Sanchez v. National Transp. Safety Bd., 76-2065
| Decision Date | 28 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-2065,76-2065 |
| Citation | 574 F.2d 1055 |
| Parties | Ray Allen SANCHEZ, Appellant, v. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
John P. Viebranz, of Nordhaus, Moses & Dunn, Albuquerque, N. M., for appellant.
Barbara Allen Babcock, Asst. Atty. Gen., Morton Hollander and Donald Etra, Attys., Civ. Div., App. Section, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before SETH, Chief Judge, and McWILLIAMS and McKAY, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal or review by Ray A. Sanchez from an order of the National Transportation Safety Board which affirmed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge and which suspended appellant's commercial pilot's license for thirty days. The review is pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 1903(d).
The appellant was found during the course of the administrative proceedings to have violated 14 C.F.R. § 91.79(b) by flying with a passenger below 1,000 feet over a congested area while on a visual flight rules flight, and flying in a careless manner. Appellant concedes that the flight was below the prescribed altitude over the City of Albuquerque. However, he asserts that the combination of the weather or wind conditions, and the capabilities of his plane prevented him from climbing to the required height. Thus his course of action was the proper or only choice available under the unforeseeable meteorological conditions. The flight in question was between two airports serving Albuquerque and would ordinarily take about fifteen minutes.
The Board recognized the availability of an affirmative defense such as was offered by the appellant, but held that it could not be "predicated upon circumstances which were created by respondent's own actions or omissions," and that the respondent had the burden of proof on the point. The hearing officer made the factual determination as to conditions existing in the area at the time. There was testimony of a police officer who was flying in the area at the time, and who observed the defendant's flight over the congested area.
The Board also made findings as to the alternatives open to respondent, the lack of prudence, or careless operation in proceeding if the aircraft was performing as poorly as respondent indicated. Thus in substance the Board found that the circumstances were created by respondent's poor judgment in proceeding with the flight over the congested area.
Under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gallagher v. National Transp. Safety Bd.
...the Board's findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. 49 U.S.C. § 1486(e); Sanchez v. National Trans. Safety Bd., 574 F.2d 1055 (10th Cir.). Our function is not to weigh the evidence or to evaluate the witnesses' credibility. Loomis v. McLucas, 553 F.2d 6......
-
Sorenson v. National Transp. Safety Bd., 81-1620
...the Board's findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. 49 U.S.C. § 1486(e); Sanchez v. National Trans. Safety Bd., 574 F.2d 1055 (10th Cir.). Our function is not to weigh the evidence or to evaluate the witnesses' credibility. Loomis v. McLucas, 553 F.2d 6......
-
Hutt v. National Transp. Safety Bd., 88-1237
...F.2d 285, 287 (8th Cir.1985); Sorenson v. National Transp. Safety Bd, 684 F.2d 683, 685 (10th Cir.1982); Sanchez v. National Trans. Safety Bd, 574 F.2d 1055, 1056 (10th Cir.1978). Circumstantial evidence may be used to meet this burden of proof. Sorenson, at Petitioner Hutt argues that his ......