A site devoted to aviation law, safety and security.
March 30, 2018
Beyond "Performance As A Pilot": What Is The Scope Of A PRIA Request?
I am frequently asked by pilots whether an employer's disclosure of certain documents is properly within the scope of a request for documents under the Pilot Records Improvement Act
("PRIA"). Answering the question usually requires analyzing whether the document being disclosed relates to the individual's "performance as a pilot." However, based upon a recent Legal Interpretation
issued by the FAA's Office of the Chief Counsel
, it appears that the scope of a PRIA request casts a bigger net.
The Interpretation initially noted that "the separate provisions of the PRIA work in tandem to provide a complete record of potential pilot employment issues and to capture instances relating to an individual's performance as a pilot that do not fall into one of the provided statutory categories." It then went on to discuss how these provisions overlap.
With respect to whether a document relates to an individual's performance as a pilot, the Interpretation stated "to the extent that a pilot's behavior directly disrupts safe aircraft operations, those records should be included in accordance with the 'catch-all' provision" of § 44703(h)(l)(B)(ii)
. Next it noted that § 44703(h)(l)(B)(i)
requires disclosure of documents an air carrier must maintain under 14 C.F.R. § 121.683
(records of each action taken
concerning the release from employment or physical or professional disqualification of any flight crewmember).
The Interpretation then confirmed that the records maintained under § 121.683 are not limited to those records relating to an individual's performance as a pilot. Rather, it stated "[p]ilot infractions not related to pilot performance that would rise to a level grave enough to cause an air carrier to release a pilot from employment would be captured by this recordkeeping requirement, and a hiring air carrier would be required to request and receive those records."
Based upon this Interpretation, it appears the scope of documents an air carrier must produce in response to a PRIA request potentially includes more than just documents directly relating to the individual's performance as a pilot. As a result, if you are a pilot applying for a position with an air carrier and you are concerned about what your previous or current employer may or may not disclose, I recommend that you request a copy of your employment file BEFORE you apply to the air carrier. That way you will know what is in your file and potentially subject to disclosure.
But keep in mind that if you disagree with what is in your file or what the employer may be disclosing, any recourse you may have against your employer is likely governed by applicable employment laws. As the Interpretation states, "PRIA is not a means for the FAA to arbitrate employment disputes."
If you have additional questions regarding PRIA, you should review FAA Advisory Circular 120-68G
. And, as always, if you have additional questions, I'm happy to help.
Posted by Greg
March 23, 2018
If ATC Asks You To Call After You Land, Do You Have To Make That Call?
The short answer to that question is "no." But before you decide to ignore ATC's request, you should give it some thoughtful consideration.
First, you should know that you have no legal responsibility to place the call. ATC's request is not an ATC instruction that you may otherwise be obligated to follow under 14 CFR 91.123
Next, you should ask yourself why ATC might be asking you to call? Oftentimes the request is intended to obtain your personal information (e.g. name, contact information etc.) so the FAA will know who was operating the aircraft. If you provide that information, you will have then given the FAA what it needs to place you in the aircraft at the time of the incident or situation that prompted the request for you to call ATC. If the situation results in an enforcement action, you would have given the FAA what it needs to help make its case.
Alternatively, ATC may want to advise you of procedures or provide information with respect to your flight operations. ATC may simply be trying to educate you regarding operations within its area of coverage or to help correct an aspect of your operation that may otherwise not have been in strict compliance with the regulations.
If you do make the call, you need to understand two important points:
The telephone call will be recorded. So, the FAA will have a record of everything said during the call, both by you and the ATC representative; and
The FAA will use the information you provide. If the situation is one that warrants treatment as a "compliance action", the FAA will use the information to help correct your regulatory deviation and to ensure that future deviations do not occur. If the situation is more serious and leads to an enforcement action, the FAA will use any information you provide against you to support its position that you violated the regulations.
With this information in mind, you should analyze your situation to determine whether it does or does not make sense to make the call. If the situation involves a potentially serious violation of the regulations, then it may not be prudent to make the call.
If the situation involves conduct that may qualify for treatment as a compliance action, or if you want to try and find out what ATC wants without providing any personal information, then making the call may be a reasonable option. After all, one of the criteria for a compliance action is that the airman shows a compliance attitude. Ignoring the request for a call could result in the FAA believing that you do not have a compliant attitude, which certainly won't help your situation.
Unfortunately, no hard and fast rule exists to help you make the decision. You will need to review your situation and give it some thought/analysis. And if you are unsure, it may make sense to discuss your situation with an aviation attorney to help you make the decision. In that case, feel free to contact me and I will be happy to help.
