FAA

The case of Administrator v. Fulop, 6 NTSB 298, NTSB Order No. EA-2730, 1988 WL 250619 (N.T.S.B.) [the “Fulop case”] confirms that the NTSB does not apply a standard of strict liability against pilots in cases involving allegations of illegal air taxi operations. Even if the pilot’s recitation of the facts portrays him as being naïve about the underlying economics of the flights, still, the pilot is given the benefit of the doubt in that regard. This article will discuss the Fulop case and the lessons we can draw from that decision.

Flight department companies are routinely employed as subsidiaries of parent corporations or holding companies. These flight department companies, financed by the parent corporations or holding companies, own, operate and maintain aircraft, employ the flight crew, and provide air transportation to employees and guests of parent and subsidiary corporations. These operations are typically conducted under Part 91 of the Federal Avia- tion Regulations (FARs) without an air carrier certificate.

On August 3, 2012, the President signed into law the Pilots’ Bill of Rights as Public Law 112-153 (the “PBR” or “Act”). Now that the PBR has become law, it is appropriate to look forward and speculate about the extent to which the Act will have any impact on precedent decided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) allowing the FAA to withhold certain portions of the Enforcement Investigative Report (“EIR”).

The Pilots’ Bill of Rights, Public Law 112-153 (the “PBR” or “Act”) was signed by the President on August 3, 2012. Within days, the government began taking steps to implement the provisions of the Act.

For many years, it has been an accepted industry practice for pilots of experimental aircraft (especially warbirds) to provide one or more media flights to members of the press as part of the airshow appearance package. If the pilot of an experimental aircraft is going to provide a media ride, based upon the FAA’s position on this matter, it appears that this must not be part of the airshow appearance contract. The airshow pilot must bear the full costs of providing the flight, including the fuel and oil. The airshow pilot must not benefit from the flight nor should the sponsor of the airshow benefit from the flight. Again, the act of providing a media ride must not be included as part of the terms and provisions of an airshow appearance contract. The reasons for these conclusions will be discussed in the remainder of this article.

The Pilots’ Bill of Rights sponsored by Senator James Inhofe (S. 1335) passed the Senate by unanimous resolution on Friday, June 29, 2012.

The purpose of this article is to educate lawyers, pilots, mechanics and aircraft owners/operators with respect to when a United States – registered aircraft is “airworthy.” As we explore this subject, we will consider the statutory and regulatory underpinnings indicating when an aircraft is airworthy as well as one FAA legal interpretation which supports the position that an aircraft need not be “perfect” in order to be airworthy.

On July 9, 2010, FAA Administrator J. Randolph Babbitt issued sweeping revisions to the Federal Aviation Regulations in terms of aircraft registration.

This issue of Flightwatch will discuss the confusion that abounds at the NTSB about the elements required to be satisfied if the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) is to prevail in a claim against an airman alleging the airman made an intentionally false statement.

A bill known as Senate Substitute to H.B.1147, about to be signed into law by Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue, will impact aircraft lenders and lessors to the extent aircraft they hold interests in are serviced in Georgia without payment being made for the service.