u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO~ EC E IV E .. D 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS n 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES, 

Respondent. 

DEC 2 4 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 

FAA Case No. 2011S0290032 

Judge Sullivan 

RESPONSE TO RENEWED MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND 

MOTION TO COMPEL AND EXCLUDE 

On December 2, 2014, Respondent moved the Judge to impose sanctions on the FAA on 

the basis that the FAA had untimely made certain expert witness disclosures without any reason 

or explanation. 1 The FAA responded, noting that the cause of the delay was that the undersigned 

had been out of the office due to a death in the family, and provided evidence that immediately 

upon the undersigned's return to the office, opposing counsel had been informed of this absence 

and the reason for it. The Judge reserved ruling on the motion on the basis that the Respondent 

had failed to engage in any Rule 3 7 discussions prior to filing its motion. Although it is now 

undisputed that there was good cause for the delay, Respondent now renews its motion, now 

arguing that an FAA witness should be precluded from testifying solely on the basis that the 

undersigned did not properly communicate with opposing counsel and the court with regards to 

the untimeliness. That motion is meritless, and should be denied. 

1 Respondent alternatively argued in that motion that the expert disclosures were substantively deficient. Respondent 

does not renew its motion in that regard, and so it will not be further addressed here. 

1 
Further, while the Respondent seeks sanctions against the FAA for failing to make a 

phone call, Respondent has itself repeatedly violated its own discovery obligations with regard to 

witness disclosures. As a result, the FAA now moves the Judge to compel Respondent to 

complete certain discovery disclosures, and to preclude Respondent from being permitted to use 

certain witnesses. 2 

Respondent's Renewed Motion for Sanctions 

In its renewed motion for sanctions, Respondent's sole allegation is that the undersigned 

has failed to show good cause for (1) not having another attorney in the undersigned's office call 

opposing counsel to let him know about the undersigned's availability; (2) not having another 

attorney in the undersigned's office file with the Judge a motion for leave to file the expert 

disclosures when the undersigned returned to the office; or (3) not asking opposing counsel to 

accept the untimely expert disclosure. As an initial matter, the actions asserted by Respondent 

are neither reasonable nor necessary. 

With regards to a telephone call to opposing counsel while the undersigned was out of the 

office, there would not appear to be any function to such a call except as a matter of courtesy. 

While maximum courtesy is, of course, an ideal for which any attorney should strive, it is 

unreasonable to expect that, when an attorney must leave the office (and the state) for an 

extended period of time, with no notice, that it will be possible for the attorney to make sure that 

opposing parties are given personal calls to let the parties know that the attorney is unavailable. 

With regards to requesting leave from the court to make the untimely discovery 

disclosure, this action was also unnecessary. While filings with the court itself, such as an 

Answer or a Motion for Summary Judgment, may require leave in order to be accepted by the 

2 The FAA's response and motion are combined because they share a factual nexus in that Respondent's own 

violations concerning expert witness disclosures leave Respondent with unclean hands, which is an independent 

basis to deny Respondent's Renewed Motion for Sanctions. 

2 
court, leave is not required from the court before making an untimely discovery disclosure. In the 

undersigned's experience, no attorney (friendly or opposing) or judge has ever sought leave of 

court to make an out-of-time discovery disclosure, or suggested that such a request should have 

been made. Given the good cause reason for the delay, the FAA's obligation, which it fulfilled, 

was to deliver the disclosure to the Respondent as soon as possible upon the undersigned's return 

to the office. 

Finally, Respondent asserts that the undersigned should have, upon returning to the 

office, asked opposing counsel to accept the expert disclosures. As an initial matter, it is 

noteworthy that opposing counsel already stated in one of his e-mails that, had the FAA made 

such a request, he would have refused it (Motion Attachment at 2). Respondent is here asserting 

that the FAA should have been sanctioned for not making a phone call that Respondent itself has 

acknowledged would have been pointless. Further, it is unclear what function such a request 

could have served. The FAA provided the expert disclosures to Respondent on December l, 

2014. Had the undersigned asked opposing counsel whether opposing counsel would "accept" 

the disclosures on December 1, 2014, and opposing counsel had agreed, then the FAA would still 

have made the expert disclosures exactly as it did. Had opposing counsel refused, then the FAA 

would have - despite the refusal - made the expert disclosures exactly as it did, because 

Respondent saying it didn't want to "accept" the disclosures would not have relieved the FAA of 

its obligation to make them. 

Further, it is noteworthy that, while Respondent's renewed motion does not (and cannot) 

argue that there was not good cause for the delay in the FAA's expert disclosures, the 

Respondent still requests the same sanction with respect to Specialist Christensen/ without any 

3 Respondent only renewed its motion with respect to Specialist Christensen, not the FAA's other expert witoesses. 

See Renewed Motion for Sanctions at 2 n.2 

3 
connection between the FAA's supposed misconduct and the sanction sought. In particular, 

Respondent seeks the total exclusion of Specialist Christensen as a witness. The details of the 

noticed deposition of Specialist Christensen are discussed below, but the most significant issue is 

that there is no relationship whatsoever between Respondent's request to exclude this witness 

and the supposed misconduct of the FAA. Respondent argues that it has been prejudiced because 

it will be unable to depose Specialist Christensen, because he was not disclosed until December 

1, 2014. However, as noted above, Respondent no longer argues that there was anything 

inappropriate about that delay - presumably because the facts of this situation make it readily 

apparent that there was ample good cause for the delay. The basis for Respondent's renewed 

motion for sanctions is, rather, whether or not some sort of additional communication should 

have been made while the undersigned was out of the office, or after the undersigned returned to 

the office. But even if there was some obligation on the part of the FAA to make such a contact, 

none of the proposed contacts would have in any way, shape, or form affected when the FAA's 

expert disclosure was made. Regardless of the results of those contacts, the undersigned could 

not have made the FAA's expert disclosures until December 1, 2014, the day on which they were 

made. Regardless, even if there was misconduct, and there was some relation between the 

misconduct and the sanction sought, the sanction sought is wholly out of proportion with the 

supposedly inappropriate actions identified by Respondent. 

