03/2G/2010 13:31 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS @1001/015 

03/26/2010 09:47 FAl 425 227 1007 \MM-7 (2002/015 

FAA OPFicr-: OK ur,Gr<.)NAL COUN-SHI. 

1601 I.iNDAVi-., SW , :,. :. ] 

RrfNTOM. W.A^Hi.NOTOM ^}i057 ' " • ' 

TKLEPIIONH; 425.227.1417 

FACSlMn^: 425.227,1007 

In the Martcr of: 

Scenic AviaLion, Iric, 

UINITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TTU.NSPOR1 Al ION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

FAA DOCKEl' CP 09NM0011 

1"A A Cast- No. 2009NM070066 

DMS No. rAA-2009-0974 

Judge (.Toodvvin 

COMPLAINANT'S KIKSI^ -SUPPLEMENTAL DTSCOVKRY RFQUEST 

To: Respondent 

In accordance with 14 CFR Sections 13.220 and the federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

plea-jc respond TO Ihc following Iiuerrogatories. Requcsls for Production of Documents, and 

r<.equest for Admissions, separalely and fully under oatli by April 26,2010. 

These di.scovcr/ rajuests are intended lo discover infomiaiion and/or docuinciils not only 

within yoLir personal knowledge or obtainable by you, but also information in the possession of or 

obtainable by your attorneys, investigators, representatives, employees, aycnla, or anyone acting on 

your behalf or on theii- behalf 

These discover)' requests are continuing in nature and any information vvliich may be 

discovered by you subsequent to the service aix1 filing of your ans\vers must be broiighf TO the 

2itlention of Llie agency attorney tlvough supplemental answers when it becomes iwailable^o VOLI, at 

a reasonable lime prior to the hearing in this mailer. If there arc any additions, deletions or changes 

in the answers or infomiation provided at any time prior to heai'ing the Respondent is spei,:ifically 

requested in so immcdialely inform the agency attorney. If such infonrjiilion is not ibrnishcd, the 

agency attorney at the time of the hearing will move to cxckidc irom evidence such infoi-mation 

requested and not liirnishcd. 

The agency attorney funhcr requests that the Respondent produce the documents identified 

and designated herein for inspection and copying at the FAA Office of Regional Counsel Suite 

.570, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW, Ronton, Washington 98057, by April 26, 2010. 

PRIVILEGE 

If, in rcspondini; lo, or failing to respond to these inlcrrogatories, requests for admi.ssion and 

requests lor production you invoke or rely upon any privilege. oC any kind, slate specifically the 

nature of llie privilege: rhe basis upon which you invoke, rely u])on or claim it. including any 
03/2G/2010 13:31 FAX 2024335142 

03/26/2010 09:48 FAX 425 227 1007 

FAA 

ANM-7 

+ DMS i002/01 5 

121003/015 

stHUHory or decisional reference; iind identify all documents or other infonnaliou, including 

contacis and communications which you believe lo be embraced by (he privilege invoked. 

DA THD tins 25ih day of March 2010. 

. / 

'^^•' 

kr.. 

'CO'n' R. MORRIS 

FAA ATTOmcy 

C.'om)ilaiiiiiiil's l''iisl SupplcmCrUal IJi.s-cfivciy Kequest 

Scenic Avialion. li>c. - froyNMOUl I 

Paj>c7. of 4 

seoTTR. MORRIS, I'AA A rroRWi-v 

IF.l,: 425.227 1-117; |v\X: '125.2:7.1007 
03/26/2010 13:31 FAX 2024935142 

03/26/2010 09;48 FAX 425 227 <007 

FAA 

ANM-7 

* DMS @1003/015 

121004/015 

RI-:01JES1S FOR PRODUCTION 

RBOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Provide a copy of Copy of the C9() Mainicnanct Manual 

provisions used by Scenic Aviiuion that de.scribes how to maintain ihe Pilof s Aliiineter/Encodci-. 

RrOUliST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Provide H copy of the airworthiness ealificate for ihe 

following aircraft: N617MM; N588SA; md N3221M. 

REOlJES'l FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Provide a copy of the training veeords ol' the mechanic.^; 

that performed the tests on aircraft N617IvlM, NSSSSA, or N3221M that demonstrate th«t the}-

were qualified to perform ihe tests as required by the 14 C.F.R. § 91.411(b). 

RHOUES"! FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Provide a copy of any record ihat demonsu-ates Scenic 

Aviaiion, or its employees, qualifications to conduct the Automatic Pressure .Altitude Kcpoding 

EquipmcrU and AT C I ransponder System Integration Test. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Provide a copy of original equipment list for the 

following aircraft: N617MM; N.58SSA; and N3221M. 

lU'OUESr FOR ADMISSIONS 

Under 14 C.F.K. 13.220(b) and Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, you ^re reqaesicd 

TO admit ihe truth of the following matters. A matter is admitted unless responded to in a 

reasonable time. 'Die Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 14 C.F.R. 13.220(d), defines' 

a reasonable time lo be 30 days. The agency requests that an answer is served upon the agency 

attorney either admitting the matter, specifically denying the matter, stating why the matter eannol 

be admitted or denied, or objecting to the request, with rea.sons for the objection stated within 30 

days of ihe date of sei-vice upon you, to wit; April 26, 2010. 

