NTSB

Can a pilot be sanctioned for refusing a drug test when the technician administering it fails to follow the rules? On Monday, December 13, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will hear oral arguments in Pham v. National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration.

As certificated airmen, we hold these facts and conclusions that follow to be self-evident: An airman’s certificate is a property or liberty interest that cannot be suspended or revoked without affording the airman due process of law including notice and an opportunity for a hearing. See, e.g., White v. Franklin, 637 F.Supp. 601, 610-611 (N.D. Miss. 1986) (“In the present case, plaintiff’s license qualifies as a protectable property interest. ***In the present case, the defendants’ actions totally foreclosed the plaintiff’s opportunity to pursue his career as a flight examiner…As such, the plaintiff possessed a liberty interest requiring a Fifth Amendment due process hearing prior to deprivation.”), Tamura v. Federal Aviation

You will hear these conversations in hushed tones outside courtrooms or over lunch during a break, “Why did the judge make that ruling?”  “How can the FAA call expert witnesses that were undisclosed?”  It is no secret among legal practitioners who appear before the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB or Board) that litigation before the…

The Federal Aviation Administration withdrew its appeal from an Initial Decision of Judge Stephen R. Woody of the National Transportation Safety Board exonerating an airman from charges that he had put into service counterfeit aircraft parts.

The author's purpose in writing this article is to refine and expand our thoughts about the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Pilot's Bill of Rights, Pub. L. 112-153, August 3, 2012, 126 Stat. 1159 (hereinafter the "PBR").

In this article we will review whether an order revoking or rescinding a Statement Of Acrobatic Competency "SAC Card" can be appealed to the National Transportation Safety Board contrary to the requirements of FAA Order 8900.1 mandating an appeal to AFS-800

We will examine the Initial Decision of Judge William R. Mullins in the case of Administrator v. Michael,2013 WL 6221805 (NTSB). In essence, Judge Mullins found that since the FAA had not provided the pilot with air traffic data before filing the complaint, he lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and the case was dismissed.

On March 6, 2014, Judge Geraghty of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued an Order finding that the FAA could not discipline the commercial operator of an unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV”) on the theory that the UAV was not an aircraft as the term “aircraft” has historically been defined by the FAA. This issue of FlightWatch will examine the Order issued by Judge Geraghty, an Order from which the FAA appealed on March 7, 2014.

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.

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”).