Case Name: Robert J. JONES, Petitioner, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD and Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1964-03-26
Citations: 332 F.2d 717
Docket Number: No. 17899
Parties: Robert J. JONES, Petitioner, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD and Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 332
Pages: 717–720

Head Matter:
Robert J. JONES, Petitioner, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD and Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency, Respondents.
No. 17899.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Dec. 5, 1963.
Decided March 26, 1964.
Petition for Rehearing en Banc and Petition for Rehearing before the Division Denied June 10, 1964.
Mr. Robert J. Jones, pro se.
Messrs. John J. Keyser, Trial Atty., Federal Aviation Agency, and Frederic D. Houghteling, Atty., Civil Aeronautics Bd., with whom Asst. Atty. Gen., William H. Orrick, Jr., Messrs. John H. Wanner, Gen. Counsel, Civil Aeronautics Bd., Joseph B. Goldman, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Civil Aeronautics Bd., O. D. Ozment, Associate Gen. Counsel, Litigation and Legislation, Civil Aeronautics Bd., James D. Hill, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Federal Aviation Agency, and Lionel Kestenbaum, Atty., Dept, of Justice, were on the brief, for respondents.
Before Fahy, Danaher and McGowan, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The Civil Aeronautics Board, affirming an order of the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency, revoked the airline transport pilot rating privileges of petitioner, thus depriving him of authority to serve as pilot-in-command of airline transport (large passenger-carrying commercial) aircraft, but not otherwise affecting his pilot status. The Board's order was based on findings made after hearings and procedures in which we find no error. The Board found that petitioner had violated two Civil Air Regulations, one providing that "no aircraft shall be flown into known or probable heavy icing conditions. the other providing that "no person shall operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of others."
On the flight which led to the revocation petitioner skilfully piloted to its destination a plane with 47 passengers aboard and safely landed it. Notwithstanding this, evidence amply supports the findings of the Board that in doing so he flew into known or probable heavy icing conditions which endangered life and property.
As to the second of the two grounds above referred to, the alternatives which confronted petitioner might also have endangered life and property, due to the weather conditions which closed in on the plane during the flight, for which reason, were we the Board, we cannot say we would have revoked petitioner's transport pilot rating privileges.
But we must recognize the special competence and responsibility of the Board in administering the safety regulations referred to and we find no basis for judicial repudiation of the conclusion reached on the basis of Board findings which have substantial support in the evidence. The judgment the Board exercised is not, in sum, an unlawful one; nor was it reached in an unlawful manner.
Affirmed.
. 14 CJr.lt. § 42.54 (1963).
. 14 C.F.R. § 60.12 (1963).