In the matter of 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

RECEIVED 

MAR 1 I 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

FAA Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 

Case No. 2011S0290032 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES 

Respondent 

Administrative Law Judge 

I.E. Sullivan 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 

Respondent, Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services ("Respondent" or 

"AMES") hereby moves for an entry of an order compelling Complainant, Federal Aviation 

Administration ("FAA"), to produce responses to Respondent's First Set oflnterrogatories and 

Document Requests and in support hereof states as follows: 

Requests Addressing the Bias Of An FAA Inspector Are Within The Proper Scope Of Discovery 

In the FAA's initial Response to Respondent's First Discovery Requests (attached as 

Exhibit 1), and as expanded upon in the FAA's March 7 e-mail (attached as Exhibit 2), the FAA 

objected to Interrogatories 10 through 12 and Requests for Production 4 throughlO, all on the 

ground that this discovery relates to personal complaints about an aviation safety inspector, not 

to the allegations raised in the Complaint. 1 Respondent's discovery requests are attached as 

Exhibit 3. The FAA contends that such requests serve "no legitimate discovery purpose." To 

the contrary, the proper scope of discovery is not circumscribed by the specific allegations in a 

1 FAA counsel also objected to responding to any of Respondent's discovery requests asserting 

lateness. Counsel for the parties have conferred and Complainant's counsel has agreed to 

proceed to produce responses to Respondent's discovery requests to which it does not otherwise 

object as stated in Exhibit 1. 
complaint. Adelman v. Boy Scouts of Am., 276 F.R.D. 681, 697 (S.D.Fl. 2011). "It is far broader, 

and covers documents and information concerning claims, defenses and a smorgasbord of factual 

issues including the identity of witnesses, bias, credibility, [and] potential impeachment. .. " !d.; 

see also FAA v. Gateway Air Repair, Inc., FAA Dkt. No. CP04S00006, DMS No. FAA-2004-

17109, 2004 FAA LEXIS 689, at* 1 (Sept. 24, 2004). Indeed, the Committee Notes to the 2000 

Amendment of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, which Rule is applied by DOT in its 

enforcement actions, explain that "a variety of types of information not directly pertinent to the 

incident in suit" are relevant to the claims or defenses raised in a given action and therefore 

discoverable, including "information that could be used to impeach a likely witness." 

Thus, Respondent is entitled through discovery to explore the credibility and potential 

bias of the investigating FAA inspector, as it bears upon his impeachability and goes to the heart 

of the truthfulness of the FAA's allegations in this matter. "While deference is given to 

prosecutorial discretion in the bringing of actions by the government, where there is a credible 

allegation of conduct that may evince bias or prejudice that may have affected the inspector's 

questioning of actual or potential percipient witnesses, the alleged conduct, bias or prejudice may 

be discovered." In the Matter of Bald Mtn. Air Servs., FAA Dkt. No. CP99AL0006, 2000 FAA 

LEXIS 40, at* 1 (Jan. 7, 2000). 

The particular interrogatories and document requests the FAA is disputing here all go to 

the credibility and bias ofF AA Inspector Lipinski. Respondent is not only exploring the 

complaints made against this Inspector, as the FAA contends, but is also exploring the statements 

made and actions taken by the Inspector and the FAA's findings regarding the complaints about 

those statements and actions. Importantly, this is not simply a shot in the dark, as those 

statements and actions provide ample support for claims of bias. Inspector Lipinski has, in the 

- 2-
past, made many statements to representatives of AMES and its air carrier customer, Capital 

Cargo, which put directly in issue his motives for bringing this enforcement case. The Inspector 

inappropriately advised Capital Cargo not to use Respondent AMES to provide services that 

AMES had all necessary authority under Part 145 to perform, and went so far as to direct Capital 

Cargo to use the services of another repair station he specifically named. This Inspector also 

suggested to Capital Cargo representatives that if CCIA removed AMES from its list of approved 

outside maintenance providers that it would benefit Capital Cargo in another enforcement action. 

Hence, there are ample grounds for requiring Complainant to respond to Interrogatories 10 

through 12 and Requests for Production 4 through 10. 

The Information Sought Is Not Privileged 

FAA counsel also objected to Respondent's Interrogatory 9 and Request for Production 2 

which, it is claimed seek material that is attorney-client, attorney work product, deliberative 

process or other unspecified privileged information. Interrogatory 9 asks the FAA to indentify 

all persons consulted by or with the named Inspectors including other FAA Inspectors regarding 

the allegations against AMES as set forth in the Complaint. While the substance of consultations 

with FAA counsel may be privileged, the existence of such consultations is not privileged. 

Further, the request is not limited to attorney-inspector consultations, but consultations between 

and among Inspectors. FAA can assert no privilege regarding this type of consultation. 

Accordingly, it should be compelled to respond and, if appropriate, assert with specificity any 

privilege on which it seeks to rely. Creation of a privilege log should be ordered if the FAA is 

going to assert large numbers of documents/communications are privileged. 

As to Request for Production 2, which seeks an unredacted version of the EIR, the FAA 

cites possible attorney-client and deliberate process privileges. As to the assertion of the 

- 3 -
attorney-client privilege, the document that was partially redacted that formed a part of the EIR 

was Sections B and C, a document which were produced by the FAA Inspector. The documents 

are attached as Exhibit 4? The documents, and Section B in particular, are extremely one-sided 

and appear to reflect the bias of the investigating Inspector, and are easily contradicted by the 

facts. Nonetheless, Respondent is entitled to the redacted portions because there is no indication 

that it was produced at the request ofF AA counsel or that it was made for the purpose of 

securing legal advice, as would be required for it to be subject to the attorney-client privilege. 

Thus, if the FAA wishes to assert such a privilege, it had to do so with more specificity. 

FAA counsel also argues that the redacted portions of the requested document are subject 

to the deliberative process privilege. This privilege is a qualified one that can be overcome by a 

showing of need, which is determined on a case-by-case basis. One situation where such an 

analysis often leads to denial of the privilege is where, as here, a party is questioning the 

integrity of the decisionmaking process itself. Where there is reason to believe that documents 

sought may shed light on questioned governmental action, shielding internal government 

deliberations does not serve the public's interest in honest and efficient government. See in re 

Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729,738 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (citing other cases and articles on same point). 

Given the clear evidence of bias on the part of the Inspector who prepared the EIR, which has 

reasonably led Respondent to question the integrity of his decision-making process, Respondent 

should be permitted to view the entirety of Section B of the EIR and any withheld items of proof 

2 Exhibit 4 consists of a copy of Section B of the EIR said to run 15 pages and Section C 

consisting of the index of the FAA designated items of proof running 2 pages that is partially 

redacted. Page 12 of Section B was not produced by the FAA and is therefore not among the 

numbered pages of Section B. The FAA should either produce page 12 of Section B or advise if 

the numbering of the pages of Section B is in error. If there is a page 12 and its contents were 

redacted, in whole or in part, the request to have an in camera inspection of the document 

includes page 12. 

- 4-
in order to determine whether it will shed light on Respondent's claims that it is the result of 

unfair bias instead of a legitimate FAA finding of a violation by AMES. 

Should there be any remaining doubts about whether the requested document is 

privileged, counsel for Respondent has suggested to the FAA that the Judge review the 

unredacted EIR in camera before rendering a ruling on the alleged privileges. Although FAA 

has in its March 7 e-mail opposed such a procedure because of its firm belief that the document 

is privileged, the FAA's belief by itself is not enough to establish any privilege. The existence of 

privilege must be determined by the Judge, and it is well within Your Honor's discretion to 

review the questioned documents when privilege is not obvious on the face of the redacted 

document. 

- 5 -
WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Respondent respectfully requests the 

grant of this motion to compel counsel for Complainant to respond to Respondent's discovery 

requests to which it has objected and to order Complainant to produce a copy of the unredacted 

portion of Section B of the EIR and any other redacted portions of the EIR for an in camera 

review and a ruling on the claim of Complainant as to the privileged nature of the redacted 

documents. 

Dated: March 10,2014 

Respectfully submitted, 

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

Attorneys for 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND :G"'b: 7/Lt. 

Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. ~ 

- 6 -

1101 301

h Street, N.W. 