Posted by Greg
March 16, 2018
What Happens When A Court Doesn't Want To Decide An Aviation Case? It Uses The "Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine" To Punt.
In the case of Skybolt Aeromotive Corporation v. Milspec Products
, a Florida court was faced with deciding very technical aviation issues. Rather than decide those issues, the Court relied on the "primary jurisdiction doctrine" and "punted" the case to the FAA.
Skybolt and Milspec compete in the aerospace fastener industry. Skybolt alleged that Milspec falsely advertised TSO-C148 production approval for a significant number of the fasteners it sold. The parties disagreed about a variety of documents as to authenticity and whether they actually proved that Milspec had the production approval, and, if so, whether the approval was obtained fraudulently.
Skybolt filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining Milspec from selling parts as FAA approved parts. However, rather than decide Skybolt’s motion, the Court performed an analysis as to whether the primary jurisdiction doctrine should be applied to the case.
The primary jurisdiction doctrine permits a court to stay an action to efficiently allocate fact finding between the courts and administrative agencies. The doctrine justifies staying (not deciding) a case where issues of fact are not within the conventional experience of judges or which require the exercise of administrative discretion.
The Court observed that the FAA has the jurisdiction and regulatory authority to determine whether Milspec held the TSO approval, and whether Milspec was in violation of applicable regulations for which FAA enforcement would be required. And it went on to note that the case presented historical and technical questions, as well as issues of regulatory consistency and uniformity, all of which the FAA was best suited to answer before the Court.
As a result, the Court directed Skybolt to file a formal complaint with the FAA under 14 C.F.R. § 13.5
which would allow Skybolt, Milspec, and the Court, to provide the FAA with a complete evidentiary record sufficient for the FAA to resolve the factual issues. The Court also required Skybolt and Milspec to file status reports to keep the Court advised of the progress and resolution of Skybolt’s complaint.
At this time, after reviewing Skybolt’s complaint the FAA has initiated an informal investigation into the matter.
Posted by Greg
March 09, 2018
Falsification And The FAA’s Revocation Of Certificates: Same As It Ever Was.
As many of us know, revocation has been the FAA’s choice of sanction in medical application falsification cases for a very long time. This was especially true prior to enactment of the Pilots Bill of Rights I
”), when the National Transportation Safety Board (the “Board
”) was “bound by” the FAA’s choice of sanction. In all of the case law prior to PBR-1, the Board relied upon this language and deferred to the FAA’s imposition of revocation in falsification cases.
In 2012 the PBR-1 removed the “bound by” language from the regulations. Since that time, the Board has followed the traditional doctrine of judicial deference set forth in Martin v. OSHRC
and subsequent cases when determining whether to defer to the FAA’s imposition of revocation in falsification cases. However, the deference the Board must accord to the FAA in sanction review is not unfettered, and it does not eliminate or replace the due process requirement for the Board’s evaluation. In each case the Board must consider aggravating and mitigating factors and compare factually similar cases to determine whether the FAA’s choice of sanction is appropriate.
In practice, administrative law judges have discussed the need to analyze and weigh the facts and circumstances of each case when they apply the principles of judicial deference to determine if the sanction selected by the FAA is appropriate. In each of those cases, the Board on appeal also considered the merits of the FAA’s sanction choice, even though in both instances it was within the recommendations of the FAA’s Sanction Guidance Table. And yet in each case the sanction of revocation was affirmed.
Although the FAA will often state that it "carefully followed the sanction guidelines when it proposed revoking all airman certificates held by the respondent", this is self-serving at best. 14 C.F.R. § 67.403(b)(1)
provides for suspending OR
revoking airman and medical certificates. However, contrary to Section 67.403(b)(1), FAA Order 2150.3B, Appendix B-4-b(1)
(the FAA's Sanction Guidance Table) states that revocation of all of an airman’s certificates is the only available sanction.
And although the FAA may deny it, a review of the Board’s past and present docket, as well as Board precedent, clearly shows the FAA very rarely seeks any sanction other than revocation of all airman certificates in cases where it alleges falsification. So, to say the FAA "carefully followed the sanction guidelines" implies analysis and consideration that the FAA’s own guidance does not permit.
Also, the FAA almost always claims its chosen sanction is appropriate because the alleged falsification shows the airman lacks qualification to hold any airman certificate or airman medical certificate. Yet after one year from the date of the order of revocation the airman will typically be allowed to reapply for airman certificates, and provided the airman is otherwise qualified, the prior revocation will not prohibit the airman from being issued airman certificates.
