Court Opinion

ID: 2964462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:26:05.536351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:56.615621
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1551

                                  CANDACE A. QUINN,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                           DAVID R. HINSON, Administrator,
                           FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

                                     Respondent.

                                 ____________________

                          ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER

                     OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                            Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Thomas C. Halloran on brief for petitioner.
            __________________
            Robert P.  Vente and  Kathleen Yodice,  Acting Manager,  Appellate
            ________________      _______________
        Branch, Office of the  Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
        on brief for respondent.

                                 ____________________

                                  December 19, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      ALDRICH, Senior Circuit  Judge.   Candace A.  Quinn
                               _____________________

            (hereinafter  petitioner),  seeks  review  of   the  National

            Transportation Safety  Board's affirmance of an  order of the

            Federal  Aviation  Administration  ("FAA"),   suspending  her

            commercial pilot's license for forty-five days.  We affirm.

                                    I.  Background
                                        __________

                      A.  Facts
                          _____

                      Petitioner   is   a  certified   flight  instructor

            employed   by  a   fixed  base   operator  at   the  Beverly,

            Massachusetts  airport.   In  addition to  flight instruction

            duties,  she flies  a daily  morning Metro  Traffic Reporting

            flight.   On the day  in question, she  performed her regular

            traffic flight.   Later that morning, her  employer asked her

            to   make  a   ferry  flight   to  Lawrence,   Massachusetts,

            approximately  twelve miles  northwest,  in a  plane she  had

            never operated.   Petitioner did not hesitate because she was

            "just  used to going up  [t]here and not  having any problems

            . . . ."

                      Shortly   after   her   departure   from   Beverly,

            petitioner contacted Lawrence Automatic  Terminal Information

            Service  ("ATIS")  and  was  informed that  the  weather  was

            suitable for flying  under Visual Flight  Rules ("VFR").1   A

                                
            ____________________

            1.  Visual Flight Rules, see 14 C.F.R.     91.151-159, govern
                                     ___
            procedures  for flight in "VFR" conditions.   In general, VFR
            conditions are those where the pilot can see minimum required
            distances and utilize visual navigation techniques.

                                         -2-

            few minutes later, she tried to  contact Lawrence Air Traffic

            Control ("ATC") and found  both radios inoperative.  At about

            the same time,  she noticed snow showers to the  north in the

            direction of  Lawrence airport.  Unable to  make contact with

            Lawrence ATC she ultimately turned away from the weather.

                      It appears  that at this point  petitioner had lost

            track  of  where she  was.   Instead  of heading  back toward

            Beverly,  she  testified  that  she "didn't  know  the  exact

            heading [she] took but it  must have been a heading of  south

            . . . ."    While on  this  southerly  heading, she  steadily

            descended,  watched for  traffic,  worked on  her radios  and

            tried to "calm" herself.

                      Petitioner  eventually  managed to  establish radio

            contact  with Lawrence ATC and was "shocked" to learn she was

            twenty  miles  south of  her intended  flight  path --  at an

            elevation of  only  700  feet, three  miles  north  of  Logan

            Airport  --  thus  flying  in Class  B  controlled  airspace2

            without  authorization.  At the urgent request of a Logan air

            traffic   controller,  Lawrence  ATC  radioed  petitioner  to

            contact Logan ATC  which then provided her with  vectors back

            to Lawrence.   As a  result of this  unauthorized foray  into

            Class B air space, Logan controllers were forced to shut down

                                
            ____________________

            2.  Class   B  controlled  airspace  surrounds  the  nation's
            busiest airports.   It generally  ranges from the  surface to
            altitudes as  high as  10,000 feet and  requires Air  Traffic
            Control clearance before entry.

