UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSFORATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

) 

In the Matter of: ) FAA CASE NO.: 2007CE030026 

) 

AIR EVAC EMS, INC. ) HONORABLE RICHARD C. GOODWIN 

) ADMINISTRATIVrC LA W JDDG E 

MOTION FOR DECISION 

STATEMENT OF TH1£ CASE 

The KAA has elected to bring two (2) separate civil penalty complaints against 

one company, AIR EVAC; EMS, INC., which maintains a Repair Staiion and a Part 135 

Certificate, for the same identical acis that were conducted solely at and by die Repair 

Station. 

This iiistant Motion for Deci.slon, which has the same effect as a summary 

judgment motion, seeks only a judgment of dismissal of the claims and COMPLAINT 

brought against Movant, AlR EVAC EMS, INC., under its Part 135 Air Carrier Certificate. 

See liraden '.v Balloons Alofh Inc. 2000 WL 34253917 (DOT), July 26, 2000. +3. 

Tn addition, by separate argument, Movant, Aiu EVAO EMS, INC., has shown 

herein that the FAA has improperly attempted to penali/.e AIR EVAC EMS, INC. twice foj' 

the same acts by the same party. 

TNTRODUCTION 

This case arises irom an incident involving a Part 91 flight of an AlR EVAC EMS, 

INC., aircraft that occurred on or about October 18, 2006. See AMENDED COMPLAINT In 

The Matter of Air Evac EMS. Inc., l-AA Ca-se Number 2007CE030026 at \ 6 

FAA CASE NO.: 2007Cr,03n()26 
(COMPLAINT). On that dale. AIR EVAC EMS, INC.'S helicopter, N267AE, while on a 

Part 91 repositioning llight incurred an in-fiight mechanical situation which required the 

pilot Lo make a "run on" landing at the West Plains Municipal Airport, instead of a 

normal landing at the West Plaints Downtown HcliporL AIR EVAC EMS, INC.'S Answer 

to COMPLAINI- at U 5 and COMPLAINT at t 8. The FAA has alleged that their follow up 

inspection of the aircraft tail rotor system disclosed that a bolt which connected an 

adjustable tube to a bell crank had come out of the aircraft tail rotor control/anti-torquc 

system causing a total disconnect in the system while in llight. COMPLAIN r at ^ 9. 

The FAA further alleged that a mechanic in the Repair Station, Certificate 

QEVR436K, started the rigging process involving the bolt holding together the tail rotor 

rigging and then went honte before the work was finished and the bolt properly installed. 

CoiviPLAiNT at I 10. Then, alleges the FAA, the Repair Station's Quality Manager, 

Aaron Rogers, without finishing the job, signed oil the maintenance work certifying that 

the aircraft was airworthy and returned it lo service. COMPL.AINT at ][ 10, Rogers used 

his personal A&P license to certify the airworthiness of the aircraft. A license suspension 

action was brought against A&P Rogers and was ultimately settled with a license 

suspension. 

PARTIES INVOl-VfcP 

AIR EVAC EMS, INC. is a company home based in West Plains, Mis.souri, which 

holds both a Part 135 Air Cairicr Certillcate, Number F.VCA731D, as well as an Aircraft 

Repair Station Certificate. Number QEVR436K. Rogers was at all relevant limes an 

employee working at the Repair Station as its Quality Manager holding an A&F 

Certificate Number 494941510. COMPLAINT at f 3 -

2 

FAA CASE NO.: 2007C£«30026 

iSO/SOOi a swa <• VVd 21?LSS61?S0 S XVd es:S L OL02/L2/S O 
In February 2007, the FAA issued two nonces of propo-sed civil penalties lo AiR 

EVAC EMS, INC., arising from the above event. One referenced the Air Carrier 

Certificate; Case Number 2007CE030026, and the other referenced the AlR EVAC EMS, 

INC. FLepair Station Certificate; Case Number 2007CE030008. Both of these Notices 

contained identical language regarding the factual allegations and were sent to the same 

address at AIR EVA<; EMS, INC. 

nircc years later, the FAA issued essentially the same Notices chaiactcrized as 

Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty. Again, both of these Notices were addressed to 

the President and CEO of AiR EVAC EMS, INC. and contained identical factual 

allegations. The only difference was that the Notice in Case Number 2007CE030026, 

attached hereto as Exhibit "A," referenced the Part 135 Certificate in 1| 1 and the Repair 

Station Certificate in 1| 2, whereas the Notice in 2007CE030008, attached hereto as 

Exhibit "B," referenced the Repair Station Certificate hi ^1 1 and the Part 135 Certificate 

in ^f 2. The only other factual difference was that Exhibit "A," Case Number 

2007CF030026, added H 17 alleging that the Part 135 Air Carrier operated the aircraft on 

a Part 91 flight when it was unairworthy. 

Rogcis' Notice of Proposed Certificate Action had the exact same factual 

allegations. 

When AIR EVAC EMS, INC. requested hearings for Case Numbers 

2007CE030026 and 2007CE030008, the resulting complaints fur the Air Carrier 

Ortificatc and the Repair Station Certificate respccfively, contained factual allegations 

that were, as would be expected, again identical to each other and the Final Notices of 

Proposed Civil Penalties. It is clear that the two actions are seeking multiple penalties 

3 

FAA CASE NO.: 2007CF.030026 

iso/eoo® swa ^ vvd stiseetsos xvd es:sL OLOS/L2/S O 
from the exact same entity for the same exact eiTors made by the same person. 

Nevertheless, since the FAA has elected to treat the event as two separate issues and 

complaints AIR EVAC EMS, INC. must deal with them in the same manner. Therefore, 

A IR EVAC EMS, iNC, is bringhig tliis Motion for Decision because, as will be shown 

below, the FAA does not have the factual basis for the claims against the Part 135 

Operation. 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD 

This Motion for Decision is in actuality a motion for summary judgment. See 

Balloom Aloft. Inc., 200 WL 3425 3917 (DOT), July 26, 2000 *3. 

In addressing and evaluating this motion, it is important to note that it relates to 

only one of the two complaints brought againsi Movant, AIR EVAC EMS, INC., by the 

FAA for the same identical acts by the same person, Aaron Rogers, who worked at the 

Repair Station. 

fhis motion relates solely to the COMPLAINT brought against AIR EVAC EMS, 

INC., as a Part 135 Air Carrier, which is case number 2007CE030026. This instant 

motion is seeking simimary judgment .solely with respect to the air carrier COMPLAINT 

and allegations in Ca.se No. 2007CK030026. Since the FAA has decided to bring two 

separate complaints treating the repair station separately from the air carrier, then we 

believe that each complaini must stand or fall on its own. However, the issue of the 

FAA' S attempt to penali/.e Movant twice for the same allegations will be raised 

separately .should Movant not prevail on this motion. Fhe FAA is not entitled to bring 

these two separate actions as a method to penalize AIR EVAC EMS, INC., twice for the 

same identical offenses. 

4 

FAA CASE NO.: 2007CF.030a2<> 

iSO/frOO® SWO <- VVd 2t?LSS61?S0S XVd S3-S L 0L02/L2/S 0 
Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence shows there is no genuine issue 

of any material fact and that Movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Whisenhimt v. Souihweslern RelL 573 F. 3d 565, 567 (8* Cir. 2009). Galvin v. Eli Lilly, 

488 F3d 1026, 1030 (D.C. Cir. 2007). 

Once the movant meets its burden then the non-movant bears the burden of 

showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact, by setting forth specific facts, 

showing that there is a material is.sue. Id- To establish a genuine issue of material fact 

sufficient to warrant trial, the non-moving party must do more than simply show that 

there is sonic metaphysical doubt as lo material facts. See Matsushita Electric Fndu.<:tnal 

Co.. Ltd. V. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). 1 he non-moving party must 

set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty 

Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). The non-moving party cannot create sham issues 

of fact in order lo defeat summary judgment. RSBl Aerospace, Inc. v. y\ff Hated h'M Ins. 

Co., 49 F. 3d 399, 402 (8"' Cir. 1995). 

Under the rule as siated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Celotex Corp. \'. Cairaii, 

477 U.S. 317, 321 (1986), summary judgment is mandated "after adequate time for 

di.5covery and upon mofion, again.st a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to 

establish the existence of an element esscnfial to that party's case, and on which that 

parly will bear the burden of truth at trial." Id. at 323. 

In this case, the non-movant FAA has had more than enough time, since this 

matter has been pending for over tliree years. 

"In cases like the instant one, where the non moving party will bear the 

burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary judgment motion 

may properly be made in reliance solely on the 'pleadings, depositions, 

answers lo interrogatories and admissions on file.' Such a moiion whether 

5 

FAA CASE NO.: 2007CEOJ0026 

zeo/soo® swa <• vvd sfiseetsos xvd es-gi otos/is/so 
or not accompanied by affidavits will be made and supported as provided 

in this rule, and Rule 56(e) therefore requires the non moving party to go 

beyond the pleadings and by her ovvn affidavits, or by the 'depositions, 

answers lo interrogatories and admissions on file,' designate "specific 

facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'' Id. 

Ihe FAA must show by specific facts that AIR EVAC EMS. INC. knew, or should 

have known, that the aircraft was unairworthy. 

ATJ-FOh'D VIOLATIONS REGARDING 

AIR EVAC EMS, INC. PART 135 CERTIFICATE 

Other than for the paragraplis describing the parties, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and the 

paragraphs describing the actual facts of the flight, paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9, each of the 

paragraphs of the COMPLAINT directed by the KAA against AIR EVAC EMS, INC. as a 

Fart 135 certillcate holder were faclual allegations directed against the Repair Station, hi 

fact, each of these pai'agraphs contained the exact same allegations as to the allegations in 

the Amended Complaint against the Repair Station, In the Matter of Air Evac RMS, Inc. 

[sic]. Case Number 2007CE030008. 

Each of the sections of the I'ederal Aviation Regulations (FARs) allegedly 

violated also directly relate to the maintenance performed on the aircraft, by the Repair 

Stafion; 14 CFR 91.7, operating an unairworthy airplane; 135.21(a), failing to u.se 

certificate holders maintenance manual, and 135.419(a), failing lo adhere to approved 

aircraft maintenance inspection program. 

There are no violations alleged againsi the AIR EVAC EMS, INC., Part 135 

Certificate that did not directly arise solely from acts of the Repair Station (in fact the 

exact same acts arc spelled out in verbatim). 

FAA CASE NO.: 2007CK030026 

iC0/900ia swa ^ VVd 21?L5eGtS0S XVd eS^SL 0L03/L2/9 0 
STATEMENT OF UN CONTROVERTED FACTS 

For the purpose of this moiion only; .Movant, AIR EVAC EMS, INC., accepts as 

true each and every factual allegation of the FAA in their COMPLAINT in this case; In the 

Matter of Air Evac EMS, Inc., FAA Case Number 2007CE030026. The factual 

allegations arc contained m Sections I and 11 of the COMPLAINT. Section III docs not 

contain factual allegations. The AMENDED COMPLAINT is attached as Exhibh "C." 

Wiih the exception of Section 1, Paragraph 1., Section II, Paragraph 1., and 

Section 11, Paragraph 17., each of the allegafions described acts and omissions of the 

Repair Station, not AiR EVAC EMS, INC., Part 135. By the FAA's own intentions the 

Repair Station is not a party to the civil penalty COMPLAINT at issue against AIR EVAC 

EMS, INCThe only allegation in the COMPLAINT that pleads alleged wrongdoing by Movant 

AIR EVAC EMS, INC., is in Section II, paragraph 17., which alleges that AiR EVAC EMS, 

INC. operated the aircraft when ii was in an unairworthy condition, im alleged violation of 

14 C.F.R.§ 91.7(a). 

With all of the other allegations being only against the Repair Station, there arc no 

allegations by the FAA to support the alleged violations of 14 CF.R. § 135.21(a) and 14 

C.F.R. § 135.419(g). Any dclleiencies in these areas are pled by the FAA against the 

Repair Station. 

With respect to the one alleged violation alleged against AIR EVAC EMS, INC., 

that it operated an unairworthy aircraft, the FAA has omitted one es.sential fact for which 

it bears the burden of proof that Movant had knowledge of or should have known that 

the.aircraf"t was unairworthy. 

7 

FAA CASE NO.: 2007CE030026 

ieo/ioo® swa <- vvd stLseefrSos xvd es-st otos/is/so 
AIR EVAC EMS, INC., PART 135 AIR CARRIER, WAS NOT AWARE THAI" THE 

AIRCRAFF WAS UNAIRWORTHY AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE 

FOR THE ALLEGED VT01..A 1 IONS 

The FAA has elected to refer to the AlR EVAC EMS, INC. Air Carrier separately 

from the AIR EVAC EMS, INC. Repair Station. It is clear, however, that any errors and 

omissions that may have occurred were the responsibility of the Repair Station and not 

the Part 135 operations. This is acknowledged by the FAA in tlic complaints. 

There are many cases, both Department of Fransportation (DOT) and National 

'Iran.sporiaiion Safety Board (NTSB), that demonstrate that even though the FARs 

designate the air earner as ultimately being responsible for the maintenance, that docs not 

rise to strict liability and that an air carrier, owner or pilot is entitled to rely upon a repair 

station or other maintenance facility. 

Uhimately pilots are held to the highest decree of care and they arc ultimately 

accountable for the safe operation of the aircraft. Even considering this high degree of 

care and responsibility they are not liable for all operating or niechanical infractions 

discovered or incurred under their watch. FAA v. Empire Airlines, Inc., 1995 WL 

17078684 (DOT), March 3, 1995. In Empire it was held that an operator such as Empire, 

a Part 121 air earner, "should be held to a standard no higher than which pilots, the 

ultimate guarantors of operational safety are held." Id^ at *5. That standard is: 

"When a pilot in command (PIC) could not have knovi/n the facts in the 

exercise of reasonable dihgencc, or has reasonably relied on the 

in.strt]ctions or others, the NTSB has time and time again absolved the PIC 

of i.my violation." Id. 

On this foregoing basis Administrative Law Judge Koko dismissed a complaint 

by the FAA against Empire Airlines, Inc. which had charged Empire with, among other 

8 

FAA CASE NO.: 20O7CE030O26 

iSO/800i a swa <• VVd StLSeetJSOS XVd S2:Sl 0102/LS/SO 
things, violafions of 14CFR Parts 43 and 121 for failing to follow the requirements of the 

applicable maintenance manuals. Id. at *1. 

hi a similar vein, the NTSB' granted Movant's appeal and dismissed a complaint 

against Movant for operating an imairworihy aircraft on two occasions pursuant to 14 

CFR 91.7. Administrator v. Yealamas, 2004 WL 2125410 (NTSB), September 20, 2004. 

The Board concluded: 

"[TJhat the Administrator failed to establish that respondent should be 

charged with [the knowledge of a frayed trim cablcj we conclude that tlie 

Administrator failed to establish that respondent should be charged with 

this knowledge. To prove a violation of section 91.7(a) the Administrator 

mu.st show that the airman operated an aircraft that he knew or reasonably 

should have known was not airworthy." [citation omitted}. Neither Mr. 

Adams nor Mr. Biiglla ever told respondent that the airplane was 

unairworthy. Further, we agree with respondent that the signed 

maintenance entries he was given by Mr. Adams and Mr. Briglia could 

reasonably be relied upon as an indication that the airplane was safe to 

fly." [emphasis added] Id. at *3. 

An air carrier's duty regarding maintenance, while substantial and important, docs 

not extend beyond what is reasonable under ihc circumstances. In re Alaska Airlines, 

2003 WT 23119327 (DOT), January 10, 2003 at 3. In each mainicnance discrepancy 

Alaska used a certified repair station that performed and signed off on aircraft 

maintenance, some of which was perlbrmed improperly. Id. 

In NTSB V. Thiberi, 2007 WL 2320710 (NTSB), August 9, 2007, the board upheld 

dismissal of the Administrator's complaint wherein the Administrative Law Judge slated 

that ''no standard exists that requires operators to ensure thai rnainienance workers have 

properly documented their work on an aircraft" and "that the Administrator had not 

proven that respondent operated the aircraft knowing that it was unairworthy." Id. at *2. 

NTSB dcci.sions are not binding precedents in DOT proceeding? bur they have weighl as aulhority to the 

extent that they are persuasive. J/ire Fol.wm '.v Air Service. Inc.. 2006 WL 1316970 (DOT), May 3, 2006. 

9 

FAA CASE NO.: 2OO7Cr.O30026 

iSO/eOOi a swa * VVd S1?LS8Bt?S0S XVd 172-Sl 0L02/LS/S 0 
In an Equal Acce.ss to Justice (EA.IA) case, the N ISB noted that the "law judge 

concluded that the aircraft was unairworthy due to inadequate Form 337s and the fact that 

cited ADs were overdue, but held ihal ihere was insullicienl evidence to .show ihat the 

applicant was in any way responsible for, or had knowledge of those deficiencies." Swan 

V. Himon, 1994 WL 719863 (NTSB), December 28, 1994. Id at +2. He held that the 

applicant reasonably relied on the mechanic's certification of airworthiness and on the 

assurance that the required Form 337 had been properly completed. Id. at *2. 

''Air carrier liability for the maintenance mistakes of another extends only 

as far as what the carrier knew or should have known. Under the 

circumstance of these cases, Alaska could not have known of its 

contractor's discrepancies; as such it is not liable." Id. at *3-

T hroughout this instant matter, the FAA has treated the Repair Station separately 

from the Part 135 operations. All of the adverse allegations relate to maintenance issues 

which were the re.sponsibility of the Repair Station, and the language of each of these 

maintenance issues is identical in the Notices of Proposed Civil Penahies, both from 

February 2007 and from February 2010. In the complaints from the FAA, which follow 

the Notices of Proposed Civil Penalties, the FAA has clearly indicated that they wish to 

separate the Repair Station from the Part 135 operation even though they are the same 

company. 

As discussed above, the operator in this case the Part 135 operations is not liable 

for mMntenance deficiencies unless the Administrator establishes that the Part 135 

operator knew of or reasonably should have known of the facts of the mechanical 

infractions. Although AlR EVAC EMS, INC. docs not have a burden to show that AlR 

EVAC KMS , INC. did not know or could rea.sonab]y should have known, see Celotex, it is 

interesting that in this case the FAA has not made any allegations in the past three years 

10 

FAA CASE NO.: 2007CE030026 

iSO/OlOl g swa <• VVd 21?LSeGl7202 XVd t?S:SL OlOS/LS/SO 
that the Part 135 operator could have known or with reasonable diligence should have 

known of the errors committed by the Quality Manager of the Repair Station, Aaron 

Rogers, and at no time in the past three years has the FAA charged the pilot who flew the 

airplane with a violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.7. The pilot and the Part 135 operator were 

entitled to rely upon the signed maintenance entries provided by Rogers and they did so. 

.A.n air carrier's duty regarding maintenance docs not extend beyond what is reasonable 

under the circumstances. Sec In re Alaska Airlines. 

The FAA has not even pled that AIR EVAC EMS, INC. was aware or should have 

been aware that the aircraft was unairworthy. Unless the KAA can bring forUi specific 

(acts that meet the requirements of Celotex and Matsushita Electric, to uphold their 

burden of proof on the issue of knowledge, then AIR EVAC EMS, INC. is entitled to an 

entry of judgment di.smissing this COMPLAINT with prejudice. 

THE FAA IS SEEKING lO IMPROPERLY MULTIPLY 

Tllf; PENALTIES SOUGHT AGAINST REPQNDENT 

Movant AlR EVAC EMS, INC. is a single company thitl holds both a Repair 

Station Certificate and a Pan 135 Air Carrier Certificate. The FAA is well aware of this 

status since all of the Notices of Proposed Civil Penalties issued m this case since 2007 

have been issued to AIR EVAC EMS, IMC 

The NTSB has held that when regulations punish the same act sanctions can be 

imposed for only one of the charged violations. Sec Administrator v, Nix, 2002 WL 

31300306, October 9, 2002. *11, and see Folsom's Air Service [NTSB decisions cmi be 

persuasive]. Thus, since the regulations in ihe Complaint against the Repair Station that 

were alleged to have been violated by the Repair Station in both complaints arc clearly 

11 

FAA CASE NO.: 2007Cr.030026 

iSO/LLOia swa * VVd St?LSeG1?20S XVd frS-SL 010S/L2/S0 
for the same acts then sanctions can only be imposed once and that should be against the 

Repair Station since that is in accord with the allegations in both cases. 

A review of the FAA's COMPLAINT m the matter of AiR EVAC EMS, INC., Case 

Number 2007CE030026, clearly demonstrates thai the FAA has not made one factual 

allegation against the Part 135 operator other than operating an unairworthy aircraft. 

Each of the factual allegations errors or omissions refers only to actions of the Repair 

Station. 

The only allegations referring to the Part 135 operations is the summary of FAR 

sections allegedly violated. These are not actionable allegations. Furthermore, the flight 

at issue was admittedly a Part 91 flight, not a Part 135 flight. 

The FAA is trying lo use the identical allegations it iiled against the Repair 

Station to obtain multiple penalties against the same entity. Movant herein, AIR EVAC 

EMS, INC. 

In an analogous situation, in FAA v. Apollo A <& IIS Company, 2009WL 3696353 

(DOT), September 4, 2009, il was recognized by the Administrative Law .Tudge ihat 

although there were a number of specific hazardous cargo violations alleged, in actuality 

there v/crc only two violations, not the five alleged by the FAA. Id- at *3. Fhcrcforc, in 

order to avoid as.sessing multiple penalties for the same act the Administraiive Law Judge 

sanctioned respondent for only two violations. 

The FAA in ihis case is also ignoring ils own Operations Order regarding 

Compliance and Enforcement, Order 2150.3 B, p. 7-10: 

"When a single instance of noncompliance results in multiple violations of 

general and specific regulations involving the same or similar conduct, the 

F A A ordinarily does not compound the sanction to relleel the amount of 

sanction recommended in the tabic for each regulatory violation." 

12 

FAA CASE NO.: 2007CE030026 

ISO/ZIO E SWG * VVd 21?LSeGt?20S XVd tS-S L 0L0S/L2/S 0 
See Ramaprakash v. FAA, 346 F.3d 1121 (D.C. Cir. 2003). 

CONCLUSION 

The FA A has not and will not be able to sustain its burden as described in 

Celotex, to provide specific facts showing dial there is a genuine issue for Irial and 

therefore Alu EVAC EMS, INC. is entitled to an entry of judgment dismi.s.sing this 

COMPLAINT and claims against AIR EVAC EMS, INC., as a Part 135 operator, wirh 

prejudice. 

On a separate basis, as discussed herein, even without the summary judgment, 

AlR EVAC EMS, INC. is entitled to judgment and dismissal with prejudice of tliis 

COMPLAINT and claims against AiR EVAC EMS, INC. on the basis that the FAA is 

attempting to penalize AiR EVAC EMS, INC. twice for the same acts by the same party. 

As will be brought forth by separate moiion and application, AIR EVAC EMS, 

INC. is entitled to an Equal Access to Justice award of fees and costs. 

Respectfully submitted, 

COOLING & HERBERS 

i^meSETRa 

.^ff^O MaiivKfreel, Suite 2400, 

Kar.sas City, MO 64105 

Telephone: (816)474-0777 

Facsimile; (816)472-0790 

jratnscy(fl),CQolinglaw.com 

ATTORIVEYS FOR MOVANT 

AIR EVAC EMS, INC. 

