Marvin Cobb v. The National Transportation Safety Board

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) suspended petitioners’ airman certificates for 180 days. They appeal. We affirm.

The petitioners challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the determination that they had violated section 91.79(c) 1 and 91.9 2 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, by flying at an impermissibly low altitude over buildings and persons and by flying in a reckless and inherently dangerous manner. Petitioners argue that the operation of their aircraft within 500 feet of structures, vehicles, and persons on the surface was necessary for takeoff from or landing on a permissible landing area, that the prefatory clause of section 91.79(c) exempted them from the minimum altitude requirement, and that as such there were no violations of the Federal Aviation Regulations.

It is conceded that petitioners utilized the diagonal strip connecting runways at the Twenty-Nine Palms Airport as a landing strip and that, in so doing, petitioners’ respective aircraft flew within 10 to 60 feet of persons, vehicles, and structures on the surface. Furthermore, it is admitted that the two airport runways were available for use and that use of those runways would not…

concurring;

If Cobb and O’Connor had frightened a group of families on a picnic by an exhibition of speed and by driving recklessly close to them in automobiles, a state court most probably would have suspended their drivers’ licenses for a year and in addition imposed a heavy monetary fine, or perhaps a jail term. But Cobb and O’Connor chose airplanes for their reckless conduct and consequently had their licenses suspended for 180 days by the National Transportation Safety Board. They argue that this disciplinary penalty amounts to an abuse of the Board’s discretion. That argument is frivolous and presumptuous.

This is not the first time I have been puzzled by the lenient suspension the Board imposes on pilots who willfully endanger the lives and safety of the public, and who frighten others for their own amusement. The only potential abuse of discretion I can detect in these cases is that the Board is too protective of the pilots it regulates. I would have thought that a one-year suspension would be the minimum penalty the Board would consider for the conduct that occurred here, and further that the Board would have referred the matter to the appropriate authorities for…

572 F.2d 202 Marvin COBB et al., Petitioners, v. The NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD, Respondent. No. 77-1506. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Nov. 11, 1977. Allan H. McFarland, of Vizzard, Baker, Sullivan & McFarland, Bakersfield, Cal., for appellant. Michael L. Dworkin, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. On Petition for Review of an Order of the National Transportation Safety Board. Before BROWNING, GOODWIN and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1 The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) suspended petitioners' airman certificates for 180 days. They appeal. We affirm. 2 The petitioners challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the determination that they had violated section 91.79(c) 1 and 91.9 2 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, by flying at an impermissibly low altitude over buildings and persons and by flying in a reckless and inherently dangerous manner. Petitioners argue that the operation of their aircraft within 500 feet of structures, vehicles, and persons on the surface was necessary for takeoff from or landing on a permissible landing area, that the prefatory clause of section 91.79(c) exempted them from the minimum altitude…