Specifics Concerning the Deposition of Specialist Christensen 

Respondent correctly does not seek enforcement of its invalid notice of deposition to 

Specialist Christensen. However, as Respondent spends some time on the subject, further 

observations appear to be appropriate. As Respondent acknowledges, its Notice seeks a 

deposition after the close of discovery -but Respondent provides no explanation of why it would 

4 
Unclean Hands 

An additional basis for denying Respondent's Motion for Sanctions is that Respondent 

has acted with unclean hands in this matter. Respondent complains that the FAA failed to make 

appropriate contacts concerning an untimely filing, and seeks sanctions on that basis. At the 

same time, however, some of Respondent's own expert disclosures were themselves untimely, 

without any basis apparent or any explanation provided. Respondent, having knowingly failed in 

its own expert disclosure obligations, cannot seek equitable relief from the Judge concerning the 

FAA's expert disclosures. 

In particular, Respondent's "rebuttal" expert testimony discloses for the first time two 

individuals as "expert" witnesses- John Becker and Jim Savastano5

• See Exhibit B. However, 

the substance of the disclosed testimony for these witnesses is not any sort of "rebuttal" - it is, 

rather, not tied to the FAA's expert disclosures and is substantively the same as the Respondent's 

initial expert disclosures regarding Mr. Hancher. See Exhibit C (Hancher's expert report). When 

the undersigned contacted opposing counsel about (among other things) the appearance that 

Becker and Savastano should have been disclosed in Respondent's initial disclosure, opposing 

counsel simply ignored that part of the undersigned's e-mail, providing no explanation for 

Respondent's failure to disclose Becker and Savastano as experts on or before November 19, 

2014. See Exhibit D (e-mail exchange). 

This filing will discuss below the appropriate direct consequences for Respondent's 

violation of Respondent's discovery obligations. But with regards to Respondent's Motion for 

Sanctions, the doctrine of unclean hands precludes the application of sanctions, even if those 

sanctions would otherwise be appropriate. Respondent asserts that, because the FAA failed to 

notify Respondent and the Court that the undersigned would be unable to timely file the FAA's 

5 Mr. Savastano had never previously been disclosed as a witness in any capacity. 

7 
initial expert disclosures, the FAA should be precluded for using a witness who was not 

disclosed until December 1, 2014. At the same time, Respondent itself failed to disclose two of 

its own expert witnesses until December 12, 2014, without any reason or explanation. Under 

these circumstances, Respondent cannot obtain any relief for the FAA's supposed failures with 

regards to the FAA's initial expert disclosures. 

Motion to Compel and Motion To Exclude 

Related to the above discussion, the FAA hereby moves that Respondent be required to 

complete its discovery obligations, and in other regards that Respondent be precluded from using 

witnesses that have never been disclosed to the FAA. In support of this motion, the FAA states 

as follows: 

Facts 

During discovery in this case, the FAA asked two pertinent interrogatories of 

Respondent, one with regards to witnesses generally, and one with regards to expert witnesses. 

Exhibit E (Interrogatories 13, 14). Respondent's answer to these interrogatories indicated that 

Respondent had no knowledge as to who it might call as a witness in this case. Exhibit F. 

Respondent subsequently disclosed a partial expert witness report for Mr. Hancher6 Exhibit C. 

Hancher's report is not complete because it does not address two required elements of an expert 

witness report under Ru1e 26 - prior publications, if any, and Hancher's compensation 

arrangements. Compare Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26(a)(2)(B)(v), (vi) with Exhibit C. 

As time passed, Respondent's failure to supplement its answer to Interrogatory 13 

seemed less and less plausible. Accordingly, at the deposition of John Becker, the undersigned 

simply asked Mr. Becker whether he expected to be a witness. Exhibit G at 186-87. Opposing 

6 Because the Hancher report was submitted months before initial expert witness disclosures, and Respondent had 

ample opportunity to supplement it before it was due, the undersigned did not at that time complain to Respondent 

about the missing elements of the report. 

8 
counsel, answering for Mr. Becker, stated that Mr. Becker would be a witness at hearing. !d. at 

186-87. Opposing counsel asserted that "the witness list isn't required to be provided." !d. 

Respondent reserved the right to read and sign Mr. Becker's deposition, but did not submit any 

errata with regards to these questions. 

When the undersigned returned from his period out of the office (and after g1vmg 

Respondent ample time to supplement its response to Interrogatory 13, either directly or through 

errata to Mr. Becker's deposition), he followed up with opposing counsel regarding 

Respondent's failure to answer Interrogatory 13. See Exhibit D at 3. Opposing counsel asserted 

that "In fact the list of witnesses and exchange of exhibits is not due until April 9, 2014," but 

provided no other explanation for its failure to respond accurately to Interrogatory #13, with 

regards to Mr. Becker or any other witness. !d. at 2. Respondent indicated that it would 

supplement this response shortly. !d. Respondent also indicated that Becker would be an expert 

witness, but provided no further information on that subject. !d. 

On December 12, 2014, Respondent submitted its "rebuttal" expert witness disclosure, 

identifying John Becker and Jim Savastano (both employees of Respondent) for the first time as 

"expert" witnesses. See Exhibit B. As to both Savastano and Becker, Respondent disclosed that 

they would testify "regarding the minor nature of the discrepancies claimed by the FAA, the 

extent of the corrective action and the cause of the discrepancies, namely wear and tear and 

intervening third-party maintenance and not the result of the alleged improper installation or 

rigging of the flying doors ... the likely cause of the N287SC air return was vibration caused by 

the aircraft's rudder assembly bushings and not AMES's installation or rigging of the aircraft's 

flying doors ... that the flying doors were installed and rigged by Respondent in accordance with 

9 
the applicable Aircraft Maintenance Manual provisions." Exhibit B. Every single opinion offered 

by the "rebuttal" experts is simply taken from Hancher's report: 

Savastano and Becker are identified as testifying that the discrepancies are "minor" 

and that they were caused by wear and tear and/or intervening maintenance, not by 

any improper installation/rigging of the flying doors, as expressed in paragraph 5 of 

Hancher's report; 

Savastano and Becker are identified as testifying that the air return of N287SC was 

caused by an issue with the rudder assembly bushings, and not the rigging of the 

flying doors, as expressed in the first paragraph 6 of Hancher's report; and 

Savastano and Becker are identified as testifying that the installation and rigging were 

performed in accordance with the AMM, as expressed in paragraph 7 of Hancher's 

report. 

Compare Exhibit C at ~~ 5-7 with Exhibit B at ~ 1. 

Additionally, Respondent noted in a footnote of its expert "rebuttal" disclosure that it will 

also call Becker and Savastano as fact and non-expert opinion witnesses. See Exhibit B at 1 n.l 

On December 16, 2014, the undersigned again contacted opposing counsel about the 

failure to answer Interrogatory # 13. Exhibit D at 2. Opposing counsel provided no explanation 

for Respondent's continued failure to comply with Interrogatory # 13, but asserted that it would 

supplement its responses by December 23, 2014 - 11 days after the close of discovery. See 

Exhibit D at 2. In that e-mail the undersigned also indicated to opposing counsel that the 

December 12, 2014, expert "rebuttal" disclosure was not in fact a rebuttal disclosure, but "simply 

an identification of witnesses who should have been, but were not, included in the initial expert 

disclosure." !d. at 2. In his responsive e-mail, opposing counsel ignores this issue. Id. at 1. 

10 
As of this date, Respondent has complied with neither Interrogatory #13 nor 

Interrogatory #14. Its only identification of Becker as a non-expert witness was its admission at 

Becker's deposition that he would be a witness. Its only identification of Savastano as a 

The facts discussed above demonstrate that Respondent has known for an unknown, but 

significant, period of time that it would call Becker and Savastano as witnesses. Despite this 

knowledge, Respondent failed to identify these (or any other witnesses) in its interrogatory 

responses, even when this problem was brought to its attention by the undersigned. As nonexpert witnesses, Becker and Savastano should have been identified in response to Interrogatory 

# 13, but never have been. As expert witnesses, Becker and Savastano should have been disclosed 

no later than November 19, 2014, the due date for initial expert disclosures, and Respondent 

should have also at that time updated its response to Interrogatory #14 to address these identified 

. 7 expert Witnesses. 

Respondent's only explanation for not having identified a single potential witness in 

response to Interrogatory # 13 has been that it is not yet required to provide a witness list. 

However, as noted by the undersigned in his e-mail, this is irrelevant to the issue of 

Respondent's need to answer Interrogatory # 13 accurately - the fact that a prehearing 

submission will be due at some point in the future does not relieve a litigant of the obligation to 

respond to discovery requests about potential witnesses and their possible testimony. Respondent 

provided no explanation for why Becker and Savastano were not identified as experts prior to 

Respondent's expert "rebuttal" disclosure. 

In sum, the evidence now available, including the statements of opposing counsel, 

indicate that Respondent (1) has known an extended period of time who its potential witnesses 

7 Although Respondent did not update its response to Interrogatory #14 with regards to Hancher, the Hancher report 

sufficiently addressed the topics of that interrogatory. 

11 
compel and exclude testimony with regards to Respondent's repeated and to all appearances 

intentional refusal to comply with its discovery obligations with regards to witness identification, 

as described above. 

~ Respectfully submitted this\ S day of December, 2014. 

CHRISTOPHER STEVENSON 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

14 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Response to Renewed Motion for Sanctions and Motion to 

Compel and Exclude was sent: 

original and one copy via certified mail to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

one copy via certified mail and facsimile to: 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. 

1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 120 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Facsimile: (202) 944-3306 

~AN~;xQeg1 Legal Assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

DEC 1 9 

Dated 

15 
Stevenson, Chris (FAA) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Robert Silverberg <rsilverberg@sgbdc.com> 

Monday, December 01, 2014 2:34 PM 

Stevenson, Chris (FAA) 

RE: Lipinski Deposition 

Best option is Dec, 9, 10 or 11 for the Lipinski deposition. That will allow time to determine if the contingent Steffey 

deposition will be necessary to be completed by the end of the month. I need to avoid from Mondays and Fridays 

Bob 

From: Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov [mailto:Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 2:29 PM 

To: Robert Silverberg 

Subject: RE: Lipinski Deposition 

Bob, 

Yes, I understand that you indicated that you preferred the 18'h. But as I indicated in my prior e-mail, I do not have 

information back from Inspector Lipinski at the moment. It would be helpful if you could simply let me know what dates 

you are available to take the deposition so that, when I hear back from Inspector Lipinski, I am able to determine what 

overlap there is between your availability and his, and then we can, as you say, discuss logistics. I am not asking about 

one particular date, but rather the remainder of the extended deposition period, consisting of the month of December. 

Christopher Stevenson 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

(404) 305-5200 

From: Robert Silverberg [mailto:rsilverberq@sqbdc.com] 

Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 2:18 PM 

To: Stevenson, Chris (FAA) 

Subject: RE: Lipinski Deposition 

Chris, 

I indicated that of the dates you gave me, Dec. 18th was my choice. Are you asking what dates other than those you 

initially proposed? 

Please advise. 

Bob 

From: Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov [mailto:Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 2:15 PM 

To: Robert Silverberg 

Subject: RE: Lipinski Deposition 

Bob, 

Please advise on what dates you are available to take Inspector Lipinski's deposition. 

1 
Bob 

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which itis addressed and is (1) subject to attorneyclient privilege; (2) attorney work product; or (3) confidential. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or 

taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 

unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from 

any computer. 

Robert P. Silverberg 

Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, L.L.P. 

