|
![[-]](images/blt30.gif)
![[Top Background]](images/topbg.jpg)
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:
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 (the “PBR-1”), 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 (the "Act") also included several other provisions with a direct impact on business aviation:
Posted by Greg 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 05/01/2018 - 05/31/2018 07/01/2018 - 07/31/2018 08/01/2018 - 08/31/2018 09/01/2018 - 09/30/2018 10/01/2018 - 10/31/2018 12/01/2018 - 12/31/2018 01/01/2019 - 01/31/2019 02/01/2019 - 02/28/2019 04/01/2019 - 04/30/2019 05/01/2019 - 05/31/2019 07/01/2019 - 07/31/2019 08/01/2019 - 08/31/2019 09/01/2019 - 09/30/2019 < ? law blogs # > |
||
|
The information contained in this web-site is intended for the education and benefit of those visiting the Aero Legal Services site. 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 Aero Legal Services or Gregory J. Reigel does not create an attorney-client relationship. Advice will not be given by e-mail until an attorney-client relationship has been established. |
||
|
© Gregory J. Reigel-Aero Legal Services 2002-Present. All rights reserved. |
||