations 

to be deliberate and knowing and, therefore, reckless. 

6) In another case the pilot-in-command flew the pilot's personal aircraft on a VFR, 

passenger carrying flight. During the course of the flight, the aircraft entered clouds and 

subsequently crashed into a mountainside. The NTSB held that the" ... respondent's continued 

VFR flight into clouds in the vicinity of mountainous terrain demonstrated inherently reckless 

conduct." 

7) A pilot was found to be reckless when that pilot ignored specific air traffic control 

instructions. Contrary to air traffic control (ATC) instructions, the pilot failed to report 

UNCONTROLLED COP; WHEN DOWNLOADED v/ k 

Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use 
( 

8900.1 CHGO 9/13/2007 

downwind, landed the aircraft instead of going around, made a 180° tum on the runway, and 

departed via a taxiway. The NTSB noted that the go-around instruction was given four separate 

times by the controller, yet the pilot persisted with the approach and landing. The NTSB also 

stated that," ... it appears that [the pilot] made up his mind to land the aircraft and no amount of 

instruction from the tower could keep him from that goal." The pilot's operation of the aircraft 

was characterized as reckless. 

C. Conclusion. While there is no regulatory definition of the term, "reckless," it has 

been defined in cases decided by the NTSB. A reckless operation results from the operation of an 

aircraft conducted with a deliberate or willful disregard of the regulations or accepted standards 

of safety so as to endanger the life or property of another either potentially or actually. 

Accordingly, any such reckless behavior violates 14 CFR § 91.13. 

14-87. AIRWORTHY OR UNAIRWORTHY? The term "airworthiness" or one of its 

derivatives, is also not defined in 49 U .S.C. or 14 CFR. Nevertheless, a clear understanding of its 

meaning is an essential tool for the compliance program. Airworthiness is a concept that 

represents the substance of two of the most fundamental safety regulations, 14 CFR § 43.15(a) 

and 91.7(a). 

A. Regulatory Background. 

1) Title 14 CFR § 43.15(a) states that each person conducting a 100-hour, annual, or 

progressive inspection required by 14 CFR part 91 must perform those inspections in such a 

manner as to determine whether the aircraft meets all applicable airworthiness requirements. 

2) Title 14 CFR § 91.7(a) states that no one may operate a civil aircraft unless it is 

airworthy. 

B. NTSB Decisions. The example below clearly expresses the view that an aircraft is 

airworthy only if it is capable of a safe operation and it conforms to its type certificate. 

1) In this case the issue was whether the pilot had violated 14 CFR § 91.7(a) by 

operating an aircraft that was not in an airworthy condition. The respondent had taxied the 

aircraft into a mud hole, causing the propeller to strike the ground. As a result one blade was bent 

and the other was nicked. Upon restarting the engine ran smoothly so that the pilot did not 

consider the damage to be significant. The pilot decided to give the aircraft a test flight and 

found that there was no unusual engine vibration or other indication of malfunction. The pilot 

then operated the aircraft from Nevada to Kansas to New York to Pennsylvania, and to several 

locations in Florida. 

2) Upon hearing the case after a subsequent investigation revealed the damage and 

the violation, the examiner held that the damage to the propeller caused it to be unairworthy and 

sustained the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) allegation that the respondent had violated 

14 CFR § 91.7(a). The examiner's findings were based on the theory that an aircraft is airworthy 

if it conforms to its type certification but that it is not airworthy if its original design and 

specifications are altered without FAA approval. 

3 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use 
( 

8900.1 CHGO 9/13/2007 

3) The concept of airworthiness expressed in this case must be considered to be the 

correct one because it is the one which best lends itself to effective enforcement. It is supported 

clearly by some NTSB precedents and is reinforced by the framework of 49 U.S.C. and the 

practical operation of the FAA itself. The concept that an aircraft need only be capable of a safe 

operation to be airworthy cannot be applied effectively because it places too much discretion in 

the individual pilot or mechanic, safety being a subjective value. 

C. Additional Interpretations. A careful study of 49 U .S.C. indicates that the term 

airworthiness should be interpreted in the manner that it has been in the example above. 

file an application for an airworthiness certificate. If the FAA finds that the aircraft conforms to 

the type certificate for that aircraft and determines, after inspection, that the aircraft is in 

condition for safe flight, the FAA issues the airworthiness certificate. 

2) The statutory language in section 603 clearly establishes that two tests be applied 

in determining whether the owner of an aircraft should be granted an airworthiness certificate. 

First, the aircraft must conform to the type certificate for that aircraft. Then, if that condition is 

met, the aircraft must be inspected to determine that it is in a condition which will permit its safe 

operation. 

3) The very term "airworthiness certificate" implies that an aircraft granted such a 

certificate is "airworthy." Therefore, an aircraft denied such a certificate is not airworthy. The 

plain meaning of section 603( c) indicates that 49 U.S .C. intended that an aircraft should not be 

considered to merit the issuance of an airworthiness certificate unless it conforms to the type 

certificate applicable to it. Therefore, it can be argued that 49 U .S.C. established the concept of 

airworthiness to mean," ... to be in conformance with the applicable type certificate as well as to 

be in a condition for safe operation ... " 

4) The practical operation of the FAA should also be considered in determining 

which concept of airworthiness is most appropriate. If the term airworthy were interpreted to 

mean only to be in a condition for safe flight, at times it would be unreasonably difficult, if not 

impossible, to enforce the regulations which tum upon the meaning of that term. In order to 

prove that a pilot operated an unairworthy aircraft or that a mechanic certified an unairworthy 

aircraft as airworthy, the FAA sometimes would be required to undertake an extensive test-flight 

program of an aircraft that did not conform to the applicable type certificate. 

5) Moreover, if airworthy meant only to be in a condition for safe flight, it would 

render the entire airworthiness certification procedure meaningless. Title 49 U.S.C. provides for 

the issuance of a type certificate-a certificate that includes the type design as dictated by the 

type certification data in the aircraft's operating limitations and any other conditions or 

limitations prescribed in the applicable regulations. Title 49 U.S.C. specifies that the type 

certificate is to be referred to in determining whether an aircraft should be granted an 

airworthiness certificate. However, if an aircraft need only be capable of safe flight to be .4~ .. 1.""!- .... ~- • ··-· ~ -~ • ·- -- --·- ~~ ·---~ .... -~---~-1 -~ 
( 

' 

8900.1 CHG 0 9/13/2007 

presumed to be airworthy unless the FAA could prove that the modification was in some way 

detrimental to the aircraft's flight characteristics or structural strength. 

D. Conclusion. To be airworthy an aircraft must conform to its type certificate as well as 

be in a condition for safe operation. A word of caution is necessary, however, if this concept of 

airworthiness is to be applied effectively in enforcement cases. Where the evidence clearly 

demonstrates that the aircraft is not in a condition for safe operation, the NTSB will undoubtedly 

sustain a finding that the aircraft was unairworthy. However, if the condition of the aircraft is 

such that it would not be considered to be in conformance with the type certificate, yet it is not 

clearly unsafe for flight, then the NTSB will probably not sustain a finding that the aircraft is not 

airworthy in the absence of positive evidence concerning the contents of the type certificate data 

and the particulars in which the aircraft in question differs from that data. 

14-88. VIOLATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH REGIONAL AND NATIONAL SPECIAL 

INSPECTIONS. This paragraph contains information on some of the problems that occur when 

inspection teams discover violations. 

