Welcome to GlobalAir.com | 888-236-4309    Please Register or Login
Aviation Articles
Home Aircraft For Sale  | Aviation Directory  |  Airport Resource  |   Blog  | My Flight Department
Aviation Articles

What Happens To A Certificate When The FAA Suspends Or Revokes It?

by Greg Reigel 3. January 2017 10:06
Share on Facebook

Pilot License

Is a certificate suspension or revocation the end of the story for a certificate holder? Not usually. A certificate holder (whether airman, mechanic, air carrier, medical etc.) has some additional responsibilities, as well as liability exposure if he or she fails to fulfill those obligations. However, before we talk about the aftermath of certificate suspension or revocation, we should briefly discuss how a certificate holder can find him or herself in that position.

Once the FAA has determined that legal enforcement action is appropriate, the FAA will either issue a Notice of Proposed Certificate Action (“NPCA”) to the certificate holder seeking to suspend or revoke a certificate for alleged violation of the FARs, or it will issue an emergency order suspending or revoking the certificate. The difference between the two is significant: the emergency order is effective immediately (e.g. the certificate is revoked as soon as the FAA issues it), while the NPCA is not.

Both an NPCA and an emergency order will provide a recitation of the facts supporting the FAA’s allegations. The NPCA also includes a list of options from which a certificate holder may choose how he or she wants to respond to the NPCA. Under the first option, the certificate holder may elect to simply admit or concede the FAA’s allegations and surrender the certificate to the FAA. The emergency order, on the other hand, requires the certificate holder to immediately surrender the certificate to the FAA.

Suspension or revocation of a certificate may also be imposed by an NTSB administrative law judge (“ALJ”) after the certificate holder has received a hearing on the merits of the allegations contained in the NPCA. In the case of suspension or revocation following a hearing, the ALJ will order that the certificate holder surrender the suspended or revoked certificate to the FAA. The FAA may also follow up with a letter to the certificate holder demanding surrender of the certificate. But, does the certificate holder really have to surrender the certificate? If the case is not appealed, the answer is “yes.”

If a certificate holder fails to surrender the certificate, the FAA can and oftentimes will try to assess a civil penalty against the certificate holder for failure to surrender the certificate as required by the order of suspension or revocation. Under 14 CFR 383.2, depending upon the type of operator (e.g. individual, small business, air carrier etc.), the civil penalties for failure to surrender a certificate can range from $1,414 for an individual (and in some cases a small business) up to $32,140 per day.

So, what do you need to know if you find yourself in this situation? First, if you receive a NPCA or emergency order you need to take action immediately (especially in the case of an emergency order where the time limits are very short) and, if you dispute the FAA’s allegations, you need to properly and timely appeal the order and request an evidentiary hearing. Second, if your appeal is unsuccessful and your certificate is suspended or revoked, you are required to physically surrender your certificate to the FAA. If you fail to do so, you risk being assessed a civil penalty that could potentially be very expensive. And, of course, if you receive an emergency order or NPCA and are unsure of your rights and responsibilities, contact an aviation attorney who can answer your questions and help you through the process.

Tags: , , ,

Flying | Greg Reigel

As Long As You Hold An Airman Certificate You Must Report Motor Vehicle Actions To The FAA

by Greg Reigel 4. October 2016 09:29
Share on Facebook

If you hold an airman certificate you know, or at least you should know, that you are subject to the reporting requirements of 14 C.F.R. §61.15. That is, §61.15(e) requires an airman to report a motor vehicle action ("MVA") to the FAA Civil Aviation Security Division within 60 days. The written report must include: “(1) The person's name, address, date of birth, and airman certificate number; (2) The type of violation that resulted in the conviction or the administrative action; (3) The date of the conviction or administrative action; (4) The State that holds the record of conviction or administrative action; and (5) A statement of whether the motor vehicle action resulted from the same incident or arose out of the same factual circumstances related to a previously reported motor vehicle action.”

