Reigel Law Firm, Ltd.
921 Mainstreet, Hopkins, MN, 55343
Tel (952) 238-1060 Fax (952) 238-1099
Email: info@aerolegalservices.com


Follow ReigelLaw on Twitter
 
[Top Background]
Aviation Law Discussions Subscribe XML

A site devoted to aviation law, safety and security.

December 19, 2006

DOT Issues Air Charter Notice In Anticipation Of Bowl Games

The DOT today published a Notice titled "Requirements Regarding Flights to College Bowl Games and Other Special Events". The Notice is intended to provide "guidance to colleges and other organizations wishing to arrange charter flights to football bowl games, NCAA basketball playoff games, or other special events" in the hope of avoiding situations where organizations contract with entities that do not hold DOT economic authority, or unknowingly charter aircraft from entities that are not subject to the most stringent safety standards and oversight of the FAA, or resell seats on a charter flight without their first having obtained proper authority to do so.

The Notice identifies the two primary avenues whereby a college or other entity may seek to sponsor air transportation to a college bowl game or other special event (contracting directly with a carrier to provide the air transportation to the bowl game or other special event or contracting with a Public Charter Operator or an air charter broker, who would, in turn, locate a direct air carrier to provide the air transportation) and then explains the underlying policies and requirements for each option.

If a college or organization planning a bowl trip or special event has any questions or needs further information regarding public charter options, it should contact Dayton Lehman, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, or Lisa Swafford-Brooks, Senior Attorney in that office, at (202) 366-9342. In addition, they may contact Bill Bertram, Chief of the Air Carrier Fitness Division at (202) 366-1062 to confirm whether a particular aircraft operator has DOT air carrier economic authority.

Posted by Greg

December 18, 2006

Operation Safe Pilot Obtains Another Conviction

According to a Post on the DOT OIG's website, the Operation Safe Pilot investigation has resulted in an other conviction. The investigation revealed that a student helicopter pilot had failed to disclose on his medical application that he had been diagnosed with certain mental disorders and a substance dependency (both disqualifying medical conditions) and he had been receiving Social Security Disability benefits based upon those conditions for nearly 10 years. The airman was sentenced to 10 hours of community service and 6 months of probation for making a false statement on his 2001 airman medical application.

As you may recall, Operation Safe Pilot cross-referenced social security disability records against airman medical records and discovered that a number of airmen had applied for, or were collecting, social security disability benefits based upon conditions that disqualified the airmen from receiving an airman medical certificate. The investigation has led to charges of making a false statement and/or intentional falsification against a total of 45 airmen to date. Although these 45 airmen were all located in California, it is likely that the investigation has expanded beyond California and you will probably see similar cases in other states in the near future. The saga continues...

Posted by Greg

December 15, 2006

DOT OIG Announces Audit Of Users Of ATC System

As you may be aware, the FAA has been discussing its desire to impose "user fees" on users of the ATC system to help fund the National Airspace System ("NAS") and make up for an alleged "gap" in the funding for the NAS. In response, the Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee authorized the DOT office of inspector general to conduct an investigation to determine "who currently uses the NAS, how that usage affects the FAA's costs, and how closely the alternatives mirror use of FAA services." The OIG issued a Memorandum announcing its intention to conduct an audit of the users of the system to answer these questions.

The OIG's objectives will be to determine: (1) Who uses the different elements of the NAS throughout a typical day; (2) Whether these users can be grouped in a meaningful manner based on system use; (3) How each group's use of the system contributes to FAA's costs; and (4) How good a proxy jet fuel consumption is for use of FAA air traffic services. Hopefully this will present a more accurate, unbiased assessment than has been propounded by the FAA and the airlines.

If you have any questions or would like more information regarding the audit, or if would like to provide your input, you may contact Stephen Smith at (202) 493-0448.

Posted by Greg

December 11, 2006

FAA Safety Manager Pleads Guilty To False Statement On FAA Application

According to a post on the DOT's Office of Inspector General website, an aviation safety program manager in the FAA's Spokane, WA FSDO plead guilty on November 27 to the charge of making a false statement on his 2004 airman medical application. Apparently the manager failed to disclose a doctor's visit on his medical application which would have revealed his use of a number of disqualifying medications. The post does not provide more detail on the nature of the doctor's visit or the medications the manager was using. The manager also resigned from the FAA.

