On August 1, 2013, the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") published a new rule on pilot qualification requirements impacting pilots who fly as first officers for U.S. passenger and cargo airlines. The rule requires first officers to hold an Airline Transport Pilot ("ATP") certificate with 1500 hours of total time as a pilot. The new rule also requires first officers to have an aircraft type rating specific to the airplanes flown for the airline.
There is an allowance for current first officers with fewer than 1500 hours of flight time enabling those pilots to obtain a restricted privileges ATP certificate. The restricted privileges ATP certificate allows a pilot to serve as a co-pilot until he obtains the necessary 1500 hours.
The new rule stems from the Colgan Air flight 3407 crash in February 2009. This rule is meant to increase the safety of operations by raising the experience level for both pilots flying for passenger and cargo airlines.
If you have questions about the new rule or its implementation, then contact Aviation Attorney Ronnie Gipson by email at Gipson@higagipsonllp.com or by telephone at (415) 692-6520.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Thursday, July 18, 2013
An Employee Terminated For Not Cooperating in an Internal Investigation Does Not Automatically Constitute A Wrongful Termination
Recently a supervisor working for a California company was fired for not cooperating with his employer’s investigation regarding a subordinate’s claim against him for discrimination and harassment. The supervisor had criticized the subordinate’s work performance and the subordinate responded in turn by complaining to human resources that the criticism was a result of sexual discrimination and harassment.
An external investigator was hired to conduct the company's internal investigation. The investigator determined that the supervisor intentionally misrepresented some facts and was uncooperative during the internal investigation. As a result of this report, the supervisor was terminated. The supervisor then filed a lawsuit against his employer stating that he was wrongfully terminated for participating in the investigation.
The court applied California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to the facts and issues and concluded that FEHA did not shield an employee against discipline, up to an including termination, for misconduct during an employer's internal investigation of a discrimination claim. Employees have a duty to be truthful and cooperate with their employers in an internal investigation; otherwise, the employer can discipline or terminate that uncooperative employee.
As employers, if you have questions pertaining to questionable conduct from an employee participating in an internal investigation, then contact Ronnie Gipson by telephone at 415.692.6520 or by email at Gipson@higagipsonllp.com.
An external investigator was hired to conduct the company's internal investigation. The investigator determined that the supervisor intentionally misrepresented some facts and was uncooperative during the internal investigation. As a result of this report, the supervisor was terminated. The supervisor then filed a lawsuit against his employer stating that he was wrongfully terminated for participating in the investigation.
The court applied California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to the facts and issues and concluded that FEHA did not shield an employee against discipline, up to an including termination, for misconduct during an employer's internal investigation of a discrimination claim. Employees have a duty to be truthful and cooperate with their employers in an internal investigation; otherwise, the employer can discipline or terminate that uncooperative employee.
As employers, if you have questions pertaining to questionable conduct from an employee participating in an internal investigation, then contact Ronnie Gipson by telephone at 415.692.6520 or by email at Gipson@higagipsonllp.com.
Monday, July 1, 2013
Government Officials Conducting Questionable Searches of General Aviation Aircraft
As we near the half way mark of 2013, the aviation community
has seen a startling trend emerge – there are a growing number of reports from
law abiding airmen being stopped by armed federal agents on the ramp and their
aircraft being searched without a warrant.
The agency reportedly conducting the searches is the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Customs and Border Protection Division.
The searches seem to be targeted at General Aviation and
have raised concerns regarding privacy and civil rights intrusions by the
Federal Government. To place these
searches into context, a little education is required. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
protects people from searches by the government without a warrant. The Amendment further provides that a warrant
may be issued only upon probable cause.
Cases decided in our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence history stringently adhere to the warrant requirement
for a search of a person’s property such as an automobile. However, there are exceptions to the warrant
requirement that allow government actors to conduct a search without a
warrant.