REOUES T FOR ADMISSION NO.i: Admit that Scenic Aviation is not the manulaclurer of U.S. 

registered aircraft N617MM. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 2: Admit that Scenic Aviation is not the manufacturer of U.S. 

registered aircrafl, N588SARHOlfESr J'OR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admil ihat Scenic Aviaiion is not the nianutijeturer of U.S, 

registered aircraft NN3221M. 

lU-OUES T FOR AJ:)MISS10N NO. 4: Admit that Scenic Aviation has never been a certified repair 

station. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. S: Admil thai Scenic Aviation has never been aulhoiT/,ed to 

perfonn maintenance per a eoniinuous aii-wonhiness mainleiiance program (CAMP). 

Compllim,inl'« I'jrsl Siipplcmcdial Discovery Kequest 

Socnic Aviaiion, Inc. - CPOW.VfOOl 1 

Pact.! (Tf-I 

Si or e K MOnKi>i. \-^A ,MTC>RNn' 

TEl.- 42S227.U17: TAX: -t2.S227 1007 
03/2G/2010 13:31 FAX 2024335142 

03/26/2010 09:48 FAI 425 227 '007 

F A A 

ANM-7 

* DMS 2)004/015 

121005/015 

1 

?. 

3 

4 

t> 

& 

7 

y 

9 

10 

1 1 

12 

1 3 

14 

1 '••> 

16 

n 

18 

19 

i!0 

;;i 

22 

2 3 

•.'A 

35 

2ii 

;'.7 

2b 

2 9 

30 

:!.'>. 

33 

34 

3.'5 

36 

37 

38 

3V 

^0 

-Jl 

42 

43 

44 

1i 

IS 

4 7 

41* 

49 

SO 

SI 

52 

53 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that tlie foregoing Complainant's First Supplemental Discoveiy Request has been 

.«!crved via facsimile and certified mail - Return Receipt Requested this date, to Ihe tiillowirig; 

The Honorable Richard C Goodwin 

Office of hearings, M-20 

1200 New .Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Ea.<;t Building Ground Floor, Rra E12-320 

Washington. D.C- 20590 

TEL: 202.366.2139 

FAX: 202.366.7536 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, ACiC-430 

Wilbur WriglU Building - Suite 2W1000 

FAX: 202.493.5142 

Gregory S. Winlon 

Aviaiion Law Experts, LLC 

330 Aviation Way 

Frederick, MD 21701 

TEL: 301.294.8550 

FAX: 301.294.2525 

Dated this 26th day of March, 2010. 

/ 

NIOTFAIR CHIN 

Office of Regional Counsel (ANM-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

160! Lind Ave. SW 

Renton,WA 98057 

425.227.2160 

Ciiinplajnaftl's Pirst Supplcmcnial Discrjveiy kcqucsT 

Scenic Avi-jTion, Inc. - CPOWMOOI1 

Vzi^a <J of *! 

Sroil U, MORRI-SFAAyV-lTOnNCY 

•fEL; '125.2.^7 1417; FAX: 425.227.1007 
03/2G/2010 13:31 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS @|005/015 

US/2ii/Z010 09:4 8 FAX 425 227 ) 007 ANM-7 ©OOe/OlS 

•Scorr R. McjRju,"; 

FAA OrFICV-: o r R£GlON,AX. COHNSKI. 

1601 LlNDAVr., SW 

RliK'JON, W.Ai'HJMC-CCM 9iS'057 

TL-i.tPllONi-:; 425.227,1417 

FACSIMlI.i;: 475.227.1007 

In the Maner of: 

Scenic Aviation, Inc. 

UNITED STA lES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C, 

l-AA DOCIvET C.T 09NM0011 

FAA Case No. 2009NM()70066 

DMS No. .FAA-2009-0974 

Judge Goodwin 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSIi; TO RESPONDKNT'S INITIAL DISCOVERY 

REQUEST 

Pursuant to Rule 13.220 and consistent udth F.R.C. P, 26, the Complainanl responds lo 

Rc.<;pondent\s initial discovery requests as follows: 

Interrogatory No.l: Identify, by providing the name, occupation, and business address, of each 

person the Complaiiuint intends to call as a witness in this proceeding. 

Answfer: 

Walter Alexander. Aviation Safety Inspector, 1020 North Flyer Way, Salt Lake City. UT. 