And in the meantime, the airman can apply for and be issued a new medical certificate provided he or she is able to demonstrate that he or she is qualified to hold a medical certificate under 14 C.F.R. Part 67
. The fact that the regulations and the FAA permit application for and issuance of both airman and medical certificates after the FAA concludes that an airman is not qualified to hold those certificates, as a matter of course, belies both the accuracy and the legitimacy of the FAA’s conclusion.
It is hard to understand how revocation of all of an airman’s certificates, rather than suspension, is anything other than a punitive sanction that the FAA automatically assesses without thought or consideration to the factual circumstances of each case. Further, the FAA’s often-heard claim that it "has limited its decision to what is prescribed by the sanction guidelines" is an admission that it has disregarded the clear language of the regulation permitting revocation OR suspension. The FAA's singular selection of sanction to the exclusion of what is otherwise provided in the regulation is, both on its face and in application, arbitrary and capricious, and should not be entitled to deference.
But, in spite of the above, both the Board and the courts continue to defer to the FAA’s imposition of revocation in falsification cases and to rely upon pre-PBR-1 precedent to support those decisions. It isn’t clear to me why the Board and the courts may rely upon those cases as precedent when they were decided based upon the requirement that the Board was “bound by” the FAA’s choice of sanction, and that requirement is no longer present. Unfortunately, in falsification cases where the FAA’s continued "knee-jerk" reaction is to revoke all of an airman’s certificates, the words of The Talking Head’s seem apropos: “same as it ever was.”
Posted by Greg
March 01, 2018
Other Aspects Of The 2017 Tax Cuts And Jobs Act Impacting Business Aviation
In addition to clarifying the exemption of aircraft management services from FET (which I discussed in my February 9, 2018 post), the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
") also included several other provisions with a direct impact on business aviation:
Repeal of 1031 Like-Kind Exchanges for Aircraft and Other Personal Property. Aircraft owners will now no longer be able to take advantage of the benefits of a Section 1031 like-kind exchange to defer the recognition of gain on an aircraft used in trade or business when it is sold and replaced with similar/like-kind property. However, if a 1031 exchange was initiated before 12/31/2017, then the exchange may still be completed. For tax planning purposes, it is anticipated that the advantage of the 100% expensing (at least until 1/1/2023) discussed below should offset the loss of the 1031 exchange mechanism.
100% Expensing of Purchase Price of Business Aircraft. Purchasers of business aircraft (e.g. purchase of an aircraft for use in the business) may now expense 100% of the purchase price subject to the following:
Must be placed in service after 9/27/2017 and before 1/1/2023;
No contract for purchase prior to 9/27/2017;
Aircraft must still satisfy primary business use test; and
Personal use must be imputed as income to an employee.
A transition rule also allows a 50% deduction rather than a 100% deduction.
Commuting Expenses Disallowed. An employer may no longer deduct the costs of reimbursing an employee for the expense of commuting on the company’s aircraft from the employee’s home to the place of employment, unless that transportation is provided for the safety of the employee. Employers may need to obtain security study/survey to support use of company aircraft for security reasons that are related to the employee’s safety.
“Related to Business” Expenses Disallowed. Starting in 2018, a business will no longer be allowed to deduct entertainment, amusement, or recreation expenditures, even though they are directly related to business. Travel on the company aircraft with business customers, prospective clients before, during or after entertainment, is likely no longer deductible.
So, if you use business aircraft, you should familiarize yourself with the aspects of the Act that may impact your aircraft operations, for either the good or the bad. And, as always, if you have questions or need help, please contact me to Request a Consultation
Posted by Greg
February 23, 2018
Does Filing of a Mechanic Lien With the FAA Violate the Automatic Stay Under Section 362(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code?
If you find yourself in the situation where you have provided services to, or stored, an aircraft but you haven't been paid, and then your customer (usually the aircraft owner or operator) files for bankruptcy, what do you do? Can you still assert a mechanic lien against the aircraft? Well, the lawyerly answer is, "it depends."
In the absence of a bankruptcy filing, we know that in most states a lien claimant can, and in fact must, file a mechanic lien statement with the FAA Registry in order for the lien to be effective against any third parties. (In a handful of states a lien may only be asserted against an aircraft as long as it is in the service provider's possession, and the FAA Registry won't accept a lien statement from those states.)
However, once a bankruptcy case is filed, an "automatic stay" arises under Section 362(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code
which prevents any creditor (the party owed money) of the debtor (the party who filed for bankruptcy) from taking any action to collect on the debt (the money owed by the debtor to the creditor). If a creditor violates the automatic stay, the creditor could be subject to monetary and other sanctions imposed by the bankruptcy court.
