**v~t,V/~VI~ 1~:36**  FAX 2024935142 

### FAA + OMS**~** 002/007 PAGE**02/~7** BB/17/2012 01:26 4252271007 ANM7

1 2 3 1 .$ 6 7 s 9 l.O. 1l l.2**~J ~4**  lS l.S 17 18**l~** 20 2l. 22 23. 24 25 26 27 28**2~** 30 31**~-'-** 33 :H. 35 )6 37 38 :33 40 Kyle E. Lomazow 'P

AA Office of R<:giollal**C~unscl** 1601 Lind**Avcnu~,** Soutbw()St**R~;nton.** Washington 980S7 Tclcphom::. (425) 227·1847 Fecslmile: (42$) 227·}007


## UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

## DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

## OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
1v11CHAEL P. HUERTA, 

### ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, 

### FEDERAL AVIATION ADlVIINISTRATION Complainant

vs

.. MOUNTAIN AVIATION, INC 

### Respondent 

### RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DIS.MISSS Judge: 

### Not assigned 

## 2 3 r:::) ]: 

## 00

Complainant, through his undersigned counsel, hereby moves pursuant to 49 C.P.R. § 

### 13.218 that you deny**Re~ondent's. ~otion**  to 

### Dismiss."
Summaey**ofFact~** 

### The Complaint all¢gcs, in relevant 

### part:
1. Mountain Aviation, Inc. (Mountain), is 

### the holder of Air Carrier Certificate No. VQMA053W and conducts 

### its operations under Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (Title I4C.F.R.) as a direct air caiTier for. compensation or hire;
2. On Dee-ember 16, 

### 2010, Rodney Getty administered three (3) fligM checks to John A. 

### Ku:z:neski as directed by Mountain.

4l 

### 3. Ou December 21, 2010, Rodney Getty administered one (l) flight cl;J,ec:k to Stephanie A. 42 

### Wells as directed by Mountain. · 43 44 45 i6 47' 4.e 49 50 Sl 52 53 

### 4. On December 26, 2010, Rodney Getty ad.:mj,nistered 

### two (2) fljght obecks to Jerein:y L. Sumpter as directed by 

### Mountain.

5. For 

# the flights 

### mentioned above.**Mount~~&in** used 

### Rodney Getty 

### to administer :flight checks when he had not satisfactorily conducted a proficiency or competency check undet the observation: of a 

### Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector or an

R.ES'PONSE 1"0 MOTION TO DISMtSS PM v. Mountain Aviation F M Ca&e No. lO 11 NM030039 Pagel of5 KYLE'f':.. l-OMAZOW,**FAAA'tTO!Ql~Y.'** TEL: (425} 127-2161: FAX: (4lS) i27-1847**VV/~V/~VI~** 13:36 FAX 2024935142**~~/1(/~012** 87:25 4252271067 Fflfl ANM7 + OMS @ 003/007
PAGE 03/€17,,

l ::z l 4 

### s 

# "' 7 8 9 10 ll 12 l.3 J.4 15 15 17 HI 19 20 '-1 22 23 24 ;;15 2! 27 2B**2~** 30 31. 32 33

. :34 35**3~** 37 ::3$ 39 40 1l 42

. 4l 44 45 46 47 -te 49 50 5;1, 5:'- Sl 

### aircrew designated examiner employed 

### by 

### Mountain within 

### the preceding 24 calendar months.
6. · Mountain failed to 

### verifY qualifications and training records for Rodney Get1.y·whcn Mountain assigned him 

### to perform 

### the flight checks**m~ntioned** above.

7. Mountain 

### failed to verify qualifications and training records 

### for Rodney Getty whe:o. Mountain 

### assigned 

### biro 

# to perform the flight checks**tnen~oned** above.

. 

