Don R. Ickes v. Federal Aviation Administration
2002 WL 1790549, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 15575, 299 F.3d 260 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the authority to issue an emergency cease and desist order without a prior hearing when it has a rational basis to believe an unregistered, uncertified aircraft's operation poses an exigent danger to public safety, and such regulation of even purely intrastate flight is a valid exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power.
Facts:
- Don R. Ickes owned a thirty-eight acre property in Osterburg, Pennsylvania, which he referred to as 'Ickes Airport.'
- Ickes operated a two-seat 'Challenger II' airplane from his property, which he claimed was an 'ultralight vehicle' exempt from regulation.
- The Challenger II had two seats, an empty weight of 300 pounds, a fuel capacity over 5 gallons, and a top speed over 55 knots, all of which exceed the legal specifications for an ultralight vehicle.
- Ickes' previous exemption to operate the two-seat vehicle for instructional purposes had expired on June 30, 2000, nearly a year before the events in question.
- In mid-2001, Ickes advertised a public gathering on his property for June 29 through July 1, 2001, which would feature 'fly-by demonstrations' and a 'candy drop for children' using the Challenger II.
- Ickes had a history of regulatory infractions, including operating the Challenger II without proper certification and in a manner that endangered life and property on the ground.
Procedural Posture:
- The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had previously assessed civil penalties against Don R. Ickes in 1992 and 2001 and revoked his Student Pilot Certificate in 1999 for various infractions related to his operation of the Challenger II aircraft.
- Ickes did not seek agency or judicial review of any of these prior FAA orders.
- On June 28, 2001, the FAA issued an Emergency Cease and Desist Order against Ickes, requiring him to immediately stop operating his aircraft until he complied with federal regulations.
- Ickes (petitioner) timely filed a petition for review of the Emergency Order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit against the FAA (respondent).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) exceed its statutory authority or violate the Commerce Clause by issuing an emergency cease and desist order to prevent Don R. Ickes from flying his unregistered, uncertified aircraft at a planned public air show?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, the FAA did not exceed its authority. The court held that the FAA's order was a valid exercise of its power for three main reasons. First, Congress's power under the Commerce Clause extends to regulating the nation's navigable airspace as a channel of interstate commerce and protecting the instrumentalities of commerce (aircraft) from threats, even if those threats arise from purely intrastate activities. Second, the FAA's factual determination that Ickes' Challenger II was an 'aircraft' and not an 'ultralight vehicle' was supported by substantial evidence, as the plane's physical characteristics (two seats, weight, fuel capacity, speed) clearly fell outside the ultralight definition, and his prior training exemption had expired. Third, the FAA did not abuse its discretion by treating the situation as an emergency, as Ickes' plan to fly an uncertified, uninspected aircraft at a public event, coupled with his history of reckless operation, provided a rational basis for finding an exigent danger to public safety, justifying an order with immediate effect and without a prior hearing.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the broad scope of the FAA's authority to ensure air safety, affirming that its power extends to purely intrastate activities that pose a potential threat to the national airspace system. It establishes a highly deferential standard of review for the FAA's emergency determinations, requiring only a 'rational basis' to justify issuing an order without prior notice. This makes it difficult for individuals to challenge the FAA's emergency actions, solidifying the agency's role as the primary arbiter of immediate threats to aviation safety and prioritizing public protection over an individual operator's procedural rights in exigent circumstances.
