Cowell v. National Transp. Safety Bd., 79-1526
| Decision Date | 02 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1526,79-1526 |
| Citation | 612 F.2d 505 |
| Parties | Steven R. COWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
J. Scott Hamilton, of Hamilton & Hill, P. C., Denver, Colo., for petitioner-appellant.
Alice Daniel, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., and Eloise E. Davies and Susan A. Ehrlich, Civ. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent-appellee.
Before McWILLIAMS, DOYLE and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.
On March 6, 1979, the Federal Aviation Administration issued an emergency order revoking Steven Cowell's airman and airman medical certificates. Cowell appealed that order. A hearing was thereafter conducted by an Administrative Law Judge who affirmed the order of the FAA. Cowell then appealed to the National Transportation Safety Board, which adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge and affirmed the FAA's order of revocation. Cowell has petitioned this Court for review of the Board's order.
The Board found that in his dealings with the FAA Cowell had made false and fraudulent statements. Specifically, the Board found: (1) that Cowell had advised the FAA, in written form, that he had no traffic violations when in fact he had some seven violations; and (2) that Cowell had submitted false logbooks to the FAA which grossly overstated his flying time. The record clearly indicates that these findings are supported by substantial evidence and, such being the case, they are conclusive on appellate review. 49 U.S.C. § 1486(e). French v. CAB, 378 F.2d 468, 470 (10th Cir. 1967).
Cowell argues that the complaint against him, which under 49 C.F.R. § 821.55(c) is the emergency order of revocation, was only general and conclusory in nature, and that it failed to put him on adequate notice of the factual basis for the complaint. 49 C.F.R. § 821.31(b) does provide that when one of the FAA's claims against an airman is that he lacks qualifications, the complaint "shall recite on which of the facts pleaded this contention is based." The complaint in our view clearly indicates which logbook entries and which answers on the applications for airman medical certificates were found to be false. There could be no misunderstanding on this matter. In short, the complaint was not subject to dismissal because of any lack of specificity.
Cowell also contends that at least certain of the charges in the complaint occurred more than 6 months prior to the FAA's order and were therefore "stale" under 49 C.F.R. § 821.33. That regulation does provide that where the complaint states allegations of offenses which occurred more than 6 months prior to an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Erickson v. National Transp. Safety Bd.
...Order EA-1831 (Oct. 5, 1982), aff'd, 737 F.2d 545 (6th Cir.1984); Steven Richard Cowell, Order EA-1285 (May. 23, 1979), aff'd, 612 F.2d 505 (10th Cir.1980); Donald G. Gilbertson, Order EA-1252 (Feb. 27, 1979), Robert P. Damsky, Order EA-1045 (July 25, 1977); John O. Payton, 2 N.T.S.B. 1994 ......
-
Nevada Airlines, Inc. v. Bond, s. 80-5421
...with review of the revocation question, and only after the administrative appeal was concluded. See Cowell v. National Transportation Safety Board, 612 F.2d 505, 506 (10th Cir. 1980); Stern v. Butterfield, 529 F.2d 407, 408 (5th Cir. 1976); Morton v. Dow, 525 F.2d 1302, 1304 (10th Cir. 1975......
-
Thunderbird Propellers v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 98-9520
...Thunderbird operated while under suspension. These allegations alone implicate Thunderbird's qualifications. See Cowell v. NTSB, 612 F.2d 505, 506-07 (10th Cir. 1980)(making false statements to the FAA makes the stale complaint rule inapplicable); see also Borregard, 46 F.3d at 947 ("The la......