# --------------------

# ......
# 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 ofleftflap with piece ofhardware protruding thru skin
- pp 2 6 Photo- window on l side ofAC 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 ofSeat with "seat stop" is machine bolt with nut, in seat rail J Pic ofSeat 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 Matterof: 

### 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 DocketCP No.- To Be Assigned ------------------' Judge- Not YetAssigned


### ANSWER The Respondent files its Answer, under Rule 209 ofThe Rules ofPractice 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 beliefas to the truth of the allegations contained 

### in paragraph 3 of the Administrator's Complaint and therefore, deniesthe same. 

### ADMITTED ADMITTED
ADMITTED Respondent is without sufficient information to form a beliefas to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Administrator's Complaint andtherefore, denies the same. Respondent is without sufficient information to form a beliefas 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 A 

# ·I

0

## ~~- /0 ·lr;).

### Paragraph II(9). Respondent is without sufficient information to fonn a beliefas to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Administrator's Complaintand therefore, denies the same. Paragraph Il(l0). Respondent is without sufficient information to fonn a beliefas 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 beliefas 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 lawjudgeenteran order dismissing the**Administra~or's** 

### Complaint.

Dated: 

# /2-1;.../0 Respectfully submitted, 

# tEft-,

BretA. Glenn Counsel for Respondent 414N.W. 4th Street, Suite 200 OklahomaCity, 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, anoriginal and one copy ofthe foregoing Answer addressedto: Federal Aviation Administration Attn: DocketHearing Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building

- Suite 2Wl000 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 And further, that I have this date mailed, by regular mail, a copy ofthe foregoing Answer addressed to: Gregory S. Lander Attorney, Safety Enforcement Branch Federal Aviation Administration 2601 Meacham Blvd. FortWorth, 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 ofsuch requirements. The order is used at all levels by agency personnel who are engaged in the investigation, reporting, and processing ofenforcement actions. It applies to all offices with regulatory responsibilities. This revision ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofSanctions All Enforcement Programs ExceptHazardous Materials Part One

- Abbreviations and Definitions 2150.38

I. Applicability. This table ofsanctions 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 ofthe violation. 2. Abbreviations. The following abbreviations are used in this Table: APISmeans approved production inspection system 

### AIWmeans airworthiness AWC means airworthiness certificate BTSmeans 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,forexample, 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 ormultiple violations) of chapter 7. A combination ofpunitive and remedial sanctions is appropriate when continuing violations are ongoing. b. Violation committed by a small business concern. Section 503 ofVision IOO---Century ofAviation 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 I00 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 ofoperation." The Small Business Administration regulations implement the Small Business Act and define business concern as
B-1

# ~l I10/01/07 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 oftaxes or use ofAmerican products, materials or labor." 13 C.F.R. 

### § 121.105. The SBA regulations further define small business concern in tables, describing each kind ofentity by its economic activity or industry, and listing the limit for small by annual receipts or, more commonly, number ofemployees. {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, ifa person meets the definition ofbusiness concern andhas annual receipts or the number ofemployees 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 ofemployees, unless otherwise noted). Manufacturing Aircraft- 1,500 employees Aircraft engine and part- 1,000 employees Other aircraft part and equipment

- I,000 empIoyees 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 ofFAA 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 ofthis table, when civil penalty action is recommended and described as Minimum, Moderate, orMaximum, the penalty ranges are defined in subparagraphs (1) through (9) ofthis paragraph. Note that the middle ofeach 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$100;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 ofless than $100,000,000, or under part 135 with an annual operating revenue ofless 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,I00 $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-410/01/07 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-510/01/07 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 OPERATOR. 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) LARGEBUSINESS 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-610/01/07 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, ORTHE SAFE DISPOSAL OF A LIFE-LIMITED AIRCRAFT PART. Large Business Concern (ifentity 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 (ifnot 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 $550-$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,I00 $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 (10) 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-810/01/07 2150.38
d. Pending compliance or corrective action; injunctive relief. For many kinds ofviolations, 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 ofan entity's certificate or other approval, pending compliance or corrective action, or injunctive reliefagainst an entity that does not hold an FAA approval, would be appropriate. In egregious circumstances revocation ofthe entity's certificate or other approval may be warranted. Such action or reliefmay be considered in addition to the assessment ofa civil penalty as recommended in the following tables. Furthermore, amendment or modification ofa certificate or approval may be appropriate in the circumstance where a definitive part ofthe offending entity's operation can be safely excluded from the operational approval. An example is an approved aircraft parts manufacturer that makes multiple kinds ofparts, but has quality control problems for only one kind ofpart. Such action may be considered in addition to the assessment ofa civil penalty as recommended in the following tables. 

### PartTwo

- 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 ofMaintenance Fig. B-1-i. SFAR 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 ofAir 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 ofdrugs or alcohol; consumption ofalcohol 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 ofDrug 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 of2009. The hangar was open and we entered from the roadside walking through the hangar toward the ramp. We observed approximately 20 ormorepeople in the facility. Some ofthe people were getting ground skydiving instruction and others were donning parachutes. We saw a Cessna206 aircraft in front ofthe hangar. Inspector Terry inquired at their front desk to speak withthe pilot ofthe 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 least4 rows ofscheduled flights with a least 7 flights in each row. Names ofthe pilot and skydivers were listed in eachblock inthe row. Inspector Terry checked the credentials ofthe 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 ifhe needed fuel. I began to perform a ramp inspection ofthe aircraft and noted several discrepancies. There were bolts with locknuts installed fmger-tight as seat stops onthe pilot's seat. I lifted up the layer ofpadding lying onthe floor ofthe aircraft to inspect the installation ofa backrest onthe co-pilot's seat rails. There was a small bolt pushed through a hole inthe backrest bracket into a hole in the seat rail. No safety was installed in the boltto 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 rudderpedals. We discussed the safety concerns with the installation. I asked the pilot ifthat was the correct installation ofthat backrest, and he statedhe wasn't sure andthat he never looked at it before then. I advised him to contactthe mechanic to determine ifthe installation was correct. I continued the ramp inspection and noted the left flap had a hole punctured in it withthe head ofa screwpartiallyprotruding 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 crackthat 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 inthe forward skin. Inspector Terry took photographs ofall ofthe discrepancies. I located the pilot, David Harbold, and showed him the discrepancies, and asked him ifhe intended to fly the aircraft in this condition. He went back into the facility. Atthat 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 beenthere 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 datato supporthis claim. He stated it had been installed like that for years and did not see anyproblems 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 inplace. 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. Heplaced the call to his mechanic and thenproceeded 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 ofthe regulations ifhe elected to fly, and he stated he wanted clarification. I contacted my supervisor, Weeg Castello, and advised him ofthe 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 bythe 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 onJuly 11, 2009 at approximately 9:20am ofthe 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 ofthe underside ofthe left flap ofN4682F showing the hole punctured aft ofthe 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_) 1it ;.>:.. 1 lr:, 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 ofthe underside ofthe 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 PrivacyAct 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 copyofthis form was 

### 'f]mailed**.)~{]delivered.**

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



### EXHIBIT

### FORYLwR 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 underauthority ofthe Fedei"'ll Aviation Act (Section 609/. Submission of all the data Ia voluntar·**-~e** !i.!rcraft Condition Notice ie Initiated bY the FAA field Inspectorand I .l• v!c1&d t'l the owner/lessee when**unsatlsfa~tory** aircraft condltloos existThe certmcatlon lnfonnation Ia needed to assure the FAA that unaatlsfactoryalmraft conditions heve been corrected. There Is no penality forfalh.are to complete ar.d return_the certification to FAA; however, operation of an aircraft In an unalrwcrthy oonciltlon Is in violation ofFedtral 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 ofthe 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 ID. All of his Certificates and ID were in order. After speaking with the pilot, I and InspectorWest went out to the aircraft where she conducted an Airworthiness ramp inspection. During her inspection ofthe aircraft, she noted several possible problems. It was during her inspection that the aircraft owner and owner ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe flap, seat stops that appeared to be improper and other concerns that Inspector found. Mr. Reeves became increasingly aggravated with InspectorWest 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 ofthe FAR's**&~** 

### ifthe 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--~ t~-,** **~~** 

### ........**-~.** 1 

# :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 81X 

# 5.2**1:<.~~4:J.led** 

# 111:1. 

# Brake**vvh~el ~kinoer**  & " 

# {·\I L

## '1dt?L 

# bled 

# brake**~y~ltrrL Rt~Ia:ce:~** 

# parZcbral{ehrmille_ 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 unitfh**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** 

# inspectton**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 PROGRAMTRACKINGAND REPORTING SUBSYSTEM (PTRS) ACTIVITY CODE. 1661 6-88 OBJECTIVE. The objective ofthis task is to determine that an airman oroperator is in continuing compliance with Title 14 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR) during an actual operational situation. Successful completion ofthis task results in an indication in district office files ofeither a satisfactory oran unsatisfactory inspection. 6-89 GENERAL.

