11. Analysis of Careless or Reckless Operations. In a case in which FAA investigative
personnel believe a violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 has occurred, they document the factors on
which that determination is based in the statement of case portion of section B of the EIR. FAA
investigative personnel provide a brief explanation of why the conduct was careless or reckless,
and the potential or actual danger involved. For instance, the NTSB has held that potential or
inherent danger occurs when a pilot deviates from an assigned altitude, even in clear weather
with no other aircraft shown to be close by. Such an operation is found to be potentially
dangerous, in that actual danger might have developed in the ordinary course of events. A
finding of actual danger may be appropriate if the altitude deviation caused the aircraft to be
operated so close to another aircraft as to cause a collision hazard.
(3) Careless or reckless conduct. Violations that involve careless or reckless conduct in
violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 may warrant more severe sanctions. Carelessness connotes
conduct that falls below the standard of care or prudence expected of a reasonable person, or
holder of the relevant certificate, acting under the same or similar circumstances. Recklessness
connotes conduct that demonstrates a gross, or even callous or flagrant, disregard for safety.
Aircraft operations that do not otherwise result in a violation of a specific regulation should be
evaluated in light of these standards to determine whether they constitute careless or reckless
operations in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.13. When a person operates an aircraft in violation of a
specific regulation other than 14 C.F.R. § 91.13, however, that violation constitutes a careless or
reckless operation in and of itself. In these cases, the misconduct may also result in a violation
of 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 if it actually or potentially endangers the lives or property of others.
When calculating the amount of sanction based on this factor, a distinction generally is drawn
between instances where 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 is an independent violation and those where it is
residual to another violation. When a 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 violation is residual only, a higher
sanction generally is not warranted unless the conduct is also reckless.
Appendix E. Examples
1. Elements of Regulations. A frequently-cited regulation is 14 C.F.R. § 91.13, Careless or
Reckless Operation. This seemingly simple regulation has numerous elements. The actual
wording is:
CARELESS OR RECKLESS OPERATION
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an
aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may
operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an
airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or
discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or
property of another.
a. Subparagraphs of 14 C.F.R. § 91.13. The regulation has two subparagraphs.
Subparagraph (a) covers "Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation". Subparagraph
(b) covers "Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation". Because the two
subparagraphs cover two different conditions, i.e., for the purpose of air navigation vs. other than
for the purpose of air navigation, there must be an item of proof (IOP) that provides evidence to
identify one or the other as appropriate. If evidence shows that an aircraft was being taxied from
the hanger to the line, subparagraph (b) would be appropriate. But if evidence shows an aircraft
to have been on a take-off roll, then subparagraph (a) would be appropriate. There must be
evidence to support the choice. Assume, for example, that the operation was for the purpose of
air navigation and sub-paragraph (a) applies. The elements that must be included as an IOP are:
(1)A person.
(2)Operate (for purpose of air navigation).
(3)An aircraft.
(4) (3)An aircraft.
(4)Careless or reckless.
(5)Endangerment.
(6)Life or property of another.
b. First Element. The first element is identifying the person, putting them in the aircraft,
and proving that this person was an operator of the aircraft. Identifying the person and showing
his or her operation of the aircraft may be done through witness statements, a response to the
letter of investigation, documents such as logbooks, or training records, or Air Traffic reports.
The form of the evidence can vary, but who the person is must be documented. For certificated
airman, such as pilots and mechanics, ISIS data on qualifications will be an additional IOP.
c. Second Element. The second element to prove is that the aircraft was being operated for
purposes of air navigation. For an aircraft that is airborne, or taxiing in from a flight, this is
easy. For an aircraft that is on the ramp, or a taxiway, you will need some evidence to establish
whether subparagraph (a) or (b) is the appropriate choice.
d. Third Element. The third element to prove is that an aircraft was involved. A
definition of aircraft is found in 14 C.F.R. § 1.1, General Definitions. Aircraft means a device
that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air. The specific form of the evidence can
vary, but a specific aircraft must be identified through IOPs. A supporting IOP will be a copy of
aircraft registration data from the Integrated Safety Information System (ISIS). [Note:
Ultralights are not aircraft, they are vehicles, with their own definition under 14 CFR part 103.]
e. Fourth Element. The fourth element is selecting between careless or reckless and
providing evidence to support the decision. Careless indicates a lack of care, an act a reasonably
prudent person would not commit if mindful of the potential consequences. Reckless can be
alleged when there is evidence that a person intended to do what they did. It is not necessary to
prove, or even allege, that they knew that their action was a violation of any regulation. For
either choice, the careless/reckless element must be supported by evidence in one or more IOPs.
(1) Example of reckless IOP. For example, during the investigation of a gear-up landing
incident, the evidence may include a statement from the aircraft owner who had personally
advised the pilot the gear system was inoperative or a statement from a passenger who was told
by the pilot that the normal gear system was inoperative. This evidence may indicate that a
charge of reckless is appropriate.
(2) Example of careless IOP. On the other hand, the evidence may include a picture of
the aircraft on the runway with the gear-handle up, a statement from a mechanic saying the gear
operated normally when tested, or a statement from the pilot saying he was preoccupied with
other traffic. This evidence may indicate that a charge of careless is appropriate.
(3) Evidence indicating no violation. If the evidence included a mechanic’s statement
and repair order stating that the gear malfunctioned because of a broken part, then there may be
no violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.13.
f. Fifth Element. The fifth element in this regulation is endanger. An IOP in a gear-up
landing might consist of evidence documenting the aircraft damage that endangered the property
of another. It is not necessary to show actual endangerment, evidence of potential endangerment
is sufficient. Appropriate evidence in a low flying case might include pictures of a school
playground that was flown over, statements from teachers describing children in the playground
at the time, and the altitude of the aircraft relative to terrain features. Potential endangerment can
often be best explained in the section B analysis.
g. Sixth Element. The sixth and final element in this example requires evidence that the
endangerment was to the life or property of another. If the above gear-up landing example is in
a rented aircraft, the evidence to prove this element could be an ISIS report showing that the
owner is another. Evidence of a passenger in the aircraft would also support this element, as the
passenger is another. If an aircraft flown solo was entirely owned by the violator, and if there is
no nearby property or persons to be endangered, there very well may be no violation.
2. Summary. To summarize, all enforceable regulations include some number of elements and
evidence to support each of the elements must be included in an EIR to support a violation.
