Van Dyke v. National Transp. Safety Bd., 01-1202.

Decision Date23 April 2002
Docket NumberNo. 01-1202.,01-1202.
Citation286 F.3d 594
PartiesAndrew W. VAN DYKE, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD and Federal Aviation Administration, Respondents.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Mark T. McDermott argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Peter J. Wiernicki.

Robert P. Vente, Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Peter J. Lynch, Assistant Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration.

Before: EDWARDS and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge RANDOLPH.

RANDOLPH, Circuit Judge:

This is a petition for judicial review of an order of the National Transportation Safety Board affirming the decision of an administrative law judge to suspend Andrew W. Van Dyke's commercial pilot license for 45 days on a charge brought by the Federal Aviation Administration. The question is whether there is "substantial evidence" in the record to support the Board's order. See 49 U.S.C. § 46110(c).

On April 25, 1998, the date of the incident for which he was suspended, Van Dyke worked for Sky's the Limit, Inc., a skydiving company operating out of the Orange County Airport, in Montgomery, New York, some 50 miles north of New York City. He piloted a Beechcraft King Air in and out of the airport, dropping off one group of skydivers and picking up a new group throughout the day. At 6:15 p.m., as Van Dyke was making his descent to the airport, a regional air traffic controller instructed him to change course and approach the airport from the south. The traffic controller wanted Van Dyke to avoid heavy traffic departing from Stewart International Airport, seven miles to the east. What happened next is the crux of the dispute between Van Dyke and the Federal Aviation Administration.

Because there is no air traffic control tower at the Orange County Airport, FAA regulations require approaching pilots to make all turns in the same direction. 14 C.F.R. § 91.126(b). The usual path is left-hand turns only. The "preferred method" is for the pilot to approach the pattern on a course 45 degrees to the downwind leg and join the pattern at midfield. The pilot then flies parallel to the runway. Once past the end of the runway, the pilot turns to the left. This is the "base leg." The pilot turns left again, into the wind, and lands. Figure 1 illustrates the standard FAA landing pattern.

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

The runway Van Dyke approached at Orange County Airport has a different rule: all turns must be made to the right (to avoid planes from nearby Stewart International Airport). Markings, visible from the sky, indicate this. This landing pattern is illustrated in Figure 2.

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

In testimony before the ALJ, Bucky Gorton, the operations supervisor at the airport on April 25, 1998, said that while he was in the airport office he received a radio call from Van Dyke announcing that he was entering a left downwind pattern for landing. Gorton radioed back that this Orange County runway was right traffic, not left. Gorton said Van Dyke responded that the regional air traffic controller had told him to enter a left traffic pattern. Gorton repeated that all turns must be made to the right. Gorton then looked out of his office window, and saw a King Air flying on a left downwind leg. See Figure 3. The plane passed out of Gorton's sight, traveling to the east, and he saw nothing more until the plane landed. Gorton did not see the plane make any turns.

Van Dyke testified that he radioed to announce that he was on an extended left base to land at the airport, which would have required only that he turn left onto the runway. When Gorton said the plane could not land this way, Van Dyke flew past the runway and made several right turns to bring the plane down. See Figure 3. Jeffrey Hawke, another company pilot on the flight, confirmed Van Dyke's version. The owner of "Sky's the Limit," Jeffrey Root, saw the plane fly north across the field, as Van Dyke claims. This is segment 1 of Van Dyke's path. See Figure 3. Root was then distracted. When he looked up, he saw the plane turn right from the base leg into its final approach. This is segment 3 and segment 4.

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

The ALJ concluded that Van Dyke "entered a high left-hand pattern," and therefore found him in violation of three FAA regulations. The first, 14 C.F.R. § 91.126(b), requires pilots in Class G airspace — when approaching an airport without a control tower — to make all turns to the left unless the airport specifies otherwise. The second, 14 C.F.R. § 91.127(a), applies the same condition to those operating in Class E airspace, like the Orange County Airport. The third, 14 C.F.R. § 91.13, forbids operating an aircraft in a "careless or reckless...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Huerta v. Ducote
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • June 30, 2015
    ...the complaint is unsupported by substantial evidence. See Pasternack v. NTSB, 596 F.3d 836, 838–839 (D.C.Cir.2010) ; Van Dyke v. NTSB, 286 F.3d 594, 597–598 (D.C.Cir.2002).IVConclusionThe Board's interpretation and application of its stale complaint rule to dismiss Count 4 of the Administra......
  • Ickes v. F.A.A., 01-2897.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • August 5, 2002
    ...as adequate to support a conclusion ... taking into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight." Van Dyke v. NTSB, 286 F.3d 594, 597 (D.C.Cir.2002) (quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Penobscot Air Services v. FAA, 164 F.3d 713, 717-18 (1st Cir.1999) (discu......
  • Pasternack v. National Transp. Safety Bd.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • February 26, 2010
    ...Therefore, "[i]f there is no substantial evidence to support the Board's reasoning ... its order must be vacated." Van Dyke v. NTSB, 286 F.3d 594, 598 (D.C.Cir.2002). It is undisputed that Montalvo, the collector in this case, did not advise Pasternack that his departure from the testing fa......
  • Finazzo v. Sturgell
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • January 5, 2011
    ...diagnoses. Finally, the Board's decision ignores additional record evidence buttressing Finazzo's credibility. See Van Dyke v. NTSB, 286 F.3d 594, 597 (D.C. Cir. 2002). For example, while the FAA presented only hearsay testimony of Dr. Seberg's notes, both of Finazzo's physicians, Doctors I......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT