Aery Aviation FAA Case No. 2023SO110001
Wrong on the facts.
Wrong on the law.
Aery Aviation’s Response to FAA’s Proposed Civil Penalty: Significant errors of fact and law, a 38-month period of silence by FAA, and a formal request to the Secretary of Transportation to withdraw this multi year distraction and harm.
Aery Aviation is an FAA certified, operating aviation services company long serving commercial and government clients including the United States Navy.
In early 2022, the FAA opened an inquiry into a subset of Aery’s flights. Aery answered the agency’s questions and hearing nothing further, had every reason to believe the matter was resolved.
For the next thirty-eight months (over 3 ½ years), the FAA was completely silent. Then, on December 21, 2025 — with no warning and no chance for Aery to respond first — the agency publicly advertised a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty exceeding $15.7M, involving flights flown years earlier, specifically between July 2021 and April 2022.
A proposed penalty is not a finding of liability.
But posted publicly, it is read as one.
MAY 2026 LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
“This enforcement action should never have been brought, and the systems that allowed it to proceed unchecked need to be fixed.”
Scott Beale, President of Aery Aviation
The FAA’s theory was and is inaccurate: that Aery operated aircraft for the Navy fitted with underwing pods or stores, on flights that demanded a category of certification that FAA wrongfully claims Aery was missing. On April 7, 2026, Aery brought all the evidence including flight logs, communications with the Navy, and certification records to an informal conference with the FAA. By the end, three separate, fundamental errors in both fact and law had been established — each one, on its own, individually is enough to invalidate the FAA action entirely.
$15.7M
One of the largest proposed civil penalties
ZERO EVIDENCE Presented by the FAA to support the proposed fine.
Wrong Jurisdiction
No FAA Jurisdiction — Aery’s Flights designated “PAO” in writing by the Navy. FAA has no jurisdiction over (Public Aircraft Operations)
Wrong Aircraft
Misidentified Aircraft — FAA’s proposed civil penalty includes multiple aircraft not even owned or operated by Aery at the time of operations
Wrong Charges
No Aery Modifications — None of the aircraft identified by the FAA were improperly modified. therefore no restricted certificates were required..
Timeline of Events
The Facts That End The Case
Aery’s defense does not depend on argument or interpretation. It rests on three documented facts, each independently sufficient to require withdrawal.
01
No Jurisdiction
The Navy had jurisdiction, not the FAA. A substantial portion of the flights were “PAO” (Public Aircraft Operations) under U.S. Navy authority and outside the FAA’s enforcement reach.
02
Misidentification
Aery didn’t own or operate the aircraft. Nine of the aircraft the FAA counted were not owned or operated by Aery during the period it cited.
03
No Modifications
There were no modifications to the aircraft in question. The aircraft Aery actually flew carried none of the underwing pods or stores as alleged by FAA.
FAA Claims Answered
The FAA’s notice rested on three assertions. Here is each one, set against the record Aery placed in front of the agency.
FAA Claim
Aery flew missions subject to FAA certification and enforcement.
The Record
The 2021 U.S. Navy PAO designation letter was in the FAA’s hands years before the notice of civil penalty.
FAA Claim
Aery operated hundreds of flights across nine specific aircraft.
Those flights were attributed to Aery and folded into the penalty as its own operations.
The Record
FAA aircraft registration records confirm ownership by others as a matter of public record
FAA Claim
Aery’s aircraft carried underwing pods or stores requiring restricted airworthiness certification.
This alleged (but not performed) modification is FAA’s principal legal basis for much of the penalty.
The Record
Maintenance records, inspection reports, and aircraft configuration logs show no such modification.
Maintenance records, inspection reports, and aircraft configuration logs establish that the aircraft Aery operated in civil service had no underwing pods, no stores, and no configuration changes requiring restricted certification. Without the modification, the legal predicate for the entire action does not exist — the penalty is not merely excessive, it is legally unsupportable.
The Need to Reform
Aery is asking for more than dismissal. The process that produced this proposed penalty is broken. The FAA desperately needs reform to ensure that smaller, specialized companies – especially those serving government customers are not smeared publicly without evidence. .
01
Verify Against The Record
The FAA should not publicly advertise a proposed penalty it has not first verified against the respondent’s own record.
02
Mandatory Pre-Issuance File Review
Certify that all materials the respondent submitted — including jurisdictional designations and correspondence from other federal agencies — were reviewed before any penalty issues.
03
Aircraft Ownership Verification
Confirm, against the FAA’s own registry, that the respondent actually owned or operated the aircraft before attributing flights to it.
