0 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

JUN 15 2012 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

22 

ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 

j: 38 

222 W. 7th Avenue #14 

Anchorage, Alaska 

99513-7587 

PH: (907) 271-5271 

FAX: (907) 271-2800 

JWJ 2 0 ' 2012 

In the Matter of Copper Valley Air Service, LLC 

1 . l DOCKET 

Case No. 2011AL030090 { (;l,.()J~ .. ~\l).fl .. ~ {c-oyg f"ff\ c;ttlla -O'I7S 

Re: 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

On June 7, 2012, we were notified that Copper Valley Air Service, LLC, requested a hearing in the 

above-referenced case. . 

Enclosed a:re the original and one copy of the Complaint in the above-referenced proceeding as required 

by§ 13.208(a) ofthe Rules ofPractice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 14 C.F.R.'Part 13, Subpart G. By 

copy of this letter, a copy of the Complaint is being served on Respondent as required by§ 13.208(b). 

The FAA requests that the hearing in this matter be held in Anchorage, Alaska, and expects that the 

hearing will last no more than one day. 

HOWARD L. MARTIN, JR. 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

Enclosures 

cc: Erin B. Marston, Esq. 

(with copy ofFAR 13.16 and Subpart G ofPart13) 
In the Matter of: 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FAA Docket No. Unassigned 

Copper Valley Air Service, Inc. 

Judge Not Assigned 

COMPLAINT 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby files its Complaint, 

pursuant to Rule 208 of the Rules of Practice (14 C.F.R. § 13.208), and states as follows: 

I. 

On January 11, 2012, Respondent was advised through a Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $25,000. On 

February 15,2012, an informal conference was held in this matter and on June 1, 2012, a Final 

Notice ofProposedCivil Penalty in the amount of$25,000 was issued. On June 6, 2012, 

Respondent submitted a written request for a hearing. 

II. 

1. Respondent is now, and at all times mentioned herein it was, the holder of Air Carrier 

Certificate No. EAXA440D. and appropriate operations specifications authorizing it to 

.conduct on-demand operations under parts 119 and 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations 

(FAR). 

1 
2. At all times referenced herein, Respondent was authorized by its operations specifications 

to operate civil aircraft N723DR, a deHavilland Model DHC-2 MK1 aircraft, in its 

operations subject to parts 119 and 135 of the FAR. 

3. At all times referenced· herein, the director of operations and chief pilot for Respondent 

was David Parmenter, who was not the holder of an airman mechanic certificate, and he 

served as the pilot in command for each of the flights referenced herein. 

4. On or about August 3, 2011, Respondent operated civil aircraft N723DR on a passengercarrying flight in air commerce under parts 119 and 13 5 of the FAR from Gulkana, Alaska, 

to a remote, unimproved strip in the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve known as · 

"Snag Creek Camp." 

5. During the landing on the above flight, civil aircraft N723DR received damage that 

included the loss of the tail wheel and portions of the tail wheel assembly, a large dent in the 

exterior lower skin, buckling to the aft bulkhead at station 245, and a dent and hole in the 

right elevator skin. 

6. After the above landing, persons at the landing site located the tail wheel and assembly 

that had broken off, and helped the pilot lift the back end of the aircraft and place a log under 

it so that the pilot could survey the damage. 

2 
7. After the events referenced above, Respondent, through its director of maintenance, Tod 

E. Hand, performed maintenance on civil aircraft N723DR that included inspecting the 

damaged areas listed in paragraph 5, removing what was left of the tail wheel assembly and 

----compressionstrut,and-installing-aserviceabletailwheel-assemblyand-compression-strut. ________________ _ 

8. After performing the above maintenance, Respondent made an entry in the records for the 

aircraft indicating it had removed and replaced the tail wheel assembly and compression strut 

with serviceable parts, that it had inspected the rear bulkhead and found no cracks, and that it 

was approving this maintenance for return to service. 

9. While inspecting civil aircraft N723DR as referenced in paragraph 7, Respondent did not 

follow the aircraft manufacturer's repair manual or other data acceptable to the Administrator 

in determining what damage was required to be repaired. 

10. At the time Respondent completed its maintenance and approved this maintenance for 

return to service as referenced in paragraph 8, civil aircraft N723DE was neither in an 

airworthy condition nor in a condition at least equal to its original or properly altered 

condition because the above-referenced large dent in the exterior lower skin, the buckling to 

the aft bulkhead at station 245, and the dent and hole in the right elevator skin exceeded the 

definition of negligible in the aircraft manufacturer's repair manual. 

