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.

July 30, 2010

FAA Issues Final Rule Requiring Aircraft Re-Registration And Renewal

On July 20, 2010 the FAA published a Final Rule amending the FAA's regulations regarding aircraft registration. Effective October 1, 2010, if you own a U.S. registered aircraft, you are going to have to "re-register" the aircraft with the FAA Registry and then renew that registration every three years thereafter. For an explanation of the Final Rule and the re-registration/renewal processes and procedures, please read my latest article on the topic here.

Posted by Greg

July 23, 2010

Pilot Sentenced For Falsification Of Medical Application

According to a Summary by the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General ("OIG"), a pilot has been sentenced to 12 months of probation and payment of a $1,000 fine for falsifying 5 FAA medical certificate applications. According to the OIG, the pilot admitted that he failed to report that he suffered from insomnia, depression, poor concentration, anxiety, fatigue and memory difficulties (conditions that may individually, or most certainly all together, would have disqualified the pilot from being issued a medical certificate). Apparently the pilot was receiving disability benefits from both the Social Security Administration ("SSA") and the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") based upon a psychiatric diagnosis, which led to discovery by the FAA.

Seems like a light sentence considering that the pilot omitted the disability information on 5 consecutive applications. However, the pilot's airman certificates were also almost certainly revoked long before the pilot's sentencing. Additionally, although the summary doesn't disclose whether this pilot was discovered during the Operation Safe Pilot investigation, my guess is that this pilot was one of the 40 pilot prosecuted after the FAA and SSA compared their databases during that investigation. Of course, with the consent to share information among agencies provided in the new medical application Form 8500-8 GG, rather than the previous "FF" version, the FAA no longer needs to conduct such an investigation. Rather, it can simply cross-check information with the SSA and VA as needed.



Posted by Greg

July 14, 2010

How Long Does An Aircraft Mechanic's Lien Last?

I was recently asked the question "what happens to an aircraft mechanic's lien that isn't foreclosed upon within a certain period of time?" This person had been researching aircraft records at the FAA Registry and found several aircraft with liens that were recorded against the aircraft over 15 years ago. Not surprisingly, this made him wonder how long an aircraft mechanic's lien lasts.

Since aircraft mechanic's liens are creatures of state statutes, the applicable state statute will govern the validity of and rights associated with an aircraft mechanic's lien. All but 7 states have aircraft mechanic's lien statutes. Those state laws dictate the requirements for "perfecting" a mechanic's lien against an aircraft and, once perfected, for enforcing the lien against the aircraft.

As long as the lien claim or lien statement contains the required information (e.g. name, address, description of work performed, last date of work and amount) and was filed within the time period allowed by the applicable state statute, the FAA Registry will record the lien and the title company will disclose the recorded lien as an encumbrance against the aircraft. At that point, the lien claim is "perfected." Unfortunately, neither the FAA Registry nor any aircraft title company will take a position regarding the validity/enforceability of an aircraft mechanic's lien once that lien is perfected.

Once perfected, the lien claimant will have to file a lawsuit to foreclose upon the lien within the time allowed by the applicable state statute. If that does not happen, the lien claimant will no longer be able to enforce the lien against the aircraft. The lien claimant may still have a claim against the aircraft owner, but the lien claimant would not be able to enforce that claim against the aircraft unless the lien claimant obtained a judgment against the aircraft owner for the amount owed and then recorded that judgment with the FAA Registry.

However, simply because a lien claim is no longer enforceable against the aircraft under the applicable state law, that does not mean that the lien recorded at the FAA Registry is removed. The aircraft will only be released from the recorded lien at the FAA Registry in one of two ways: (1) if the lien claimant signs a release of the lien and the release is recorded with the FAA Registry; or (2) if a court order is obtained declaring the lien as either invalid or unenforceable and that order is then recorded with the FAA Registry. Thus, once recorded, a lien claim, whether enforceable under state law or not, remains an encumbrance against aircraft until affirmatively released.

So, the short, and not particularly precise, answer is: an aircraft mechanic's lien could be a problem for an aircraft for a very long time.

Posted by Greg

July 08, 2010

FAA May Relax Prohibition On Company Reimbursement For Part 91 Flights By Officers/Employees

In a Proposed Interpretation published today, the FAA states that it is "considering revising its broad prohibition on pro rata reimbursement for the cost of owning, operating and maintaining a company aircraft when used for routine personal travel by senior company officials and employees under certain conditions." According to the proposed interpretation, the FAA has tentatively determined that under FAR 91.501(b)5 "a company could be reimbursed for the pro rata cost of owning, operating, and maintaining the aircraft when used for routine personal travel by an individual whose position merits such a high level of company interference into his or her personal travel plans." However, all personal travel would not meet these conditions. For example, flights that would not qualify include emergency circumstances and personal travel that is unlikely to be altered or cancelled such as a wedding, funeral of a close family member or necessary surgery or other medical treatment.

In order to qualify, the FAA indicates that a company "should maintain and regularly update a list of individuals whose position within the company require him or her to routinely change travel plans within a very short period of time" and that list would need to be shared with the FAA upon request. Also, the company's board, or equivalent governing body, would need to determine which employees meet the criteria for inclusion on the list and would need to document their determination that the flight in question was of a routine personal nature.

It is important to note that FAR 91.501(b)5 applies to "large airplanes of U.S. registry, turbojet-powered multiengine civil airplanes of U.S. registry, and fractional ownership program aircraft of U.S. registry that are operating under subpart K of this part in operations not involving common carriage." However, companies operating other aircraft may be able to take advantage of the regulation under the National Business Aviation Association's (NBAA) Exemption 7897, as amended. The NBAA's Small Aircraft Exemption, as it is called by NBAA, allows NBAA Members to operate small civil airplanes and helicopters of U.S. registry under the operating rules of FARs 91.503 through 91.535.

This is certainly good news for business aviation. I would expect that any comments to the proposed interpretation, due no later than August 9, 2010, may focus on the need for further explanation/clarification regarding the types of personal travel that the FAA believes would not qualify and also the specific type/quality of documentation that will need to be maintained in connection with qualifying personal flights.

If you have questions regarding the proposed interpretation or would like further information, you may contact Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-3073.

Posted by Greg

July 01, 2010

Pilot Sentenced To 8 Months In Jail For Crashing Ultralight While Drunk

According to an AP Article, the pilot of an ultralight aircraft was sentenced to 8 months in jail for crashing his ultralight aircraft into a lake while he was drunk. The accident occurred a year ago on Gull Lake in northern Minnesota. The pilot's passenger in the ultralight was injured. When the pilot was arrested 20 minutes after the accident, he had a blood alcohol concentration of .24 (three times the .08 legal limit in MN). Although the pilot claimed he only consumed alcohol on the rescue boat and on shore after the crash, the prosecution's toxicologist testified that the pilot would have had to consume 11 shots of 100-proof alcohol to have a .24 blood alcohol concentration between the time of the crash and when officers arrived. Quite unlikely.

Interestingly, the article also indicates that the pilot had six prior "driving while intoxicated incidents," although it is unclear whether the pilot was actually convicted of DWI six times. So, was the FAA involved? Hard to say. However, if we assume that the pilot held an airman certificate at the time of the crash (even though not required for operation of an ultralight aircraft), it is almost certain that the FAA revoked the pilot's airman certificate under FARs 91.17(a) (no person may act as a crewmember of an aircraft while under the influence) and 91.13(a) (careless and reckless).

Additionally, it is quite likely that the airman probably did not have a medical certificate at the time of the accident. Since the six "incidents" were likely all reportable under FAR 61.15(e), once the FAA learned of at least two, and certainly if it knew about three, of the "incidents" the FAA would have revoked the pilot's medical certificate under FAR 67.307(a) (substance dependence or substance abuse disqualifies a person from holding a third-class medical certificate). After all, as far as the FAA is concerned, three DWI's in a lifetime are considered alcoholism unless proven otherwise.

Of course, we don't know whether my assumptions are correct since the article does not discuss these issues. However, it is safe to say that this case is yet another example of how an airman may be exposed to criminal liability in addition to any FAA enforcement action he or she may face for improper operation of an aircraft.

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

< ? 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.