A. Problems with Special Inspection Violations. 

1) Sometimes the inspector team does not discuss suspected violations found during 

the inspection with the operator or with the local Right Standards District Office (FSDO) during 

the inspection or at the debriefing. There have been times when the FSDO has been advised 

during debriefing that no violations were found, only to be followed later, sometimes much later, 

with a report which indicates that a number of violations were found. 

2) Many times the team includes alleged violations in special inspection reports 

when there is insufficient evidence included with the reports to prove the violations. 

3) One way to diminish the effectiveness of an enforcement act ion, especially one 

with any complexity, is to have one inspector investigate the violation and another to write the 

report. It is impossible to assure a 100% transfer of technical information from the investigating 

inspector to the reporting inspector. Therefore, the quality, timeliness, and overall effectiveness 

of the Enforcement Investigation Report (EIR) is significantly diminished. It has been proposed 

that the members of the insp~ction team who find the violations be responsible for writing the 

report. 

B. Solving the Problems. Since the crux of the problem appears to be the hand-off of 

information from the investigating inspector to the reporting inspector, it appears that better 

coordination and cooperation during the inspection is needed to help solve the problem. 

1) The special inspection team leader should immediately notify the appropriate 

FSDO principal inspector of any suspected violations found during the inspection. From that 

point on, the principal inspector should assist in the violation investigation. 

2) Before the inspection is completed, or at least before the inspection report is 

written, the team leader or the principal inspector should read and analyze the regulations 

5 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use 
, 

f I 

c-

( 

8900.1 CHG 0 

9/13/2007 

involved and write a preliminary Summary of Facts on each section of 14 CPR believed violated 

and assure that there is sufficient evidence available to prove every word of it, in accordance 

with the instructions in this chapter. 

3) Whoever writes the preliminary Summary of Facts should test the Summary of 

Facts and supporting evidence with the other inspector before citing the occurrence as a violation 

in the inspection report. 

RESERVED. Paragraphs 14-89 through 14-103. 

6 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use 
( 

1/14/10 8900.1 CHG 83 

VOLUME14COMWLMNCEANDENFORCEMENT 

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO INVESTIGATION AND COMPLIANCE RELATED 

TASKS 

Section 8 Enforcement Decision Process· 

14-140 GENERAL. This section establishes policy for the Flight Standards Service (AFS) 

replacing the Enforcement Decision Tool (EDT) with the Enforcement Decision Process (EDP). 

EDP corrects deficiencies in the EDT policy and worksheet that were identified during a 

nationwide evaluation of how AFS enforcement personnel applied the EDT. This policy provides 

an eight-step electronic template/worksheet, the Electronic EDP (E-EDP) (Figure 14-11), for 

enforcement personnel to use to determine the appropriate action (legal, administrative, 

informal) to take for noncompliance with regulatory requirements. The change simplifies the 

EDP, reduces redundancies, and provides examples to facilitate completion of the E-EDP 

worksheet. This policy and worksheet conform to the FAA EDP guidelines in Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) Order 2150.3, Compliance and Enforcement Program Appendix F, , 

current edition. This policy applies to all AFS personnel involved in compliance and 

enforcement tasks. 

14-141 TASK PREREQUISITES AND SIGNIFICANT INTERFACES. Aviation safety 

inspectors (ASI) must have knowledge of the requirements of Title 49 of the United States Code 

(49 U.S.C.); Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR); and AFS policies. 

A. Significant Interfaces. This process requires coordination and/or interface with the 

following: 

• Field office management team; 

• Flight Standards Division; 

• Office of Regional Counsel; 

• Enforcement Information System (EIS); 

• Civil Aviation Registry; 

• Accident Incident Data Subsystem (AIDS); 

• Safety Performance Analysis System (SPAS); and 

• Program Tracking and Reporting Subsystem (PTRS). 

B. References (current editions). This process requires access to: 

• Title 14 CFR parts 1 through 193, 

• FAA Order 2150.3, 

• FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Management System (FSIMS), 

• PTRS Procedures Manual (PPM), ~ i'l 

• Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 447, and Chapter 463. .:;;;?/ : ~61 't 

C. Forms. None. 

D. Job Aids. This process requires access to the E-EDP worksheet. 

1 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check with FSIMS to verify current version before using 

,....... (''\too' 

...-z.. 

EXHIBIT 
( 

c·· 

C. 

1/14/10 8900.1 CHG 83 

E. Additional Guidance. Authorization and additional guidance for this process is in 

FAAOrder 2150.3. 

F. PTRS Activity Code. This process requires the use of the following PTRS activity 

codes as appropriate: 

1) Task Activity Codes-1734/3734/5734 (INVESTG/ENFRCMNT/INFORMAL 

ACTION). 

2) Task Activity Codes-1733/3732/5732 (INVESTG/ENFRCMNT/ADMIN 

ACTION). 

3) Task Activity Codes-1732/3731/5731 (INVESTG/ENFRCMNTILEGAL 

ACTION). 

4) On-the-job training (OJT) Instructor Activity Code-1024/3024/5024 

5) OJT Trainee Activity Cod~1023/3023/5023. 

14-142 DEFINITIONS. 

A. Act. An overt action and includes the failure to take an action. 

B. Adequate Deterrent. The AFS action is reasonably likely to discourage the alleged 

violator and others similarly situated from committing the same or very similar conduct for the 

foreseeable future. 

C. Administrative Action. A letter of correction or a warning notice. 

D. Constructive Attitude. The alleged violator acts in a positive manner toward 

regulatory requirements, cooperates with AFS investigative personnel to achieve compliance, 

and willingly takes actions necessary to come into and maintain compliance. 

E. Inadvertent. An act that is the result of both inattention and lack of purposeful 

choice. A violation is inadveFtent when it does not result from an alleged violator's conscious 

decision to take, or not take any action that could have prevented the apparent violation. 

F. Informal Action. Oral or written counseling of individuals or entities for regulatory 

noncompliance, documented in PTRS. 

G. Hazard. A condition that could lead to injury or property damage. 

H. Lack of Qualification. A certificate holder lacks the skills and competency, or care, 

judgment, and responsibility necessary to hold that certificate. Where a certificate holder 

commits a violation indicating a lack of qualifications to hold the certificate, the FAA takes legal 

action to revoke the violator's certificate. 

2 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check with FSIMS to verify current version before using 
( 

1/14/10 8900.1 CHG 83 

I. Likelihood. The probability (frequent, occasional, or remote) of the worst type of 

injury or damage realistically (and potentially) occurring, considering the actual facts specific to 

each case. 

J. Legal Action. Enforcement action other than administrative action or informal action. 

K. On-the-Spot. Corrective action for a low-risk violation is completed on-the-spot 

when a violation(s) is identified by the FAA and communicated to an individual or company. 

L. Remedial Training. A program authorized in Order 2150.3, Chapter 5 that AFS 

inspectors use for certificated airmen when remedial training is the appropriate action to take for 

a violation. " 

M. Safety Risk. The level (high, moderate, or low) of potential injury or property 

damage from a hazard created by an act, considering the hazard severity and the likelihood that 

the potential severity will be realized. 

N. Severity. The worst type of injury or damage (catastrophic, critical, marginal, or 

negligible) that could realistically (and potentially) occur from a generic violation of the type 

involved in the subject violation. A generic violation refers to the basic act or failure to act, 

absent any specific facts or circumstances. 

0. Substantial Disregard for Safety or Security. 

I) In the case of a certificate holder, that the act was a substantial deviation from the 

degree of care, judgment, and responsibility normally expected of a person holding that 

certificate with that type, quality, and level of experience, knowledge, and proficiency. 

2) In the case of a violator who is not a certificate holder, substantial disregard 

means the act was a substantial deviation from the degree of care and diligence expected of a 

reasonable person in those circumstances. 
I 

\ 

1/14/10 

8900.1 CHG 83 

Figure 14-10, Process Flowchart-AFS Enforcement Decision Process 

No-----< 

Legal 

High 

14-143 PROCEDURES. 

ViOlation Identified 

Categorically excluded? 

No 

Ha:ve ALL aomlnlstratlve 

action criteria been met? 

Yes 

Perform Risk Assessment 

Moderate 

Administrative 

Handle under 

Yes ~ applicable enforcement 

guidance 

Low 

Administrative or Informal 

A. Application ofthe E-EDP Worksheet. AFS investigative personnel use the E-EDP 

after they have gathered sufficient evidence and other relevant information to analyze the facts 

and circumstances of the apparent violation under the administrative action criteria and, if 

necessary, categorize its safety risk. 

1) To apply the EDP, AFS enforcement personnel use the AFS E-EDP worksheet to . 

analyze the facts and circumstances (appropriate to each step) disclosed by.an investigation or 

identified during an inspection. 

4 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check with FSIMS to verifY current version before using 
1114/10 8900.1 CHG 83 

2) AFS enforcement personnel document their completion ofthe E-EDP in PTRS 

using the code appropriate for the enforcement action taken. 

· 3) Inspectors must complete the AFS E-EDP worksheet for all violations, except: 

a) Enforcement personnel take administrative action or informal action for 

low-risk violations corrected on the spot. For example, inspection findings of an incomplete field 

on an otherwise satisfactorily completed (and required) record or form, or a missing logbook 

entry for work-in-progress are usually low-risk violations. Placement of information by the 

alleged violator in the incomplete field, or completing the required logbook entry might suffice 

as an on-the-spot correction for these kinds of low-risk cases. When a certificate holder corrects 

low-risk violations on the spot, it is acceptable to use administrative action or informal action 

(oral or written counseling) after the correction to close these violations. 

NOTE: Completion and retention of an E-EDP worksheet is not required for 

low-risk violations corrected on the spot; however, if inspectors accept an 

on-the-spot correction they must perform an E-EDP risk analysis before closing 

the case to confirm that the violation was low risk. (Refer to steps three, four, and 

five of the E-EDP worksheet.) 

b) Cases that are accepted and closed under the Aviation Safety Action Program 

(ASAP) with administrative action or informal action. 

NOTE: Although completion of the E-EDP worksheet is not required for 

violations accepted under ASAP, before informal action can be used to close an 

ASAP case, an affinnative response is required to E-EDP worksheet step two, 

criterion number three-the apparent violation does not indicate a lack of 

qualification. In addition, the violation must be low risk, determined by applying 

E-EDP worksheet steps three, four, and five. 

B. Determine Whether the Case is Categorically Excluded From the E-EDP. AFS 

investigative personnel determine ifthe apparent violation involves any of the matters described 

in subparagraphs 1) through 7) below. Ifthe violation involves any of these matters, the case is 

categorically excluded from the EDP. 

NOTE: If the excluded case warrants legal enforcement action, enforcement 

personnel complete steps one and eight of an E-EDP worksheet for inclusion in 

section B of the Enforcement Investigation Report (EIR) indicating that the 

subject case was categorically excluded. 

1) Apparent violations that are disclosed under and meet the criteria of the Voluntary 

Disclosure Reporting Program (VDRP) are handled per VDRP guidance. · 

2) A case involving a substantiated lack of qualification, or questionable 

qualification. For example: 

a) Positive drug and alcohol test results. 

5 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check with FSIMS to verify current version before using 
( 

C ... 

1114/10 8900.1 CHG 83 

b) Failing to successfully complete a reexamination. 

c) Failing to possess the skills and competency required for the certificate held. 

d) Refusing to permit and/or submit to an inspection, reexamination, or a drug or 

alcohol test. 

e) Intentionally falsifYing a record or application. 

f) Cheating on a written examination. 

3) Criminal activity, such as narcotics convictions. 

4) Special-emphasis enforcement programs, such as temporary flight restriction 

violations. 

5) Operating without having been issued a required certificate, rating, or other 

required and valid authorization, such as a 14 CFR part 61, § 61.58 pilot in command proficiency 

check. 

6) Apparent violation(s) by a military pilot that are referred to the Department of 

Defense. 

7) Apparent violation(s) by a foreign pilot that are referred to the Department of 

State. 

C. Determine if All 'criteria for Taking Administrative or Informal Action Have 

Been Met. If a case is not categorically excluded from the E-EDP, then AFS investigative 

personnel determine whether the apparent violation meets the criteria for taking administrative 

action or informal action. Before taking either administrative action or informal action for an 

apparent violation, AFS investigative personnel must determine if all of the criteria have been 

met. 

NOTE: Criteria for informal action and administrative action are the same. 

1) If AFS investigative personnel determine that an apparent violation does not meet 

all criteria, then they must recommend the appropriate legal enforcement action for the 

violation(s), unless division management approves a deviation in accordance with 

subparagraph 14-143F .. 

2) AFS investigative personnel indicate on the AFS E-EDP worksheet whether all 

criteria for taking administrative action or informal action have been met. 

3) If any of the criteria have not been met, AFS investigative personnel indicate 

which criteria were not met and explain why on the E-EDP worksheet. 

4) Below is an abbreviated list of the criteria for taking administrative action or 

informal action; a complete discussion of these criteria is Order 2150.3, Chapter 5. 

6 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check with FSIMS to verify current version before using 
( 

1114/10 8900. I CHG 83 

a) Legal enforcement action is not required by law. For example, 49 U.S.C., 

section 44 7 I 0 mandates that the FAA revoke the certificate of any airman who is convicted of a 

drug-related offense where the underlying offense involves the use of an aircraft. For these cases, 

the FAA may not take administrative action, or even pursue legal enforcement action to suspend 

the airman's certificate, but instead must pursue legal enforcement action to revoke the violator's 

airman certificate. 

b) Administrative action would deter future violations. 

c) The apparent violation does not indicate a lack of qualification. 

d) The apparent violation must have been inadvertent. A violation is inadvertent 

when it does not result from an alleged violator's conscious decision to take or not take any 

action that could have prevented the violation. For instance: 

1. (Airworthiness): A mechanic improperly performs maintenance because 

he or she misreads an instruction in the maintenance manual has acted inadvertently. 

2. An air carrier who operates an aircraft with an improperly deferred 

component because of genuine miscommunication with maintenance control has acted 

inadvertently (e.g., the maintenance controller misheard the discrepancy reported). 

3. (Operations): A pilot misses a checklist item because of an air traffic 

control communication. 

4. Unruly or intoxicated passengers, or passengers who smoke aboard an 

aircraft, act purposefully, and therefore, have not acted inadvertently. 

e) The apparent violation does not involve a substantial disregard for safety or 

security. Substantial disregard for safety or security means in the case of a certificate holder, that 

the act was a substantial deviation from the degree of care, judgment, and responsibility normally 

expected of a person holding that certificate with that type, quality, and level of experience, 

knowledge, and proficiency. In the case of a violator who is not a certificate holder, substantial 

disregard means the act was I! substantial deviation from the degree of care and diligence 

expected of a reasonable person in those circumstances. For instance: 

1. (Airworthiness): Failing to consult the maintenance manual and then 

conducting an incomplete or improper inspection of a critical required inspection item. 