### An operations inspector conducts ramp inspections on airmen and aircraft operating under various 14 CFRparts. This section deals with 14 CFRpart 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) Forthe purposes ofthis chapter, an operator may be a pilot, executive/corporate operator, airagency, etc. 2) A ramp inspection is defmed as surveillance ofan airman, operator, orair agency during actual operations at 

### an airport orheliport. B. InspectorConduct. The inspector shall always have identification available, since an airman oroperator may ormay not know an inspector. 1) For special considerations concerning surveillance at fly-ins, airshows, and other gatherings ofgeneral aviation aircraft and ainnen, see Chapter 11, Section 10 (this volume), Surveillance ofan Aviation Event, subparagraphs 6-2373Al-4. \,

### ""-, 2) An inspector must not board any aircraft without the knowledge ofthe crew or '-....__ 

### operator. Some operators may_ preferto have a company representative present to answer questions.

### ~-- 3) Ifthe surveillance will delay a flight, the inspector should use prudentjudgment whether ornotto 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 thetraffic pattern or

### in the ramp. 1 

### UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Check FSIMS to verify this version is current priorto use8900.1 CHGO 9/13/2007

• Is notified by ATC ofan unsafe operation. • Conducts normal surveillance. D. RampInspectionsPlanned for a Specific Operator. Mostramp inspections are not planned for a specific operator; however, when they are planned, the inspector should review the office files. Some ofthe reasons a ramp inspection mightbe planned include:

• Recurring complaints • Suspected violations of 14 CFR • Special emphasis programrequired by the regional office orheadquarters E. Title 14CFRPart 135. Procedures and details ofa part 135 ramp inspection are found in chapter 

### 2 ofthis volume. F. Additional Background. When conducting a ramp inspection ofan executive/corporate operatorora part 125 deviation holder, see Section 1 (this chapter), Inspect an Executive/Corporate Operator. 6-90 RAMP INSPECTIONJOBAIDS. The part 91 ramp inspectionjob aid (Figure 6-5) is a job aid provided for the inspector's use in accomplishing this task. Thisjobaid is used when conducting a ramp inspection ofa single pilot, a flight instructor, an air agency, orotherless complex ramp inspections. The executive/corporate operatorramp inspectionjob aid (referto Related Task #55, Inspect anExecutive/Corporate Operator) should be used for corporate operators oflarge and turbine powered orturbojet aircraft orpart 125 deviation holders. Ifthe operations inspector is accompanied by an airworthiness inspector, then the "aircrew" section is forthe operations inspector's.use, and the "aircraft" section is for the airworthiness inspector's use. 6-91 AIRWORTHINESS COORDINATION. Ifan airworthiness inspector is not available for the inspection and suspected airworthiness discrepancies are discovered during the inspection, the operations inspectormust coordinate with an airworthiness inspector atthe district officeto determine the disposition ofthe discrepancy. This should be accomplished before completing the inspection. 6-92 DISCREPANCIES FOUNDDURING INSPECTION. The inspection should be continued unless a discrepancy is discovered that would affectthe safety offlight ordispatch of the aircraft which may result in a violation of 14 CFR. All discrepancies mustbe noted on the job aid and discussed withthe operator. The inspector may explain howto correct discrepancies foutid during the inspection, butthe 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 ofthe aircraft is the responsibility ofthe pilot (part 91, section(§) 91.3) and monitored by airworthiness inspectors. However, ifan operations inspectorfinds an obviously unairworthy aircraft, it is the responsibility ofthe operations inspectorto see that an Aircraft Condition Notice (FAA Form 8620-1) is issued. Ifaccompanied by an airworthiness inspector, he or she may issue FAA 2 UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED CheckFSIMS to verify this version is current priorto use8900.1 CHG 0 9/13/2007
Form 8620-1. However, an operations inspectormay have to contactthe nearestFlight Standards officeto 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 ormake 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. Ifan inspectorhas reason to suspect a pilot orotherrequired crewmember underthe influence ofalcohol, see section 6 ofthis chapter. 6-95 

### AIRCRAFTDOCUMENTS. Following are considerations when examining aircraft documents, including registration and airworthiness certificates and approved flight manuals. Discrepancies found concerning the airworthiness orregistration certificates shall be broughtto the attention ofthe operator, documented, and given to the airworthiness unit for action. 

### A. N-Numbers. TheN-numberonthe registration certificate must matchtheN-number on the airworthiness certificate. 

### B. Registration Certificate. Ifthe registered ownerhas changed you may see a temporary registration (Pink Slip) which is good for 120 days. Ifthe ownership has changed without a Pink Slip ortheN-numbers do not match, the registration is not valid. C. 

### Radio Station License. An aircraft FCC radio license is required although the FAA does notregulate therequirement. The license may be for thatparticularN-number or a fleet license. The expiration date ofthe license is in the upper right hand comer. Any discrepancy concerning the radio license should be broughtto the attention ofthe operatoronly. D. 

### FlightManual. AnAircraft FlightManual is required to be on boardthe aircraft 

### (§ 91.9) along withthe appropriate markings and placards. E. 

### Weight and Balance Information. Weight and balance documents, including a list ofequipment, mustbe onboard the aircraft. Some multiengine operators have Minimum Equipment Lists (MELs) with a letterofauthorization issued by a district office. These constitute a supplemental type certificate for the aircraft and mustbe on board. The inspector should compare inoperative equipmentto the MELto assure compliance. (Referto 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, orexperimental certificate mustbe accompanied by a list 

### 3 UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED CheckFSIMS to verifY this version is currentpriorto use8900.1 CHG 0 9/13/2007
oflimitations 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 ofsafe flight under certain conditions which are listed and issued with the permit(§§ 21.197, 91.203, and 91.213). Review the list oflimitations and conditions to assure a valid airworthiness certificate. TheN-number on the certificate must match the N-number onthe fuselage to be valid. 6-96 

### FOREIGNPILOTS ORAIRCRAFT. 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 ofa foreign pilot certificate may not operate a U.S. registered aircrafthere without first receiving a U.S. pilot certificate. (referto Related Task#29, Issue anAirman Certificate on the Basis ofForeign License.) The foreign pilotmay show a current medical ofhis orher country ora U.S. medical. 6-97 

### IFRHELICOPTEROPERATIONS. Mo·st rotorcraft are certificated VFR only. Under Special Federal Regulation (SFAR) 29-4 some rotorcraft have been approved for IFR. Operators holding approval issued before March 2, 1983, under SFAR29 through SFAR29-4 may continue to use that approval until surrendered, revoked, or otherwise terminated, orthere is a change in aircraft ownership. After March 2, 1983, the new applicant must have met all certification requirements of 14 CFRpart 27 (Normal Category Rotorcraft) or29 (Transport Category Rotorcraft). A. HelicopterDocuments. A letter ofapproval (Figure 6-7) with a list oflimitations is issued for the helicopter. This letter, list oflimitations, and a copy ofSFAR29-4 combine to become a Supplemental Type Certificate forthe rotorcraft and must be on board in the Rotorcraft Flight Manual. B. PilotDocuments. The operatormay be approved for a one-pilot ora two-pilot crew as listed in the letter ofapproval. 1) Each pilotmusthave an instrument- helicopterrating onhis orherpilot certificate. 2) Each pilot**mu~t** have a current instrumentproficiency check accomplished in one ofthe rotorcraft listed onthe letter ofapproval. 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 ofrotorcraft in rotation. 3) A single pilot operation musthave 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 ifthe check was done underpart 135 ora logbook endorsement (or copy ofone). Ifa 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 currentpriorto 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 oneyear. Operators with approved maintenance programs may be renewed for two years. (Referto Related Task#59, Approve Category II or III Approach Minimums and Manual.) A. 

