## Facts

- Paul Lindsay held an airline transport pilot certificate.
- After a night of heavy drinking in Leesburg, Florida, Lindsay and three companions went to a nearby airport and were associated with a Cessna 182 flight activity in the early morning hours.
- Sheriff’s deputies responded to reports of erratic flying and observed the Cessna land at Leesburg; the pilot in the left seat (Phillip Smith) was visibly intoxicated, failed sobriety testing, and was arrested for operating an aircraft while intoxicated.
- Lindsay was intoxicated, remained in the aircraft, behaved belligerently toward deputies, and was ultimately left in the airplane at the airport.
- About an hour after Smith was jailed, the same aircraft was found at a nearby airport (Umatilla).
- The FAA relied on circumstantial evidence to conclude Lindsay flew the aircraft from Leesburg to Umatilla while intoxicated.
- In administrative proceedings, Lindsay denied flying that leg and claimed other friends arrived—one to drive him away and another (sober) to move the airplane.
- The ALJ found Lindsay’s account not credible and found it most likely Lindsay flew while intoxicated, but ruled the FAA had not met its burden of proof and ordered reinstatement.
- On the FAA’s appeal, the NTSB reversed the ALJ’s outcome, rejected Lindsay’s account as implausible and uncorroborated, and sustained the FAA’s emergency revocation.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the NTSB’s finding that Lindsay piloted the aircraft from Leesburg to Umatilla while intoxicated.
2. Whether the NTSB could reject the ALJ’s ultimate conclusion (and related credibility-influenced assessments) and draw different inferences from the record.
3. Whether affirming revocation based largely on circumstantial evidence exceeded statutory or fairness limits on the agency’s decisionmaking.

## Decision

- The court denied Lindsay’s petition for review and left the NTSB’s revocation order in place.
- The court held the NTSB’s pilot-identity and intoxication findings were supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
- The court held that, for judicial review, it evaluates the NTSB’s decision rather than the ALJ’s, and the Board may depart from the ALJ if it explains its reasons and the record supports its view.
- The court accepted the Board’s reliance on circumstantial proof, including that Smith was jailed when the aircraft later appeared at Umatilla and Lindsay was the remaining realistic candidate to have moved the plane.

## Legal Principles

- A court reviews NTSB factual findings under the substantial-evidence standard and does not reweigh competing inferences where the Board’s conclusion is reasonable and record-supported.
- The NTSB may reverse an ALJ’s disposition and draw different inferences from the evidence, including when credibility considerations are implicated, if the Board adequately explains its disagreement and substantial evidence supports its findings.
- Circumstantial evidence may constitute substantial evidence in aviation enforcement proceedings, including to prove pilot identity and operation while intoxicated.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit upheld the NTSB’s revocation of Lindsay’s pilot certificate, concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board’s inference—based primarily on circumstantial proof—that Lindsay flew the aircraft while intoxicated, and that the Board permissibly rejected the ALJ’s contrary outcome.


Lindsay v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 47 F.3d 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1995)