In addition to a felony conviction and losing his job, the manager/airman probably was, or may currently be, subject to a revocation proceeding seeking revocation of his medical and airman certificates. Although certificate revocation has been the primary method of enforcement in this type of situation, criminal prosecution is becoming more and more common. I am sure the fact that the manager/airman was an FAA employee also had something to do with the decision to prosecute. After all, the FAA wouldn't want to appear arbitrary or capricious in seeking criminal prosecution of non-employees when it let an employee off with "only" a revocation proceeding.

These cases are not new. However, the potential consequences in this situation can be severe. Applicants should think long and hard about both the benefits (issuance of a medical certificate) and the costs (criminal prosecution, certificate revocation etc.) when deciding what information to disclose or omit from an application for a medical certificate.

Posted by Greg

December 05, 2006

FAA Publishes Final Rule Amending Its Rules Of Practice In FAA Civil Penalty Actions

The FAA today published a Final Rule containing technical amendments to its rules of practice in civil penalty actions. According to the FAA, the changes are "necessary to update the regulations and to reflect statutory changes and "[t]he intended effect of these changes is to ensure that regulated parties have current and correct procedural information."

The rules of practice are contained in 14 CFR Part 13. Many of the amendments relate to the procedures for obtaining judicial review of a final decision or order in a civil penalty action. Additional amendments provide an updated internet address ("URL") for the FAA's civil penalty website located here and a current address at which documents must be filed in civil penalty actions.

The amendments are effective today. If you would like further information regarding the final rule and the amendments contained therein, you may contact Vicki Sherman Leemon, Office of the Chief Counsel, Adjudication Branch, AGC-439, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone 202/385-8227.

Posted by Greg

December 01, 2006

FAA Publishes Repair Station Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking

The FAA today published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking amending the regulations applicable to Part 145 repair stations. The NPRM (1) revises the system of ratings and requiring repair stations to establish a quality program; (2) requires a repair station to maintain a capability list, designate a chief inspector and have permanent housing for its facilities, equipment, materials, and personnel; (3) specifies those instances when the FAA may deny a repair station certificate; and (4) clarifies recent revisions to the repair station regulations. According to the NPRM, "[t]his action is necessary to reflect changes in aviation technology and repair station business practices."

The NPRM is the result of public meetings, comments received from the public and recommendations received from the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) appointed by the FAA to address the ratings and quality assurance issues.

Comments to the NPRM on due on or before March 1, 2007. If you would like further information regarding the NPRM, you should review the NPRM in greater detail or you may contact George W. Bean, General Aviation and Repair Station Branch, AFS-340, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3109; facsimile (202) 267-5115, e-mail George.W.Bean@faa.gov.