Mark Rushion> Aviation Safety Inspector, 1020 North Flyer Way, Salt Lake City, UT. 

Interrogatory No.2: Provide the substance of the testimony to be offered by each of :he 

witnesses identified in Interrogatory No.l. 

Answer: 

The persons listed in Inierroguloi7 No.l are considered Subject Matter Experts,- in Ihe 

maintenance of airborne electronic equipmeni sy.stcm3 and instruments. Inspector Alexander is 

currently assigned to Seenic Aviation and Inspector Rushton was assigned to their certificate 

prior to the discovery of Ihe ctHTenV case. Each inspector will lestify to the i-egulalory 

requirements regarding the Test and Certification of Altimeters/Encoders and Transponder;;. 

The.se areas are discus.>ed in Interrugatoi^ N^)s. 3, 5. 6, and 7. Both will leyiify conctrning the 

FAA's policy on how to comply wiih §91.411 & §9|.4l3. 
03/26/2010 13:31 FAX 2024935142 

wu/iu/iViu Mn.na PAA AZi) 227 M107 

FAA 

ANM-7 

+ DMS gjOOG/OIS 

12)007/015 

InterrOKatory No.3; With respect to each expert that the Complainant intends to call as a 

witness in this proceeding, set forth the subject matter upon which each expert \sritnt::ss is 

expected to tp.stify., the far.ls and opinion'? composing the ift'^rimony of each e.\pcn wirnec.s and a 

summary of the ground."? for each opinion. 

Answer: The subject matter is contained in the Federal Aviation Regulationii; 14 CFR , Paris 21. 

43, and 91. Pan 91 § 91,411 contains ihe operating mles regarding tht tests and cenificatious 

required for altimeters, altitude reporting equipment (Mode C), and transponder .-Systems operated 

in controlled airspace under Inslruincnt Fliglu Rules.(IFR) These reguliilions define "Who" can 

perform the tests, "How" often the tests are required, "When" the te.st.s are required following 

maintenance, and make reference to Airworthiness Standards f(3r Static System i:ests and 

Altimeter test requiremcnis. The referenced Parts 23 or 25 define the Static sy.v.(.c.m tests. Pari 

43 Appendix B defines the Automatic Prcs.surc Altitude Reporting Equipment, (Encodur) 

tests and certifications required. The Encoder lest involves testing the transponder sysicm 

radiated signal for Mode C accuracy compared to Ihe pilot's altimeter. They will render 

opinions that Scenic Aviation did not perform mainlenance consistent with tiic regulations 

listed in the Complaint and address the Adniinisirator's sanction guidance. The facts will be 

addressed from the documents previously provided to Respoiiclent as well as any additional 

documents attached to this response. 

Interrogalory No.4: Identify any and all documents and other materials in the possession of llie 

Complainant that concent, refer to, or involve the circumstances set forth in ihe Coraplaiiu illed 

in this matter. 

Answer: 

1. Copy of Air Carrier Certiticutc. Number DVYA 416D, issued to Scerilc Aviation. Inc. 

dated January 9, 1975. 

2. Copy of Ihe current Operating Specifications, D085, for Scenic Aviation, Inc. dated 

October 29, 2008, 

3. Photo copy of the log entry of Aliimetcr/Hncoder and A TC Transponder Cert:fication 

dated February 3, 2007 on N322IM. 

4. Photo copy of entry of Altimetcr/Hncoder replacement dated July 28, 2007 on N3221M, 

5. Photo copy of log enti-y of Altimeter/Encoder replacement dated November 10, 2007 on 

N3221M. 

6. Photo copy of log emi7 of Altimeter/Encoder and ATC Transponder Test and 

Certification dated Jaimary 23, 200X on N3221M. 

7. Photo copy of C90 FliRht and Maintenance Sheets on N3221M from July 13, 2007 to 

January 23, 200S. 

8- Photo copy of log entry of Altimeter/Encoder and Transponder Test and CeililiciUion of 

N588SA dated December 7, 2006. 

9. Photo copy of log entry of Altimcter/lMiCodcr replacement dated Julv H), 2007 on 

N588SA. 

10. Photo copy of log entry of Aliimoicr/Hncoder replacemeni dated Februiuy 17, 2008. 

11. Photo copv of log entry of Altimetcr/Hncoder and Transponder Test and Cenification of 

N588SA dated December 10, 2008. 

12. Photo copy of C90 Flight and Maintenance log Sheets from July 18, 2007 lo Dccc:nbcr 

10. 200?!onN588SA. 