### AircraftDocuments. The authorization ora facsimile must be on board. The operatormust comply with a Category II/III manual which must also on board. Category II/III authorizations otherthan part 91 are authorized by Operations Specifications. B. 

### PilotDocuments. Category II/III operators must use a PIC and, in some cases, an Sl. The PIC musthave a Letter ofAuthorization 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 particulartype aircraft cannot be renewed beyond 12 months afterthe practical in thattype. Ifthe pilotpasses 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 orIII ora logbook endorsement (or facsimile ofone) may be substituted for a letter ofauthorization. 6-99 

### PREREQUISITES AND 

### COORDINATION REQUIREMENTS. A. 

### Prerequisites. This taskrequires knowledge ofthe regulatory requirements of parts 61 and 91 and FAA policies and qualification as an aviation safety inspector (operations). B. 

### Coordination. This task requires coordination withthe airworthiness unit and with the airman records section ofAFS-760, Airmen Certification Branch. 

### 6-100 REFERENCES,FORMS, AND JOBAIDS. A. 

### References.

• 14 CFRparts 1, 63, 67, and 125 • FCC Part 87 • Category II/III authorization and manual, ifapplicable • 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 currentpriorto use

### ( 8900.1 CHG 0 9/13/2007


### B. Pre-Inspection Activities. 1) Review the office file on the operator to determine ifany prior violations of 14 CFR, past complaints, orinspection reports exist. 2) Note review findings and any areas ofemphasis on the part91 job aid. 

### C. Location ofInspection. Proceedtothe airport where the ramp inspection will be conducted. Determine whether ornot it is necessary to identifY FAA presence to the airport operatoror other operators on the airport (Figure 6-8). Use the part 91 job aid to conductthe ramp inspection. 

### D. Inspect Airman Documents. 1) Inspect airman certificates to determine appropriate ratings and limitations for the type ofoperations being conducted. 2) Determine ifcertificates are genuine and legible. (See Volume 5, Chapter2, Part 61 Certification ofPilots and FlightInstructors, Section 1, General) 3) Inspect airman medical certificates to determine ifthey are current and the appropriate class. Check for a Statement ofDemonstrated Ability, ifrequired, onthe medical certificate. 4) Ifavailable, examine pilot logbooks (or otherreliable records) to determine recency ofexperience and qualifications, such as:
• Biennial flight review • Instrument proficiency check • PIC proficiency check 5) Ifapplicable, inspectpilot Category II and/or Category III authorization letters for currency.(§ 91.189) 6) Note any discrepancies on thejob aid. 

### E. Record Aircraft Information. RecordtheN-number, make and model, and whether leased orowned onthejob aid. Ifthe vehicle is an ultralight, see Related Task#66, Inspect an Ultralight Vehicle. 

### F. Inspect Aircraft. (Applies to all aircraft) 1) Determine thatthe 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 priorto use

### ( 8900.1 CHG 0 9/13/2007 2) Examine the registration certificate to ensure that it is issued for that specific aircraft. Determine thatthe N-number on the certificate matches the N-numberon the aircraft. Check that the certificate is issued to the present owner ofthe aircraft. 3) Checkthe radio station license and note its expiration date. Ifit has expired, inform the operator ofthe pertinent FCC requirements. 4) Determinethatthere is a current, approved Airplane FlightManual (AFM) on boardthe aircraft. 5) Determine ifthere is current weight and balance information in the aircraft by examiningthe AFM. Compare equipment listed on the weight and balance form to the actual equipment installed. 6) Ifapplicable, checkthe MEL to determine that it has: a) Been issued by N-number and serial number to the aircraft operator b) A Letter ofAuthorization from a district office; check deferred items for placards and dates (Referto Related Task#58, Approve a Minimum EquipmentList.) 7) Ifa Letter ofDeviation from part 125 has been issued, ensure that a true copy is in the aircraft. 8) Ifthe aircraft is leased, determine that a copy ofthe lease agreement orcontract is being carried 

### in the aircraft. Note the expiration date on the lease and determine ifthe lease is still valid. · 9) Ifapplicable, determine that copies ofthe approved Category II orCategory III. authorization and manual are in the aircraft. a) Review the Category II/III authorization and provisions. b) Checkthatthe aircraft make, model, and N-number is listed. c) Consider any instrument, airport, orweatherrequirements listed there or in the manual. 1 0)Ifthe aircraft operates under a letter ofauthorization for North Atlantic (NAT) Minimum Navigation Performance Specification (MNPS) airspace, determine ifthe letter is carried on board the aircraft. 11)Determine ifpertinent and current aeronautical charts are available. 12)Askthe operatorwhattype ofinstrument 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 currentpriorto use

### ( 8900.1 CHG 0 9/13/2007 

### G. Inspect Aircraft. 1) Determine the general airworthiness ofthe aircraft by inspecting the aircraft's exterior in a manner similarto a preflight inspection. 2) Inspect seats and safety belts for installation and condition. 3) Ifapplicable, determine ifa current VOR Equipment Check has been performed. 4) Determine ifanELT (Emergency Locator Transmitter) is installed. Check the expiration date ofthe battery. 5) Determine thatthe 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, inspectthe following items: 1) Determine ifthe aircrafthas an emergency checklist available to the flight crew. 2) Determine ifthe aircraft has one engine inoperative climb performance data available to the flight crew. 3) Determine ifpertinent and current aeronautical charts are available. 4) Determine if

## aflashlight having two D-sized cell batteries, orequivalent, is accessible from the pilot station and in good working order. 5) Ifthe operatorconducts overwater operations, determine thatthe required radio equipment is installed(§ 91.511). 6) Fortransport category aircraft only, have the operator demonstrate thatthe aural speed warning device is in operating condition. 7) Have the operator activate the smoking and safety belt signs. Determine ifthey are in operable condition. Check operation from the cockpit and the cabin. Ifapplicable, atthis time conductthe altitude alerting system ordevice check. 8) Note whetherthe operatoruses passenger briefmg cards to supplement oral briefings. Ifso, inspectthe cards for location and correctinformation(§ 91.519). 9) Determine ifappropriate emergency equipment is on board the aircraft(§ 91.513). 1

0) 

### Ifthe operator conducts overwater operations, inspectthe following survival equipment for installation and condition:
8 UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED CheckFSIMS to verify this version is currentpriorto use8900.1 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 numberofoccupants ofthe aircraft) • Pyrotechnic signaling devices (for each life raft) • Emergency radio signaling device • Lifeline • Appropriately equipped survival kit I. Inspection Items for TurbojetPowered Civil Airplanes Only. In addition to the items in subparagraphs F 1through 12, G 1through 4, and HI through 10, inspectthe altitude alerting system ordevice for installation and operation. Conduct this test atthe same time the smoking/safety belt sign and aural speed warning device test is accomplished. J. Inspection Discrepancies. Ifa discrepancy is discovered during the inspection, enter it onthe appropriatejob aid in the remarks section. 1) Inform the operator ofthe discrepancy. Advise the operatorthat ifthe aircraft is operated without correcting the discrepancy, he or she may be in violation of 14 CFR. 2) Ifnecessary, issue FAA Form 8620-1 (Figure 6-6). a) Attachthe bottom card (buff) on the aircraft by the string. Place it so that the operatorwill easily see it. b) Return the top and middle sheet (both white) to the airworthiness unit. 