If you, as an airman encounter a situation where a law enforcement official endeavors to search the aircraft without a warrant, then there are some suggested steps for you to follow to protect your rights. First, ask the law enforcement official(s) to explain the purpose of their search. Next, request to see the law enforcement’s official identification and make note of their name, badge number, and agency. Third, in response to a request for documentation, provide the information specified in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) to officials from the following: the FAA, the NTSB, Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies. For example, a private, commercial, or ATP pilot must present their pilot certificate, medical certificate, and a photo id[1]. Additionally, the pilot must present a valid aircraft registration upon request. The fourth recommendation is for you to ask the official to identify the authority for the search. Ask if you are under arrest. If you are not under arrest, then ask if you are being detained and if you are free to go. Next, if the law enforcement official states that they are going to search the aircraft and its contents over your objection, then you should plainly state that you do not consent to the search, but that you will not interfere. It would also be prudent to alert the law enforcement official that disassembly of any portion of the aircraft may render the aircraft unairworthy[2].
There exist a lot of questions about whether the searches
are properly authorized because the reported searches were conducted by armed Customs
and Border Protection agents at airports a significant distance away from the
U.S. border such as in Iowa City, IA. The
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) along with the Experimental
Aircraft Association (EAA) have both demanded official responses from officials
at the highest level of DHS with no response.
The affected airmen and AOPA have filed Freedom of Information Act
requests to no avail. The purpose of the
demand for official responses is to identify the legal basis upon which the
searches are being conducted to assess whether or not the searches comply with
the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement or whether the searches qualify for
one of the exceptions. The searches, as
they are reportedly being conducted, amount to harassment by government
officials who wrongly believe that constitutional protections do not apply to
GA pilots.
To date, none of the airmen have been arrested in connection
with the warrantless searches. As a
result, without legal action in the courts by the government agencies no one
has been provided with the right set of circumstances to challenge or question
the DHS’s expansion of searches before a sitting Judge. Regardless of whether or not the government
takes subsequent action, if the right set of circumstances come to pass, there
may exist an opportunity to challenge the actions.
If you, as an airman encounter a situation where a law enforcement official endeavors to search the aircraft without a warrant, then there are some suggested steps for you to follow to protect your rights. First, ask the law enforcement official(s) to explain the purpose of their search. Next, request to see the law enforcement’s official identification and make note of their name, badge number, and agency. Third, in response to a request for documentation, provide the information specified in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) to officials from the following: the FAA, the NTSB, Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies. For example, a private, commercial, or ATP pilot must present their pilot certificate, medical certificate, and a photo id[1]. Additionally, the pilot must present a valid aircraft registration upon request. The fourth recommendation is for you to ask the official to identify the authority for the search. Ask if you are under arrest. If you are not under arrest, then ask if you are being detained and if you are free to go. Next, if the law enforcement official states that they are going to search the aircraft and its contents over your objection, then you should plainly state that you do not consent to the search, but that you will not interfere. It would also be prudent to alert the law enforcement official that disassembly of any portion of the aircraft may render the aircraft unairworthy[2].
If feasible
and allowed to do so, then take steps to document the search such as with a
camera of cell phone. Make a detailed
written report as soon as practical to preserve the sequence of events as close
as possible to how they transpired. Each
situation is unique and it is not the intent of Higa & Gipson through this
blog entry to provide legal counsel on a specific factual scenario. If you find yourself presented with this
frightening circumstance in California, then contact Aviation Attorney Ronnie
Gipson to discuss the situation at (415) 692-6523 or by email at gipson@higagipsonllp.com.
[1]
Code of Federal Aviation Regulations § 61.51(i) (1) (WEST 2013).
[2]
Portions of the recommended steps were adopted from AOPA’s brochure titled,
“What To Do If Stopped by Law Enforcement” dated June 19, 2013, and appearing
on the Internet at http://www.aopa.org/-/media/Files/AOPA/Home/News/All%20News/2013/June/CBPGuildelinesKneeboard.pdf
Friday, June 7, 2013
Changes to the FAA's Medical Certification Process
As pilots age, their focus includes maintaining their health and mitigating/eliminating any health concerns. In the past, certain medical conditions complicated the process of a pilot renewing his medical certificate.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently revised its medical certification process to make it easier for pilots to obtain their medical certificate by shifting the decision as to whether or not an airman is medically qualified to fly from the FAA’s offices in Oklahoma City & Washington D.C. to your local Aviation Medical Examiner (AME). The new “Certificates an AME Can Issue” (CACI) program empowers AMEs to directly issue pilots with certain qualifying medical conditions a medical certificate. Pilots must still provide certain documentation proving the condition is under control to obtain certification, but now the pilots avoid the lengthy and oftentimes frustrating process of obtaining approval from the FAA’s Air Surgeon Office.