### On**th~** 

### basis of 

### these facts. Complaint a.Ueges Respondent 

### violated 14 C.FR. § 135.63.(a)(4)(vi)) 

### in that 

### Respondent failed to keep at its principal business office a record of a pilot used in operations 

### under Part 135 that contained the date and 

### tesul.t of each ofthe initial 

### aud recurrent competency tests and proficiency and route 

### checks required by 14 C.P.R. § 

### 135.95(b) in that Respondent used the services of an. ail1.nan who was not 

### qualified for 

### the operation for which the airman was used; and § 

### 135 .339.(a)(2). 

### in. that Respondent 

### used a person as a check airman 

### when that person, within the p:roceedil)g 

### 24 caleJ:\dar months, had :not satisfactorily 

### c-..onducted a proficiency or competency check 

### by an FAA inspector 

### or 

### lrircrevv designated 

### examiner employed by 

### MoUhtain.**PROCE~URAL** 

### WSTORY
On Aprl123, 2012, Complainant mailed a 

### Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty seeking a sanction 

### of$21,450. On 

### August 6, 

### 2012, Complainant filed a Fh:W 

### Notice OfProposed 

### Ci.vil Penalty. On August 14, 2012, Respondent serVed a Request for a Hearing 

### alon.g with its 

### Motion to Dismiss for Insufficiency 

### pursuant to 

### Rule 13.49. FAA Civil' Penalty Actions ar.e not governed by 

### the rules found i.n 14 C.F.R. Part 13, Subpart D. 14 

### C.F.R. § 

### 13.31 and 13 .218(f)( l ). 

### Complainant presumes that Respondent's motion 

### is made pursuant to 14. C.F.R. § l3.218(f)(l) and :responds accordingly.


### ARGUMENT

A. 

### "Aimew Desigpate4 

### Examiner:', Complainant 

### does not allege 

### Mr. Getty was not 

### properly designated 

### as an "aircrew designated 

### examiner." Rathe:r, Complainant alleges that 

### Mr. Getty, acting as a check airman 

### fo1: Responde.nt, had not completed a required Part 135 proficiency or competency check within the required timeframe. !n their motion to dismiss Respondent claims that "the Administrator 

### a1so failed to 

### show how 

### Mountain Aviation's 

### check ainnen 

### were not properly designated 

### as aircrew examiners when they received the "all 

### checks" 

### desjgnati.on from Mountain**Avia.tion.~s** Principle Operations Inspector."**Respondent~s** argument confuses the issue. An 1 'a11 checks'> 

# is a designation allowing tbe individual so designated as a check airman to administer· 

### competency/proficiency tests to 

### all "pilots." 

### However, the**Complai~t** does 

### not allege violations related to competency ch€:cks of 

### pilots. 'What is at**is~ue** is the 

### competency/profidancy check required 

### oftho$c check airman 

### who prQvidfZ**flj~bt** 

### checks to

RESPONSE TO MOTTON TO DISMISS FAA v. MountM!1 Aviation FAA Cas-e 'No. 20l1NM030039 Page2 of5 l<YT.BE. LOMAZOW, FAAATTO!U(tY T!.t..: {425) 227-:4161; FAX· (42.5} 127-1847 ·--·-, "-lth**VO/,~/~Ul~** 13:36 FAX 2024935142 0B/17/2e12 87!26 4252271007 

### FAA ANM7 ., OMS 141004/007 PAGE**84/~'7:'"**

l 2 3
<9- 5 

### s
7 8 9 10 l.l. 1:2 13 

### pilots. Under the facts of this case, Respondent's check airman did not 

### receive the proper competency/proficiency check by 

### an FAA inspector o:r 

### ariADE**un~er** 

### § 

### 135.339(a)(2) and have 

### not been 

### able to 

### supply any evidence that 

### their 

### check ainnan unde:t"'¥el'l;t this obs6lrvation within 

### the required time:ftam.e.


### The last competency/proficiency check that Mt. Getty undernrentwas**Au~t** 

### 13,2008 (see 

### Exhibit 1): His next 

### required proficiency/competency chetk under§ 

### 135.339(a)(2) 

### was due no later thap 

### September 30, 2010. Respondent has offered no evidence that 

### Mr. Getty**und~rwent** 

### this required check 

### before administering flight checks starting on December 16, 2010 as alleged 

### in. the Complaint.

14 

### Therefore, the allegations in the Complaint 

### are clc;lll{. Respondent**~ploys** 

### a check pilot 15 

### ('tv:fr. Getty) who proc-.eeded to administer flight 

### checks to pilots when 

### he had not 

### undergone**~~** 

### his own competency/pro:fieiency check required of check ainnan under§ l35.339(a)(2).

18 

### Complainant has 

### a strong 

### interest l.n ensuritJ.g that those oheck aitman. who administer flight

19 checks· 

### to pilots are competent 

### to do 

### so a:nd the failUre of Respondent to 

### supply proof that
20

. 

