07/12/2012 07:53 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 02/11

•' ·il

1 2 ;; 4 5 JEFFREY M. HARPER. FAA. OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL 1601 LIND AVENUE SOUTHWEST RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 TELEPHONE: (425) 227-2161 

### I

## q ;..\ 10: 1.t8 6 FACSIMILE: (425) 227-1007 7 6 9 10 ll 12**~3** 14 15 '16 17 u 19 20 21 :;!2 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 31'> 3? 39 39 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEP**ART~fE ~T**  

### OF 

### TRANSPORTATION OFF CE OF HEARINGS

W; SHINGTON, D.C.

In the Matter of:
Cornerstone Aviation, 

### Inc.

To: Honorable Richard C. Goodwin: DMS No. FAA"2011-0481 DMS No. FAA-2011-0484 

### DMS No. 

### FAA--2011-0489
MOTJON TO STRIKE 

### Judge Richard 

### C. Qoodwin



### COMPLAil' ANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE


### In accordance 

### with 1.4 C.F.'R. § 13.220 

### f)(4) (Ru.le 

### 13.220(f)(4)) Complainant 

### moves that**tl~e** 

### ALJ strike·Respondent's 

### Reply Brieft the extent it argues facts 

### not in evidence 

### or .irrelevant facts.



### ProceduralHistory

40 The Complaint in case DMS No. FAA 2011-048.1 was filed on May 18,2011. The 

### Complaint
41 .alleged Respondent failed**~o** 

### comply VI ith its approved 

### training course, a violation of 14 C.P.R.**~2** 4.

3 §141.83(a)(l) 

### by starting a**student~** 

### Mx. Stann, on the instrument I commercial 

### training .course
4 4 when he did not meet the prerequisites for that 

### course. It 

### also alleged Respondent failed 

### to 45 46 47 4S maintain an accura,.te record ofthe date Mr. Stann was enrolled in that course, a violation of 

### 14 C.P.R.§ 14l.l01(a)(l).

49 On December 8, 2011., tb.e Department**ofTran.sportation~** Offi.ce ofHearing (Court) entered an 

### so 51 Order granting Complainant's Motion**~='or** Limited Summary Judgment in case**FAA-2011~0481,** s2 · fi.:o.ding that the violations charged had been established, and limiting the hearing to the question 53 of

### sanction.

Complainant's Motion to Strike

. Cornerstone Aviation, Inc.- FAA-20l.l.-0481, FN .-2011-0484, FAA-2011-0489

. Page 1 ofS JEFFREYM. HARPER, FAA ATTORNF.Y TEJ.,; (42S) 227-2l6l; FAX: (42S) 227·1 00707/12/2012 07:53 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 03/11

l ;; ·3 4 5 6 7 

### s 9 10 ll 12 13 14 l.S J.6 17 16 19 20 

### n 22 23 24 2;i 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41**~2** 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 so 5l 52 53 . ' The Complaint in case DMS No. FAA-20 11-0484 was filed on. May 26,.2011. It alleged Respondent did 

### not comply with its approved 

### training course, did 

### not maintain current and
acemate records ofthe participation ofan enrolled student, graduated a student who had not**~ompleted** the curriculum, and issued a. graduation certifl.cate to that student, violations of 14 C.P.R.§§ 141.77(a)(l), 14L77(b), 141.83(a)(l), and l41.101(a). The violations stemmed from a student who had had not completed. ground school under Part 141.
On October 28, 2011, the 

### Court entered an Order granting Complain6llt's AJ.temative Motion for Summary Judgment I-:1ereafter Limiting Hearing to Sanction incase F**AA~20** 11-0484, fifJding that the violations charged had been established, and limiting the hearing to the question ofsa1.1ction.
The Complaint in case DMS No. FAA-2011-0489was fUed on June 16,2011. The 

### Complaint

was ainended onJuly 13, 2011. As amended, the Complaint alleged Respondent issued a '

. . . graduating certificate that did not 

### contain the graduate's name, failed 

### to maintain a current and accmate record ofa student.'s participation in training, and failed to certify a_student's. record. a:t. the end of**training~** violations of"14 C.P.R.§ l4J..95(b)(2), 141.101(a), and 141.101(c).