What is an MVA? According to the regulation an MVA is (1) a violation of any Federal or State statute relating to the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, while impaired by alcohol or a drug, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug; (2) the cancellation, suspension, or revocation of a license to operate a motor vehicle, for a cause related to the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, while impaired by alcohol or a drug, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug; or (3) the denial of an application for a license to operate a motor vehicle for a cause related to the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, while impaired by alcohol or a drug, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug.

It is important to realize that this definition includes more than just being arrested for or convicted of a DWI, OWI etc. A civil action that often accompanies a DWI arrest in most states and that results in suspension of the driver's license is also considered an MVA. Thus, an arrest for DWI could create the obligation for an airman to provide multiple reports to the FAA depending upon how the civil and criminal cases proceed. And if an airman fails to report an MVA, §61.15(f) states that he or she could be subject to (1) Denial of an application for any certificate or rating for a period of up to 1 year after the date of the arrest; or (2) Suspension or revocation of any certificate or rating.

But what happens if you hold an airman certificate but you no longer hold a medical certificate, or you have "retired" from flying? Are you still subject to this reporting requirement? The short answer is "yes", as a recent NTSB decision explains. In Administrator v. Street, the airman was an experienced airline pilot who failed to report four MVAs arising from two DWIs. When the FAA found out, it issued an order suspending the airman's ATP certificate for 240 days. On appeal, the administrative law judge ("ALJ") agreed that the airman had violated sections 61.15(d) and (e) but determined that the sanction should only be a thirty day suspension.

Not surprisingly, the FAA was unhappy with that decision and appealed to the full Board. The FAA argued that the 240 days should stick and, of course, the airman argued that the ALJ's decision should stand. Specifically, the airman argued that at the time of the violations he did not have a medical certificate and was not actively flying, which should serve as mitigating factors in support of the lower sanction. However, the Board rejected that argument stating the reporting requirements of §61.15(e) are applicable to an airman who temporarily “retires” from flying. The Board explained that "[w]hile respondent testified that he did not plan to return to flying, his obligation to comply with the FARs continued regardless of whether he was actively flying at the time the MVAs occurred. Sections 61.15(d) and (e) are exclusively concerned with conduct outside the scope of an airman’s certificate. It is immaterial whether respondent was actively flying or had a medical certificate at the time the MVAs occurred because his status as an ATP certificate holder rendered the requirements of §§ 61.15(d) and (e) applicable to him."

So, the moral of the story is: If you hold an airman certificate, you need to be familiar with, and comply with, the requirements of §61.15. Until you no longer hold your airman certificate (whether the certificate has been surrendered, suspended or revoked) you will need to report any MVA to the FAA.

Tags: , , , ,

Greg Reigel

Waiver of Emergency Procedures in an NTSB Appeal Will Not Cure a Missed Deadline

by Greg Reigel 3. August 2016 09:07
Share on Facebook

Since the FAA began implementing its new compliance philosophy last year, fewer case are being appealed to the NTSB.  However, it appears that the cases that are being appealed the most are emergency orders of either suspension or revocation.  As you may recall from past articles, when a certificate holder appeals an emergency order to the NTSB, emergency procedures apply to the case which require that a hearing be held within 30 days after the appeal is filed.  Other deadlines are also much shorter under the emergency procedures than they are under the procedures for a non-emergency appeal.  The purpose for the accelerated hearing and deadlines is to ensure that a certificate holder whose certificate has been suspended or revoked on an emergency basis (i.e. the order is effective immediately) receives a hearing and decision as soon as possible to minimize the impact of the suspension or revocation if the NTSB administrative law judge ("ALJ") ultimately reverses the FAA's order.

But in some situations, this expedited timeline can also be a problem for a certificate holder who may need more time to properly prepare for a hearing.  So, it is also possible to waive the emergency procedures in an appeal of an emergency order.  Whether the emergency procedures should be waived is a decision that will depend upon the circumstances of each case.  But the certificate holder must be sure to comply with the deadlines applicable to the case, whether under the emergency or non-emergency procedures.  Failure to comply can result in harsh consequences.  If a certificate holder is going to waive the emergency procedures, the waiver should occur before any applicable deadline has passed.  A recent decision by the NTSB illustrates the unfortunate consequences of an untimely waiver.