### their 

### check airman underwent this 

### competency test 

### is what 

### is at 

### issue here. 

### n

24 .25 26 27 

### B.**R~onabl~** 

### Reliance
' ' 

### Respondent argues that it 

### relied on the POI's ihterpretation of§ l3S .339(a)(2). "To prevail
on a claim of estoppel or waivc:r against any party, it 

### m-ust show that the entity to be estopped has 

### :r.o.ade a definitive r.nisrepresentatioT'J of fact to another. 

### havin.g reason to believe that the 2 

### a other 

### "oll'ill rely on it, 

### and 

### that the other 

### does**reasonabl~** 

### rely on the misrepresentation 

### to its 29 lo 

### detriment.•• 

### H£ckler v Communitx Health Servie,e.s of Crawford 

### Couao-:. 461 U.S.. 51, 59
3l 

### ('1984). Aside from 

### what Respondent bas alleged in its**Mo'tion~** 

### Respondent ha:s offered
32

. 

### absolutely no evidence that it 

### received any kind 

### ofm.terpretation from the FAA, must less an. interpretation that was 

### a "definitive**misrepres~tation.'>** 33
3$**3~** 37 3S**3~** 40 41 4:2 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 

### Furthermore, estoppel against the govenune:o.t will not lie as it 

### does against private litigants._

. 

### fM 

### v Deleware**S~a:vs** 

### UC, 2003 WL 23118403 (2003). Many federal courts have gone 

## an. extra step by making "affirmative**~sconduct"** 

### by government officials an additional element.to a traditional estoppel claim against the Government. ld. 

### •The National Transportation Safety 

### Board, whose decisions are**persuasive~** 

### has gone one step further than these courts, 

### un.equivocally holding 

### that estoppel. will 

### never lie ·where the public interest and. 

### safety in air 

### cori:r.merce or air 

### tra.nsportati.on m:e 

### at stake.') !d.**Here~** 

### the interest of public safet'Y in both air transportation and commerce clearly**req~res** 

### that check air:r.nan 

### be qualifit:d 

### and have passed all 

### required competency/pro:fi.ciency checks. Respondent cites the case of 

### in rhe 

### Matter ofSarsctir. L.L.L., 

### FAA·2009·0607 (2009), in which the DOT held that Respondent's defense of reasonable reliance was baseless because there was no. evidence tbat the 

### FAA's personnel either induced or contributed 

### to the violations 50

· (or 

### had any authority 

### to do so)." It is ironic that Respondent cites .Satss.ir 

### since it 

### is exactly on 51 52 53 RES?ONSJS:TO MOTIO'N"TO DISMISS FAA v. Mountain**Aviati~** FAA Case No.l01 1NM03<J039 :?agr: 3 ofS KYL:SB. LOMAZOW, FAAATTO:RNEY TEL: (425) 227,2161: FAX: (425) 22?-1&47

# _____________ 

# ....**V0[~~~~~12** 13:36 FAX 2024935142 

### FAA + OMS

### ~ 

## 005/007 esil7/2012 07:26 4252271007 AI'M7 PAGE j

### 8~.8~

l 2 3 4 5 ·6 7 

### s 9 10 l.l**l.~** D 1.4 3.5 1.6 17 lB 19 20 21 22 23 24**~:I** 26 27 2B 29 30 3l )2 33 )4 3$ 36 37**~8** 3S 40 41 42 43 44 45 

### 41, 47**~a 4~**  so 51 52 $3 

### point .here. Just as in 

### Sa1asair, Respondent lias offered no proofthafthe FAA's interpretation either induced or contributed to 

### the violations at 

### issue here. More to 

### the point, there is no**~vidence t~**  

### the FAA offered any 

### interpretation at all.
CONCLUSION 

### Respondent. in discussing 

### the standa:rcl 

### of review motions to dismiss for**insufficiency~** 

### cites 

### Admini,-:traror v Braden :S: 

### Balloons Aloft: 

### Inc, FAA Docket No.**C~99SW0037.** As 

### Respondent indicated, Braden held that. "the :respondent will 

### only prevajl. if it 

### can. prove that there is not a set'offacb in support of 

### its claim that would entitle complainant to 

### relief." Here. Respondent used a check airman for flight checks when that 

### check airman was not qualified to perform flight checks.· Clearly that is 

### an allegation 

### that entitles Complainant to relief. 

### THEREFORE,. Respondent's Motion 

### must 

## be**de:ni~d.**

DATEb 

### this 17'th d.ay 

### of August, 2012.



### Kyle. E. Lomazow 

### FAA Attorney

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS FAA v. Mo\1Dlain Aviation 'FA;\. Case No. 201 1NM0300.39 Page4 ots KYLE£. LOMAZOW.FAAAT!ORNEY TEL; (425) l27-216l: FAX: (42S) 227·1847 