Suite 120 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Tel: (202) 944-3304 

Fax: (202) 944-3306 

Email: rsilverberg@sgbdc.com 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this lOth day of March 2014, I caused a true copy of the foregoing 

Respondent's Motion to Compel Production to be served by FedEx overnight delivery addressed 

to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building 

Suite 2Wl000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

(Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430) 

Tel: (202) 385-8229 

(original and one copy) 

The Hon. I.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Tel: (202) 366-2132 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

Tel: (404) 305-5200 
Exhibit 1 
4043055223 FAA REGIONAL COUNSEL 

U.S. JlEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFVICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINlSTRATION 

FEDE.RAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES, 

Respondent. 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 

FAA Case No. 201lS0290032 

Judge Sullivan. 

RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS 

Pursuant to the Judge's Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures, dated November 

7, 20)3, initial discovery requests in this matter were due on January 28, 2014. The 

Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests to Complaint was not served 

until February 6, 2014, over a week later. Accordingly, the FAA objects to the requests as 

untimely. 

In addition, it is noted that Interrogatories lO, 11, and 12, and Requests for Production 4, 

5, 6, 1, 8, 9, and 10 do not appear to relate to the allegations raised in the Complaint, but rather 

appear to relate to personal complaints about an Aviation Safety Inspector. The purpose of this 

litigation is to reach a determination as to the accuracy of the allegations in the Complaint and 

the appropriateness of the civil penalty proposed. This litigation is not an appropriate forum for 

Respondent to register complaints about or launch personal attacks against Aviation Safety 

Inspectors. These discovery request.;; do not seek relevant, admissible information, and are not 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of rei. evant, admissible information. Accordingly, 

MAR-06-2014 13:59 4043055223 98% P.02 
030553 FAA REGIONAL COUNSEL 

regardless of the untimeliness of the Respondent's Discovery Requests, the FAA further objects 

to the listed interrogatories and requests for production as beyond the scope of discovery. 

The FAA further notes that Interrogatory 9 and Request for Productio.n 2 ~eek production 

of information and doctunents that are or m.ay be covered by the attorney-client, attorney work 

product, deliberative process, or other privileges. For example, Request for Production #2 

explicitly requests that the FAA provide a non-redacted copy of the entire EfR, when 

Respondent's attomey is well aware that the EJR contains attorney-client and deliberate process 

privileged information. Accordingly, regardless of the untimeliness of Respondent's Discovery 

Requests, the FAA objects to Interrogatory 9 and Request for Production 2. 

\'"---

Submitted this~ day of March, 2014. 

CHRISTOPHER R. STEVENSON 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

MAR-06-2014 13'59 4043055223 97Y. P.03 
4043055223 FAA REGIONAL COUNSEL 1-'Abt. 'c:JQ-/ \:J4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing FAA's Response to Respondent's First Discovery Requests 

was sent: 

one copy via certified mail and facsimile to: 

Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. 

1101 30"' Street, NW, Suite 120 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Facsimile: (202) 944-3306 

OmmJO.l 

DONNA STNLEY ~De~ Legal Assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

MAR 6 2014 

Dated 

MRR-06-2014 13=59 4043055223 98% P.04 
03/05/2014 13:22 

Date: 

:3-6- Jl} 

To= 'Rober+ 'P. 

Firm: 

Phone: 

4043055223 FAA REGIONAL COUNSEL 

FAA 

Southern Region 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

P- 0. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 3032.0 

TEL (404) 305-5200 

FAX (404) 305-52.23 

:From: Pages: 4 trN*~her ~. Slrevet\sor\ E s9. 

s, \\)e.r'oe19, E~- To: 

Firm: 

Phone: 

Fax: ( 202..J '1,4L\-. 330b Fax: 

JlA..IW COPY TO FOLLOW: [v{y'es [ ] No HARD COPY TO FOLl-OW: [ 1 Yes 

To: To: 

Firm: Firm: 

Phone: Phone: 

Fax: Fax: 

HA.ROCOPYTOFOLLOW: (]Yes (]No HARD COPY TO FOLLOW: [ ] Yes 

To: To: 

Firm: Firrn: 

Phone: Phoue: 

Fax: Fax: 

JlA..IWCOPYTOFOLLOW: [)Yes []No HARD COPY TO FOLLOW: [ ] Yes 

I"LE;A.SE NO'l"E! nus facsimile is CONFlDENTIAL and intended ~olely for the use of the specific 

iodividual or eotity named above. Such commuuicatiou may be protected by legally recognized privileges, 

and thu..s must oot be disseminated. distributed or copied Vt'ithout expr-ess permission. If you have received 

this [acsim1le iu error, please immediatcly notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at th~ address above vi:;t. the lTDit.ed StAte~ Po>tal Servic:e_ Thank you_ 

MRR-06-2014 13'59 4043055223 97% 

PAGE 011~4 

[ 1 No 

[]No 

[]No 

P.01 
Exhibit 2 
Robert Silverberg 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Bob, 

Chris. Steven son @faa. gov 

Friday, March 07, 2014 4:54PM 

Robert Silverberg 

Re: Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 

I have received your discovery responses. Once I have completed a review, I will write separately to address any 

deficiencies in those responses. 

With regards to the Agency's discovery responses, I note that our discussions prior to submitting our joint proposed 

scheduling order to the Judge were that the date in question was identified as a deadline to submit written discovery 

requests. I also note that the Judge's order said that written discovery was to be initiated "on or before" January 28, 2014, 

not at some point after January 28, 2014. You are correct that the discovery period overall runs until early June, but that 

does not mean that we are entitled to submit new discovery requests throughout that period. However, if you would like to 

address the reasons for the untimely filing of the discovery requests and whether the Agency should waive that objection, 

you are free to give me a call. I should be in the office all next week. 

With regards to your client's complaints about the inspector, I see nothing in them that goes to bias, or motivation, or 

credibility. For example, whether your client feels that an Inspector was "intimidating" bears no relation to any of these 

topics. And the discovery requests at issue do not even seek information on the inspector's actual conduct, but rather 

seek information on your client's complaints about that conduct, the Agency's responses to those complaints, and 

documents on any comment by any third party on the supposedly "intimidating" inspector, which are doubly irrelevant. 

There is no legitimate discovery purpose for these requests. The Agency will not be further responding to these requests. 

As for your request to have the Agency produced privileged documents, the Agency reiterates that it will not provide you 

with copies of privileged documents. Nor do we believe there is any purpose to request that the Judge review the 

privileged documents in order to determine that they are privileged, any more than there would be any purpose in asking 

the Judge to review correspondence between yourself and your clients to determine whether it was privileged. 

Christopher Stevenson 

Attorney 

Office of Regional Counsel 

FAA Southern Region 

( 404) 305-5200 

From: Robert Silverberg <rsilverberg@sgbdc.com> 

AS0-007, Office of Regional Counsel 

To: Chris Stevenson/ASO/FAA@FM, 

Cc: Jeff Johnson <jjohnson@sgbdc.com>, Claire Shapiro <cshapiro@sgbdc.com> 

Date: 03/06/2014 05:06 PM 

Subject: Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 

Chris, 

Two things. 

First, attached is a copy of Respondent's Responses to the First Round of FAA Discovery Requests. A binder containing 

responsive documents is being sent via Fed Ex this evening. 

1 
Second, your response to our discovery requests states that the FAA objects to our discovery request, claiming they were 

untimely and on other grounds. We intend to file a motion to compel production by the FAA We will note that nothing in 

the scheduling order precludes the propounding of discovery after the start of the period of general discovery and 

therefore your objection as to timeliness is without merit. The FAA has not in any way been prejudiced by AMES 

propounding discovery on Feb. 6th, and you have not suggested such is the case. Discovery cutoff is 3 months from now 

on June 6, 2014 thereby undercutting any claim of prejudice. 

We will also argue that we are free to explore on the record the credibility and motivation of the investigating FAA 

inspector as it goes to the heart of the truthfulness of the FAA allegations in this matter. The credibility of a witness is 

always an issue in any contested proceeding. AMES interrogatories 10, 11 and 12 and production requests 4-10 all go to 

this crucial question. The Inspector made many statements to representatives of both Capital Cargo and AMES which put 

directly in issue whether the statements made by the Inspector as contained in the EIR are free of bias and his motivation 

for bringing this enforcement case. The Inspector inappropriately advised Capital Cargo not to use the services of AMES 

for which AMES had all necessary authority under Part 145 to perform, and went so far as to direct Capital Cargo to use 

the services of another repair station by name. The FAA Inspector also suggested to Capital Cargo representatives that if 

CCIA removed AMES from its list of approved outside maintenance providers that it would benefit Capital Cargo in 

another related enforcement action. 