2. (Operations): A Commercial-rated pilot taking off at a busy controlled 

airport without having received takeoff clearance. 

3. (Airworthiness, no certificate held): A maintenance controller instructs a 

line mechanic to defer a discrepancy using a specific minimum equipment list item number with 

knowledge that the system or component deferred is not inoperative. 

4. (Operations, no certificate held): An uncertificated flight school operates 

its aircraft without conducting an annual inspection for 3 years. 

7 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check with FSIMS to verify current version before using 
( 

1114/10 8900.1 CHG 83 

f) The circumstances ofthe apparent violation were not aggravated. Aggravated 

circumstances are those that make or could make the violation worse, more serious or the 

potential outcome more severe. For instance: 

1. In a case involving an intentional violation with passengers onboard, both 

the intentional misconduct, and the fact that passengers were onboard are aggravating 

circumstances. 

2. (Airworthiness): For a mechanic who performs an annual inspection 

improperly, the circumstances are more aggravated ifthe FAA later identifies 30 separate 

discrepancies, than when the FAA finds only 2. 

3. (Operations): For a pilot who operates an aircraft that is not in an 

airworthy condition, the circumstances are more aggravated where the unairworthy condition 

presents a safety-of-flight issue, than where the condition is a technical nonconformity to the 

aircraft's type design. 

g) The alleged violator has a constructive attitude toward compliance. 

Constructive attitude means that the alleged violator acts in a positive manner toward regulatory 

requirements, cooperates willingly with FAA personnel to achieve compliance, and willingly 

takes actions necessary to come into and maintain compliance. 

h) The apparent violation does not indicate a trend of noncompliance. A trend of 

noncompliance is indicated by a violation history that can include legal enforcement action(s), 

administrative action(s) and/or informal action(s). If the violations resulted from the same 

repeated misconduct by an individual, or by the same department, section or group of a small 

entity's organization, then the subsequent violation might suggest a disregard for the regulations 

and the beginning of a trend of noncompliance. In this case, administrative action or informal 

action is not appropriate. 

D. Analyzing Risk. AFS investigative personnel analyze the risk of an apparent 

violation only if all criteria for administrative action or informal action have been met. 

1) To determine ~he level of risk, AFS investigative personnel first categorize the 

potential severity and actual likelihood of the hazard, that is, the dangerous condition, created by 

the apparent violation(s). 

2) The use of the term severity in assessing risk always means the worst type of 

injury or damage that could realistically (and potentially) occur from any hazardous condition. It 

is not based on the actual outcome of any act or violation but, as previously stated, must reflect 

the worst type of outcome that could realistically (and potentially) occur. For this reason, AFS 

investigative personnel consider only the potential outcome, not the actual outcome resulting 

from the act(s) or failure to act relevant to the subject violation when categorizing severity. 

3) Determining Severity. Based on the explanation stated above severity is the worst 

type of injury or damage that could realistically (and potentially) occur from a generic violation. 

A generic violation refers to the basic act or failure to act without considering any specific facts 

8 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check with FSIMS to verify current version before using 
1114/10 8900.1 CHG 83 

or circumstances. For example, an altitude deviation, a runway excursion, improperly performed 

maintenance, flight and duty recordkeeping, etc. The following guidelines apply to the 

·determination of severity: 

a) To determine severity, AFS enforcement personnel do not consider the 

specific facts of the case; the specific facts of the case are considered only when determining 

likelihood. 

b) Severity and likelihood are determined separately, and severity must be 

determined without considering the likelihood of that severity (or outcome) being realized. For 

example, if. a plausible argument can be made that a hazard could under some circumstances 

result in death or severe damage, the potential severity is catastrophic, in spite of the fact that 

such an outcome from the hazard might be extremely rare, or would not (realistically) occur. 

c) The most common error in determining severity is prematurely considering 

the facts and circumstances of a case. 

d) Severity can be one of the following: 

• Catastrophic (death or severe damage); 

• Critical (severe injury or substantial damage); 

• Marginal (moderate injury or damage); and 

• Negligible (minor or no injury or damage). 

e) When determining the potential severity of an apparent violation, the 

existence of fortuitous circumstances is not considered. The following is an example of 

fortuitous (by chance) circumstances and the determination of severity: An altitude deviation 

from an ATC clearance has the same potential outcome (catastrophic, due to a mid-air collision) 

regardless of whether there was another aircraft that came into conflict or not. For any altitude 

deviation violation, AFS enforcement personnel must consider what is the worst type of injury or 

damage that could realistically happen if an aircraft deviates from its assigned altitude without 

considering the weather, obstructions, other traffic in the area, the time of day, or other similar 

circumstances. The absence of another aircraft coming into conflict is a fortuitous circumstance. 

f) Other examples relevant to the categorization of severity: 

1. A fuel exhaustion occurrence has the same potential outcome 

(catastrophic) irrespective of whether an actual accident resulted. 

2. A pilot who operates after his or her medical certificate expires has the 

same potential outcome (catastrophic), irrespective of whether he or she has an actual medical 

condition. 

3. Failing to maintain accurate and current flight- and duty-time records has 

the same potential outcome (catastrophic) irrespective of whether the pilot were actually fatigued 

at the time of their operation. 

9 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check with FSIMS to verify current version before using 
I 

' 

\ 

1114/10 

8900.1 CHG 83 

4. The operation of an aircraft past the time limit for conducting a required 

inspection has the same potential outcome (catastrophic) irrespective of whether an actual 

airworthiness condition was not corrected on the aircraft as a result of the missed inspection. 

5. Failing to carry a load manifest onboard the aircraft has the same potential 

outcome (negligible) irrespective of any other factors because the failure to do so does not create 

a safety-of-flight condition. 

6. Operating an aircraft with an antenna that was improperly repaired with 

speed tape has the same potential outcome (catastrophic) irrespective of whether the speed tape 

interfered with its operation or rendered the antenna inoperative. 

7. Failing to make an entry in the aircraft maintenance logbook after 

installation of a repaired component has the same potential outcome (negligible) irrespective of 

other factors. 

4) Determining Likelihood. Likelihood is the probability of the worst type of injury 

or damage realistically occurring, considering the specific facts of the case. In other words, AFS 

investigative personnel determine how likely it is that the potential severity would actually be 

realized, given the facts and circumstances involved. 

a) Likelihood can be one of the following: 

1. Frequent (likely to occur often). 

2. Occasional (likely to occur sometimes). 

3. Remote (unlikely to occur, would seldom occur, or so unlikely, one can 

assume the potential severity (outcome) would not occur). 

b) Examples of how the facts of a case affect likelihood: 

1. For a restricted airspace incursion, the likelihood becomes higher the 

longer the pilot operated in the restricted airspace, the farther into the airspace the pilot 

penetrated, and the greater the number of other aircraft in the area. 

2. For operating an aircraft past a required inspection, the actual likelihood 

becomes higher the more time that has passed since the inspection was due, and the more time 

between inspections (100-hour v. annual). Also, the actual likelihood will be higher where the 

aircraft has an actual safety-of-flight airworthiness condition that would have been corrected had 

the inspection been completed when required. 