### On. December

### .8, 2011, the 

### Col.U't entered an Order granting**Compl.ain~t's** Motion for Limited SUimnary Judgment in case FAA-2011-0489, finding that the violations charged had bMn .established, ·and limiting the-hearing to the question ofsanction

.. On October 6, 2011, 

### the: Court entered an Order consolidating these three matters 

### for hearing. The 

### hearing on san.cti.on only was held March 12, 2012 in Salt Lake City, Utah. ·
The transcript 

### from the hearing

### becam~ available

# to undersigned counsel

# on Apri13,

### ~012. Complainant's post-trial briefwas served Apri.l20, 2012. Respondent's Reply was served July 3, 2012.



### Argument Respondent's reply briefcontains facts not in evidence as well as irrelevant facts. To the extent the briefcontains such material, 

### it should be stricken.

Facts not in Evidence ''Unsubstantiated and unsupported factual allegations

.... in briefs d.o not constitute evidence." In the Matter**~[Northwest**Airlines,**Jnc.~** FAA Order No. 1998-22 at 5, (December 7, 1998). A comparison ofRespondent's Briefwith the record 

### in the case shows that Respondent has asserted
a ri.um.ber offacts that ate riot i.n the record. This examination is complicated by the complete failure ofRespondent to cite to therecord when asserting facts.

Complainant's Motion to Strike

. Cornerstone Aviation, T.nc.- FA.A.-2011·0481, FA.A.-2011·0484, FAA-2011·0489 Page 2 of5 JEFFREY M.**1-JARPE~** FAA ATTORNBY TEL! (425) 227·2161; FAX: (425) 227·100707/12/2012 07:53 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 04/11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

### a 9 lO 11 12 J.3 1.4 15 16 17 18 19 20 2J

. .22 23**~'\1,** 25 .215 27 2:8 2Sl 30 ·31 32· 33 34 35 36 37 39 3!0 40. 41 42 4.3 44 45' 46 47 ' 46

4.9 ,50 51 'S:2 53 ·As an example, Respondent asserts that Comerstone needs to put funds aside to purchase engines; that one engipe costs approximately $30,000, that on.e was replaced this year, an.d 

### tl1at two will need to be replaced next year. Respondent's Briefat 3. None ofthese facts are found in the record.
Likewise. Respondent assets it 

### has an SBA loan**of$170~000** and a line ofcredit. Respondent's Briefat 3.
While these things may be**true~** Respondent failed to present this information at hearing. To present it now deprives Complainant ofits right to call witnesses and present evidence to rebut. those facts and the implication Respondent is unable to pay the proposed sanctions.

Irrelevance The question ofliability h.as been·established in each ofthese cases. This Court's orders of October 28 

### and December 8, 2011 found that the violations alleged had been established and. the only remaining question for hearing was an appropriate sanction.**Re~pondent'**s Brief, in part, argues that

# the violations did not occur. For. instance, tlJ.e second paragraph ofnumbered section. 1 discusses**Respondent~s** enrollm.en.t records, concluding 11There is no violation here." As the Court detennined the violations occurred, thi.s section ofthe briefis 

### irrelewant.

In case DMS No. FAA-2011-048l;Respondent argues SLCC maintained the 

### en.ro11ment records. This may be true, but 14 C.F.R. § 14l.10l(a)requires the certificate holder to maintain the ernollment record, not the affiliate. The fact that a business partner ofthe certificate holder · might also maintain enrollmenttecords for its own purposes 

### is. irrelevant to**~he** question ofwhat sanction is appropriate when the certificate holder fails to maintain the required record.
.As another example, Respondentstates that its**fo:rr.r.u~r** instructor has gone on to become 

## apilot for a cargo carrier. 11Je cw:rentjob ofthe form.er employee ofa flight school has zero 

### bearing on what an appropriate sanction would be for a FAR violation committed by the flight school.

Complainant"s Motion t.o**Stri.'k~** Comerstone Aviation, Inc. - F AA-20ll-0481, F AA-20 11-0484, FAA·20 11-0489

. Page 3 ofS JEI!'I"ruiY M. HARPER, FAAATTORNEY TEJ

..: (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-100707/12/2012 07:53

l 2 3 4252271007 ANM7



### Conclusion

: · Respondent's Reply Briefasserts facts not in. evidence and argues irrelevantmateriaL

e> THEREFORE, Complainantrequests tl1at the Court issue an Order striking the Reply Brief.
7 8 DATED this 12th day ofJuly, 2012. 9 10 ,,;I. 12 13 l.4o J.S 

### ,.6
17 18 lSI 20 21 22**~3 ~4**  25 26 27 28 2:;1 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 :?.7 :;a 39 <\l,Q 41 4:2 43 44 4!5 46 47 49