Posted by Greg

Aviation Law Discussions - Archives

12/01/2003 - 12/31/2003
01/01/2004 - 01/31/2004
02/01/2004 - 02/29/2004
03/01/2004 - 03/31/2004
04/01/2004 - 04/30/2004
05/01/2004 - 05/31/2004
06/01/2004 - 06/30/2004
07/01/2004 - 07/31/2004
08/01/2004 - 08/31/2004
09/01/2004 - 09/30/2004
10/01/2004 - 10/31/2004
11/01/2004 - 11/30/2004
12/01/2004 - 12/31/2004
01/01/2005 - 01/31/2005
02/01/2005 - 02/28/2005
03/01/2005 - 03/31/2005
04/01/2005 - 04/30/2005
05/01/2005 - 05/31/2005
06/01/2005 - 06/30/2005
07/01/2005 - 07/31/2005
08/01/2005 - 08/31/2005
09/01/2005 - 09/30/2005
10/01/2005 - 10/31/2005
11/01/2005 - 11/30/2005
12/01/2005 - 12/31/2005
01/01/2006 - 01/31/2006
02/01/2006 - 02/28/2006
03/01/2006 - 03/31/2006
04/01/2006 - 04/30/2006
05/01/2006 - 05/31/2006
06/01/2006 - 06/30/2006
07/01/2006 - 07/31/2006
08/01/2006 - 08/31/2006
09/01/2006 - 09/30/2006
10/01/2006 - 10/31/2006
11/01/2006 - 11/30/2006
12/01/2006 - 12/31/2006
01/01/2007 - 01/31/2007
02/01/2007 - 02/28/2007
03/01/2007 - 03/31/2007
04/01/2007 - 04/30/2007
05/01/2007 - 05/31/2007
06/01/2007 - 06/30/2007
07/01/2007 - 07/31/2007
08/01/2007 - 08/31/2007
09/01/2007 - 09/30/2007
10/01/2007 - 10/31/2007
11/01/2007 - 11/30/2007
12/01/2007 - 12/31/2007
01/01/2008 - 01/31/2008
02/01/2008 - 02/29/2008
03/01/2008 - 03/31/2008
04/01/2008 - 04/30/2008
05/01/2008 - 05/31/2008
06/01/2008 - 06/30/2008
07/01/2008 - 07/31/2008
08/01/2008 - 08/31/2008
09/01/2008 - 09/30/2008
10/01/2008 - 10/31/2008
11/01/2008 - 11/30/2008
12/01/2008 - 12/31/2008
01/01/2009 - 01/31/2009
02/01/2009 - 02/28/2009
03/01/2009 - 03/31/2009
04/01/2009 - 04/30/2009
05/01/2009 - 05/31/2009
06/01/2009 - 06/30/2009
07/01/2009 - 07/31/2009
08/01/2009 - 08/31/2009
09/01/2009 - 09/30/2009
10/01/2009 - 10/31/2009
11/01/2009 - 11/30/2009
12/01/2009 - 12/31/2009
01/01/2010 - 01/31/2010
02/01/2010 - 02/28/2010
03/01/2010 - 03/31/2010
04/01/2010 - 04/30/2010
05/01/2010 - 05/31/2010
06/01/2010 - 06/30/2010
07/01/2010 - 07/31/2010
08/01/2010 - 08/31/2010
09/01/2010 - 09/30/2010
10/01/2010 - 10/31/2010
11/01/2010 - 11/30/2010
12/01/2010 - 12/31/2010
01/01/2011 - 01/31/2011
02/01/2011 - 02/28/2011
03/01/2011 - 03/31/2011
05/01/2011 - 05/31/2011
06/01/2011 - 06/30/2011
07/01/2011 - 07/31/2011
08/01/2011 - 08/31/2011
09/01/2011 - 09/30/2011
10/01/2011 - 10/31/2011
11/01/2011 - 11/30/2011
12/01/2011 - 12/31/2011
01/01/2012 - 01/31/2012
02/01/2012 - 02/29/2012
03/01/2012 - 03/31/2012
04/01/2012 - 04/30/2012
05/01/2012 - 05/31/2012
06/01/2012 - 06/30/2012
07/01/2012 - 07/31/2012
08/01/2012 - 08/31/2012
10/01/2012 - 10/31/2012
11/01/2012 - 11/30/2012
12/01/2012 - 12/31/2012
02/01/2013 - 02/28/2013
04/01/2013 - 04/30/2013
05/01/2013 - 05/31/2013
06/01/2013 - 06/30/2013
07/01/2013 - 07/31/2013
08/01/2013 - 08/31/2013
11/01/2013 - 11/30/2013
12/01/2013 - 12/31/2013
01/01/2014 - 01/31/2014
02/01/2014 - 02/28/2014
05/01/2014 - 05/31/2014
07/01/2014 - 07/31/2014
08/01/2014 - 08/31/2014
10/01/2014 - 10/31/2014
12/01/2014 - 12/31/2014

< ? law blogs # >

The information contained in this web-site is intended for the education and benefit of the Reigel Law Firm, Ltd.'s clients and prospective clients. The information should not be relied upon as advice to help you with your specific issue. Each case is unique and must be analyzed by an attorney licensed to practice in your area with respect to the particular facts and applicable current law before any advice can be given. Sending an e-mail to the Reigel Law Firm, Ltd. does not create an attorney-client relationship. Advice will not be given by e-mail until an attorney-client relationship has been established.

© Reigel Law Firm, Ltd.-Aero Legal Services 2002-Present. All rights reserved.