The below reminds me of a non-aviation setback the EPA received from the Supremes. It seems they were designating damp lands as "waterways" or navigable waters or something blocking development without so muc as a hearing.
Here we have two sets of regulators I think neither of which stopped to exercise rationality or common sense:
Court: Pilot Action 'Inadvertent' After Firms Part Ways In a split decision, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned a 60-day suspension of an ATP certificate, deeming that the pilot in question had "inadvertently" violated the rules after his company, an aircraft management firm, had ended an agreement with a Part 135 certificate holder.
The case involved a September 2011 flight of a Beechcraft 400A, N497RC, that was managed by Capital Aerospace. Capital, which was not authorized to fly commercial flights, had entered into an agreement with USAC Airways to facilitate Part 135 operations of the aircraft. USAC had added the aircraft to its operations specifications and obtained FAA authorization for RVSM. Richard Boeta, the pilot involved in the flight, was employed by Capital but became an agent of USAC. In 2011, USAC ended the agreement and removed the aircraft from its operations specifications, but Boeta was not informed of the change.
In September 2011, Boeta filed a flight plan and flew the aircraft in RVSM airspace. The FAA subsequently suspended his ATP, and the NTSB upheld the suspension, finding it was the pilot is responsible for reviewing the RVSM LOA before each flight.
But the Appeals Court disagreed, noting that the pilot is not obligated by federal regulation to ensure that the operator is authorized for RVSM, but the aircraft is approved for RVSM operations. Further, the court found that the pilot, once aware that the authorization exists, "has no ongoing obligation to confirm that it remains current."