1101 30th Street N.W 

Suite 120 

Washington, D. C. 20007 

rsilverberq@sqbdc.com 

direct line 202-944-3304 

fax 202-944-3306 

mobile 301-922-8895 

3 
DEC-12-2014 15:04 

In the matter of 

SILVERBERG,GOLDMAN&BIKOFF 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

202 944 3308 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 

FAA Case No. 2011S0290032 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES 

Respondent 

Administrative Law Judge 

J .E. Sullivan 

RESPONDENT'S EXPERT REBUTTAL DISCLOSURES 

P.02 

Pursuant to the Order Granting/Denying Relief, and Modifying the Litigation Dates and 

Procedures, served September 30, 2014, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and 

(a)(2)(C), Respondent Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Service ("AMES") hereby 

provides the following expert rebuttal disclosures: 

1) Jeffrey Becker and James Savastano: Mr. Becker, the AMES Director, Quality 

Assurance & Training, and Mr. Savastano, the AMES Vice President of Technical Operations 

and former Vice President of Maintenance at Capital Cargo International Airlines, Inc., will 

provide expert testimony as necessary to rebut any expert and opinion testimony provided by 

Complainant's witnesses.' Mr. Becker's and Mr. Savastano's expert rebuttal testimony may 

include testimony regarding the minor nature of the discrepancies claimed by the FAA, the 

extent of the corrective action taken and the cause of the discrepancies, namely wear and tear and 

intervening third-party maintenance and not the result of the alleged improper installation or 

rigging of the flying doors by AMES. Messrs. Becker and Savastano may also testify that the 

likely cause of the N287SC air return was vibration caused by the aircraft's rudder assembly 

1 Messrs. Becker and Savastano will also testify as a fact witnesses and may provide opinion 

testimony under Rule 701 ofthe Federal Rules of Evidence. 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

(? 
DEC-12-2014 15=04 SILVERBERG,GOLDMAN&B!KOFF 202 944 3308 P.03 

bushings and not AMES's installation or rigging of the aircraft's flying doors. Messrs. Becker 

and Savastano may further testify that the flying doors were initially installed and rigged by 

Respondent in accordance with the applicable Aircraft Maintenance Manuel provisions. 

2) Daniel J. Hancher: Respondent incorporates by reference the expert report of 

Daniel J. Hancher, dated April30, 2014. Mr. Hancher may testify as described in his expert 

report as necessary to rebut expert and opinion testimony provided by Complainant's witness. 

Respectfully submitted, 

SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, L.L.P. 

Attorneys for 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING 

Dated: December 12,2014 

SER ES 

By: --~~~~~~~=-~~~---­

Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. 

1101 30th Street, N.W. 

Suite 120 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Tel: (202) 944-3304 

Fax: (202) 944-3306 

Email: rsilverberg@sgbdc.com 

2 
DEC-12-2014 15:05 SILVERBERG,GOLDMAN&BIKOFF 202 944 3308 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 121

h day of December 2014, I caused the foregoing 

Respondent's Expert Rebuttal Disclosures to be served upon the following: 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

Tel: (404) 305-5200 

Fax: (404) 305-5223 

(one copy by facsimile and First Class Mail) 

P.04 

TOTAL P.04 
REPORT OF DANIEL J. HANCHER 

1. My name is Daniel J. Hancher. Since 2010 I have been a consultant to major 

air carriers, maintenance repair organizations, and aircraft manufacturers on 

aircraft maintenance shop processes, quality control principles, and aircraft 

maintenance inductions. Since 1964 and in various capacities I have been 

engaged in aircraft maintenance organizations, including air carrier maintenance 

departments and major repair station organizations. My resume is attached 

hereto as Exhibit 1. 

2. In my capacity as a line mechanic, as a supervisor of line mechanics and in 

senior management positions at repair stations. ancj at air carriers, I estimate that 

I have had control or responsibility for the proper remol(l:)J and replacement of B727 main landing gear assemblies on well over 700 aircraft. This figure does not 

include changes of main landing gear assemblies, over which I had some aspect 

of control or responsibility, on other than B-727 aircraft. I consider myself an 

expert in the field of aircraft maintenance in general, and main aircraft landing 

gear removal, replacementand routine maintenance, in particular. In addition I 

consider myself as expert ih the matter of routine aircraft maintenance, daily 

service checks, and more in-depth checks such as "A" checks. I am expert in 

categorizing minor aircraft discrepancies, resulting from inevitable wear and tear 

resulting from normal line operations as distinguished from either minor or major 

damage. 

2. I was contacted by counsel for AMES with a request to review maintenance 

records associated with the AMES-accomplished three main landing gear 

changes performed on N898AA, N899AA and N287SC. The records consisted • 

of those created by AMES when it first changed out, at the request of its 

customer, Capital Cargo International Airlines ("CCIA"), the main landing gear 

("MLG") in connection with a "C" check of the three aircraft. I also reviewed the 

records created by AMES in connection with the work performed by AMES after 

the aircraft were flown to the AMES facility to address any of the FAAs alleged 

deficiencies in connection with the condition of the MLG doors, often referred to 

as "flying doors" .. I also reviewed the FAA-compiled Statement of the Case in this 

matter. 

3. As a result of a FAA-conducted ramp inspection of the three aircraft, FAA 

Inspector Lipinski claimed the flying doors were damaged and improperly rigged 

by AMES when the repair station had previously peformed MLG removals and 

replacements. Significantly, the ramp inspection was performed anywhere from 2 

to 9 months after AMES completed the "C" checks on each of the aircraft and the 

interval between the completion of the "C" checks and the May 2010 ramp 

inspection is as follows: 

Aircraft 

N287SC 

N898AA 

Date of MLG RIR Cycles Movements 

March 201 0 172 344 

October 2009 628 1256 

~GOVERNMENT 

~ EXHIBIT 

i G 

i! 
N899AA August2009 

3. The FAAs complaint alleges that as of the dates AMES completed the MLG 

changes and reinstallation of the flying doors that it improperly did so based on 

the condition observed by the FAA inspector on May 25-26, 2010, which as noted 

above, is anywhere from 2 to 9 months before the FAA inspected the aircraft. I 

have not seen any records produced by the FAA in this matter which details the 

condition of the MLG and flying doors on the dates AMES performed the MLG 

changes. I question how the FAA can allege the three aircraft were in discrepant 

condition on a dates certain when it never inspected the aircraft on said dates. 

4. Apart from this obvious issue of proof of a violation, and based on my review 

of the discrepancies noted at the time of the ramp inspection coupled with my 

review of the corrective action taken by AMES based on the discrepancies, it is 

my opinion that none of the items noted as a result of the FAAs ramp inspection 

were of a serious airworthiness nature that required an immediate attention or 

repair in my opinion and could have. continued in operation until the next A or C 

check. 

