### Inthe matter of BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

# RECEIVED MAR 1

# I 2014 

# HEARING DOCKET

FAA DocketNo. 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 ofan order compelling Complainant, Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"), to produceresponses to Respondent's First Set oflnterrogatories and Document Requests and in supporthereofstates as follows: Requests Addressing the Bias OfAn FAA Inspector Are Within The Proper Scope OfDiscovery In

### the FAA's initial Response to Respondent's FirstDiscovery Requests (attached as Exhibit 1), and as expandedupon in the FAA'sMarch 7 e-mail (attached as Exhibit 2), the FAA objected to Interrogatories 10 through 12 and Requests for Production 4 throughlO, all onthe 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 ofdiscovery is not circumscribedbythe specific allegations in a

1 

### FAA counsel also objectedto responding to any ofRespondent's discovery requests asserting lateness. Counsel for the parties have conferred and Complainant's counsel has agreed to proceedto produce responses to Respondent's discovery requests to which it does not otherwise object as stated inExhibit 1.

### complaint. Adelman v. BoyScouts 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 offactual issues including the identity ofwitnesses, bias, credibility, [and] potential impeachment.
.." !d.;


### see also FAA v. GatewayAirRepair, Inc., 

### FAA Dkt. No. CP04S00006, DMS No. FAA-2004- 17109, 2004 FAALEXIS 689, at* 1 (Sept. 24, 2004). Indeed, the Committee Notes to the 2000 Amendment ofFederal Rule ofCivil Procedure 26, which Rule is appliedby DOT in its enforcement actions, explain that "avariety oftypes ofinformation not directly pertinentto the incident in suit" are relevant to the claims or defenses raised in a given action and therefore discoverable, including "informationthat could be used to impeach a likely witness." Thus, Respondent is entitledthrough discovery to explore the credibility and potential bias ofthe investigating FAA inspector, as itbears upon his impeachability and goes to the heart ofthe truthfulness ofthe FAA's allegations inthis matter. "While deference is given to prosecutorial discretion in the bringing ofactions by the government, where there is a credible allegation ofconductthat may evince bias or prejudice that may have affected the inspector's questioning ofactual or potential percipient witnesses, the alleged conduct, bias orprejudice may be discovered." In the Matter of BaldMtn. 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, butis also exploring the statements made and actions taken by the Inspector and the FAA'sfindings 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 ofbias. Inspector Lipinski has, in the

- 2-

### past, made many statements to representatives ofAMES 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 notto 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 ofanother repair stationhe specifically named. This Inspector also suggested to Capital Cargo representatives that ifCCIA removed AMES from its list ofapproved outside maintenanceproviders that it wouldbenefit 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 objectedto 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 otherunspecified privileged information. Interrogatory 9 asks the FAAto indentify all persons consultedby or withthe named Inspectors including other FAA Inspectors regarding the allegations against AMES as set forth inthe Complaint. While the substance ofconsultations with FAA counsel maybe privileged, the existence ofsuch consultations is notprivileged. Further, the request is not limited to attorney-inspector consultations, but consultations between and among Inspectors. FAA can assert no privilege regarding this type ofconsultation. Accordingly, it shouldbe compelledto respond and, ifappropriate, assert with specificity any privilege on which it seeks to rely. Creation ofa privilege log shouldbe ordered ifthe FAA is going to assert large numbers ofdocuments/communications are privileged. As to Requestfor Production 2, which seeks an unredacted version ofthe EIR, the FAA cites possible attorney-client and deliberate processprivileges. As to the assertion ofthe

- 3 -

### attorney-client privilege, the document that was partiallyredacted that formed a part ofthe EIR
was Sections B and C, a document which were producedbythe FAA Inspector. The documents
are attached as Exhibit

# 4? The documents, and Section B inparticular, are extremely one-sided and appear to reflect the bias ofthe investigating Inspector, and are easily contradicted bythe facts. Nonetheless, Respondent is entitledto the redacted portions because there is no indication that it was produced at the request ofF AA counsel orthat it was made for the purpose of securing legal advice, as would be required for itto be subject to the attorney-client privilege. Thus, ifthe FAA wishes to assert such a privilege, it hadto do so with more specificity. FAA counsel also argues that the redacted portions ofthe requested document are subject to the deliberative process privilege. This privilege is a qualified one that canbe overcome by a showing ofneed, which is determined on a case-by-case basis. One situation where such an analysis often leads to denial ofthe privilege is where, as here, a party is questioning the integrity ofthe 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 inhonest 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 ofbias onthe part ofthe Inspector who preparedthe EIR, which has reasonably led Respondent to questionthe integrity ofhis decision-making process, Respondent shouldbe permitted to view the entirety ofSectionB ofthe EIR and any withheld items ofproof

2 

### Exhibit 4 consists ofa copy ofSectionB ofthe EIR said to run 15 pages and Section C consisting ofthe index ofthe FAA designated items ofproofrunning 2 pages that is partially redacted. Page 12 ofSection B was notproducedbythe FAA and is therefore not among the numberedpages ofSection B. The FAA should either producepage 12 ofSectionB or advise if the numbering ofthe pages ofSectionB is in error. Ifthere is a page 12 and its contents were redacted, in whole or inpart, the request to have an in camera 

### inspection ofthe document includes page 12.

- 4-

### in order to determine whether it will shed light onRespondent's claims that it is the result of unfair bias instead ofa legitimate FAA finding ofa violation byAMES. Should there be any remaining doubts about whetherthe requested document is privileged, counsel for Respondent has suggestedto the FAAthat the Judge review the unredacted EIR 

### in camera before rendering aruling on the alleged privileges. Although FAA has in its March 7 e-mail opposed such a procedure because ofits firm beliefthat the document is privileged, the FAA's beliefby itselfis not enoughto establish anyprivilege. The existence of privilege mustbe determined by the Judge, and it is well within Your Honor's discretion to review the questioned documents when privilege is not obvious onthe face ofthe redacted document.

