# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Christian v. Busey > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385010_2073%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1992 - **Citation:** 502 U.S. 1072 ## Text EDITOR'S NOTE THE FOLLOWING PAGES WERE POOR HARD COPY AT THE TIME OF FILMING. IF AND WHEN A BETTER COPY CAN BE OBTAINED, A NEW FICHE WILL BE ISSUED. 6enaeneneed ‘ ee { eS Bupreme Court, U.S. 8! ” 838 FILED y CASE # SEP 4 129! OFFIGE OF THE CLERK SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 19971 Gregory T. Christian, Petitioner Ve James B. Busey, Federal Aviation Administration, National Transportation Safety Board, Respondents Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Fetition for Writ of Certiorari 53.1. Christian 16199 Space Center Bivd. Houston, TX 77062 (713) 480--6268 Petitioner Fro Se aif ~! 1. Did the lower’ court err in not responding to motions made by the parties” -. Drd the lower court err in cancelling oral argument? 3. Did the lower court err in ruling that the Petitioner pay to the Respondents the costs on appeal ~* 4. Did the lower court err in not requiring that the FAA initiate related proceedings upon declaring an emergency” Je Did the lower court err in not requiring that the FAA notify a party of the grounds for an action prior to taking that action” &. Did the lower court err in not requiring that the FAA take immediate action in response to an emergency”? 7. Did the lower court err in its conclusion that the certificate sanction imposed by the FHA was if accord with established precedent” 3. Did the lower court err in acquiescing upon the FAA’ s assertion that the Fetitioner’s aircraft was operated 1n alr commerce” 9. Did the lower court err 1n acquiescing upan the FAA’ s assertion of unauthorized maintenance perrormed on an aircraft? 10. Did the lower court err in acquiescing 4 “m3 upon the FAA’s assertion of improper documentation oft alrcraft maintenance” 9D fweetions Fresented fur Review Table of Contents Table of Authorities Statement of Jurisdiction Authorities Aa. Federal Statutes b. Federal Aviation Regulations Statement ot the Case Arguments Appendi x a. FAA Emergency Order of Revocation b. NTSB Oral Initial Decision and Order earl ot 7 ” aa * i . + — ¥ i Patns 9 es 4 » ye Court. The Fetitioner observes the tollowing In support thereort: tL) The F eae did not anitiate related Oroaceedings upon declaring an emergency, wut rather left responsibility ta the FPetitioner to initiate and pursue the matter with the NTSB. This assertion 1s uncontested by the FAR. 49 LISC 1485(ad,. which the FAA cited as authority tor its action, states that "the Administrator shall immediately initiate proceedings relating to the matters embraced InN any such emergency order", and the FRA'S failure to do so implies that in their opinion events which required declaration of an emergency samenow did not warrant the hoiding of a hearing afterward. ©) The FAA did not notify the Fetitioner of the charges against him prior to revoking his alrman certificate. This assertion 15 uncontested by the FAA. 49 USC 1429(ad, which the FAA cited as authority for its action, states that "“Frior to amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking any of the +oregoing certificates, the Administrator =hall advise 19 the holder thereof as to any charges or other reasons relied tipon by the Administrator tor his proposed action”. >) The FAA did not take immediate actioz, in response to an emergency. This assertion is uncontested by the FAA. 49 USC 1485 (a) specifies that the Administrator may only declare an emergency if he is "oF the opinion that an emergency requiring immediate action @x1sts". The Fetitioner points out that the Matter was pending for some two months before the FAA declared an emergency, ample time in which to hold a hearing in which the Fetitioner would be aftorded an opportunity to defend himself betore his guilt was decided upon, 4. The Appeals Court failed to abide by the requirement of S USC 706(2) (A), which requires that the reviewing court shall “Held unlawful l and set aside agency action, findings. and conclusions found to be arbitrary, Capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law". Alternately, the Court OF Appeals has decided important questions of -9 law which have not been, but should be, settled by the Supreme Court. 1) The «everity of the sanction imposed by the FAR in this case departs substantially from established standards and precedent. Uf . the 198 violations listed in the FAA Campliance and Enforcement Handbook of 1988, the only violation for which a sanction of emergency revocation 1s recommended is operation of an aircraft while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The FAA argued in its brief (p.24-25) that its emergency order of revocation “had nothing to do with whether the Fetitioner cooperated with the FAA after the violations were discovered, with the Petitioner’s actual physical health, with his technical ability to fly an aircraft, or with the aircraft’s airworthiness", but was rather based upon the perception that the Petitioner had “such contempt for regulatory authority as to compel the conclusion that the Fetitioner lacks the qualifications required of a certificate holder”. Ferceived contempt tor regulatory authority is thus elevated in re | a 2 importance to the level of alcohol and narcotic abuse in tlight, and was in tact used a5 grounds tor b,o4assing established and customary thandaeds: st due precees. Indeed, the sanction imposed by the FA in this cace does not remotely compare with precedent established in the imposition of sanctions in other cases noted by the Fetitioner and cited by the FAA. 2) The FAA maintains that the Petitioner YiGlated 49 USC 1470(a) (2) because the Petitioner pertormed Maintenance on an aircraft used in air commerce, an assertion which the Fetitioner tas denied on arounds that the aircraft was not used in air wi rt a = 2 cannerce., The FRA assert the Petitioner perated the aircraft in air commerce solely ‘ecause the Fetitioner operated the sircraft io 4 Manner which nay Nave Created tive voreant tal for andangering safety in iilershate, overseas, or foreian air mneree.,” “ior to the Petitions (opealing the cow sf, stam, the RespuiJes:! tientd bitained that the Petitianer’s a1: ath was ~— perated in air commerce because if was flawn within a fede- ¢- a, and | eee — completion of maintenance performed on C1Vv11 Aircraft No TOSL. lo. You did not | eep required records of the current ctatus ct sirworthiness directives 772 W6-902, 72-97-19, 75-09-07 and 85-21-02. By reason of the foregoing tacts and circumstances, you violated the following statute and Federal Aviation Regulations: a. Section 47.3a), in that you performed maintenance on Civil Gircratt N6éZTOZL that you were not miner sen to pertorm. b. Section 47.5(a), in that you returned to service Civil Gircraft N6ZOSL atter performing maintenance without making the maintenance record entry required by Section 42.9 or Section 473.11. Cc. Section 61.56(b) (1), in that you acted as pilot in command of Civil Aircratt N&ZO7ZL from December 78, 1987 to May 11, 1990 on numerous flights without having accomplished within the preceding cAartiticates - ORAL INITIAL DECISION AND ORDER OF THE. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Locket No. SE-11227 JULY 21, 1996 JAMES B. BUSEY, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Complainant Ve GREGORY T. CHRISTIAN, - a ~ ~" Rl ~ ~~ ~" -_— ~~ Respondent ) JUDGE COFFMAN: For the record, this has been a case coming before the NTSB titled James B. Busey, Administrator versus Gregory T. Christian, Respondent. Case Number SE- 11225, coming on tor hearing under the emergency provisions on an emergency case on the sist day of July, 1990, beginning this morning 1n Houston, Texas. Present at all times for the Hdministrator, Mr. Donnell, assistant chief counsel from the FAA’s Southwest Region. Mr. Lhiristian nas been present at ali times during the courtroom representing himself after being j =4 advised of his right to counsel, choosing to proceed and represent himself. I don’t intend to go into every single witness’ teetimnony. I don’t usually do that. [ don’t think if 15 necessary. The records spears tor itself. We have exhibits introduced, some eight exhibits on behalf of the Administrator and seven on behalf of the Respondent. o We had three witnesses testify on behal#¢ of the Administrator. Mr. Christian took the stand on his own behalf. Ample closing and opening argument was allowed and argument on each point. So I think the record speats for itselt. However, let me point out a couple of Ehings, and we are here to discuss an emergency revocation of an airman’s certificate with private pilot privileges. And going into that, under the FAA Act we must look at the totality of the circumstances. We must look at the care, judgment, and responsibility required of the holder of this airman’s certificate. Nothing is to be a Sd io a ———"_- i ae a Tints Ste ; ‘ — construed during my comments to INnsinuate that I do not think Mr. Christian is an intelligent person. Mr. whristian may be an aerospace engineer, and he may be extremely book smart. But I think he lacks Judgment that should be required, and [ think this is evident in many, many examples of his conduct of this matter. [f you accepted Mr. Caristian’s argument that knowledge of a subject 15 enougn, then someone could pick up a medical boot and study and go do brain surgery, and if the person lived and the operation was a Success, then that person could be a neurosurgeon. That just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Mr. Christian -- once he got his private pilot’s certificate in October of ee, it seems that he decided to put in on the shel fF and buy an airplane and from that point on fatally ignore every regulation almost in the “ederal Air Regulations and sqme major ones. He has had no medical examination and admitted since January 16, °84. It is not the point that he 1S Physically fit. He Has had no 28 _ I 5 ia 4 y fs! medical certification since January 1994, He has had no biannual flight review. The requirements tor a BFR were very specific. They were put inte the reagulatiane tar everyone's sake ta. safety -- for pilots to go out and tly with an instructor. And I don’t think every two years is too much of a burden for someone to go out and fly with an instructor and say, hey; you are doing a good job. Dr on the other hand, you can’t do tnat maneuver correctly. You are endangering yourself and the lives of your passengers. There 1S no annual inspection done on this airpiane. There, again, Mr. Christian may be the smartest aerospace engineer that ever worked here in Houston, but he 15 not a licensed A&%F mechanic. And the regulations specifically say -- and on the log book it Says every major alteration or repair must be Signed by a certified A& mechanic with inspection authorization. The regulations are there tor a reason, and I think ta any intelligent person such as RF Mr. Christian the requirements and the need for those regulations are obvious. The airplane was ner tlown with an annual ~-- not +lown with a currant annual. And a current annual would have discovered that there were seven air worthiness directives that were not complied with. Now, these air worthiness directives are not published by the manufacturer, nor are they endorsed by the FAA for a mere -- whimsical reasons. They are put out there -- they are called air worthiness directives. That 15 a pretty substantial title. They must be complied with for the air worthiness of the aircraft, and none of them were complied with. A current annual would have caught this. Mr. Christian says he was becoming concerned and uncomfortable with this not being done and especially at night. However, I naticed that in one of the entries of his lag book -- his pilot log book, he stated that Ne practiced a dead stick landing at night. [ think from 6,500 feet or something like 38 A : - ees mane ee Mi nutes ._ 4 ia 7 7 aca jae = - Ww see can —- ‘ a i or; _ : : MR. CHRISTIAN: That WAS a couple of years ago. JUDGE COFFMAN: Just be Quite, Mr, Christian. [£ am not talking to YOu MOw, Sir. Ik 15 net your time to talk. It is my time to talk. SQ there is an entry and trom whatever altitude it was that he attempted a dead stict Landing at night, and he came up a little short. MR. CHRISTIAN: Well, with the Engine on. JUDGE COFFMAN: Mr. LAristian, I am not 991ng to tell you again, Sir. Just be quiet. MR. CHRISTIAN: I am sorry. JUDGE COFFMAN: So 1¢ you look at these for big items -- no medical, no annual on the aircraft, mo biannual flight review, and the ADs nat complied with -- along with -— [I have Never seen a list in the aircraft log book of entries of Maintenance that was done by a nNonlicensed pilot. [ don’t think the Phrase -- you don't need to look in the federal air regulations to 39 determine what preventative maintenance 1S. you have any experience with automobiles or anything mechanical, I think the term sr oventative maintenance speaks for itselt. That is basically checking the water, checking the fluid levels, checking the air the tires, and things like that. That 15 preventative maintenance. Anything else 15 maintenance and requires inspection and requires the work be done by a licensed 7 and by inspection authorization. I don’t think the phrase 15 hard to understand without even looking in the regulations. But if you do look in the aaeaieanas it explains what preventative maintenance 15. So I think Mr. Christian shows a total absolute disregard for the rules and regulations as put forth in the federal air regulations, and he seems to think that the fact that he went out on May 11 and got his physical -- that it makes 1t okay. It notice also that his STC for the aviation fuel is dated June " a ce rr on this eleventh dav of October, 1°91, forty (40) copres of the attached Fetition for Writ o+ Certiorari, corrected as per the Clerk's directive of seventeen September, 1991, have been mailed to the Clerk of the Court for the United States Supreme Court, One First Ave. NE, Washington, D.C. 20543. three (2) copies have been mailed return receipt requested to Joyce L. Redos, Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-250, Federal Aviatian Administration, SOO Independence Ave. SW, Washington, D.C. 20591, three (2) copies have mailed return receipt requested to ne Office of Administrative Law Judges, National Transportation Safety Board, Suite SOS, 1951 Kidwell Dr., Vienna, Virginia T2182, and three (3) copies have been mailed return receipt requested to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530. A 6.7. Christian Fetitioner i tod “ans? --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385010_2073%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.