So long ago and far, far away, Alan started to really learn the FAA regulations and all things related to aviation. He can quote the regulations to you backwards and forwards. He IS your go to for all things aviation related.
Involved in structuring operations of aircraft (particularly turbine aircraft) to avoid pitfalls presented by FAA claims of illegal air taxi operations. Extensive experience in structuring time share, interchange, joint ownership and aircraft lease agreements.
Ninety percent of the funds employed in developing, maintaining or repairing public use airports typically are provided by the FAA, with the airport owner/sponsor agreeing to honor FAA Sponsor Grant Assurances. Alan has extensive experience in both Part 16 formal complaints and Part 13 informal complaints to address violations of the FAA Sponsor Grant Assurances.
Prosecuting claims for injuries and wrongful death arising out of air crash litigation. Considerable experience in pursuing claims of product liability against aircraft/component manufacturers. Litigation against FAA certified repair stations for improper repairs resulting in post maintenance crashes.
Drafting and negotiating aircraft purchase agreements with consideration given to sales and use tax implications of the transaction, 1031 tax free exchanges, and the host of other issues that are presented in aircraft sales and purchases.
Litigation before the National Transportation Safety and appeals to the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal of revocation and suspension actions taken against airmen by the Federal Aviation Administration.
Drug Testing Cliff Notes for Pilots
- You have the right to request the Sample Collector provide his or her identification. 49 C.F.R. §40.61(d).
- The Sample Collector is required to explain the collection procedures including showing you the instructions on the back of the Custody Control Form (CCF). 49 C.F.R. §40.61(e).
- One you enter the collection site, the testing process should commence without undue delay. 49 C.F.R. §40.61(b).
- The Sample Collector must instruct you to wash and dry your hands before the testing commences. 49 C.F.R. §40.63(b).
- Collector must tell you that you cannot wash your hands again until after delivring the specimen. 49 C.F.R. §40.63(d).
- Either you or the Collector or both of you must unwrap or break the seal of the collection container; provided the seal of the specimen bottle should be unbroken at that time. 49 C.F.R. §40.63(d).
- Collector is required to tell you that you (1) must provide a 45mL sample of urine, (2) not to flush the toilet, and (3) to return the specimen to the Collector as soon as the voiding process has been completed.C.F.R. §40.63(d).
- Generally, the Collector is not allowed to go into the restroom with you. C.F.R. §40.63(d)(1).
- Collector may set a reasonable time for the voiding. C.F.R. §40.63(d)(2)
- Remain at the drug testing facility until the drug testing process is complete. Until then, do not leave the drug testing facility. C.F.R. §40.191(a)(2).
- While hair testing samples may be admissible in evidence, because hair testing may not reveal a single instance of illicit drug use, the judge may give more weight to the urine test than the hair sample test. Administrator v, Taylor, supra.
- If the airman can demonstrate that the Sample Collector failed to follow proper protocols and procedures, the Court may consider the drug test results unreliable allowing the airman to prevail. Petersen v. Hinson, supra.
- In the event you observe irregularities in the testing process, make a note of them and keep them for future reference. Petersen v. Hinson, supra.
A Trusted Name In Aviation Law
For 35 years Alan Armstrong has been practicing aviation law in Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Armstrong has written over one hundred articles on aviation law published in professional journals and periodicals. He is AV rated and listed in the Martindale-Hubbell Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers.
Learn More About Alan
“Thank you so much for helping me with my career. I am happy to say I have been working as a First Officer as regional pilot.
“I was involved in a light airplane crash caused by engine failure. As an airline pilot, I was concerned about any impact it might have on my career, and even more concerned about the impact it almost had on myself and my grandson, who was in the plane with me at the time. As it turns out, my wife is an attorney who had dealt with Alan Armstrong as opposing counsel and he impressed her enough that she encouraged me to call him for advice. Always listen to your wife’s recommendations. Alan listened, encouraged, supported, and made calls on my behalf. Ultimately, no certificate action was taken. Alan was not just an advocate, but a friend who encouraged me when I questioned my abilities or actions. I cannot adequately express how grateful I am to have had him on my side.”
“I wanted to thank you both for all the exceptional service you have always provided to me over the years. Alan, you truly are the best attorney I have ever had the pleasure to work with. Thank you for your support and hard work.”
"If we could only find some way to have them [the Chinese] drop some bombs on Tokyo."
Most Recently on FlightWatch
On May 10, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rendered a decision in Pham v. NTSB and FAA, Case Nos. 21-1062 and 21-1083. The Court found the NTSB did not display sufficient deference to the FAA in imposing sanction. On May 20, 2022, Pham filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc arguing the effect of the Court’s decision was to undermine the Pilot’s Bill of Rights. Congress, in passing the Pilots Bill of Rights, removed language from 49 USC Sec. 44709(d)(3) saying the NTSB was bound by the FAA’s policy guidance with respect to sanction.
The 2022 Wings Over Columbus Airshow was an event both ambitious in scope and excellent in execution. Not only were the performers of top caliber, but the airshow provided a vast array of aircraft on static display that were truly remarkable including a DC-3 manufactured in 1937, that in years past was operated by American Airlines and carried the moniker “Flagship Detroit.”
The case involves the jet ban at Lantana Airport which has been stricken as unlawful by the FAA on three occasions. Arguing a case before an appellate court requires a great deal of preparation.