- 5 -

### WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Respondent respectfully requests the grant ofthis motionto compel counsel for Complainantto respond to Respondent's discovery requests to which it has objected andto order Complainantto produce a copy ofthe unredacted portion ofSectionB ofthe EIR and any otherredacted portions ofthe EIRfor an in camera review and a ruling on the claim ofComplainant as to the privileged nature ofthe 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 onthis lOth 

### day ofMarch 2014, I caused a true copy ofthe foregoing Respondent's Motionto Compel Productionto 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 LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, D.C. 20590 Tel: (202) 366-2132 Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney Office oftheRegional Counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region Federal Aviation Administration 1701 ColumbiaAvenue College Park, GA 30337 Tel: (404) 305-5200

# Exhibit 1

### 03/05/2014 13:22 4043055223 

### FAA REGIONAL COUNSEL



## U.S. JlEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFVICE OF HEARINGS FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINlSTRATION

FEDE.RAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Complainant,


## vs. AIRBORNE MAINTENANCEAND ENGINEERING SERVICES, Respondent. DocketNo. 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 thatInterrogatories 

## 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, butrather appear to relate to personal complaints about an Aviation Safety Inspector. The purpose ofthis litigation is to reach a determination 

## as to the accuracy ofthe allegations in the Complaint and the appropriateness ofthe 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 ofrei.evant, admissible information. Accordingly,

MAR-06-2014 13:59 4043055223 98% 

### P.0203/05/2014 13:22 4043055223 

### FAA REGIONAL COUNSEL



### regardless ofthe untimeliness ofthe Respondent's Discovery Requests, the FAA further objects to the listed interrogatories 

### and requests for production as beyondthe 

### scope ofdiscovery. 

### The FAA further notes that Interrogatory 

### 9 and Request for Productio.n 

### 2**~eek** 

### production 

### ofinformation 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 ofthe untimeliness ofRespondent's Discovery Requests, the FAAobjects to Interrogatory 9 andRequest for Production 2.

\'"--- 

### Submitted

# this~ day 

## ofMarch, 2014.

CHRISTOPHER R. STEVENSON Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel

MAR-06-2014 13'59 4043055223 97Y. 

### P.03

### 03/05/2014 13:22 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

# ~De~ DONNA STNLEY Legal Assistant Office ofthe Regional Counsel


## MAR 6 2014 Dated

MRR-06-2014 13=59 4043055223 98% 

### P.0403/05/2014 13:22



### Date: 

# :3-6- 

# Jl}
To=

# 'Rober+ 'P. Firm: 

### Phone: 4043055223 FAA REGIONAL COUNSEL 

# FAA

Southern Region Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 P- 0. Box 20636 

### Atlanta, GA3032.0 

## 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 COPYTO FOLLOW: [v{y'es [ ] No HARD COPYTO FOLl-OW: [ 1

### Yes To: To: Firm: 

### Firm: Phone: Phone: 

### Fax: Fax: HA.ROCOPYTOFOLLOW: (]Yes (]No HARD COPYTO FOLLOW: [ ] Yes To: To: 

### Firm: Firrn: 

### Phone: Phoue: Fax: Fax: 

### JlA..IWCOPYTOFOLLOW: [)Yes []No HARD COPYTO FOLLOW: [ ] Yes I"LE;A.SENO'l"E! 

### nus facsimile is CONFlDENTIAL and intended**~olely** for the use ofthespecific iodividual oreotity named above. Such commuuicatiou maybeprotectedbylegally recognized privileges, andthu..s mustootbe disseminated. distributed orcopied Vt'ithout expr-ess permission. Ifyou havereceived 

### this [acsim1le iu error, please

### immediatcly notify us bytelephone and returntheoriginal messageto us at**th~**address above vi:;t. the lTDit.ed**StAte~** Po>tal Servic:e_Thankyou_



### MRR-06-2014 13'59 4043055223 97% PAGE**011~4**



### [ 1No



### []No

[]No



### P.01

# Exhibit 2

### Robert Silverberg From: Sent: To: Subject: Bob, Chris.Stevenson @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 itwill 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 sentvia Fed Ex this evening. 1Second, 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 ofthe investigating FAA inspector as it goes to the heart of the truthfulness ofthe 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 ofthe 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.
DocketNo. 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 Pursuantto Rule 220 oftheFederal Aviation Administration's Rules ofPractice, 14 C.P.R.§ 13.220, and Rules 26 and 33 ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil 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 ofservice in 

### the mannerprovided in 14 C.F.R. § 13.220(k). Pursuantto Rule 220 ofthe FAA's Rules ofPractice, 14 C.P.R.§ 13.220, and Rules 26 and 34 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Respondent AMES further requests that Complainant FAA produce for inspection and copying the documents requested below. Production shouldbemade within 30 days ofserviceto the office ofSilverberg, Goldman & 

