A Publication of The Florida Aviation Committee To Promote Education in the Florida Aviation Community

Volume 2, Issue 3 Florida Aviation Law Journal November 2012

Florida Aviation and Update Timothy M. Ravich* In 2012, I launched the “Florida Aviation landing, a passenger on a commercial flight and Space ” (“FASLR”), a detailed from Phoenix, Arizona, to Fort Lauderdale, review of important aviation related decisions Florida, allegedly stole $500 from a fel- reported in Florida, including by federal dis- low passenger’s purse. A trict and the Eleventh Circuit intervened and compelled the return of IN THIS ISSUE of Appeals. The the money. The In Case You Missed It...... 4 FASLR also pres- airplane was not ents new or pro- in Florida’s terri- Window Shade Wars...... 5 posed rules, reg- tory at any point It Happens Like Clockwork...... 6 ulations, and leg- when the theft Or Punishment - Your islation impactful or recovery of Choice, Your Wallet...... 7 of the practices the money took IRS Chief Advice of aviation law- place, but when Could Result in IRS Auditors yers in Florida. the airplane Applying Federal Excise Published twice landed, the Bro- Tax to Part 91 Management yearly (May and ward County Arrangements...... 8 November), the Sheriff’s Office In Memoriam...... 14 FASLR focuses effected an ar- on six areas of rest and the crim- aviation law: (1) inal defendant Source: Photo By: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Laura Maechtlen and land was charged and use; (2) corporate and general aviation; (3) convicted of grand theft in excess of $300. labor and employment; (4) litigation; (5) The conviction was overturned under regulatory law; and (6) space law. In doing Fla. Stat. § 910.005 (2008) on the basis Editorial Board: so, the FASLR both reflects how dynamic the that Florida did not have be- cause all of the elements of the theft oc- S. V. (Steve) Dedmon practice of aviation law is in our jurisdiction curred before the airplane reached Florida. Editor-in-Chief and serves as a resource for aviation and aerospace practitioners in Florida. The state’s criminal jurisdiction Below are excerpts from the November “is unique in that it encompasses both Committee Officers: issue of the FASLR in what will be a regular the completed offense and the attempt Charles R. Morgenstein aviation and space law update in upcoming as the same offense.” The passenger at Chair Vectors publications. I hope this resource issue neither committed a theft “wholly or partly within” Florida nor did her action Frank Bradley Harris will be not only personally informative, but “constitute an attempt to commit an offense Vice Chair also professionally practical as you encoun- ter aviation related issues in your practice. within Florida.” Consequently, the convic- Robert Patrick Phillips I. Airports and Land Use tion should have been dismissed and was Vice Chair Sanders v. State, 77 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 4th reversed by Florida’s Fourth District Court Walter G. Campbell, Jr. DCA 2012) of Appeal. Board Liaison Approximately forty-five minutes prior to See “Space Law Update” page 11 “Read Back” By S.V. (Steve) Dedmon

Since our last issue of Vectors there was our Septem- by the committee four years ago and since its inception ber meeting, a January aviation certification examination has been awarded to a deserving Embry-Riddle Aeronau- course review, our annual June meeting and another tical University student. The picture commemorating the September meeting. As you can see, either the commit- event and details are included herein on page 4. After the tee is very busy or the Vectors publication needs to be introductions, we began to launch the presentations by published more often; and the answer to that is BOTH! our most capable crew. So, this becomes a year in review edition. First off the deck was Pat Phillips discussing the FAA At the September 2011 installment Jack Haun, Director and their responsibility or lack thereof in regulating towers of Maintenance at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University affecting aviation. The presentation was quite comprehen- in Daytona Beach, spoke to the members regarding Six sive as it included constitutional preemption issues and ap- Things Pilots Should Know and Where to Find Them plicable cases as well as the FAA’s statutory responsibility in the Aircraft Logbooks. Harry Lee Cole IV then hosted under the FAA Act of 1958 and various CFRs. Additionally, a spirited discussing revolving around the case of U.S. the FCC’s responsibility was discussed as well as Aviation Underwriters vs. Pilatus Business Aircraft issues, which related back to preemption. There was also Ltd. Following him was Jerry Trachtman. His topic, Aus- discussion pertaining to lighting and FAA guidelines. tralian Courts Breathe Life into Toxic Cabin Air Litiga- Second, in what is now becoming SOP, Don Anderson tion brought the members up-to-date on current/pending presented current developments in aviation. Cases relating litigation affecting passengers traveling on commercial air to general and personal jurisdiction and their influence on carriers. Following Jerry was Don Anderson and Recent aviation were emphasized. The most telling was challeng- Developments in Aviation, and finally Hunter Chamberlin ing the traditional law school concept of a product being in discussing Mechanics Liens and Non Judicial Sales: the “stream of commerce” to establish personal jurisdiction Taking What’s Not Yours…Yet. As you can see, the top- over a manufacturer. The court has now concluded there ics and subject matter are well worth the Continuing Legal should be a “stream of commerce plus” test, thus raising Education hours. the traditional standard. Preemption was discussed as The certification review for board certification in avia- well as it related to field preemption of federal verses state tion law was done after the conclusion of the Aviation Law law. Forum non-conveins and diversity issues were also and Insurance Symposium at its January meeting. The discussed. presenters including Don Maciejewski, Ed (Skip) Booth, Although he was unable to attend in person, Mohammad Norris Richey, Jeff Ludwig, Ed Curtis, Pat Phillips, Stuart Ahmed Faruqui was able to present via teleconferencing. Goldstein and Jerry Trachtman voluntarily give their time Tim Ravich had advised the membership prior to the meet- to assist their colleagues sitting for the examination. The ing this was a viable alternative to physically being there, topics are taken from the bibliography supplied by the Bar which is a great way to participate and get way to get credit and the topics include litigation, enforcement, international for participating via technology. Mohammad presented a law, land use, labor relations, air taxi operations, typical scenario and analyzed it in the aircraft registration, and space law. Even if someone is context of a party filing bankruptcy under Chapter 7 or 11. not sitting for the examination, it is a thorough review of Required financial forms were discussed as well as means aviation law and well worth one’s time. for a creditor to protect its assets when in possession of As the air boss told Maverick in Top Gun when he others. requested a flyby, “Ghost Rider, the pattern is full,” best To get everyone back to terra firma there were a flurry of described the Aviation Law Bar Committee’s June 2012 “carrier traps.” Robert Feldman discussed board certifica- meeting in conjunction with the Bar’s annual meeting in tion and membership in the -Pilots Bar Association. Orlando. Although the airspace was congested, those in Christopher Jahr presented whether the committee wanted the pattern were the consummate professionals. to consider creating Bar approved aviation CLEs and the Chair, Tim Ravich began by welcoming everyone fol- whats and wherefores that would entail. Tim then passed lowed by the members introducing themselves, where out information about his Florida Aviation and Space Law they were from and their areas of practice. As part of Report initiative. the introductions I was able to update the committee on Finally, there was a change in command as Tim was Jerome Williams, the 2012-2013 recipient of the Eilon honored for his leadership as he passed the responsibility Krugman-Kadi scholarship. The scholarship was endowed Continued on next page