. 49 50 S:t.**5~** 53

# --~-~ Jef:

. y 

### M. Harper FAAAttorney

,· ' PAGE 05/11

Complainant's Motion to Strike Cornerstone Aviation, lnc.- FAA"20ll-0481, FAA-2011·0484, FAA-20ll-0489 Page 4 ofS J:F.Jm.Ey M. HARPER, FM ATTORNEY TEJ.,; (42r 227-2161; FAX: (425) 221-1007

!07/12/2012 07:53 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 06/11

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 l.3 14 15 lEi 17 l.6 151 20 :a 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2!il 30 3;1. 32 

### n 34 35 36 37 

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certifY that the foregoing Complainant's Briefhas been serv d via facsimile and Certi.fi.ed Mail

- Return Receipt Requested this date, to the following
Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. East Building Ground Floor, ·Rm El2-320 Washington. D.C. 20590 

### FAX: 202.366.7536
Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbm· Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington;D.C. 20591 FAX: 202.493.5020


### I hereby certify that the foregoing Complaillant's Briefhas been serv d via Ovemi.ght Courier, First Class, and Certified

### ~ Return Receipt Requested Mail this

### date~ to the following:
Susan Horstman· ChiefExecutive 

### Offi.cer Cornerstone Aviation, 

### Inc. 337'North 2370 West #130 Salt Lake City, UT 84116 

# I

3a Dated this 12th, day ofJuly, 2012. 39 40 4.1 42 43 44 45 46. 47 48 49 50 51 52 ' 53

Complainant's Motion to Strike , Cor:nerstone Aviation, Inc.- FAA-2011·0481, FAA-2011·0484, PAA-2011·0489 Page 5 of507/12/2012 07:53 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 07/11

l 2

4 5 6 7 

### a**~** lO

. ll 12 l3 14 15 16 17**~.8** 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 '27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ' 37 JEFFREY M. HARPER FAAOF.F'lCE OF REGIONAL COt!NSEL 1601 LIND AVENUE SOUTHWEST RENTON, WASHINOTON 98057 TELEPHONE: (425)**227~2161** FACSIMILE; (425) 227-1007


### UNITED STATES OFAMERICA DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION 

### OFFICE OFHEARINGS**WASH~GTON,** 

### i>.C.

In tbe Matter 

### of:

Cornerstone Avia.tion, 

### Inc.

To: Honorable Richard C. Goodwin: DMS No. FAA-2011-0481 

### DMS No. FM-2011-0484 DMS No. FAA.-2011-0489


### REBUTTAL BRJEF

.Judge Richard C. Goodwin

REBUTTAL BRIEF


### In DMS No. FAA-2011-0481, Respondent seeks 

### to have zero sanction imposed on the basis 

### the violations did not occur. Reply Briefat 1-2. Respon.denfs.argument is 

### counter-factual; this. Court,s Order ofDecember 8, 

### 2011 ruled that the violations did occur.
In DMS No. FAA-20

### i 1-0484, Respondent seeks to have zero sanction imposed on the basis the 3a responsible instructor was "ie.n:ninated.'' Reply Briefat 2. Respondent fai.ls to acknowledge its 39 40

. ow:o. obligation., as the**hold~r** ofapilot school ce.rtific-;ate, to co1nply with 

### 14·C.F.R. Part 

### 141. 4l 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Sl

53 

### In 

### DMS.No. FAA-2011'-0489, Respondent seeks to have zero sanction imposed on the basis of subsequent corrective action. Reply Briefat 2. As noted in Complainant's Briefat 7, Respondent.has presented no evidence to this court ofhow

### the software proSt:am would have prevented the

### violations or 

### will prevent these types of

### violations in the futUre

..
In argUing the application ofthesanction guidance to these cases, Respondent addresses the 

### sanction factors of:

• Certificate holder's level .ofexperience

• Ability to absorb sanction
Complainant's Rcbutta.J Brief Cornerstone Aviation, Ine.- FAA-2011-048.1, FAA-20.1.1.-0484, FAA.-2011"0489 Pagel ofS .TEFF.rtEY M. T-IAR.PeR., FAA Arro:RmY TEL: (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227·100707/12/2012 07:53 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 08/11

1 • Voluntary reporting 2 '3 • Corrective action.· · 4 5 6 7 

### a 9 10 11 12 l3 14

0 15 J.6' 17 18 H 20 :;!i, Respondent's has sufficient experience to comply with the FederalAviation Regulations. Respondent notes ithad been inbusiness, at the tl.me qf**violatio~s,** for less**~~an** eight years. Contrary to Respondent's argumer1t however, this fact 

