As you may recall, back on July 8, 2010 the FAA published a Proposed Interpretation seeking public comment regarding a proposal to modify the FAA's 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. After receiving comments, and in response to the National Business Aviation Association's ("NBAA") request that the FAA modify its longstanding prohibition, on December 10, 2010 the FAA issued a Modified Interpretation in which it agreed that, under certain circumstances, it would allow "a company to be reimbursed for the personal travel by an individual whose position merits such a high level of interference into his or her travel plans."
What does that mean? Well, for those limited number of employees who are so important to a company that they can be called back to work at any time upon a moment's notice, even during personal travel, then the FAA will consider their travel on the company aircraft as "within the scope of and incidental to the business" of the company operating the aircraft. However, the Modified Interpretation warns that not all personal travel will meet the conditions for reimbursement, such as "when the high-level employee or official may have personal travel plans that are unlikely to be altered or cancelled, even for compelling business reasons." By way of example, and for purposes of guidance, the FAA cites travel for a significant event, such as a wedding or funeral of a close family member, or for necessary or urgent medical treatment, as instances of personal travel that would not likely qualify for reimbursement.
In a Notice of Proposed Interpretation published on December 23, 2010, the FAA is proposing to interpret the application of FAR 135.263 and the rest requirements of FAR 135.267(d) to a situation where an operator plans a flight that is anticipated to be completed within a 13.5-hour duty day but, unanticipated delays (e.g. late passengers, late cargo etc.) occur before the last leg of the flight, and these delays would extend the flight beyond a 14-hour duty day if the last leg is completed.
The FAA's current interpretation of these regulations, based upon legal interpretations issued in the 1990's, permits flight crewmembers to take off on flights that were scheduled to be completed within a 14-hour duty period even though circumstances beyond the crewmembers' control extended the actual duty time beyond the permissible 14-hour period. However, this interpretation is inconsistent with its current interpretation of the near identical language in FAR 121.471(g) which would not permit the crewmembers to take off on the last leg of the flight.
The FAA's interpretation of the language of FAR 121.471(g), which was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, created an exception to pilot flight time limitations, but did not provide an exception for pilot rest requirements. In the Court of Appeals decision, the Court also stated that "[t]he substance of the rules in FAR Parts 121 and 135 is essentially the same and the rules are likewise interpreted." The FAA's interpretations of FAR 121.471(g) along with the Court of Appeals case have been known as the "Whitlow Letter line of interpretations."
According to the proposed interpretation, "[t]he FAA has determined that it is illogical that the nearly-identical regulatory language in sections 121.471(g) and 135.263(d) is interpreted in two different ways" and "the Whitlow Letter line of interpretations best reflects the FAA's current understanding of the pertinent regulatory language." As a result, under the proposed interpretation, if a flight crewmember knows at the time of departure on the last leg of the flight that he or she has not had the required rest, FAR 135.267(d) would prohibit him or her from departing on the last leg of the flight.
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 (also known as "artisan 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. Although federal law requires that an aircraft mechanic lien be recorded with the Registry in order to be effective against a third party, 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 recorded lien will be 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.
According to an Article in the Tulsa World, the United States Senator from Oklahoma, James Inhofe, landed his Cessna 340 on a closed runway at the Port Isabel-Cameron County Airport in Texas. At the time, the closed runway was marked with large X's to protect a crew that was working on the runway and a corresponding NOTAM regarding the runway closure had been issued.
The Senator stated that he only saw the X's about 20 seconds before he landed, which, according to him, was too late to change course. However, he was able to land on a part of the runway that was away from the location where the work was being performed. When asked about the NOTAM, the Senator stated "I did not know it because it was not given to me." Later, when the Senator wanted to leave, he used the airport's taxiway to take off.
What is interesting about this incident is that, after apparently notifying the FAA soon after landing and then talking with the FAA several days later, the Senator "expressed assurance that the agency will not take any action against him." I find that hard to believe.
Any other airman would be looking at an enforcement action alleging, at a minimum, violations of FARs 91.103 (requiring a pilot to become familiar with all available information concerning a flight), 91.139(c) (requiring compliance with a NOTAM) and 91.13(a) (careless and reckless) and seeking suspension of the airman's pilot certificate for a period of at least 30-90 days based upon FAA Order 2150.3B Appendix B (the FAA's Sanction Guidance Table).
An airman recently found out the hard way that failure to read the questions on an FAA medical application was not a defense to a charge of intentional falsification under FAR 67.403(a)1. In Administrator v. Cooper, the FAA alleged that the airman checked "No" in response to question 18(v) on the medical application which asks about convictions and/or administrative actions relating to the applicant's driver's license. However, the airman's driver's license had, in fact, been suspended in connection with an alcohol related motor vehicle action.
As a result, the FAA issued an emergency order revoking the airman's airline transport pilot (ATP), certified flight instructor (CFI), and second-class medical certificates based upon alleged violations of FARs 67.403(a)(1) (prohibiting an airman from making fraudulent or intentionally false statements on an application for a medical certificate), 67.403(c)(1) (providing that the making of an incorrect statement in support of an application for a medical certificate may serve as a basis for suspending or revoking a medical certificate) and 61.15(e) (requiring an airman to provide a written report of each motor vehicle action to the FAA, Civil Aviation Security Division within 60 days).
The airman appealed and presented a number of arguments at the hearing. Although the airman admitted that he failed to answer question 18v correctly, he argued that he did not intentionally falsify the application because he had simply failed to read the question or the instructions that accompanied the medical application before answering. Rather than reading the questions, the airman stated that he had just copied his answers from a previous application. However, he also admitted that, if he had read question 18(v), he would have answered "Yes."
The administrative law judge ("ALJ") determined that the airman's incorrect answer was "inadvertent," and that the FAA had not shown that the airman had an intent to falsify the application. As a result, the ALJ dismissed the FAR 67.403(a)1 charge. However, because the airman did answer question 18(v) incorrectly, the ALJ concluded that revocation of the airman's medical certificate was appropriate for violation of FAR 67.403(c)1. The FAA appealed the ALJ's decision to the full NTSB, arguing that the ALJ erred in finding that the airman had not intentionally falsified the application simply because he did not read it.