Now pilots with the following conditions may be able to take advantage of the CACI program to obtain their medical certification quickly:
The FAA has also issued a new policy regarding cardiac special issuances after a stent procedure. Instead of waiting six months for follow-up testing, now pilots only need to wait three months. That’s less time waiting and more time flying!
For more information on the CACI program, contact Ronnie Gipson by telephone at 415.692.6520 or by email at Gipson@higagipsonllp.com.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently revised its medical certification process to make it easier for pilots to obtain their medical certificate by shifting the decision as to whether or not an airman is medically qualified to fly from the FAA’s offices in Oklahoma City & Washington D.C. to your local Aviation Medical Examiner (AME). The new “Certificates an AME Can Issue” (CACI) program empowers AMEs to directly issue pilots with certain qualifying medical conditions a medical certificate. Pilots must still provide certain documentation proving the condition is under control to obtain certification, but now the pilots avoid the lengthy and oftentimes frustrating process of obtaining approval from the FAA’s Air Surgeon Office.
Now pilots with the following conditions may be able to take advantage of the CACI program to obtain their medical certification quickly:
- Arthritis;
- Asthma;
- Glaucoma;
- Chronic Hepatitis C;
- Hypertension;
- Hypothyroidism;
- Migraine and chronic headaches;
- Pre-diabetes; and
- Renal cancer.
The FAA has also issued a new policy regarding cardiac special issuances after a stent procedure. Instead of waiting six months for follow-up testing, now pilots only need to wait three months. That’s less time waiting and more time flying!
For more information on the CACI program, contact Ronnie Gipson by telephone at 415.692.6520 or by email at Gipson@higagipsonllp.com.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Federal Government Cracks Down on Offenders Who Point Lasers at Aircraft
The Federal Government has gotten tough on people who point lasers at aircraft in flight. Recently, a nineteen year old man was sentenced to 30 months in prison for pointing a laser at an aircraft as it was on approach to land at Burbank airport. The man was charged with a violation of federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 39A. The statute, passed into law in 2012, makes it a crime for anyone to knowingly point a laser pointer at an aircraft in U.S. Airspace. The statute calls for either a prison term not to exceed 5 years, a fine or both.
“Why does this issue require such stiff penalties?” The answer may not be patently obvious. In 2011, there were more than 3,600 reported laser pointer incidents. The beam of a laser pointer disperses and fills the cockpit. The light can blind the pilots making it impossible for them to see the controls and maintain control of the aircraft. If the laser light is green, then the danger to the pilots escalates exponentially because the human eye is susceptible to injury from light in the yellow-green spectrum. The tiny beam from the laser pointer that makes a dot on the ground expands with distance. A mere five hundred feet away the dot expands to a width of 6 feet. The beam disperses into the cockpit that blinds the cockpit crew. The resulting blindness can cause catastrophic loss of life to the people in the aircraft and the loss of life to people on the ground. In addition to the law recently passed, shining a laser pointer into an aircraft constitutes interference with the operation of an aircraft, which carries a possible penalty of a prison term of 20 years and/or a fine of $250,000. The recent sentence from the Federal Judge sends a clear message, don’t point lasers at aircraft.
To report a laser pointer incident in flight, pilots should contact the FAA or dial 911. If you have questions about the laser pointer law, then contact Ronnie Gipson by email at Gipson@higagipsonllp.com or by telephone at 415.692.6523.
“Why does this issue require such stiff penalties?” The answer may not be patently obvious. In 2011, there were more than 3,600 reported laser pointer incidents. The beam of a laser pointer disperses and fills the cockpit. The light can blind the pilots making it impossible for them to see the controls and maintain control of the aircraft. If the laser light is green, then the danger to the pilots escalates exponentially because the human eye is susceptible to injury from light in the yellow-green spectrum. The tiny beam from the laser pointer that makes a dot on the ground expands with distance. A mere five hundred feet away the dot expands to a width of 6 feet. The beam disperses into the cockpit that blinds the cockpit crew. The resulting blindness can cause catastrophic loss of life to the people in the aircraft and the loss of life to people on the ground. In addition to the law recently passed, shining a laser pointer into an aircraft constitutes interference with the operation of an aircraft, which carries a possible penalty of a prison term of 20 years and/or a fine of $250,000. The recent sentence from the Federal Judge sends a clear message, don’t point lasers at aircraft.