3. For failing to maintain current flight and duty records, the actual 

likelihood will be higher for an active pilot who has no flight time records, or flies many hours 

past the flight time limitations, than for a pilot who flies a small amount of time past the flight 

time limits, or does not exceed the flight time limits. 

10 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check with FSIMS to verify current version before using 
( 

1114/10 8900.1 CHG 83 

4. For operating an aircraft with an inoperative cargo restraint component, 

the likelihood will be less likely where the cargo weight does not exceed the maximum weight 

for operating with one restraint inoperative, and will be more likely where the weight is 

excessive, or multiple restraints are inoperative. 

5. For operating without complying with Airworthiness Directives, the 

likelihood will be higher when the aircraft is operated many hours beyond the compliance date 

than for an aircraft that is operated a small amount of time past the compliance date. 

6. For improperly performing maintenance, the likelihood will be more likely 

the more egregious the error and the greater the impact on safety-of-flight. 

7. For operating an aircraft with a very-high frequency antenna that had been 

improperly repaired with speed tape, the likelihood will be less likely if the aircraft had three 

separate communication systems, and the improperly repaired antenna was connected to only 

one of those systems. 

5) Determine the Safety Risk and the Appropriate Enforcement Action. The Risk 

Assessment and Action Matrix, in Figure 14-11, E-EDP Worksheet, helps determine the level of 

risk (high, moderate, or low) for an apparent violation and the necessary corresponding 

enforcement action the FAA should take after severity and likelihood have been determined. 

E. Remedial Training. AFS investigative personnel must address an apparent violation 

by an airman with remedial training provided all criteria for taking administrative 

action/informal action are met, the apparent violation presents a high safety risk, and all criteria 

for offering remedial training are met. Refer to Order 2150.3 Chapter 5 for a complete 

description of the remedial training process. The criteria for offering remedial training are as 

follows: 

1) Future compliance can be reasonably ensured through remedial training alone. 

2) The airman exhibits a constructive attitude that would lead the inspector to 

believe the airman has a willingness to comply, so noncompliance is less likely in the future. 

3) The conduct does not disclose a lack of, or reasonable basis to question, the 

airman's qualifications. 

4) The airman's record of enforcement actions does not indicate that remedial 

training would be inappropriate. 

5) The conduct is not deliberate, grossly negligent, or criminal in nature. 

NOTE: If the airman has not responded to the remedial training Letter of 

Investigation within 10 days of receipt, initiate legal enforcement action. Flight 

Standards District Office management has latitude to extend the response period 

beyond 10 days in eXtraordinary circumstances. 

11 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check with FSIMS to verify current version before using 

ll)z.-o 
( .'. . 

'I 

1114/10 8900.1 CHG 83 

NOTE: Remedial training cannot be used for airmen using their certificate in air 

transportation (air carrier operations) at the time of the violation. 

F. Deviation From the Matrix (if applicable). Enforcement personnel may determine 

that a case warrants a deviation from the enforcement action indicated by the Risk Assessment 

and Action Matrix. If AFS investigative personnel select a type of action other than that 

indicated by the matrix, then they must provide a justification and have approval of the division 

manager or equivalent. Refer to Order 2150.3, Chapter 5 for more information on using 

administrative action when the required criteria are not met. The following are examples of 

where a deviation from the type of action indicated by the matrix might be justified: 

1) In certain cases, where a business commits an apparent violation that meets the 

criteria for administrative/informal action, but presents a high safety risk, administrative action in 

the form of a letter of correction may be more appropriate to improve the operator's system for 

system safety benefits, even though the matrix directs legal action. For these cases, the potential 

safety benefits of a structured corrective action process that .incorporates a corrective action plan 

might be preferable to respond to the high safety risk. 

2) Administrative action may be more appropriate where the criteria for 

administrative/informal action are not met because an individual's apparent violation was not 

inadvertent, but there is negligible safety risk involved. For example, an apparent violation by a 

pilot who operates an aircraft without a pilot certificate in his or her possession, but is qualified 

and current to operate the aircraft, may be more appropriately addressed with a warning notice, 

as the violation does not endanger the aircraft or any occupants. 

3) The investigating office could also recommend that administrative action would 

not be appropriate and that the FAA should take legal enforcement.action. 

G. Documentation. 

1) E-EDP Worksheet-Retention requirements. E-EDP Worksheets required by this 

policy are maintained in accordance with established retention periods for EIRs and other · 

enforcement records. 

2) E-EDP Worksheet-· Filing requirements for cases requiring an E-EDP worksheet. 

a) Legal Enforcement Actions. Section B of the EIR includes the completed and 

signed E-EDP worksheet. 
( 

1114110 8900.1 CHG 83 

Report and the administrative action letter (or the SNAAP job aid) is placed in an investigating 

office enforcement case file for each separate action. 

2. This requirement does not apply to accepted ASAP cases closed with 

administrative action or informal action, or to other cases closed on the spot with informal action 

or administrative action. 

3) Excluded Cases Warranting Legal Enforcement Action. AFS inspectors complete 

Step One and sign the E-EDP worksheet indicating that the apparent violation is categorically 

excluded from the E-EDP. The signed E-EDP worksheet is included in Section B of the excluded 

case EIR. 

4) Excluded Cases That are Closed With Administrative or Informal Action. AFS 

inspectors complete Step One of a signed E-EDP worksheet indicating that the violation is 

categorically excluded from the E-EDP. The signed worksheet is placed in the investigating 

office case file. Alternatively, an E-EDP worksheet indicating categorical exclusion is not 

required if an Enforcement Information System (EIS) code, or PTRS code or field, or a PTRS 

comment indicate that the case was of a type that is categorically excluded. For example, VDRP 

cases, 49 U.S.C. section 44709 cases, etc. 

H. Entry in Tracking Systems. 

1) Record all legal action cases and administrative action cases in EIS and PTRS. 

2) Informal action cases do not require the preparation of an EIR nor a case number 

from EIS, but must be documented in PTRS to support national, regional, and local systems 

. safety analysis, and to identifY trends. 

a) AFS investigative personnel must record the following information on 

informal actions in PTRS: 

• Name ofthe individual or business; 

• Certificate type and number of the individual or business (as applicable); 

• Regul~tions involved (include section, paragraph and subparagraph); 

• Date of counseling; 

• Type of counseling (oral or written); 

• For businesses, name and title of person counseled; and 

• Brief description of the apparent noncompliance. 

I. Review of Application of the Enforcement Decision Process. 

1) AFS Regional Offices (RO) and field office management are responsible for 

reviewing each E-EDP worksheet and determining that it is completed in accordance with this 

section. The preparer and each reviewer will print and sign each E-EDP worksheet. A signature 

will indicate that the signatory concurs in the appropriateness of the action recommended and 

believes the E-EDP worksheet is prepared in accordance with all applicable policies. 

13 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check with FSIMS to verifY current version before using 
/ 

( 

\_ 

1114/10. 8900.1 CHG 83 

2) Copies of the complete administrative action case file (for all cases requiring 

completion of an E-EDP worksheet), including evidence sufficient to prove the violation, must 

be forwarded to the appropriate RO for review after issuance by the investigating office. 

