Selected NTSB Opinions

Jump Law Group Selected NTSB Opinions

Aviation Division

Home Blog Links Contact Us Real Estate NASA Public Speaking

These are selected opinions from around the country that address various issues with regard to aviation law. None of the below cases were argued by the Jump Law Group. They are simply provided to illustrate some different issues with regard to things airmen should do to protect themselves.

Case Number Date Case Name Result Code Section Description

SE-17186 February 2, 2006 In re Wheeler 30 day suspension 14 C.F.R. sec(s)61.3(1) and (2), 61.3(c)(1), 91.203(a)(1) and (2) Pilot does not have required documents with her after losing control of an aircraft and running into a ditch. FAA inspector asked for required docs. Pilot did not provide. Pilot attempted to defend using ASRS exception, however, Law Judge found that the failure to maintain required documents did not fall into the inadvertent exception.

SE-17413 January 12, 2006 In Re Seasands Air Transport, Inc Dismissal of Appeal 49 C.F.R. Part 821 (821.48) Respondent did not perfect their appeal in a timely manner and the decision of the NTSB Law Judge stands. Deadlines are important and cannot be missed.

SE-17143 November 18, 2005 In Re Hampton 60 day Suspension (Mechanic) 14 C.F.R. sec(s) 43.9 and 43.13(a) Mechanic repaired a Cessna 310 after gear up landing. A pin had sheared in the gearbox and was replaced. The repair was simple and straightforward. However, the log entry stated that only the gearbox had been serviced. No details were offered as to how it was serviced. Further Cessna manuals recommended against the repair of anything in the gearbox stating "the gearbox should be opened only for lubrication of the gears". The NTSB found the mechanic violated the CFRS by failing to keep adequate records and departing from the recommended course of repair and not seeking a determination in advance from the administrator.

SE-17136 September 30, 2005 In Re Van Der Horst Case Dismissed FAR 91.7(a) and 91.13(a) Respondent crashed his balloon on an earlier commercial flight and put the balloon back into service. The FAA contended that the balloon was not airworthy. Respondent maintained it was airworthy. Both parties had expert witnesses testify to the respective positions. Administrator found that the FAA could not prove that the balloon was unairworthy, but that the pilot should have been less careless about his inspection of the balloon prior to flying it again. However, the board felt that if the FAA could not prove the first allegation, then they could not prove the second either. NTSB dismissed the 100 day suspension sought by the FAA.

CD-39 June 13, 2005 In Re Beamer Appeal Denied Misc. Respondent took a check ride from an FAA Inspector to obtain his multi-engine rating. FAA Inspector was not authorized to administer checkrides to pilots. The FAA denied Beamer's application as he had not received a qualified checkride. The NTSB upheld the denial of the rating. Lesson: You have your paperwork in order, but does your inspector?

SE-16987 April 26, 2005 In Re Curtis 90 day suspension 14 C.F.R. 91.9(a) and 91.13(a) Respondent was on an IFR training flight with student. Student was conducting missed approaches, when plane began building up ice. Pilots returned to PAE immediately to land. Airplane ran off the runway suffering substantial damage. There were two pilot reports that rime icing was prevalent in the area. FAA contends that the instructor directed his student to fly into 'known' icing conditions. Lesson: This is an instance where a discussion with counsel prior to any events transpiring would have been beneficial. Chances are the entire incident would have been avoided had counsel been contacted immediately. Remember, the FAA has the burden of proof in their case.

SE-16494 September 20, 2004 In Re Yialamas Appeal Dismissed FAR 91.7(a) Respondent flew his plane around to different locales searching for someone to deal with an autopilot issue and a frayed trim cable. FAA argued that the trim cable made the plane unairworthy and the pilot flew it with knowledge of it being unairworthy. NTSB board reviewed the ALJ's decision based upon credibility of the witnesses. There is no informatoin that the trim system is required to for conformance to the aircraft type certificate. Appeal was dismissed and there was no suspension based upon the FAA's inability to carry it's burden of proof.

SE-9990 May 13, 1992 In Re Pugsley Appeal Denied 14 C.F.R. 91.9 Instructor went our with student. Student verified fuel in the aircraft. They were conducting instrument approaches and practice. Respondent double checked fuel via gauges. Lesson was to last one hour, but was extended, at conclusion of lesson, pilot and student executed a go around. During the go around, the engine lost power and crashed. FAA inspector found the fuel tanks empty on review of the crash scene. Lesson: Always, always, always, check and double check fuel to make sure you have enough on board and never rely on your fuel gauges.