11. After the approval for return to service referenced in paragraph 8, Respondent operated 

civil aircraft N723DR on a flight from "Snag Creek Camp" to Gulkana. 

3 
--------~-----------------------------------------

12. On or about August 4, 2011, Respondent operated civil aircraft N723DR on a freightcarrying flight in air commerce under parts 119 and 13 5 of the FAR from Gulkana to "Snag 

Creek Camp." 

13. At the time of the flights referenced in paragraphs 11 and 12, civil aircraft N723DR was 

not in airworthy condition because of the large dent in the exterior lower skin, the buckling to 

the aft bulkhead at station 245, and the dent and hole in the right elevator skin. 

14. During or prior to the landing at "Snag Creek Camp" referenced in paragraph 12, civil 

aircraft N723DR sustained additional damage that consisted of a dent to the leading edge of 

the left elevator, and during the landing the tail wheel steering actuator tension spring came 

loose. 

15. After noticing that the tail wheel steering actuator tension spring had come loose, 

Respondent, through its pilot, performed maintenance or preventive maintenance on civil 

aircraft N723DR that consisted of reattaching the tail wheel steering actuator tension spring. 

16. Shortly after the events described in paragraph 15, one of the passengers for the next 

flight pointed to the dent in the leading edge of the left elevator and asked the pilot whether it 

had just occurred. 

4 
17. Respondent's pilot responded to the question referenced in paragraph 16 by telling the 

passenger in an aggressive manner something to the effect that if he started with him that he 

would leave the passenger behind. 

18. Immediately after the events described in paragraphs 16 and 17, the four passengers 

boarded the aircraft, and Respondent operated civil aircraft N723DR on a passenger-carrying 

flight in air commerce under parts 119 and 13 5 of the FAR from "Snag Creek Camp" to 

Gulkana. 

19. At the time of the flight referenced in paragraph 18, civil aircraft N723DR was not in 

airworthy condition because ofthe discrepancies referenced in paragraph 10, the dent 

referenced in paragraphs 14 and 16, and the discrepancy in the tail wheel assembly that 

allowed the tail wheel steering actuator tension spring to come loose. 

20. At the time of the flight referenced in paragraph .18, the maintenance record entry 

required by§ 43.9 of the FAR for the maintenance or preventive maintenance referenced in 

paragraph 15 had not been made, and that work had not been approved for return to service 

by a person authorized under § 43.7 of the FAR. 

21. Sometime during the period August 4-11, 2011, Respondent performed maintenance on 

civil aircraft N723DR that included the repair of the dent in the leading edge of the left 

elevator referenced in paragraph 14. 

5 
22. The repair referenced in paragraph 21 included filling in uneven areas with a putty-like 

substance, and did not include the use of a skin patch . 

. .. .. 23 .... AtalltimesrefercnQed herein,. the IllJUlqfactllTer' s.rcpair manual.fordviLai:rcraft 

N723DR authorized repairs to the elevators using small skin patches, but did not authorize 

the use of putty-like substances. 

24. While performing the repair referenced in paragraph 21, Respondent did not use the 

methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator. 

25. At the time Respondent completed the repair referenced in paragraph 21, the left elevator 

on civil aircraft N723DR was not in a condition at least equal to its original or properly 

altered condition. 

26. After Respondent completed the maintenance referenced in paragraph 21, Respondent 

approved the aircraft for return to service, but failed to ma,ke an entry in the maintenance 

record for civil aircraft N723DR that set forth the information specified in§ 43.9(a) of the 

FAR regarding that maintenance. 

27. On or about August 29, 2011, Respondent performed maintenance on civil aircraft 

N723DR that included a major repair of the area ofthe canted bulkhead at station 245 that 

involved replacing the bulkhead web and pieces of aircraft skin, and the installation of an 

overhauled strut assembly. 

6 
28. While performing the maintenance referenced in paragraph 27, Respondent removed and 

later reinstalled the tail cone on civil aircraft N723DR. 

29. At the time ofthe maintenance referenced in paragraph 27, the attachment flange for the 

Dzus fastener for the upper right side of the tail cone and the retainer strip for the Dzus 

fastener for the lower right side of the tail cone were broken. 

30. While performing the repair referenced in paragraph 27, Respondent failed to repair the 

broken attachment flange and retainer clip referenced in paragraph 29, and while reinstalling 

the tail cone, Respondent used duct tape to secure the fasteners. 

31. Respondent's use of duct tape referenced in paragraph 30 was not a method, technique, 

or practice prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for 

Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, and was not a method, technique, or 

practice acceptable to the Administrator. 

32. On or about August 30, 2011, Respondent operated civil aircraft N723DR on a 

passenger-carrying flight in air commerce under parts 119 and 13 5 of the FAR that began at 

Gulkana. 

7 
33. At the time of the flight referenced in paragraph.32, the maintenance record entry 

required by§ 43.9 of the FAR for the maintenance referenced in paragraph 21 had not been 

made. 

34. At the time of the flight referenced in paragraph 32, civil aircraft N723DR was not in 

airworthy condition because the attachment flange for the Dzus fastener for the upper right 

side of the tail cone and the retainer strip for the Dzus fastener for the lower right side of the 

tail cone were broken, and the fasteners were secured with duct tape. 

35. Respondent's opera,tion of civil aircraft N723DR as described above was careless or 

reckless so as to endanger the life or property of another. 

III. 

1. By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated the 

following Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR): 

(a) Section 43.5(a) in that Respondent approved for return to service an 

aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance that had undergone 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration when the maintenance 

record entry required by § 43.9 or§ 43.11 as appropriate had not been made. 

8 
(b) Section 43.9(a) in that Respondent maintained, performed preventive 

maintenance, rebuilt, or altered an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, 

or component part and failed to make an entry in the maintenance record of that 

equipment containing the-information specified in this section. 

(c) Section 43.13(a) in that Respondent performed maintenance, 

alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance and 

failed to use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current 

manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness 

prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to 

the Administrator. 

(d) Section 43.13(b) in that Respondent, while maintaining, altering, or 

performing preventive maintenance, failed to do that workin such a manner and use 

materials of such a quality, that the condition ofthe aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine,· 

propeller, or appliance worked on was at least equal to its original or properly altered 

condition. 

(e) Section 91.7(a) in that Respondent operated a civil aircraft when it 

was not in an airworthy condition. 

(f) Section 91.13(a) in that Respondent operated an aircraft in a careless 

or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. 

9 
(g) Section 91.405(a) in that Respondent operated an aircraft and did not 

between required inspections have discrepancies repaired. 

(h) Section 91.405(b) in that Respondent failed to ensure that 

maintenance personnel made appropriate entries in the aircraft maintenance records 

indicating the aircraft had been approved for return to service. 

(i) Section 91.407(a) in that Respondent operated an aircraft that had 

undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or aiteration when it had not 

been approved for return to service by a person authorized to do so under§ 43.7 of the 

FAR, and the maintenance record entry required by§ 43.9 or§ 43.11, as applicable, of 

the FAR had not been made. 

G) Section 135.25(a)(2) in that Respondent operated an aircraft under part 

13 5 of the FAR when the aircraft was not in an airworthy condition. 

(k) Section 135.65(c) in that Respondent took corrective action or 

deferred action concerning a reported or observed failure or malfunction of an airframe, 

p6werplant, propeller, rotor, or appliance and failed to re'?ord the action taken in the 

aircraft maintenance log under the applicable maintenance requirements of the FAR. 

2. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a) and 14 C.F. R. § 13.305, Respondent is subject to a 

civil penalty of$11,000 for each violation ofthe FAR. 

10 
·, 

3. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of$25,000 is 

appropriate. 

WHEREFORE, the Federal Aviation Administration, by counsel, respectfully requests 

that the administrative law judge enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the 

amount. of $25,000. · 

---t~ --rRESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED this _s. of ~ 11. e._ 'lb l :L 

t 

11 

HOWARD L. MARTIN, JR. 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

Glenn H. Brown 

Senior Attorney 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Re: Copper Valley Air Service, LLC 

FAA Case No. 2011AL030090 

FAA Docket No. To Be Assigned 

I hereby certify that on this date I served a copy of the FAA's Complaint and a copy of the 

foregoing letter by placing them in the United States Mail, postage-prepaid, certified mail, return 

receipt requested, addressed as follows: 

Copper Valley Air Service, LLC 

through counsel 

Erin B. Marston 

Marston & Cole, P.C. 

821 N Street, Suite 208 

Anchorage, AK 99501-2136 

I further certify that on this date I have served the. original of the foregoing letter and the original 

and one copy of the FAA's Complaint by postage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt 

requested, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1 000 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

222 West 7th A venue # 14 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587 

12 

( 

~, L~-::20 I :L 

Date