To report a laser pointer incident in flight, pilots should contact the FAA or dial 911. If you have questions about the laser pointer law, then contact Ronnie Gipson by email at Gipson@higagipsonllp.com or by telephone at 415.692.6523.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Glider Pilot Arrested When Local Sheriff Oversteps the Authority of His Office
Recently, a glider pilot in South Carolina was arrested for posing a threat to national security by the local County Sheriff. The pilot flew his "unpowered" glider in close proximity to a nuclear power plant. An official at the plant contacted the Sheriff’s Office. The Sheriff’s Office dispatched a team to the local airport where they established radio communication with the pilot via the Unicom frequency. What happens next is nothing more than an affront to the American justice system. The County Sheriff then instructed the glider pilot to land at the airport within his jurisdiction. The pilot initially indicated that he would land at his home field. In response the County Sheriff renewed his order to the pilot to land at the local airport. The pilot complied. After landing, the pilot was taken into custody and arrested for flying in the airspace too close to the nuclear facility which allegedly posed a risk to national security. As a lawyer, I am outraged that an overzealous peace officer had the gall to exert official authority into an area beyond his jurisdiction. I consider it to be my duty to assist other peace officers and the pilot population with the correct state of the law and the limits of the local peace officers’ powers with respect to airspace use and it corresponding regulation.
FAA Has Sole Jurisdiction over US Airspace
FAA Has Sole Jurisdiction over US Airspace
First, the establishment and regulation of airspace for the entire United States to include its territories, and dependencies rests with one agency, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA’s power to regulate airspace emanates from the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 section 307. Under the legal doctrine of pre-emption, State and local governments are prohibited from making laws that conflict with the FAA’s regulation of airspace under this Act.
In the incident that took place in South Carolina, the County Sheriff overstepped his authority. Only the FAA has the authority to establish airspace restrictions and to enforce those rules. If the glider pilot did indeed violate an airspace restriction, then the pilot would have been subject to a formal enforcement proceeding. In a suspected airspace violation, the FAA conducts an investigation and determines whether or not there is enough evidence to proceed with a formal enforcement action. If enough evidence exists and the severity of the infraction warrants it, then the FAA issues a Notice of Revocation/Suspension of the pilot’s license. There are established rules and procedures in place for the appropriate government agency to address airspace violations. Only the FAA is empowered to take such action against Airmen.
Interestingly, in this case, the Sheriff’s Office altered the formal charge against the pilot to one of “breaching the peace.” The FAA is in charge of regulating airspace to avoid meritless criminal charges being lobbied against pilots from around the country. Quite simply a local or State agency cannot seek to impose local laws on pilots in flight with respect to navigating through airspace. Those rules fall squarely within the FAA’s area of responsibility.
Designation of Prohibited or Restricted Airspace Is Governed by 14 C.F.R. Section 73
In the incident that took place in South Carolina, the County Sheriff overstepped his authority. Only the FAA has the authority to establish airspace restrictions and to enforce those rules. If the glider pilot did indeed violate an airspace restriction, then the pilot would have been subject to a formal enforcement proceeding. In a suspected airspace violation, the FAA conducts an investigation and determines whether or not there is enough evidence to proceed with a formal enforcement action. If enough evidence exists and the severity of the infraction warrants it, then the FAA issues a Notice of Revocation/Suspension of the pilot’s license. There are established rules and procedures in place for the appropriate government agency to address airspace violations. Only the FAA is empowered to take such action against Airmen.
Interestingly, in this case, the Sheriff’s Office altered the formal charge against the pilot to one of “breaching the peace.” The FAA is in charge of regulating airspace to avoid meritless criminal charges being lobbied against pilots from around the country. Quite simply a local or State agency cannot seek to impose local laws on pilots in flight with respect to navigating through airspace. Those rules fall squarely within the FAA’s area of responsibility.