### K. Review JobAid. Upon completion ofthe inspection, review thejob aid for any suspected violations. Ifan enforcement investigation is necessary see Related Task #182, Conduct an Investigation to Determine Compliance. L. ConcludeInspection. 1) Discuss any pertinent safety information with the pilots oroperator. 2) Return any documentation. 3) Advise the pilot oroperator ofany upcoming accident prevention orother safety meetings. 4) 

### Ifno discrepancies were found, complimentthe pilot oroperator. M. PTRSReport. Send a followup letter ofcorrection (Figure 6-9) with a suspense date to remind a pilot or operator ofnoted discrepancies. Complete FAA Form 8000-36 in accordance with the PTRS field office manual. Ifthe pilots or aircraft are notbased in the inspector's district, forward a copy ofthe PTRS report and thejob aid to the appropriate districtoffice. N. District Office File. File thejob aids in accordance with normal office procedures. UNCONTROLLED

# COP~WHEN DOWNLOADED 

# c;\

# l~ CheckFSIMS to verify this version is currentpriorto use 1

## ( 8900.1 CHG 0 9/13/2007 6-102 TASK OUTCOMES. 

### Completion ofthis task results in one or more ofthe following:
• An indication in the district office files ofa satisfactory inspection • An indication in the district office files ofan unsatisfactory inspection • A letter ofcorrection • An aircraft condition notice • Information package sentto another district office 6-103 FUTURE ACTIVITIES.



### • A pilot or operatormay be subjectto a compliance investigation ifthe inspection reveals a possible violation of 14 CPR. • A followup inspection may be conducted to determine ifany noted discrepancies have been corrected. RESERVED. 

### Paragraphs 6-104 through 6-118.

10 UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Check FSIMS to verifY this version is currentpriorto use8900.1 CHG 0 

### Figure 6-5, Part91 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 currentpriorto 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 currentpriorto use8900.1 CHG 0 

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

13 UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED CheckFSIMS to verifY this version is currentpriorto use 9/13/2007

### ( 8900.1 CHG 0 

# 0 ATTENTION 

# 0

DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION 

### u.. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRA110N AIRCRAFT CONDmON NOTICE f'lli08 0 tsee PrivacyActStatement on Rflvetae) Reglatratlonnumber MUG
5erlalnumber 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 toDrtlnent"FederalAviation 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 Ar8aCIOde/ltJIIrlllftO. Office address Region
DIIIIICI FAA Form 8820·1 (3-77) FORMERLY FAA FORM 832CHAND FAAFORIIIISII0-7

. 14 UNCONTROLLED COPYWHEN DOWNLOADED CheckFSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use 9/13/2007

### ( 8900.1 CHGO 9/13/2007 

### Figure 

### 6-7, IFR Helicopter Letter ofApproval ABC Construction, Inc. 1234 Any Street USA Gentlemen: ABC Construction, Inc., is authorized by this approval to conducthelicopter 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 ofthe rotorcraft in IFR operations, as incorporated in the operating limitations section. This letter ofapproval, the operating limitations, and a copy ofSFARNo. 29-4 constitute a supplemental type certificate and mustbe onboard 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/autopilotmay be used**i~** lieu ofa 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. Eachpilot musthold a rotorcraft-helicopterrating and an instrumenthelicopterrating (except as specified in paragraph 4). 4. Forthe purpose-instrument instruction, each pilot in command must hold a flight instructor certificate with rotorcraft-helicopter and instrument-helicopterratings. The second in command must hold a pilot's certificate with a rotorcraft-helicopter rating. The second pilotneed not comply withparagraph 5 ofthis letterwhile undergoing the formal training program leading toward an instrument-helicopterrating. 5. Each PIC authorized single pilot approval musthave satisfactorily accomplished an instrument proficiency check utilizing a stability augmentation system orautopilot in lieu ofa second in command within the preceding 

### 6 calendar-months. 

### 6. Each pilot crewmembermusthave in his/her personal possession evidence ofproficiency issued by an FAAinspectoror 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 CheckFSIMS to verify this version is current priorto 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, orequivalent means ofpreventing 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 ofbeing activated through a device located on the flight controls. The instruments and equipment must be operable. A complete set offlight controls shall be installed and operable at each pilot station, exceptthat single pilot approval will require a set of flight controls only at the PIC station. 8. In accordance with paragraph 4 ofSFARNo. 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 issuingthis approval ofany "hazardous" flight conditions encountered during IFR operations under SF ARNo. 29-4. This approval will remain in effect until such time as it is surrendered, revoked, orotherwise terminated, ora change in

### th~ aircraft ownership takes place.
John P. Brown, Manager

16 UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED CheckFSIMS to verify this version is current priorto use( 8900.1 CHG 0 

### Figure 6-8, RampInspection 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 priorto use 9/13/2007( 8900.1 CHG 0 9/13/2007 

### Figure 6-9, Letter ofCorrection FAA LETTERHEAD Addressed to pilot/operator Dear



### --- This letter is to notify you that an inspection ofyour [insert either documents or aircraft; if aircraft, indicate the make, model, and N-Number] on [insert date ofthe inspection] at [insert location] revealed deficiencies in the following: List specific items and the related 14 CFR (e.g., MEL letter ofauthorization not carried on board the aircraft, Ref. 14 CFR 

### § 91.213). Yourprompt attention to correctingthese items is appreciated. Please respond to this office within 10 days to indicate your corrective action. 

### Ifwe may be ofassistance, please call [include telephone number and operating hours ofthe district office]. Sincerely, Signed bythe inspector conducting the inspection

18 UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED CheckFSIMS to verify this version is currentpriorto usei 

## I

1 

# diu 

# lZir- ()

# «lh"

' "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 INTRODUCTIONTO INVESTIGATION AND COMPLIANCE-RELATEDTASKS Section 5 Special Considerations-GeneralAviation 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 OFAIRCRAFT.Title 14 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR) section(§) 91.13 provides that, "Noperson may operate an aircraft in a careless orreckless manner so as to endanger the life orproperty ofanother." Neither49 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 particularoperations was "reckless" within the meaning of 14 CFR § 91.13 and has thus contributed towards a definition ofthe 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 inspectorcan infer a deliberate and willful disregard ofthe regulations or safety standards from the circumstances surrounding a violation. a) Itneed not be established that a pilot intended to be reckless butonly that he or she intended to engage in deliberate or willful action which resulted in a deviation from 14 CFR orfrom safety standards and which created actual orpotential danger to the life or property ofanother. b). For example, the NTSB said ofa pilot whom itfound to have been reckless when the pilot deliberately operated an aircraft within 50 to 200 feet ofanother aircraftfor a period of5to 10 minutes- "

... so long as the respondent intends to do the particular acts complained of, and the resulting action widely departs from the norm ofreasonably prudent conduct, a finding ofreckless operation does notrequire proofofthe state ofthe pilot's mind but can be inferred from the nature of [the pilot's] acts oromissions and the surrounding circumstances." 2) In one violation the airmen flew visual flight rules (VFR) in formation and proceeded into a mountainous area in instrumentflight rules (IFR) conditions at dusk without ascertaining the weather conditions. Neither pilot held an instrumentrating and one aircrafthad**~** an inoperative radio. The NTSB declared that the conduct of such a flight was reckless. The ......-:-:::; 

## \U NTSB found that the conduct was"

... so devoid ofbasic safe operating practices and adherence

### ~~ 

## iP 1 to

### critical safetyregulations that itconstituted 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. ConductDeemed Reckless. The fact patterns ofsome individual cases tried before the NTSB provide guidance about the kind ofconduct that the NTSB will deem reckless. For example: 1) The pilot ofan 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 ofthe front seat ofthe 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 ofcausing apprehension orbodily harm to the occupants ofthe van. The NTSB wrote, "Such piloting can only be characterized as reckless operation which created a serious hazard to the van." 3) The allegation ofrecklessness was affirmed by the NTSB in a case where an air carrier pilot operating an aircraft in scheduled air transportation took offfrom an airport after being advised that the reported visibility was 1/16 ofa mile. The takeoffminimums were 114 ofa mile. The NTSB held that the"