### Bikoff, L.L.P., llOl 30th Street, N.W., Suite 120, Washington, D.C. 20007, or such other place as maybe mutually agreed upon. These discoveryrequests 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) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

### DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS 

### The following Definitions and Instructions applyto 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 waypertaining 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 ofthat person needbelisted inresponse to subsequent interrogatoryresponses 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 otherpersons acting or purporting to act onthe 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 behalfofsuch 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 ofthe interrogatory or discovery request all responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside ofits scope. 10. Theuse ofthe singular form ofany 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 shallbeprovided in the objection:
a. the type ofcommunication or document, e.g., letter or telephone conversation; b. the general subject matter ofthe communication or document;
c. the date ofthe communication or document; d. the author(s) ofthe communication or document;
e. the addressee(s) ofthe communication or document; f. 

### the recipient(s) ofthe communication or document; g. where not apparent, the relationship ofthe 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 ofthe 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 beidentified by stating the following:
a. the type ofdocument, e.g., letter or memorandum; b. the general subject matter ofthe document;

4

### c. the date ofthe document; d. the author(s) ofthe document;
e. the addressee(s) ofthe document; f. therecipient(s) ofthe document; g. where not apparent, the relationship ofthe author(s), addressee(s) and recipient(s) to each other; h. the custodian(s) ofthe document orperson(s) otherwiseresponsible for thedocument' s safekeeping, storage, or filing;
1. 

### the date the document was lost or destroyed; and J. the circumstances surrounding the loss ofthe document and, ifthe 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 haveprovidedinformation containedin thebelow interrogatories, setting forth the interrogatory or interrogatories for which each personprovided infonnation. ANSWER:



### 5

### 2. To the extent not included in the FAA's Initial Disclosures, identify all persons knownbythe FAA to have knowledge ofthe facts and matters at issue in the Complaint. ANSWER:



### 3. Identify any and all experts the FAA expects to testify on its behalfat the hearing
on this matter. For each such expert:
a. Describe the substance ofthe 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, educationalbackground and current curriculum vitae. ANSWER:



### 4. Identify all other witnesses the FAA expects to testify on its behalfat the hearing
on this matter. To the extent notincluded in the FAA's Initial Disclosures:
a. Describe the substance ofeach witness's expected testimony and the facts upon which that testimonywill 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 ofInspector BobbyEvans, includingbutnot limited to all licenses and certifications heldby the Inspector (including anythat have lapsed orhavebeen suspended orrevoked and the reason for the lapse, suspension orrevocation). ANSWER:



### 6. State the qualifications, educational background and experience oflnspector Frank Lipinski, includingbut not limited to all licenses and certifications held bythe Inspector (including anythathave lapsed orhavebeen suspended orrevoked and the reason for the lapse, suspension orrevocation). ANSWER:



### 7. State the qualifications, educational background and experience ofInspectorJack Gasche, includingbut not limited to all licenses and certifications held bythe Inspector (including any that have lapsed or havebeen suspended orrevoked and the reason for the lapse, suspension orrevocation). ANSWER:



### 7

### 8. Statethe qualifications, educational background and experience ofinspector Richard D'Arcy, including but not limitedto all licenses and certifications held bythe Inspector (including any thathave lapsed orhavebeen suspended or revoked and the reason for the lapse, suspension orrevocation). 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 ofeach such person's knowledge and how that knowledge was acquired. ANSWER:

l0. Identify all persons withknowledge ofor information concerning the meeting on March 30,2012 in Orlando, Florida among Dennis Manibusan, then President ofCapital Cargo International Airlines, Inc. ("CCIA"), W. Joseph Payne, Senior Vice President, Corporate General Counsel & 

### Secretary ofAir Transport Services Group, Inc. (the parent company of AMES and CCIA), and Robert Talmadge, Manager ofthe 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 ofthe complaint and the conclusions reached or actions taken as aresult ofthe 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 ofeach suchperson's knowledge and how that knowledge was acquired. ANSWER:

11. IdentifY all persons with knowledge ofor 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 thosepersons knowledgeable about any FAA investigations of the complaints and the conclusions reached or actions taken as aresult ofthe complaints. For each such person:
a. Identify the individual, including his orhertitle and affiliation, telephone number and business address; and b. Describe in detail the substance ofeach such person's knowledge and how that lmowledge was acquired. ANSWER:

9

### 12. Identify all persons with knowledge ofor information concerning a meeting held
on July 30, 2012 among Inspector Frank Lipinski, John Henderson, an independent contractor then retained by Cargo AircraftManagement, Inc. ("CAM"), an affiliate ofCCIA, and James Camp, then Manager, HeavyMaintenance ofCCIA, during which Inspector Lipinski threatened the A&P Licenses ofJohn Henderson and Gordon Graves, then Director, Leasing Operations of CAM, because there was a difference ofopinionbetween Mr. Henderson and Inspector Lipinski regarding AD documentation requirements. For each suchperson:
a. Identify the individual, including his orher title and affiliation, telephone number and business address; and b. Describe in detail the substance ofeach suchperson'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 ofthe Complaint that AMES improperly installed and rigged the landing gear doors on the three CCIA B-727 aircraft at issue, including the relevantmaintenancerecords and the applicable sections ofthe 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 orthatwere referenced or relied upon in formulating an answer to any interrogatory served onthe FAAby AMES in this case. 2. All documents issuedbytheFAA, authoredby any FAA employee or agent, or in the possession ofthe FAA concerning or relating to orthatmight tend to prove or disprove any ofthe allegations or defenses presented in this case, including a non-redacted copy ofthe FAA's Enforcement Investigative Report (EIR) and Item ofProof4 in this case. 3. All documents, includingbut not limited to, opinions, reports, summaries, chmis
or any other written instrument that any witness oftheFAA, lay or expert, intends to introduce into evidence or rely upon during testimony at the hearing ofthis case. 4. All documents concerning or relating to the meeting on March 30,2012 in Orlando, Florida among Dennis Manibusan, then President ofCCIA, W. Joseph Payne, Senior Vice President, Corporate General Counsel & 