SE-15472RM June 17, 2004 In Re Shrader Case Dismissed FAR 61.15(e) Respondent failed to report a DUI incident to the FAA. FAA attempted to enforce the code requiring reporting of the incident, however, FAA failed to do this in a timely matter. Airmen utilized the stale complaint rule to overcome the FAA action. NTSB ruled in favor of the airmen.

SE-16563 March 26, 2004 In Re Somerville Appeal Denied 240 day suspension 14 C.F.R. 91.103, 91.137, 91.139 Pilot flew in Washington State after the FAA had grounded all aircraft on September 11, 2001. Pilot did not check NOTAMs before he made a short hop to another airport to get fuel for a potential emergency flight. Upon landing at Port Townsend, pilot learned that all aircraft were grounded. Lesson - you are tasked with gathering all information before beginning a flight. The days of a simple ride around the pattern are over. It is incumbent upon all airmen to check in with the FAA for the latest NOTAM information on our intended route of flight.

SE-16538 November 25, 2004 In Re O'Brien Suspension Upheld - 75 days 14 C.F.R. 91.103 and 91.137(b) Respondent flew through a TFR over the Umatilla Military Reservation. Respondent admitted to the violation in that he failed to check the NOTAM's and did fly through the TFR. Respondent argued that the sanction was unduly burdensome because of the post 9/11 environment. Respondent was very cooperative with FAA and Army. Pre 9/11, the suspension would only have been 30 days. After 9/11, suspension was 75. NTSB did not see that as a reason to reduce the sanction. Law Judge was affirmed, suspension for 75 days.

301-EAJA-SE-16595 November 6, 2003 In Re Whittington Appeal granted 14 C.F.R. 61.16(b) and 91.17(c)(1) Respondent was detained on suspicion of alcohol/drug use upon landing his Learjet 25B. A bag belonging to the co-pilot was found which detective believed contained cocaine, but no test was ever performed. Whittington was given a field sobriety test for intoxication. He failed. He provided a breathalyzer sample and blew .000. When asked for further testing of his blood and urine, respondent declined. The FAA brought charges stating that he was using drugs while acting as a crew member, operating aircraft with knowledge that drugs were aboard, and a refusal to take a test for alcohol. FAA dismissed 2 of the three charges prior to hearing going forward only on the refusal to test. The FAA lost, and the respondents attorney moved for fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The NTSB granted fees to respondent in the amount of $25,154.25.

SE-16634 October 28, 2003 In Re Murray 270 day suspension upheld 14 C.F.R. 61.113(a), 119.33(a)(2) and (3), 91.13(a) Respondent was allegedly helping out a friend who owned a restaurant. Restaurant owner had set up a Super Bowl party that included air transportation. Respondent allegedly stepped in when the charter operation didn't work out. Respondent testified that he was to receive no income from the assistance, however, the FAA has long held that 'good will' is sufficient income to justify the requirement of a commercial license. The NTSB further felt that the respondent strained credulity when he testified that the flights would cost him $1100 and he did not expect to receive any compensation in return.

SM-4510 September 29, 2003 In Re Rasmussen Appeal Denied 14 C.F.R. 67-107(a)(2), 67.207(a)(2), 67.307(a)(2) Respondent appealed the denial of his medical certificate. However, airmen had a certificate of psychosis. It is set clearly in the FAR's that a medical diagnosis of this type makes on ineligible for a medical certificate. Respondent appealed based upon the belief that he could contest the outcome of the denial, however, this was misplaced. The medical qualifications are outlined quite specifically.

SE-16922
SE-16923
August 13, 2005 In Re Jifry and Sarie Appeal Denied 14 C.F.R. 61.18(a) Respondent(s) ATP Certificates were revoked because the TSA believed they posed a security threat and those who pose a security threat are not eligible to hold an airmen certificate. The NTSB Board concluded that it did not have authority or jurisdiction to review the validity of TSA securty threat assessments. One dissenting member of the board suggested, rightly, that the possibility of meaningful review does not exist in these type of cases. Lesson: This case, on it's face, appears to deny due process to the effected airmen. There is no basis or cause to show why these pilots pose a risk, merely that another agency has determined that they do and therefore, the FAA has to revoke the licenses held by these two pilots.

