CAT File No. C-0277-02 CIVIL AVIATION TRIBUNAL BETWEEN: David William Sawatzky - and - Minister of Transport Air Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c. 2, as am., s. 210(1)(a) Flight when Certificate of Airworthiness not in Force The applicant flew his aircraft when the certificate of airworthiness was not in force by reason of the fact that a known fuel leak had not been inspected, repaired or deferred by a licensed AME prior to the flight. The Minister imposed a fourteen day suspension. On review, the Tribunal confirmed the Minister's decision. The fuel leaks detected by Transport Inspectors rendered the Certificate of Airworthiness not in force. The applicant elected to fly the aircraft without the required AME signature or ferry permit, thereby contravening s. 210(1)(a). REVIEW DETERMINATION MacPherson August 13, 1992 Winnipeg, Manitoba on the grounds that you have contravened the REASONS FOR DETERMINATION following provision(s): Air Regulation 210(1)(a) in that at approximately 2357 UTC on November BACKGROUND 25, 1991 at Winnipeg, Manitoba you flew an aircraft, to wit a Piper 31T Canadian Registration This review involves a Notice of Suspension dated C-FEQB when the Certificate of Airworthiness April 14, 1992 which reads as follows: issued under Part II was not in force, by reason of the fact a known fuel leak was not inspected, "NOTICE OF SUSPENSION repaired or deferred by a licenced Air Maintenance Engineer prior to the flight." Pursuant to section 6.9 of the Aeronautics Act, the Minister of Transport has decided to suspend the above indicated Canadian aviation document 2 David William Sawatzky v. Minister of Transport The Notice was issued under the authority of get a ferry permit to enable the company to fly the paragraph 210(1)(a) of the Air Regulations which aircraft back to Thompson, Manitoba for repairs. The reads as follows: aircraft had not been inspected by an authorized engineer for a ferry flight; therefore, the request was "210. (1) No person shall fly or attempt to fly denied. Mr. Gagnon relayed this information back to an aircraft, other than a hang glider or an Mr. Sawatzky in Winnipeg. ultra-light aeroplane, unless there is in force in respect of that aircraft Mr. Sawatzky went to the aircraft and took off a panel or panels and could not visibly see a leak. The aircraft (a) a certificate of airworthiness issued had been refuelled recently. Mr. Sawatzky surmised under this Part or under the laws of the there was the possibility that a fuel overflow may have country in which the aircraft is registered". caused the wetness on the underside of the wing and on the ground under the aircraft. EVIDENCE Mr. Sawatzky admitted there had been an intermittent The Applicant David Sawatzky was the fuel leak on the aircraft that his maintenance pilot-in-command of a Piper Cheyenne Model 31T department had not been able to locate. Registration C-FEQB on November 25, 1991. Mr. Gagnon told Mr. Sawatzky he could not authorize The aircraft was flown on a commercial Medevac trip a ferry permit. from Thompson, Manitoba, to Winnipeg, Manitoba, and landed at 1:10 p.m. local time. Mr. Sawatzky had full knowledge that the fuel leaks entry in the log book required a licensed engineer's The pilot Mr. Sawatzky and the first officer signature before the aircraft could be flown. Mr. Bestland were scheduled to complete a pilot proficiency ride and an instrument reviewal ride that Mr. Sawatzky elected to fly the aircraft back to afternoon. Thompson without the required signature or ferry permit. Two Transport Canada inspectors, Mr. Cal Winter and Mr. Davis completed a ground briefing with the pilots, The member questioned Mr. Winter and Mr. Sawatzky and proceeded to the aircraft to finalize the pre-flight about an overhead drawing of the Cheyenne aircraft inspection of the aircraft. (Exhibit M-5). On the drawing, the position of the fuel tanks, wet areas, filler caps and overflow were During the walk around the aircraft, a wet area was detailed. The area from the fuel overflow to the wet observed under the aircraft. Closer inspection by area was dry. The wetness on the underside of the wing Inspector Cal Winter determined the wetness was was in the same vicinity as the wet area on the ground caused by jet fuel. Inspector Winter instructed beneath the wing. The wing fuel cell that was replaced Mr. Sawatzky to enter the fuel leak into the aircraft log was in the wet area. book, and not to fly the aircraft until the aircraft had been inspected and signed off as airworthy by an DECISION aircraft engineer. Mr. Sawatzky assumed there might have been an Mr. Sawatzky made several telephone calls, firstly to overflow problem on refuelling the aircraft. the company maintenance engineer, Mario Gagnon, in Thompson, Manitoba to report the fuel problem. Mr. Sawatzky knew he had to correct the defect before Mr. Gagnon telephoned Transport Canada further flight. airworthiness department in Winnipeg, Manitoba to David William Sawatzky v. Minister of Transport 3 Mr. Sawatzky had knowledge of the regulations surrounding the operation of the aircraft and his related responsibilities. Based on the evidence before me, I find that Mr. Sawatzky did fly a Cheyenne registration C-FEQB without the certificate of airworthiness being in force. The Minister's decision to suspend Mr. Sawatzky's pilot licence for fourteen days is therefore upheld. The fourteen day suspension shall come into effect at 24:00 hours on the fifteenth day following the date of service of the present Determination on the applicant, Mr. David Sawatzky. I thank both Mr. Sawatzky and Mr. Pratt for their able presentations.