### Secretary ofAir Transport Services Group, Inc. (theparent company ofAMES and CCIA), and Robert Talmadge, Manager ofthe FAA's South Florida Certificate Management Office, during which Dennis Manibusan and W. Joseph Payne complained ofintimidating, harassing, abusive and inapprop1iate conduct on thepart ofInspector Frank Lipinski, including any notes or memorialization ofthe meetingbyRobert Talmadge or

11

### any otherperson and documents related to any FAA investigation ofthe complaint and the conclusions reached or action taken as aresult ofthe complaint. 5. All documents concerning or relating to the complaints byDennis Manibusan to Charles Beers, FAA Front-LineManager, InspectorFrank Lipinski's direct supervisor, regarding intimidating, harassing, abusive and inappropriate conductbyInspector Lipinski, including any notes ormemorialization ofthese complaints byCharles Beers or any other person and any documents related to any FAAinvestigations ofthecomplaints and the conclusions reached or actions taken as aresult ofthe complaints. 6. All documents concerning any complaints to the FAA bythird partiesregarding intimidating, harassing, abusive or inappropriate conduct byInspector Frank Lipinski, including any documents related to any FAA investigations ofsuch complaints and the conclusions reached or actions taken as aresult ofthe complaints. 7. All documents concerning a meetingheld on March 28, 2012, that was attended by Inspector Frank Lipinski, Inspector Richard D'Arcy, James Savastano, then VicePresident of Maintenancefor CCIA, and Steven Santangelo, then Director ofQuality 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 atthe March 28, 2012 meeting such as he "views AMES as evil," that tomorrowthe "warbegins," 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 ormemorialization ofthe meetingby Inspector Lipinski, Inspector D'Arcy or any otherperson. 8. All documents concerning a meeting held onMarch 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 ChiefPilot for CCIA, Roy Miller (FAA Principle Operations Inspector), JeffHipps (FAA Aviation Safety Inspector), Jack Gasche (FAA Aviation Safety Inspector) and William Bonatti (FAA Aviation Safety Inspector) during which Inspectors Lipinski andD'Arcy made statements to Messrs. Santangelo and Sullivan suggesting that ifCCIA removed AMES from its D-091 Operations Specifications (essential maintenanceproviderlist) that it would benefit CCIAin another potential enforcement action. The documents should include any communications regarding the meeting between or among Frank Lipinski, Richard D'Arcy, Roy Miller, JeffHipps, Jack Gasche and William Bonatti and any notes ormemorialization ofthe meetingbythese 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 retainedby CAM, an affiliate ofCCIA, and James Camp, then Manager, HeavyMaintenance ofCCIA, during which Inspector Lipinski threatened the A&P Licenses ofJohn Henderson and Gordon Graves, then Director, Leasing Operations ofCAM, because there was a difference ofopinionbetween Mr. Henderson and Inspector Lipinski regarding AD documentation requirements. 10. All documents, includingbut not limited to any communications between InspectorFrank Lipinski and Flightstar Aircraft Services, LLC or any ofits owners, officers,

13

### employees or agents, concerning the performancebyAMES ofaircraft repair and maintenance services for CCIA, includingthe 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'

RobertP.

# 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 ofthe Regional Counsel, ASO-7 Southern Region Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 20636 

### Atlanta, GA 30320 

### Ch1is.Stevensonlal.faa.gov

# Exhibit 4i 

### FileNumber 2011S02'J\J032 

## EIR

## # 2011S0290032SECTIONBSection B, Page 1


## Statement ofCase and FactorsAffecting Sanction Statement ofCase Summary AirborneMaintenance and Engineering Services (AMES) (FAA Certificate# ABXROO !A), on three occasions perfonned landing gearchanges on Capital Cargo International Airlines (Capital) B-727 (N287SC, N899AA, and N898AA) aircraft incorrectly. AMES is a large aircraft Maintenance Repair Organization (MRO) located atthe Wilmington, Ohio airport. AMES has Operations Specifications (Ops Specs) issued for Limited Airframe and Power Plant ratings that includes the B-727 aircraftandthe associated JTBD engine. AMES is authorized to conductmaintenance on Capital B-727 aircraft. Capital, at thattimehad AMES on its Ops Specs D-91 paragraph Substantial Maintenance-Providers list. On April 16, 2010 a Capital B-727, N287SC took offfrom the CinciJmati!Nortbem Kentucky International Airport(CVG) andhadto 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# OGL0520100084) and found duringtheir (Assigned Inspector Bobby Evans) investigation that a bushing/bearing for the right Main Landing Gear (MLG) hadbeen left out during a MLG change on the aircraft. The initial MLG change tookplace while the aircraft was in a "C"type inspection at AMES on or about 22 March 2010. A subsequentrightMLGremoval due to warranty repairs 

