Robert J. Jones v. Civil Aeronautics Board and Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency

D.C. Circuit

Robert J. Jones v. Civil Aeronautics Board and Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency

332 F.2d 717

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 10, 1964

Docket17899

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 332 F.2d 717 (Robert J. Jones v. Civil Aeronautics Board and Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert J. Jones v. Civil Aeronautics Board and Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency, 332 F.2d 717 (D.C. Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The Civil Aeronautics Board, affirming an order of the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency, revoked the airline transport pilot rating privileges of petitioner, thus depriving him of authority to serve as pilot-in-command of airline transport (large passenger-carrying commercial) aircraft, but not otherwise affecting his pilot status. The Board’s order was based on findings made after hearings and procedures in which we find no error. The Board found that petitioner had violated two Civil Air Regulations, one providing that “no aircraft shall be flown into known or probable heavy icing conditions. * * ¹ the other providing that “no person shall operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of others.” ²

On the flight which led to the revocation petitioner skilfully piloted to its destination a plane with 47 passengers aboard and safely landed it. Notwithstanding this, evidence amply supports the findings of the Board that in doing so he flew into known or probable heavy icing conditions which endangered life and property.

As to the second of the two grounds above referred to, the alternatives which confronted petitioner might also have [718]*718endangered life and property, due to the weather conditions which closed in on the plane during the flight, for which reason, were we the Board, we cannot say we would have revoked petitioner’s transport pilot rating privileges.

But we must recognize the special competence and responsibility of the Board in administering the safety regulations referred to and we find no basis for judicial repudiation of the conclusion reached on the basis of Board findings which have substantial support in the evidence. The judgment the Board exercised is not, in sum, an unlawful one; nor was it reached in an unlawful manner.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The Civil Aeronautics Board, affirming an order of the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency, revoked the airline transport pilot rating privileges of petitioner, thus depriving him of authority to serve as pilot-in-command of airline transport (large passenger-carrying commercial) aircraft, but not otherwise affecting his pilot status. The Board’s order was based on findings made after hearings and procedures in which we find no error. The Board found that petitioner had violated two Civil Air Regulations, one providing that “no aircraft shall be flown into known or probable heavy icing conditions. * * ¹ the other providing that “no person shall operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of others.” ²

On the flight which led to the revocation petitioner skilfully piloted to its destination a plane with 47 passengers aboard and safely landed it. Notwithstanding this, evidence amply supports the findings of the Board that in doing so he flew into known or probable heavy icing conditions which endangered life and property.

As to the second of the two grounds above referred to, the alternatives which confronted petitioner might also have [718]*718endangered life and property, due to the weather conditions which closed in on the plane during the flight, for which reason, were we the Board, we cannot say we would have revoked petitioner’s transport pilot rating privileges.

But we must recognize the special competence and responsibility of the Board in administering the safety regulations referred to and we find no basis for judicial repudiation of the conclusion reached on the basis of Board findings which have substantial support in the evidence. The judgment the Board exercised is not, in sum, an unlawful one; nor was it reached in an unlawful manner.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

332 F.2d 717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-j-jones-v-civil-aeronautics-board-and-administrator-of-the-federal-cadc-1964.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack