•VPARTMtNTOF 

riANSPOnlATlCP^f**'*^ the U.S. Department of Transportatio 

JOCKLT OPERATiONS Federal Aviation Administration 

In the matter of 

M & R HELICOPTER 

HEARING D06KET 

Docket No. CPlOSOOOll w^^^ . . * . 5 

FAA Case No. 200950950434--

Judge Richard C. Goodwin Q^ ^jt) ~ 1 ^ ^ 

COMPLAINANT^S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO 

RESPONDENT'S DISCOVERY REQUEST 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.220(i), Complainant flies this Second Supplemental 

Response to Respondent's discovery request.' Attached, please find a copy of a letter 

sent by Mr. Edward L. Baker, III to Chet Stevenson of the FAA on October 19, 2010 as 

well as a copy of the DeJoseph Letter of Interpretation (which was previously provided in 

Complainant's Pre-Hearing Brief). 

Respectfully submitted, 

Peter Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

for Enforcement 

Charles Raley, Attorney 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel" 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone: (202)267-3357 

Facsimile: (202)267-5106 

Email: charles.raley@faa.gov 

Dated: January 10,2012 

' Respondent's discovery requests appear at paragraph 13 in Respondent's Reply to Complainant's Motion 

to Compel Discovery filed on August 9, 2011. 
Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that on this date I have placed in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, 

certified return-receipt, a copy of Complainant's Second Supplemental Response to 

Respondent's Discovery Request In the Matter ofM & R Helicopter, Docket No. 

CPIOSOOOl 10, FAA Case no. 2009SO950434, addressed to: . 

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M & R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Dr., Suite 205 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date 1 have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified return-receipt and facsimile one copy of the foregoing document to; 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

. East Building Ground Floor, Room E 12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

Facsimile: 202-366-7536 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified return-receipt, the original and one copy of the foregoing document to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Dated: January 10,2012 
10/19/2010 

Chet Stevenson 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Mr. Stevenson, 

This is regarding our telephone conversation on the 15^ of October 2010 for maintenance 

performed on Bell 206B3 registration number N98CM on the dates you requested 

November 2"'' and 18* 2007 and on July 24* 2008. 

On the 2" of November I performed required Main Rotor Hub strap replacement due to 

24 month manufacturer retirement requirements and on the 18* of November I performed 

the required Main Rotor Retention Nut re-torque check for this niaintenance. I was 

compensated via check in the amount of $880.00 Dollars. 

On July 24 2008 I performed a main rotor track and balance check per the request of the 

aircraft owner and for this I was compensated via check in the amount of $200.00 

Dollars. 

Sincerely, " 

Edward L. Baker DI 

A&P 3458278 
Page 1 of2 

Westlaw. 

2006 WL 3792063 (D.O.T.) Page 1 

2006 WL 3792063 (D.O.T.) 

Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

*1 Legal Interpretation 

2006 

Fran DeJoseph 

Southern Jet Management, LLC 

1800 Airport Road 

Kennesaw, Georgia 30144 

Dear Mr. DeJoseph: 

In a letter dated October 24, 2005, you expressed disagreement with a letter of interpretation that you received 

from our Drug Abatement Division and asked us three additional questions. We have noted your disagreement 

and now answer your three additional questions in the sequence you presented. 

1. If an [sici FAR 135 aircraft had maintenance done by a mechanic that does not meet the Dnig and Alcohol Requirements of FAR 135 and 121, what does the FAR 135 Certificate holder have to do before he can 

use that aircraft on a FAR 135 charter? 

Our answer. An aircraft that is listed on the operation specifications of a certificate holder conducting flights under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 135 must be maintained under the certificate holder's 

maintenance progranj. That such an aircrali is owned and periodically operated under 14 CFR part 91 by a person other than the certificate holder does not lessen that obligation in any way. 14 CFR § 135.251(c) contemplates a situation in which an aircraft requires emergency maintenance and there are no maintenance providers 

subject to appendix 1 of part 121 at the airport. In that case, the certificate holder must provide wrinen notification of the emergency maintenance within 10 days while retaining copies for at least two years. In addition, the 

certificate holder must also have the aircraft inspected when it is next at an airport where drug-tested personnel 

are available. Other than in the circumstance described in section 135.251(c), maintenance by persons not tested 

pursuant to appendix I of part 121 is prohibited on aircraft operated under part 135. 

If non-emergency maintenance was performed on the aircraft by a person not meeting the drug and alcohol testing requirements, it would be a violation of the regulations, which could result in penahies and require corrective actions, including the possible removal of the aircraft from the certificate holder's operations specifications. 

(See: 14 CFR § 119.51) The primary maintenance inspector or principal operations inspector or both, as applicable, would determine what remedial actions would be necessary in order for the airplane to return to part 135 

service. Remedial actions may include a full conformity inspection. 

2. In the response from the Drug Abatement Division, they state, "The requirement to have an FAA2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 

http://web2.westlaw.comyprintyprintstream.aspx?mt=Westlaw&prft=HTMLE&vr-2.0&des... 1/10/2012 
Page 2 of2 

2006 WL 3792063 (D.O.T.) ' Page 2 

mandated drug and alcohol testing program applies to any individual who performs safety-sensitive fiinctions on Parts 121, 135, and 135.1(c) aircraft". Does that mean a pilot who flies an aircraft for an owner under FAR 91 has to meet the Drug and Alcohol Requirements of FAR 135 or 121 if that same aircraft is used 

FAR 135 charter? Ifnot, why? 

Our answer, ff that pilot to whom you refer also operates or is available to operate any flights under part 135 on 

behalf of the. certificate holder then he or she must meet the applicable drug and alcohol testing requirements. ( 

See: 14 CFR §§ 135.249-135.255). However, if that pilot performs no safety-sensitive functions for the certificate holder in any capacity whatsoever then the drug and alcohol testing requirements do not apply. 

*2 We take this opportunity to point out that the term "FAR 135 aircraft" is a misnomer as you use it above and 

may reflect a misunderstanding. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify. If an aircraft is listed on the operation 

specifications of a part 135 certificate holder, certain pan 135 requirements, such as compliance with approved 

maintenance programs, apply continuously without interruption. 

On the other hand, the applicability of certain portions of part 135 regulations to a specific fiight operation, such 

as those found in subparts B and D, depends upon whether a flight is conducted for compensation or hire. If a 

specific flight is not conducted for compensation or hire, (e.g. a ferry flight, positioning flight, or a flight conducted by the owner of the aircraft for his or her private use) then the flight may be conducted pursuant to part 

91 operating rules. 

We add another clarification. If the owner of the aircraft elects to use the provisions of section 135.1(c) to operate under part 91 operating rules, he or she would be required to comply with the drug and alcohol testing requirements of sections 135.249-135.255 and also section 135.353. 

3. If an Isic] FAR 135 aircraft had maintenance done by a mechanic that does not meet the drug and alcohol 

requirements of FAR 135 and 121, is that FAR 135 operator in violation of FAR 135 and 121 if he does not 

fly? If yes, why? 

Absent the circumstances described in section 135.251(c), any such maintenance would be a violation. The violation would occur at the time such maintenance is performed and whether the aircraft is flown is not relevant. 

We trust that this answers your questions. Thank you for your inquiry. 

Sincerely, 

Rebecca MacPherson * 

Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations 

2006 WL 3792063 (D.O.T.) 

ENDOFDOCLnviENT 

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 

http://web2.westlaw.coni/print/printslream.aspx?mt-Westlaw&prft=HTMLE&vr=2.0&des... 1/10/2012