U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

RECEIVED 

In the Matter of: 

Learj et, Inc. 

APR - 1 2014 

HEARING DOCKET Served: March 24,2014 

FAADocketNo.c)()IL{ · Ol \~ 

FAA Case No. 2012CE430011 

----------------' Judge Not Assigned 

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 March 6, 2014, Respondent was advised through a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty 

that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of$247,500. On March 17,2014, 

Respondent submitted a written request for a hearing. 

II. 

1. Learjet Inc. (Learjet) is, and at all times mentioned below was, the holder of Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) Production Certificate Number 329CE, authorizing the 

production of airplanes and related parts. 

2. On August 4, 2011, Learjet applied to the FAA's Wichita MIDO (FAA) for issuance of an 

airworthiness certificate for serial number (SIN) 408, presenting: 

a. FAA form 8130-6, stating all airworthiness directives (AD) were complied 

with and that the aircraft had been inspected, was airworthy and eligible for 

the airworthiness certificate requested; and 
b. FAA form 8130-9, Statement of Confom1ity, with no deviations listed. 

3. Incident to the above application, the FAA conducted an airworthiness inspection whereby: 

a. The FAA documented 13 unsatisfactory conditions with SIN 408; 

b. Learjet was unable to show compliance to the FAA approved type design for 

10 ofthe 13 unsatisfactory conditions; 

2 

c. SIN 408 did not conform to its approved design and was not in a condition for 

safe operation; and 

d. SIN 408 was denied m1 airworthiness certificate. 

4. By letter dated August 18,2011, the FAA informed Learjet ofthe 13 unsatisfactory 

conditions noted above and six additional quality system issues identified during the 

airworthiness inspection. 

5. In response to the above noted letter, Lemjet proposed corrective actions to their methods 

documents, engineering and procedures to address the 19 issues noted in paragraph 4 above. 

6. By letter dated June 20, 2012, the FAA informed Lemjet that the proposed corrective 

actions noted in paragraph 5 above were conditionally accepted, pending the FAA's on-site 

verification of implementation and effectiveness. 
3 

7. Between September 12,2011 through December 15,2011, Learjet applied for five additional 

airworthiness certificates for SINs 396, 403, 427, 432, and 409, whereby Learjet: 

a. Submitted FAA form 8130-6 for four of the aircraft (omitting SIN 403), 

stating all ADs were complied with and that the aircraft had been inspected, 

was airworthy and eligible for the airworthiness certificate requested; and 

b. Failed to list any deviations. 

8. The FAA conducted airworthiness inspections pursuant to the five airworthiness certificate 

applications noted in paragraph 7 above, resulting in: 

a. The discovery of 55 tmsatisfactory conditions; 

b. The determination that all five aircraft did not conform to their approved 

design and were not in a condition for safe operation; and 

c. The denial of all five airworthiness certificates. 

9. By letter dated January 27, 2012, the FAA informed Lemjet of 47 out of the 55 unsatisfactory 

conditions noted in paragraph 8(a) above as they related to three of the five aircraft noted in 

paragraph 7 above. 
4 

10. In response to the above letter and multiple follow up communications with the FAA, 

Learjet proposed corrective actions to address the unsatisfactory conditions noted in paragraph 9 

above. 

11. The FAA conditionally accepted Learjet's proposed corrective actions noted in paragraph 

10 above, pending the FAA's on-site verification of implementation and effectiveness. 

12. Between May 1, 2012 and September 25,2012, the FAA conducted multiple Leaijet on-site 

airworthiness inspections for the verification of implementation and effectiveness of the 

conditionally accepted proposed corrective actions noted in paragraphs 6 and 11 above. 

13. As a result inspections noted in paragraph 12 above, the FAA determined Learjet' s 

proposed corrective actions noted in paragraphs 5 and 10 above were ineffective. 

14. On September 25,2012, the FAA denied another Learjet application for an airworthiness 

ce1iificate for SIN 445, based on: 

a. Multiple unsatisfactory conditions; and 

b. SIN 445 did not conform to its approved design and was not in a condition for 

safe operation. 

15. Based on the on-site inspections noted in paragraph 12 above and the seventh denied 

airworthiness certificate within a single year as noted in paragraphs 3, 8 and 14 above, the FAA 
5 

withdrew its conditional acceptances, as noted in paragraphs 6 and II above and notified Learjet 

of this determination by letter dated September 26,2012. 

16. Notwithstanding the repeated and explicit FAA feedback regarding Learj et' s 

nonconforming aircraft being presented for airworthiness inspections as noted above, on 

September 27, 2012, Learjet presented an airworthiness certificate application for SIN 447, 

including: 

a. FAA form 8130-6, stating all ADs were complied with and that the aircraft 

had been inspected, was airworthy and eligible for the airworthiness 

certificate requested; and 

b. FAA form 8130-9, Statement of Conformity, with no deviations listed. 

17. By letter dated October 4, 2012, the FAA denied the airworthiness certificate for SIN 477, 

noting: 

a. Eight unsatisfactory conditions; and 

b. SIN 477 did not confonn to its approved design and was not in a condition for 

safe operation. 

18. Based on the multiple unsatisfactory conditions noted above and the eight rejected 

airworthiness certificates as noted in paragraphs 3, 8, 14 and 17 above, Learjet's quality system 

is being operated outside of its FAA approved procedures and regulatory requirements. 
6 

III. 

1. By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances, Learjet violated the following sections of 

the Federal Aviation Regulations (Title 14 of the Code ofF ederal Regulations): 

a. 21.146(b) which provides that the holder of a production certificate must 

maintain the quality system in compliance with the data and procedures 

approved for the production certificate. 

b. 21.146 (c) which provides that the holder of a production ce1iificate must 

ensure that each completed product or article for which a production 

certificate has been issued, including primary category aircraft assembled 

under a production certificate by another person from a kit provided by the 

holder of the production certificate, presented for airworthiness certification or 

approval conforms to its approved design m1d is in a condition for safe 

operation; 

2. Pursuant to Title 49 U.S.C. 46301, Lemjet is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 

for each of the violations alleged. 

3. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of $247,500 is appropriate. 

WHEREFORE, the Agency, by counsel, respectfully requests that the Administrative 

Law Judge enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $247,500. 
Answer 

Respectfully submitted, 

A. Lester Haizlip 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

avid ess er 

Attorney for Complainant 

Federal Aviation Administration 

901 Locust, Room 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

(816) 329-3763; Fax (816) 329-3771 

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

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

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

· service of the complaint. 

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

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

7