... knowing violation ofone ofthe standards applicable to air carrierpilots forms the basis ofthe finding ofreckless operation." 4) In anothercase 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 orexperience in the aircraft, the aircraft had not been issued an airworthiness certificate nor had been inspectedfor the issuance ofthe certificate, the aircraft had not undergone an annual inspectibn, and the aircraft carried no identification markings. The NTSB considered the entire range ofcircumstances and the broad areas ofnoncompliance with the regulations under which numerous flights were conducted, many on which passengers were carried, a reckless operation. 5) In anothercase, the airman was acting as pilot-in-command ofan aircraft on a VFR, passengercarrying flight carrying parachutistsfor compensation. The pilotdeliberately performed an aileron roll. The seriousness ofthis 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 of500 to 800feet over a group ofpersons 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 anothercase the pilot-in-command flew the pilot's personal aircraft on a VFR, passenger carrying flight. During the course ofthe flight, the aircraft entered clouds and subsequently crashed into a mountainside. The NTSB held that the"

... respondent's continued VFRflight into clouds in the vicinity ofmountainous terrain demonstrated inherently reckless conduct." 7) A pilot was found to be reckless when that pilotignored specific air traffic control instructions. Contrary to air traffic control (ATC) instructions, the pilotfailed to report UNCONTROLLED COP;WHEN DOWNLOADED 

# v/k Check FSIMS to verify this version is current priorto use

### ( 8900.1 CHGO 9/13/2007 downwind,landed the aircraft instead ofgoing around, made a 180° tum on the runway, and departed via a taxiway. TheNTSB 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 ofthe aircraft was characterized as reckless. 

### C. Conclusion. While there is no regulatory definition ofthe term, "reckless," it has been defined in cases decided by the NTSB. A reckless operation results from the operation ofan aircraft conducted with a deliberate orwillful disregard ofthe regulations or accepted standards ofsafety so as to endanger the life orproperty ofanother either potentially or actually. Accordingly, any such reckless behavior violates 14 CFR § 91.13. 

### 14-87. AIRWORTHY OR UNAIRWORTHY? The term "airworthiness" orone ofits derivatives, is also not defined in 49 U.S.C. or 14 CFR. Nevertheless, a clearunderstanding ofits meaning is an essential tool for the compliance program. Airworthiness is a concept that represents the substance oftwo ofthe 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 ifit is capable ofa safe operation and itconforms 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 notin an airworthy condition. The respondent had taxied the aircraftinto 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 pilotdid not consider the damage to be significant. The pilot decided to give the aircraft a testflight and found that there was no unusual engine vibration orother indication ofmalfunction. 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 examinerheld that the damage to the propeller caused it tobe 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 ifit conforms to its type certification butthat it is not airworthy ifits original design and specifications are altered without FAA approval. 3 UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Check FSIMS to verify this version is currentprior to use

# ( 8900.1 CHGO 9/13/2007 3) The concept ofairworthiness expressed in this case must be considered to be the correctone because itis the one which best lends itselfto effective enforcement. Itis supported clearly by some NTSB precedents and is reinforced by the framework of49 U.S.C. and the practical operation ofthe FAA itself. The concept that an aircraft need only be capable ofa safe operation to be airworthy cannot 

### be applied effectively because itplaces too much discretion in the individual pilot ormechanic, safety being a subjective value. C. Additional Interpretations. A careful study of49 U.S.C. indicates that the term airworthiness should be interpreted in the manner that ithas been in the example above.

file an application for an airworthiness certificate. Ifthe FAA finds that the aircraft conforms to the type certificatefor that aircraft and determines, after inspection, that the aircraftis in conditionfor 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 ofan aircraft should be granted an airworthiness certificate. First, the aircraft mustconform to the type certificatefor that aircraft. Then,ifthat condition is met, the aircraft mustbe inspected to determine that it is in a condition which will permitits 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 that49 U.S.C. intended that an aircraft should notbe considered to merit the issuance ofan airworthiness certificate unless itconforms to the type certificate applicable to it. Therefore,itcan 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 ofthe FAA should also be considered in determining which conceptofairworthiness is most appropriate. Ifthe term airworthy were interpreted to mean only to be in a conditionfor safe flight, at times it would be unreasonably difficult, ifnot impossible, to enforce the regulations which tum upon the meaning ofthat term. In orderto prove that a pilotoperated 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 ofan aircraft that did not conform to the applicable type certificate. 5) Moreover, ifairworthy meant only to be in a condition for safeflight, it would render the entire airworthiness certification procedure meaningless. Title 49 U.S.C. provides for the issuance ofa type certificate-acertificate that includes the type design as dictated by the type certification datain the aircraft's operating limitations and any other conditions or limitations prescribed in the applicable regulations. Title49 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,ifan aircraft need only be capable of safeflight 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.Tobe airworthy an aircraft must conform to its type certificate as well as be in a condition for safe operation. A word ofcaution is necessary, however,ifthis conceptof airworthiness is to be applied effectively in enforcement cases. Where the evidence clearly demonstrates that the aircraft is not in a conditionfor safe operation, the NTSB will undoubtedly sustain a finding that the aircraft was unairworthy. However, ifthe condition ofthe aircraft is such that it would notbe considered to be in conformance with the type certificate, yet it is not clearly unsafe forflight, then the NTSB will probably not sustain a finding that the aircraftis not airworthy in the absence ofpositive evidence concerning the contents ofthe type certificate data and the particulars in which the aircraft inquestion differs from that data. 14-88. VIOLATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH REGIONAL AND NATIONAL SPECIAL INSPECTIONS.This paragraph contains information on some ofthe 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 orwith the local Right Standards District Office (FSDO) during the inspection or atthe 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 ofviolations 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 ofan enforcement action, especially one with any complexity,is to have one inspector investigate the violation and another to write the report. Itis impossible to assure a 100% transfer oftechnical informationfrom the investigating inspector to the reporting inspector. Therefore,the quality, timeliness, and overall effectiveness ofthe Enforcement Investigation Report (EIR) is significantly diminished. Ithas been proposed that the members ofthe**insp~ction** team who find the violations 

### be responsible for writing the report. B. Solvingthe Problems. Since the crux ofthe problem appears to bethe hand-offof informationfrom the investigating inspectorto the reporting inspector, itappears 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 ofany 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 atleast 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 currentprior to use

### ,
f I



# c-

( 8900.1 CHG 0 9/13/2007 involved and write a preliminary Summary ofFacts on each section of 14 CPR believed violated and assure that there is sufficient evidence available to prove every word ofit, in accordance with the instructions in this chapter. 3) Whoever writes the preliminary Summary ofFacts should test the Summary of Facts and supporting evidence with the otherinspector 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 INTRODUCTIONTO INVESTIGATION AND COMPLIANCE RELATED TASKS Section 8 EnforcementDecision Process· 14-140 GENERAL. This section establishes policy for the Flight Standards Service (AFS) replacingthe Enforcement Decision Tool (EDT) with the Enforcement Decision Process (EDP). EDP corrects deficiencies in the EDTpolicy and worksheet that were identified during a nationwide evaluation ofhow 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 ofthe 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 enforcementtasks. 

### 14-141 TASKPREREQUISITES AND SIGNIFICANT INTERFACES. Aviation safety inspectors (ASI) must have knowledge ofthe requirements ofTitle 49 ofthe United States Code (49 U.S.C.); Title 14 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR); and AFS policies. 

### A. SignificantInterfaces. This process requires coordination and/or interface with the following:

• Field office managementteam; • Flight Standards Division; • Office ofRegional Counsel; • Enforcement Information System (EIS); • Civil Aviation Registry; • Accident IncidentData 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 CFRparts 1through 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. Chapter447, and Chapter463. 

## .:;;;?/:**~61** 't C. Forms. None. 

### D. JobAids. 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 FAAOrder2150.3. 

### F. PTRS Activity Code. This process requires the use ofthe following PTRS activity codes as appropriate: 1) TaskActivity Codes-1734/3734/5734 (INVESTG/ENFRCMNT/INFORMAL ACTION).2) Task Activity Codes-1733/3732/5732 (INVESTG/ENFRCMNT/ADMIN ACTION). 3) TaskActivity 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 orvery similar conduct for the foreseeable future. 