FAA CASE NO.: 2007CE030026 

13 

ico/eioia SWO <• VVd StLSSetSO S XVd tS:S l 0L02/L2/S 0 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 13^'' day of May 2010,1 forwarded the original and one 

(1) copy of the foregoing via United States mail, certified, return receipt requested to: 

federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Additionally one (1) copy of the foregoing was forwarded via United States maif 

certified, return receipt requested to: 

Mark G. Camacho 

Senior Enforcement Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Ollice of Regional Counsel 

901 Locust, Room 506 

Kan.sas City, MO 6^06-2641 

r:\Cascs\rAA ONnORCCMCNT ACTI0NS\A1R l;VAC\l'lcudings\20()7t:KlB(l026\MoLi()n liir 

l)ccision.2007CriO.?0026.Mar.l5.20IO.doc 

14 

FAA CASE NO.: 2007CE030026 

iCO/tLO ® swa VVd StLSS6t?30 S XVd ^2:9 1 OlOS/LS/S O 
^ 

U.S. Department °^"'" '^>^'=U'0"3l Couisci 

^f Ti-,« r,,.,^.^*,-^., 5101 Locost, Room ,5()rt 

of liansportdtion j.^^^ ^ ^.^^ j^ ^ 64106-2641 

Federitl Aviation 

Administration 

hi Reply Refer To; ACE-7 

2007CE030026 

Area Code: 816-329-3765 

REGULAR & CERTIFIED MATT - RETURN RECElPf REQUESTED 

Certified Mail Receipt Nos. 70081300000046033791 & 70081300000046033807 

February 4, 2010 

Mr. Colin' 

President aitff CEO 

Air Ev^EMS, Inc. 

768 - 306 Davis Drive 

Plains, MO 65775 

FINAL NOTICE OF PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY 

On February 27, 2007, Air Evac EMS, Inc. was advised through a Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty that the FAA proposed to 3.ss(iss a civil penalty in the amount of $15,000. We have 

considered the infomiation submitted in response to this Notice. 

A report of an investigation, and the information submitted at the informal conference on 

June 7,2007, indicates that: 

1) At all tknes hereinafter mentioned AEEMS, a Missouri corporation, was the 

holder of Air Carrier Certificate No. EVCA73 ID, an FAA approved on-demand 

Part 135 operator under the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). 

2) Ai ail time.-} hereinafler nientioned AEEMS vvas also the holder of Aircraft Repair 

Station Certificate No. QEVR436K. 

3) At all times hereinafter mentioned Aaron D. Rogers (Rogers), the holder of 

Airman Certificate Number 494941510 with mechanic privileges, airfi-ame and 

powerplant ratings, worked as an AEEMS employee at the West Plains Municipal 

airport, West Plains, Missouri (UNO) for AEEMS' repair station as its Quality 

Manager (QM). 

4) As AEEMS' QM, Rogers had the authority and responsibility for ensuring that 

aircrafl worked on by AEEMS' repair station were in an airworthy condition 

before being retimed to service. 

Exhibit A 

^^^^^^<^® swa ^ VVd snssGt^so s xvd 1^3:51 OLOS/U/S O 
5) As AEEMS' QM, Rogers had the authority and responsibility for ensuring that 

aircraft returned to service had aU required inspections and maintenance items 

accomplished by AEEMS' repair station. 

6) On or about October 18, 2006, Civil Aircraft N267AE, a Bell Helicopter Model 

206L1, owned and operated by AEEMS, was involved in a repositioning flight 

from West Plains, Missouri, to Sikeston, Missouri, to be put into active Part 135 

passenger-carrying operations for AEEMS. 

7) Incident to the above operation the crew discovered, upon arrival at Sikeston, that 

there was no key for the narcotics box and relumed to West Plains to retrieve the 

missing key. 

X) On approach to AEEMS' West Plains downtown heliport N267AE experienced a 

mechanical failure consisting of the loss of the tail rotor control system. N267AE 

was able to divert and make a run-on landing at the West Plains Municipal 

Airport without a fatality. 

9) A follow-up inspection of N267AE's tail rotor control system disclosed that a bolt 

that connected adjustable tube PN206-001-002-087 to bellcrank eN206-001-705-

005 had come out of the aircraft's tail rotor control/anti-torque system causing a 

total break in the system while N267AE was in flight. 

10) Incident to N267AE's mechanical failure an investigation was conducted by 

personnel from the Flight Standards District Office, St. Louis, Missouri (STL 

FSDO) resulting in the following findings: 

a. Prior to the noted operation, AEEMS' repair .station perlbmicd extensive 

modifications and inspection of N267AE pursuant to Work Order (WO) 

^6418-

b. fhe noted modifications included replacing the existing Detroit Diesel 

Allison-C28 engine with a more powerful Allison 250-C30P engine 

tbjrough the application of STC SIT296NM, Installation of Detroit Diesel 

Allison 250-C30P turbo shaft engine, along with associated airframe and 

tail rotor control modifications. 

c. The noted STC modified the tail rotor control/anti-torque system to 

compensate for the increased power and torque. 

d. The subject tail rotor control modification was to be accomplished by 

adjusting the rigging of ihc anti-torque controls as detailed in Installation 

Instruction No. ASI-206L-30P, Rigging Anti-Torque Controls, Section 

im. 

^'^''^^^ ^ S^° ^ ^Vd SMSe61.S0S XVd 52.5 1 0103/L2/5 0 
e. Following modifications and in.spection, AEEMS's repair station 

released N267AE for return to service and closed out WO 

#6418 without accompli-shing, among other requirements, the noted antitorque controls rigging. 

i. After AEEMS's repair .station released N267AE for return to service 

and closed out WO #6418, but prior to the flight operation 

described in paragraph 6 above, AEEMS' QM performed maintenance test 

flights. 

g. AEEMS' QM also performed additional maintenance on N267AE 

consjstmg of rigging the rotor control system/anti-torque sy.stem discussed 

above. 

h. The rigging of the anti-torque controls as detailed in Installation 

Instruction No. ASI-206L, Section IIII, required AEEMS' QM to 

discormect three separate adjustable control tubes firom three separate 

bellcranks followed by a series of adjustments. 

i. Detail "A" of Figure 3-1, Anti-Torque Controls, Riggmg fJimensions 

(Sheet 2 of 2), of the noted installation instructions, specifically 

identifies the removal of the nut, cotter pin, and comiecting boh (thai 

came out of the tail rotor control system, as described in paragraph 9 

above) in order to disconnect adjustable tube PN206-001-002-087 from 

bellcrank PN206-001 -705-005. 

j . AEEMS mechanic Keith Collins (Collins) started tlie rigging process, 

went home, and relumed the next day to discover that AEEMS' QMi had 

completed the rigging and the aircraft was flying. Collins did not reinstall 

adjustable tube PN206-001-002-087 to bellcrank PN206-001-705-005; 

that task was performed by AEEMS' QM. 

k. Following his performance of maintenance on N267AE's rotor control 

system/anti-torque system, AEEMS' QM signed off the maintenance in 

the aircraft's maintenance log certifying that the aircraft was airworthy, 

and relumed N267AE to service. 

1. AEEMS' QM sign-off, noted above, was the la.st maintenance entry made 

inN267AE's maintenance log before the oceurrence of the mechanical 

failure noted in paragraph 8 above. 

m. A visual inspection of N267A£'s rotor control system/anti-iorque 

system after the mechanical failure (noted in paragraph 8 above) revealed 

the subject connecting bolt was lying in the belly of the 

aircraft; no nut or cotter pin was foimd. 

'^'^'^^' ^ S*^° ' VVd SnS86t.S0S XVd 52:SL OLOS/LS/SO 
11) The foregoing maintenance performed by AEEMS' QM on N267AE was not 

accomplished pursuant to the provisions of histallation Instruction No. 

ASI-206L, Section HIT in that he failed to ensure that the subject 

adju.stable tube PN206-001-002-087 connecting boU was property secured 

in place following reassembly of the adjustable tube to its designated bellcrank. 

12) Accordingly, N267AE was not m an airworthy condition at the time AEEMS' 

QM returned the aircrafl to service after his October 18, 2006, maintenance and 

sign off on the rotor control system/anti-torque system. 

13) The foregoing mainienancc perfonned on N267AE'S rotor control system/antitorquc system was not accomplished pursuant to the provisions of AEEMS' 

Quality Control Manual, Pages 4 and 7, which require tliat the discrepimcy sheet 

be supplemented with detailed instructions for work and inspection, and that a 

work card be issued for a discrepancy, if the overall task is divided between more 

than one teclmician. No such supplemental detail or work card was prepared for 

the riggmg started by Collins on one day and completed by AEEMS'QM the next 

day. 

14) Further investigation and inspection of AEEMS' repair station records pertaining 

to maintenance work performed on N267AE prior to the closing out of WO #6418 

disclosed that AEEMS failed to follow its quality control system by approving 

N267AE for retum lo service and closing out WO #6418 without complying with 

AEEMS' Approved Aircrafl Inspection Program (AAlP) final inspection 

requirements and without complying with its Quality Control Manual, to include: 

a. Failure to complete required Phase 1 items noted in Blocks 25 and 30. 

b. Failure to provide a Phase 1 inspection sign-off 

c. Permitting the sign-off of all phases (8 total) of the AAlP, except Phase 1 

and the 12 month inspection portion, to be accomplished by Keith Collins, 

a person who was not a repair station inspector and who did not have 

return lo service authority for the repair station, 

d. Failure to provide a 12 month inspection sign-off 

e. Failure to have the names entered of all mechanics that initialed each 

phase of the AAIP. 

f Failure to complete the Skytrac ISAT, Iniellicast and Avionics Manual, 

Cables & Computer inspections found on the Avionics Final 

Inspection/Acceptance checklist. 

iS0/8l0 @ swa * VVd StJLSSG1?S02 XVd S2:S l 0102/L3/S 0 
g. Failure to audit the records package to determine that all work had been 

inspected as required for compliance by AEEMS' Quality Control 

Manual, page 8. 

15) Further investigation and inspection of N267AE's maintenance records disclosed 

that following the work performed by AEEMS' repair .station the aircraft was 

recertified by a Designated Airworthiness Representative (DAR) and a Standard 

Airworthiness Certificate (SAC) was issued. The recerrification process required 

AEEMS to submit a listing of all modifications done to the aircraft at the time in 

order for the SAC to be properly issued by the DAR. The following items were 

not listed, as required, that is, they were omitted on the application thai AEEMS 

made for the issuance of a SAC: 

a. Reference to installation of STC#SR09442RC, MRL Mount. 

b. Reference to installation of STC#SR09361RC, High Bar Mod. 

c. Reference to installation of STC#SR09441RC, Litter Kit. 

d. Reference to installation of STC#SH3887NM, Cabin Heater System. 

e. Reference to installation of STC#S1-1227WE, Baggage Compartment 

Extension. 

16) AEEMS failed to complete a FAA Form 337, required for all major repairs or 

alterations performed on an aircraft, after the following alterations were 

performed on N267AE: 

a. Installation of SI C#SI-I311OSO, Composite Baggage Door. 

b. Installation of STC#SR01358AT, Baggage Door Retention Strap. 

c. Installation of STC#SROO044A'l', Battery Door. 

d. Installation of SfC#SRO 1494AT, Cyclic Support Safety Cover, 

c. Installation of STC#SH3289SO, Cabin Floor Protectors. 

f Installation of STC#SH200GT., Facet Filter Installation. 

g. Installation of STC#SH296NM, Installation of Detroit Diesel Allison 250-

C30P turbo shaft engine. 

17) Based on the foregoing AEEMS operated N267 AE at a time when said aircraft 

was not in an unairworthy condition 

iso/eioia swa * vvd snssetsos xvd S3:SL OLOS/U/SO 
18) By reason of the foregoing, AEEMS violated the followmg sections of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations: 

a. §91.7(a), which states that no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it 

is in an airworthy condition. 

b. §135.21(a), which stales in relevant part that each certilicate holder's 

flight, ground and maintenance personnel must use the certificate holder's 

current procedures manual in conducting ils operations. 

c. §135.419(g), which states that each certificate holder who has an approved 

aircraft inspection program shall have each aircraft that is subject to the 

program inspected in accordance with the program. 

Under Title 49 U.S.C. 46301, AEEMS is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $11,000 for each 

of the violations noted. By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances, we propose to assess 

a civil penalty in the amount of $ 15,000. 

Unless AEEMS mails or personally delivers, in writing, hs request for a hearing in this matter, 

within 15 days after receipt of this Final Notice, we will issue an Order Assessing Civil Penalty 

and AEEMS will have no further right to a hearing. If AEEMS does not submit a written request 

for a hearing, it must pay the proposed civil penalty. 

AEEMS' request for a hearing must be sent to the Hearing Docket Clerk at one of tlie following 

addresses: 

For service by U.S. Postal Service: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW. 

V/ashington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Room 2014 

For service by ncrsonai delivery or expedited courier such as Federal Express 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attention; Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

600 Independence Avenue SW. 

Wilbur Wright Building, Room 2014 

Washmgton, DC 20591 

A copy also must be sent to the undersigned FAA attorney. AEEMS' request must be dated and 

signed, in accordance with Sechon 13.16 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, sent with the 

Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty (14 C.F.R. 13.16). 

"^ ^^'^ SnSGGfrSOS XVd S2:SL 010S/L3/S0 
AEEMS mu.st pay the proposed penalty by submitting a certified check or money order payable 

to tlie Federal Aviation Adminishation, to the undersigned. In the alternative, AEEMS may pay 

its civil penally with a credit card over the Internet. To pay electronically, visit the website at 

https://wvA\r.pay.gov. Under the Search Public Fomis option, type in "FCE-FINEl." Chck on 

"FAA Civil Penalty Payments - Central Region." AEEMS must then complete the requested 

information and cUck "Continue." AEEMS will then be directed to enter iti; credit card or bank 

account debit information. To use the banJc account debit AEEMS will need its bank routing 

number, account number, and check number. THE FAA WILL NOT ACCEPT INTERNET 

PAYMENTS FOR AN AMOUNT LESS THAN THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE FINAL 

NOTICE. 

A. Lester Haizlip 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

Otigind Signed b/ 

Moik 9. Camacho 

Mark G. Camacho 

Senior Enforcement Attorney 

cc: James E. Ramsey, Esq. 

iSO/LSOi a sua + VVd 3t?L9e6tS03 XVd S2:SL 0L02/LS/S0 
2007CE030026 Air Evac EMS, Inc. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

1 certify that this Fmal Nolice Of Proposed Civil Penally has been sent this date by 

regular and certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to: 

Mr. Colin Collins 

President and CEO 

Air Evac EMS, Inc. 

P.O. Box 768 - 306 Davis Drive 

West Plains, MO 65775 

1 hereby:certify that I Iiave this date placed hi the United States mail, certified mail, return 

receipt requested, a copy of the Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, addressed to: 

James E. Ramsey, Esq. 

Cooling & Herbers, P.C, 

2400 City Center Square 

1100 Main St. 

Kansas City, MO 64105 

Dated this 4th day of February 2010. 

