# 0 U.S. Department ofTransportation 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 2W1000j: 

## 38 222 W. 7th Avenue #14 Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587 PH: (907) 271-5271 FAX: (907) 271-2800 

# ' JWJ 20 2012 In the Matter ofCopperValley 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 ofthe Complaintin 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 ofthis letter, a copy ofthe Complaint is being served on Respondent as required by§ 13.208(b). The FAA requests thatthe 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 DocketNo. 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 ofthe Rules ofPractice (14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.208), and states as follows: I. 

### OnJanuary 11, 2012, Respondent was advised through a Notice ofProposed 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 inthe 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 ofAir Carrier Certificate No. EAXA440D. and appropriate operations specifications authorizing it to .conduct on-demand operations under parts 119 and 135 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).

12. 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 ofthe FAR. 3. At all times referenced·herein, the director ofoperations and chiefpilotfor Respondent was David Parmenter, who was not the holder ofan airman mechanic certificate, and he served as the pilot in command for each ofthe flights referenced herein. 4. On or about August 3, 2011, Respondent operated civil aircraft N723DR on a passengercarrying flight in air commerce underparts 119 and 135 ofthe FARfrom 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 N723DRreceived damage that included the loss ofthe tail wheel and portions ofthe tail wheel assembly, a large dent inthe exterior lower skin, buckling to the aft bulkhead at station 245, and a dent and hole inthe right elevator skin. 6. Afterthe above landing, persons at the landing site located the tail wheel and assembly that had broken off, and helped the pilot liftthe back end ofthe aircraft and place a log under 

### it so thatthe pilot could survey the damage.

27. After the events referenced above, Respondent, through its director ofmaintenance, Tod 

### E. Hand, performed maintenance on civil aircraft N723DRthat included inspecting the damaged areas listed inparagraph 5, removing what was left ofthe tail wheel assembly and ----compressionstrut,and-installing-aserviceabletailwheel-assemblyand-compression-strut. _________________ 8. After performing the above maintenance, Respondent made an entry inthe records for the aircraft indicating it had removed andreplaced 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 inparagraph 7, Respondent did not follow the aircraft manufacturer's repair manual or other data acceptable to the Administrator indetermining what damage was required to be repaired. 10. Atthe 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 orproperlyaltered 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 inthe rightelevator skin exceededthe definition ofnegligible 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 underparts 119 and 135 ofthe FAR from Gulkana to "Snag Creek Camp." 13. At the time ofthe flights referenced inparagraphs 11 and 12, civil aircraft N723DR was not in airworthy condition because ofthe large dent inthe exterior lower skin, the buckling to the aft bulkhead at station 245, and the dent and hole inthe right elevator skin. 14. During orprior to the landing at "Snag Creek Camp" referenced inparagraph 12, civil aircraftN723DR sustained additional damage that consisted ofa 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 thatthe tail wheel steering actuator tension spring had come loose, Respondent, through its pilot, performed maintenance orpreventive maintenance on civil aircraftN723DRthat consisted ofreattaching the tail wheel steering actuator tension spring. 16. Shortly after the events described in paragraph 15, one ofthe passengers for the next flight pointed to the dent in the leading edge ofthe left elevator and asked the pilot whether it hadjust occurred.

417. Respondent's pilot responded to the question referenced inparagraph 16 bytelling the passenger in an aggressive manner something to the effectthat ifhe started with him that he would leave the passengerbehind. 18. Immediately after the events described inparagraphs 16 and 17, the four passengers boarded the aircraft, and Respondent operated civil aircraftN723DR on a passenger-carrying flight in air commerce under parts 119 and 135 ofthe FARfrom "Snag Creek Camp" to Gulkana. 19. Atthe time ofthe flight referenced inparagraph 18, civil aircraft N723DRwas not in airworthy condition because ofthe discrepancies referenced inparagraph 10, the dent referenced inparagraphs 14 and 16, and the discrepancy inthe tail wheel assembly that allowed the tail wheel steeringactuatortension spring to come loose. 20. At the time ofthe flight referenced inparagraph.18, the maintenance record entry required by§ 43.9 ofthe FARfor the maintenance or preventive maintenance referenced in paragraph 15 had not been made, andthat work had not been approved for return to service by a person authorized under § 43.7 ofthe FAR. 21. Sometime during the period August 4-11, 2011, Respondent performed maintenance on civil aircraftN723DRthat included the repair ofthe dent in the leading edge ofthe left elevator referenced inparagraph 14.