Coinp)ain.l)U'.« Rcsponi-c lo l^tipondcm's Iniliol 

t^iiCOvory RcdVJcst 

^jMnie Aviaiion, Inc. - CPO^NMOO 1 1 

Pmic 2 of 10 

Scorr K. MOKKK, 1-\\A i\ I I(.II<NI-;Y 

"Ilil,: 425.227. HI 7: l-'AX 425.227 1007 
03/26/2010 13:32 FAX 2024935142 

03/26/2010 09:49 FAX 425 227 1007 

FAA 

ANM-7 

+ DMS @1007/015 

1)008/015 

13. Photo eojjy of log entry of Altimeter/Encoder and Triui.spoiidcr Test and CcHiflcation on 

N6I7MM daicd July 26. 2007. 

14. Photo copy of log entry of pilofs Altimeter/Encoder replacement on N617MM dated 

October 19, 2007. 

15. PhoLO copy of log entry of pilot's Altimeter/Encoder replacemeni on N617MM dated 

May 27, 2008. 

16. Photo copy of log entiy of pilot's Altimeter/Hneoder replacement on N617MM on 

December 22, 2008. 

17. Photo copy of loy entry of Altimctcr/l-jieoder and Transponder Tesl and Certification on 

N617MM dated March 25, 2009 

18. Photo copy of C90 Flight and Maintenance Sheets for Miurch 14, 2008 Lo May 12, 2009, 

19. V^iolaiion History of Scenic Aviaiion, Inc. 

20. Gillham Grey Code Chart 

21. Letter of Investigation dated March 27, 2009. 

22. Copy of a Standard Ainvorthincss Certificate, FAA form 8100-2, for each aircraft 

(attached). 

23. Advisory Circular 43.6B (attached) 

Interrogatory No, 5: Provide a full description of the altimeter/encoder data conespondcnce 

error concerning N3221M benvecn July 28, 2007 and January 23, 2008, as allcfted in the 

Complaint. 

Answer: On July 28, 2007 the pilot's Allimcler/Encoder was replaced by Scenic Aviation's 

maintenance personnel on N3221M. During the removal and replacement of ihc pilot's altimeter 

the static system was opened and required a rest lo verify leak rate is within limits of the 

regulation, [§23.1325(b)(2)(ii)| This function was accompli.shed in accordance with (lAW) ihe 

regulalion. 

The electrical connector that connects the encoder to the iran.<;ponder removed and rc-insralled. 

This wiring hame.s.s- contains wires that transmit the Gillham Grey Codes lo provide (Mode C) 

altitude for the aircraft to FAA AT C Facilities. Fhi.s opening of the electrieal sy.stem hy 

maintenance personnel requires a test of ihe Mode C functions as Iransmilled by the transponder 

checked at the antenna. The transmitted code nuusl be within 125 feet of the pilot's Aitinieter in 

accordance with §43 Appendix E (c). This procedure is fully explained in the regulations and 

AC43.6B. 

Oiu- Complaint is essentially as follows; 

1. The person performing the Altimeter replacement was not qualified lAW the FAR to 

perform the tran.spondcr system or Mode C operation for this aiicrafl lAW §91.411(b) 

Tliis aircraft was approved for return to sei-vicc by a person holding an Anframc Rating 

and the Regulalion requires an appropriated rated Repair Slalion, with a Radio and 

Instrument rating to perfonn the test and certifications, 

2. The person did not have available <he proper test equipment to test ihe transponder or 

encoder sy.':tem for proper operation. 

3. The person pcrfonning the approval for return to service did not have appropriate training 

to perfomi the required tests. 

4. The person approving the aircraft for return to service did not follow ihc proj^ei" lesi 

procedures required by the Regulations. 

5. These actions lesulis in the aircraft not being maintained lAW the requirements of Pfjrts 

91 and 43 as stated on the Standard Airworthiness C^lertifieatc. This results in the aircraft 

(l'(implai|i,iui's Response (0 RcspOnJeni's Iiiirial 

t>iscovcry Rcqucs-i 

Scenic Avittlioii, Inc. - Cl'OyNMOOl 1 

I'Hgc 3 o f 10 

SCOTT K. MORRI;-,, \-/\I \ AVK>KNh.v 

THL; i-.75,227 1417; f'AX: •125.227.1007 
03/28/2010 13:32 FAX 2024935142 

.'Vi' MV/ i.\/ \.v vo.^ 9 I'n/V 4^ 0 LL£^t \y>\}i 

FAA 

AJNJIl-7 

+ QMS @|008/015 

12)009/015 

not being airworthy. This aircraft was operated by Scenic Aviation. Inc. wiihout meeting 

all the applicable airworthiness requirements of the rcgulalions. 

• nierrogalory N«>.6' .State iii detail, the factual basis upon which the CornpUunant relies to prove 

an altimeter/encoder data eon-espondencc eiTOr concerning N3221M between .Kily 2K, 2007 and 

January 23, 2008, as alleged in the Complaint. 

Answer: The Pari 135 Flight and Maintenance Log Sheets for N3221M are ihe primary 

docuiTienIs used to doicnnine compliance wiih the Regulations regarding raiiintcnance aciivilies. 