### C. Administrative Action. A letter ofcorrection 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 ofboth inattention and lack ofpurposeful choice. A violation is inadveFtent when it does not result from an alleged violator's conscious decision to take, ornottake any action that could have prevented the apparent violation. 

### F. Informal Action. Oral orwritten counseling ofindividuals or entities for regulatory noncompliance, documented in PTRS. 

### G. Hazard. A conditionthat could lead to injury orproperty damage. 

### H. Lack ofQualification. 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 ofqualifications to hold the certificate, the FAA takes legal action to revoke the violator's certificate.

2 UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Checkwith FSIMS to verify current version before using

## ( 1/14/10 8900.1 CHG 83



### I. Likelihood. The probability (frequent, occasional, orremote) ofthe worst type of injury ordamage realistically (and potentially) occurring, consideringthe actual facts specific to each case. 

### J. Legal Action. Enforcement action otherthan 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 orcompany. 

### 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) ofpotential injury orproperty damage from a hazard created by an act, consideringthe hazard severity and the likelihood that the potential severity will be realized. 

### N. Severity. The worst type ofinjury ordamage (catastrophic, critical, marginal, or negligible) that could realistically (and potentially) occur from a generic violation ofthe type involved in the subject violation. A generic violation refers to the basic act orfailure to act, absent any specific facts orcircumstances. 

### 0. Substantial Disregard for Safety or Security. I) In the case ofa certificate holder, that the act was a substantialdeviation from the degree ofcare,judgment, and responsibility normally expected ofa person holding that certificate with thattype, quality, and level ofexperience, knowledge, and proficiency. 2) Inthe case ofa violator who is not a certificate holder, substantial disregard means the actwas a substantial deviation from the degree ofcare and diligence expected ofa reasonable person in those circumstances.I 

## \ 1/14/10 8900.1 CHG 83 

### Figure 

### 14-10, Process Flowchart-AFSEnforcementDecision 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 afterthey have gathered sufficient evidence and other relevant information to analyze the facts and circumstances ofthe apparent violation under the administrative action criteria and, if necessary, categorize its safety risk. 1) To apply the EDP, AFS enforcementpersonnel use the AFS E-EDP worksheetto
. 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 using1114/10 8900.1 CHG 83 2) AFS enforcement personnel documenttheir 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. Forexample, inspection findings ofan incomplete field on an otherwise satisfactorily completed (and required) record orform, or a missing logbook entry for work-in-progress are usually low-risk violations. Placementofinformation by the alleged violator in the incomplete field, orcompletingthe required logbook entry might suffice as an on-the-spot correction for these kinds oflow-risk cases. When a certificate holder corrects low-risk violations onthe spot, it is acceptable to use administrative action or informal action (oral or written counseling) afterthe correction to close these violations. NOTE: Completion and retention ofan E-EDP worksheet is notrequired for low-risk violations corrected onthe spot; however, ifinspectors accept an on-the-spot correctionthey must perform an E-EDP risk analysis before closing the case to confirm that the violation was low risk. (Referto steps three, four, and five ofthe 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 ofthe E-EDP worksheet is not required for violations accepted underASAP, before 

### informalaction 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 lackof qualification. In addition, the violation 

### mustbe 

### low risk, determined by applying E-EDP worksheet steps three, four, and five. 

### B. DetermineWhetherthe Case is Categorically Excluded From theE-EDP. AFS investigative personnel determine ifthe apparent violation involves any ofthe matters described in subparagraphs 1) through 7) below. Ifthe violation involves any ofthese matters, the case is categorically excluded from the EDP. NOTE: Ifthe excluded case warrants legal enforcement action, enforcement personnel complete steps one and eight ofan E-EDP worksheet for inclusion in section B ofthe Enforcement Investigation Report (EIR) indicatingthatthe subject case was categorically excluded. 1) Apparentviolations that are disclosed under and meetthe criteria ofthe Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program (VDRP) are handled perVDRP guidance. · 

### 2) A case involving a substantiated lack ofqualification, or questionable qualification. Forexample: a) Positive drug and alcohol test results. 

### 5 UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED CheckwithFSIMS to verify current version before using

### (



# C

... 1114/10 8900.1 CHG 83 b) Failing to successfully complete a reexamination. c) Failingto 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 pilotthat are referred to the Department of State. C. Determine ifAll 'criteria for Taking Administrative orInformal Action Have Been Met. Ifa case is not categorically excluded from the E-EDP, then AFS investigative personnel determine whetherthe apparent violation meets the criteria for taking administrative action orinformal action. Before taking either administrative action or informal action for an apparent violation, AFS investigative personnel must determine ifall ofthe criteria have been met. NOTE: Criteria for informal action and administrative action are the same. 1) IfAFS 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 worksheetwhether all criteria for taking administrative action or informal action have been met. 3) Ifany ofthe criteriahave 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 ofthe criteria for taking administrative action or informal action; a completediscussion ofthese 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. Forexample, 49 U.S.C., section 447 I0 mandates that the FAA revoke the certificate ofany airman who is convicted ofa drug-related offense where the underlying offense involves the use ofan aircraft. Forthese 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 ofqualification. 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 ornot 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 ofgenuine miscommunication with maintenance control has acted inadvertently (e.g., the maintenance controllermisheard the discrepancy reported). 3. 

### (Operations): Apilot misses a checklist item because ofan air traffic control communication. 4. 

### Unruly or intoxicated passengers, orpassengers 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 ofa certificate holder, that the act was a substantial deviation from the degree ofcare,judgment, and responsibility normally expected ofa person holding that certificate with thattype, quality, and level ofexperience, knowledge, and proficiency. In the case ofa violator who is not a certificate holder, substantial disregard means the act was 

### I! substantial deviation fromthe degree ofcare and diligence expected ofa reasonable person in those circumstances. For instance: 1. 

### (Airworthiness): Failing to consultthe maintenance manual and then conducting an incomplete or improper inspection ofacritical required inspection item. 2. 

### (Operations): A Commercial-rated pilot taking offat a busy controlled airport without having received takeoffclearance. 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 orcould make the violation worse, more serious orthe 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): Fora 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 violatorhas a constructive attitude toward compliance. Constructive attitude means that the alleged violator acts in a positive mannertoward 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 ofnoncompliance. 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). Ifthe violations resulted from the same repeated misconduct by an individual, or by the same department, section orgroup ofa small entity's organization, then the subsequent violation might suggest a disregard for the regulations and the beginning ofa trend ofnoncompliance. In this case, administrative action or informal action is not appropriate. D. Analyzing Risk. AFS investigative personnel analyze the risk ofan apparent violation only ifall criteria for administrative action or informal action have been met. 1) To determine**~he** level ofrisk, AFS investigative personnel first categorizethe potential severity and actual likelihood ofthe hazard, that is, the dangerous condition, created by the apparentviolation(s). 2) The use ofthe term severity in assessing risk always means the worst type of injury ordamage that could realistically (and potentially) occur from any hazardous condition. It is notbased on the actual outcome ofany act orviolation but, as previously stated, must reflect the worsttype ofoutcome that could realistically (and potentially) occur. Forthis reason, AFS investigative personnel consider only the potential outcome, notthe actual outcome resulting from the act(s) orfailure to actrelevant to the subject violation when categorizing severity. 3) Determining Severity. Based on the explanation stated above severity is the worst type ofinjury ordamage that could realistically (and potentially) occur from a generic violation. A generic violation refers to the basic act orfailure to act without considering any specific facts 8 UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Checkwith FSIMS to verify current version before using

### 1114/10 8900.1 CHG 83

orcircumstances. Forexample, an altitude deviation, a runway excursion, improperly performed maintenance, flight and duty recordkeeping, etc. The following guidelines apply to the ·determination ofseverity: a) To determine severity, AFS enforcement personnel do not considerthe specific facts ofthe case; the specific facts ofthe case are considered only when determining likelihood. b) Severity and likelihood are determined separately, and severity must be determined without considering the likelihood ofthat 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 ofthe fact that such an outcome from the hazard might be extremely rare, orwould not (realistically) occur. c) The most common error in determining severity is prematurely considering the facts and circumstances ofa case. d) Severity can be one ofthe following:

• Catastrophic (death or severe damage); • Critical (severe injury or substantial damage); • Marginal (moderate injury ordamage); and • Negligible (minor orno injury ordamage). e) When determining the potential severity ofan apparent violation, the existence offortuitous circumstances is not considered. The following is an example of fortuitous (by chance) circumstances and the determination ofseverity: An altitude deviation from an ATC clearance has the same potential outcome (catastrophic, due to a mid-air collision) regardless ofwhether there was another aircraft that came into conflict ornot. For any altitude deviation violation, AFS enforcementpersonnel must consider what is the worsttype ofinjury or damage that could realistically happen ifan aircraft deviates from its assigned altitude without considering the weather, obstructions, othertraffic in the area, the time ofday, orother similar circumstances. The absence ofanother aircraft coming into conflict is a fortuitous circumstance. f) Otherexamples relevant to the categorization ofseverity: 1. A fuel exhaustion occurrence has the same potential outcome (catastrophic) irrespective ofwhether an actual accident resulted. 2. A pilot who operates after his orher medical certificate expires has the same potential outcome (catastrophic), irrespective ofwhether 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 ofwhetherthe pilot were actually fatigued atthe time oftheir operation.
9 UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Check with FSIMS to verify current version before usingI '



### \ 1114/10 8900.1 CHG 83
4. The operation ofan aircraft pastthe time limit for conducting a required inspection has the same potential outcome (catastrophic) irrespective ofwhether an actual airworthiness condition was not corrected on the aircraft as a result ofthe missed inspection. 

### 5. Failing to carry a load manifest onboard the aircraft has the same potential outcome (negligible) irrespective ofany 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 ofwhetherthe speed tape interfered with its operation or rendered the antenna inoperative. 7. Failing to make an entry in the aircraft maintenance logbook after installation ofa repaired componenthas the same potential outcome (negligible) irrespective of other factors. 4) Determining Likelihood. Likelihood is the probability ofthe worsttype ofinjury ordamage realistically occurring, considering the specific facts ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofhow the facts ofa case affect likelihood: 

### 1. For a restricted airspace incursion, the likelihood becomes higherthe longerthe pilot operated in therestricted airspace, the farther into the airspace the pilot penetrated, and the greaterthe number ofother aircraft in the area. 2. For operating an aircraft past a required inspection, the actual likelihood becomes higherthe 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 aircrafthas 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 higherfor an active pilot who has no flight time records, orflies many hours pastthe flight time limitations, than for a pilot who flies a small amount oftime pastthe flight time limits, ordoes 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 bemore likely where the weight is excessive, or multiple restraints are inoperative. 

### 5. For operating without complyingwith Airworthiness Directives, the likelihood will be higher whenthe aircraft is operated many hours beyond the compliance date than for an aircraftthat is operated a small amount oftime pastthe compliance date. 

### 6. For improperly performingmaintenance, the likelihood will be more likely the more egregious the error and the greaterthe impact on safety-of-flight. 7. For operating an aircraft with a very-high frequency antennathat had been improperlyrepaired with speed tape, the likelihood will be less likely ifthe aircrafthad three separate communication systems, and the improperly repaired antenna was connected to only one ofthose systems. 5) Determinethe Safety Risk and the Appropriate EnforcementAction. 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 actionthe 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 ofthe 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 leadthe inspectorto believe the airman has a willingness to comply, so noncompliance is less likely in the future. 3) The conductdoes not disclose a lack of, orreasonable basis to question, the airman's qualifications. 4) The airman's record ofenforcement actions does notindicate thatremedial training would be inappropriate. 5) The conduct is notdeliberate, grossly negligent, orcriminal in nature. NOTE: Ifthe airmanhas notresponded to the remedial training Letter of Investigation within 10 days ofreceipt, initiate legal enforcement action. Flight Standards District Office managementhas 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 ofthe violation. 

### F. Deviation From the Matrix (ifapplicable). Enforcement personnel may determine that a case warrants a deviation from the enforcement action indicated by the Risk Assessment and Action Matrix. IfAFS investigative personnel select a type ofaction otherthan that indicated by the matrix, then they must provide ajustification and have approval ofthe 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 ofaction indicated by the matrix mightbejustified: 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 ofa letter ofcorrection may be more appropriate to improve the operator's system for system safety benefits, even though the matrix directs legal action. Forthese cases, the potential safety benefits ofa 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, butthere is negligible safety risk involved. For example, an apparent violation by a pilot who operates an aircraft without a pilot certificate in his or herpossession, but is qualified and currentto operate the aircraft, may be more appropriately addressed with a warning notice, as the violation does not endangerthe aircraft or any occupants. 3) The investigating office could also recommend that administrative action would not be appropriate and thatthe FAA should take legal enforcement.action. 

### G. Documentation. 1) E-EDP Worksheet-Retentionrequirements. E-EDP Worksheets required bythis 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 ofthe EIR includes the completed and signed E-EDP worksheet.

## ( 1114110 8900.1 CHG 83 Report and the administrative action letter (orthe SNAAPjob 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, orto other cases closed onthe spotwith informal action or administrative action. 3) Excluded Cases Warranting Legal EnforcementAction. AFS inspectors complete Step One and sign the E-EDP worksheet indicatingthat the apparent violation is categorically excluded from the E-EDP. The signed E-EDP worksheet is included in Section B ofthe excluded case EIR. 4) Excluded Cases That are Closed With Administrative or Informal Action. AFS inspectors complete Step One ofa signed E-EDP worksheet indicatingthatthe 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 ifan Enforcement Information System (EIS) code, orPTRS code orfield, or a PTRS comment indicate thatthe case was ofa type that is categorically excluded. Forexample, VDRP cases, 49 U.S.C. section 44709 cases, etc. 

### H. Entryin 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 ofan EIRnor a case number from EIS, butmust be documented in PTRS to supportnational, regional, and local systems

. safety analysis, and to identifY trends. a) AFS investigative personnel mustrecord the following information on informal actions in PTRS:

• Name ofthe individual orbusiness; • Certificate type and number ofthe individual orbusiness (as applicable); •**Regul~tions** involved (include section, paragraph and subparagraph); • Date ofcounseling; • Type ofcounseling (oral orwritten); • Forbusinesses, name and title ofperson counseled; and • Briefdescription ofthe apparent noncompliance. 

### I. Review ofApplication ofthe EnforcementDecision 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 thatthe signatory concurs in the appropriateness ofthe action recommended and believes the E-EDP worksheet is prepared in accordance with all applicable policies.
13 UNCONTROLLED COPYWHEN DOWNLOADED Checkwith FSIMS to verifY current version before using/



## ( \_ 

### 1114/10. 8900.1 CHG 83 2) Copies ofthe complete administrative action case file (for all cases requiring completion ofan E-EDP worksheet), including evidence sufficientto 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 ofProof, sufficient documentation must be included with the file to show that the violation(s) occurred (e.g., a briefinspector statement, a copy ofaphotograph, copy ofa 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. Iflegal counsel concurs with the AFS recommendation and analysis, legal counsel signs the E-EDP worksheet and initiates the case. Iflegal 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. Iflegal 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. Iflegal counsel disagrees with the AFS analysis under the E-EDP, but agrees with the recommended action, legal counsel does not return the EIRto 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 ofthe E-EDP worksheetresults in one ofthe following:

• Exclusion ofan 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 ofCorrection 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-EDPWorksheet AFSENFORCEMENT DECISIONPROCESS (E-EDP) WORKSHEET Case Name:



### ------------------- EIRNumber 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-Determineifthis case is categorically excluded. 

### Review the list below to determine ifthis case should be categorically excluded from the Enforcement Decision Process (EDP). Ifthe case is excluded, eitherplace a 

### checkmark in the box adjacent to the type ofcase from the following list, 

### or explain 

### why this case has been excluded. (See below.) Types ofcases that arecategoricallyexcluded from theEDP: 

## D 1. VoluntaryDisclosure ReportingProgram (VDRP). Violations that are voluntarily disclosed under VDRP and that meet all acceptance criteria for the program. 

