One night in the last month of 1996, Mr. Tilak Ramaprak was pulled over by police for driving while drunk. As a result, he was arrested and charged for that act and convicted two months later. Since he was a licensed pilot, he was supposed to write a report of the incident within 60 days, but he did not. Under the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) enacted in 2003; all licensed pilots are obligated to present a formal statement to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in case of any ‘car incident’. This ‘car incident’ has been defined to consist of acts which break any laws linked with driving a car under the sway of any substance (Legal, 2003).
After 12 months (22/04/1998), the FAA officially started the procedures to delay his use of his pilot’s certificate. The FAA does this by presenting a Notice of Proposed Certificate Action (NOPCA). Under the NOPCA, the FAA planned to delay his use of certificate by 30 days (Hudson, 2010). This move was within the FAR rule which states that; a pilot involved in a ‘car incident’ should have his certificate suspended for 30 days. Therefore on the second month of 1999, the FAA went ahead to suspend Ramaprakash certificate (Legal, 2003). However, Ramaprakash appealed to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to be relieved from his suspension.
First of all, Ramaprakash admitted to failing to file his report, but stirred the attention to FAA failing to adhere to rule 33 of NTSB. This rule falls under the section dealing with safety proceeding. The rule states that; if any disciplinary action is taken on an alleged person 6 months after the offence without the FAA giving any reason for the delay, the respondent can seek the dismissal of the allegations. However, this rule does not extent to people who have displayed any forms of action that may cause doubt on their qualification (Brown, 2000).
The FAA was required to present a reason for the delay, but they did not. On such a circumstance, the judge is supposed to discharge the stale accusation. Without a doubt, the FAA did not adhere to the NTSB rule since they imposed the NOPCA 12 months later. Despite of the clear cut case, the NTSB did want to find out if there was a valid reason for the FAA’s delay (Legal, 2003).
The FAA follows the following procedures regarding their members adhering to reporting of cases. The FAA regularly sends a list of persons wishing to restore their licences to National Driver Register (NDR). The NDR usually has records of persons who have had motor vehicle incidents. However, the information held by the NDR does not usually indicate whether the incident should be reported by the offender under the FAR rules. When the matching list is sent back to the FAA, the investigator has to cross-check with the Enforcement Telecommunication System (NLETS) database to determine if the incident required filing (Brown, 2000). If it did, then the investigator is supposed to check in the FAA to find out if the individual filed the report.
After sending their list, the FAA got matching names on 16th May 1997 with Ramaprakash name on it. It seems that nothing was done until September that year when there was a shift of investigators. The new investigator was reassigned again before he could do anything. Thus, the third investigator picked up the job and reached Ramaprakash’ name on 4th February 1998. After consulting the NLETS database, it was found out that Ramaprakash case needed to be filed (Brown, 2000). On 10th that month, the investigator discovered that Ramaprakash had not submitted any report.
The NTSB found the FAA to have a good reason for the hold-up. This is because the rule 33 states that; the FAA has to explain the reason for the delay. Furthermore, there was no indication that this case could result to issuing of NOPCA until the NLETS database was consulted and when the FAA learnt about the case, they acted swiftly (Legal, 2003). Also, there was no indication that the hold up had altered Mr. Ramaprakash’ capability of defending himself regarding the case presented. Ramaprakash wanted a review of the case but the NTSB remained firm on its decision. The board insisted that the FAA acted diligently on the matter and also, he had not adhered to FAA requirement of filing such a report.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) states that a court should have a panel that investigate whether such a board decision was just (Keane, 2010). It appears that the board does not usually make rational decisions and changes or bends the rules without warning. In this case, the agency found out that the decision made by the board regarding Ramaprakash to be unjust. It found out that the board ignored the stale complaint law (Brown, 2000).
The agency found out that the board ignored its model in about three ways. First of all, it appears that it was okay for the board to ignore the FAR rule as long as the incidence was termed as serious. For example, if the case had shown that the individual lacked qualification, it is okay for him to be issued with the NOPCA without giving any reason for the delay if there was one. As far as Ramaprakash case was concerned, the FAA did not give a satisfactory answer as to why they were late in issuing the NOPCA (Brown, 2000).
The NTSB defended itself by saying that; crucial safety matters may be ignored as a result of strictly following the administrative procedures. Thus, they think that; serious supposed behaviour may go unpunished if the alleged takes advantage of the bureaucratic flaws. Therefore, for the sake of public interest and fairness, the board may bend or modify the rules to ensure that justice was served (Legal, 2003).