I find it difficult to believe the Judge would preclude such testimony although that is not the question here. Here we only 

have to show that the information sought is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence--and our 

requests are well within this standard of permissible discovery. Other than to assert otherwise you have not established a 

foundation for not responding to our discovery. 

As to our request for unredacted copies of certain portions of Section B of the EIR, I would be prepared to suggest that 

Judge Sullivan review the documents in camera and then render a ruling on the privilege you may seek to assert. 

Please consider this part of our good faith attempt to confer concerning your objections to our discovery requests and let 

me know by COB tomorrow, March 7th if you would agree on reconsideration to respond to any of the requests to which 

you have now informally objected. 

Regards. 

Bob Silverberg 

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is 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 

rsilverberg@sqbdc. com 

direct line 202-944-3304 

fax 202-944-3306 

mobile 301-922-8895 

[attachment "AMES Responses to FAA First Set of Discovery Requests 3-6-14.pdf" deleted by Chris Stevenson/ASO/FAA] 

2 
Exhibit 3 
In the matter of 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRA.NSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0291 

Case No. 2011S0290032 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES Administrative Law Judge 

J .E. Sullivan 

Respondent 

RESPONDENT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 

AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS TO COMPLAINANT 

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

C.P.R.§ 13.220, and Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Respondent 

Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services ("AMES") hereby requests that Complainant 

Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") respond, under oath, to the following interrogatories 

within 30 days of service in the manner provided in 14 C.F .R. § 13.220(k). Pursuant to Rule 220 

of the FAA's Rules of Practice, 14 C.P.R.§ 13.220, and Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, Respondent AMES further requests that Complainant FAA produce for 

inspection and copying the documents requested below. Production should be made within 30 

days of service to the office of Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, L.L.P., llOl 30th Street, N.W., 

Suite 120, Washington, D.C. 20007, or such other place as may be mutually agreed upon. These 

discovery requests are continuing in nature, and the FAA is required to supplement or amend its 

responses hereto in accordance with 14 C.P.R.§ 13.220(i) and Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. 
DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS 

The following Definitions and Instructions apply to each interrogatory or discovery 

request: 

1. The term "communication(s)" means any oral or written exchange of words, 

thoughts, or ideas to another person, whether person-to-person, in a group, by telephone, letter, 

fax, e-mail, social networking site or any other process, electric, electronic, or otherwise. All 

such communications in writing shall include, without limitation, printed, typed, handwritten, or 

other readable documents, correspondence, memos, reports, contracts, diaries, log books, 

minutes, notes, studies, surveys and forecasts. All such communications are included without 

regard to the storage medium. 

2. The term "concerning" means in whole or in part constituting, containing, 

referring, embodying, reflecting, describing, analyzing, identifying, stating, dealing with, or in 

any way pertaining to. 

3. The term "document(s)" includes, but is not limited to, the original of any 

correspondence, book, pamphlet, periodical, letter, envelope, postal receipt or notice, diary, 

memorandum, telegram, cable, facsimile, report, record, study, stenographic or handwritten 

note, working paper, invoice, voucher, check, statement, chart, graph, map, diagram, 

blueprint, table, index, picture, voice recording, tape, microfilm, tape data sheet or data 

processing card or disc, computer records, data compilations, information stored on 

electronic media (including metadata, e-mails, text messages, blogs, posts to social 

networking sites or other similar messages or communication), or any other written, 

recorded, transcribed, punched, taped, filmed or graphic matter, however produced or 

reproduced, including any documents that have marginal notations, comments, or other 

2 
variations that are not shown on the originals. All such documents are included without regard 

to the storage medium. 

4. The term "person(s)" includes any individual, public and/or private corporation, 

partnership, proprietorship, joint venture, group, division, department, unit, organization, union, 

federation, government of any kind or type, governmental agency, and any other kind of 

business, legal or governmental entity or association. 

5. The term "identify" means, when referring to a person, to give, to the extent 

known, the person's full name, present or last known address and telephone number, and if an 

individual, the present or last known place of employment and employment position. Once a 

person has been identified in accordance with this subparagraph, only the name of that person 

need be listed in response to subsequent interrogatory responses identifying that person. 

6. The term "identify" means, when referring to documents, to give, to the extent 

known, the (i) type of document; (ii) general subject matter; (iii) date of document; and (iv) 

author(s), addressee(s) and recipient(s). In lieu of identification, the FAA can produce 

responsive documents provided that the interrogatory to which each document responds is 

identified on the documents. 

7. The term "FAA" means Complainant Federal Aviation Administration, and shall 

include all present or former employees, officers, managers, agents, legal representatives, 

consultants or other persons acting or purporting to act on the FAA's behalf. 

8. The term "third party(ies )" shall mean all persons, individuals, corporations, 

partnerships, government agencies and other entities of any kind that are not parties to this 

proceeding, including persons or entities acting on behalf of such third parties and their officers, 

agents, employees and attorneys. 

3 
9. The connectives "and" and "or" shall be construed either disjunctively or 

conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the interrogatory or discovery request all 

responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope. 

10. The use of the singular form of any word includes the plural and vice versa. 

11. Where a claim of privilege is asserted in objecting to an interrogatory or 

discovery request, Complainant shall identify the nature of the privilege (including work 

product) being claimed; and the following information shall be provided in the objection: 

a. the type of communication or document, e.g., letter or telephone conversation; 

b. the general subject matter of the communication or document; 

c. the date of the communication or document; 

d. the author(s) of the communication or document; 

e. the addressee(s) of the communication or document; 

f. the recipient(s) of the communication or document; 

g. where not apparent, the relationship of the author(s), addressee(s) and 

recipient(s) to each other. 

12. If Complainant objects to the scope or breadth of any interrogatory or document 

request, Complainant shall identifY, to the extent possible, that portion of the interrogatory or 

document request to which Complainant will respond. 

13. In the event that any of these interrogatories or document requests calls for a 

documeot that has been lost or destroyed, or for information contained in such a document, such 

document is to be identified by stating the following: 

a. the type of document, e.g., letter or memorandum; 

b. the general subject matter of the document; 

4 
c. the date of the document; 

d. the author(s) of the document; 

e. the addressee(s) of the document; 

f. the recipient(s) of the document; 

g. where not apparent, the relationship of the author(s), addressee(s) and 

recipient(s) to each other; 

h. the custodian(s) of the document or person(s) otherwise responsible for 

the document' s safekeeping, storage, or filing; 

1. the date the document was lost or destroyed; and 

J. the circumstances surrounding the loss of the document and, if the 

document was destroyed, the circumstances surrounding its destruction. 

14. In answering these requests, the FAA is required to furnish such documents 

and things that it has in its possession, custody or control. If you are unable to respond 

fully to any request because responsive documents are not in the FAA's possession, 

custody, or control, describe in detail your efforts to obtain the documents or things 

sought by the request or portion thereof. 

INTERROGATORIES 

1. Identify all persons who have provided information contained in the below 

interrogatories, setting forth the interrogatory or interrogatories for which each person provided 

infonnation. 

ANSWER: 

5 
2. To the extent not included in the FAA's Initial Disclosures, identify all persons 

known by the FAA to have knowledge of the facts and matters at issue in the Complaint. 

ANSWER: 

3. Identify any and all experts the FAA expects to testify on its behalf at the hearing 

on this matter. For each such expert: 

a. Describe the substance of the expert's expected testimony and the opinions 

and the facts upon which that testimony and those opinions will be based; 

and 

b. Provide the expert's occupation, title, telephone number, business address, 

educational background and current curriculum vitae. 

ANSWER: 

4. Identify all other witnesses the FAA expects to testify on its behalf at the hearing 

on this matter. To the extent not included in the FAA's Initial Disclosures: 

a. Describe the substance of each witness's expected testimony and the facts 

upon which that testimony will be based; and 

b. Provide each witness's occupation, title, telephone number and business 

address. 

ANSWER: 

6 
5. State the qualifications, educational background and experience of Inspector 

Bobby Evans, including but not limited to all licenses and certifications held by the Inspector 

(including any that have lapsed or have been suspended or revoked and the reason for the lapse, 

suspension or revocation). 

ANSWER: 

6. State the qualifications, educational background and experience oflnspector 

Frank Lipinski, including but not limited to all licenses and certifications held by the Inspector 

(including any that have lapsed or have been suspended or revoked and the reason for the lapse, 

suspension or revocation). 

ANSWER: 

7. State the qualifications, educational background and experience of Inspector Jack 

Gasche, including but not limited to all licenses and certifications held by the Inspector 

(including any that have lapsed or have been suspended or revoked and the reason for the lapse, 

suspension or revocation). 

ANSWER: 

7 
8. State the qualifications, educational background and experience ofinspector 

Richard D' Arcy, including but not limited to all licenses and certifications held by the Inspector 

(including any that have lapsed or have been suspended or revoked and the reason for the lapse, 

suspension or revocation). 

ANSWER: 

9. Identify all persons consulted by or with Inspectors Bobby Evans, Frank Lipinski 

and Jack Gasche, including but not limited to other FAA Inspectors (e.g., Inspectors assigned to 

or who Slli-veilled AMES) concerning the allegations against AMES as set forth in the 

Complaint. For each such person: 

a. Identify the individual, including his or her title and affiliation, telephone 

number and business address; and 

b. Describe in detail the substance of each such person's knowledge and how 

that knowledge was acquired. 

ANSWER: 

l 0. Identify all persons with knowledge of or information concerning the meeting on 

March 30,2012 in Orlando, Florida among Dennis Manibusan, then President of Capital Cargo 

International Airlines, Inc. ("CCIA"), W. Joseph Payne, Senior Vice President, Corporate 

General Counsel & Secretary of Air Transport Services Group, Inc. (the parent company of 

AMES and CCIA), and Robert Talmadge, Manager of the FAA's South Florida Certificate 

Management Office, during which Dennis Manibusan and W. Joseph Payne complained of 

8 
intimidating, harassing, abusive and inappropriate conduct on the part oflnspector Frank 

Lipinski, including those persons knowledgeable about any FAA investigation of the complaint 

and the conclusions reached or actions taken as a result of the complaint. For each such person: 

a. Identify the individual, including his or her title and affiliation, telephone 

number and business address; and 

b. Describe in detail the substance of each such person's knowledge and how 

that knowledge was acquired. 

ANSWER: 

11. IdentifY all persons with knowledge of or information concerning the complaints 

by Dennis Manibusan to Charles Beers, FAA Front-Line Manager, Inspector Frank Lipinski's 

direct supervisor, regarding Inspector Lipinski's intimidating, harassing, abusive and 

inappropriate conduct, including those persons knowledgeable about any FAA investigations of 

the complaints and the conclusions reached or actions taken as a result of the complaints. For 

each such person: 

a. Identify the individual, including his or her title and affiliation, telephone 

number and business address; and 

b. Describe in detail the substance of each such person's knowledge and how 

that lmowledge was acquired. 

ANSWER: 

9 
12. Identify all persons with knowledge of or information concerning a meeting held 

on July 30, 2012 among Inspector Frank Lipinski, John Henderson, an independent contractor 

then retained by Cargo Aircraft Management, Inc. ("CAM"), an affiliate of CCIA, and James 

Camp, then Manager, Heavy Maintenance of CCIA, during which Inspector Lipinski threatened 

the A&P Licenses of John Henderson and Gordon Graves, then Director, Leasing Operations of 

CAM, because there was a difference of opinion between Mr. Henderson and Inspector Lipinski 

regarding AD documentation requirements. For each such person: 

a. Identify the individual, including his or her title and affiliation, telephone 

number and business address; and 

b. Describe in detail the substance of each such person's knowledge and how 

that knowledge was acquired. 

ANSWER: 

13. Identify any documents that support the FAA's allegation in paragraph 4.e. of 

section II of the Complaint that AMES improperly installed and rigged the landing gear doors on 

the three CCIA B-727 aircraft at issue, including the relevant maintenance records and the 

applicable sections of the B-727 Aircraft Maintenance Manual. 

ANSWER: 

10 
14. State with specificity how the FAA's proposed civil penalty of$61,875 was 

derived. 

ANSWER: 

DOCUMENT REQUESTS 

1. All documents that support an answer or that were referenced or relied upon in 

formulating an answer to any interrogatory served on the FAA by AMES in this case. 

2. All documents issued by the FAA, authored by any FAA employee or agent, or in 

the possession of the FAA concerning or relating to or that might tend to prove or disprove any 

of the allegations or defenses presented in this case, including a non-redacted copy of the FAA's 

Enforcement Investigative Report (EIR) and Item of Proof 4 in this case. 

3. All documents, including but not limited to, opinions, reports, summaries, chmis 

or any other written instrument that any witness of the FAA, lay or expert, intends to introduce 

into evidence or rely upon during testimony at the hearing of this case. 

4. All documents concerning or relating to the meeting on March 30,2012 in 

Orlando, Florida among Dennis Manibusan, then President of CCIA, W. Joseph Payne, Senior 

Vice President, Corporate General Counsel & Secretary of Air Transport Services Group, Inc. 

(the parent company of AMES and CCIA), and Robert Talmadge, Manager of the FAA's South 

Florida Certificate Management Office, during which Dennis Manibusan and W. Joseph Payne 

complained of intimidating, harassing, abusive and inapprop1iate conduct on the part of Inspector 

Frank Lipinski, including any notes or memorialization of the meeting by Robert Talmadge or 

11 
any other person and documents related to any FAA investigation of the complaint and the 

conclusions reached or action taken as a result of the complaint. 

5. All documents concerning or relating to the complaints by Dennis Manibusan to 

Charles Beers, FAA Front-Line Manager, Inspector Frank Lipinski's direct supervisor, 

regarding intimidating, harassing, abusive and inappropriate conduct by Inspector Lipinski, 

including any notes or memorialization of these complaints by Charles Beers or any other person 

and any documents related to any FAA investigations ofthe complaints and the conclusions 

reached or actions taken as a result of the complaints. 

6. All documents concerning any complaints to the FAA by third parties regarding 

intimidating, harassing, abusive or inappropriate conduct by Inspector Frank Lipinski, including 

any documents related to any FAA investigations of such complaints and the conclusions 

reached or actions taken as a result of the complaints. 

7. All documents concerning a meeting held on March 28, 2012, that was attended 

by Inspector Frank Lipinski, Inspector Richard D' Arcy, James Savastano, then Vice President of 

Maintenance for CCIA, and Steven Santangelo, then Director of Quality Control and Chief 

Inspector for CCIA, during which Inspector Lipinski made intimidating, harassing, abusive and 

inappropriate statements to James Savastano and Steven Santangelo (e.g., statements made by 

Inspector Lipinski at the March 28, 2012 meeting such as he "views AMES as evil," that 

tomorrow the "war begins," that he will take "no prisoners," that the "shit is going to start" and 

questioning why AMES is still listed on CCIA' s Ops Specs as an essential maintenance provider 

and suggesting that he wants to have AMES's certificate suspended). The documents should 

include any communications regarding the meeting between Inspector Lipinski and Inspector 

12 
Richard D' Arcy and any notes or memorialization of the meeting by Inspector Lipinski, 

Inspector D' Arcy or any other person. 

8. All documents concerning a meeting held on March 13,2012, that was attended 

by Inspector Frank Lipinski, Inspector Richard D' Arcy, Steven Santangelo, then Director of 

Quality Control and Chiefinspector for CCIA, John W. Sullivan, then Chief Pilot for CCIA, Roy 

Miller (FAA Principle Operations Inspector), Jeff Hipps (FAA Aviation Safety Inspector), Jack 

Gasche (FAA Aviation Safety Inspector) and William Bonatti (FAA Aviation Safety Inspector) 

during which Inspectors Lipinski and D' Arcy made statements to Messrs. Santangelo and 

Sullivan suggesting that if CCIA removed AMES from its D-091 Operations Specifications 

(essential maintenance provider list) that it would benefit CCIA in another potential enforcement 

action. The documents should include any communications regarding the meeting between or 

among Frank Lipinski, Richard D' Arcy, Roy Miller, Jeff Hipps, Jack Gasche and William 

Bonatti and any notes or memorialization of the meeting by these individuals or any other 

person. 

9. All documents concerning or relating to a meeting held on July 30, 2012 among 

Inspector Frank Lipinski, John Henderson, an independent contractor then retained by CAM, an 

affiliate of CCIA, and James Camp, then Manager, Heavy Maintenance of CCIA, during which 

Inspector Lipinski threatened the A&P Licenses of John Henderson and Gordon Graves, then 

Director, Leasing Operations of CAM, because there was a difference of opinion between Mr. 

Henderson and Inspector Lipinski regarding AD documentation requirements. 

10. All documents, including but not limited to any communications between 

Inspector Frank Lipinski and Flightstar Aircraft Services, LLC or any of its owners, officers, 

13 
employees or agents, concerning the performance by AMES of aircraft repair and maintenance 

services for CCIA, including the decision by CCIA to use AMES for such services. 

Dated: February 6, 2014 

Respectfully submitted, 

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

Attorneys for 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

:Y:/Z' 

Robert P. Silverberg~ 

14 

1101 30th Street, N.W. 

Suite 120 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Tel: (202) 944-3304 

Fax: (202) 944-3306 

Email: rsilverberg@sgbdc.com 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 6th day of February 2014, I caused the foregoing 

Respondent's First Set oflnterrogatories and Document Requests to be sent by e-mail and First 

Class mail addressed to: 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

Ch1is. Stevensonlal.faa. gov 
Exhibit 4 
i 

File Number 2011S02'J\J032 

EIR # 2011S0290032 

SECTIONBSection B, Page 1 

Statement of Case and Factors Affecting Sanction 

Statement of Case 

Summary 

Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services (AMES) (FAA Certificate# ABXROO !A), on 

three occasions perfonned landing gear changes on Capital Cargo International Airlines (Capital) 

B-727 (N287SC, N899AA, and N898AA) aircraft incorrectly. AMES is a large aircraft 

Maintenance Repair Organization (MRO) located at the Wilmington, Ohio airport. 

AMES has Operations Specifications (Ops Specs) issued for Limited Airframe and Power Plant 

ratings that includes the B-727 aircraft and the associated JTBD engine. AMES is authorized to 

conduct maintenance on Capital B-727 aircraft. Capital, at that time had AMES on its Ops Specs 

D-91 paragraph Substantial Maintenance-Providers list. 

On April 16, 2010 a Capital B-727, N287SC took off from the CinciJmati!Nortbem Kentucky 

International Airport(CVG) and had to return to the airport in an emergency situation due to 

severe in-flight"vibrations above 270 knots. 

The CVG Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) conducted an Occurrence Investigation (Gee# 

OGL0520 1 00084) and found during their (Assigned Inspector Bobby Evans) investigation that a 

bushing/bearing for the right Main Landing Gear (MLG) had been left out during a MLG change 

on the aircraft. The initial MLG change took place while the aircraft was in a "C" type inspection 

at AMES on or about 22 March 2010. A subsequentrightMLG removal due to warranty repairs 

to the MLG took place on or about Apri\18, 2010 atCVG and the work was perfonned by 

AMES. The missing bushing/bearing was discovered by Inspector Evans during this removal and 

replacement while he was investigating the occurrence. The bushing/bearing had been left out 

during the initial replacement of the MLG during the "C" Check conducted by AMES. 

The missing bushing/bearing is used for the MLG Wing (Commonly known in the B-727 world 

as the "Flying Door") outer Flying Door actuator fitting. 

The bushing/bearing being left out created a "Loose Door" situation and above 270 knots the 

door buffeted severely against the airframe. 

The CVG FSDO (Inspector Evans) opened an Investigation and sent an LOI (EIR # 

2010GL050030) to Capital. 

The response from Capital to Inspector Evans resulted in a Letter of Warning being issued to 

Capital for the incident. 

Subsequent to this incident the Capital Principal Maintenance Inspector (PM!) conducted 

inspections during the 25-28 May 2010 time frames on the three aircraft that had received MLG 

changes by AMES. The inspections took place at the Toledo lntemational Airport (TOL) during 

routine line station surveillance and the PMl was accompanied by another Capital Certificate 

Management Team (CMT) member (Jack Gasche, AC OPS). The inspections revealed that all 

three aircraft had all Flying Doors (Inboard and outboard) installed incorrectly. The improper 

Flying Doors' installations resulted in doors damage, doors attach fittings damage, airframe 

damage, flap track fairing damage, and door attach fitting covers damage. Associated structures 

included the inboard flap track fairings, Flying Doors attach fittings covers, and wheel well 

fairings. 

FOR OFFICAL USE ONLY 

2011S0290032 
File Number 2011 S02'1tl032 Section B, Page 2 

In addition to the improper installations on all three aircraft N287SC had the wheel brakes anti 

skid conduit on the right MLG was improperly positioned to the front ofthe gear and had been 

crushed by the gear door against the wing mating surface. 

The MLG Doors were all obviously out of rig. 

The findings were reported to the Capital Maintenance department at TOL and the aircraft had to 

be removed from service. 

All three aircraft had to be ferried to the AMES facility to effect repairs on the doors, airframes 

and to have the doors correctly installed. 

The AMES Director of Quality Assurance (DQA) and Director of Maintenance (DOM) came to 

TOL to look at the aircraft prior to the ferry flights to the AMES facility. The PM!'s discussions 

with both revealed that AMES was not familiar with the B-727 MLG replacement procedures and 

how the MLG doors had to be rigged after the MLG's were replaced. Both could not show the 

PMI the correct section of the AMlv! to use for door rigging and both could not show the PM! 

where the references in the MLG replacement instructions require the doors to be rigged and 

inspected. 

Subsequently, the PM! conducted a review of the MLG replacement work packages that were 

used by AMES for Capital and that review revealed that AMES did not follow the approved 

Capital Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) (Boeing instructions accessed through 

myboeingfleet.com). The referenced AMM chapters were incorrect for the maintenance actions. 

The Required Inspection Item tests and inspections procedures for the MLG replacements were 

not used. 

An LOI was sent to Capital for failure to ensure inspection and maintenance pr<lcedu·res 

were used and followed and failure to detect the irnllrDJper installations and darna~~e 

~~e!>S after the installa!_is 

The LOI response from Capital to the PMI revealed the failures of A.t\1ES to use approved AMM 

instructions, Capital Rll procedures, AMES procedures, and a lack of AMES personnel 

qualifications to complete the tasks. 

Capital's Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program (named the MIP which is an acronym 

for Maintenance Inspection Program) authorized by Ops Specs paragraph D-72 requires the usage 

of Boeing 727 Aircraft Maintenance Manuals (AMM) as revised by Boeing. Those manuals 

clearly describe the steps and give complete instructions to change MLG's (AMM Chapter 32-11-

00) and Flying Doors (AMM Chapter 32-12-ll) and properly rig both. AMES was supplied these 

manuals to use, by Capital as required, by both entities approved manual systems and Ops Specs 

authorizations. 

No AMM reference could be found in any records reviewed for any of the aircraft that proved 

AMES used any of the Flying Doors rigging section. The only AMM references found were for 

the gear replacements and then, only some of those required in that AMM section could ~be found 

in records reviewed. 

FOR OFFICAL USE ONLY 

2011S0290032 
File Number 2011 S02'J\J032 Section B, Page 3 

The MLG change and door rigging is designated as a Required Inspection Item (Rll) as described 

in 14CFR§ !21.369(b) (2), in the Capital General Maintenance Manual Rll section. 

The MLG change records for all three aircraft had Rlllnspector sign offs however they could not 

have been inspected or at the least inspected properly as the wrong AMM references were used 

and no AMM door rigging references were used. The proof is the ensuing damage from improper 

maintenance actions. 

N899AA had its MLG changes at AMES during July 2009, N898AA had its MLG changes 

during September 2009, and N287SC had its MLG changes during March 2010. 

All three aircraft had been operated continucmsly in that condition for many months and cycles. 

N899AA had 784 cycles amassed, N898AA had 628 cycles amassed, and N287SC had 172 

cycles amassed for a total of I ,584 cycles operated when the PMI found the discrepancies. 