### to theMLGtookplace on or aboutApri\18, 2010 atCVG andthe work was perfonned by AMES. The missing bushing/bearing was discoveredby Inspector Evans during this removal and replacement while he was investigatingthe occurrence. The bushing/bearing hadbeenleft out during the initial replacement ofthe MLG duringthe "C"Checkconducted by AMES. Themissingbushing/bearing is usedfor the MLG Wing (Commonly known inthe B-727 world as 

### the "Flying Door") outer FlyingDoor actuatorfitting. The bushing/bearing being left outcreated a "LooseDoor" situation and above 270 knots the doorbuffeted severely against the airframe. The CVG FSDO (Inspector Evans) opened anInvestigation and sent an LOI (EIR # 2010GL050030)to Capital. The response from Capital to Inspector Evans resulted in a Letter ofWarning being issued to Capitalfor the incident. Subsequentto this incidentthe Capital Principal Maintenance Inspector (PM!) conducted inspections during the 25-28 May 2010 time frames onthe three aircraftthat hadreceived MLG changes by AMES. The inspections tookplace atthe Toledolntemational Airport (TOL) during routine line station surveillance andthe PMlwas accompanied by another Capital Certificate ManagementTeam (CMT) member (Jack Gasche, AC OPS). The inspectionsrevealed that all three aircrafthad 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 includedthe inboard flap track fairings, Flying Doors attach fittings covers, and wheel well fairings. 

### FOR OFFICAL USE ONLY 2011S0290032FileNumber 2011S02'1tl032 

### SectionB, Page 

### 2

In additionto the improper installations on all three aircraftN287SC 

### had the wheel brakes anti skidconduiton the right MLG was improperly positioned to the front ofthe gear and hadbeen crushed by the gear door againstthe wing mating surface. The MLG Doors were all obviously out ofrig. The findings were reported to the Capital Maintenance department atTOL andthe aircraft had to be removed from service. Allthree aircraft had to be ferried to the AMES facility to effect repairs on the doors, airframes and to have the doors correctly installed. TheAMES Director ofQuality Assurance (DQA) and Director ofMaintenance (DOM) came to TOLto look atthe aircraft prior to the ferry flights to the AMES facility. The PM!'s discussions withboth revealedthatAMES was not familiar withthe B-727 MLGreplacementprocedures and howthe MLG doorshadto be rigged after the MLG's were replaced. Both could not showthe PMIthe correct section ofthe AMlv! to use for door rigging and both could not show the PM! where the references in the MLG replacement instructionsrequire the doors to be rigged and inspected. Subsequently, the PM! conducted a review ofthe MLG replacement workpackagesthat were usedby AMES for Capital andthatreview revealed that AMES did not follow the approved Capital AircraftMaintenance Manual (AMM) (Boeing instructions accessedthrough myboeingfleet.com). Thereferenced AMM chapters were incorrect for the maintenance actions. The Required Inspection Itemtests and inspections procedures for the MLG replacements were not used. AnLOI was sent to Capital for failure to ensure inspection and maintenance pr<lcedu·res were used and followed and failure to detectthe irnllrDJper installations and**darna~~e ~~e!>S**  after the installa!_is
TheLOI response from Capital to the 

### PMI revealed the failures ofA.t\1ES to use approved AMM instructions, CapitalRll procedures, AMES procedures, and a lack ofAMES personnel qualifications to completethe tasks. Capital's ContinuousAirworthiness Maintenance Program (named the MIP which is an acronym for Maintenance Inspection Program) authorized by Ops Specs paragraph D-72 requires the usage ofBoeing 727 AircraftMaintenance 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 (AMMChapter 32-12-ll) andproperly rig both. AMES was supplied these manualsto use, by Capital as required, byboth entities approved manual systems and Ops Specs authorizations. NoAMM reference couldbe found in any records reviewed for any ofthe aircraft thatproved AMES used any ofthe Flying Doors rigging section. The only AMMreferences found were for the gear replacements andthen, only some ofthoserequired in thatAMM section could**~be** found 

### in records reviewed.



### FOR OFFICAL USE

### ONLY 2011S0290032

### FileNumber 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 howeverthey could not have been inspected oratthe least inspected properly asthe wrong AMM references were used and no 

### AMM door rigging references were used. The proofis the ensuing damage from improper maintenance actions. N899AA had its MLG changes atAMES during July 2009, N898AAhad its MLG changes during September 2009, andN287SC hadits MLG changes during March 2010. All three aircraft hadbeen operated continucmsly in that condition for many months and cycles. N899AAhad 784 cycles amassed, N898AA had 628 cycles amassed, and N287SC had 172 cycles amassed for 

### atotal of I ,584 cycles operated when the PMI found the discrepancies. As previously mentioned, upon review ofthe maintenance records by the PM! for all three aircraft's MLG changes it was apparent that incorrectprocedures were used by AMES. As a result ofthedamage observed and a review ofthe documentation an LOl was sent to AMES and this EIR is the result ofthe 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 ofService 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 ofB-727 N287SC operated by Capital, to the KCVG (Cincinnati) airport because ofa high frequency aerodynamic vibration. The SDR identifiedthe cause as the upper rudder attach fittings and theright Main Landing Gear (MLG) Wing (Industry common name, "FlyingDoor") door bushing needed replacement 

