14 C.F.R. § 39.1
Purpose of this regulation
The regulations in this part provide a legal framework for FAA's system of Airworthiness Directives.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1976–2002 · leading case: Gatx/airlog Co. Gatx Capital Corp. Airlog Mgmt. Corp. Frederick L. Hatton & Sanford P. Burnstein v. United States, 286 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2002).
Gatx/airlog Co. Gatx Capital Corp. Airlog Mgmt. Corp. Frederick L. Hatton & Sanford P. Burnstein v. United States, 286 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2002). “§ 44709 (a) (1994); 14 C.F.R. § 39.1 (2000). The FAA may amend, modify, suspend or revoke a certificate for airworthiness reasons.”
Virginia J. Barry Melville v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 584 F.2d 1306 (3rd Cir. 1978). “14 C.F.R. § 39.1 . No person is permitted to operate an aircraft to which an Airworthiness Directive applies except in accordance with the requirements of the directive.”
Zephyr Aviation, L.L.C., Zephyr Aviation, L.L.C. v. Robert Alan Dailey, Also Known as Bob Dailey Kenneth Wayne Clary, Also Known as Ken Clary, 247 F.3d 565 (5th Cir. 2001). “See 14 C.F.R. §§ 39.1 , 39.11 (2000). Until the condition is corrected, the aircraft should not be flown.”
John Rauch v. United Instruments, Inc. & Tokyo Aircraft Instrument Co., 548 F.2d 452 (3rd Cir. 1976). “14 C.F.R. § 39.1 . The regulations further provide that “No person may operate a product to which an airworthiness directive applies except in accordance with the requirements of that airworthiness directive.”
Melville v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 443 F. Supp. 1064 (E.D. Pa. 1977). “” 14 C.F.R. § 39.1 (1977). 70 . We have found it necessary to “characterize” defendant’s contentions for analytical purposes because, except for the relevancy objection, neither at trial nor in post-trial motions did defendant clearly distinguish the bases upon which its…”
Crane Helicopter Servs., Inc. v. United States, 45 Fed. Cl. 410 (Fed. Cl. 1999). “1993) (citing 14 C.F.R. § 39.1 ). Directives are issued in conjunction with the FAA’s continuing review of the airworthiness of aircraft, and no aircraft or component subject to an airworthiness directive can be used until the Directive is satisfied.”
Gatx/airlog Co., Gatx Capital Corp., Airlog Mgmt. Corp., Frederick L. Hattonand Sanford P. Burnstein v. United States, 234 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2000). “§ 44709 (a) (1994); 14 C.F.R. § 39.1 (2000). The FAA may amend, modify, suspend or revoke a certificate for airworthiness reasons.”
Herndon v. Seven Bar Flying Serv., Inc., 716 F.2d 1322 (10th Cir. 1983). “Airworthiness Directives describe unsafe conditions and set forth mandatory precautions that must be taken in order to operate the affected aircraft, 14 C.F.R. § 39.1 ; Melville v. American Home Assurance Co.”
Commander Props., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., Beech Aircraft Corp. & Raytheon Co., Intervenors, 11 F.3d 204 (D.C. Cir. 1994). “14 C.F.R. § 39.1 . No product subject to an Airworthiness Directive may be used unless the directive is satisfied.”
GATX/Airlog Co. v. Evergreen Int'l Airlines, Inc., 81 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (N.D. Cal. 1999). “14 C.F.R. § 39.1 . The regulations go on to state: This subpart identifies those products in which the Administrator has found an unsafe condition as described in § 39.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.