As previously mentioned, upon review of the maintenance records by the PM! for all three 

aircraft's MLG changes it was apparent that incorrect procedures were used by AMES. As a 

result of the damage observed and a review of the documentation an LOl was sent to AMES and 

this EIR is the result of the findings. 

AMES failed to adhere to 

AMM, AMES's enr>ro'ierl 

Specs issued to 

aP!>rO'Ied programs, Capital's approved 

vu,uM <Vuutuat (RSQM), and authorizing Ops 

FOR OFFICAL USE ONLY 

2011 S0290032 
\ 

File Number 2011 S02;.u032 

Discussion 

Section B, Page 4 

On April 21, 2010 a copy of Service Difficulty Report# C8GA20 1000009 was sent to the Capital 

Principal Maintenance Inspector (PM!) via email attachment sent from the Capital Manager of 

Quality Control. 

The SDR reported an emergency return of B-727 N287SC operated by Capital, to the KCVG 

(Cincinnati) airport because of a high frequency aerodynamic vibration. The SDR identified the 

cause as the upper rudder attach fittings and the right Main Landing Gear (MLG) Wing (Industry 

common name, "Flying Door") door bushing needed replacement (IOP 1). 

As a result of communications in the matter between the Capital PM! and the Capital DOM the 

PM! received an email from the DOM that said the aircraft (N287SC) had flown 5 flights with no 

problems since having the RH MLG Flying Door actuator bushing replaced (lOP 2). 

An Occurrence Report from the CVG Air Traffic Control branch was sent to the CVG FSDO for 

investigation and a copy was supplied to the PM! from the CVG FSDO Inspector conducting the 

Investigation (Inspector Bobby Evans) (lOP 3). 

As a result of communications between the Capital PM! and CVG FSDO Inspector Evans, (who 

was conducting the Occurrence investigation for the Air an email was sent to the PM! 

from lns·pector 

Inspector Evans sent an LOI to Capital for the improper maintenance/missing bushing (lOP 5). 

The Capital response to Inspector Evans' LOI uncovered the fact that the aircraft had just had the 

MLG's changed at AMES during a "C" Check concluded on or about 22 March 2010. The 

beating/bushing had been left out at that time by AMES maintenance personnel conducting the 

MLG change. Capital generated Corrective Action Reports (CAR's) to AMES and vowed to 

institute immediate fix corrective actions to ensure this type of event would not recur (lOP 6). 

As a result of the LOI response from Capital and Capital's corrective actions for the missing 

bushing/bearing incident Inspector Evans closed out his Investigation with a Letter of Correction 

(IOP 7). 

As a result of Inspector Evans' findings the PM! conducted surveillancc/in>-pections at the TOL 

airport on the aircraft involved in the Air Return and two other B-727' s that had MLG changes at 

the AMES facility contracted to by Capital for the MLG changes. Much damage was found on all 

three aircraft by the PM!. The PM! generated an Inspector Statement as to the facts found (lOP 

8). 

Another Inspector (Charles Gasche) from ASO CMO 29 Team D accompanied and assisted the 

PM! during the aircraft inspections. Inspector Gasche generated an Inspector Statement as well 

(IOP9). 

FOR OFF! CAL USE ONLY 

2011 80290032 
File Number 2011 S02'Jv632 Section B, Page 5 

A copy of the AMES work package for the LH and RH MLG changes for N899AA is supplied. 

The lOP shows AMES Non Routine cards and the back side of the Non Routine Partial Work 

Accomplished pages. Pages I through 5 of the lOP are for the Left MLG. Pages 6 through 11 are 

for the Right MLG. Pages l through 3 of the lOP package show maintenance actions completed, 

Rll inspections completed, and AMM references used. AMM section 32-11-00 is shown but 

AMM section 32-12-11 is not and that section is required for MLG and Flying Doors rigging as 

well as Rlllnspection steps. 

Pages 6 through 9 of the lOP package show Rll inspections completed and AMM references 

used. AMM section 32-11-00 is shown but AMM section 32-12-H is not and that section is 

required for MLG and Flying Doors removal, installation, and rigging as well as Rlllnspection 

steps. 

The requirement to utilize AMM section 32-12-ll(lOP 14 Main Gear Wing Door 

Removal/Installation and Rigging) is listed in AMM section 32-11-00 Step 5, SectionAL (19), 

(lOP 13 Main Landing Gear Removal and lOP 5 and 

page 8 

A copy of the AMES work package for the LH and RH MLG changes for N898AA is supplied. 

The lOP shows Non Routine cards and the back side of the Non Routine Partial Work 

Accomplished pages. Pages 1 through 5 of the lOP are for the Left MLG. Pages 6 through 10 are 

for the Right MLG. Pages 1 through 3 of the lOP package show maintenance actions completed, 

Rll inspections completed, and AMM references used. AMM section 32-11-00 is shown but 

AMM section 32-12-11 is nol and that section is required for MLG and Flying Doors rigging as 

well as Rlllnspection steps. 

Pages 6 through 8 of the lOP package show maintenance actions completed, Rll inspections 

completed, and AMM references used. AMM section 32-11-00 is shown but AMM section 32-

12-11 is not and that section is required for MLG and Flying Doors removal, installation, and 

rigging as well as Rlllnspcction steps. 

The requirement to utilize AMM section 32-12-ll(IOP 14 Main Gear Wing Door 

Removal/Installation and Rigging) is listed in AMM section 32-11-00 Step 5, Section AL (19), 

(lOP 13 Main Landing Gear Removal and Installation, page 23).10P page 2 entry l and lOP 

page 7 entry I show AL virtue of the offs 

AMM section 32-1 

A copy of the AMES work package for the LH and RH MLG changes for N287SC is supplied. 

The lOP shows Non Routine cards and the back side of the Non Routine Partial Work 

Accomplished pages. Pages 1 through 7 of the lOP are for the Left MLG. Pages 8 through 14 are 

for the Right MLG. Pages 1 through 5 of the lOP package show maintenance actions completed, 

Rll inspections completed, and AMM references used. AMM section 32-11-00 is shown but 

AMM section 32-12-ll is not and that section is required for MLG and Flying Doors rigging as 

well as Rlllnspection steps. 

Pages 8 through 12 of the lOP package show maintenance actions completed, Rll inspections 

completed, and AMM references used. AMM section 32-11-00 is shown butAMM section 32-

12-11 is not and that section is required for MLG and Flying Doors removal, installation, and 

rigging as well as Rlllnspection steps. 

FOR OFFICAL USE ONLY 

2011S0290032 
File Number 2011S02':1v032 Section B, Page 6 

The requirement to utilize AMM section 32-12-ll(IOP 14 Main Gear Wing Door 

Removal/Installation and Rigging) is listed in AMM section 32-ll-00 Step 5, SectionAL (19), 

(lOP 13 Main Landing Gear Removal and lnstallatis~ 

The Boeing AMM Chapter 32-11-00 for MLG Removal/Installation of the B-727 MLG, 

authorized by Ops Specs issuance and MIP approval for Capital is supplied. 

On page two of the lOP section 3 F gives instructions for the removal of the Wing (Flying Doors) 

Doors prior to the removal of the MLG. 

lOP page 23 (AMM reference Step 5 beginning on lOP page 16 and ending on page 24) shows 

AMM Step 5, Installation ofMLG section, AL (19) and that section shows the requirement to use 

AMM chapter 32-12-11 to adjust and rig the wing doors Doors) after MLG · 

which off on all three aircrafts 

The Boeing AMM Chapter 23-12-11 for Main Gear Wing (Flying) Door Removal/installation 

authorized by Ops Specs issuance and MIP approval for Capital is supplied. lOP pages I and 2 

shows the requirements to follow for routine removal on page l, I. General, paragraph A and 

instructs the mechanic to use paragraph 4 steps (lOP page 2) for installation including figure 40 I 

entirely (lOP pages 3-5). Paragraph 4 step L instructs the mechanic to Adjust (Rig) wing door per 

Adjustment!Test section. The Adjustment!Test section (lOP pages 9-I show the tits 

and tolerances that must be achieved in order for the doors to be ali1;;ne'd 

and must be adhered to. 

Based on the findings an LOJ (EIR # 2010S0290120) was sent to Capital for the incidents (lOP 

15). 