The fliglrt log may contain a reference to another maintenance document to show the detail ol lh<r. 

test or ccnificalions perfomied. This is the case with this lleet. The maintenance records did nol 

contain a reference lo a qtialified person to perform an 'Altimeter/Encoder Tesl and 

Certifications required following maintenance thai could introduce error into the Mode C 

operation of the transponder. 

Scenic Aviation, Inc. tracks the required 24 month required Test and Cenification of the pilof.s 

Altimeter/Encoders in a. separate fde system wiiich is retained for 24 months from the last test. 

The Flight and Maintenance Log Sheets are only retained for 12 calendar months IA W the 

Regulations. This file was checked to see if the pilot'!^ Altimeter/Encoder was tested by a 

Ccrlincaicd Repair Station (CRS) with the appropriate Ratings following the replacement of the 

Altimeter/encoder. There were no CRS work orders available lo verily the AIlimeter/Encndcr 

was tested IAW the Regulations. The Flight and Maintenance Log Sheds document the operation 

of ihe aircraft in an un-aii~>-vorthy condition. 

Interrogatory No.7: Provide a lull description of the altimeter/encoder data correspondence 

error concerning N588SA between July 10, 2007 and December I0.200S, as alleged in the 

Complaint. 

Answer: See Inten'ogatoiy No.5 above. The answer is the same for N588SA with (lie exception 

of the N Number and dates of the maintenance performed. 

Interrogatory No,8: State in detail, the faelual basis upon which the Complainant relies to prove 

an allimeier/encoder data eorrespondenee cn'or concerning N588SA bctvveen July 10, 2007 and 

fJccembcr 10, 2008, as alleged in the Complaint. 

Answer: See Interrogatory No.6 above. The answer is the .same for N588SA with the exeeption 

of N Number and dates of the maintenance performed. 

Interrogatory No,9: Provide a full dcscriplion of the altinicter/encodcr data correspondence 

error concerning N617MM between October 19, 2007 and March 29, 2009, as alleged in the 

Complaint. 

Answer: See Interrogatory No.5 above. The answer is the .same for N6I7MM with the 

exception ofthe N Number and dates of the maintenance performed. 

Interrogarory No. 10: State in detail, the factual basis upon which ihe Complainant relies to 

prove an allimeter/eneoder data correspondence error concerning N617MM between Ocuiber !<•>. 

Coiiiplnintiut'S kt^poiiic to Rcspondttnl's iiiiLiul 

ni.'<<;t>v<iry Reciuest 

.'([x-niL .Avimion. Inc - CPO'.'NNIOOIl 

PABB-'I oflO 

StOTT R MORR);). l-AA ,'\-TOkrJf.V 

1 HI..: 'I2i 227.1-11 7: l-VvX' M i 227.1007 
03/26/2010 13:32 FAX 2024935142 

03/26/2010 09:49 FAX 425 227 t^O? 

FAA 

ANM-7 

DMS 2)009/015 

12)010/015 

2007 and March 29, 2009, as alleged in the Complaini. 

Answer: See Inlcrrogalory No.6 above. The answer is the same for N617MM with the 

exception of N Number and dates of the maintcnsnce pcrfonncd. 

Intcrrogatoi7 No. 11: Provide a full description ofthe iuvcstigalion performed by Complainant 

to detennine thai Scenic /Vviation operated airerafl N3221M in an unaii-Wr'orrhy condiliun. 

Ansvvcr: 'fhe Part 135 Flight and Maintenance Log Sheets document each flight condticied by 

Scenic Aviation, Inc. after the aircraft received maintenance thai was inappropriate to maintain 

the aircraft in ainvonhy condition. See also ihe lOPs from the case file previously provided to 

Respondent's counsel on August 20, 2009 

Interrogatoi-y No. 12: Provide a full description ofthe investigation perfomied by Complainani 

to deieiTninc that Scenic Aviation operated aircnili N588SA in an unairworlhy condiliun. 

Answer: See response (o Inlerrogatoiy No. 11. 

Interrogfltor>' No. 13: Provide a full description ofthe investigation perfonned by Complainant 

lo deterniinfi thai Scenic Aviation operated aircraft N617MM in an imaii-wortliy condition 

Answer: See response to Interrogatory No. 11. 

Interrogatory No- 14: Slate in detail, the specillc procedure required to be performed in order to 

render each ofthe above aircrali: airworthy under the circimistances. 

Answer: Each aircraft Aliimeier/Encoder must be tested to verify that the System pcrforntcd il 

intended firnction. The tests required by §91.411 must be accomplished before ftirtlter fiight. 

