NTSB

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.

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.

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.

Historically, if a pilot is accused of violating the Federal Aviation regulations, he receives a trial or hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. The judge considers the evidence and then renders a decision based upon the evidence. There is, however, a disturbing new trend at the National Transportation Safety Board. This trend is to have pilots lose their cases without ever having a hearing. This article will discuss that phenomenon.

A jet pilot who made a number of low level, high-speed passes over the Santa Monica Pier had his license revoked. The flight in question took place on November 6, 2008, when the pilot, as part of a two-ship formation flight, departed Van Nuys Airport (VNY)