### (IOP 1). As a result ofcommunications in the matter between the Capital PM! and the Capital DOM the PM! received an emailfrom 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 AirTraffic Control branch was senttothe 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 ofcommunications betweenthe 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

InspectorEvans sentan LOIto Capital for the improper maintenance/missingbushing 

### (lOP 5). The Capitalresponse to Inspector Evans' LOI uncovered the fact thatthe aircrafthadjusthad the MLG'schanged at AMES during a "C" Check concluded on or about 22 March 2010. The beating/bushinghadbeen left out at thattime 

### by AMES maintenance personnel conducting the MLG change. Capital generated Corrective Action Reports (CAR's) to AMES andvowedto institute immediate fix corrective actions to ensure this type ofevent would notrecur 

### (lOP 6). As a resultofthe LOI response from Capital and Capital's corrective actions for the missing bushing/bearingincident Inspector Evans closed outhis Investigation with a Letter ofCorrection 

### (IOP 7). As a resultofInspector Evans' findings the PM! conducted surveillancc/in>-pections atthe TOL airport onthe aircraft involved in the Air Return andtwo other B-727'sthathad 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 TeamD accompanied and assistedthe PM! duringthe aircraft inspections. Inspector Gasche generated an Inspector Statement as well 

### (IOP9). 

### FOR OFF!CAL USE ONLY 2011 80290032File Number 2011S02'Jv632 Section

### B, Page 5
A copy ofthe 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 ofthe Non Routine Partial Work Accomplished pages. Pages 

### I through 

### 5 ofthe lOP are for the Left MLG. Pages 

### 6 through 11 are for the Right MLG. Pages l through 

### 3 ofthe lOPpackage showmaintenance 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 FlyingDoors rigging as well as Rlllnspection steps. Pages 

### 6through 

### 9 ofthe lOP package show Rll inspections completed andAMM references used. AMM section 32-11-00 is shown but AMM section 32-12- H is not andthat section is required for MLG and Flying Doors removal, installation, andrigging as well as Rlllnspection steps. Therequirement 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 GearRemoval and lOP 

### 5 and page 

### 8

A copy ofthe AMES workpackagefor the LH and 

### RH MLG changes for N898AA is supplied. The lOP shows Non Routine cards and the back side ofthe Non Routine Partial Work Accomplishedpages. Pages 1 through 

### 5 ofthe lOP are for the LeftMLG. Pages 

### 6 through 10 are for the Right MLG. Pages 1through 3 ofthe lOP package show maintenance actions completed, Rll inspections completed, and AMMreferences used. AMM section 32-11-00 is shown but 

### AMM section 32-12-11 is nol andthat section is required for MLG and Flying Doors rigging as well as Rlllnspection steps. Pages 6 through 8 ofthe lOP package showmaintenance 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 andFlyingDoors 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 andRigging) is listed in AMMsection 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 ofthe offs AMM section 32-1

A copy ofthe AMES workpackage for the LH and 

### RH MLG changes for N287SC is supplied. The lOP shows NonRoutine cards and the back side oftheNon Routine Partial Work Accomplished pages. Pages 

### 1through 7 ofthe lOP are for the LeftMLG. Pages 

### 8through 14 

### are for the Right MLG. Pages 1through 5 ofthe lOP package showmaintenance actions completed, Rll inspections completed, and AMM references used. 

### AMM section 32-11-00 is shownbut 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 ofthe lOP package showmaintenance actions completed, Rll inspections completed, and 

### AMM references used. AMM section 32-11-00 is shown butAMM section 

### 32- 12-11 is not andthat section is required for MLG and Flying Doors removal, installation, and riggingas well as Rlllnspection steps.


### FOR OFFICAL USE 

### ONLY 2011S0290032

### File Number 

### 2011S02':1v032 SectionB, Page 6
Therequirement 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 ofthe B-727 MLG, authorized by Ops Specs issuance and MIP approval for Capital is supplied. On page two ofthe lOP section 3 F gives instructions for the removal ofthe Wing (Flying Doors) Doors priorto the removal ofthe 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 therequirement to use AMM chapter 32-12-11 to adjust and rig the wing doors Doors) after MLG · which offon 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 andtolerances thatmust be achieved in order for the doors to be ali1;;ne'd and must be adheredto.

Based on the findings an LOJ (EIR

### # 2010S0290120) was sent to Capital for the incidents 

### (lOP 15). Capital's LOl Capital and the EIRfor the the response did showthat 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 ofthe Capital Aircraft Flight and Maintenance Log (AFML) pages for N287SC dated 4/18/20II 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 lOPpage 2 item 6 shows replacement ofthe 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'tfind the improper door rigging.