AC43,6B addre.sses ailiiudc reporting and iran.sponder maintenance in Paragraph 6. ])age 3 as 

follows: 

"Any appropriately rated person (HS specified in §43.3) may perform rnainlcnance or 

preventative maintenance on an aircraft altitude reporting and transponder system. Tliis work 

may include the removal of and/or replacement with an identical component and aircraft 

altimeter, encoding altimeter, blind encoder, air data system component, or transponder. The 

approval for retiuri to setvice can only be given after a suhable functional check of the entire 

system as installed in the aircraft has been pcrfonned in order detcmiine that the system, as well 

as the componcni, will perform its intended runcrion(s)," 

Interrogatory No. IS: Provide a full dcscriplion ofthe investigation perfonncd by Complainant 

to detennine that tlie aliLmeter(5)/cncodcr(s) ofthe above aircraft experienced data 

correspondence error(s) a,<3 alleged in the Complaint. 

Answer: The investigation is detailed in re.spnnse to InleiTogatorie.s No. 5, 6, 

Coinplninanr's Ri;.spon.":c ro RcspyiKJciii's iniLiiil 

Dbiiovery Ke<)uc.<;i 

.Scenic A^'inlivn. Inc -• CPOVN'M0011 

SCOTT H. MOKRI.S. F/\ A AI lOKNtv 

•\\il: ^33.227.1 417: KAX: 425.J27.1007 
03/26/2010 13:32 FAX 2024935142 

t N* V */ • I-.'. 

FAA -> DMS gjOIO/OIS 

llOJl/01 5 

Inlerroj^fttoiy Nu, 16: State with .specifieily. the legal (i.e., case law) and factual basis upon 

which the Complainant relies lo prove that Respondent operated aircral\ N3221M m an 

\)n'ciirwonhy condition in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 135.25(a)(2). 

Answer: Objection as far as the request asks for altomey-work product. Complainant is not 

required to provide its legal research or arguments lo respondent. 

Scenic Aviation operated aircraft N3221M in an un-airworthy condition in violation ol" 14 C.F.R. 

§ 135.25(a)(2). Fhe aircraft pilot's altimcter/cncoder was removed and replaced by Scenic 

Aviation maintenance personnel. The required te.sts of §91.411(a)(3) refers to Piurl'!3 Appendix E 

for details as follows: ''Automatic Pressure Altitude Reporting Equipment arid ATC Transponder 

System Integration Test. Tlic tesr must be performed by an appropriately rated person under the 

conditions specified in paragraph (a). Mca-surc the automatic pressure altitude ai the output of thi; 

installed A'fC transpondei' when interrogated on Mode V. at a sulFicient number ol' lesl point.s in 

ensure that the altitude reporting equipment, altimeter.<?, and ATC tran?!ponders peribrm their 

intended functions a.s installed in the aircraft. The difference between the automatic leporiing 

output and the altitude displayed at the altimeter shall not exceed 125 feet.'' I'his is ihe suitable 

functional check referenced in Interrogatory No. 14. 

Sccnic's mainleiuince personnel did not comply with the above tests which does not comply with 

the requirements ofthe Airworthiness ("ertificate for the aircraft to be maintained in accordance 

wiih Pans 21,43, and 91 ofthe FAR. Tliis act renders the aircraft un-airvvorlhy. Seenic operated 

this aircraft under Part 135 operations. 

Interrogatory No. 17: Slate with specificity, the legal (i.e., case law) and factual basis upon 

which the Complainant relics to prove that Respondent operated aircraft N588S A Iri an 

unairworthy condition in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 135.25(a)(2). 

Answur: Objection as far as the ret[iiest ask.s for attorney-work product. Complainant is not 

required lo provide its legal research or argvuncnts to respondent. The (aetuai basis is the same 

as set forth in Interrogatory No. 16. 

Interrogatory No. 18: Slate with specificity, the legal (ie., case law) and factual basis upon 

which the Complainant relies to prove that Respondent operated aircraft N617MM in an 

unairworthy condition in violation of 14 C.F.R, § 135,25(a)(2). 

Answer: C)bjection as far as the requcsi itsks for altomey-work product. Complainant is nol 

requii'ed to provide its legal research or arguments to respondent. The facuial basis is the stime 

as Interrogatory No, 16. 

Interrogatory No. 19: Describe, with specificity, whether aircraft N3221 M mel ils type 

certificate design during the flights alleged in the Complaint. 