## ""'"-· '""""'"""''·"

# --------------------- FAA + OMS 

### 141 

## 006/00( 08/23/2012 13:36 FAX 2024935142 08/17/2612 07:2G 4252271 

## eu:n · ANM7

l 2 3 4 

### s 6 

# '· s 9 lO 11 12 13 l4 lS 16 17 18 151 20 Jl. 22 

### CERTIFICATE-OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that 

### the for.egoingMotion for Part7.a1 Summary Judgment 

### has**b~en** se:rved via facsimile and Pirst·Class Mail this date, to the following: · · . 

### Federal Av.iation Administration Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AOC-430 

### Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 800 

### lndependence Avenue SW 

### Washington, 

### D.C. 20591 Fax: (202) 493·5142 

### I hereby certifY that the 

### foregoing Notice of Appearance has 

### been served via facsimile this date, to the following:

. . · . KENT S. JACKSON 

### Jackson. & 

### Wade, L.L.C 21628 :Midland 

### Dr. 

### Shawnee. KS 66128 TEL: 913-338-l700 

### FAX: 913·33&-1775

23 Dated this 

### 17tn**da~** of August, 2012. 24 25 ::26 27 :a 29 :ao 31 32 33 34, 35 310 37 39 .39 40 

### u 42 43 44 45**4~** 47 4B 49 so 51 52 53 RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMJSS F.'AA v. Mounuin Avianon :FAA Case No. 201 lNM030039 Page 5 ofS J 

## "fliL-i( ·: DANA S. STEPHE ON Office 

# or Regional Counsel (ANM-7) F ede,ra1 Aviation Administration 

### 1601 Lind Ave. SW Renton, WA 98057 (425) 227-2164

KYLE£. LOMAZOW, F AAATIO.Rm"f TEL: (425) 2:27-2161; FAX: (425) .227-1847 I PAGE:**B~~r o~/23/2012**  13:37 FAX 2024935142 

### FAA ., OMS**~** 007/007 

### PAGE 07/07



# ·. 08/17/2012 67:26 4252271007 

### ANM7



# - 

# - A.! RMA.N COM'?!i!·

.. : . /F., :lENeY CHiCX**!..O~TION** - ft>Al'£ OI=·C:HCCI< ' FAA US ...;**I~ ,A-1..1~**  ZOOt:***~s o~**  AlRIIIIAI'I**fl~** M:o m;d,;J'* lrJrlB4 l"fYPS CF**CH~K** FAJI

# 1~.21,.**~** ..

# FAR1~J**~ss ~** **o.a..v~t~** 1 

### 6 f'.A.fl '13U!I3 0 

### l'ri.Cr

. 

## I**~a** ATP 114EJICA.L.**tlllf"OFIMATIO~. C~BtB** **til'~""'** 

### oiP- :z.:r • 2."'<Pe CEtllTII'JCA.ilttN 

# J ,**~marfEIIrll! O(d~~i'f.'"f"'T**  

## . ' INFOPIMATJON!**Nt~ma. ty('f~~i.**  0

-

### r-:rk-~7 !!M!"l.O'l"fD; I!!Y 

# ;.I.= AT (t:il:lf• :t:!ll!f ' TTPE AR\I"l.A.NE Jfilat:e/Ml!ldt!T/**-CJi.ss~** 

## . Vt).Mk.CS3W**~AAGt.D,CO EiltnllilltlltJ7raJn~**  l:I!IYic:P (MJJk•!MtJ.tlJ NAME OF CHiCle AIRMAN

### -~~!J~~EC~~~ !tl!:j".**FL.IGHTT~i** 

# r. 

# e-.

. f U'f.414s**~~ey_** !.I 

### -&sJ'ftf**~~~~ -~.J4f..**  A.IQKT_riAHeWEMGWE**~ -S.d~** **i.J-urr~torYJ** : PILOT 

# .. ,... 

# .. Sim.O:

### ·~ 

# . . 

# Alr·=- Tma.**~ ~-**  r::r.e.r• lll1llt ln:lr Dll<l,



## . ' . IIR!!'F'I.IQf'l" ..**1-tEi..~F'Ten** '

. 

# . .t. 13Qolo..,.,..\ E•"'ndQII (orzrt tJf" rntr:lr!lll 

## .. s \.. Grow •ll!l!,.r**11.1~T~:~~:f** · • L" :t. J>re!JI!Ibt**.,...,ped~** ' 

## s 2. H""cr'lftl WDmo!MIIS I/ ;&. 'l"';mliPI 

## s 3..**NmM\lC:fOIII'Timl'f",O.Iil..~~** / 4,. Po01!'111'pllll"lfCb

... 