### FOR OFFICAL USE ONLY 2011S0290032

### FileNumber**201JS02~v032** Section 13, Page I
The right MLG was found to be faultyjusttwo days later, 4/201201 

### 1(The aircraft hadnot !lown sincethe 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 theAMMchapter for R&R of the gear and a gear retraction was accomplished but once again AMES failed to conductRll inspections ofthe flying Doorproperly and ensure proper rigging. AMES for at least this aircraft had three occasionsto get itright and failed 

### all three times 

### (lOP l7). An LOI was sentbythe PMI to the AMES Responsible Personfor the actions 

### (lOP 18}.

nrclb],,m with additional training !nspec:tion departroentthat was irresponsible in their performance for the events. trained by Capital and Capital contracted instruction personnel on the B-727 and B-757 priorto the capital CMT adding AMES tothe Capital D-91 Ops Specs.The Capital CMT observed thetraining and the landing gear and associated airframe and systems were addressed sufficiently for AMES to conductmaintenance with. The MLG change was identified and stressed as an 

### RJI item andthe use ofthe 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 wentto great lengths toprovide many more corrective action items forthe MLG change after the LOl for Capital was sentto Capital but, ifAMES followed the AMM references and inspected the MLG changes as required, that's all AMES would have had to doto ensurethat all the steps were done correctly. Inessence, AMESfails to recognize ortake responsibility forthefailure to follow approved procedures and accepted procedures for inspections ofcriticalto flight items prior to release of those aircraft. Subsequenttothis violation AMES has received another LO! (E!R# 2011S0290037) for failure to follow the approved 

### AMM and Rll for criticalto flight Nose Wheel Steering

A copy ofthe 8130-3 form and MLG build up directions from the MLG componentmaintenance manual referenced in the AMES LO! for N287SC's RMLG is supplied. A

### Tl Aviation Services LLC isthe vendorthatreleased the gear to service. Page 2 ofthe 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 forthe findings identified by AMES in theLOI response 

### are supplied. All three show Corrective Actions Taken by AMES to satisfy Capitals requirements to respond to the CAR (lOP 21). A copy ofthe AMES Training Module developed to satisfy the LOlresponse is supplied. The training module has pictures ofthc improper door installations and damage that ensued from the improperinstallations. Thetraining references come directly out ofthe Boeing 727 AMM.IOP page 3 bottom view has the wrongAMM reference. AMM 32-10-ll does not exist. The correct reference 32-12-11.

A copy ofthe AMES Task cards that they developed for B-727 MLG changes 

### as referenced 

### in the LOI response is supplied. Thetask cards parrot and mimic the B-727 AMM for MLG changes. The
A copy ofthe 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 ofthecorrective actions that AMES had to effect on >rOf>errnairtten:mce and supp,Jied.
for the maintenance steps are included 

### (lOP 25). A copy ofthe corrective actions that AMES hadto effect onN287SC after the PMJ's tm.dirrgs maintenance and actions is 

## •ui'V"·"''"
for the maintenance steps are included 

### (lOP 26). A copyofthe Capital Rll section ofthe Capital GMM is supplied and shows therequirements of the MLG and Doors removal as Rllrequired. The Rll section is required tobe used by the Capital MJP and is referenced inthe M!P. lOPpages 4 and 5 shows the effective dates ofthe GMM Rll section and coverthe dates for all three aircraft. Page 4 would be for N899AA andN898AA. Page 5 would be for N287SC. Section 32 ofthe Rlllist shows MLG replacement, operational checks, and rigging and/or adjustment as RII required 

### (lOP 27). A copy ofthe Capital Operations Specifications D·72 paragraph is supplied. D-72 authorizes the Capital MlP 

### (lOP 28).



### FOR OFFICAL USE ONLY 2011 S0290032FileNwnbcr 2011S02'Jv032 SectionB, Page 9

A copy ofthe 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 ofthe Capital MIP section 

### 00 that showsthe Volume 

### l and 

### 2 revision level in effect atthe time ofthe violations. Volume 1 and 2 contain the description and controls for the Rll program, Boeing AMM usage, Service Checkrequirements including Airworthiness Release (AWR), and the A and C Check requirements including AWR 

### (lOP 30). A copy ofthe Capital MIP Volume 1 section 0l-2that was in effect at the time ofthe violations is provided. This section shows the abbreviation meaning ofAMM as used in the MIP. Section 

### 0I C controls the basis for Capital's MlP using the Boeing B-727 MPD. Section OJ D shows the control ofthe Capital Rll program and requires the usage ofthe Rll section ofthe GMM for compliance with the Rliregulations. Section 01 E shows the requirement for Capital to utilize the Boeing AMMfor all maintenance actions 

### (lOP 31). A copyofthe 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 Plantrating for the B-727 and its engine, theJT8D TheDirector of Quality andTraininghas sigued for AMES. AMES is required by Limitations to conduct work 

### in accordance with the manufacturer's currenttechnical data, thecustomer's Air Carrier manual lAW 14 CFR 145.205 or other data approved bythe Administrator. In this case the Boeing AMM 

### (lOP 32). A..1v1ES has an Ops Specsmanual 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 RSQMIntroduction section that it will not operate in violation ofthe