2 Spa in Jacksonville. surrounding intent to defraud, respon- “Read Back” The first presenter was Barbara sibility, and culpability of mechanics Continued from previous page Duffy of RotorWorld LLC in Orlando. actions related to the repair of aircraft. She began with a simulated emer- The opinions were varied depending to incoming chair Charlie Morgenstein gency in the meeting room as a means on one’s propensity to allege wrong- and co-chairs Brad Hassell and Pat to focus the group on the precious doing or defend it. The final emphasis Phillips. Charlie challenged us to be a seconds related to emergency actions was, if criminalizing the actions of me- part of Eilon’s legacy by contributing and gave an overview of the simulation chanics is here, what will be the result to the aforementioned scholarship, itself and everyone’s reactions to the on industry as mechanics rethink their reminded us of the Bar’s agenda, and given instructions. She then moved on responsibilities and career choice in asked for suggestions for speakers as to using an actual crash case as the light of potential criminal prosecution. well as possible additional committee backdrop for her presentation which The last presenter was Jason Lo- activities. He then officially made his involved a group of aircraft flying in renzon who is the principle of Lorenzon first command decision and adjourned formation resulting in one of them based in Indepen- the meeting. breaking the formation and ultimately dence, Ohio. With the new require- In September 2012, Charlie Mor- going down killing the two occupants. ments related to HR 5900 Jason feels genstein, our new committee chair, The pertinent issues were emergency one of the unintended consequences began our meeting in Orlando with a response time, emergency priorities, will be a loss of flight instructors which moment of silence in remembrance of access to the crash site, type of ac- will lead to foreigners coming to the our colleague Don Maciejewski who cess, coordinated communications US for flight training to fill the void. passed away in July. To memorialize or lack thereof, actual ownership of As such he discussed the three most his legacy in a tangible manner, there response responsibilities including prominent types of visas. The F-1 is were two major suggestions. One the crash site and ultimate com- for those attending an established revolved around establishing a Book munications with the victims’ family. college or university and other institu- Award at the Florida Coastal School of She ended with discussing on airport tions of higher learning. Incidentally, a Law where Don was an adjunct pro- versus off airport rescues as well as person with this visa is precluded from fessor. As Don was the consummate underwater egress for emergencies being employed off-campus their fist professional, the other proposal was associated with flight over bodies of academic year. The next is the M-1 to establish a yearly Professionalism water. for vocational or other nonacademic Award and present it to a committee Ed “Skip” Booth from Quintarios, programs, much like those enrolled member who exemplified those traits. Prieto, Wood & Boyer whose topic was in flight schools. The last is the J-1 At this point the committee is looking General Aviation Mechanics Place on that applies to exchange visitors such at both options. You will see herein our Hospice Care was the next presenter. as professors, scholars, or research attempt to memorialize all that Don He began by passing out F.S. 330.04 assistants. He provided a case of a meant to this committee. regarding to whom a pilot must pres- pilot who was a native and citizen of Those new to the committee and ent their certificate for inspection and Jamaica but was a lawful permanent their areas of practice introduced challenged those flying home on a US resident who was deported. The themselves to the group. Charlie then commercial carrier to query their pilot to ultimate issue was did the pilot make extolled the importance of committee see their certificate. No one particularly an “entry” when crash-landed while fly- meeting attendance both for being wanted to be the test bed case should ing from Jamaica with a plane loaded involved with fellow aviation attorneys the TSA become involved in the con- with marijuana. He also discussed im- but also for viability as a committee troversy! He then gave everyone the migration issues related to flying into within the Florida Bar. Membership federal and two cases that ports of entry, right to counsel and the numbers and thus attendance are highlighted the criminal consequences use of Electronic Advance Passenger two methods the Bar uses to gauge as related to inspections, sign-offs, Information System (eAPIS). The whether a committee should continue repairs, and use of unauthorized parts. latter is used to provide passenger its existence. The bottom line is, if you The emphasis was the criminalization manifest and aircraft information to the are a member, show your support and of aviation and the possible ramifica- government for general aviation pilots attend our annual meeting in July of tions upon those who without intent, conducting international flights arriving 2013. You need us and we need you! and in a sequence of subjective de- in or departing from the US. Corollary to this is becoming board cisions could face criminal charges. Hopefully, the above captures all certified in aviation law, to which the Using as an example one of his the committee brings its membership, committee lends its support by hosting actual cases he highlighted the facts its cliental and the Florida Bar. As new a review course in conjunction with surrounding a broker who was fac- committee appointments are looming Aviation Law and Insurance Sympo- ing criminal charges for brokering an as you declare in December which sium. So, if you want to not only prep aircraft sale based on the assurances committees you want to invest yourself for the examination, but get CLE hours of the mechanics who signed off the we encourage you to be a part of one as well attend the review on January aircraft as airworthy when it possibly of the most vibrant, active committees 26, 2013 at the One Ocean Resort and was not. A lively discussion ensued in the Florida Bar. 

3 In Case You Missed It as published in the August 1, 2012 Bar News...

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University student Jerome Williams is shown on the ERAU flight line in front of one of the University’s DA 42s being congratulated by professor and Florida Bar Aviation Law Committee member Steve Dedmon as the 2012-2013 recipient of the Eilon Krugman-Kadi scholarship. The scholarship was established four years ago by the committee to honor ERAU graduate, Gaines- ville attorney and enthusiastic longtime committee member Eilon Krugman-Kadi who lost his life while performing aerobatics in his L-39 jet at an airshow in 2007. Well known as an accomplished attorney and experienced and respected aviator, Eilon exemplified the utmost professionalism. 

