GoJet Airlines, LLC v. Federal Aviation Administration, 743 F.3d 1168

GoJet Mechanics replaced a CRJ-700 main landing gear assembly with pins to lock it during repair, per the Aircraft Maintenance Manual.
They did not make a logbook entry documenting the gear pins or their removal as required by the General Maintenance Manual.
One pin was not removed, leading to a post-takeoff warning that the landing gear would not retract and return to the airport.
GoJet disclosed the issue to the FAA under the Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program (VDRP), which offers a potential letter of correction in lieu of penalties if compliance requirements are met.
FAA Inspector Cooper rejected GoJet’s proposed comprehensive fix; the FAA then initiated a civil penalty enforcement action against GoJet; GoJet sought judicial review of the final agency action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether GoJet violated 14 C.F.R. § 121.153(a)(2)	GoJet argues it operated an airworthy aircraft	Administrator concluded the plane was unairworthy due to inoperable landing gear and lack of MEL compliance	GoJet violated § 121.153(a)(2) as the aircraft was not airworthy
Whether GoJet violated 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a) as a residual claim	GoJet contends no extraordinary circumstances; potential danger was minimal	FAA found potential danger existed from operating an unairworthy aircraft; extraordinary circumstances not shown	Administrator did not err in finding a § 91.13(a) residual violation
Whether the FAA violated procedural due process by terminating the VDRP and initiating enforcement	GoJet claims the VDRP termination deprived it of review under the program	FAA acted within its discretion and GoJet failed to pursue elevation/remedial procedures	No abuse of discretion; FAA properly terminated VDRP and commenced enforcement
Whether the VDRP decision is subject to judicial review	VDRP imposes binding limitations on enforcement discretion; review should apply	VDRP is discretionary policy; enforcement decisions generally unreviewable	Court applies APA review; held not abuse of discretion in this procedural context

King v. NTSB, 362 F.3d 439 (8th Cir. 2004) (substantial evidence review; deferential standard for agency findings)
Copsey v. NTSB, 993 F.2d 736 (10th Cir. 1993) (airworthiness conundrum; nonconformities and MEL context)
Morton v. Dow, 525 F.2d 1302 (10th Cir. 1975) (type-certificate nonconformity grounds for violation)
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (U.S. 1985) (enforcement discretion generally not judicially reviewable)
Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. N.R.D.C., 435 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1978) (agency policy statements; need for binding limits on enforcement discretion)
Ubbelohde v. South Dakota, 330 F.3d 1014 (8th Cir. 2003) (binding effect of agency manuals/policies on reviewability)
Rochling v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 725 F.3d 927 (8th Cir. 2013) (standards for arbitrariness; proper agency decision making)