### is n.ot mitigating, it is aggravating.
Certificate holders with greater levels ofexperience m.ay be held to a higher standard. FAA Order 2150.3B, Page 7-5,**~** 4.c.l. Compliauce with the Federal Aviation Regulations is mandatory; even abrand new certificate holder is required to conduct its operations in confonnity 

### with them. Respondent is not a brand new certificate holder-atthe time ofthe violations, it had at least seven years ofexperience as a Part 

### 14l school. Tile regulations at issue in these cases are straightforward; they merely require a 

### Part 141**sc~ool** maintain some basic records and comply withits curricula

.. It strains credulity to suggestthat a certificated pllot 22

. school in business for seven years somehow docs not have sufficient experience to ensure it only 23 24 25 26 27 26 29 30 31 

### n 33 34 35 315 37 38 39 10 41 4.2 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 so Sl 52 53 trains students m.eetin.g course pterequisites, graduates only students who have completer;!. the approved training course the 

### stude.t:'lt en.rolled in, keeps accurate records ofcompleted. training, or to write a student's name on a graduation. certificate.

Respondent has presentedno evidence relevant to its ability to absorb a sanction. 

### In its brief •. Respondent asserts a num.ber of"facts'·' to demonstrate an in.abiiity to 

### absorb the proposed sanction-none·ofwhich were made part ofthe record prior to the filing of Resp<;mdent's Brief, and arc therefore not evidence. 

### In the Matter of NorthwestAirlines, Inc., FAA Order No.**199~-22** at 5, (December 7, 1998) ("Unsubstantiated .and unsupported factual. allegations

... in briefs do not constitute evidence.)'). Respondent has not presented any evidence ofits present, past, or future financial condition to support its contention that it cannot pay the proposed sanctions.
Even 

### ifthe court were to accept those assertions as evidence; Respondent's argument is not mitigating. Respondent's briefframes the issue 

### as a 

### choice between. :future compliance with the 

### Federal Aviation Regulations·orpaying 

### a sanction fo:r. past violations. 1 Respondent neglects to 

### consider other options-such as 

### complyin.g with the Federal Aviation Regulations, or clo.sing its doors ifit cannot comply. TI1is impl.ies 

## acavalier attitude toward aviation safety which would warrant an aggravation ofthe sanction, particularly since 

### aviati.ou: is, a.s Respondent puts it "a

l "Would the FAA prefer that CSA put offthe recommended safety iss.uc ofmaintaining high qu.ality planes in order to !lecure CSA's funds to pay san.cti.ons?" Respondent's Briefat 3. Complainant's Rebuttal Brief Cornerstone Avia.tion, lnc.-**PAA~201** t-0481, FAA-201**1~0484,** FAA·20 11-0489

. . . Pa.gc 2 of5 .TEFFRnM. HARPER, FAA AITORNEY TEL: (42.S)**227-21~1;** FAX: (425) 227-1007>' 07/12/2012 07:53 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 09/11

1 :<l 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 J..l 12 13**;!.~,** lS 16 l7 18 19 20 21**~2** 23 24 45 26 27 29 29 3'0 31 32 33 .34

.**~5** 35 37 38 39

. 40

4l. 4Z 43 H 45 46 47 49 49 SCI S;J. 52 53 high risk

... business."2 Under Respondent's theory, itis urumme from enforcement,

# as Complaint cannot impose a sanction without causing further violations. This theory is incompatible with Respondent's status as a holder ofa Part 141 air agency certificate; it is Respondent's responsi.bility and obligation to comply with 

### the FARs.

The voluntary reporting 

### ofone ofthe violations was a/ready considered

### by Complainant in setting a proposedsanction; furtherreduction 

# is unwarranted. At best, Respondent's argument that the sao.ction. should be miti.gated applies only to the violations in FAA-20 11-0481; the FAA cOllCedes that the violations in those cases were brought

· to light as a result ofa.**~etter** written by one of**~espoudeq.t's** instructors. The :record does 110t

contain any evidence that the violations in the other two cases were voluntarily disclosed-in fact, the violations were discovered during the course ofan FAA inspection ofRespondent.**Transc~ipt,** Pages**21~22.** The mitigating nature ofthe voluntary reporting was already considered by Complainant when setting the proposed sanction. Transcript, 18: 18-19:5. A further reduction is not warranted.