Capital's LOl Capital and the 

EIR for the the response did 

show that AMES did not perform Rl1 

inspections properly, did not return the three aircraft to service lAW approved procedures, did not 

follow Capital's AMM and GMM insofar as the Rll program was ignored for the gear doors, and 

AMES did not follow its approved manual (lOP 16). 

A Copy of the Capital Aircraft Flight and Maintenance Log (AFML) pages for N287SC dated 

4/18/20 II are supplied along with the Capital AFML Supplemental Sheets for the Air Return for 

vibration. lOP page 1, (AFML page 88224) item 1 shows the vibration write up and the eorre<:tive 

action side shows excessive free play on the Flying Door and directs the reader to see the 

continuation sheet for the corrective action. The corrective action on lOP page 2 item 6 shows 

replacement of the MISSING bushing for the Flying Door as the corrective action and the 

mechanic provides the correct AMM reference however the mechanics for AMES still don't find 

the improper door rigging. 

FOR OFFICAL USE ONLY 

2011S0290032 
File Number 201JS02~v032 Section 13, Page I 

The right MLG was found to be faulty just two days later, 4/201201 1 (The aircraft had not !lown 

since the Air Return) and the gear was removed and replaced by AMES under warranty. See lOP 

page 4 (AFML page 88226) item 1. The corrective action shows the AMM chapter for R&R of 

the gear and a gear retraction was accomplished but once again AMES failed to conduct Rll 

inspections of the flying Door properly and ensure proper rigging. AMES for at least this aircraft 

had three occasions to get it right and failed all three times (lOP l7). 

An LOI was sent by the PMI to the AMES Responsible Person for the actions (lOP 18}. 

nrclb],,m with additional training 

!nspec:tion departroent that was 

irresponsible in their performance for the events. trained by Capital and Capital 

contracted instruction personnel on the B-727 and B-75 7 prior to the capital CMT adding AMES 

to the Capital D-91 Ops Specs. The Capital CMT observed the training and the landing gear and 

associated airframe and systems were addressed sufficiently for AMES to conduct maintenance 

with. The MLG change was identified and stressed as an RJI item and the use of the B-727 AMM 

as described in the lOP 13 and 14 discussion section previously identified was the only direction 

supplied by Capital for AMES to use. 

AMES went to great lengths to provide many more corrective action items for the MLG change 

after the LOl for Capital was sent to Capital but, if AMES followed the AMM references and 

inspected the MLG changes as required, that's all AMES would have had to do to ensure that all 

the steps were done correctly. 

In essence, AMES fails to recognize or take responsibility for the failure to follow approved 

procedures and accepted procedures for inspections of critical to flight items prior to release of 

those aircraft. Subsequent to this violation AMES has received another LO! (E!R # 

2011S0290037) for failure to follow the approved AMM and Rll for critical to flight 

Nose Wheel Steering 

A copy of the 8130-3 form and MLG build up directions from the MLG component maintenance 

manual referenced in the AMES LO! for N287SC's RMLG is supplied. A Tl Aviation Services 

LLC is the vendor that released the gear to service. Page 2 of the lOP shows correct conduit 

• 

20). 

'( . d t 7 d ~ 3 fth lOP fi . l t 

-. . -~~ ' -' . '_.·,·--~- ~~ ---~,- . 

FOR OFFICAL USE ONLY 

201180290032 

OP 
File Number 2011S02'1v032 Section B, Page 8 

Capital CAR's generated to AMES for the findings identified by AMES in the LOI response are 

supplied. 

All three show Corrective Actions Taken by AMES to satisfy Capitals requirements to respond to 

the CAR (lOP 21). 

A copy of the AMES Training Module developed to satisfy the LOl response is supplied. The 

training module has pictures ofthc improper door installations and damage that ensued from the 

improper installations. The training references come directly out of the Boeing 727 AMM.IOP 

page 3 bottom view has the wrong AMM reference. AMM 32-10-ll does not exist. The correct 

reference 32-12-11. 

A copy of the AMES Task cards that they developed for B-727 MLG changes as referenced in 

the LOI response is supplied. The task cards parrot and mimic the B-727 AMM for MLG 

changes. 

The 

A copy of the corrective actions that AMES had to effect on N899AA after the PM!'s ~1inJ~S 

inspe<:tion actions is SU!>Ptteu. 

for the maintenance steps are included (lOP 24). 

A copy of the corrective actions that AMES had to effect on 

>rOf>errnairtten:mce and supp,Jied. 

for the maintenance steps are included (lOP 25). 

A copy of the corrective actions that AMES had to effect on N287SC after the PMJ's tm.dirrgs 

maintenance and actions is •ui'V"·"''" 

for the maintenance steps are included (lOP 26). 

A copy of the Capital Rll section of the Capital GMM is supplied and shows the requirements of 

the MLG and Doors removal as Rll required. The Rll section is required to be used by the Capital 

MJP and is referenced in the M!P. lOP pages 4 and 5 shows the effective dates of the GMM Rll 

section and cover the dates for all three aircraft. Page 4 would be for N899AA and N898AA. 

Page 5 would be for N287SC. 

Section 32 of the Rlllist shows MLG replacement, operational checks, and rigging and/or 

adjustment as RII required (lOP 27). 

A copy of the Capital Operations Specifications D· 72 paragraph is supplied. 

D-72 authorizes the Capital MlP (lOP 28). 

FOR OFFICAL USE ONLY 

2011 S0290032 
File Nwnbcr 2011 S02'Jv032 Section B, Page 9 

A copy of the Capital B-727 MlP Volume l LOEP approval page that was in effect at the time of 

the violations is supplied. MlP volume l is the controlling document for the CAMP (lOP 29). 

A copy of the Capital MIP section 00 that shows the Volume l and 2 revision level in effect at the 

time of the violations. Volume 1 and 2 contain the description and controls for the Rll program, 

Boeing AMM usage, Service Check requirements including Airworthiness Release (A WR), and 

the A and C Check requirements including A WR (lOP 30). 

A copy of the Capital MIP Volume 1 section 0 l-2 that was in effect at the time of the violations is 

provided. This section shows the abbreviation meaning of AMM as used in the MIP. Section 0 I C 

controls the basis for Capital's MlP using the Boeing B-727 MPD. Section OJ D shows the 

control of the Capital Rll program and requires the usage of the Rll section of the GMM for 

compliance with the Rli regulations. Section 01 E shows the requirement for Capital to utilize the 

Boeing AMM for all maintenance actions (lOP 31). 

A copy of the AMES Operations Specifications(Ops Specs) issued by the DTW FSDO 

authorizing AMES to conduct maintenance on the B-727 aircraft is supplied. AMES is authorized 

Limited Airframe and Power Plant rating for the B-727 and its engine, the JT8D The Director of 

Quality and Training has sigued for AMES. AMES is required by Limitations to conduct work in 

accordance with the manufacturer's current technical data, the customer's Air Carrier manual 

lAW 14 CFR 145.205 or other data approved by the Administrator. In this case the Boeing AMM 

(lOP 32). 

A..1v1ES has an Ops Specs manual housed in it RSQM. The Ops Specs manual has the current Ops 

Specs issued along with its EASA Approval Certificate and Capability List. 

AMES states in the AMES RSQM Introduction section that it will not operate in violation of the 

... station certificate, lOP 21 • . ! 

A. 

l • . . ! .. • 

• I • . .• . . I I 

The approval page of the AMES RSQM shows the approval of the RSQM in effect for the 

violations (lOP page 1) and the LOEP page I shows the approval page of the approval section 

(lOP page 5) (lOP 34). 

The AMES RSQM revision and approval procedures 

nro·vid<:d and the AMES 

•• 

The AMES RSQM Introduction section lists the statements of compliance to the manual, Ops 

Specs, and certificate ratings (lOP page!) and states it will not approve for service any article it 

does not have the required technical data or trained personnel for (lOP page 2) for. The AMES 

defmition of an article is aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component 

part (lOP page 3) (lOP 36). 

FOR OFFICAL USE ONLY 

20!1S0290032 
File Number 2011S02'1U032 Section B, Page 1 0 

The AMES RSQM Organization section shows the General Manager as the responsible person 

for complete overall operation of the repair station (lOP page 1), the Director of Maintenance 

ensures quality of the maintenance program (lOP page 3) and adherence to all CFR's (lOP page 

4). 