NOTE: While this requirement does not require Items of Proof, sufficient 

documentation must be included with the file to show that the violation(s) 

occurred (e.g., a brief inspector statement, a copy of a photograph, copy of a 

logbook page). · 

3) Legal Concurrence. Before initiating legal enforcement action, legal counsel 

determines whether the recommendation for legal enforcement action is appropriate under the 

E-EDP. If legal counsel concurs with the AFS recommendation and analysis, legal counsel signs 

the E-EDP worksheet and initiates the case. If legal counsel disagrees that legal enforcement 

action is appropriate, or disagrees with how the E-EDP was applied in a case, then legal counsel 

and the appropriate AFS RO will discuss and attempt to resolve those disagreements before the 

legal action is initiated. If legal counsel still disagrees with taking legal enforcement action after 

discussion with the AFS RO, then legal counsel explains the reasons for such disagreement on 

the E-EDP worksheet, signs it, and returns the EIR to the AFS RO after review by the regional 

counsel or designate. If legal counsel disagrees with the AFS analysis under the E-EDP, but 

agrees with the recommended action, legal counsel does not return the EIR to the RO. Rather, 

legal counsel explains the reasons for the disagreement on the E-EDP worksheet, signs it, and 

initiates the case. 

14-144. TASK OUTCOMES. Completion of the E-EDP worksheet results in one of the 

following: 

• Exclusion of an apparent violation from the EDP; 

• Legal enforcement action; 

• Administrative action; 

• Informal action; 

• Remedial training; or 

• Deviation from the enforcement action indicated by the E-EDP process. 

14-145 FUTURE ACTIVITIES. Conduct a fo.llowup inspection to ensure completion of 

corrective action(s) when a Letter of Correction has been or will be issued. 

14 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check with FSIMS to verify current version before using 
1114/10 8900.1 CHG 83 

Figure 14-11, E-EDP Worksheet 

AFS ENFORCEMENT DECISION PROCESS (E-EDP) WORKSHEET 

Case Name: -------------------

EIR Number for Legal and Administrative Actions: -----------------------

PTRS Report Number for Informal Actions: __________ _ 

Note: Refer to FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 14, Chapter 1, Section 8, Enforcement 

Decision Process for definitions, policy explanations, and examples for each step. 

STEP ONE-Determine if this case is categorically excluded. 

Review the list below to determine if this case should be categorically excluded from the 

Enforcement Decision Process (EDP). If the case is excluded, either place a checkmark in the 

box adjacent to the type of case from the following list, or explain why this case has been 

excluded. (See below.) 

Types of cases that are categorically excluded from the EDP: 

D 1. Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program (VDRP). Violations that are 

voluntarily disclosed under VDRP and that meet all acceptance criteria for the program. 

0 2. Lack of Qualifications. Lack of qualification means a certificate holder lacks the 

skills and competency, or care, judgment, and responsibility necessary to hold that 

certificate. For examples, see the list below: 

• Drug and alcqhol positives; 

• Failing to successfully complete a reexamination; 

• Failing to possess the skills and competency required for the certificate held; 

• Refusing to permit and/or submit to an inspection, reexamination, or drug or 

alcohol test; 

• Intentionally falsifying a record or application; or 

• Cheating on a written examination. 

Note: Legal enforcell_l:ent action is required for these cases. 

0 3. Criminal Activity. For example, cases involving controlled substances. 

Note: Legal enforcement action is required for these cases. 

D 4. Special Emphasis Enforcement Programs. For example, currently cases 

involving Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) violations. 

D 5. Operating without having been issued a required certificate, rating or other 

required authorization. 

Note: Legal enforcement action is required for these cases. 

D 6. Violations involving military pilots that are referred to the Department of 

Defense (DOD). 

15 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check with FSIMS to verify current version before using 
( 

1/14/10 8900.1 CHG 83 

D 7. Violations involving foreign rated airmen that are referred to the State 

Department. 

Is this case categorically excluded? Place a checkmark in the box adjacent to your yes or no 

selection. 

DYes-the case is excluded. Explain in the space provided below ifyou have not 

placed a checkmark in one of the boxes above. 

Comments: 

If the case is excluded, 0 the EDP after completing Step One and print and sign the 

worksheet. Then proceed in accordance with applicable enforcement guidance. 

D No-the case is not excluded. Proceed to Step Two. 

STEP TWO-Administrative Action and Informal Action Criteria. 

Review the following criteria. For each of the criteria that have been met place a 

checkmark in the appropriate box. 

D 1. Legal enforcement action is not required by law. For example, 

U.S.C. Section 44710 and drug-related offenses. 

D 2. Administrative action would adequately deter future violations. Adequately 

deter means that the FAA action is reasonably likely to discourage the alleged violator 

and others similarly situated from committing the same or very similar conduct for the 

foreseeable future. 

D 3. The apparent violation does not indicate a lack of qualification. Lack of 

qualification means a certificate holder lacks the skills and competency, or care, 

judgment, and responsibility necessary to hold that certificate. 

D 4. The apparent violation was inadvertent, (i.e., not the result of purposeful 

conduct). A violation is inadvertent when it does not result from an alleged violator's 

conscious decision to take or not take any action that could have prevented the violation. 

D 5. The apparent violation does not involve a substantial disregard for safety or 

security. Substantial_disregard for safoty or security means, in the case of a certificate 

holder, that the act was a substantial deviation from the degree of care, judgment, and 

responsibility normally expected of a person holding that certificate with that type, 

quality, and level of experience, knowledge, and proficiency. 

D 6. The circumstances of the apparent violation were not aggravated. Aggravated 

circumstances are those that make, or could make, the violation worse, more serious, or 

the potential outcome more severe. 

D 7. The alleged violator has a constructive attitude toward compliance. 

Constructive attitude means that the alleged violator acts in a positive manner toward 

regulatory requirements, cooperates willingly with FAA investigative personnel to 

achieve compliance, and willingly takes actions necessary to come into and maintain 

compliance. 

16 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check with FSIMS to verify current version before using 
c 

( 

1/14/10 8900.1 CHG 83 

D 8. The apparent violation does not indicate a trend of noncompliance. A trend of 

noncompliance is indicated by a prior violation history which can include legal 

enforcement action(s), administrative action(s) and/or informal action(s). 

Have all criteria for taking Administrative Action been met? Please place a checkmark in the box 

adjacent to your yes or no selection. 

0 No, all of the criteria have not been met. In the space provided below, please explain 

why the criteria have not been met. 

Explanation: 

Please e the EDP, and after completing Step Two, print and sign the worksheet and proceed 

with legal eriforcement action. 

0 Yes, all criteria have been met. Proceed to Step Three. 

STEP THREE-Determine Severity. For severity, select the worst type of injury/damage that 

could realistically (and potentially) occur from a generic violation of this type. 

Note: Do not consider the facts and circumstances specific to this case when 

determining severity. 

Note: A generic violation refers to the basic act or failure to act absent any 

specific facts or circumstances. For example, a generic violation could include the 

following: failure to comply with an ATC clearance, failure to perform 

maintenance in accordance with the manufacturer's maintenance manual, low 

flight over terrain, etc. 

0 Catastrophic (death or severe d~1rnage) 

0 Critical (severe injury or substantial damage) 

0 Marginal (moderate injury or damage) 

0 Negligible (minor or no injury or damage) 

Why did you select this severity level? 

Explanation: 

Proceed to Step Four. 

STEP FOUR-Determine Likelihood. Select the probability of the worst type of 

injury/damage that could realistically occur, considering the facts specific to this case. 

D Frequent (likely to occur often) 

D Occasional (likely to occur sometimes) 

0 Remote (unlikely to occur, or would seldom occur, or would not occur) 

Why did you select this likelihood? 