Case Number	Date	Case Name	Result	Code Section	Description
SE-17186	February 2, 2006	In re Wheeler	30 day suspension	14 C.F.R. sec(s)61.3(1) and (2), 61.3(c)(1), 91.203(a)(1) and (2)	Pilot does not have required documents with her after losing control of an aircraft and running into a ditch. FAA inspector asked for required docs. Pilot did not provide. Pilot attempted to defend using ASRS exception, however, Law Judge found that the failure to maintain required documents did not fall into the inadvertent exception.
SE-17413	January 12, 2006	In Re Seasands Air Transport, Inc	Dismissal of Appeal	49 C.F.R. Part 821 (821.48)	Respondent did not perfect their appeal in a timely manner and the decision of the NTSB Law Judge stands. Deadlines are important and cannot be missed.
SE-17143	November 18, 2005	In Re Hampton	60 day Suspension (Mechanic)	14 C.F.R. sec(s) 43.9 and 43.13(a)	Mechanic repaired a Cessna 310 after gear up landing. A pin had sheared in the gearbox and was replaced. The repair was simple and straightforward. However, the log entry stated that only the gearbox had been serviced. No details were offered as to how it was serviced. Further Cessna manuals recommended against the repair of anything in the gearbox stating "the gearbox should be opened only for lubrication of the gears". The NTSB found the mechanic violated the CFRS by failing to keep adequate records and departing from the recommended course of repair and not seeking a determination in advance from the administrator.
SE-17136	September 30, 2005	In Re Van Der Horst	Case Dismissed	FAR 91.7(a) and 91.13(a)	Respondent crashed his balloon on an earlier commercial flight and put the balloon back into service. The FAA contended that the balloon was not airworthy. Respondent maintained it was airworthy. Both parties had expert witnesses testify to the respective positions. Administrator found that the FAA could not prove that the balloon was unairworthy, but that the pilot should have been less careless about his inspection of the balloon prior to flying it again. However, the board felt that if the FAA could not prove the first allegation, then they could not prove the second either. NTSB dismissed the 100 day suspension sought by the FAA.
CD-39	June 13, 2005	In Re Beamer	Appeal Denied	Misc.	Respondent took a check ride from an FAA Inspector to obtain his multi-engine rating. FAA Inspector was not authorized to administer checkrides to pilots. The FAA denied Beamer's application as he had not received a qualified checkride. The NTSB upheld the denial of the rating. Lesson: You have your paperwork in order, but does your inspector?
SE-16987	April 26, 2005	In Re Curtis	90 day suspension	14 C.F.R. 91.9(a) and 91.13(a)	Respondent was on an IFR training flight with student. Student was conducting missed approaches, when plane began building up ice. Pilots returned to PAE immediately to land. Airplane ran off the runway suffering substantial damage. There were two pilot reports that rime icing was prevalent in the area. FAA contends that the instructor directed his student to fly into 'known' icing conditions. Lesson: This is an instance where a discussion with counsel prior to any events transpiring would have been beneficial. Chances are the entire incident would have been avoided had counsel been contacted immediately. Remember, the FAA has the burden of proof in their case.
SE-16494	September 20, 2004	In Re Yialamas	Appeal Dismissed	FAR 91.7(a)	Respondent flew his plane around to different locales searching for someone to deal with an autopilot issue and a frayed trim cable. FAA argued that the trim cable made the plane unairworthy and the pilot flew it with knowledge of it being unairworthy. NTSB board reviewed the ALJ's decision based upon credibility of the witnesses. There is no informatoin that the trim system is required to for conformance to the aircraft type certificate. Appeal was dismissed and there was no suspension based upon the FAA's inability to carry it's burden of proof.
SE-9990	May 13, 1992	In Re Pugsley	Appeal Denied	14 C.F.R. 91.9	Instructor went our with student. Student verified fuel in the aircraft. They were conducting instrument approaches and practice. Respondent double checked fuel via gauges. Lesson was to last one hour, but was extended, at conclusion of lesson, pilot and student executed a go around. During the go around, the engine lost power and crashed. FAA inspector found the fuel tanks empty on review of the crash scene. Lesson: Always, always, always, check and double check fuel to make sure you have enough on board and never rely on your fuel gauges.