In the AMES RSQM (Section 02.00) the Director of Quality Assurance and Training (DQA) is 

responsible for the quality of the inspection program to include training, qualification, procedural 

compliance, tooling, and necessary interfaces and controls (lOP page 6), The DQA is responsible 

for the Repair Station Training and Internal Evaluation Programs (lOP page 7). The DQA is 

responsible to ensure compliance with regulations and quality as related to the customers 

approved CAMP (lOP page 8). The DQA is responsible to ensure all technical data used is 

current and when doing maintenance on customer aircraft, ensure customer manuals an: used and 

where they are located for AMES personnel to use (lOP page 9)(IOP 37). 

The AMES RSQM Training section (03.00) says that the DQA is responsible for training 

requirements for all AMES employees and will ensure training is accomplished for each 

maintenance person to ensure the person has the knowledge and skills to perform assigned 

maintenance tasks (lOP page 1). The Job Specific Training Requirements for Customer Aircraft 

section lists the training requirements (Systems) for customer aircraft maintenance and Rll 

inspections (lOP page 10). The DQA will request the training needed to ensure that customer 

aircraft training will be accomplished prior to performing maintenance tasks on those aircraft and 

document that training (lOP page 12) (IOP 38). 

The AMES RSQM Personnel section (03.01) shows the Accountable Manager (General 

Manager) as responsible for all actions at the Repair Station and will ensure that Repair Station 

personnel follow the regulations (lOP page I A.(!)). The DQA is responsible to the General 

Manager for compliance with all procedures (lOP page I B. (1 )) The repair Station will ensure 

that enough qualified, trained, knowledgeable, and experienced personnel to ensure all work is 

performed !A W 14 CFR Part 43 and all supervisors must oversee and ensure all work is 

performed under the authorizations of the certificate and Ops Specs issued (lOP page I C. (I), 

(2), (3 ). Personnel authorized to conduct maintenance and inspections for AMES must show 

experience to understand methods, techniques, and equipment used to determine airworthiness of 

the aircraft (lOP page 2 A. (I) through (5). The Repair Station must make available to all 

persmmel current specifications and procedures and Air Carrier manuals for use (lOP page 3 B.). 

Personnel assigned to AMES are required to familiarize themselves with the regulations required 

by AMES this includes 14 CFR Parts 43 and 121 which have the requirements for proper tooling, 

qualified personnel to conduct maintenance on an aircraft and an aircraft certificated for 

operations under 14 CFR Part 121 and, the requirements to utilize the approved manual system 

for that Air carrier (lOP pages 3 and 4 C.(!) through (!3)). Prior to performing maintenance on a 

customer's aircraft, in this case Capital's the mechanics and supervisors must be authorized and 

trained and qualified to do so (lOP page 6, 6 A., B., and C) (lOP 39). 

FOR OFFICAL USE ONLY 

2011S0290032 
File Number 2011 S0291J032 Section B, Page II 

The AMES Repair Station Policies section (04.00) says that AMES will have the correct tools to 

perform maintenance and will use them lAW the RSQM, Ops Specs issued, and 14 CFR 43 (lOP 

page l A. (1) through (4). The AMES DQA is responsible to oversee corrective actions for all 

findings including Discrepancy Notices, FAA Inspection findings, Internal Audit findings, 

customer findings etc. 

Defi~iencies noted are to be investigated, root cause provided, and immediate action taken to 

correct the discrepancy to prevent recurrence of the discrepancy. QA audits of corrective actions 

must be performed (lOP pages 14 and 15 section 16 entirely). 

AMES is required to utilize technical data and trained personnel for all maintenance it conducts. 

The Air Carrier's approved manuals are required to be used and supplied to AMES. AMES must 

make the technical data available to its maintenance personnel (lOP pages 17 and 18 section 19 

entirely). The AMES DQA is responsible to ensure maintenance performed on an Air Carrier's 

aircraft is performed !A W the carriers approved manual system. The DQC is responsible for 

keeping the carriers manual revised and determining that the carrier's manual is current prior to 

using that manual (lOP page 19 section 21 entirely) (lOP 40). 

FOR OFFICAL USE ONLY 

2011 S0290032 
File Number 2011S029U032 Section B, Page 13 

Accordingly, a Letter of Investigation (LO!) was sent to Capital Cargo International Airlines 

(IOP# 18). The carrier has responded to the LOI (lOP# 19). 

Factors Affecting Sanction 

Nature of the Violation 

These alleged via lations are for the AMES Certificated Repair Station and are maintenance 

related in nature. The alrcraft wert maintained, inspected, and returned to service improperly. 

-because AMES tailed to adhere to the prescribed and approved methods of its manual 

~perations Specifications authorizations, and Ratings and Limitations approved by the 

i~~ircraft were ultimately operated in an unairworth~ condition 

because AMES failed to adhere to the requirements of~ instructions 

for replacement of the MLG's. AMES failed to adhere to the Capital "Critical to Flight" 

inspection tasks delineated in the Rll inspection section of the Capital MIP. AMES failed to 

utilize the entire section of the MLG removal and replacement section of the approved AMM for 

Capital and just ignored the Flying Doors removal, replacement, and rigging section of the 

approved AMM. 

AMES failed to adhere to the Capital CAMP, approved AMM, and Inspection procedures along 

with, failure to follow its own manual system put in place to ensure this kind of failure didn't 

happen. The lOP's are many and irrefutable. 

No part of the approved AMM section 32-12-l 1 was followed. The 

AMM allowed three aircraft to be released to service in an umtirvvorthv 

The AMES failure to follow the Capital Rll program resulted in a 

aircraft were not for a critical safety of flight sv;;tern' 

Whether the Violation was Inadvertent and Not Deliberate 

FOR OFF! CAL USE ONLY 

2011 S0290032 
File Number 2011S02~U032 Section B. Page 14 

Certificate Holder's Level of Experience 

AMES has been certificated under I 4 CFR§ I 45 since May 4, 2009. AMeS has limited 

experience with multiple types of aircraft. 

AMES had to have numerous Systems and Familiarization courses produced to them by Capital 

because of repeated mistakes being made by AMES on Capital aircraft while being at the AMES 

facility. 

The mistakes continued until Capital removed their aircraft from AMES and is nO\\ utilizing 

another MRO for heavy maintenance. 

AMES has received mo more LOI's (20!1S0290030 and 

Degree of Hazard 

FOR OFF!CAL USE ONLY 

2011 S0290032 
File Number 2011 S02~v032 ~ect10n l:l, !'age 1) 

Use of a Certificate 

The alleged violator holds an Air Agency 14 CFR § 145 Certificate and should have been 

conducting its maintenance and inspection actions under the highest possible standard of safety 

and care. 

Violation History 

Ability to Absorb Sanction 

lt is unknown whether the carrier can absorb the sanction delineated in current guidelines for this 

violation if the · AMES has close to 500 and is not a smaiJ 

Whether the Violation was Reported Voluntarily 

These alleged violations were not reported voluntarily prior to the investigation outlined above. 

Corrective Action 

None 

Other Information 

Reliability of the Evidence 

The evidence is absolutely reliable and was supplied by the CMT PM!, Capital, AMES, and by 

FAA data bases. 

Conflicting Evidence 

None 

FOR OFFICAL USE ONLY 

20 II 8029003 2 
File Number 2010S02'1U120 Section C, Page l 

SECTION C-Items of Proof 

9 

28 

29 

30 

Inspector Statement PMJ, 

N899AA, and N898AA's Main Landing Gear Doors at the TOL airport on 5/25-

27/2010 

of 

the GMM (Para. D) and the requirement to use the Boeing Aircraft Maintenance Manual 

fOr all maintenance actions 

FOR OFFICAL USE ONLY 

201180290032 
File Number 2009S02~ul52 Section C, Page 1 

32 

33 

34 

1---'" 35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

AMES Ops Specs issued by the DTW FSDO 

AMES Ops Specs manual part of AMES RSQM approved by DTW FSDO 

AMES RSQM approval page by DTW FSDO PM! 

AMES RSQM Rev and Approval procedures section 

AMES RSQM lntro section 

At\1ES RSQM Organization section 

Atv!ES ~SQM Training section 

AMES RSQM Personnel section 

AMES Repair Station Poiicies section 

FOR OFF! CAL USE ONLY 

201180290032 

-

--