The alleged corrective action is not mitigating. Respondent argues its**implementatio~** ofa software program to**'~take** care 

### ofall issues" is .QJi.tigatin.g. Respondent's Brief**~t** 2-3. Respondent;s allege<;\ corrective action. is**no~** mitigating.
The extent ofmitigation for corrective action depends in part on how quickly the corrective action was takeri. FAA Order 2l50.3B, Page**7~~.,** 4.m. Corrective action·taken after a violator becomes aware ofan enforcement action. warrants less'mitigation. 

### !d. To be mitigating,

. corrective action must do more than bring a violator i11to compliance. !d.
Here, the corrective action wasn't started until June 2011, well after the violations occu.:rred-in
one case o\ 1er a year after. Transcript 49:2. 3 The Complaints in FAA-2011-0481 and -0484 were filed May 18,.2011 and May 26, 2011, 

### before the corrective action began.**Resp~n.den.t** has fai.Ied to show how the software program would prevent the**viol~t1ons** inthe. future-in other words, bring Respondent into 

### compliance--much Jess do more than that. 

### Simply put; Respondent's alleged corrective action amounts to too little, too late.

2**Rcsp~ndc~t's** Briefat3.

. · 3 ''We have been developing this for the past n.ine m.onths

..."**A~** the hearing was held March 12, 2012, the corrective action was started. 

## m June 2011 a.t the earliest. The Amendod Complaint in FAA-20ll.**~0489** alleged a violation which occurred July 1, 2009. · · · Cor.nplaina;ot's Rebuttal Brief Cornerstone Aviation, Inc.- FAA-2011-0481, FAA-2011-0484, FAl\·20 11·0489

. . Page 3 of5 .**Jer.~trutV**M. H.ARPBR., FAAAITORNEY TEL: (425} 227·2161; FAX; (425) 227-1.007

## • 07/12/2012 07:53 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 10/11

1**~** 3 4. 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 l3 l4 15 liS 17 18 u 20 .21 ?.:2 23 24 45 2G 27 2S**~9** 30 31 .32 33 34 35 315 37 3S 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 ·46 47 49 49 50 51 52 53 

### Conclusion The Court should defer to the Administra.tor•s selection. ofsanction.

### und~r NL Industries, Inc. v. 

### Dept. 

### a/Transportation. 901 F.2d 141. 144 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Complainant respectfi.llly reqi..tests

### tha~ this Court 

### entering an 

### Order imposing the full sanction.sought in the Complaints. Respondent has presented

# no evidence or argum.ent which would \V31r.ant

## a reduction ofthe proposed sanction..

Complainant's Rebuttal Brlcf Cornerstone Aviation, Inc.- FAA-201 .1-0481, FAA-201. 1·0484, F

AA-20ll-0489 Page 4. of5 JEFFREY M.HAAPER., F M AITORNEY TE.T

..; (4.25) 227-2161; FAX:. (425) 227·1 007**~** 07/12/2012 07:53 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 11/11

l

. 2. 3 4 

### s 6 7 B 9 :t.O 

### u 12 13 14 15 H 17 l.B**1~** 20 :21 2.2 23 :.<14 25 26 27 26 29. 30 31·**3~** :3:3 34 35 36 37 39 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 46 4.9 50 51 52 53 

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby 'certify that the foregoing Complainant's Rebuttal Briefhas been served via facsimile and Certified Mail

- Return Receipt Requested this date, to the following:
Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M.:2Q 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. East Building Ground Floor, Rm E12-320 Washington, D.C. 20590 FAX: 202.366.7536

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430**Wi~bur** Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 Federal Aviation Administration 

### ·soo IndependenceAvenue 

# sw Washington, D.C. 20591 

### FAX: 202.493.5020

I hereby cer:tify that the foregoing Complainant's Rebuttal Briefhas been served via·certifiedReturn Receipt Requested Mail this date, to the following:
Susan Horstman ChiefExecutive Officer CornerstoneAviation, Inc. 337 North 2370 West #130 Salt Lake City, UT 84116

Dated·this 

### lt\day of

### July, 2012;

Complainant's**R~;:buttal** Brief DANASTEPHEN ON 

### Office ofRegional Counsel (ANM-7) Federal AviationAdministration 1601 Lin.dAve. SW Renton. WA 98057 (425)**227~2164**

Cornerstone Aviation, Inc.- F..o\A-2011-0481., FAA-201 I·0484. FAA-2011·0489**.T~!tFR,EY** M •.HARPER. FAA ATTO!tNSY TEL: (425) 227·2161; FAX; (425) 227·1007 PageS of5