5. Based on my review of the corrective actions as documented by AMES, I 

have no difficulty concluding that the issues requiring attention were of a "wear 

and tear" variety and not the result of improper reinstallation of the MLGs and 

flying doors. The Inspector's ramp inspection noted minor imperfections of flying, 

door hinge fairing wear, migrating hinge pins, chafing of the wing doors, wear of 

flying door bushings and misrouting of the anti skid harness. Where the Inspector 

documented more serious findings, they were not born out based on the types of 

corrective actions required by AMES to clear the noted discrepancies. Also, the 

FAA noted the absence of a required bushing on N287SC, although the missing 

bushing is not necessarily attributable to AMES because the aircraft in question 

had two tire changes and a landing gear cylinder replacement after AMES 

performed its MLG change in March 2010. My experience with the landing gear 

of the B-727 aircraft is that the FAA generated ramp inspection findings could be 

generated on any in-service B-727 after months of flying and it is too simplistic to 

assume that the noted items were the result of improper maintenance by AMES. 

6. Based on my experience, were the flying doors not properly rigged by AMES 

at the time it performed the "C" checks as alleged by the FAA, the aircraft 

operator would have immediately noticed the discrepancies when the aircraft 

returned to performing line service. There is no evidence this was the case as 

each aircraft flew for months without any indication of aerodynamic flight issues 

resulting from misfitted flying doors until N287SC returned to the departure 

airport due to a pilot report of airborne buffeting. Although the FAA Inspector 

attributed this event to a flying door that was not properly faired, it seems more 

likely that the air return was the result of rudder vibration caused by ceased 

rudder assembly bushings. As noted, were the need for the air return attributable 

to AMES' mis-installation of the flying doors, the issues would have manifested 

themselves immediately upon the aircraft being returned to service and not 

months later. 
6. After the ramp check the three subject aircraft were repositioned to AMES' 

facility to address the Inspector's findings. The wing doors cited by the Inspector 

were removed and bushing's replaced (due to wear) and in two instances the 

doors replaced as a precaution and to satisfy CCIA and the FAA. However, the 

replacement of the doors does not necessarily mean they were damaged by the 

actions of AMES as alleged by the FAA. In my experience it is typical of 

operators to exceed the work required to address wear and tear issues when 

FAA inspectors are questioning some aspect of carrier or repair station practices. 

The hallmark of being a good operator is being responsive to FAA inspector 

requests even if there are asking work be performed that is not mandatory based 

on applicable aircraft maintenance programs. 

7. In reviewing the relevant documents including the applicable aircraft 

maintenance manual provisions, I note that the Inspector Lipinski claimed that 

AMES failed to follow the applicable AMM provisions when performing the gear 

change and reinstalling the flying doors. From the maintenance records I 

observed that AMES cited Section 32-11-00. The FAA contends that AMES 

should have referenced AMM section 32-11-12 for the purpose of installing and 

rigging the flying doors. The FAA erred in reaching its conclusion. Not citing the 

wing door wing installation section 32-11-12 does not mean that improper 

maintenance was performed. Reference to section 32-11-00 encompasses the 

instructions for installing the main gear wing (flying) doors. This is shown on 

page 423 of 32-11-00, Step AL. Step 19 of Step AL states: "Adjust (rig) wing 

door (AMM 32-12-11/501 ). The FAA allegation that the lack of a reference to 

section 32-11-12 means the correct maintenance was not performed is based on 

an incorrect reading of AMM section 32-11-00. 

I reserve the right to modify, revise or enlarge my opinions as information is 

made available to me. 

Executed on April 30, 2014 

- 1 -
Stevenson, Chris (FAA) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

Chris: 

Robert Silverberg <rsilverberg@sgbdc.com> 

Wednesday, December 17, 2014 1:28 PM 

Stevenson, Chris (FAA) 

RE: Outstanding Discovery Matters 

Service Check doc.pdf 

This email responds to your December 161

" email to me regarding certain outstanding discovery matters. 

First, regarding the document for the service check on N287SC, attached is a vertically scanned version of the 

document. Also, with respect to the three screen shots, we will request from our client additional screen shots of the other 

tabs and provide them to you as soon as we are able. 

Second, regarding Respondent's list of potential witnesses, we will provide you with a supplemental response to your 

interrogatory no. 13 by December 23'd 

Finally, regarding Respondent's expert rebuttal disclosure, as indicated therein, Messrs. Becker and Savastano may give 

expert rebuttal testimony in response to the expert testimony offered by the FAA witnesses, the disclosure for which was 

provided to Respondent 13 days after the deadline for doing so. FRCP 26(a)(2)(C) requires only a "summary of the facts 

and opinions" to which Messrs. Becker and Savastano may testify as experts and Respondent's summary disclosure is 

consistent with the summary nature of the FAA's initial expert disclosure served on December 1 ''- Regarding your 

statement that "Neither Mr. Becker nor Mr. Savastano is identified as rebutting any particular aspect of the FAA's expert 

disclosure," it is not possible to provide (and the Rules do not require Respondent to provide) a more detailed rebuttal 

given the summary nature of the FAA's initial disclosure. Moreover, unlike the FAA's initial expert disclosure, 

Respondent's rebuttal expert disclosure was served within the time established by Judge Sullivan's September 301

" 

scheduling order. In any event, Respondent will supplement its response to the FAA's interrogatory no. 14 at the same 

time as it supplements its response to your interrogatory no. 13. 

Bob 

From: Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov [mailto:Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 8:40 AM 

To: Robert Silverberg 

Subject: RE: Outstanding Discovery Matters 

Bob, 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

D 

The document for the service check was scanned horizontally rather than vertically, and it appears that the bottom of 

the page was cut off. Could you get me the full page? Additionally, with regards to the three screen prints, I note that 

there are multiple tabs of information, but only one was provided. Please provide the complete record, including the 

contents of all tabs. 