Alisa Gausc 

Paralegal Specialist 

ieo/ssoig swa <• VVd st'Lsset'Zo?: vwj Q7-
^ 02/05.-'2aiQ . 12:43 31632? "71 FAA ACE 7 , PAGE nS/18 

e. Following modifications atid inspection, AEEMS's repair station 

released N267AE for return to service and closed out WO 

#6418 wiHiout atflottiplishing, among other requirements, the noted Eintitorque controls rigging, 

f After ASEMS ' 3 repair station released N267AE for retum to $ei'vice 

and closed out WO #641S, but prior to the flight operation 

described in paragraph 6 above, AEEMS' QM performed maintena.nce test 

flights/. 

g. AEEMS' QM also performed additionci.1 maintenance on N267AE 

conaiatmg of riggitJg the rotor control system/anti-torque system discussed 

above. 

h. The rijiging of the anti-loique controls as detailed iji Installation 

Instruction No. ASI-2Q6L, Section 0H, required AEEMS' QM to 

disooimect three separate adjustable control tubes from three sepaiato 

bellcranks followed by a series of adjustments. 

i. Detail "A" of Figure 3-1, Anti-Torque Controls, Rigging Dimensions 

(Sheet 2"6f2), of the noted installation instructions, specifically" ' ' 

identifies the removal of the nut, cotter pin, and connecting bolt (that 

came out of the tail rotor control system, as described in paragraph 9 

above) in order to disconnect adjustable tube PN206-001-002-087 from 

bflllcrank PN206-001-705-005. 

']. AEEMS mechanic Keith Collijos (Collins) stalled the rigging process, 

went home, and returned tha next day to discover that y-VEEMS' QM had 

completed tiie rigging ajid the aircraft was flying, Collins did not reinstall 

adjustable hibe PN206-001-002-087 to bellcrank PN206-001-705-005; 

tliat task was performed by AEEMS' QM. 

k. Follown'tig J)i3 pertbmiance of maintenance onN267AE's rotor control 

system/anti-torque system, AEEMS' QM signed off Hie maintenance in 

the aiT^raft's maintenance log certifying that the aircraft \yas airworthy, 

and returned N267AB io service. 

1, AEEMS' QM sign-off, noted above, was the last maintenance entry made 

in N267AE's maintenance log before the occurrence of the mechanical 

fatku-e noted in paragraph 8 ahbvc. 

m. A visual inspection of N267AE'5 rotor control system/anti-torque 

system after the mechanical failure (noted in paragraph 8 above) revealed 

the subject connecting bolt -was lying in the belly of the 

fliroraf^; no nut or cotter pin was found. 

^SO/SSOia SWO ^ VVd StLSeetSOS XVd 9S:Sl 0102/LS/90 
Q2/05/2010 12:'ly 81G32? "?! FAA ACE 7 , PASE H6/1S 

4 

i 1) The foregoing niainte0ai)ice perfonned by AEEMS' QM on N267AE was not 

accomplished pursuant to the piovisio,u5 of Installation Instruction No. 

ASI-206L, Section IIII in that he foiled to ensure that the subject 

adjustable tube PN206-001-002-087 connecting bolt wag properly secured 

in place following reassembly of the adjustable tube to its designated bellcrank. 

12) Accordingly, N267AE was not in an airworthy condition at the time AEEMS' 

QM returned the aircraft to service af^er his October 15, 2006, maintenance and 

sign off on the rotor control system/anti-torque system. 

13) The foregoing maintenance perfonned on N267AE' g rotor control system/antitorque system was not accom.plished pursuant to the provisions of AEEMS' 

Quality Control Manual, Pages 4 and 7, which require that tlie discrepancy sheet 

be supplemented with detailed instructions for work and i.nspection, and that a 

work card he issued for a discre;pancy, if the overall task is divided between mor? 

than one technician. No such supplemental deta.il or work card was prepared fox 

the rigging started by Collins of one day and completed by AEEMS'QM tha next 

day. 

14) Further investigation and inspection of AEEMS' repair station records pertainii:ig 

to-maintenance work performed on N267AE-prior to the closing out of "WO #6418 

disclosed that AEEMS failed to follow its quality control system hy approving 

N267AE for return to service and closing out WO #6418 without complying with 

AEEMS' Approved Aii'cratt Inspection Program (AAlP) final inspection 

requirements and without complying with its Quality Control Manual, to include: 

a, Fai,lure to complete required Phase 1 items noted in Blocks 25 and 30-

h, Failm-e to provide a Phase 1 inspection slgn-off. 

c. Permitting tha sign-off of all phaaes (8 total) of the AAIP, except Phase 1 

artdthe 12 month inspection poriion, to be accomplished by Keith Collins, 

a person who was not a repair station inspector and who did not have 

retum to service authority for the repair station. 

d. Failure to provide a 12 month inspection sign-off 

e. Failure to have the names entered of aU mechanics that initialed each 

phase of the AATP, 

f. Failure to complete the Skytrac ISAT, Intellicast and .\vionics Manual, 

Cables & Computer iJispections found on the Avionics Final 

Inspection/Acceptance checklist. 

''°^'''^ ® S*^° ' VVd Snse6tS0 2 XVd 3S:S L OlOS/LS/SO 
U';!/F15/2010 12:43 81632^ '71 FAA ACE 7 ( PAGE 07/19 

g. Failure to audit the records package to determines that all work had hecii 

inspected as required for compliance by AEEMS' Quality Control 

Manual, page 8. 

15) Further investigation and inspection of N2(57AE°s maintenance records disclosed 

that following the work perfonned by AEEMS' repair station the aircraft was 

recertified by a Designated Ainvortlniness Representative (DAR) and a Standard 

Airworthiness Certificate (SAC) was issued, The recertification proce.q.g tcqujred 

AEEMS to submit a listing of all modifications done to the aircraft at the time in 

order for tire SAC to be properly Issued by the DAR. Th.e following items were 

not listed, as required, that is, they were omitted on tlie application that AE.BMS 

made for the issuance of a SAC: 

a. Reference to installation of STC#SR09442RC, MRL Mount. 

b. Reference to installalicin of STCJSR09:3i5lRC, High Bar Mod. 

c. Reference to installation of STC#SR09441RC, Litter Kit 

d. Reference to installation of STC#SH3887NM, Cabin Heater System. 

e. Reference to installation, of STC#SH227WE, Baggage Compartment 

Exteruaion. 

1 <5) AEEMS failed to complete a FAA Form 337, required for all major repaiT.s or 

alterations performed on an aircraft, after the following alterations were 

perfonned onN267AE: 

a. Installation of STC#SH311 OSO, Composite Baggage Door. 

b. Installation of STC#SR0135SAT, Baggage Door Retention Strap. 

c. InstaUatiOn of STC#SROO044AT, Battery Door. 

d. Installation of STC#SR01494AT, Cyclic Support S afety Cover. 

e- Installation of STC#SH3289SO, Cabin Floor Protectors. 

f. Installation of STC#SH200GL, Facet Filti:r Installation. 

g. Installation of STC#SH296NM, Installation of Detroit Diesel Allison 25 0-

C30P turbo shaft engine. 

17) By reason of the foregoing. AEEMS violated the following sections of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations: 

a. §43r5(b), which states in relevant part that no person may approve for 

zeo/z2oia SWO * VVd sfrLseetsos xvd 92:51 OIOS/LS/S O 
B2/B5/201Q 1.2; 4y 816329''"'71 FAA f^CE 7 PAGE 09/18 

7 

For service by U-S, Postal Servica: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

SOO Independence Avenue, SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clark, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Room 2014 

For service.by personal delivery ur expedited courier sMch as Fede^^^l Exuress 

Fedej-al Aviation Adminlsttsition 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-43U 

600 Independence Avenue SW. 

V/ilbur Wright Building, Room 2014 

Washington, DC 20591 

A copy a1.<!o must be sent to the undersigned FAA attorney. AE,EMS' request mu?* be dated and 

signed, hi accordance with Section 13.16 of tiie Federal, Aviation Regulations, sent with the 

Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty (14 C.F.R-13.16). 

AEEMS njujtpay the proposed penalty-by submitting a certified cheek or-money-of der-payable. 

to the Federal Aviation Administration, to the uudersig)3ed. In tha alternative, AEEMS may pay 

its civil penalty with a credit card over the Internet. To pay electronically, visit the website at 

https;//\vww,pay.gov. Under the Search Public Forms opition, type in "FCE-FINEl, '* Click on 

"FAA Civil Penalty Payments - Centeal Regioti." AEEMS must then com,p]ete the requested 

information and click "Contmue." AEEMS will then be directed to enter its credit card or bank 

account debit information. To use the bank account debit AAHMS will need ita bank routing 

number, account number, and check number. THE FAA WILL NOT ACCEPT INTERNET 

PAYMJENTS FOR AN AMOUTJT LESS THAN THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE FINAL 

NOTICE. 

A, Lester Haidip 

Rt:gional Counsel 

By: 

ORIGINAL SIGNED PV 

MARK G. CAMACFK.J 

Mark G. Camacho 

Senior Enforcement Attomey 

cc: .Tames E. Ramsey, Esq. 

£60/820® SWO VVd zt'Lseet'Sos xvd iz.9i OLOS/LZ/SO 
•02/35/2010 12:49 S16329'^7l 

( 

FAA ACE 7 PAGI-: 10/IB 

2007CE030008 Air Evac EMS, Inc. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that this Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty has been 5e,nt this date by regular 

and certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to: 

Mr. Colin Collins 

President and CEO 

Air Evac EMS, hie. 

P.O. Box 76S - 306 Davis Drive 

West Plains, MO 65775 

I hereby ceitify tiiat I have this date placed in the United States mail, certified mail, return 

receipt requested, a copy of the Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty; adchessed to: 

James E. Ramsey, Esq. 

Cooling & .Herbers, P.C. 

2400 City Center Square 

1100 Main St. 

Kansas City, MO 64105 

Dated this 4tli day of February 2010. 

Original sianed by 

Alisa Gause 

ParalsEai Specialist 

iS0/620ia swa * VVd stLseetsog xvd iz'^ i otoe/ts/s o 
iTArt Are 7 PAGE 13/2ei 

0b/-H^/2310 14:4.3 al&3293771 FAA ACE 7 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

In the Matter of; 

Air Evac EMS, Inc. 

Served: May 10,2010 

FAA Docket No. 

FA.'\ Case No. 20O7CEO30026 

Judge: Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

AMENDED 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. 

1. On Febniary 27, 2007, Respondent Air Evac EMS, Inc. (AEEMS) was advised 

tlirough a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the 

amount of $ 15,000. On Februaiy 8, 2010, Respondent submitted a written request for a hearing. 

II. 

1. At all times hereinafter mentioned AEEMS was the holder of Air Carrier Certificate 

No. EVCA73 ID, an FAA approved on-demand Part 135 operator under the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (FAR). 

2. At all times hereinafter mentioned AEEMS, a Missouri corporation, was the holder of 

Aircraft Repair Station Certificate No. QEVR436K. 

3. At all times hereinafter mentioned Aaron D. Rogers (Rogers), the holder of Airman 

Certificate Number 494941510 -witli mechanic privileges, airfirQm,e and powerplant ratings, 

worked as an AEEMS employee at the West Plains Municipal airport, West Plains, Missouri 

(UNO) for AEEMS's repair sUtion as its Quality Manager (QM). 

4. As AEEMS's QM, Rogers had the authority and responsibility for ensuring that 

aircraft worked on by AEEMS's repair station were in an airworthy condition before being 

tetunedto service. 

Exhibit C 

iQo/oeom swa ^ vvd snseetso s xvd tz-si OLOS/U/S O 
dS/lfl/lIBlU 1.^:43 81 £3293771 FAA ACE 7 PAGE 14/20 

5. As AEEMS's QM, RogCR had the autiiority and responsibility for ensuring tiiat 

aircraft returned to service had all required inspections and maintenance items accomplished by 

AEEMS's repair station, 

6- On or about October 18, 2006, Civil Aircraft N267AE, a Bell Helicopter Model 

206LI, owned and operated by AEEMS, was involved in a repositioning flight from West Plains, 

Missouri, to Sikeston, Missouri, to be put into active Part 135 passenger-carrying operations for 

AEEMS. 

7. Incident to the above operation the crew discovered, upon arrival at Sikeston, tiiat 

There was no key for the narcotics box and remmed to West Plains to i-etrieve the missing key. 

fi.. On approach to AEEMS' West Plains dowtnown heliport N267AE experienced 3 

mechanical failure consisting of the loss of the tail rotor control system. N267AE was able to 

divert and make a run-on landing at the West Plains Municipal Airport without a fatality. 

9. A follow-up inspection of N267AE's tail rotor control system disclosed that a bolt that 

connected adjustable tube PN2O6-001-002-087 to bellcrank PN206-001-705-005 had come out 

of the aircraft's tail rotor control/anti-torque system causing a total break in the system while 

N267AE was in flight, 

10. Incident to N267AE'3 mechanical failure an investigation was conducted by 

personnel from the FHcht Standards District Office, St. Louis, Missouri (STL FSDO) resulting in 

the following findings: 

a) Priorto the noted operation, AEEMS's repair station performed extensive 

modiiications and inspection of N267AE pursuant to Work Order (WO) #6418. ^ 

b) The noted modifications included replacing the existing Detroh Diesel Allison-C28 

engine with a more powerftil Allison 250-C30P engine tlirough tUi: application of 

STC SI-I296NM, Installation of Detroit Diesel Allison 250-C30P turbo shaft engine, 

along with associated airft-arnc and tail rotor control modifications, 

c) The noted STC modified the tail rotor control/anti-torque system to compensate tor 

the increased power and torque. 

^gp^Lsoia swa ^ VVd sngsGtso s xvd LZ-<ii OLOS/U/S O 
Fazi ACF 7 P^'SE 15/2ff 

1^5/10/2(310 14:4 3 R1B3203//1 FAA ACE 7 

d) The subject tail rotor control modification was lo be accomplished by adjusting the 

rigging of the anti-torque controls as detailed in Installation Instruction No. ASI206L-30P, Rigging Anti-Torque Controls, Section IIII. 

e) Following modifications and inspection, AEEMS's repair station released N267AE 

for return to service and clo.sed out WO #6418 widiout accomplishing, among otiier 

requirements, the noted anti-torque controls rigging. 

f) After AEEMS's repair station released N267AE for retum to service and closed out 

WO #6418, but prior to the flight operation described in. paragraph 6 above, 

AEEMS's QM performed maintenance test flights. 

g) AEEMS's QM filso performed, additional maintenance on N267AE consisting 

of rigging the rotor conuol system/anti-torque system discussed above, 

h) The rigging of the anti-torque controls as detailed in Installation Instruction No. ASI206L, Section IIJI, required AEEMS's QM to disconnect three separate adjustable 

control tubes ftotn three separate bellcranks followed by a series of adjustments. 

i) Detail "A" of Figure 3-1, Anti-Torque Controls, Rigging Dimensions (Sheet 2 of 2), 

of the noted installation instructions, specifically identifies the removal of the nut, 

cotter pin, and connecting bolt (that came out of the tail rotor control system, as 

described in paragraph 9 above) in order to disconnect adjustable mbe PN206-001-

002-087 tix)m bellcrank PN206.001^705-005. 

j) AEEMS's mechanic Keith Collins (Collins) started the rigging process, went home, 

and returned the next day to discover that AEEMS's QM had completed the rigging 

and the aircraft was flying, Collins did not reinstall adjustable tube PN206-001-002-

087 to bellcrank PN206-001-705-005.; tiiat task was performed by AEEMS's QM. 

k) Following his perfomiance of maintenance on N267AE's rotor control systern/antitorque system, AEEMS's QM signed off the maintenance in tiie aircraft's 

maintenance log certifying thflt the aircraft was airworthy, and returned N267AE to 

service. 

..n ^ VVd StLSS6tS02 XVd LZ-5 i OLOS/LS/SO 
E35/iF)/-/fli0 M:^n nir.n2nn77i FAA ACE 7 PAGE I6/20 

1) AEEMS's QM sign-off, noted above, was the last maintenance entry made in 

N267A£'s maintenance log before the occurrence of the mechanical failure noted in 

paragraph 8 above, 

m) A visual inspection DfN267AE's rotor control system/ami-torque system after the 

mechanical failure (noted in paragraph 8 above) revealed the subject connectmg bolt 

was lying in the belly of the aircraft; no nut or cotter pin was found. 

H. The foregoing maintenance performed by AEEMS's QM on N267AE was not 

accomplished pursuant to the provisions of Installation Instruction No. ASI-206L, Section IIII in 

that he failed to ensure that the subject adjustable tube PN206-001-002-087 connecting bolt was 

properly secured in place following reassembly of the adjustable tube to iis designated bellcrank. 

12. Accordingly, N267AE was not in an airworthy condition at the time vVEEMS's QM 

returned tiic aircraft to service after his October 18, 2006, maintenance and sign off on the rotor 

control system/anti-torque system. 

13. The foregoing maintenance performed on N267AE''5 rotor control system/anti-torque 

system was not accomplished pursuant to the provisions of AEEMS' Quality Control Manual, 

Pages 4 atnd 7, which require that the discrepancy sheer be supplemented witli detailed 

instructions for work and inspection, and that a work card be issued for a discrepancy, if the 

oVOTall task is divided between more than one techniciaa, No such supplemental detail or work 

caid was prepared for the rigging started by Collins on one day and completed by AEEMS's QM 

die next day. 

14. Further investigation and inspection of AEEMS's repair station records pertaining 

to maintenance work perfomied on N267AE prior to the closing out of WO #6418 disclosed 

that AEEMS's failed to follow its quality control system by approving N267AE for retum to 

service and closing out WO #6418 witliom complying with AEEMS' Approved Aircraft 

Inspection Program (AAIP) final inspection requirements and witiiout complying with its 

Quality Control Manual, to include: 

a) Failure to complete required Phase 1 items noted in Blocks 25 and 30. 

„„n . VVd StlSeetSO S XVd LZ.9 i 0102/12/5 0 
ITA A APr 7 PAGE 17/2 0 

US/.'0/2019 14:43 8163293771 FAA ACE 7 

b) Failure to provide a Phase 1 inspection sign-off. 

c) Permitting the sign-off of all phases (8 total) of tiie />LAIP, except Phase 1 and the 12 

month inspection portion, to be accomplished by Keith Collins, a person who was not 

a repair station instpector and who did not have retum to service authority for the 

repair station. 

d) Failure to provide a 12 month inspection sign-off 

e) Failure to have the names entered of all mechanics that initialed each phase of the 

AAIV. 

f) Failure to complete the Skytrac ISAT, Intellicast and Avicnics Manual, Cables & 

Computer inspections found on the Avionics Final Inspection/Acceptance checklist. 

g) failure to audit the records package to determine that all work had been inspected as 

required for compliance by AEEMS's Quality Control Manual, page 8. 

15. Furtlier investigation and inspection of N2(j7AE''s maintenance records disclosed that 

following the work performed by AEEMS's repair station the aircraft wras recertified by a 

Designated Airworthiness Representative (DAR) and a Standard Airworthiness Certificate 

(SAC) was issued. The recertification process required AEEMS to submit a listirig of all 

modifications done to the aircraft at the time in order for the SAC to be properly issued by tiie 

DAR. The following items were not listcdj as required, that is, they were omitted on the 

application that AEI made for the issuance of a SAC: 

a) Reference to installation of STC#SR09442RC, MRL Mount. 

b) Reference to installation of STC#SR09361RC, High Bar Mod, 

c) Reference to installation of STC#SR09441RC, Litter Kit. 

d) Reference to installation of STC#SH3Sg7NM, Cabin Heater System. 

c) Reference to installation of STC#SH227WE, Baggage Compartment Extension. 

16. AEEMS failed to complete a FAA Fonm 337, required for all major repairs or 

alterations performed on an aircraft, after the following alterations were perfonned on 

N267AE; 

VVd StL9e6t20 3 XVd S3:SL 0L03/L2/SO 
05/'-ii/2t)ia 14:43 'JlG-X^.-n//I FAA ACE 7 

a) .Installation of STC#SH311 OSO, Compoaite Baggage Door. 

b) Installation of STC#SRO 135SAT, Baggage Door Retention Strap. 

c) Installation of STC#SROO044AT, Battery Door. 

d) Installation of STC#SR01494AT, Cyclic Support Safety Cover. 

e) Installation of STC#SH3289SO, Cabin Floor Protectors. 

f) Installation of STC#SH200GL, Facet Filter Installation. 

g) Installation of STC#SH296NM, Installation of Denoit Diesel Allison 250-C30P turbo 

shaft engine, 

17. Based on the foregoing AEEMS operated N267AE at a time wlien said aircraft was 

net in an unairworthy condition. 

III. 

1. By reason of tiie foregoing facts and circumstances, AEEMS violated the following 

sections of the Federal Aviation Regulations: 

a. §91.7(a), which states that no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an 

ail-worthy condition. 

b. §135,21(a), which states in relevant part tiiat each certificate holder's flight, ground 

and maintenance personnel mast use the certificate holder's current procedures 

manual in conducting its operations. 

c. §135.419(g), which states that each certificat<j holder who has an approved aircraft 

inspection program shall have each aircraft that is subject to the program inspected in 

accordance with the progranx. 

2. Pvirsuant to Title 49 U.S.C. 46301, Respondent i.s subject to a civil penalty not to 

exceed $11,000 for each of the violations alleged, 

3. Under tiie tacts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of $15,000 is appropriate. 

WHEREFORE, the Agency, by counsel, respectfully requests thai the Adntinistrative 

r.aw Judge enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $15,000. 

VVd Sl7LSeBt?30Z XVd ez'SL OLOS/U/S O 
RFi/--.U/2ai0 14:43 81G3293771 FAA ACE 7 

Dated tills lOtii day of May 2010. 

Respectfidly submitted, 

A. Lester Haizlip 

Regional Counsel 

J Klark Camacho 

Senior Enforcement Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

901 Locust Street, Room 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

(816) 329-3765; Fax (316) 329-3771 

Attomey for Complainant 

Answer 

Section 13.209(a) of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Proceedings states, "A 

respondent shall file a written answer to the complaint, or may file a written motion pursuant to 

Section 13.208(d) or Section 13.218(f)( 1-4) instead of filing an answer, not later than 30 days 

after service of the complaint. 

Section 13.209(f) states, "A person's failure to file an answer without good cause shall be 

deemed an admission of the truth of each allegation contained in the complaint. 

ieo/aso ® SWO ^ vvd sMsestso s xvd 82:S L OLOS/LS 
H5/1.0/2t)ll3 14:4'd 

Air Evac EMS. Inc.. FAA Case No. 2007CE030026 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

1 hereby certify that I have this date provided a copy of rhe Agency's Amended Complaint via 

facsimile transmission to the below named addressees as noted, and also placed in the United States mail, 

via regular mail, postage prepaid, a copy of the, addressed to: 

Mr. Coliti Collins 

President and CEO 

Air Evac EMS, Inc. 

P.O. Box 768-306 Davis Drive 

West Plains, MO 65775 

Mr. .Tames E. Ramsey, Esq. 

Coolmg & Herbers P.C. 

2400 City Center Square 

1100 Main Street 

Kansas City, MO (ill05 

FAX: 816-472-0790 

The Honorable Richard C Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jerjey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El 2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX; 202-366-7536 

In addition, I hereby certify that I have diis date provided a copy of the Agency's ATncnded 

Complaint via facsimile transmission to thu below named addressee, and also placed in the United States 

mail, via nigular mail, postage prepaid, the original and one copy, addressed to: 

Federal Aviation Adrninisiration 

800 IndLspendence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, DC 2059] 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Room 2014 

FAX: 202-493-5142 

Dated this 10th day uf May 2010. 

Alisa GausJ 

Paralegal Specialist 

iso/ieo E swa <• vvd stLssetso s xvd 8S:SL OLOS/LS/SO