FloridaBarCLE For the Bar. By the Bar. www.FloridaBar.org/CLE • Quality Speakers • Audio CDs/Video DVDs • Online Registration • Live Webcasts • Convenient Locations • 24/7 Online CLE • CLE Certification Credit

4 Airline Window Shade Wars By Jerry Trachtman*

When you by airline, do you right after noon when traveling north wrestle to decide window shade posi- enjoy looking out the window? Most and reversed traveling south. Got it? tion. However, you must know what people enjoy the view from up high East and west travel posed a problem, state you are flying over to be sure but some passengers, for whatever which was resolved by the coachman you are complying with the appropri- reason, prefer looking at the back of officiating a duel with pistols until only ate law, and the law may change more a closed window shade. And they al- one passenger remained standing, than once on a long cross country ways request a win- who could then position flight. dow seat, presumably the window coverings * Jerry Trachtman is a graduate of under the belief that any way he pleased. Penn State University and the Uni- he who has the win- At one time the Fed- versity of Florida School of Law. He dow seat owns and eral Aviation Adminis- concentrates his practice on plaintiff’s controls the window tration (FAA) consid- and aviation law. Mr. shade. But who re- ered enacting regu- Trachtman served on the Florida Bar ally has the legal right lations adopting the Aviation Law Certification Committee to control the window well-reasoned com- from 2002 – 2008, and was chairman shade? What window mon law rules, but the of the committee from 2006 – 2007. shade rights do aisle airline pilot unions ob- He is Board Certified in Aviation Law seat and center seat jected and voiced the by the Florida Bar Board of Legal Ed- passengers have, if belief of the pilots that any? the captain should de- ucation and Specialization and has Any analysis of termine window shade served as chairman of the Florida Bar window shade rights position. The result Aviation Law Committee, the National must begin with an Source: theplanetd.com 2012 of this is that, without Transportation Safety Board Bar As- examination of Eng- Federal preemption in sociation (founding member), and the lish . The horse-drawn this hotly contested area of the law, it Lawyer-Pilots Bar Association. He coaches utilized by noblemen had is left to the individual states to regu- can be reached at, the Law Offices of interior draperies, and it was under- late airline window shade position. Jerry H. Trachtman, P.A. 1735 West stood that the draperies would be Most, but not all, states have adopted Hibiscus Boulevard, Suite 300 Mel- closed on the right side and open on based on the English common bourne, FL 32901, Telephone: (321) the left side before noon when trav- law rules. A single passenger in a row 723-8281, Facsimile (321) 394-4033 eling north, reversed traveling south, controls the window shade, but 2 or or by E-mail at jtrachtman@tracht- but closed on the left and open on the more passengers in a row must arm man-law.com.

THE FLORIDA BAR 24/7 Online & Downloadable CLE FloridaBarCLE For the Bar, By the Bar

www.floridabar.org/CLE

5 It Happens Like Clockwork* S.V.(Steve) Dedmon**

Whether we like it or not, look for- into. It is one thing to be current in a around. So for about an hour a day ward to it or loathe it, or in some cases land plane and do the BFR, a totally for five days, I reviewed and reviewed forget about it, most pilots are obliged different issue when you have not and… to comply every two years with the flown a seaplane in a few years. With Upon arrival, everything was the requirements of FAR 61.56, known to that eating at me, the least I could do way I left it, four years ago. It was most as a biennial flight review (BFR). to keep from being totally humiliated quite tranquil, and there were the J-3s In my case, I try to be creative and at best and not complete the BFR on floats. Although I do not know that fly something different to comply. In at worst, I began to prep myself. To Richard Bach ever did any writing the past I have flown a STOL Cessna start, and this may tell you something from his home there on Lake Jessie, 150, a L-4, my own it would not be hard to Cardinal 177RG and imagine. While look- Stearman, and have ing over the lake, an gotten an additional airplane was on short rating. The last rating final to the adjoining I received to stave off Winter Park airport the BFR was a single and one of Brown’s engine sea at Jack J-3s made a beautiful Brown’s in Winter Ha- glassy water landing, ven, Florida. followed by a step Since I have not taxi, idle taxi and per- flown a seaplane fect dock at the ramp. since receiving my When the pilot and rating, another cre- his passenger exited ative way to get my the plane I recognized BFR crept in. Why not one of the gentlemen do it in a seaplane? as Jon Brown, the The reasons seemed current owner and my obvious, it was time, pilot examiner on my my seaplane experi- original check ride. ence was very enjoy- Some people related able and the lynch to certain events you pin-never done it that never forget. way before. So, it was Flight instructor Ryan Lee in front of N591K. Love a flying job wearing flip-flops! After taking a few settled. Photo by: S.V. (Steve) Dedmon pictures, Garrett Box The next step was to who would be admin- call Browns. After introducing myself about me, I went back to the original istering the ground portion of the and explaining my circumstances, material I had received in my initial BFR introduced himself. There was Pat Owens assured me they could floatplane training. another pilot there to get his rating help. She then reminded me of the From idle, plow and step taxiing, so Garrett used the time to introduce one-hour minimum ground and one to normal, rough water and glassy afresh the material to him and review hour minimum flight requirements of water takeoffs and landings includ- it for me. The material packet has the FAR and told me their rate was ing the appropriate RPM settings, to been upgraded to include an airport $25.00 and $165.00 respectively. If noise, terrain, obstacles, wind, and diagram and included comprehensive you are not aware, the workhorse of landing lanes (NTOWLS), I studied explanations of certain maneuvers, Brown’s fleet is the J-3 on floats. After and memorized. Add emergencies, but essentially, it was all the areas confirming my schedule we agreed on docking and sailing and all the memo- I had focused on in my review. Gar- a day and time. ries of my training began to come rett’s review was thorough, as well it After giving it some thought, I back, along with remembering what should be, as it is the basis for the wondered what I had gotten myself I did well and not so well the first time Continued on page 10