04
Enforcement Timeline Standards
Publish maximum investigation timeframes, with tolling disclosure once a case passes 18 months — so no operator sits in silence for years, then faces a public notice with no warning.
The Court of Public Opinion
When the FAA publicizes a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, it does something a quiet enforcement file never does: it tries the company in the court of public opinion.
A proposed penalty carries no finding of liability. But the public does not read it that way — and posted publicly, the accusation does its damage immediately, years before any hearing. This is the leverage the FAA uses to force a private settlement under the threat of litigation. An agency willing to accuse a company in public should be required to meticulously document and present evidence to the accused before it does.
Here, the FAA did the opposite. No communication. No evidence. 3½ years of misleading silence. And the public advertisement of a record-setting civil penalty as compared to any operator of any size.
THE BOTTOM LINE
“This enforcement action should never have been brought, and the systems that allowed it to proceed unchecked demand serious reform..”
Scott Beale, President of Aery Aviation
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the FAA matter involving Aery Aviation? 
In December 2025, the FAA proposed a $15.7 million civil penalty against Aery Aviation (Case No. 2023SO110001) related to flights conducted between July 2021 and April 2022. Following an informal conference on April 7, 2026, three categories of fundamental error in the FAA’s case have been documented. Aery Aviation has formally requested that the Secretary of Transportation direct a comprehensive review of the matter and dismiss the proposed penalty in its entirety.
How could the FAA have known that Aery didn’t own or operate the aircraft?
Aircraft ownership and registration are matters of public record in the FAA’s own registry. Yet the notice attributed hundreds of flights, across nine aircraft, to Aery for a period when Aery did not own or operate them. Order 2150.3C calls for evidence-based investigation — and a check of the FAA’s own registration data would have shown the aircraft were not owned or operated by Aery before the penalty was issued.
What are Public Aircraft Operations (PAO)?
Public Aircraft Operations (PAO) are defined by federal statute (49 U.S.C. §§ 40102(a)(41) and 40125) and explained in FAA Advisory Circular AC 00-1.1B. When a government entity conducts or authorizes flights performing a governmental function, those operations fall under that entity’s authority rather than ordinary FAA certification and enforcement. The U.S. Navy formally designated a substantial portion of the flights as PAO in 2021 — and Aery delivered that designation to the FAA at the time.
How is the size of an FAA civil penalty determined?
Under 49 U.S.C. § 46301, civil penalties are capped per violation (an inflation-adjusted maximum) set out in 14 C.F.R. § 13.301. Large totals are assembled by stacking per-flight violations across many flights. Separately, § 46301(b) directs the FAA, in setting the amount, to weigh the nature and gravity of the violation, degree of culpability, history, ability to pay, and the effect on the operator’s ability to stay in business.
Why did the FAA wait 38 months to act and is the delay consistent with FAA policy?
The FAA’s own Rules of Practice for civil penalty actions (14 C.F.R. Part 13, Subpart G) provide that if the agency fails to show good cause for the delay, an administrative law judge may dismiss any part of the complaint alleging a violation that occurred more than two years before the notice of proposed civil penalty was issued.
Is the $15.7 million a fine that Aery Aviation has been ordered to pay?
No. Under the FAA’s civil penalty rules (14 C.F.R. § 13.16), a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty is an allegation that begins a process — not a finding of liability or an order to pay. Aery has contested the notice in full; no penalty has been assessed.
Is it appropriate for the FAA to seek a penalty large enough to put a company out of business?
FAA enforcement is meant to promote compliance and safety — not to destroy a regulated business. The “ability to pay” and “effect on the ability to continue to do business” factors in 49 U.S.C. § 46301(b) exists precisely to keep penalties proportionate, and the FAA’s Order 2150.3C frames enforcement around achieving compliance rather than punishment for its own sake.
Has the FAA’s enforcement program been independently criticized?
Yes. The Government Accountability Office — Congress’s nonpartisan watchdog — has found significant weaknesses in the FAA enforcement program that governs cases like Aery’s. In a 2004 review, GAO concluded that the FAA lacked the management controls to measure or evaluate its own enforcement, and relied on a nationwide enforcement database so incomplete that field offices kept their own separate records. GAO also found that the FAA closed roughly 18% of its cases with no action — frequently because the investigative reports its own inspectors prepared did not contain sufficient evidence to support the alleged violation.
For media inquiries regarding the FAA matter or any other Aery Aviation operations.
GENERAL INQUIRIES