Answer: This Aircraft did not meet its Type Certificate because the Aliinictcr/F.ncodcr i.? 

original equipment for thi.")- aircraft and \\«^ not been tested to the same .standards and procedures 

CiimplfiJiiiinl's Rcspon.sc lo Ft-fspoiiricnt's (iiiu.il 

Discovcty Rcc((icsi 

Scenic Avimion, Inc. - D'OWMOO) 1 

Scon K MORRl.S. FAA A-i rOKNKY 

TIM.' .125.327.1417: I-AX: 425,227 10U7 
03/26/2010 13:33 FAX 2024935142 

03/2B/2U10 09:50 FAX 425 227 ''^07 

F AA 

ANM-7 

-> DMS @]011/015 

@1012/015 

used by the manufactxirer to comply with the regulations. The aircraft was nor niainlained in 

accordance wjih I'ait 43 and is therefore not con.sidered to be airworthy or safe lor operation in 

the National Airspace System, 

Interrogatory No, 20: De.scribe, with specificity, whether aircraft N5X8SA met it,s type 

cerlificaie design during ihe tlighls alleged in the Complaini. 

Answer; See response to InlorrogatoryNo. 19, 

Inieri'ogatoi"y No. 21: r.)escfibe, with specificity, whcihei aircraft N617MM met its t)'pe 

certilicale design during the flights alleged in the Complaini. 

Answer: See response to Inlcrrogalory No. 19. 

Interrogator}' No. 22: If Complainant alleges thai any of the above aircraft failed to nieei its 

type certificate dcsigi:> during the llighis in question, describe in deluil why each aircraft did nn\. 

Answer: Manufacturei-s are required to perform tests to verify all applicable .systeins are 

performing there intended functions in order to get a type certificate and airworthiness certificate. 

The Airwonhiness Certificate is only effective as long as the aircraft is maintained in iiccordancc 

with Pari 43 and Part 91. 'I'his is the reason Part 43 requires maintenance personnel to test miy 

system that has under gone maintenance that could effect operation. For example, the removal of 

a spark plug musl be tested to verify the ignition system performs its intended fimetion to 

maintain the effectiveness ofthe Airworthiness Certificate and Type Certificate. 

14 C.1\R. §91.411 requires tests be pcrfonned any time maintenance is performed that could 

inlroduce eri'or into a .system. Encoder replacements must be tested by verifying the transponder 

is tran.snn'tting the correcr altitude code tliat con^esponds to the pilot's altimeter. 

Interrogator}' No. 23; Describe in detail, vvhcther each ofthe above aircraft was in a condition 

that was safe for flight during the flights alleged in die Complaint. 

Answer; Ih e Encoder is required in controlled airspace so ATC contruHcrs can determine ihe 

alutude of all aircraft operating within iheir sector. Without this infomiation, the coiiiroller is noi 

able to adequately or accurately track and/or maintain separation between aircraft. The 

controllers work load increase."?, which effccis safety of all in the sector. 

Vertical navigation is critical to safety in congested airspace. The encoder altib 

125 feet of the pilot's altimeter to pass the §91.411 le.st. ATC reports thest 

tude must be vvithin 

i^^ iv^^ >.^i ....v yijv.^ .J «i.iii.v-.v* v^ f^v..^.- v.— s^'-T . i^- -- iv.,,r^— these failures to FliB;ht 

Standard Field Offices on a regular basis. We contact the owner/operator and request the aircraft 

undergo maintenance to correct this condition. 

Tnierrogatory No. 24: If Complainain alleges that the above aircraft were not hi a condition that 

was safe for ftight during The flights alleged in the Complaint, describe in detail why each was 

not. 

An,swcr: Sec response lo Interrogatory No. 23, 

C:oriipIain.ii->('? Kcsponst lo RcSponcJirni's liiiLul 

rji.'sco^t.-i-y l<.L'(.]in.-M 

.Sf.cnic .Aviaiion. Inc.- Ol'oyNMOOl I 

P;.gc" uf H) 

SCO IT R. MORKI\ I'AA ATTORWBV 

TEL. '125.227, MI7: PAX: 425,2,?7. (007 
03/26/201 0 13:33 FAX 2024935142 

vo/.£D/i:uiw o»;o u r w 'tz:> zz t J"<J7 

FAA 

AMSl-7 

-* DMS 21012/015 

0)013/015 

REQIJES r FOR PROOUCTION 

Request tor Production of Documents No.!.- Produce copies of all documents and other 

materials that the Complainant intends to introduce into evidence. 

Answer; Complainant currently intends to offer any or all items of proof provided to 

Respondenl's Counsel on August 20, 2009. Fhesc documents are not again being pioduced. See 

also ihe attached .standard airworthiness certificates for each of the aircraft reference in ihe 

Complaint (3 pages) as well as AC 43-6A 

Request for Production of Documents No.2; Produce copies of any sratcments made hy 

witnesses, including expert witnesses, identified in Interrogatory No.l, concerning, referring to, 

or involving the circumsTancc.'? set forth in the Complaint. 

Ans>vcr: Complainant's counsel is not aware of any statements other than any ideniiiied as 

items of proof in the ca.se file. If statements come to counseFs atienlion ihat arc not privileged, 

they will be produced. 

Request for Production of Documents No.3; Produce copies of any and all documents and 

other materials in the possession ofthe Complainanl diat concern, refer to, or involve the 

circumstances sel forth in the Complaint. 