6 Crime Or Punishment Your Choice, Your Wallet Dennis R. Haber1* Did you realize that not getting c. You must file suit to recover paid might ultimately result in you on your mechanics lien within being criminally charged? It can, 1 year. perhaps more so than you realize, Missing any of the critical depending on how you handle the elements above will cause you to situation. Not getting paid for your lose your lien rights. Of particular hard work, as personally criminal interest, and less obvious is ele- so to speak, as that is, may be ment b. If you give back the plane, only part of your problems as you you lose your right to file a lien. may also be violating state crimi- You must maintain POSSESSION nal statutes! The following will for the lien to valid under current help you see and avoid the grasp law. By the way, you can charge of the criminal system… for storage until the matter is re- The Circumstances solved. There is hardly an FBO, a Source: libnot.com But we are just getting warmed mechanic or avionics shop that up here. One thing that is critical out, space is a valuable commodity has not at some time, not gotten paid. is filing of the lien should be against and a customer who fails to move Worse yet, the aircraft owner some- the registered owner. If you are not their aircraft, by not paying their bill is times fails to pick up their aircraft in a aware, previous aircraft registrations impeding your ability to earn money. timely fashion or in some cases, even lasted forever, but now aircraft must Another issue is protecting the air- abandons their aircraft because your be re-registered every three year. This craft from potential weather related bill is beyond their ability or willing- creates the possibility that a) registra- hazards. At best, the customer has ness to pay. Some corollary issues tion/ownership may have changed insurance, but at worst they do not related to failure to pay include higher and b) there could be no registered and now it becomes a matter of li- than expected quantities or expense owner based on their failure to com- ability unwittingly accepted by you related to fuel purchases or additional ply within the prescribed time, which and your carrier. maintenance items that were agreed leads to finding yourself in possession To meet these challenges, the first to or necessary to bring an aircraft of an aircraft that, notwithstanding is thing to consider is a well drafted work into airworthiness compliance. Other perfectly flyable, but cannot be flown order detailing what work will be done maintenance issues such as preparing because it has no valid aircraft regis- and a reasonable, or in some cases, an aircraft to sell only to see the mar- tration. You can now see the practical specific timeframe to complete the ket collapse or the loss or expiration of dilemma, as it may take many weeks agreed upon repairs or inspection. In- a medical certificate thus disqualifying to get back to “re-registered” cluded, would be terms and conditions and discouraging one from continuing and it cannot be flown, thus bringing related to payment and storage after to fly also affect one’s inclination to us back to storage and the ramifica- completion of the work and of course, meet their economic responsibilities. tions we discussed previously. signatures of the parties to be bound. These plus a myriad of other reasons Criminality -FLORIDA STATUTE 329 Of course, failure to pay for fuel falls are those people use that cause them In the above circumstances it was into a different category but practically to walk away from their aircraft and bad enough that they didn’t pay you speaking still could leave you with re- avoid paying what they owe. This of but now let’s suppose someone left sponsibility for an aircraft that is still in course leaves you holding the eco- their aircraft in your possession and your possession. nomic bag and in some cases can the three year registration has expired Remedies in the event of non-payment: lead to criminal liability. while it’s sitting there at your shop or One you have to help Here are a couple examples related on your ramp. insure payment for any services2 you to the unintended consequences of Florida Statute §329.10 (1) states have rendered is to place a lien on the those who have requested your ser- [I]t is unlawful . . . to knowingly have… aircraft. However, there are certain vices only to fail to meet their financial in his or her possession, an aircraft critical procedural steps to assure obligations. First, there is the issue of that is not registered in accordance your criminal exposure is limited: storage, either in your hangar or on with the Federal Aviation Administra- 3 your ramp. The results are you as the a. You must file the lien within 90 tion (FAA)... Further, any aircraft in the FBO or mechanic are now precluded days from the last substantial work. state owned by a person or a corpora- from working on or parking aircraft of b. You must be in possession of the tion that is no longer a legal entity is in aircraft.4 paying customers. Whether inside or Continued on page 8

7 IRS Chief Counsel Advice Could Result in IRS Auditors Applying Federal Excise Tax to Part 91 Management Arrangements By Stewart Lapayowker1* On March 9, 2012, the IRS issued tom line of the aircraft owner’s financial the CCA [insert link]. Chief Counsel Advice 2012-100262 (the arrangement with the management So what can be done? Unfortunately, “CCA”), which makes a fundamental company. The CCA would subject the the CCA is too new for there to be any change to the IRS’ position on the appli- “amount paid” to a manager to the 7.5% court cases challenging the conclu- cability of Federal Excise Tax to aircraft tax, including, among other things, for sions of an audit relying on the CCA. management arrangements. expense reimbursements, expenses But there are a few things that you The CCA provides that under Part paid by the owner/lessee to the man- might be able to do to improve the argu- 91 management arrangements (es- ager for payment to vendors, manage- ment that the owner (and not the man- pecially those in which the manage- ment fees, insurance premiums, and agement company) is in possession, ment company employs the crew), the the fair rental value of the aircraft in command and control of the aircraft. management company These include: is providing a “taxable clarifying that the relation- transportation service” to ship between manage- the Part 91 aircraft opera- ment company and owner tor (typically the owner or (note that for convenience the lessee of the aircraft, we are using “owner” and but for the purpose of this “operator” interchangeably Alert we will use the term for purposes of this article) “owner”), and all “amounts is one of an agency rela- paid” to the management tionship by identifying the company would therefore agreement as an agency be subject to the Federal services arrangement, and Transportation Excise Tax including in the text of the (FET) of 7.5% (plus seg- agreement language that ment fees). Essentially, clarifies that the manage- the CCA concluded that ment company acts as Source: John R. Coughlin/CNNMoney because the management agent (or in a sense “pay- company, and not the owner, employed respect of the owner’s Part 91 opera- ing agent”) in transactions with third the crew, that meant the management tions. Additionally, the CCA makes no party vendors; company had “possession, command mention of exempting prior dealings. clarify that the crew is under the control and control” of the aircraft, a key ingre- Thus, the IRS during an audit of a of the owner by language that they dient to determining whether a taxable management company could require serve at its direction (except as to mat- transportation service is or is not being the management company to pay this ters of safety); provided. Of course, this flies in the vast amount of FET back taxes out of require that any operation of the aircraft face of the FAA concept of “operational its own pocket. Many management is subject to owner approval (except as control” which the FAA is comfortable agreements contain indemnification to matters of safety) and that the owner resides with the owner/lessee for Part clauses in favor of the management has veto and approval rights as to any 91 operations (provided that appropri- company for federal taxes, however, 135 flights; ate documentation is in place), but then it will be practically impossible for the provide that the owner has approval again the FAA and IRS often times do management company to recover the rights over maintenance; not speak the same language. IRS assessment from past customers be sure that the owner and not the man- Historically, the IRS generally did not without obviously harming the relation- agement company is the loss payee, apply FET to Part 91 operations in the ship. and that the management company context of a management arrangement Unfortunately, auditors are likely to fol- is additional insured, under insurance on a wholesale basis. While many low the CCA as “law” without regard to policies; aircraft owners are familiar with the historical IRS interpretations, and we clarify that payments to the manage- imposition of FET on Part 135 charter have recently heard of this behavior ment company for third party expenses operations, this tax is paid by charter from our colleagues. The National Busi- (fuel, etc.) is a reimbursement or that customers and does not impact the bot- ness Aviation Association responded to Continued on next page