1 note that, despite your assurances that you would "shortly" be supplementing your discovery responses concerning 

potential witnesses, a full week has passed since that e-mail and I have yet to receive any supplement on the subject. At 

the same time, you have further identified Savastano as a fact and opinion witness in your "rebuttal" expert disclosure, 

further evidencing the inaccuracy of the response to Interrogatory #13. 

With regards to that "rebuttal" expert disclosure, it creates several new problems. First, I note that Interrogatory #14 

asked for information on expert witnesses, and Respondent will need to immediately supplement its answer to 

1 
Interrogatory #14 in order to comply with this discovery request. Second, it appears that the "rebuttal" disclosure is not 

a rebuttal at all, but simply an identification of witnesses that should have been, but were not, included in the initial 

expert disclosure, which was (as you are well aware) due on November 19, 2014. Neither Mr. Becker nor Mr. Savastano 

is identified as rebutting any particular aspect of the FAA's expert disclosures. Your identification of them, rather, simply 

parrots the opinions expressed in the expert report that was Respondent's initial disclosure. Please explain why Becker 

and Savastano were not timely disclosed in Respondent's initial expert disclosures. 

Christopher Stevenson 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

(404) 305-5200 

From: Robert Silverberg [mailto:rsilverberg@sgbdc.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 11:06 AM 

To: Stevenson, Chris (FAA) 

Subject: FW: Outstanding Discovery Matters 

Attached are the documents referenced in the first paragraph of my e-mail below. 

From: Robert Silverberg 

Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 10:55 AM 

To: 'Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov' 

Cc: Jeff Johnson 

Subject: RE: Outstanding Discovery Matters 

Chris, 

In response to your first point, Mr. Becker determined that as to N287SC, item no. 7 was a non-routine form documenting 

a service check performed on the aircraft on May 31,2010. With respect to N899AA, it was determined that items nos. 2, 

5 and 6 were duplicates (noted as such or described as "created in error") and were cancelled. Copies of the relevant 

documents are enclosed. 

It is of course, accurate, as you state that the witness list is not yet due to be exchanged. In fact the list of witnesses and 

exchange of exhibits is not due until April 9, 2015. Demanding the witness list be produced now is not consistent with the 

litigation scheduling order. And the deadline can hardly be deemed "irrelevant" as you have stated it. If the deadline is 

not "relevant" then why did the Judge specify it in her scheduling order? In any event, we will be supplementing our 

response to your interrogatory no. 13 shortly. 

As to your third point I note that your comments on the Hancher expert report are coming 7 months after the report was 

first made available to you. In any event I will undertake the supplement the report to include a list of prior expert 

testimony, if any, and his compensation arrangement with AMES. You take issue with paragraph 5 of the expert report 

claiming he "appears to be discounting certain unspecified serious findings made by Inspector Lipinski". The expert, Mr. 

Hancher, did not discount the so-called "serious findings". What he said was that based on his review of the aircraft repair 

records that the more "serious findings" were not borne out by the types of corrective actions (i.e. minor repairs) required 

to clear the noted discrepancies. You will be free to challenge his views at the hearing if you wish. Your deposition of Mr. 

Becker revealed the fact that each of the corrective actions taken by AMES when the aircraft were flown to the AMES 

facility was of a minor nature. 

Finally, with respect to the status of Mr. Becker as a witness, he testified at the deposition as a fact witness with personal 

knowledge of the facts of the case and consistent with Rule 701 will be able to offer opinion testimony based on his 

perception and based on his knowledge his testimony will be helpful to clearly understanding the facts in issue. In 

addition, to the extent the Judge permits expert testimony from the identified FAA expert witnesses, Mr. Becker may 

testify in his capacity as an expert using his scientific, technical, or other specialized aeronautical engineering knowledge 

to rebut the testimony of any FAA expert and an appropriate rebuttal expert disclosure will be submitted by the litigation 

schedule deadline for doing so. 

2 
Bob Silverberg 

-·-·---~--------

From: Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov [mailto:Chris.Stevenson@faa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 8:57AM 

To: Robert Silverberg 

Subject: Outstanding Discovery Matters 

Bob, 

I wanted to touch base with you on three outstanding matters that Respondent needs to address to comply with 

discovery requirements. 

First, as we discussed at the deposition of Mr. Becker, the maintenance packages provided by AMES for the work done 

on the three aircraft in May/June 2010 were missing a number of items. At the deposition, Mr. Becker indicated that he 

did not know why these were missing, but that he would be able to determine what the missing items were. We 

discussed the matter, and you agreed to get back to me with an explanation for the missing documents. However, as of 

this time, I have received no additional information on what the missing tasks were, or why they are missing. Please 

advise on if and when Respondent will be providing this information. 

Second, as we also discussed at the deposition, there is the matter of Respondent's potential witnesses at hearing. We 

asked in discovery for a list of potential witnesses, and Respondent's response was that it was unable to identify any at 

the time. As a general matter, this answer is no longer plausible, as I find it difficult to believe that this far into the 

litigation you and Respondent have no idea who might be called as a witness, or what the subject of their testimony 

might be. In particular, I note that at Mr. Becker's deposition, you were immediately able to identify him as a definite 

witness for hearing, in contradiction of Respondent's prior answer in discovery. It is also troubling that, as part of our 

discussion on this subject, you insisted that witness lists are not due yet. This is, of course, accurate. However, it is also 

irrelevant. The fact that Respondent does not have to make a pre-hearing submission for some time does not excuse it 

from complying with discovery requests now. Please supplement the Respondent's existing discovery responses on the 

subject of potential witnesses. 

Third, there are a number of require elements missing from Respondent's expert disclosures so far. The expert report 

provided does not include a list of prior instances of expert testimony (if any) (required by 26(a)(2)(B)(v)). The expert 

report does not include a statement of the compensation arrangements for the expert witness (required by 

26(a)(2)(B)(vi)). I also note that, with regard to the facts used by the expert in forming his opinion, your expert (in 

paragraph 5) appears to be discounting certain unspecified "serious findings" made by Inspector Lipinski, and not 

including those when reach his conclusions. However, the expert report does not identify which findings are being 

excluded from the expert's consideration. In order to properly identify the basis for the expert's opinions, as required by 

26(a)(2)(B), this needs to be supplemented so that the FAA (and ultimately the Judge) can know what facts the expert is 

actually considering when reaching his conclusions. In an abundance of caution, I also note that there has been no 

expert witness disclosure made with regards to Mr. Becker. To the extent that AMES intends to use Mr. Becker to 

provide any sort of expert or opinion testimony, a disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(C) (or Rule 26(a)(2)(B), in the 

event that Mr. Becker makes a habit of appearing as an expert witness) is required. 