Mr. Ramaprakash case is almost similar to a case which occurred 4 years later. Once again, the board assumed some of the rules for the sake of general public air safety. Once again, the board insisted that; their role is to ensure that the concerned parties practice and maintain high conduct. This has been specifically important to cases entail violation of serious safety rules. That is why they denied Ramaprakash appeal since the board found out that an airman who drives under the influence of alcohol is a serious security breach. There is absolutely no way they would have accepted Ramaprakash appeal just because the FAA did not give a valid reason for delay.
However, the idea that it is okay for the board to rule against a case because of its repercussion, is not at par with White and U.S Jet. Furthermore, the NTSB did not make it clear why they deviated from the precedent. Also, the board did not give details as to how their decision comports with Rule 33 mentioned earlier. The other part of the rule 33 which was not mentioned is that; late issuance of NOPCA is allowed without giving any reason for the delay if the FAA can prove that their decision was in the best interest of the public (Brown, 2000). Therefore, the FAA should have concentrated on the seriousness of the offense rather than as to why they delayed their sanction. On the other hand, it seems that the board assumed that if the offense is serious; that is a reason for delay.
The Rule 33 was curved from the principle that serious offenses should receive faster remedy. This means that the rule is in the best interest of the public air safety. Late justice means that air safety might be compromised, but according to Ramaprakash’ case, late justice appears to mean safety has been improved (Brown, 2000).
The other deviation of made by the board from the rules, has to do with the understanding of the significance of prejudice in the Rule 33. Over the years, the board has always said that; the individual looking for dismissal of late allegations should not show prejudice arising from the lateness. The complaint rule recognizes that; the alleged person’s capability to shield himself from the FAA charges can be discriminated, as a result of irrational holdup. Therefore, the rule assumes that there is prejudice, if half a year has gone by without the FAA contacting the respondent regarding the allegations (Brown, 2000). However, the law does not mean that the respondent should show how the holdup has prejudiced the case. Therefore, as long as there was delay, the respondent’s defence has been prejudiced.
Regarding the matter, the board said that; Ramaprakash did not claim that his defence case would have been different or better if there was no delay. Therefore, in such a scenario, the board dismissed the appeal since the respondent’s capability of defending himself was not deterred. The board insisted that the holdup did not prejudice Ramaprakash since he had already admitted to not adhering to the FAR rule of filing a report.
The board assumed that the respondent was simply using the complaint rule as a scapegoat. The board ignored the assumption that prejudice exists as ling as there was delay in the issuance of NOPCA; a fact that FAA was ready to acknowledge. It might appear that the assumption of prejudice by the board has been scrapped (Legal, 2003). Contrary to that, the board said that it regarded the case as to not having any prejudice. It does not mean that all such cases should be assumed to be lacking prejudice (Brown, 2000).
The final manner, in which the NTSB diverged from its model, is in the attentiveness it showed regarding the Rule 33. It seems that the board assumes that the complaint rule is meant to delay the issuance of NOPCA if there are complications in gathering of evidence (Legal, 2003). However, avoiding discrimination is not the sole function of Rule 33. Also, the rule is supposed to ensure swift diligent disciplinary action without unnecessary delays. Since the rule avoids delay, it is supposed to stimulate timely and thorough law adherence.
In its previous case, the board said that the complaint rule applied if the FAA did not show rational diligence in its proceedings which led to the delay (Brown, 2000). Also, the board said that it is normal for FAA not to learn about a behaviour deemed to be a violation of FAR, in time. However, in all its cases, there have been no hints that the FAA should linger until the offences have been verified to violate FAR, for them to begin proceeding meticulously in giving a NOPCA.
This means that the FAA should be diligent as soon as they receive a matching list from the NDR. It is not clear why the FAA only acts diligently during only certain periods and not the whole time. It appears that the board is okay to not be diligent as long as the act is not a violation of FAR. Diligence should start as soon as the FAA has been warned of a possible defiance of FAR. It seems by doing that, the FAA will have a satisfactory reason for the delay.
The board deviated from its model by allowing diligence at only certain periods. This means that the board encourages the FAA to wait for an indefinite period, to investigate whether an offense is a violation of FAR. The fact that the FAA consulted the NLETS database shows that the FAA had a reason to suspect that Ramaprakash may have violated some rules. As long as Ramaprakash name was on the list submitted to FAA by NDR, FAA should have proceeded with diligence since there was enough reason to investigate the matter further.
The NTSB failed to adhere to the core reason of the complaint rule. Whether the board will change its view point in the next case is still unknown. Laws are kept to ensure that justice has been served without any reasonable doubt. However, the deviation of the board from its model goes against this ideology.
References
Brown, J. (2000). Airline Laws. New York: Macmillan.
Hudson, F. (2010). Federal Aviation Administration. Web.
Keane, R. (2010). Courts of Appeal. Web.
Legal. (2003). Court Holds FAA to NTSB 821.33 Stale Complaint Rule. Web.