8 IRS Chief Counsel Crime Or Punishment continued from previous page Continued from page 7 violation of this statute. Further, §(2)… Solution: the manager is serving as “paying [a]ny corporation that has no physical As discussed previously, make sure agent” for the owner (of course, in the location or that has lapsed inactive, or you have well drafted work orders that ideal world, the owner would pay ex- been dissolved for more than 90 days are signed by your customers. Next, penses directly to third party vendors, is also in violation. if the invoice doesn’t get paid after 30 but this is not typically practical in the Of course the statute has a whole days or in agreement with the terms of management context, and that the fact lot more to say and should be read the , place a lien on the aircraft that the owner may pay vendors directly in its entirety, but the upthrust of this immediately. It costs little to place a would not likely change the amounts lapse is that if you have an aircraft lien, (the cost of which can be ad- in your possession, that is; A) not dressed in the work order agreement) over which the IRS would claim FET); properly registered with the FAA; or but can get very expensive and de- from an economic perspective, be B) or have an aircraft in your pos- prives you of certain legal rights if you sure that the owner bears the risk of session which is owned by a lapsed don’t. After you’ve done those things, economic risks and benefit from eco- business entity (corporation, LLC, make sure your client’s corporation is nomic profits to the extent possible, etc.) then you have a potential legal valid. To check a Florida corporation’s give the owner the right to terminate problem. So what’s the big deal, you legal status you can do a search at the management agreement on short ask? The big deal is… [A] violation of www.sunbiz.org, which is the Florida notice, which might the lack this section shall be deemed a felony State Department of State’s Division of of control of the aircraft by the manage- of the third degree, punishable as Corporations website. Next, check the ment company; and provided by other criminal statutes... FAA’s website5 to assure the aircraft have the owner employ the crew (which The statute then concludes by saying, registration is valid. is not entirely practical in the context of [A]ny violation of this section shall Recently, my office has seen numer- a fully managed aircraft). constitute the aircraft to which it re- ous changes in the law unique to lates as contraband and said aircraft aviation that affects your income, risk, We suggest that you discuss the CCA may be seized as contraband by a liability and the potential for criminal with your aircraft management com- agency and shall be prosecution against you. As such, pany to determine if they are aware of subject to forfeiture. should you find yourself facing the it and whether they are perhaps ame- So, what do we have here? Let’s possibility of this type of legal quag- nable to making modifications to their focus on the first few words in the mire, seek legal advice. The goal is management agreement. statute. This statute creates a problem to keep you from trouble rather than * Mr. Lapayowker is Vice Chair of the for those who have aircraft in their having to rescue you from it. National Business Aviation Associa- possession that are either “unregis- tion’s (NBAA) Taxand Regulatory Com- tered” (which now happens after three * Dennis R. Haber is a sole practitio- mittee. His law practice is devoted to years) or that are owned by entities ner at his firm Dennis R. Haber P.A. corporate aircraft transactions in the that have lapsed as the result of such He is a 7-year COPA member and an United States and worldwide. He coun- a mundane thing as not paying the attorney practicing aviation law, busi- state annual corporation fee, which ness, commercial litigation, as well as sels foreign and domestic corporate in some cases is a mere $150.00. real law in New York, Washing- and individual clients on issues relating The long and short of this is that ton DC and Florida. He has been fly- to the acquisition, leasing, registration if your client 1) hasn’t paid you, 2) ing for over 42+ years and has never and financing of new and pre-owned allowed their corporation to lapse, or pulled the chute in order to effectuate aircraft (including fractional aircraft). 3) allowed their aircraft registration a successful landing . . .yet. He can Additionally he hosts an Internet radio to lapse, YOU have a problem. You be reached at www.Av8Lawyer.com, show called PlaneTalkRadio. He can are either, going to get stuck with an www.Facebook.com/Av8lawyer or by be contacted at 5360 N.W. 20th Ter- unpaid and outstanding invoice, be phone at 305 256-3002. race, Suite 205 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida charged with being “in possession” (Endnotes) 33309 (P) 954.202.9600 (F) 954-337- and thus a felony, or both, and if they have no insurance, your insurance 1 Including liens for fuel furnished to aircraft, see 2829 or at Stewart.Lapayowker@shlpa. F.S. §329.41. (and you) might be stuck with damage com or www.businessaviationcounsel. 2 Note: For the applicable Florida statutes see F.S. liability, or all of the above. com. §92.525, §329.01 (which in part reflects recording Yeah, yeah, it’s insane, but it’s your with the business, so do something about it. Federal Aviation Administrator), §329.51, and (Endnotes) Don’t just sit there with an unpaid §713.58. 3 See Commercial Jet Inc. v. U.S. Bank, N.A. 45 1 https://dl.dropbox.com/u/17327180/CCA%20 invoice waiting for the government to 2012-10026%20re%20FET%20on%20mgt%20 So.3d 887(Fla.3d DCA 2010). companies%20%28IRS%20website%203-9- make you a loan and/or take care of 4 See http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_ 12%29.pdf  you. Inquiry.aspx. 