## 0 2. LackofQualifications.

### Lackof qualification means a certificate holder lacks the skills and competency, orcare,judgment, and responsibility necessary to hold that certificate. Forexamples, see the list below:
• Drug and alcqhol positives; • Failingto successfully complete a reexamination; • Failingto 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 

### requiredfor these cases. 

## 0 3. Criminal Activity. For example, cases involving controlled substances. Note: Legal enforcement action is 

### requiredfor these cases. 

## D 4. SpecialEmphasis EnforcementPrograms. Forexample, currently cases involving Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) violations. 

## D 5. Operatingwithout having been issued a required certificate, rating orother required authorization. Note: Legal enforcement action is 

### requiredfor these cases. 

## D 6. Violations involving military pilots that are referred to theDepartment of Defense (DOD).


### 15 UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Checkwith 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 youryes orno selection. DYes-thecase is excluded. Explain in the space provided below ifyou have not placed a checkmark in one ofthe boxes above. Comments: Ifthe case is excluded,

# 0 the EDP after completing Step One and print and sign the worksheet. Thenproceed 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 thefollowing criteria. For each ofthe criteriathat have been metplace a checkmark in the appropriate box. 

# D 1. Legal enforcementaction is not required by law. Forexample, U.S.C. Section 44710 and drug-related offenses. 

# D 2. Administrative action would adequately deterfuture violations.Adequately deter means thatthe FAA action is reasonably likely to discourage the alleged violator and others similarly situated from committing the same orvery similar conduct for the foreseeable future. 

# D 3. The apparentviolation does not indicate a lackofqualification.Lackof qualification means a certificate holder lacks the skills and competency, orcare, judgment, and responsibility necessary to hold that certificate. 

## D 4. The apparentviolation was inadvertent, (i.e., not the result ofpurposeful conduct). A violation is inadvertentwhen it does notresult from an alleged violator's conscious decision to take ornottake any action that could have preventedthe violation. 

# D 5. The apparentviolation does notinvolve a substantial disregard for safety or security. Substantial_disregard for safoty orsecurity means, in the case ofa certificate holder, thatthe act was a substantial deviation from the degree ofcare,judgment, and responsibility normally expected ofa person holding that certificate withthattype, quality, and level ofexperience, knowledge, and proficiency. 

# D 6. The circumstances ofthe apparentviolation were not aggravated.Aggravated circumstances are those that make, orcould make, the violation worse, more serious, or the potential outcome more severe. 

## D 7. The alleged violatorhas a constructive attitude toward compliance. Constructive attitude means that the alleged violator acts in a positive mannertoward 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 Checkwith 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 ofnoncompliance. A trendof noncompliance is indicated by a prior violation history which can include legal enforcement action(s), administrative action(s) and/or informal action(s). Have allcriteria for takingAdministrativeAction been met? Please place a checkmark in the box adjacentto youryes orno selection. 

## 0 No, all ofthe criteria have notbeen met. In the space provided below, please explain whythe criteria have not been met. Explanation: Please

# e the EDP, and aftercompleting Step Two, print and sign the worksheet andproceed with legaleriforcementaction. 

## 0 Yes, all criteria have been met. Proceed to Step Three. STEP THREE-Determine Severity. For severity, selectthe worsttype ofinjury/damage that could realistically (and potentially) occur from a generic violation ofthis type. Note: Do not considerthe facts and circumstances specific to this case when determining severity. Note: A generic violation refers to the basic act orfailure to act absent any specific facts orcircumstances. Forexample, 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 overterrain, etc. 

## 0 Catastrophic (death or severe

## d~1rnage) 

## 0 Critical (severe injury or substantial damage) 

## 0 Marginal (moderate injury ordamage) 

# 0 Negligible (minor orno injury ordamage) 

### Why did you selectthis severity level? Explanation: Proceed to Step Four. STEP FOUR-DetermineLikelihood. Select the probability ofthe worsttype of injury/damage that could realistically occur, consideringthe facts specific to this case. 

## D Frequent (likely to occuroften) 

## D Occasional (likely to occur sometimes) 

## 0 Remote (unlikely to occur, orwould seldom occur, orwould notoccur) 

### Why did you selectthis 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 RiskAssessment and Action Matrix. Usingyour selections for severity and likelihood in Steps Three and Four above, determine the level ofrisk 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 orLegal Administrative Administrative 

### 0 Risk: High Risk: Moderate Risk: Moderate Risk: Low 

### 0 Occasional Action(s): Remedial Action: Action: Action(s): 

# =**~** Training orLegal 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 ofrisk selected: Type ofaction selected:

__ 

## -- Proceed to Step Six. STEP SIX-Use ofRemedial Training. IfRemedial Training (RT) is indicated by the matrix, Flight Standards Inspectors must offer an airman RT, providedallcriteria for taking administrative action andRTare met, and the apparent violation causes a high safety risk. IfRT is refused, ornot completed,satisfactorily, proceed with legal enforcement action. Note: All ofthe RT criteria mustbe metbefore the FAA can offer RT to an airman. Ifall criteria are notmetthen legal enforcementmustbe taken. Note: RT cannotbe used for airmen using their FAA certificate(s) in air transportation (aircarrier operations) when the violation occurred. 

## D 1. 

### Ifthe 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. Ifthe airman was notusing his FAA certification in aircarrier operations atthe time the violation occurred place a checkmark in this box and determine whetherRT criteria have been met. Review each of the following criteria. Ifmet, place a checkmark in the appropriate box adjacent to the criteria. 

## D 1. Futu.re compliance can reasonably beensured through RT alone. 

## D 2. The airman exhibits a constructive attitude thatwould lead the inspectorto believe thatthe airman has a willingness to comply, so noncompliance is less likely in the future. 18 UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Checkwith FSIMS to verify current version before usingI ( 

### 1114/10 8900.1 CHG 83 

# 0 3. The conduct does not disclose a lackof, ora reasonable basis to question, the airman's qualifications. 

## 0 4. The airman's record ofenforcement actions does not indicate that RTwould be inappropriate 

## 0 5. The conduct is not deliberate, grossly negligent, orcriminal in nature. Have allcriteria for usingRTbeen met? DYes 0No 

## 0 Not Applicable Ifno, explain below 

### why the criteria have not been met, print and sign the E-EDP worksheet and then proceed with legal enforcementaction. 

### Explanation: Proceed to Step Seven. STEP SEVEN-DeviationProcedures. In exceptional circumstances, the investigating office can recommend that an action be taken otherthan 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 ofan administrative action is otherwise in the public interest. 2. The investigating office could also recommend that administrative action would notbe appropriate and that legal enforcement action should be taken. 3. Ifa type ofaction is proposed otherthan that indicated by the Enforcement Decision Process, the division manager, orhis/her designee's approval is required. 

### EDP Process Outcome Requested: Yes 

# 0 No

# 0 Ifyes, describe the action you propose, explain the facts and circumstances, andjustifY your proposal: 

### Explanation:**D~vision** 

### Manager/Designee Action: 

# 0 Approved 

# D Disapproved 

# D Not Applicable PrintName:

_____________ _ Signature:-------------- Date:

____ _ 19 UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Check with FSIMS to verifY current version before usingJ.

1114/10 8900.1 CHG 83 

### Proceed to Step Eight and printand sign the E-EDP worksheet. STEP EIGHT-SIGNATUREPAGE 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 (ifforwarded for legal enforcement action): PRINTED NAME:

___________ _**SIGNATURE:_~----------** 

### DATE:

___ _ Ifthe attorney finds that the proposed type ofenforcement 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 

### Checkwith 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>HIIBLY•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]Hf3•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 Sl(lZI Z!•bC HHllO-J 111SOOl-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 ----------··-····---·--··-·---------·••••• !11.1ft PANEl ASSEII8lY-SEAT 8ACI( ----·-··------------------- TQI/1 PANEl ASSEIIBLJ•SEAT BACK -----·------·---·-···-----· Tqlll PANfl ASSEII8LY•SfAT BICK ------------·------·-----·

4HACHI 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 •·••••••····------·--··-------------···•-••• IIAStt£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 UNII'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