# ... station certificate, lOP 

### 21 • . ! A. l 

# • 

# . . ! 

# .. • • I 

# • 

# . . 

# • . 

# . I I The approval page ofthe AMES RSQM shows the approval ofthe RSQM in effectfor the violations (lOPpage 1) andthe LOEP page I shows the approval page ofthe 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 ofcomplianceto the manual, Ops Specs, and certificate ratings (lOP page!) and states it will not approve for service any article it does nothavethe required technical data ortrained personnel for (lOP page 2) for. The AMES defmition ofan 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 10
The AMES RSQM Organization section shows the General Manager asthe responsible person for complete overall operation ofthe repair station (lOP page 1), the Director ofMaintenance ensures quality ofthe maintenance program (lOP page 3) and adherence to all CFR's (lOPpage 4). In the AMES RSQM (Section 02.00) the Director ofQuality Assurance and Training (DQA) is responsible for the quality ofthe inspection program to include training, qualification, procedural compliance, tooling, and necessary interfaces and controls (lOP page 6), TheDQA is responsible for the Repair StationTraining and Internal Evaluation Programs (lOP page 7). The DQA is responsible to ensure compliance with regulations and quality as relatedto the customers approved CAMP (lOPpage 8). The DQA is responsible to ensure all technical data used is 

### current and when doing maintenance on customeraircraft, ensure customer manuals an: 

### used and wherethey are located for AMES personnelto use (lOPpage 9)(IOP 37). The AMES RSQM Training section (03.00) says that the DQA is responsible fortraining requirements for all AMES employees and will ensure training is accomplished for each maintenanceperson to ensure the person has the knowledge and skillsto perform assigned maintenancetasks (lOPpage 1). TheJob SpecificTraining Requirements for Customer Aircraft section lists the training requirements (Systems) for customer aircraft maintenance and 

### Rll inspections (lOPpage 10). The DQA will request the training needed to ensurethatcustomer aircrafttraining will be accomplished prior to performingmaintenancetasks on those aircraft and documentthattraining (lOPpage 12) (IOP 38). The AMES RSQM Personnel section (03.01) shows theAccountable Manager (General Manager) asresponsible for all actions atthe Repair Station and will ensurethatRepair Station personnel follow the regulations (lOP page I A.(!)). TheDQA is responsible to the General Managerfor compliance with all procedures (lOP page I B. (1)) The repair Station will ensure that enough qualified, trained, knowledgeable, and experiencedpersonnelto ensure all work is performed 

### !A W 14 CFRPart 43 and all supervisors must oversee and ensure all work is performed under the authorizations ofthe 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 equipmentused to determine airworthiness of the aircraft (lOPpage 2 

### A. (I)through (5). The Repair Station mustmake availableto 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 forpropertooling, qualified personnel to conductmaintenance on an aircraft and an aircraft certificated for operations under 

### 14 CFR Part 121 and, the requirements to utilize the approved manual system for thatAircarrier (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 mustbe 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 lAWthe 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, customerfindings etc.**Defi~iencies** noted are to be investigated, root cause provided, and immediate action taken to correct the discrepancyto preventrecurrence ofthe discrepancy. QA audits ofcorrective 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 suppliedto AMES. AMES must make the technical data availableto 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 thatthe carrier's manual is current prior to using that manual (lOP page 19 section 21 entirely) (lOP 40).



### FOROFFICAL USE ONLY 2011S0290032

### File Number 2011S029U032 Section 

### B, Page 13

Accordingly, a Letter ofInvestigation (LO!) was sentto Capital Cargo International Airlines (IOP# 18). The carrier has responded tothe LOI (lOP# 19). 

### Factors Affecting Sanction Nature ofthe Violation These alleged vialations are for the AMES Certificated Repair Station and are maintenance 

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

### improperly. -becauseAMES tailed to adhere to the prescribed and approved methods ofits 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 ofthe MLG's. AMES failed to adhere to the Capital "Critical to Flight" inspection tasks delineated in the Rll inspection section ofthe Capital MIP. AMES failed to utilize the entire section ofthe MLG removal and replacement section ofthe approved AMM for Capital andjust ignored the Flying Doors removal, replacement, and rigging section ofthe approved 

### AMM. AMES failed to adhere to the Capital CAMP, approved AMM, andInspection procedures along with, failure to follow its own manual system put in place to ensure this kind 

### offailure didn't happen. The lOP's are many and irrefutable. No part ofthe approved AMM section 32-12-l 1 was followed. The AMM allowed three aircraftto be released to service in an umtirvvorthv The AMES failure to follow the Capital Rllprogramresulted in a aircraftwere not for a critical safety offlight 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 ofExperience AMES has been certificated under I4 CFR§ I45 since May 4, 2009. AMeS has limited experience 

### with multiple types ofaircraft. AMES had to have numerous Systems and Familiarization courses produced to them by Capital because ofrepeated 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 ofHazard

FOR OFF!CAL USE ONLY 

### 2011 S0290032

### File Number2011**S02~v032 ~ect10n**  l:l, !'age 1)


### Use ofa 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 ofsafety and care.


### Violation History

Ability to Absorb Sanction lt is unknown whetherthe carrier can absorbthe sanction delineated in current guidelines for this violation ifthe · AMES has close to 500 and is not a smaiJ



### Whether the Violation was Reported Voluntarily These alleged violations were not reported voluntarilypriorto the investigation outlined above. 

### Corrective Action None


### OtherInformation Reliability ofthe 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 20II80290032

### File

### Number 2010S02'1U120 Section C, Page l 

## SECTION C- Items ofProof

9

28 29 30 Inspector Statement PMJ, N899AA, and N898AA's Main Landing Gear Doors atthe TOL airport on 5/25- 27/2010



### of the GMM (Para. D) and the requirement to use the BoeingAircraft Maintenance Manual 

### fOr all maintenance actions 

### FOR OFFICAL USE ONLY 201180290032FileNumber**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 ofAMES 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 

### - --