9 flawlessly, all the while describing ended with me taxing and beaching the Clockwork what he was doing as he was doing plane at the ramp, concluding with the Continued from page 6 it. Once off the water, I was given the hatch, harness and headset checklist. plane and climbed to 500 feet, the Ryan’s final comment of the day was oral examine to receive the rating. altitude of choice for lake hopping. he thought I could fly, which I obviously He also emphasized the different Arriving at the first lake, Ryan appreciated. aerodynamic forces acting on and as- completed the CARS checklist (carb As primarily a land pilot getting my sociated with seaplanes as opposed heat on, rudder up), flew a normal left BFR in a seaplane was educational to land aircraft. As I listened, it felt downwind pattern for a glassy water and enjoyable. It made me revisit better to be confirming information I landing. After picking his lowest visual information and skills I do not use on already knew than to be hearing it for reference, he flew over it, pulled the a regular basis. It also heightened the first time, thus a noticeable lack of power back, pitched up to the correct my senses to meet the challenge. I stress. Garrett also took us to the air- landing attitude, powered up to 1700 confided in a seaplane pilot friend my plane to reinforce what we had been rpms, held the pitch all the way to a anxiety after I decided to so this who told. This included float construction/ landing so smooth it was hard to tell told me to go have fun. To him and preflight, cockpit controls and the we were on the water until he pulled others who may wonder-I had fun, go handle for raising and lowering the and do likewise! water rudders-if the handle is on the the power to idle and we became a deck they are down, if latched to the water vessel. I commented that my insecurities were now compounded. * Used by permission of Seaplane side of the fuselage they are up. Pilots Association. This article was With the review concluded, I met Nevertheless, it was my turn to show my skills, which began with a glassy originally printed in the Association’s Ryan Lee who would be my flight WaterFying Magazine, January/Feb- instructor. I did not give it much water takeoff. Power up, raise the nose, get on the step, lower the left ruary 2012 edition, No. 189. See their thought at the time, but in past BFRs website at www.seaplanes.org. my ground and flight instructor were wing to raise the right float, keep directional control with the rudder, let the same person. Alas, just another ** S.V.(Steve) Dedmon J.D. is an the airplane fly off, level the wings, and pleasant first experience associated Associate Professor at Embry-Riddle climb out-all which went pretty well. with aviation. As Garrett would be fly- Aeronautical University in Daytona Duplicating Ryan’s demonstration ing with the new student he and Ryan Beach, Florida. He is a commercial of the landing, and except for a little discussed their airplane of choice. rated single and multi-engine land, problem with visualizing the perfect As luck or fate would have it we got single engine sea, glider, instrument, pitch attitude the landing was good. N591K, my original aircraft; however, and CFI pilot. He also has the honor Ryan made a reference to riding a it was now Cub yellow as opposed to fly the University’s 1928 WACO bicycle, which I chalked up to luck, to beige as after my flight four years ASO Model 10.  ago it had gone in for new fabric and but as the flight and the rest of the paint. It was now time to go flying. maneuvers continued, it was my lucky After belting myself in, Ryan primed day. I went on to step taxiing and the engine, turned on the mags, and turning, simulated normal and rough after two pulls the engine fired up. He water takeoffs and landings, all on a then adjusted the throttle, strapped number of lakes in the area including himself in and with the CARS (carbu- one used by Cypress Gardens for its retor heat, area, rudder (down) and water show. ? stick (back) checklist complete we On our way back to Brown’s, only began our idle taxi to the south end of about five minutes away, I gave the the lake. The water was so glassy we plane back to Ryan so I could enjoy the If you’ve got questions, could see the 40 yard wake of an al- ride in a J-3 with the window and hatch we’ve got answers. ligator and the reflection off the water down. He demonstrated an emergency of an airplane on final to the airport. glassy water landing using the close During the taxi I mentioned glassy proximity to the shoreline as a visual reference to aid in the touchdown since water landings had been a challenge The Law Office Management for me and here I would be faced with there is no available power to maintain Assistance Service of The Florida Bar them from the beginning. To get me a constant pitch attitude. Again, he back up to speed on all glassy water executed it perfectly. Two minutes later CALL Toll-Free 866/730-2020 operations, we agreed he would do we were back at Lake Jessie where he [email protected] the takeoff, which he demonstrated did the same landing again. The flight

10 tion to the Pilot thereof; any time not government to dismiss this claim of in- Space Law Update used in any month by the Wife shall be terest, United States Continued from page 1 waived. The Husband will pay the fuel, David A. Baker of the United States Park ‘N Fly Service Corp. v. Airport pilots’ fee, and expenses.” Only the District Court for the Middle District of Parking, Inc., 2012 WL 1949361 (S.D. husband could fly the aircraft because Florida ruled that the claimants failed Fla. 2012) regulators decreed it “experimental.” to perfect any interest in the aircraft. Park ‘N Fly Service Corporation Two months after the marriage dis- Under Philko Aviation, Inc. v. Shack- (“Park ‘N Fly”) is the owner of the “PARK solved, the husband refused to pilot the et, 462 U.S. 407 (1983), “every aircraft ‘N FLY” mark for the largest off-site air- airplane and the wife sued to compel transfer must be evidenced by an port parking and shuttle service in the her husband’s “full cooperation.” The instrument, and every such instrument United States, including facilities at Ft. court ruled that he breached the must be recorded, before the rights of Lauderdale-Hollywood International. It parties’ contract. innocent third parties can be effected.” has used the service mark since See 49 U.S.C. § 44108; Fla. 1967 and the service mark has Stat. § 329.01. The alleged oral been registered with the United conditional sale agreement was States Patent and Trademark Of- not recorded with the Federal fice since 1979. Airport Parking, Aviation Administration (“FAA”), Inc. is a direct competitor of Park whether by filing a lien or record- ‘N Fly and solicited business by ing a bill of sale, under FAA regu- prominently displaying banners lations. In addition, the claimants close by to a Park ‘N Fly facility did not assert their written claim in Ft. Lauderdale. The banners or lien until after the government had terms such as “Park & Fly” had published its notice of for- and Park & [Airplane Logo]” and feiture. Consequently, they were other phrases confusingly similar unsecured creditors and did not qualify as bona fide purchasers to the Park ‘N Fly mark. After its Source: libguides.stthomas.edu cease and desist letters went who purchased for value unanswered, Park ‘N Fly brought an Florida’s Second District Court of Ap- without notice of any defects in the title action for trademark infringement and peal reversed, holding that the parties’ of the seller. unfair competition. agreement neither “suggests or could III. Labor and Employment United States District Judge Robert be construed to create a personal ser- Avera v. United , Inc., 465 N. Scola, Jr. entered a permanent in- vices obligation on the part of Mr. Mc- Fed. Appx. 855 (11th Cir. 2012) junction and awarded attorneys’ fees Cord to be Ms. McCord’s personal pi- Two months before his 60th birth- and costs in Park ‘N Fly’s favor. The lot.” While the ex-husband was required day, a commercial pilot asked his district court ruled that Airport Parking, to insure the airplane’s availability, flight airline-employer to petition the Federal Inc. used a valid, registered service worthiness, and compliance with nec- Aviation Administration (“FAA”) to waive mark in commerce without the regis- essary and appropriate , the the “Age 60 Rule” (see 14 C.F.R. § trant’s consent and in a manner that parties’ agreement contemplated that a 121.383) pursuant to which no person was likely to cause confusion, or to third party would be hired or contracted could serve “as a pilot on an airplane cause mistake or deceive. Moreover, to fly the airplane. A contrary interpreta- ... if that person has reached his 60th given its continued use of the protected tion would be tantamount to rewriting birthday.” The airline declined. The pilot marks even after it was notified of its the parties’ contract and creating a next asked for an 18-month leave of infringing uses, Airport Parking, Inc.’s duty for which the ex-husband neither absence from the point he turned 60 to conduct presented one of those “excep- bargained nor agreed. when, he hoped, the Age 60 Rule would tional cases” of malicious, fraudulent, United States v. Starcher, 2012 WL be eliminated. The airline declined. deliberate, and willful conduct justifying 3149260 (M.D. Fla. 2012) When the pilot turned 60, he was fired. an award of attorneys’ fees and costs In October 2010, Homeland Security Five months later, Congress passed the under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). Investigations agents seized a Cessna Fair Treatment of Experienced Pilots II. Corporate and General Aviation 206 aircraft from a private residence Act (“FTEPA”), 49 U.S.C. § 44729, McCord v. McCord, 94 So. 3d 719 in Orlando, Florida. The aircraft was raising the mandatory retirement age (Fla. 2nd DCA 2012) forfeited as part of plea agreement with for pilots to 65 years old. The pilot then A husband and wife mediated a a criminal defendant who purchased applied for his pilot position with his for- marital settlement agreement provid- it with proceeds obtained from a drug mer employer, but the airline declined ing for use of the husband’s six-seat conspiracy. Two individuals hired to as it had instituted a hiring freeze. The turbo-prop airplane: “The Wife shall be convert the airplane into a seaplane pilot then filed suit in the United States entitled to use the Husband’s airplane claimed a fifty percent interest in the District Court for the Northern District for up to four hours per month for 24 aircraft pursuant to an oral “conditional of Florida. consecutive months and she shall be sale agreement” made with the criminal In a per curiam opinion, the Eleventh responsible for showing her apprecia- defendant. In an action by the federal Continued on next page