SE-15472RM	June 17, 2004	In Re Shrader	Case Dismissed	FAR 61.15(e)	Respondent failed to report a DUI incident to the FAA. FAA attempted to enforce the code requiring reporting of the incident, however, FAA failed to do this in a timely matter. Airmen utilized the stale complaint rule to overcome the FAA action. NTSB ruled in favor of the airmen.
SE-16563	March 26, 2004	In Re Somerville	Appeal Denied 240 day suspension	14 C.F.R. 91.103, 91.137, 91.139	Pilot flew in Washington State after the FAA had grounded all aircraft on September 11, 2001. Pilot did not check NOTAMs before he made a short hop to another airport to get fuel for a potential emergency flight. Upon landing at Port Townsend, pilot learned that all aircraft were grounded. Lesson - you are tasked with gathering all information before beginning a flight. The days of a simple ride around the pattern are over. It is incumbent upon all airmen to check in with the FAA for the latest NOTAM information on our intended route of flight.
SE-16538	November 25, 2004	In Re O'Brien	Suspension Upheld - 75 days	14 C.F.R. 91.103 and 91.137(b)	Respondent flew through a TFR over the Umatilla Military Reservation. Respondent admitted to the violation in that he failed to check the NOTAM's and did fly through the TFR. Respondent argued that the sanction was unduly burdensome because of the post 9/11 environment. Respondent was very cooperative with FAA and Army. Pre 9/11, the suspension would only have been 30 days. After 9/11, suspension was 75. NTSB did not see that as a reason to reduce the sanction. Law Judge was affirmed, suspension for 75 days.
301-EAJA-SE-16595	November 6, 2003	In Re Whittington	Appeal granted	14 C.F.R. 61.16(b) and 91.17(c)(1)	Respondent was detained on suspicion of alcohol/drug use upon landing his Learjet 25B. A bag belonging to the co-pilot was found which detective believed contained cocaine, but no test was ever performed. Whittington was given a field sobriety test for intoxication. He failed. He provided a breathalyzer sample and blew .000. When asked for further testing of his blood and urine, respondent declined. The FAA brought charges stating that he was using drugs while acting as a crew member, operating aircraft with knowledge that drugs were aboard, and a refusal to take a test for alcohol. FAA dismissed 2 of the three charges prior to hearing going forward only on the refusal to test. The FAA lost, and the respondents attorney moved for fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The NTSB granted fees to respondent in the amount of $25,154.25.
SE-16634	October 28, 2003	In Re Murray	270 day suspension upheld	14 C.F.R. 61.113(a), 119.33(a)(2) and (3), 91.13(a)	Respondent was allegedly helping out a friend who owned a restaurant. Restaurant owner had set up a Super Bowl party that included air transportation. Respondent allegedly stepped in when the charter operation didn't work out. Respondent testified that he was to receive no income from the assistance, however, the FAA has long held that 'good will' is sufficient income to justify the requirement of a commercial license. The NTSB further felt that the respondent strained credulity when he testified that the flights would cost him $1100 and he did not expect to receive any compensation in return.
SM-4510	September 29, 2003	In Re Rasmussen	Appeal Denied	14 C.F.R. 67-107(a)(2), 67.207(a)(2), 67.307(a)(2)	Respondent appealed the denial of his medical certificate. However, airmen had a certificate of psychosis. It is set clearly in the FAR's that a medical diagnosis of this type makes on ineligible for a medical certificate. Respondent appealed based upon the belief that he could contest the outcome of the denial, however, this was misplaced. The medical qualifications are outlined quite specifically.
SE-16922 SE-16923	August 13, 2005	In Re Jifry and Sarie	Appeal Denied	14 C.F.R. 61.18(a)	Respondent(s) ATP Certificates were revoked because the TSA believed they posed a security threat and those who pose a security threat are not eligible to hold an airmen certificate. The NTSB Board concluded that it did not have authority or jurisdiction to review the validity of TSA securty threat assessments. One dissenting member of the board suggested, rightly, that the possibility of meaningful review does not exist in these type of cases. Lesson: This case, on it's face, appears to deny due process to the effected airmen. There is no basis or cause to show why these pilots pose a risk, merely that another agency has determined that they do and therefore, the FAA has to revoke the licenses held by these two pilots.