37e3.1 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANS 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.L E% 17 :\ II: 08 

) 

FEDERAL AVlATlON ADMINISTRATION, ) 

1 

Complainant, 1 

) 

V. ) 

) FAA DOCKET NOS. CP04CE0008 

TARA J. FRABOTTA ) CP04CE0009 

1 

and ) (Civil Penalty Actions) 

JOSEPH M. EICHMAN, 

Respondents. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) FAA-2005-20409 

DMS NOS. FAA-2005-20408 - b 

INITIAL DECISION 

OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RICHARD C. GOODWIN 

Found: 1. Respondent Frabotta violated 14 C.F.R. §§121.575(a), 121.580, and 91.21(a)(l) as 

charged; 

2. Respondent Eichrnan violated 14 C.F.R. #121375(a) and 121.580 as charged; 

3. Respondent Frabotta is assessed a civil penalty of $3,300; and 

4. Respondent Eichman is assessed a civil penalty of $2,2200. 

I. Background 

Ms. Tara J. Frabotta and Mr. Joseph M. Eichman (hereinafter respectively “Frabotta” 

and “Eichman,” or, collectively, “Respondents”) were passengers on board a Champion 

Airlines flight operating from Cancun, Mexico, to St. Louis, MO on February 7, 2005 (Tr. 

13-14). The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter “Complainant” or ”the agency”) 

issued separate Complaints against them. The agency charged Frabotta with violations 

of $$121.575(a) (drinking an alcoholic beverage not served to her), 121 380 (threatening 

or interfering with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember‘s duties), and 

91.21 (a)( 1) (operating a portable electronic device). The agency seeks the maximum 

civil penalty of $1,100 per charge, or a total of $3,300 on the three charges. It also 

charged Eichman, her companion on the trip, with violations of $9121.575(a) and 

121.580. Against Eichman the agency asks for a tota: civil penalty of $2,200, also 

reflecting the maximum allowable assessment per chege. 
2 

The matters were combined fer hearing (see the Hearing Notice in each matter, 

served April 26, 2005). I held an oral evidentiary hearing in Chicago, IL, home of the 

World Champion White Sox, on August I ,2005. Neither Respondent appeared.’ I heard 

the testimony of Complainant’s witnesses and determined that it was reasonable to issue 

a written decision (Tr. 56). 

11. Findings and Conclusions 

At the hearing I find that by failing to appear, Respondents constructively withdrew 

their requests for hearing. I further find that by their absence they have constructively 

admitted to the truthfulness of the testimony of Complainant‘s witnesses (Tr. 9; see 

Mawafag A. Abedallah cvb/a Sfinx Express Transit, Docket No. FMCSA-2003-15318, 

Final Order, June 25, 2004; Jay K. Selznick, FAA Docket No. CPO2SWOO18, Initial 

Decision of Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin, pp. 4-5). 

A. The Evidence 

Ms. Julia Turner, a flight attendant for Champion Airlines, was Complainant’s first 

witness. Ms. Turner was credible. She testied that she was assigned to the forward 

galley on Champion flight 326 on the date in question. The flight normally takes about 

two hours, forty-five minutes (Tr. 14-15, 23). Ms. Turner was responsible for passengers 

in rows 1 through 9. Respondent Frabotta, she stated, was in an aisle seat in Row 5, 

designated as 5D, and her companion, Respondent Eichman, was sitting beside Frabotta 

in aisle 5, toward the outside bulkhead (Tr. 15-17). 

Some time after the flight became airborne Ms. Turner served Respondents orange 

juice at their request (Tr. 17). Their conversation, which included two men in the row 

behind them in Row 6, became loud. Ms. Turner twice asked the passengers to quiet 

down. The two men complied, but not Frabotta and Eichman; their behavior became 

louder and more obnoxious. Their raucous speech included foul language (Tr. 19-23, 24, 

$3). They used “the F-word,” Ms. Turner said, and they called the lead flight attendant, 

Julie Carr - who left her post to help deal with these passengers - a “bitch” as well as a 

“F-ing bitch’’ (Tr. 20, 27, 34). As Ms. Turner stated, their language was “horrible” (Tr. 19). 

Patrick Thatcher, a passenger seated nearby and an air carrier professional who 

oversees the St. Louis operations of American Airlines (Tr. 38-40), supported Ms. 

My offce received an unsigned letter purportedly from Respondents requesting a postponement of this case on 

account of their honeymoon. The letter is dated July 19,2005, but lacking a certificate of service or other attestation, 

it cannot be presumed that it was sent at that time. What is known is that it arrived on August 1 in my office in 

Washington, D.C. - after the hearing had started 700 miles away in Chicago. 

set by Hearing Notices in each matter served April 26,2005. I found that Respondents were properly served with 

these notices. Tr. 9. As such, they had more than two months to make a timely request for postponement. 

Respondent Frabotta in Edct had spoken to my staff about their purported conflict on earlier occasions, and my staff 

had informed her -- several times -- of the need to request a continuance. See Tr. 4. Respondents failed to do so. 

Continuances are not granted at such a late dlf’e absent truly exigent and unforeseen circumstances. Plainly, 

Respondents’ request is not in that category, Indeed, the timing of the request appears to mock the integrity of the 

hearing process. 

Respondents’ request is denied. The hearing dates of August 1-3, and the time and location of the hearing, had been 
3 

Turner‘s testimony. Thatcher also was credible. He agreed that Respondents were 

“loud, vulgar” and “abhorrent” (Tr. 40-41). He supported Ms. Turner’s contention that 

Frabotta called the flight attendants “F-ing bitches” (Tr. 44). Respondents continually 

“badgered” the attendants, he added (Tr. 43). Thatcher - and other passengers - also 

saw Frabotta make an obscene hand gesture and/or raise a fist to the attendants’ backs 

as they walked away from their various conversations with Respondents (Tr. 28,43-44). 

The attendants, by contrast, remained unruffled and acted in a professional manner 

throughout (Tr. 45). 

A short time after Ms. Turner served Respondents the orange juice, a note from a 

nearby passenger alerted Turner and lead flight attendant Carr that Respondents were 

serving something out of a bottle which they were passing between them and to the two 

men behind them. When Ms. Carr asked Respondents for the bottle, they denied having 

one. But Ms. Turner smelled liquor on their breath. As time passed, she added, they 

appeared “more and more intoxicated” (Tr. 17-1 9, 22-23). Her observations, against the 

background of nineteen years’ experience as a flight attendant, caused her to conclude 

that they were drinking alcohol (Tr. 24, 31). No flight attendant had sold them an 

alcoholic beverage (Tr. 31 -32). Thatcher, the passenger witness and American Airlines 

official, supported Ms. Turner’s conclusion. He stated that he observed Respondents 

pouring liquid from a bag stowed under their seats. They mixed the liquid into a cup and 

then slid the bag back under their seats after sharing it with the men in Row 6 (Tr. 41-42). 

This vexing situation prompted lead flight attendant Carr to see the captain (Tr. 26). 

She returned with a violation notice. Respondents reacted to her explanation of the 

notice with more obstreperous comments sprinkled with foul language (Tr. 27). And 

when Ms. Carr asked Respondents for proper identification, they refused to supply it (Tr. 

30-31). 

Finally, when Ms. Turner asked Respondent Frabotta -- several times -- to turn off 

her cell phone, Frabotta failed to do so (Tr. 28-30, 32). Frabotta and Eichman, in sum, 

were singularly uncooperative (Tr. 25). Passenger Fletcher concluded that Respondents 

“did not comply with anything that the flight attendants had requested” (Tr. 43). 

Dealing with Respondents probably required an hour to an hour-and-a-half ‘br more” 

of Ms. Turner‘s time on this two-hour, forty-five minute flight, the flight attendant stated 

(Tr. 23-24). Both flight attendants were forced to leave their duties to attend to them (Tr. 

33). It was a “never-ending battle,” Fletcher added (Tr. 43), just a “constant disruption” 

(Tr. 46). 

The nature and context of the Respondents’ behavior, moreover, created an 

unnerving situation. As Ms. Turner observed, loud, uncooperative, liquor-fueled and 

obscenity-spewing passengers like Respondents are fundamentally unpredictable. You 

do not know what they may do next. As such, it is imperative to be on your toes (Tr. 24). 

And in a metal tube hurtling at tap speed with many passengers (including children) 

looking on, the situation becomes particularly disquieting. Several passengers in fact 

appeared upset and were complaining about the two of them (Tr. 26). Ms. Turner 
4 

summarized that Respondents’ conduct created an atmosphere that was “very tense’’ (Tr. 

24). She felt threatened (Tr. 25). 

B. Conclusions 

I conclude that the agency has proven each of the charges against each of the 

Respondents. 

The evidence showed that both Frabotta and Eichman were drinking alcohol which 

the crew had not supplied them. As such, I conclude that each of them violated 

$1 21.575(a). I conclude also that Frabotta, by failing and refusing to turn off her cell 

phone, violated §91.2l(a)(l). 

Finally, I conclude that both Frabotta and Eichman violated s121.580. Flight 

attendants are on board to “ensure passenger safety” (Tr 53; see also Tr. 46). Their 

main and overriding responsibility is to instruct and handle the passengers in case of an 

emergency, such as rapid decompression or an emergency evacuation. In only a 

secondary sense do their duties include the maintenance of passenger comfort (Tr. 53- 

54). Plainly, Respondents’ behavior - which I found at the hearing to be inexcusable and 

outrageous (Tr. 57, 59) - disrupted the crew’s duties (Tr. 32-33). Two flight attendants 

needed to leave their assignments for substantial periods in order to deal with them. And 

the intimidating character of Respondents’ behavior itself interfered with the attendants’ 

responsibilities. In sum, the facts amply proved interference with the performance of a 

crewmember‘s duties in violation of $1 21.580.2 Complainant also demonstrated that 

Respondents’ behavior threatened a crewmember in violation of 5121 580. As stated, 

flight attendant Turner felt threatened simply by their aggressive and defiant conduct. 