Explanation: 

17 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check with FSIMS to verify current version before using 
( 

1/14/10 8900.1 CHG 83 

Proceed to Step Five. 

STEP FIVE-Use the Risk Assessment and Action Matrix. Using your selections for severity 

and likelihood in Steps Three and Four above, determine the level of risk and the type of 

enforcement action to take using the matrix and place your selections in the spaces provided. 

SEVERITY 

Catastrophic Critical Mareinal Neelieible 

Frequent Risk: High Risk: High Risk: Moderate Risk: Moderate 

Action(s): Remedial Action(s): Remedial Action: Action: 

~ Training or Legal Training or Legal Administrative Administrative 

0 Risk: High Risk: Moderate Risk: Moderate Risk: Low 

0 Occasional Action(s): Remedial Action: Action: Action(s): 

= ~ Training or Legal Administrative Administrative Administrative or 

a Informal 

Risk: Moderate Risk: Moderate Risk: Low Risk: Low ~ Remote Action: Action: Action(s): Action(s): 

Administrative Administrative Administrative Administrative or 

or Informal Informal 

Level of risk selected: Type of action selected: __ -- Proceed to Step Six. 

STEP SIX-Use of Remedial Training. If Remedial Training (RT) is indicated by the matrix, 

Flight Standards Inspectors must offer an airman RT, provided all criteria for taking 

administrative action andRT are met, and the apparent violation causes a high safety risk. IfRT 

is refused, or not completed ,satisfactorily, proceed with legal enforcement action. 

Note: All of the RT criteria must be met before the FAA can offer RT to an 

airman. If all criteria are not met then legal enforcement must be taken. 

Note: RT cannot be used for airmen using their FAA certificate(s) in air 

transportation (air carrier operations) when the violation occurred. 

D 1. If the airman was using his FAA certification in air carrier operations when the violation 

occurred, place a checkmark in this box and proceed with legal enforcement action. Proceed to 

Step Seven. -

D 2. If the airman was not using his FAA certification in air carrier operations at the time the 

violation occurred place a checkmark in this box and determine whether RT criteria have been 

met. 

Review each of the following criteria. If met, place a checkmark in the appropriate box adjacent 

to the criteria. 

D 1. Futu.re compliance can reasonably be ensured through RT alone. 

D 2. The airman exhibits a constructive attitude that would lead the inspector to 

believe that the airman has a willingness to comply, so noncompliance is less likely 

in the future. 

18 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check with FSIMS to verify current version before using 
I 

( 

1114/10 8900.1 CHG 83 

0 3. The conduct does not disclose a lack of, or a reasonable basis to question, the 

airman's qualifications. 

0 4. The airman's record of enforcement actions does not indicate that RT would 

be inappropriate 

0 5. The conduct is not deliberate, grossly negligent, or criminal in nature. 

Have all criteria for using RT been met? 

DYes 

0No 

0 Not Applicable 

If no, explain below why the criteria have not been met, print and sign the E-EDP 

worksheet and then proceed with legal enforcement action. 

Explanation: 

Proceed to Step Seven. 

STEP SEVEN-Deviation Procedures. 

In exceptional circumstances, the investigating office can recommend that an action be taken 

other than that indicated by the matrix. For example: l 

1. The investigating office can provide a written explanation for why legal enforcement 

action would serve no useful purpose and that use of an administrative action is otherwise 

in the public interest. 

2. The investigating office could also recommend that administrative action would not be 

appropriate and that legal enforcement action should be taken. 

3. If a type of action is proposed other than that indicated by the Enforcement Decision 

Process, the division manager, or his/her designee's approval is required. 

EDP Process Outcome Requested: Yes 0 No 0 

If yes, describe the action you propose, explain the facts and circumstances, and justifY 

your proposal: 

Explanation: 

D~vision Manager/Designee Action: 0 Approved D Disapproved D Not Applicable 

Print Name: _____________ _ 

Signature:-------------- Date: ____ _ 

19 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check with FSIMS to verifY current version before using 
J. 

1114/10 8900.1 CHG 83 

Proceed to Step Eight and print and sign the E-EDP worksheet. 

STEP EIGHT-SIGNATURE PAGE 

Inspector: 

PRINTED NAME: __________ _ 

SIGNATURE: ___________ _ DATE: -----

1st Level Reviewer: 

PRINTED NAME: __________ _ 

SIGNATURE: DATE: ------------------------- ----

CMO/FSDO/IFO Manager: 

PRINTED NAME: ___________ _ 

~GNATURE: ____________ _ DATE: ___ _ 

Regional Office Reviewer: 

PRINTED NAME:-----------

SIGNATURE: ____________ _ DATE: -----

Attorney (if forwarded for legal enforcement action): 

PRINTED NAME: ___________ _ 

SIGNATURE:_~---------- DATE: ___ _ 

If the attorney finds that the proposed type of enforcement action does not conform to the 

EDP process, explain why it does not: 

Explanation: 

RESERVED. Paragraphs 14-146 through 14-149. 

20 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check with FSIMS to verify current version before using 
I' 

!I ill [I 

,, ltl 

~ 

'l 

l' 

l 

'·· 

j l 

,, l 

! I ; ~ l 

! 

f ' 

'i I !, 

------------------·----·-·--·- ·- -

-

-
?'~ •• / !f - v 

. : il 

'J/ . I 

•.,( ' I •t' !' r...,.~ 

~ 

I 

u 0 

~ 

tl 

I G ·----; / I OF...:.. \":s.·: ._._-
~ ":' 

~ ., ....... 

. •:,y. 

: r . .,. ·l . • t 

' r. 

~ t l ~; 

. ..,, ij I~~} 

cl " 

~·! 

,, 

I l•" ' 