In Administrator v. Jimenez; the airman appealed an emergency order revoking his commercial pilot certificate.  The airman appealed the order to the NTSB, but failed to file his answer to the FAA's complaint within the five days required by the Board's emergency procedures.  As a result, the FAA subsequently filed a motion to deem the facts admitted and requesting summary judgment.  One day after the FAA filed its motion, the airman waived the emergency procedures and filed his answer which would have still been timely under the proceedures applicable to a non-emergency case.  In the absence of good cause for the late filing, the ALJ granted the FAA's motion based upon the airman's failure to timely file his answer.  The airman then appealed the ALJ's decision to the full Board.

On appeal, the airman argued that his answer was timely under the non-emergency procedures that were applicable to the case once the airman had waived the emergency procedures.  However, the Board rejected the airman's argument.  While the Board observed that Section 821.52(d) permits an airman to waive the the accelerated time limits applicable to emergency cases, it then referred to the rule's limitation that “such a waiver shall not serve to lengthen any period of time for doing an act prescribed by this subpart which expired before the date on which the waiver was made.”  Thus, the Board held that the express language of the rule precluded the airman's argument that the 20-day deadline, which would apply in a non-emergency case, was applicable because the airman did not waive the the emergency procedures until after the time to file his answer expired.

The rules for emergency and non-emergency cases can sometimes be confusing.  And, unfortunately, the consequences of failing to comply with the rules can be significant.  This case is yet another example of why it makes sense to have an experienced aviation attorney assist you with appeal of an FAA order of suspension or revocation. If you find yourself in this situation, make sure you get the help you need.

Tags: , , , , ,

Greg Reigel

What Are You Allowed To Do Inside Your Aircraft Hangar At An AIP Airport?

by Greg Reigel 6. July 2016 13:05
Share on Facebook

What can you do inside of your aircraft hangar?  The lawyerly answer is “it depends.”  More specifically, it may depend in large part upon whether your hangar is on an airport that receives funds from the FAA through the Airport Improvement Program (“AIP”).  If your hangar is on an airport that does not receive AIP funds, then any restrictions or limitations on use of your hangar would likely be dictated within your lease with the airport owner or operator.

However, many airports receive AIP grant funds from the FAA for use in runway and taxiway construction/repair as well as various other airport improvement projects.  In exchange for its receipt of AIP grant funds, an airport sponsor agrees to certain grant assurances.  These grant assurances are contractual obligations that require the airport sponsor or owner to operate the airport in a certain way.

One of these AIP grant assurances requires the airport sponsor to make the airport property available for aviation or aeronautical uses.  Conversely, the airport sponsor also agrees that it will not allow airport property to be used for non-aeronautical uses unless it receives permission from the FAA.

One of the most common, and obvious, uses is aircraft hangar construction.  But, once an aircraft storage hangar is built on an AIP airport, how can the hangar be used?  If you were thinking “aircraft storage”, of course you are right.  But typically an aircraft doesn’t completely fill all of the space within a hangar.  So, what about storage of other items such as tools, equipment, automobiles, snowmobiles, etc.?  And can you build-out an office or personal living space inside the hangar?

In the past, the FAA has taken a very restrictive view regarding permitted hangar use.  However, the FAA recently issued a notice of final policy that clarifies what you can and cannot do within an aircraft storage hangar located on an AIP airport.

According to the FAA, permitted aeronautical uses for hangars include:

1.          Storage of active aircraft;

2.          Final assembly of aircraft under construction;

3.          Non-commercial construction of amateur-built or kit-built aircraft.  In expanding its policy to include all amateur/kit-built construction rather than just final assembly, the FAA recognized that “[i]t may be more difficult for those constructing amateur-built or kit-built aircraft to find alternative space for construction or a means to ultimately transport completed large aircraft components to the airport for final assembly, and ultimately for access to taxiways for operation”’

4.          Maintenance, repair, or refurbishment of aircraft, but not the indefinite storage of non-operational aircraft.  The FAA does not establish an arbitrary time period beyond which an aircraft is no longer considered operational. Rather, the FAA leaves it to the airport sponsor to decide whether a particular aircraft is likely to become operational in a reasonable time; and

5.          Storage of aircraft handling equipment (e.g. towbars, glider tow equipment, workbenches, and tools and materials used in the servicing, maintenance, repair or outfitting of aircraft).