Given the tense atmosphere generated by their disruptive behavior - which risked 

spinning out of control -- Turnerk fear was entirely rea~onable.~ 

In. Penaltv 

I have determined to assess against Respondent Frabotta a civil penalty of $3,300, 

and against Respondent Eichman a civil penalty of $2,200. 

Air carrier inspector (and retired pilot) Donald Dunn of the St. Louis Flight Standards 

District Office (FSDO), the agency’s final witness, was FAA’s investigator in charge of this 

case (Tr. 4748). By taking two flight attendants away from their primary responsibilities, 

inspector Dunn stated, Frabotta and Eichman created an undue risk of danger aboard the 

aircraft had the flight presented an unsafe condition (Tr. 46) Additionally, failure to turn 

off a cell phone creates an unwarranted risk of interference with an aircraft‘s sensitive 

communications equipment (Tr. 29). 

-. 

§ce Tr. 35. Frabotta’s behavior is particularly egregious in view of her assertion that her father is a pilot and she 

This conclusion makes it unnecessary to decide whether “threatening” under &e regulation requires a subjective or 

“knew all the rules.” See Tr. 30. 

an nhjective evaluation. Respondents’ actions met either test. 
5 

It simply is critical that passengers respect and obey flight attendants’ instructions 

. under all circumstances. Failure to do so not only creates an undue risk of peril but 

breaks down the integrity of a process primarily designed to ensure safe travel for 

passengers and crew. 

Against this background I fully endorse inspector Dunn’s recommendation of the 

maximum $1,100 civil penalty per violation (see Tr. 51-52). In fact (as I stated at the 

hearing) I would have issued a greater penalty had one been sought4 

Based upon the foregoing, then, I find and conclude that (I) Respondent Tara J. 

Frabotta violated §§121.575(a), 121 580, and 91.21(a)(1) as charged, and I hereby 

assess against her a civil penalty of $3,300; and (2) Respondent Joseph M. Eichman 

violated §§121.575(a) and 121.580 as charged, and I hereby assess against him a civil 

penalty of $2,200.5 

Administrative Law Judge 

Tr. 57. While Complainant sought the maximum civil penalty assessment per charge filed, it could have preferred 

additional charges. For instance, in view of the fact that two flight attendants were involved, Complainant could have 

brought two 5 121.580 charges against each Respondent rather than one. Respondents additionally interfered with the 

captain’s duties because he had to call authorities to meet Respondents upon landing. Tr. 31’33. Further, prohity in 

itself can create an atmosphere sufficient to violate 5 12 1 S80. Avigdor Shallit, FAA Docket No. CP99EAOO5 1 Initial 

Decision of Administrative Law Judge Burton S. Kolko dated September 22,2000,2000 FAA Lexis 955. 

Any appeal from this order to the Administrator must be in accordance with section 13.233 ofthe Rules of Practice, 

which requires 1) that a notice of appeal be filed no later than 10 days (plus 5 for mailing) from the date of this order 

and 2) that the appeal be perfected with a written brief or memorandum not later than 50 days (plus 5 for mailing) 

fiom the date of this order. Each is to be sent to the Appellate Docket Clerk, Room 924-A, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20591, and to agency counsel. Service upon the 

presiding judge is optional. 
FAA Docket Nos. CP04CEO08 and 

CP04CE0009 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Hearing Docket 

Federal &4viation Adininistration 

800 Independence Avcnue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Room !0 14’ 

ONE COPY 

Joseph M. Eichman 

822 N. Rockwell 

Chicago, IL 60622 

TEL: (773) 220-170 1 

John W. Escott. Esq. 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Central Region, ACE-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

DOT Building 

901 Locust, Room SO6 

Kansas City. MO 64 106-264 1 

TEL: (816) 329-3762 

FAX: (816) 329-3771 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

Rooin 54 1 1 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

400 Seyenth Street, S.W. 

Wasllington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: Attorney (202) 366-694 1; Legal Assistant (202) 366-5121 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

Senrice n as by U S Mail F 3r sen ice in person or by expedited couner. use the lbllowiiig address 

Hearing Docket. Federal Aviation Admmstration. 600 Independence Avenue. S W . Wilbur Wright Building - Ro~ni 

2014. Wasliington, DC 20591. Attn fitariiig Docket Clerk. AGC-430 

1