Thank you, 

Christopher Stevenson 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

(404) 305-5200 

3 
4. For each allegation in the Complaint that you deny, please state with specificity the basis 

(whether factual and/or legal) for that denial. 

5. Please state with specificity the basis (whether factual and/or legal) for your affirmative 

defense. 

6. If you assert that the penalty proposed in this case is inappropriate even if the FAA 

proves the allegations in the Complaint, please state with specificity the basis for that assertion, 

whether factual and/or legal. 

7. If you assert that the March 21,2011 letter from Jeffrey Becker, the Director for Quality 

Assurance and Training at AMES, contains any inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations. 

or other errors, please specifically identify such errors, describe in detail your basis for believing 

that the statement is in error, describe what you believe to be the actual situation, and describe 

why Mr. Becker made the erroneous statement. 

8. If you assert that the June 8, 20 I 0 letter from Benjamin Buck contains any inaccuracies, 

falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other errors, please specifically identify such errors, describe 

in detail your basis for believing that the statement is in error, describe what you believe to he 

the actual situation, and describe why Mr. Buck made the erroneous statement. 

9. If you assert that the October 25, 20 I 0 from Benjamin Buck contains any inaccuracies, 

falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other errors, please specifically identify such errors, describe 

in detail your basis for believing that the statement is in error, describe what you believe to be 

the actual situation, describe why Mr. Buck made the erroneous statement, and describe why Mr. 

Becker referred the FAA to this letter despite these errors. 

10. If you assert any inaccuracy or incompleteness in any of the maintenance records related 

to this case and/or included in the EIR, please identify with specificity any such inaccuracy or 

incompleteness, your basis for believing that the record is inaccurate or incomplete, and what the 

record should have stated. 

11. If you assert that any of the Boeing, AMES, or CCIA manuals included in the EIR were 

not applicable to the installations at issue in this matter, identify those documents and describe in 

detail why they are not applicable. 

!2. Describe in detail the physical condition of the landing gear and flying door assemblies at 

issue in this matter, including but not limited to the status of the following components: 

bushings, shims, doors, door attach fittings, flap track fairing, flap fairing, door attach fitting 

covers, hinges, hinge pins, wheel well fairings, hinge washers, cotter pins, anti-skid wiring 

conduits, hydraulic lines, trunions, and any other mounting handware. --"-. ---------~ -------~----------------·---- --·-- ----·-

!3. Identify each person you may call as a witness at hearing in this matter, identifY the 

subject of their testimony, and summarize the substance of their expected testimony. You do not 

need to repeat information already contained in your initial disclosures, but you must expand on 

those answers to the extent necessary to answer this interrogatory. 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 
14. Identify each person you may call as an expert witness in this matter, identify the subject 

of their testimony, summarize the substance of their expected testimony, and describe in detail 

your basis for believing that the witness is an expert. 

15. For each interrogatory, request for production and request to admit, identify the 

individuals aiding in responding to that request. 

16. For each document identified in your initial disclosures, describe how that document 

supports your position in this matter. 

17. If you assert that the flying doors at issue in this matter were not out of rig at the time 

they were returned to service by AMES, describe in detail the basis for that assertion. 

18. If you deny any request for admission, state with specificity the basis for that denial. 

Reg uests for Production 

With respect to each of the request for production below, you need to produce an additional copy 

of any document that was contained in the EIR in this matter. 

I. Please produce each and every document referred to in your initial disclosures. 

2. Please produce any document referenced in your interrogatory responses. 

3. Please produce any document you may use as evidence in this matter. 

4. Please produce any document used, relied upon, or referred to in answering the 

interrogatories or requests to admit. 

Request to Admit 

1. Admit that in performing the installations at issue in this matter, you were required to use 

the AMM sections for both the landing gear and flying doors (AMM Chapters 32-11-00 and 32-

12-1 I). 

2. Admit that when AMES re-installed the main landing gear doors on N287SC in March 

2010, the bearing for the right-hand main landing gear outboard door attach fitting was not 

installed. 

3. Admit that on cirariiund Ma)/25, 20TO,tiiere was damage to the right hand inboard flap 

fairing midsection on N899AA. 

4. Admit that AMES .did not properly install the hinge assemblies for the right-hand main 

landing gear on N899 AA . 

..,....- ~----

I 
BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS r 

WASIDNGTON, D.C. . ' ; ,-: ., 

In the matter of 

Docket No. F AA-2013-0291 

Case No. 2011 S0290032 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES 

Respondent 

Administrative Law Judge 

J.E. Sullivan 

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSES TO 

FAA'S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS 

Pursuant to Rule 220 of the Federal Aviation Administration's Rules of Practice, 14 

C.F.R. § 13.220, Respondent Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services ("AMES") hereby 

answers and objects to Complainant Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") First Discovery 

Requests. 

INTERROGATORIES 

1. For each person listed in your initial disclosures, describe in detail that person's 

knowledge of and involvement with this matter, including [sic] not limited to what maintenance 

that person performed, what knowledge of the situation that person has, and any communications 

that person had with others about the situation. 

ANSWER: The knowledge and involvement of each person listed in the Respondent's 

Initial Disclosures, including the maintenance that each performed, is as shown in Attachment 1 

enclosed herewith. Attachment 2 also enclosed herewith includes a list of additional individuals 

who were not included in AMES's Initial Disclosures, dated January 14, 2014, but who AMES 

has subsequently identified as relating to the rework performed on the three aircraft. AMES is 

hereby supplementing its Initial Disclosures with this infonnation. 