11 E. Martinez of the United States Dis- peal reversed the decision. Space Law Update trict Court for the Southern District of Writing for the appellate court, Judge Continued from previous page Florida granted the motion, ruling that Kevin Emas ruled that the trial court the NLRB did not exceed its authority, abused its discretion by deciding that Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed sum- but did what it was required to do— private and public interests weighed mary adverse to the pilot on investigate unfair labor practices. In in favor of a Florida forum. The trial the basis the airline’s action in denying addition, the carrier was not deprived court based its findings on affidavits, a leave of absence, terminating the of meaningful and adequate means of not live testimony, in a case in which pilot’s employment, and not rehiring vindicating its rights under the NLRA the “only connection to Florida is that him was taken in conformance with because (1) it could seek review of a plaintiff’s counsel is situated here and the FTEPA and Age 60 Rule. Under decision by the NLRB that the carrier maintains in his office documents from the FTEPA, 49 U.S.C. §44729(e)(2), was not subject to the RLA, and (2) in other cases which they intend to use “[a]n action taken in conformance with any event, no such decision was made to establish liability in this case.” In the [Age 60 Rule] may not serve as a or ever would be made as the charges fact, the accident occurred in Mexico; basis for liability or relief in a proceed- were withdrawn. the accident involved a helicopter and ing, brought under any employment law IV. Litigation engine that were never in Florida, but or .” Rolls-Royce, Inc. v. Garcia, 77 So. 3d were manufactured, designed, and Amerijet Int’l, Inc. v. Nat’l Labor Re- 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) assembled either in Canada or outside lations Bd., 2012 WL 3526620 (S.D. A Bell Model 407 helicopter used Florida; the accident was investigated Fla. 2012) for medical services and owned by by the Mexican Authority, In response to an unfair labor prac- the Mexican government crashed in which would prepare an investigative tice charge that had been filed with Morelia, Mexico, in 2006. The pilot and report that “undoubtedly will be written the National Labor Relations Board two passengers, each of whom was a in Spanish”; the helicopter’s mainte- (“NLRB”), a established Mexican citizen, brought a nance records, and the traffic control that it was a “carrier” as defined in the and strict liability action in Miami-Dade authority records were in Spanish; Railway Labor Act, § 45 U.S.C. §§ 151 County, alleging the helicopter’s en- the plaintiffs’ medical records were in et seq. (“RLA”), and therefore excluded gine, Full Authority Digital Engine Con- Spanish; and the plaintiff’s families and from coverage under the National La- trol system (“FADEC”), and associated damages witnesses were located in bor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151 et components and wiring harness failed Mexico. Consequently, jurisdiction was seq. While the unfair labor charge was due to negligent design, manufacture, not possible over a case brought by for- withdrawn, the cargo carrier received modification, and repair. eign plaintiffs who have no connection another unfair labor charge and was in- The designer and manufacturer of to Florida, and there is “[n]othing in [the formed by an NLRB agent that both the the helicopter, together with the engine Florida] [that] compels the merits of the new charge as well as the taxpayers to spend their money NLRB’s jurisdiction over the new even for the rankest forum shop- charge would be addressed at ping by out-of-state interests.” the same time. The cargo carrier U.S. Acquisition, LLC v. Ta- argued that such an investigation bas, Freedman, Soloff, Miller exceeded the NLRB’s authority & Brown, P.A., 87 So. 3d 1229 and it sought declaratory relief as (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) to the NLRB’s jurisdiction and a A lender sought a writ of re- writ of mandamus compelling the plevin after its borrower defaulted NLRB and its officials to dismiss on a multi-million dollar promis- its charge for want of jurisdiction. sory note secured by an aircraft The NLRB subsequently as collateral. After the writ was asked the National issued, the lender was taken over Board (“NMB”) for an opinion as by the Federal Deposit Insurance to whether the cargo airline was Corporation and the loan was a “carrier” subject to the RLA. Source: gallagherlawlibrary.blogspot.com ultimately sold to US Acquisition, The NMB opined that, in fact, manufacturer, moved to dismiss the LLC (“US Acquisition”). The lender’s the carrier and its employees were action on grounds of forum non conve- then filed a charging lien for subject to the RLA. Accordingly, the niens, contending that Mexico was a far $56,425.21 and withdrew as counsel. NLRB withdrew its second unfair labor more convenient forum for the litigation They did not record the lien with the charge and, though it had already an- under the of Kinney System, Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), swered the carrier’s complaint, moved Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d however. In a case of first impression, to dismiss for lack of subject jurisdiction 86 (Fla. 1996). Applying Kinney, the trial US Acquisition argued that the attor- and for failure to state a claim for which court declined to disturb the plaintiff’s ney’s charging lien was not perfected relief could be granted. choice of forum and denied the motion. and invalid. United States District Judge Jose However, the Third District Court of Ap- Continued on next page