Answer; Objection as Respondent seeks attorney work product and Agency's deliberative 

material. Without waiving said objection, ihe Complainant has previously provided copies of the 

evidcntiaiy portion of it."; case file. 

Request for Production of Documents Nn.4: Produce copie.s of current cunicula vjiae for each 

expert witness the Complainant idenlified in Interrogatory No.l. 

Answer: Copies will be forwai'ded once ihey are received by Complainant's counsel. 

Request for Production of Documents No-5: Provide a copy of all articles, treatise.s, 

monographs, or other sources that the Complainant may use or introduce into evidence at the 

hearing. 

Answer; Objection, Complaint is not required to do research for Re.spondcnt. Further, 

Complainant has not made a decision on wfiai evidence it will ultimately use at ihe hearing. 

Should Complainant (.iffcr as an Exhibil such informaiion il will be produced. 

Request for Production of Documents No.6: Provide a copy of all handbooks, manuals, 

maintenance, records, schematics, and/or other sources that the Complainant may use or inlroduce 

into evidence at the hearing or otherwise rely upon to determine that the altimcter(s)/encodt;r(s) 

referenced in the Complaint had experienced data correspondence error(s). 

C~oiMplwinanT"j' Rc.Tpon.se lo Kespoiidcnrs lniiiul 

Oistovery Rciluost 

.Scenic Avi.i(it,n, Inc. - CVV'JUMOO) 1 

Page 8 of 10 

SCOI I R. MORRI.'!. rA A ATTOHMhV 

TKI.- 42.5.227.1417: f-AX; 4?.5.2rMU(17 
03/26/2010 13:33 FAX 2024935142 

03/26/2010 09:50 FAX 425 227 l'^'>7 

FAA 

ANM-7 

+ DMS 21013/015 

121014/015 

') 

b 

1 

8 

3 

10 

in 

12 

13 

• i 4 

i.'j 

I S 

17 

16 

;'.o 

2 1 

22 

?••.! 

24 

2.=; 

? s 

' ; / 

28 

3 0 

J l 

SI 

33 

•.14 

L l ^ 

36 

37 

30 

3S 

40 

41 

12 

13 

44 

45 

46 

'17 

48 

4S) 

50 

q > 

D2 

S3 

(^jjif^coU R. Morris 

FAA Anomey 

Answer: See flight logs previously produced or documents attached to this Response. 

Complainant has not made a decision concerning whether it may use Jiny such other documents, 

but if it opts to use such they will be provided. 

Request for Production of Documents No.7: Provide a copy of the type ceitifieale data lor each 

aircraft identified in the Complaint, 

Answer: Objection. The request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and will not reasonable 

lead to the discovery of reievanl information. Further this information is propiietaiy lo 

Beechcrall and as such protected. However, the Type Certificate Data Sheet itself is apublically 

available document located at www.faa.gov. 

Signed this 25'" day of March 2010 

Coinpliiinaiii'.s itcspoiii-u lo Respondent's liiiiial 

Di.sccivci'y Request 

Sctnic Aviaiion, Inc. - CKOyNMOOl 1 

Pascvorio 

Sc:(.-iTT R. MtwRis. FA/V ^ |-rr>r<N>:V 

•(•1.-1,; 425.227 I'J 17; r'A.X: -1.75 ;2';.I007 
03/26/2010 13:33 FAX 2024935142 

03/26/:i010 09:50 FAI 425 227 .T^l? 

FAA 

ANM-7 

-> DMS 1014/01 5 

@1015/01 5 

CBRTTFICA FE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify thai the fcvcgci:-.g Coiiiplainant's Response to Respondent's hnlia! Discover/ 

Request has been served via facsimile and certified mail - Return Receipt Requested this date, to 

the following; 

Die Honorable Richard C, Goodwin 

Office of healings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Rin El 2-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: 202.366.2139 

FAX: 202.366.7536 

Federal Aviation Adminisiration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Altn; Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-43 0 

Wilbur Wright Building • Suite 2W1OOO 

FAX: 202.493.5142 

Gregory S- Winton 

Aviation Law Experts, LLC 

330 Aviation Way 

|-rcderick,MD 21701 

TEL: 301.294.8550 

FAX: 301.294.2525 

Daied this 26^' day of March, 2010. 

MOIFAlRCfllN 

Office of Regional Counsel (ANlS'1-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Rcnlon, W A 9S057 

425.227.2160 

ComplaintiWj Response lo Kospondcni'p Inili!»l 

Discovery Kequcsl 

Scenic Aviaiinn. Inc. - CPOPN.MOOl 1 

l-'agt lOcflO 

SCOTT R. Ml >KKis FA A AT-i-oti.NeY 

THL: 425 227. H I 7; FAX: 425.2.?7 101)7