Designation of Prohibited or Restricted Airspace Is Governed by 14 C.F.R. Section 73
Granted, there are airspace locations throughout the United States that warrant special protection from the transit of pilots without specific permission. A great example is the airspace surrounding a military installation, like an Air Force base. In Northern California, Travis Air Force Base, located in the San Francisco Bay Area, merits and receives such protection. The airspace south of the Air Force Base up to 3,000’; and the airspace north of the Air Force Base up to 6,000’, is designated as an Alert area. Without question, everyone would agree that transiting into the airspace surrounding Travis Air Force Base, as depicted on the chart, raises serious National Security concerns. Herein lies the difference. The chart clearly depicts the Alert Area, the pilot has notice of its existence; the applicable times of operation; and only needs to spend 60 seconds to determine whether to circumvent the airspace. The nuclear plant involved in this incident, like almost all of the other nuclear facilities, was not depicted on charts released by the FAA. Legally, as a matter of due process, in order to advance a claim of an airspace infraction, the FAA must prove that the pilot has notice of the restrictions accompanying airspace. Without a reference on the chart, how is a pilot to know which areas to avoid? Short answer, they can’t.
There exists a procedure available to other Federal agencies, State agencies, and local government agencies to impress upon the FAA the need to alter airspace. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. section 73, if an agency determines that a change in airspace is necessary, then that agency must submit a written request to the FAA for consideration. In the glider pilot’s case, the nuclear facility had not submitted a request to the FAA for alterations of the airspace above its facility. To be fair, the bad actor in this situation is not the nuclear facility but is instead the Sheriff’s Office.
The glider pilot was eventually released from custody after waiving his right to sue the Sheriff’s Office in a civil action. By no means, should you interpret this blog article as an attack on the glider pilot’s decision not to pursue civil litigation against the Sheriff’s Office for overstepping its bounds. Civil litigation is expensive in both money and time. However, the best procedure for clearly establishing the limits of local authority and prevent future, similar encroachments on the FAA’s authority, would be to bring suit against the local authority for overstepping its authority. If a similar situation happens to you or a friend, then the wrongfully accused pilot should consider bringing a claim with the goal of establishing a written precedent in the case law against such egregious conduct. Until a local law enforcement agency oversteps its bounds, the issue won’t be ripe for a court to decide the issue. In the interim, the best offense is a good defense. Know your rights and the limits to the local government’s exercise of authority.
There exists a procedure available to other Federal agencies, State agencies, and local government agencies to impress upon the FAA the need to alter airspace. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. section 73, if an agency determines that a change in airspace is necessary, then that agency must submit a written request to the FAA for consideration. In the glider pilot’s case, the nuclear facility had not submitted a request to the FAA for alterations of the airspace above its facility. To be fair, the bad actor in this situation is not the nuclear facility but is instead the Sheriff’s Office.
The glider pilot was eventually released from custody after waiving his right to sue the Sheriff’s Office in a civil action. By no means, should you interpret this blog article as an attack on the glider pilot’s decision not to pursue civil litigation against the Sheriff’s Office for overstepping its bounds. Civil litigation is expensive in both money and time. However, the best procedure for clearly establishing the limits of local authority and prevent future, similar encroachments on the FAA’s authority, would be to bring suit against the local authority for overstepping its authority. If a similar situation happens to you or a friend, then the wrongfully accused pilot should consider bringing a claim with the goal of establishing a written precedent in the case law against such egregious conduct. Until a local law enforcement agency oversteps its bounds, the issue won’t be ripe for a court to decide the issue. In the interim, the best offense is a good defense. Know your rights and the limits to the local government’s exercise of authority.
If you want further information or you believe that a local government agency exceeded its authority in relation to your airmanship, then contact Ronnie Gipson at 415.692.6520 or by email at gipson@higagipsonllp.com.