522. The repair referenced in paragraph 21 included filling in uneven areas with a putty-like substance, and did not include the use ofa skinpatch.



### .....23....AtalltimesrefercnQed herein,.theIllJUlqfactllTer's.rcpairmanual.fordviLai:rcraft

N723DR authorized repairs to the elevators using small skin patches, but did not authorize the use ofputty-like substances. 24. While performing the repair referenced inparagraph 21, Respondent did notuse the methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator. 25. At the time Respondent completed the repair referenced inparagraph 21, the left elevator on civil aircraftN723DR was not in a condition at least equal to its original orproperly altered condition. 26. After Respondent completed the maintenance referenced inparagraph 21, Respondent approved the aircraft for return to service, but failed to ma,ke an entry in the maintenance record for civil aircraft N723DRthat set forth the information specified in§ 43.9(a) ofthe FARregarding that maintenance. 27. On or about August 29, 2011, Respondent performed maintenance on civil aircraft N723DRthat included a major repair ofthe area ofthe canted bulkhead at station 245 that involved replacing the bulkhead web and pieces ofaircraft skin, and the installation ofan overhauled strut assembly. 

### 628. While performing the maintenance referenced inparagraph 27, Respondent removed and later reinstalled the tail cone on civil aircraft N723DR. 29. At the time ofthe maintenance referenced inparagraph 27, the attachment flange for the Dzus fastener for the upper right side ofthe tail cone and the retainer strip for the Dzus fastener for the lower right side ofthe tail cone were broken. 30. While performing the repairreferenced inparagraph 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'suse ofduct tape referenced inparagraph 30 was not a method, technique, orpractice prescribed inthe 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 135 ofthe FARthat began at Gulkana.



### 733. At the time ofthe flight referencedinparagraph.32, the maintenance record entry required by§ 43.9 ofthe FARfor the maintenance referenced inparagraph 21 had not been made. 34. Atthe time ofthe flight referenced inparagraph 32, civil aircraft N723DR was not in airworthy condition because the attachment flange for the Dzus fastener for the upper right side ofthe tail cone and the retainer strip for the Dzus fastener for the lower right side ofthe tail cone were broken, and the fasteners were secured with duct tape. 35. Respondent's opera,tion ofcivil aircraft N723DR as described above was careless or reckless so as to endangerthe life orproperty ofanother.

III. 1. Byreason oftheforegoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated the following Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR): (a) Section 43.5(a) inthat 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 ofthat equipmentcontainingthe-informationspecifiedinthis section. (c) Section 43.13(a) in that Respondent performed maintenance, alteration, orpreventive 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 ofsuch a quality, that the condition ofthe aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine,· propeller, or appliance worked on was at least equal to its original orproperly altered condition. (e) Section 91.7(a) inthat Respondent operated a civil aircraft when it was not in an airworthy condition. (f) Section 91.13(a) inthat Respondent operated an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endangerthe life or property ofanother.
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) inthat Respondent operated an aircraft that had undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or aiteration when ithad not been approved for return to service by a person authorized to do so under§ 43.7 ofthe FAR, and the maintenance record entry required by§ 43.9 or§ 43.11, as applicable, of the FARhad not been made. G) Section 135.25(a)(2) in that Respondent operated an aircraft under part 135 ofthe FARwhen 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 ofan airframe, p6werplant, propeller, rotor, or appliance and failed to re'?ord the action taken in the aircraft maintenance log under the applicable maintenance requirements ofthe FAR. 2. Pursuantto 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. Underthe facts and circumstances ofthis case, a civil penalty of$25,000 is appropriate. WHEREFORE, the Federal Aviation Administration, by counsel, respectfully requests that the administrative lawjudge enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty inthe amount. of$25,000. ·**---t~** 

## --rRESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 

### _s. of

### ~ 11. e._ 

### 'lb l:L t

11 HOWARD 

### L. MARTIN, JR. Regional Counsel By: Glenn H. Brown SeniorAttorneyCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Re: Copper Valley Air Service, LLC FAA Case No. 2011AL030090 FAA DocketNo. To Be Assigned I hereby certify that on this date I served a copy ofthe FAA's Complaint and a copy ofthe foregoing letter byplacing 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 onthis date I have served the.original ofthe foregoing letter and the original and one copy ofthe FAA's Complaint bypostage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000
Office ofthe Regional Counsel 222 West 7th Avenue # 14 Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587

12 (

# ~,**L~-::20**

# I 

# :L Date