Glen Hardwick, a professional pilot, flew an aircraft twice that displayed a physical tail number different from its current registration documents and airworthiness certificate. The aircraft owner, Michael King, had applied to change the tail number from N550ME to N550MK. While the FAA approved the registration change, it denied the new airworthiness certificate pending additional inspections. King subsequently had the physical tail number on the plane taped over to match the old number, N550ME, while retaining the new registration documents. Hardwick flew the plane from Texas to Kansas after being told by King that the tail number had reverted to the old number due to the paperwork issues. Upon landing, FAA inspectors intercepted Hardwick, noting the discrepancy between the displayed tail number and the current registration, and issued a condition notice. Hardwick flew the plane back to Texas without correcting the issue or obtaining a special flight permit. The FAA suspended Hardwick's license for 150 days, a decision affirmed by the National Transportation Safety Board and now upheld by the Fifth Circuit.
The Fifth Circuit applied the arbitrary and capricious standard of review, noting that agency sanctions are entitled to significant deference. The court addressed three main arguments raised by Hardwick. First, regarding the defense of reasonable reliance, the court explained that this defense is narrow and applies only when a flight crew member lacks the knowledge or ability to ascertain information. The court found Hardwick's reliance unreasonable because, as the pilot-in-command, he bore the ultimate responsibility for the aircraft's airworthiness. Hardwick ignored red flags, including the taped tail number, the owner's admission of paperwork issues, and a written condition notice from FAA inspectors. Second, the court rejected Hardwick's claim that the tail number had legally reverted to the old number, finding no factual or legal support for this theory. Third, the court addressed the argument that the penalty was excessive because the violation was merely administrative. The court clarified that an aircraft loses its airworthy status if its airworthiness certificate does not match its registration, regardless of the plane's physical condition. Therefore, the violation was sanctionable. Finally, the court dismissed Hardwick's comparison to another pilot, Scott Breeze, noting that the circumstances were different and the FAA later admitted the treatment of Breeze was a mistake.
The decision reinforces the strict liability nature of aircraft registration and airworthiness requirements for pilots. It clarifies that the pilot-in-command cannot shift responsibility for verifying documentation to aircraft owners or rely on verbal assurances when red flags are present. The ruling confirms that administrative discrepancies, such as mismatched tail numbers, can result in license suspensions even if the aircraft is physically safe. The case is closed with no remand instructions.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download