AIR ONE HELICOPTERS, INC., a California Corporation, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Respondent

Air One Helicopters, Inc. (Air One), the undisputed owner of a helicopter, has been ensnared in webs of bureaucratic regulation spun by two countries, Spain and the United States. The effect has been to preclude Air One from registering its helicopter with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) even though it is crystal clear Air One owns the aircraft, has discharged the hen which once attached to it, and the aircraft’s current registration in Spain is no longer vahd.

We grant review and end the bureaucratic gridlock. We reverse the FAA’s denial of Air One’s apphcation, and direct the FAA to register the hehcopter showing Air One as its owner.

I

FACTS

Air One bought the hehcopter, a Sikorski S-58T, serial number 58-1626, in 1990 from a Spanish company, Hehsea Hehcopters, SA. (Hehsca), and attempted to register the aircraft with the FAA pursuant to federal law and FAA implementing regulations. See 49 U.S.C.App. § 1401 et seq.; 1 14 C.F.R. § 47.37 .

In 1992, the FAA issued an opinion letter which stated that Air One’s hehcopter was not eligible for registration because the aircraft was still registered in Spain. An aircraft cannot have dual registration under the Chicago…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. While I empathize with Air One’s plight, I conclude that (1) this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Air One’s petition for review, (2) the court lacks authority to rule that the Spanish registration is invalid (and has erred by doing so without applying Spanish law), and (3) the majority’s opinion ordering the FAA to register Air One’s helicopter in the United States directly conflicts with both a statute and a treaty.

I

The appropriate jurisdictional test is that outlined in Air California v. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 654 F.2d 616 (9th Cir.1981). In that case, this court stated that under 49 U.S.C.App. § 1486(a), 1 FAA “[ajdministrative orders are not final and reviewable ‘unless and until they impose an obligation, deny a right, or fix some legal relationship as a consummation of the administrative process.’ ” Id. at 621 (citations omitted).

Air One argues that the FAA letters in this case are final orders because they effec *884 tively deny Air One its right to register its helicopter. I disagree. None of the letters denied Air One’s registration application; to the contrary, the letters merely told Air One what it needed to…

86 F.3d 880 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4159 , 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6735 AIR ONE HELICOPTERS, INC., a California corporation, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. No. 94-70245. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 15, 1996. Decided June 12, 1996. Kenneth G. Caplan, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Ronald E. Werner and Denice N. LeBourveau, Werner, Nabb & LeBourveau, San Jose, California, and Patricia E. Fox, Sunnydale, California, for petitioner. Petition to Review a Decision of the Federal Aviation Administration. Before: REINHARDT, THOMPSON and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judge: 1 Air One Helicopters, Inc. (Air One), the undisputed owner of a helicopter, has been ensnared in webs of bureaucratic regulation spun by two countries, Spain and the United States. The effect has been to preclude Air One from registering its helicopter with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) even though it is crystal clear Air One owns the aircraft, has discharged the lien which once attached to it, and the aircraft's current registration in Spain is no longer valid. 2 We…