AMES is not aware of any informal communications between any of the listed 

maintenance technicians concerning this matter. Those AMES employees listed as having 

general knowledge of this matter have discussed among themselves the FAA's allegations 

against AMES and AMES defenses thereto. In addition, either individually or as a group some 

of the AMES employees with general knowledge of this matter have discussed and consulted 

with AMES counsel regarding AMES' defense and response to the FAA's allegations. These 

discussions and consultations are privileged. 

2. If you assert that the inspector's statement in this matter (inclusive of records of 

conversation [sic], e-mails, memoranda, or other documents), as contained in the EIR, contain 

any inaccuracies, falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or other errors, please specifically identify 

1 

¥GOVERNM 

~ EXHII' ~ 
simply a statement of fact and cannot be read to infer AMES was making any substantive 

comment on AMES's original workmanship. 

10. If you assert any inaccuracies or incompleteness in any of the maintenance 

records related to this case and/or included in the EIR, please identity with specificity any such 

inaccuracy or incompleteness, your basis for believing that the record is inaccurate or 

incomplete, and what the record should have stated. 

ANSWER: A thorough review of the maintenance records of the work performed by 

AMES has found no inaccuracies or incompleteness. 

11. If you assert that any of the Boeing, AMES, or CCIA manuals included in the EIR 

were not applicable to the installations at issue in this matter, identity those documents and 

describe in detail why they are not applicable. 

ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory no. 4 above regarding why AMES training 

documents did not follow the logic of AMM 32-11-00. 

12. Describe in detail the physical condition of the landing gear and flying door 

assemblies at issue in this matter, including but not limited to the status of the following 

components: bushings, shims, doors, door attach fittings, flap track fairing, flap fairing, door 

attach fitting covers, hinges, hinge pins, wheel well fairings, hinge washers, cotter pins, anti-skid 

wiring conduits, hydraulic lines, trunions, and any other mounting hardware. 

ANSWER: This FAA interrogatory does not specifY the date or dates it seeks AMES to 

describe the physical condition of various components of the MLG and flying doors and 

therefore AMES cannot respond to this interrogatory other than to state that on the dates the 

MLG changes were accomplished by AMES in connection with the three subject aircraft, that 

the MLG and flying doors were in serviceable and airworthy condition. 

13. Identify each person you may call as a witness at hearing in this matter, identity 

the subject of their testimony, and summarize the substance of their expected testimony. You do 

not need to repeat information already contained in your initial disclosures, but you must expand 

on those answers to the extent necessary to answer this interrogatory. 

ANSWER: AMES has not yet determined each person it may call as a witness at the 

hearing in this matter. When the decision is made as to those who AMES expects to testifY, 

AMES will supplement its response to this interrogatory. 

14. IdentifY each person you may call as an expert witness in this matter, identity the 

subject of their testimony, summarize the substance of their expected testimony, and describe in 

detail your basis for believing that the witness is an expert. 

ANSWER: AMES has not yet determined whether it will rely on an expert witness in 

this matter. If a decision is made to retain an expert, AMES will supplement its response to this 

interrogatory. 

7 
In The Matter Of: 

Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services 

Jeffrey Becker 

October 29, 2014 

Legal Realtime Reporting 

622 E. Central Blvd. 

Orlando, FL 32801 

Original File 102914 Becker final. txt 

~ ~ 

~· . . . . II 

EXHIBIT 

G--
,I - -

BEFORE THE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the matter of 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES 

Respondent 

* * * * * * * * 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 

Case No. 2011S0290032 

Administrative Law Judge 

J.E. Sullivan 

* * * * * * 

DEPOSITION OF JEFFREY BECKER 

DATE TAKEN: October 29, 2014 

TIME: COMMENCED: 8:55 a.m. 

CONCLUDED: 2:55 p.m. 

PLACE: 215 North Eola Drive 

Orlando, Florida 32801 

REPORTED BY: Rita G. Meyer, RDR, CRR, CBC, 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

25 L_ __ _ --~ -----------------

* 

CCP 

* 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

to impact our business. I'm not sure. I don't -- I 

can't answer that question. 

Q. 

A. 

Q. 

Do you know what EASA certification is? 

Absolutely. We are EASA certified. 

Sure. And would losing an EASA certification 

6 have an negative impact on AMES' business? 

7 

8 

A. 

Q. 

Oh, absolutely. 

And can a finding that a repair station has 

186 

9 violated the federal aviation regulations, impact whether 

10 or not they are able to maintain an EASA certification? 

11 

12 

13 

MR. SILVERBERG: Objection. 

foundation for the question. 

A. Quite honestly, I don't know. 

Lack of 

The application 

14 requires us to outline any sort of legal action that's 

15 happened. The question is, I don't know. I've never 

16 been down this path before, quite frankly. In my 28 

17 years of experience working with the FAA, this is the 

18 only time we've ever -- I've ever had to do this. 

19 BY MR. STEVENSON: 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Q. Are you aware there's currently a hearing 

scheduled to take place in this case some time next year? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And do you expect to testify at that hearing? 

MR. SILVERBERG: Objection. The witness list 

isn't required to be provided, but I think I can 
187 

safely say Mr. Becker would be testifying. 

2 MR. STEVENSON: Okay. 

3 BY MR. STEVENSON: 

4 Q. Do you know of anyone else that you would 

5 expect to testify at that hearing? 

6 MR. SILVERBERG: Objection. That's not been a 

7 matter that's been discussed with Mr. Becker and 

8 counsel hasn't made that determination yet. 

9 MR. STEVENSON: Okay. 

10 A. So I don't know. 

11 BY MR. STEVENSON: 

12 Q. In addition to what we have talked about today, 

13 is there any other matter that you feel that the FAA has 

14 failed to take into account in this action that you think 

15 we should consider? 

16 A. You know, the only comments I have is a 

17 reflective of Section B of the EIR. And I believe as 

18 part of our interrogatories, we've provided comments. 

19 After reading that EIR, again, I restate, I 

20 don't believe Frank or Mr. Lipinski did a thorough 

21 investigation. I think he has a number of misleading and 

22 incorrect statements that tend to make the condition of 

23 these three aircraft appear, based on the report, a lot 

24 worse than what they actually are. 

25 I also know that the redacted portions of the 

~~~~--~--~--~-~-.~-------_j