FAA

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.

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.

The reason for the investigation by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) was described as follows: Our objectives were to identify Transportation Security Administration security requirements for general aviation reports, threats to general aviation, measures taken to secure general aviation, steps nonfederal stakeholders have taken to enhance the security of general aviation, and any “incidents of concern” with security at general aviation airports. In addition, we evaluated allegations of security vulnerabilities at three Houston-area general aviation airports.

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)