Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK

Document 74-4

Filed 12/06/2005

Page 1 of 2

USAU v. PILATUS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

GREGORY FEITH
Page 94
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

7/19/2005
Page 96

translated copy of the Russian report. Have you seen that? A. Yes. Q. And who translated the report, do you recall? A. I don't recall. Q. But you read the translated version of the Russian report? A. That was what was provided, yes. Q. Do you recall any passage in the translated version of the Russian report indicating that the Russians had made inquiry of the NTSB on this issue of Part 91 versus Part 135? A. Give me one minute. Let me just take a look. Q. Go ahead. A. I don't know what transpired between the Russians and the NTSB. The Russians referenced this as a chartered flight. Charter, to me, has a connotation that it's a flight for hire. What differentiation, or how much the Russians had asked the NTSB to develop, I don't know, because I had no access to that conversation. So I don't know how much work the NTSB did to determine whether this was a 135 flight for hire or a Part 91. Q. I want you to assume the NTSB wrote to the Russians and told them, in writing, this flight was properly conducted under Part 91 and did not violate the FARs. I want you to assume that to be --

or a good majority of them. But from a generic standpoint, Part 135 was violated. Q. And you're able to reach that conclusion based on reading paper? A. Well, it's not necessarily just reading paper. It's the content of that paper, the facts, conditions and circumstances. And the fact of the matter is, in this particular instance, that that airplane, that pilot were offered for hire -- for hire to conduct this operation. The pilot had -- if you really want to break it down, the pilot had no reason to do this around-the-world flight on his own. He had no intention of doing it, and really wasn't -- wasn't prepared to do it until he was asked, Would you conduct this flight? And one of the rules, or one of the tests of determining whether it's going to be a 91 or a Part 135 flight is, you know, common to -- common to the passengers; that is, does the pilot and the passengers on that airplane have a common interest? And in this particular instance, while it was probably a thrill and a great idea, and a new experience, had the passengers not been on the airplane, Mr. Smith wouldn't conducted this around-the-world flight. Q. There's no doubt in your mind about that? A. No doubt.

Page 95
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 97
Q. And have you reported your findings to the FAA? A. I have not. Q. Other than what you just described, did Mr. Smith violate any other FARs during this around-the-world trip? A. Well, I mean, I'm not one -- I'm not an expert, from the FAA's standpoint, in interpreting all of the regulations that would lead to a violation. But as I stated earlier, 91.113, which would have been careless, reckless, I think that Mr. Smith was reckless in the operation of the aircraft on the particular accident flight in the fact that he shut down an engine over a geographical area that did not allow him to exercise any other option, other than to put the airplane in the water. Q. Any other regulations that he violated? A. Probably general flight planning. I mean, the fact that the pilot has a duty and responsibility to not only himself, but to people on the airplane, and people on the ground, to exercise due caution and care in their flight planning. And when you take a single-engine airplane and you take it 180 miles over the water, that really precludes the possibility of any kind of option in the event of an emergency. I think that that violated -- that regulation would be violated -- and I can't remember if it's 91.3 or

1 2 3 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. 4 Q. (By Mr. Williams) I want you to assume that 5 to be true. Would you have occasion to quibble or 6 criticize -7 A. Yes. 8 Q. -- or disagree with the NTSB's conclusion? 9 A. Absolutely. 10 Q. For the reasons set forth in your report? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Did Mike Smith violate any federal aviation 13 regulations during the around-the-world trip? 14 A. Yeah. 15 Q. Name one. 16 A. Part 135. 17 Q. What specific portion of 135? 18 A. The fact that he was operating an airplane for hire, which would have required him to exercise a higher 19 level of standard than the typical operation under FAR Part 20 21 91. So from the time he entered that airplane, put those people on, and closed the door and started that engine and 22 23 took off, that was a 135 operation. And therefore, he violated a number of various parts of 135. I mean, if I had 24 the FARs in front of me, I could probably pick them all out, 25

MR. BYRNE: Is there some factual basis for

that?