                                         -3-

            runways, delay departing flights and  divert arriving flights

            on  final approach.  The written record does not reflect that

            petitioner ever informed Lawrence ATC or Logan controllers of

            her radio problems.3

                      After landing at Lawrence, petitioner contacted the

            Boston  Terminal  Radar   Approach  Control  ("TRACON")  Area

            Manager.  When asked what happened, she replied:

                           I   got   kind  of   discombobulated
                      because I  entered a snow shower and none
                      of my radios seemed to be working.  I was
                      getting  wrong  information  . . . I  ran
                      into a  little bit of  difficulty . . . I
                      got  disoriented.   I have  an instrument
                      rating . . . [b]ut I'm not  current . . .
                      I'm    actually   a    certified   flight
                      instructor  and this  is  the scary  part
                      . . . I just . . . got disoriented  and I
                      guess I thought I  knew where I was going
                      and then  when I found out  that I didn't
                      have the runway or  airport in sight then
                      I knew  I had  a problem . . .  if anyone
                      had told me it would happen to me I would
                      never  [have]  believed   it  . . .   I'm
                      probably going to be in very big trouble.

            Three weeks  later, petitioner submitted a  written report to

            the Logan  FAA Flight  Standards Field  Office  in which  she

            acknowledged  that "perhaps  [she]  could have  done more  to

            prevent incurring Boston's airspace."   With the burden being

            on her, this was an understatement.

                                
            ____________________

            3.  Petitioner  did  testify that  after making  contact with
            Lawrence  Air  Traffic  Control,   she  reported  her   radio
            problems.  She also testified that she told Logan controllers
            of her avionics difficulties.  However, neither transcript of
            tapes  routinely  kept  by  both  authorities  contained  any
            confirmation of this.

                                         -4-

                      B.  Procedural History
                          __________________

                      On March 29, 1994, the FAA issued the final amended

            order suspending petitioner's  commercial pilot  certificate.

            The  order found  petitioner  guilty of  three violations  of

            Federal  Aviation Regulations  ("FAR"), 14  C.F.R.     1.1 et
                                                                       __

            seq.    Specifically,  she  was charged  with  operating  her
            ____

            aircraft within  Class B airspace without  authorization, see
                                                                      ___

            14 C.F.R.   91.131(a)(1), and over a congested area of a city

            below  an altitude of 1,000 feet.  See 14 C.F.R.   91.119(b).
                                               ___

            She was  also charged with operating  her aircraft carelessly

            or  recklessly  so as  to endanger  the  life or  property of

            another.  See 14 C.F.R.   91.13(a).
                      ___

                      Petitioner  filed  a  notice  of  appeal  with  the

            National Transportation Safety Board ("NTSB"), pursuant to 49

            C.F.R. Part 821, Subpart I.  A hearing was held on August 29,

            1995,  before  an  Administrative  Law  Judge   ("ALJ"),  who

            affirmed the  FAA  order in  its entirety.   Petitioner  then

            filed a notice of appeal with the full NTSB which denied  the

            appeal and upheld the  ALJ's decision.  We  have jurisdiction

            under 49 U.S.C.   1153.

                                    II. Discussion
                                        __________

                      Under the Administrative  Procedure Act ("APA"),  5

            U.S.C.   706(2)(A),  we are  required to give  NTSB decisions

            "generous deference on review," Echo, Inc. v. Hinson, 48 F.3d
                                            __________    ______

            8,  11 (1st  Cir. 1995),  affirming unless  the  decision was

                                         -5-

            "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of  discretion, or otherwise

            not in accordance with the law."  Id. (citation omitted).  We
                                              ___

            accept factual conclusions by the  NTSB if they are supported

            by substantial evidence, Twomey  v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd.,
                                     ______     ________________________

            821  F.2d 63, 67 n.5 (1st Cir. 1987); 49 U.S.C.   1153(b)(3),

            while reviewing questions of law de novo.