A DUI Conviction Can Prevent You From Entering Canada
Our firm represents clients in criminal law matters. A significant number of those clients come to us for representation on Driving Under the Influence (DUI) charges. In our experience, the mere DUI allegation brings about significant heartache and financial repercussions. When there are inconsistencies in the methodology of obtaining the evidence to support the DUI charge, then there exist the legal basis to challenge and defeat the DUI charge. Oftentimes, in DUI cases the objective is to either eliminate or reduce the charges to the lowest infraction possible. Pilots[1] are not immune from being charged with DUIs. However, the conviction carries a significant repercussion if the pilot’s livelihood carries him across the Canadian border. Canada has strict laws that limit the entry of people into the country with criminal convictions on their record, including DUIs. Under the Canadian Immigration Refugee Protection Act (CIRPA)[2], anyone with a criminal conviction is considered “criminally inadmissible” and may not be granted entry into Canada.
How do you know if your criminal conviction makes you “criminally inadmissible?” According to CIRPA, Canada has the power to declare individuals criminally inadmissible if they are a threat to national security, guilty of committing human rights violations, guilty of “serious criminality,” or guilty of “criminality.” Canada determines what is considered “serious criminality” or “criminality” by comparing what the relevant punishment for the crime is under applicable Canadian law.
In general, crimes that expose an individual to a maximum punishment of at least ten years in Canada, regardless of the applicable punishment in the home country, qualify as “serious criminality” under Canadian law. Criminality is defined as any crime that a person is convicted of in their home country for which they could also be indicted for in Canada; and is reason enough to deny that individual entry into Canada.
Broadly speaking, CIRPA grants significant power to Canada to limit the entry of persons with any criminal convictions. For visitors from the United States, this includes anybody who has a Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or Driving while Intoxicated (DWI) offense. In many jurisdictions throughout the United States, many first-time DUI/DWI convictions are generally treated as misdemeanors. However, in Canada, a DUI/DWI conviction is the equivalent of a felony and thus the conviction qualifies either criminality or serious criminality. As a result, a DUI/DWI conviction, even if it’s a misdemeanor in the U.S., authorizes Canada under CIRPA the right to deny entry.
As a pilot, if you find yourself in the unfortunate position of defending a DUI charge, then you should obtain the best criminal attorney possible. The goal is to defeat the DUI charges or reduce the charges to the lowest infraction possible.
How do you know if your criminal conviction makes you “criminally inadmissible?” According to CIRPA, Canada has the power to declare individuals criminally inadmissible if they are a threat to national security, guilty of committing human rights violations, guilty of “serious criminality,” or guilty of “criminality.” Canada determines what is considered “serious criminality” or “criminality” by comparing what the relevant punishment for the crime is under applicable Canadian law.
In general, crimes that expose an individual to a maximum punishment of at least ten years in Canada, regardless of the applicable punishment in the home country, qualify as “serious criminality” under Canadian law. Criminality is defined as any crime that a person is convicted of in their home country for which they could also be indicted for in Canada; and is reason enough to deny that individual entry into Canada.
Broadly speaking, CIRPA grants significant power to Canada to limit the entry of persons with any criminal convictions. For visitors from the United States, this includes anybody who has a Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or Driving while Intoxicated (DWI) offense. In many jurisdictions throughout the United States, many first-time DUI/DWI convictions are generally treated as misdemeanors. However, in Canada, a DUI/DWI conviction is the equivalent of a felony and thus the conviction qualifies either criminality or serious criminality. As a result, a DUI/DWI conviction, even if it’s a misdemeanor in the U.S., authorizes Canada under CIRPA the right to deny entry.
As a pilot, if you find yourself in the unfortunate position of defending a DUI charge, then you should obtain the best criminal attorney possible. The goal is to defeat the DUI charges or reduce the charges to the lowest infraction possible.
If you have questions about how a pending DUI can impact your ability to enter Canada or if you need more information about how a DUI charge can impact your medical certificate, then contact Ronnie Gipson @ 415.692.6523 or by email at gipson@higagipsonllp.com. If you have questions about defending against a DUI charge, then contact James Higa @ 415.692.6524 or by email at higa@higagipsonllp.com.
[1] Under the FARs when a pilot is charged with a DUI, there are separate reporting requirements, which are not discussed in detail in this blog entry.
[2] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 2001 S.C., ch. 33, §§ 33-34 (Can.).
[1] Under the FARs when a pilot is charged with a DUI, there are separate reporting requirements, which are not discussed in detail in this blog entry.
[2] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 2001 S.C., ch. 33, §§ 33-34 (Can.).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)