25 (Pages 94 to 97)

PARRISH REPORTING (800) 585-0385
EXHIBIT A-8

395ddaf6-144a-4769-9855-a8a21a0fedee

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK

Document 74-4

Filed 12/06/2005

Page 2 of 2

USAU v. PILATUS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

GREGORY FEITH
Page 58

7/19/2005
Page 60

1 A. And then this is both Access Air's ops specs and ops manual, operations manual, for their 135 operation. 2 3 Q. All right. Let's call that 229J. 4 (Exhibit 229J was marked for identification.) 5 A. And then this is a CD that, if you'd asked me 6 two years ago what was on it, I could tell you. I tried to open it and somehow it became corrupt. I don't know what's 7 8 on it anymore, and I can't open it. But it's identified as USAU v. Pilatus. It was provided in the initial information 9 10 that Mr. Schultz gave me for review. 11 Q. Oh, again, the problem is with Mr. Schultz. 12 A. I believe it is, yes. 13 MR. SCHULTZ: Blame it on me. THE DEPONENT: So I can't recall what was on 14 15 it. I tried to open it to see what was on it, because I 16 can't recall from two years ago when I first looked at it. 17 So it's identified as data. I can't tell you what's on it. 18 Q. (By Mr. Williams) All right. I'm not going 19 to mark it. 20 So we've covered everything you brought here 21 today? 22 A. That is correct, yes. 23 Q. Okay. Go ahead, organize yourself there and 24 we can move on to another topic. 25 Next we're going to mark as 230 a copy of

How many versions of the report were there before the final version? A. There's only one version. I draft the report. I'll read it on computer, make the changes, that kind of stuff. So there's only one version of the report. Q. Before you signed the report, did you have it reviewed by anyone else for accuracy or typos, or things like that? A. I did. Q. Who reviewed it for you? A. Both Mr. Byrne and Mr. Schultz. Q. What kind of comments did they make in response, if any? A. Typos my spelling-checker didn't get, or grammatical things, where I forgot an "and," a "the." Q. Any substantive changes of any kind? A. No. Q. Did Mr. Byrne or Mr. Schultz suggest any topics you didn't cover, or any information you forgot to mention? A. No. Q. Nothing like that? A. No. Q. Then at some point, you made the changes they suggested?

Page 59
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 61
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

your Rule 26 report in this case. (Exhibit 230 was marked for identification.) Q. (By Mr. Williams) My question, sir, is the exhibit we marked as 230, does that appear to be a copy of your report you prepared in this case? A. Yes. Q. And that's your signature there on Page 11? A. It is. Q. Is Exhibit 230 the only written report you prepared in connection with your work in this case? A. That is correct. Q. Have you prepared any supplements to this report of any kind? A. No. Q. How long did it take you to write this report? Ballpark. A. To physically write it? I mean, it took me about a week to put it all together, draft it, reread it, and that kind of thing. Q. All right. You did all that yourself, as far as writing the report? A. Yes. Q. You don't have a secretary, or somebody? A. You're looking at him. Q. Been there, done that.

A. Yes. Q. Then you signed the final report? A. That is correct. Q. Okay. Did anyone review your report for the purpose of determining whether the conclusions you express in the report appear to be supported by objective data and facts? A. The only one that reviewed it for that was me. Q. Does Exhibit 230 set forth all of the conclusions and opinions you have formed in connection with your work in this case? A. That I was requested to do, yes. Q. Okay. Are there some opinions or conclusions you formed that you weren't requested to do? A. You had asked me earlier about why I thought the propeller may not have spun during the relight. And I wasn't asked to express an opinion about that, but I have an opinion regarding that. Q. But as far as your assignment in this case, this report in Exhibit 230 sets forth all of the opinions and conclusions you've reached with regard to that assignment? A. Correct. Q. Does Exhibit 230 set forth all of the basics

16 (Pages 58 to 61)

PARRISH REPORTING (800) 585-0385
EXHIBIT A-8

395ddaf6-144a-4769-9855-a8a21a0fedee