                      Petitioner  does not  dispute  that  she  committed

            multiple FAR violations,  maintaining, instead, that she  was

            excused from  compliance  under 14  C.F.R.    91.3(b),  which

            provides  that   "[i]n  an  in   flight  emergency  requiring

            immediate action, the  pilot in command may deviate  from any

            rule  of  this  part to  the  extent  required  to meet  that

            emergency."  The NTSB and the ALJ considered this affirmative

            defense and  rejected its  application because  the emergency

            was  of petitioner's  own  making.   We  agree.   See,  e.g.,
                                                              ___   ____

            Chritton v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 888 F.2d 854, 861 (D.C.
            ________    ________________________

            Cir.   1989)   (emergency   defense   rejected   where  pilot

            encountered  deteriorating weather  conditions and  failed to

            execute  a 180 degree turn).  It  is beyond dispute that upon

            encountering  snow  showers  in her  path,  petitioner  could

            simply have  turned around  and returned to  Beverly airport.

            Instead, she panicked and blundered into classified airspace,

            endangering many lives, including her own.

                      Petitioner   contends   that   contrary    to   the

            requirements of the APA, the ALJ's decision did not contain a

                                         -6-

            "recitation of factual evidence"  nor "an analysis thereof to

            support  the  ultimate findings  of  fact  which support  the

            conclusions  of law."    See 5  U.S.C.    557(c).   The  ALJ,
                                     ___

            however, specifically found that petitioner was "confused and

            disoriented" and stated:

                      [I]f   there   was   an    emergency   --
                      Respondent's  counsel  says there  was an
                      emergency --  it was an emergency  of her
                      own making and  she certainly didn't tell
                      anyone during, before or  afterwards that
                      such an  emergency existed . . . I do not
                      find there  was an emergency,  really, as
                      such on the part of the pilot.

            While this  passage  is  not  included in  the  ALJ's  formal

            recitation of  findings of  fact and  conclusions of law,  we

            find it to be adequately articulated and providing sufficient

            support for the rejection of the emergency defense.

                      Petitioner  also maintains  that  the  findings  of

            material fact  by the  ALJ and  upheld  by the  NTSB are  not

            supported by substantial evidence  as required under 5 U.S.C.

              706(2)(E).  Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence

            as  a reasonable mind might  accept as adequate  to support a

            conclusion."  Chritton, 888  F.2d at 856 (citations omitted).
                          ________

            Under the  substantial evidence test,  we "determine  whether

            the agency . . . could fairly  and reasonably find the  facts

            as  it did."  Id. (citations omitted).  "An agency conclusion
                          ___

            may  be  supported  by  substantial evidence  even  though  a

            plausible  alternative interpretation  of the  evidence would

                                         -7-

            support  a contrary  view."   Throckmorton  v. Nat'l  Transp.
                                          ____________     ______________

            SafetyBd., 963F.2d 441,444 (D.C.Cir. 1992)(citation omitted).
            _________

                      After a  close review of  the record, we  hold that

            the  findings  of  the   ALJ  are  supported  by  substantial

            evidence.  First,  as regards the rejection  of the emergency

            defense,  there   was  testimony  by  an   FAA  expert  which

            established that petitioner should  not have attempted to fix

            her  radios if  doing so  would result  in a  loss  of ground

            reference  points.   Radios  are  not  required for  aircraft

            flying  in  VFR conditions  during the  day.   See  14 C.F.R.
                                                           ___

              91.205(b).   Moreover, the  expert  witness testified  that

            even if  petitioner had  lost sight  of her  ground reference

            points and  therefore could not engage  in "dead reckoning,"4

            she  still had use of her magnetic compass or her directional

            gyroscope  which would have alerted her  that she was turning

            south toward Logan.

                      Substantial  evidence  supports  the  threshold  of

            findings  of FAR  violations.   Petitioner  in her  testimony

            admitted  her ultimate  conclusion  that  she  "was  probably

            headed south while . . .  trying to fix the radio,"  that she

            was "probably" within  three miles of Logan  when contact was

            made and that she  "kept descending thinking it was  going to

            get better."   She should  have known immediately.   Although

                                
            ____________________

            4.  "Dead  reckoning" is  a  basic navigational  method using
            compass, time, distance and headings.

                                         -8-

            she  couldn't  remember going  as low  as  700 feet,  the FAA

            introduced a radar plot confirming the low altitude.  We need

            go no further.  The decision of the NTSB is affirmed.

                                         -9-