So, if a mechanic lien claimant finds itself in that situation, it is important to understand whether filing a mechanic lien statement with the FAA Registry will violate the automatic stay. This is determined by the state law under which the mechanic lien arises.
If the statute says the lien is not created or effective until it the lien statement is filed (with the FAA and/or another local branch of government), then filing the mechanic lien statement after the bankruptcy case has been initiated violates the automatic stay. Since the filing is necessary to create the lien in that circumstance, the court views the filing as an action to collect on the debt and it may then declare the lien void.
If the statute says the lien arises prior to filing the mechanic lien statement (with the FAA and/or another local branch of government) and the filing is simply required to perfect the lien, then filing the mechanic lien statement after the bankruptcy case has been initiated would not violate the automatic stay. In that situation the court views the filing not as an action to collect on a debt, but rather simply as a requirement for the lien claimant to preserve an existing claim.
It is always unfortunate when an aircraft owner or operator does not pay for services provided to it. While a subsequent bankruptcy filing complicates matters, it does explain why the bill wasn't paid. If you find yourself in that situation, make sure you understand what you can and cannot do to protect yourself, preserve your rights, and put yourself in the best possible position to get paid. As always, I am happy to assist if you find yourself in this unenviable position.
Posted by Greg
February 16, 2018
The Importance Of An Aircraft Pre-Purchase Inspection
In most aircraft transactions, the buyer should have a pre-purchase inspection performed on the aircraft. Why? To make sure the buyer knows what the buyer is getting before the buyer closes on the purchase. The pre-purchase inspection allows the buyer to confirm that:
The aircraft is in an airworthy condition;
The aircraft has a current, valid, and effective standard category airworthiness certificate issued by the FAA (FAA Aeronautical Center Form 8100-2) without restriction or limitation;
The aircraft is in compliance with its type certificate;
All of the aircraft's airframe, engine and/or propeller logbooks, as well as the maintenance records, are original and complete;
The aircraft's engine(s) and all other systems and installed equipment are operating in a manner that is consistent with the standard specifications, limitations and requirements of the applicable maintenance and/or operations manual;
All of the aircraft's calendar, cycle and hourly inspections per the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance program are completed and current with no extensions or deferrals, and with no non-standard or recurring inspections required outside of the standard manufacturer’s recommended maintenance program;
All mandatory service bulletins (or equivalents) and airworthiness directives applicable to the aircraft have been completed and/or are in compliance and current, without recurring incident if such terminating action is available;
The aircraft doesn't have any undisclosed history of material damage;
The aircraft doesn't have any corrosion outside of manufacturers’ in-service limits;
All aircraft and engine maintenance and/or warranty programs are current and fully paid;
The purchase agreement (which should be used in all aircraft transactions) can specify who will perform the inspection, what qualifications that individual must possess and where the inspection will take place. Although the buyer is usually responsible for the expenses associated with a pre-purchase inspection, the agreement should address which party is responsible for what expenses related to the inspection.
Also, the buyer should make the agreement contingent upon the buyer’s satisfaction with results of the inspection. If the pre-purchase inspection discloses that the aircraft isn't as represented by the seller or as expected by the buyer, then the buyer should have options to either get out of the transaction or to require that the seller correct any discrepancies. It is much better to discover discrepancies before
the buyer pays for the aircraft than it is to find out at a later time when the buyer's recourse may be limited.
So, if you are an aircraft buyer and you want to make sure you are getting everything for which you are paying, make sure you have a pre-purchase inspection performed by a mechanic or repair station you trust. It is worth the expense.
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
01/01/2015 - 01/31/2015
03/01/2015 - 03/31/2015
04/01/2015 - 04/30/2015
06/01/2015 - 06/30/2015
07/01/2015 - 07/31/2015
08/01/2015 - 08/31/2015
10/01/2015 - 10/31/2015
12/01/2015 - 12/31/2015
03/01/2016 - 03/31/2016
07/01/2016 - 07/31/2016
08/01/2016 - 08/31/2016
10/01/2016 - 10/31/2016
01/01/2017 - 01/31/2017
02/01/2017 - 02/28/2017
03/01/2017 - 03/31/2017
04/01/2017 - 04/30/2017
05/01/2017 - 05/31/2017
06/01/2017 - 06/30/2017
07/01/2017 - 07/31/2017
08/01/2017 - 08/31/2017
09/01/2017 - 09/30/2017
10/01/2017 - 10/31/2017
11/01/2017 - 11/30/2017
12/01/2017 - 12/31/2017
01/01/2018 - 01/31/2018
02/01/2018 - 02/28/2018
03/01/2018 - 03/31/2018