Washington Aviation Group, P.C.
and the
Law Offices of Jason A. Dickstein

Our law firm represents companies in FAA enforcement proceedings. We can advise you on both the financial ramifications and the business ramifications of your options, and we can help give you the information you need to make a decision about the bext way to approach the enforcement action.  

Our law firm consults on a variety of compliance matters. Ask us how we can help you to avoid future enforcement actions through proactive auditing and quality systems.

Our law firm assists with transactional matters. We can advise your company on how to protect your legal rights in transactions within the aviation industry, and we can draw up the agreements to make it happen smoothly.

Our law firm advises companies on how to approach potential safety issues (from accidents to SUPs) in a manner calculated to maximize safety and minimize liability while also protecting the business' reputation.

Our law firm represents companies in litigation, but we also recognize that there are often less expensive ways to settle dispute, and we will strive to find you the most expediant, cost-effective, satisfactory solution to your problem.

Attorneys from our firm are admitted in DC, Virginia and New York; but much of what we do reflects compliance with U.S. federal law, which allows us to represent companies nationwide, and advise companies around the world. 

The rules governing administrative actions permit our attorneys to represent aviation companies accused of FAA or other federal administrative law violations in any state.

Our firm's attorneys are also admitted before the appropriate Federal trial and appellate courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court).  Admissions include:

• U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit
• U.S. Supreme Court

While we try to avoid litigation when there is a better solution for your company; unfortunately, sometimes litigation is unavoidable as a practical matter.  When the court system gets involved, we represent our clients interests vigorously and actively seek the best possible resolution for our clients.  NOTE: The following past cases are cited to demonstrate the scope of our practice.  They are not a measure of whether we can be successful in your case.  Success in your case will be based on the actual facts of the case and our use of the applicable law.

Bell Helicopter Textron v. Able Engineering & Component
Services. 

Defended a repair station accused of trademark infringement
and unfair competition. Case was successfully dismissed on summary judgment.

In the Matter of Stark Avionics

Defended a repair station accused of errors in their major-minor distinctions (and resultant documentation issues). Part of the case was dismissed on a motion for decision and the remainder was withdrawn by the FAA.  Obtained EAJA funds for the client.  2007 FAA Lexis 143.

In Re Lafayette Avionics. 

Defended a repair station accused by the FAA of violations of federal aviation regulations. The case against our client was dismissed by the FAA.

In Re Custom Essence

Defended a manufacturer accused by the FAA of hazardous materials violations. The case against our client was dismissed by the FAA.

Babbitt v. Higginsville Avionics Lab

Defended a repair station accused of Part 145 violations.  Resolved the matter with FAA withdrawal of complaint.  Judge Mullins said "in 20 years of hearing these cases, this may be one of the best in-court resolutions that I've seen of a controversy."  2010 NTSB ALJ Lexis 574.

Babbitt v. Surratt

Defended two pilots in appeal of 180 day suspensions.  We prevailed at trial and subsequently prevailed again on appeal before the NTSB.  Judge Fowler called our work on this case "admirable."  2009 NTSB ALJ Lexis 556.

United States v. Sickler

Defended a repair station and its President in criminal charges related to unapproved parts allegations. The government had brought charges under 18 U.S.C. section 371, claiming that the completion of FAA 8130-3 tags represented fraud on the U.S. government. We were able to show that the FAA 8130-3 tags were properly completed and these charges were dropped.

Negotiated a favorable change to an airport construction plan on behalf of a repair station.

Assisted companies with export compliance.

Worked with manufacturing companies to educate their personnel about intellectual property - how to protect the company's own IP and how to avoid infringing a competitor's IP.  

Represented PMA companies in negotiations with Type Certificate holders to end the TC holders' allegations of intellectual property malfeasance (copyright, trademark and trade secret claims).

Drafted contracts for manufacturers, repair stations and distributors reflecting issues like aircraft/engine purchase, inventory consignment, sales/supply, repair service, development and manufacturing joint ventures.

Successfully petitioned the FAA to delay implementation of repair station rules, and training rules, until proper advisory guidance could be published.

Worked with the FAA to rescind the "FOR DOMESTIC SHIPMENT ONLY" limitation on domestic airworthiness approval tags for aircraft parts.

Helped to develop and maintain the ASA-100 quality system (compliant with FAA AC 00-56).

Worked with EASA to obtain recognition of FAA AC 00-56 and ASA-100 under European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) guidance [EASA GM3 145.A.42(b)(i) Components].

Worked with United Kingdom Environment Agency (UKEA) to establish waste licensing policies and guidance materials for the aviation disassembly community.

Advised manufacturers, distributors, repair stations and air carriers on matters ranging from securing transactions to hazmat compliance.

Negotiated settlements in hazardous materials allegations raised against companies by FAA and other federal agencies.