Court: Pilot Action 'Inadvertent' after Firms Part Ways

In a split decision, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned a 60-day suspension of an air transport pilot certificate, deeming that the pilot in question had "inadvertently" violated the rules after his company, an aircraft management firm, had ended an agreement with a Part 135 certificate holder. The Appeals Court had ruled that both an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the NTSB had erred in finding the pilots' actions were not inadvertent and vacated the suspension.

The case involved a September 2011 flight of a Beechcraft 400A, N497RC, that was managed by Capital Aerospace. According to court documents, Capital, which was not authorized to fly commercial flights, had entered into an agreement with USAC Airways to facilitate the operation of the twinjet under Part 135. USAC had added the aircraft to its operations specifications and obtained FAA authorization for RVSM. Richard Boeta, the pilot involved in the flight, was employed by Capital but became an agent of USAC, undergoing the company’s training curriculum.

In 2011, USAC gave oral notification to Capital that it was terminating the agreement and dispatched the last flight under the agreement in March of that year. USAC then removed the aircraft from its operations specifications. Boeta was never informed, either orally or in writing, of the change.

In September 2011, he received a trip sheet from Capital for a flight from Sugar Land, Texas, to Palm Beach, Fla. He filed a flight plan, saying the aircraft was authorized to in RVSM airspace. Upon landing in Palm Beach, Boeta was met by FAA inspectors requesting to see the RVSM letter of authorization (LOA). After being unable to find it, he asked Capital to fax a copy of the LOA and then assumed the flight must have been under USAC. Within 10 days after the flight, he filed an aviation safety report through the FAA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System.

The FAA suspended his ATP certificate for filing and operating a flight in RVSM even though the operator was not authorized to do so. An ALJ and the NTSB upheld the suspension, disagreeing with Boeta’s assertion that the violation was inadvertent. They found that it was the pilot’s responsibility to ensure the LOA was physically on the airplane and to review the LOA before each flight.

But the Appeals Court disagreed, noting that the pilot is not obligated by federal regulation to ensure that the operator is authorized for RVSM, but the aircraft is approved for RVSM operations. Further, the court found that the pilot, once aware that the authorization exists, “has no ongoing obligation to confirm that it remains current.” The pilot, the court added, “was certainly aware that, at some point, USAC’s outdated OpSpecs permitted him to pilot N497RC in RVSM airspace.”

“We are no less sensitive to air safety concerns than the FAA, the ALJ and the NTSB,” the court stated. “But candidly, it defies common sense to conclude that Beota was anything but inadvertent when he, as a pilot capable of flying in restricted airspace, flew an airplane capable of flying in restricted airspace, without checking the paperwork evidencing that the operator (not the pilot!) of that aircraft was still authorized to commission such flights.”

Judge Stephen Higginson, however, wrote a dissenting opinion, siding with NTSB and the ALJ, noting that the pilot had testified that he knew Capital did not have authorization to fly in RVSM airspace.