Justia Aviation Opinion Summaries

These consolidated petitions concerned proposed alternatives to security procedures mandated by the TSA. Amerijet requested alternative cargo screening procedures at various foreign airports it services and the TSA largely denied these requests. Amerijet petitioned for review, arguing that TSA's denials failed for want of reasoned decisionmaking and that TSA's actions violated Amerijet's right to equal protection of the law. The court concluded that, even under a highly deferential standard of review, TSA's denials were arbitrary and capricious as to most of Amerijet's requests where TSA failed to adequately explain most of its denials. Because the court had no meaningful basis to evaluate TSA's decisionmaking, the court remanded, excluding two issues. Accordingly, Amerijet's equal protection claim is unripe and the court dismissed the claim without prejudice. View "Amerijet Int'l, Inc. v. Pistole" on Justia Law

GoJet petitioned for review of the FAA Acting Administrator's ruling that GoJet violated FAA regulations when it failed to make a logbook entry and to remove a gear pin. GoJet argued that it did not violate 14 C.F.R. 91.13(a) and 121.153(a)(2) by carelessly or recklessly operating an unairworthy airplane, and procedural error. The court concluded that the Administrator did not err in determining that GoJet violated section 121.153(a)(2) where the type-certificate nonconformity in this case - inoperable landing gear - was so clearly related to safe operation of the airplane that a finding that the airplane was not airworthy was clearly warranted based solely on this nonconformity. The court also concluded that the Administrator did not err in crediting an FAA Inspector's testimony regarding potential danger and finding that GoJet violated section 91.13(a). The Administrator's decision that GoJet failed to establish extraordinary circumstances was not arbitrary or capricious. A violation of section 91.13(a) did not require proof of actual danger to lives or property; the potential for danger was enough. Finally, the agency did not abuse its discretion in terminating the Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program self-disclosure proceeding and commencing a civil penalty action. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "GoJet Airlines v. FAA" on Justia Law

Lilliputian, manufacturer of micro fuel cells powered by butane, challenged the prohibition in a final rule against airline passengers and crew carrying butane fuel cell cartridges in their checked baggage. Lilliputian argued that the final rule was arbitrary and capricious in light of the dissimilar treatment of other products that were not subject to the rigorous safety specifications imposed on fuel cell cartridges. The court concluded that the Safety Administration failed to provide the required "reasoned explanation and substantial evidence" for the disparate treatment. Accordingly, the court remanded for the Safety Administration to provide further explanation for the prohibition, including its response to Lilliputian's comments. View "Lilliputian Sys., Inc. v. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Admin." on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the FAA's no hazard determinations in 2012 for proposed wind turbines in Nantucket Sound. The court concluded that the FAA could reasonably view its Handbook procedures implementing the Secretary's regulations to establish a threshold finding necessary to trigger a further "adverse effects" analysis; given the record evidence and the level of FAA expertise involved in drawing factual conclusions from the reports, conducting the aeronautical study, and responding to comments, petitioners failed to show that the FAA findings were unsupported by substantial evidence; and petitioners' contention that the FAA was required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332, to perform or participate in an analysis of the environmental impacts of its no hazard determinations was based on a flawed premise. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions for review. View "Town of Barnstable, MA v. FAA" on Justia Law

HAI challenged the FAA's issuance of a rule requiring helicopter pilots to use a route one mile off the north shore of Long Island, New York for the purpose of noise abatement in residential areas. The court concluded that under the plain text of 49 U.S.C. 40103, the FAA had authority to prescribe air traffic regulations to protect individuals and property on the ground and HAI pointed to no express limitations on the FAA's general authority in such matters; HAI's contentions that the FAA's finding that there was noise problem was unsupported by substantial evidence in the record and that the Final Rule was an impermissible deviation from longstanding FAA authority; and the court rejected HAI's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court denied HAI's petition for review. View "Helicopter Assoc. Int'l v. FAA" on Justia Law

In 2008, Washburn was seriously injured when the door of an airplane hangar, T-hangar 12, blew off and hit her in the face and torso during a storm at an airpark owned by Lawrence County and operated by Attitude Aviation. Watson had leased T-hangar 12 for more than 20 years at the time of the accident; his lease made him responsible for the condition of the hangar. Attitude was never included in any of the hangar lease negotiations or lease renewals. Rejecting Washburn’s suit on summary judgment, the district court held that the County and Attitude owed no duty of care to Washburn because they had no control over the hangar. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Washburn v. Lawrence Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs" on Justia Law

In 2003 Federal Air Marshals were told of a potential hijacking plot. Soon after that, the Agency sent an unencrypted text message to the Marshals’ cell phones temporarily cancelling missions on flights from Las Vegas. Marshal MacLean became concerned that this created a danger. He unsuccessfully complained to his supervisor and to the Inspector General, then spoke to an MSNBC reporter. MSNBC published an article, and the Agency withdrew the directive after members of Congress joined the criticism. In 2004, MacLean appeared on NBC Nightly News in disguise to criticize Agency dress code, which he believed allowed Marshals to be easily identified. During the subsequent investigation, MacLean admitted that he revealed the cancellation directive. MacLean was removed from his position for unauthorized disclosure of sensitive security information (SSI). Although the Agency had not initially labeled the message as SSI, it subsequently ordered that its content was SSI. The Ninth Circuit rejected MacLean’s challenge to the order. MacLean then challenged termination of his employment, arguing he had engaged in protected whistleblowing activity. An ALJ and the Merit Systems Protection Board concluded that the disclosure was specifically prohibited by 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)(A) and that unauthorized disclosure of SSI was a non-retaliatory reason for removal. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, finding that the Board incorrectly interpreted the Whistleblower Protection Act. View "MacLean v. Dep't of Homeland Sec." on Justia Law

Petitioners sought review of a letter written by the FAA to the City of New York which endorsed a series of recommendations made by a panel of experts regarding the impact of a proposed marine trash-transfer facility on safe airport operations at LaGuardia Airport. The court held that, because the letter was not a final order for purposes of 49 U.S.C. 46110(a), the court was without jurisdiction to review it and, therefore, dismissed the petition. View "Paskar v. USDOT" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's dismissal of their complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs initiated this proceeding against defendants, challenging the use of advanced imaging technology (AIT) scanners and invasive pat-downs at airport screening checkpoints in the United States. On appeal, plaintiffs maintained that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the TSA's standard operating procedures for checkpoint screenings did not constitute an "order" under 49 U.S.C. 46110. Alternatively, plaintiffs argued, that section 46110's conferral of exclusive jurisdiction in a court of appeals deprived them of due process and contravened the separation of powers rooted in the Constitution. The court held that it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291; on the merits, the district court did not err in ruling that the Checkpoint Screen SOP constituted an order of the TSA Administrator under section 46110; and plaintiffs' remaining contentions lacked merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Blitz v. Napolitano" on Justia Law

While working as a flight attendant, LeGrande was injured when the aircraft encountered severe turbulence. She sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2674, alleging that air traffic controllers employed by the FAA negligently had failed to warn the flight’s captain that turbulence had been forecast along the flight path. The district court concluded that FAA employees did not breach any duty owed LeGrande and granted summary judgment for the government. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. LeGrande argued, for the first time, that her injuries resulted from the negligence of a National Weather Service meteorologist. The court concluded that the FAA breached no duty owed to LeGrande and that LeGrande failed to give the NWS the notice that the FTCA requires. View "LeGrande v. United States" on Justia Law