i...,» ..., 
--....._ 

~· 

MODEL 206, ll2tl6, P206 

49 10 

I 

46, I 47 

~~~I ~~~ 

ly 

15 ""'w 

!:ical sfCont) 

52 

57 

/ss 

g;:ss Jill 

54 58 .. 6-....59 

SEAT BELT ATTACHMENT 

• 
r-. • 

MODEL 206, U206. P206 ce~~1illcJ1 illustrated parts catalo~ 

FIGURE 

ANO 

INDEX 

NO. 

"o9 -

- t 

- z - ZA 

• ZB 

- ) 

- 4 

- s - b 

- 7 • 6 

- q 

-10 

-1 OA 

·II 

-13 

•II> 

-I 7 

-18 

-1 q 

·ZO 

-21 

-zz 

-221. 

-ll 

·H 

·Z5 

·26 

·27 

-ze 

PART NUMBER OESCRIPfJON 

1234567 

PilOT t CO•PilOl SEAT IIISTI.LUTIDN ·--~···-·-··---·---------·-

S£AT ASSE"8LV-PJLOT t CO-PilOT --·····-------------··--···•• 1200bOS-b 

IZ00t>05•b 

12001>05-30 

ll00C>05-H 

120060S·Z7 

I SHT HSE"8LT·PilOT t CO-PILOT ------·------··---------·----· ' 5EAT A>HIIBL Y•P HOT t CO-PilOT --··-····---·-·-···---------· 

I SEAT lSS£"8LT·PilOT L :a-PILOT -·····------·----·---------··· I SEAT ASSE118lV-PilOT t CO•PilOf•LEATKER -···-··-···-----------

07ll0h-l 

!1$20392-ICZ I 

IIS24bb5•151 

12001>05-200 

12001>05-ZOO I 

12001>05-ZZZ I 

LZOO<>O~-ZZS t 

1 2001>05-lll 

ANH•lb 

ANl)-l'U 

NU"o]Hf 3•12 

lUitlO~-· 

07llbl>ll-1 

071lbb7-l 

AN507·83ZRI ~ 

N.ISI>79A08 

AH'i'bO·l OL SI'H4-B 

IZOOI>OS-12 

I 2001>0~-1 Z I 

I ZOOt>OS-29 

IHU30•1 

HUtOO•'i' 

1200605-33 

IH!ollO•I n 

0715001-1 q 

IZU03-.-I a 

12l503<1•200 I 

S l(lZI Z!•bC 

HHllO-J 

111 SOOl-t 141!o045-Z 

IZ00b05•Z03 

12001105-ZDJ 

1200(>05-221 

1200(>05-215 

12001>05·11 

l200!>0S·ll 

1200b0~-Z8 

HUI00-8 

1414?17-7 

HHZI7•l 

S IOZllb-4 

At121•15A 

115ZlO~~NJ 

1H~ID1-l 

lHHOl•lZ 

IH4103·45 

14HIQJ-b 

ANH-13 

AIIZ!o· 13 

ANH•lb 

AN'HbHlb 

AN'HbAblb 

141~1H-l 

14Ul04-39 

Ul4i04-40 

HI410~-H 

HIUO'i-U 

,. 

" 

' 

UfUHIHC PUH 

STOP-SEAT -----------··--------------··--------------·•••••·· 

PI~ -------··-·--··-·------······----------------------·----- PI~-COfTER -----·····-·--·---·----------·····---··------····• ---·--- 8AC~ ASSE"8lY•UPHOLSTE~EO SEAf ··-···----------------···--· 94(~ ASSE"BLJ•UPHDlSTEREO SElf -·-···---------·····-·--··-· BACK ASSE!IBLV-UPHOLStERED SEAT ······-------------------··· BACK ASSE"8Lr·UPHOLSTERED SEAl ·-·-·-···-----------------·- BACK 4SSE"BLV-UPHOLSTEPEO-lfAfHER ------------------····--- 11 H ACHING PARTS 

BOlT -----·---·-------·-··--···---------------------··••••- BOlT -------·-----•••••••••···--···-----------••••••··-··--

SPlCER -·--·-·-------·-------------·····•••••••••·--··----- BUSHI~G ···-·········-------·-·-··•···--·-----·~----------­ BUSHlNG ---··---···-···-----···••••••••-------·---------··- 5PPI~G -·••••••••••••·--·---··---··•··--------------·---·-· 

SCREM ·---·--------··-----------··--····-·-------·---·••••• NUf ·--~-----------·--·•··---··-·----------••••••·-······­ •ASHER ··-·----------·-····-···•··--·-······-----·--·····-· 

NUT ····--------------------·--------------····-···-··----- ---·---

COVER-SEAT BACK -------·-··---------------·----··---·--·- COVER-SEAT BACK ----------···-··--·---·-······----------- COVER-SEAT BACK-lEATHER ·----·•·•••••••····---------·--·-

CA~·SEAT BACK -----··-----··--·-·-·--··-----··--··------- CUSHtON•SEAT !ACX ·------·-········-··-···-----······•••· 

CUSHION-SEAr BACK ···--·-···---·--------···-······-·-··•· 

TqJft•SEAT BACK ----------··-····---·--··-·---------·••••• !11.1 ft PANEl ASSEII8lY-SEAT 8ACI( ----·-··-------------------

TQI/1 PANEl ASSEIIBLJ•SEAT BACK -----·------·---·-···-----· Tqlll PANfl ASSEII8LY•SfAT BICK ------------·------·-----· 4 HAC HI NG l>ARJS 

SCREW -----------·-··--·---··•••------------------------- -j--·--- POCKET ASSEIIBLY·~AGAZINE ------------------------------ POCK£ T ASSEIIBl \'·•IIAGAlJNE ------------------·----------

SPRING -----------------·-----------·---·-------------- 90TT0ft ASSEIIBLY-UPHOLSTE~ED SEAT -------------------------- BOTT0/1 4SSE1'!8LV-UPHOLSTERED SEAT ··-----------·-··-----•••• BOTTO" ASSEIIBL\'•UPHOL$TERED SEAT --------··-·•••••--·--·-•• 80TTO~ ASSEII!lT•UPHOL$TER£0 SEAT•LEATHER ---------~--···--• 

COVER•Sf&T BOTTO!I -------------------···-----·••••••••••• COVER-SEAT BDTTDH ··-------··--·--··-----------···------- COVER•SEAJ BOTTOII·LEATHER -----------····---·-·--•••••••• CUSHJON~SEA T BOTTOM.--······-----·--·--··-------------·-· 

~€ T AtNE R-5£ AT 80rJOPI --------··-----------· ----------·---· 

~ETA!NER-SEAT 80fJDII -·-····-----------·-------------·---

SCREW ---------··--·-~--------·····--·-----------••••-••• BOll•SEAT BACK STOP ·---------·-------------------------- Nt1T ---------------------------·-----------· ---·-·--••••-• 

LEG ASSEIIBLY•FORNARD LH --··------·---~----··--·-···----­

LEG &SSf"BlY•FORW&RD RH ··---------------·---·----·-···-- lEG ASSEII8L Y•FOIIWARO RH -----···-·-----------·------·-·-· lfC-SEAl &FT ---··--·--·•••••-•••••••••••••••••••-------- ATUCHIIIG PARTS 

80LT-FORN&RD LEG ---·-······----·-··--·----------··-··--· 

80lT•&FT LfG ·-------·---·----------------·-------·--···· 8DLT-AFT lfC •·••••••····------·--··-------------···•-••• 

IIA Stt£1! •···-----·-· -------------••••••••·-·-----·---·--•· 

IIASKfR ---··-··-···-·----·-··-····--------·--------··--· 

NUT ------------------------·····-··----···--··---------- ---•-·· 

HOUS lNG-SEAT ROLLER f'ORIIARO LH ·····--------------------- HOUSINC-SE&l ROLLER FORWARD RH ---------·-----------·---- HOUSING-SEAT ROLlER AFT Lll ·-··•••··----·---------------- HOUSINC·SE&J ROLLER &FT RH ------------------·--------·-· 

CD~TINUED 0~ NEXT PAGE 

UN II'S 

PER 

ASSV 

NP 

2 

l 

z 

2 

2 

z 

2 

2 

z 

z 

2 

l 

l 

2 

2 

l 

z 

z 

l 

l 

1 

l 

l 

1 

I 

l 

1 

I 

1 

1 

1 

I 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

l 

I 

I 

l 

H 

l 

z 

1 

1 

1 

z 

z 

l 

I 

z 

z 

z 

1 

1 

1 

1 

USABlE 

ON 

CODE 

s 

G 

II 

l 

c "' 

G 

N 

'L " 

c 

H 

J 

J 

G 

0 

c 

0 

" T 

L 

II 

" 

T 

l 

L 

G 

H 

J 

c 

c 

0 

c 

T 

J 

• 

lOP~---

~--~~------~~--------------------------------_. 1 .:ertifi __ t.f~t$ ._~ h PAGE-OF242 FOR OFFICL)•J L~·c i.-:Y'·JLY 

'Public Ava11ab1litJ to b~ 

deter.tned under 5 u.s.c ssz· 

b• a true '-"'t 'J 

,.~f