12 confidential records and causing him and risk sharing scheme designed by Space Law Update “humiliation, embarrassment, mental Congress to protect launch participants Continued from previous page anguish, and other severe emotional and the U.S. Government from cata- distress.” strophic loss and litigation and to relieve Florida’s Fourth District Court of Ap- Justice Samuel A. Alito, writing for launch participants of the burden of peal acknowledged that timely notice is the Supreme Court of the United States, obtaining property insurance by having the only requirement to perfect a charg- ruled that the Privacy Act of 1974 each party be responsible for the loss ing lien under Florida law, but that the neither “unequivocally authorize[s] of its own property. Additionally, the attorneys’ charging lien was not typical an award of damages for mental or waiver implicated no safety, national in that it would attach both to a mon- emotional distress” nor “waive[s] the security, or foreign policy issues and it etary judgment and the actual aircraft Federal Government’s sovereign im- was it was unnecessary for NanoRacks and/or its parts. Thus, it should have munity from liability for such harms.” and the SSEP participants to sign a been recorded with the FAA pursuant Justice Elena Kagan took no part in the cross-waiver under 14 C.F.R. Pt. 440 to 49 U.S.C. § 44108(a), to protect any consideration of the case while Justice because relevant employees would not third parties from subsequently pur- Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent, con- be present at the launch site. chasing an interest in an aircraft which tending “[a]fter today, no matter how Exclusion of Tethered Launches inaccurately appeared to have free and debilitating and substantial the resulting from Launching Requirements, 77 clear title. Indeed, US Acquisition pur- mental anguish, an individual harmed Fed. Reg. 50956 (2012) chased the loan secured by the aircraft by a federal agency’s intentional or The Federal Aviation Administration without actual or constructive notice of willful violation of the Privacy Act will (“FAA”) invited comment to a notice the attorney’s charging lien—the pre- be left without a remedy unless he or of proposed that would cise situation that recordation would she is able to prove pecuniary harm.” amend two sections of 14 C.F.R. Pt. prevent by shifting responsibility to the VI. Space Law 400 governing licensing and permit- transferee to diligently search the FAA’s Reciprocal Waiver of Claims Agree- ting requirements for commercial registry before obtaining an interest in ment with Customers, 77 Fed. Reg. space launches. First, the FAA would the aircraft. Thus, the attorney’s lien 63221-01 (2012) revise 14 C.F.R. § 401.5 by defining was unperfected. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 440.17, “tether system,” including as a device V. Regulatory Law Fed. Aviation Ad- Space Exploration Technologies Corp. that would contain launch vehicle min. v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1441 (2012) (“SpaceX”) is required to execute recip- hazards by physically constraining a Federal Aviation Administration rocal waiver of claims (“cross-waivers”) launch vehicle in flight to a specified (“FAA”) flight surgeons learned that with each of its customers in connection range from its launch point. Next, the a private pilot renewed his medical with the flight of its Falcon 9 launch ve- FAA proposes to revise 14 C.F.R. § certificate under 14 C.F.R. § 61.3, but hicle to the International Space Station 400.2 to add requirements for launch intentionally withheld information about (“ISS”). In addition to delivering other vehicle and tether systems, as well as a disqualifying condition (i.e., HIV) he supplies to the ISS, SpaceX agreed separation distances from the public had and medication he was taking. Yet, to carry a locker insert by NanoRacks, for tethered launch operations. he had disclosed these facts to the So- LLC (“NanoRacks”) and student ex- cial Security Administration (“SSA”) to periments created under the Student * Timothy M. Ravich is a Martindale- obtain long-term disability benefits. The Spaceflight Experiments Program Hubbell® AV-rated business and pilot’s inconsistent disclosures were (“SSEP”) arranged by the National commercial litigator who has been exposed as part of the Department of Aeronautics and Space Administration recognized as a “Leading Lawyer” by Transportation’s (“DOT”) joint criminal (“NASA”). Under 14. C.F.R. § 440.3, the South Florida Legal Guide and investigation with the SSA—”Operation NanoRacks and each student who named among the top five percent Safe Pilot”—to identify medically unfit places a payload on board the locker of attorneys in Florida as a “Super individuals who had obtained FAA cer- insert qualify as a customer according Lawyer.” He is a “Florida Bar Board tifications to fly. to the Federal Aviation Administration Certified Aviation Lawyer” and former The private pilot admitted his - (“FAA”). Thus, SpaceX petitioned the chair of the Florida Bar Aviation Law ulent omissions when confronted FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Committee (2010-’12). He is the author by investigators and ultimately pled Transportation for a partial waiver of of a course book, Aviation Law after guilty to an indictment of making false the requirement for signed waivers by September 11th (Vandeplas 2010), statements to a government agency NanoRacks and each student. and has published numerous aviation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. His The FAA granted the petition pursu- related articles in peer-reviewed jour- pilot’s certificate was revoked and he ant to the Commercial Space Launch nals including the American Bar As- was sentenced to two years of proba- Act of 1984. See 51 U.S.C. § 50905(b) sociation Section of Litigation — Mass tion and fined $1,000. Notwithstanding (3). See also 14 C.F.R. § 404.5(b). The , Southern Methodist University’s this, the pilot brought a federal FAA determined that another agree- Journal of Air Law and Commerce, and against the FAA, DOT, and SSA, al- ment, a NASA cross-waiver signed by Journal of the Transportation Research leging violations of the Privacy Act of NanoRacks, was consistent with the Forum. Comments are welcome at 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, by sharing his comprehensive financial responsibility [email protected]. 

13 In Memoriam The members of the Aviation Law Committee of The Florida Bar mourn the untimely passing of one of our own: Donald M. Maciejewski, of Zisser, Robison, Brown, Nowlis Maciejewski, Cabrey, P.A. in Jacksonville, Florida. Don’s practice focused primarily on aviation, airplane and helicopter crash litigation, personal injury and complex suits. Addition- ally, as a retired Army Major, his pilot flight experience included flying the UH-1 and OH-58 helicopters. He also had extensive experience as a certified aircraft accident investigator. The breadth of Don’s aviation and legal expertise earned him national and international recognition and admiration. As distinguished as his legal career was, we also honor his memory by remembering what he contributed to this committee, its members and to the aviation community as a whole. Don was a frequent contributor to this publication as well as an annual presenter at this committee’s Aviation Law Board Certification examination review course. Don was ever the educator, always lending his time, talent and expertise not only to aspiring pilots, aviation professionals and new aviation attorneys; but also to his seasoned colleagues. Don also volunteered his time as an adjunct professor at Florida Coastal School of Law and, as an accident investigator, shared his knowledge and expertise with Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University’s International Society of Air Safety Investigators. Our deepest sympathies go out to his beloved wife Judy, who was his as well, his family, his partners and friends. Our Committee has devoted itself to attempt to continue emulating Don’s legacy of leadership, volunteerism and professionalism in all that each of us does personally and professionally, individually and collectively. Fair skies and calm winds… Major Donald Maximillian Maciejewski, Esq. (U.S. Army Retired) Board Certified in Aviation Law by The Florida Bar Super Lawyer

Photo used with permission from Zisser, Robison, Brown, Nowlis Maciejewski, Cabrey, P.A.