Non-aeronautical use within a hangar that is used primarily for aeronautical purposes, may still be permitted provided that use does not interfere with the aeronautical use of the hangar.  What does that mean?  The FAA will consider certain uses to be interfering with the aeronautical use if they:

1.          Impede the movement of the aircraft in and out of the hangar or impede access to aircraft or other aeronautical contents of the hangar;

2.          Displace the aeronautical contents of the hangar.  The hangar owner may park a vehicle inside the hangar while he or she is using the aircraft and the FAA will not consider that to be displacing the aircraft;

3.          Impede access to aircraft or other aeronautical contents of the hangar; or

4.          Are stored in violation of the airport sponsor’s rules and regulations, lease provisions, building codes or local ordinances.

But what about that “pilot lounge” or “man/woman cave” within the hangar?  Is that a permitted use?  Unfortunately, the FAA’s policy does not provide a “bright line” answer.  According to the policy, the FAA “differentiates between a typical pilot resting facility or aircrew quarters versus a hangar residence or hangar home. The former are designed to be used for overnight and/or resting periods for aircrew, and not as a permanent or even temporary residence.”

Although the FAA then goes on to state that a hangar may not be used as a residence, it does not explain what that means.  As a result, in the absence of a clear definition, it is likely that this type of determination would be made on a case-by-case basis.  So, while some form of pilot lounge or office is likely permitted, at what point that area within the hangar becomes an unpermitted, non-aeronautical use will likely be decided based upon the facts of each case.

Keep in mind that the FAA’s policy on aeronautical use of hangars applies regardless of whether you lease the hangar from the airport sponsor or if you constructed the hangar at your own expense where you hold a ground lease with the airport sponsor for the hangar pad.  Once the airport sponsor receives AIP grants and airport land designated for aeronautical use is made available for construction of hangars, the hangars built on the land are subject to the airport sponsor's obligation to use the land for aeronautical purposes.

But at least now we have a little more guidance with respect to use of an aircraft hangar at an AIP airport.  Construction of an amateur-built or kit-built aircraft is allowed.  Residing in the hangar is not allowed.  Other uses may be allowed if they do not interfere with the aeronautical use.  And although some gray areas remain, the current policy does at least provide some additional clarification and guidance for aircraft hangar use.

 

Tags: , , , ,

Greg Reigel

The Difference Between "Wet" and "Dry" Aircraft Leases

by Greg Reigel 31. May 2016 09:20
Share on Facebook

Many times an aircraft owner who is not fully utilizing the owner’s aircraft will lease the aircraft to maximize the use of the aircraft and to recover some of the aircraft owner’s expenses. One of the areas about which aircraft owners and operators are frequently confused is the difference between a “wet” lease and a “dry” lease. I’ll give you a hint: It’s not about the fuel.

The “Wet” lease

14 C.F.R. §110.2 defines a “wet lease” as “any leasing arrangement whereby a person agrees to provide an entire aircraft and at least one crewmember.” (Note no reference to fuel)

Ordinarily, the parties entering into wet lease arrangements are certificated air carriers such as airlines operating under 14 C.F.R. Part 121 and charter operators conducting operations under 14 C.F.R. Part 135. This makes sense since these air carriers have the authority to use aircraft and crew to carry passengers and property for compensation or hire. Non-air carrier aircraft operators conducting operations under Part 91 are prohibited from carrying passengers and property for compensation or hire except in very limited circumstances.

However, 14 C.F.R. § 91.501(c) does provide for certain timesharing and interchange arrangements in which both the aircraft and crew are provided together. And although these arrangements are considered wet leases because they include both aircraft and crew, they are Part 91 operations in which the parties to the transactions do not need to be air carriers.

The “Dry” lease

In a dry lease arrangement, the aircraft owner is providing the aircraft to the lessee without crew. (Here again, whether the aircraft is provided with or without fuel has no bearing on the type of lease) Neither the lessor nor the lessee is required to hold an air carrier certificate in a dry lease arrangement, although nothing prohibits either party from being an air carrier.

Operational control

One of the key issues that distinguishes a “wet” lease from a “dry” lease is “who has operational control.” 14 C.F.R §1.1 defines operational control as “the exercise of authority over initiating, conducting or terminating a flight.” In a “wet” lease situation, since the lessor is providing both aircraft and crew, the lessor maintains operational control of all flights. In a “dry” lease situation, the lessee provides its own crew and the lessee exercises operational control of its flights.

If the lease is for private use or commercial, non-Part 135 use, typically each party will have operational control of the aircraft when it is in that party’s possession. Oftentimes in this situation, operational control will revert to the lessor during the times when the lessee is not using or possessing the aircraft.

What’s The Issue?

So, why is this distinction between “wet” and “dry” leases so important? Well, in the absence of a specific exemption (such as under 14 C.F.R. § 91.501(c)) the lessor who is operating an aircraft under a wet lease will need to have an air carrier certificate and operate under the regulations that govern air carriers (e.g. Part 121 or Part 135). This means the lessor will have to comply with regulations that are stricter than Part 91 including regulations relating to the types of airports the lessor may utilize, crew qualifications, crew rest and duty times, maintenance requirements etc. And those regulations increase the lessor’s cost to operate. Additionally, the lessor under a wet lease is required to remit federal excise tax (“FET”) on the amount charged to the lessee.

A lessee operating under a dry lease is permitted to operate under Part 91 and is not required to comply with many of the more restrictive and costly requirements of Parts 121 or 135. And federal excise tax is not due on the amounts paid by the lessee to the lessor, although sales tax is often assessed on the lease rate. For private operators, these are significant advantages. However, they also need to be weighed against the responsibilities, and potential liability, that goes along with having operational control of a Part 91 dry lease operation.

The situation may get confusing when parties decide they want the best of both worlds. Unfortunately, these Part 134 ½ operations, as I call them, are usually FAA enforcement actions waiting to happen. For example, if the lessor provides the lessee with the aircraft under a dry lease and that same lessor also supplies the crew under a separate agreement the FAA will likely view that as a wet lease arrangement since the lessor is providing both aircraft and crew. If the lessor does not hold an air carrier certificate then the FAA will consider those flights to be illegal charter flights. Additionally, the IRS would also probably assess FET on those flights.

A similarly improper arrangement occurs if the lessor leases the aircraft to the lessee and then requires that the lessee obtain the crew for the flights either from a specified source, usually affiliated with or controlled by the lessor. If the lessor does not hold an air carrier certificate, the FAA would also consider this a wet lease arrangement. Since the aircraft and crew are coming from closely related or affiliated sources, the FAA views them as both coming from the lessor.

It is important to keep in mind that the FAA will look beyond the actual written agreements to determine the relationships between the parties and how the arrangement is actually being conducted. Although a lease is written as a dry lease and says “Dry Lease” at the top of the agreement, for example, that doesn’t mean that the FAA can’t take the position that the arrangement is really being conducted as a wet lease. And if the FAA takes that position when the lessor who is actually operating the aircraft for the lessee does not have an air carrier certificate, then that will be a problem for the lessor, and potentially for the lessee as well.

Conclusion

The distinction between “wet” and “dry” leases isn’t always clear to aircraft owners and operators. However, it is important to understand the difference because each situation has separate regulatory obligations and requirements. Failure to comply with the legal requirements applicable to the chosen lease structure can result in problems for both the lessor and the lessee.

Additionally, as with all written agreements, it is essential that you carefully review all of the provisions of any aircraft lease before you sign. Consultation with an experienced aviation attorney beforehand can help you protect yourself, whether lessor or lessee. By taking the time to understand the terms of the aircraft lease and the applicable regulatory requirements, both parties can ensure that their expectations are met and their interests protected.

Tags: , ,

Greg Reigel



Archive



GlobalAir.com on Twitter