## s 4, .,Ish A.IO!Inle**T~** &.Lilrlilinvo ·/ 

## .. TA.ICEOFft S. SOim.. E.nalll• !1.11•'• 1/ !i. lilot"I!Jaf 

## s &'. CcMiflllled**~** s:lo!:IR • 1"10....- / ,. IT. l:ns!:nan.Dnt 

### s 7 •**-~'ld** D..:alenrt!o-n /Qfl1c.t SrtJPrl ./**7-~iflct** 

# s s. 

### """"-i:ltlolls rsJnJJI- bt#ltrl) 

### 7 8.**:wl!t!Simut.tn~nt ~l'lan1**  

## s !l.**Hr>~ .l,~~:tt~Tt>lllltlcrnr~** **E~~t~Dt1**

. !!.**A.a~-=ad** T"-.ff**~** ,G, Tail flllcor fdtlp=; fPI'II(J / niiFUGHT MAll! !IN!RS l1. S-WM Pww (Or:JJ**~oPllghrJ** 11'l. Stl!ll!lpi- 

## s

.**~NE** OPE.._.,,.,ONS**n.~~·ueu~~** 

## s 1..**T~S.irmt-~- =.2.~.c~Cra~**  

## s f.," $011 Tlli:lli 

# T-**~z.** . 

# .......,..l'ft FlrJDnll 

### s & G_,./RIIiil(ft:w:M**T~** .. j L.A.NDliiiGS I ._ ,.._JX'IIIiiiDfl'·&: t....lllllnll!l. I 

## -

1o4.· Nanilal i 

## s 6i**c..-.1~11Ci** .Cl. & Lo.udl11111

. 15. f'rcuu11l J..$ 

## -s



# - 7**O'ml!i~ 1S,.~bl**  

### s. 11'1;, Ski Plane Dps. (Jftlf!JJ**IIPfJU~blal** 

### l T,., fiVil:ll**~lilted loottBC~**  f'tllcn 

### s '. GiNBR.\1.. ' 1a.**R'ej~d** L.all<I'IIJI 

### s ? • JGdii:MII't 6 

### _L !9.**~~~~ t::ih:or~** **~pi'Ollo;l.** ._:g. a. c.-**C.~rdii'IIJtlon** 

### ·s laVI.CFcll'!.Nc:tiS 28. tllo"""J**~ A.bRQI'QYIIP~**  . . IS I I AIRMAN**COr.IIPET~'( ~~~1'\MAiiDN:**  21.**s..,..,.~H"J** t'ron::lu!"llll 

## s**~-** Cismlft**KIJII'ft'l~** FAR**1)5.~{111 ~**  IJI!Si"1'!UME!fT f"ROC!St)UFI!!ll Maltallillolll!l i:qlirea • D

### ~ /;;;; "2 lftllonthsl ( 

### 1?'4 I :a. Araal>llfl81"!111"8 

## s**DIIM~:Iled CotltlOlll~** **~~=(b) ~**  HDldlll\1 

### .s . llblal/r.II0\111 t=qlitet

. (!/**~q.** (1 Z ml:.'ll"thl:l (**~** . I 24 A.NII AtrinoC ' 

### s**Sllt~IJ Dilli'ID~** **t..t;-~** 

### a**u.s~** 

### .. · 

## s 

## . PAA l&a**E:llit~:~** 

### a '

.**(t~** I1IDJJWl ( '**~** I**~ OtbS'I:ftl:tmJDDm.Ap~a::**  

## s s.tld-Qy 0-nr.r.rtiiCIIFP.

## ti('fWtaty Alosmeahe• NOSfADF- 

# - FAR 1:3&.217 i=qllrls**~ ~fi**  I 6 II\OIIthsl I 

### e<i- ; VOO 

### s.**·U~~tofAal~pilll-t·llr:l fif·J'ID'!:)~i;;M,--·-**  --- 

## -- ·-

.... 

## - 

# -·- .,11

..... IL.S ,....._**-..-~** 

# . s e.r>t•

.**~,b::r (1~** **1!\l'l~** ... J ' 

## et.. ) Qrm 

### v r: ll**~** \ 

# s**REMA.~rcll A&~C.~~~(Plt~/**  S.Jr:...}**~~~ ~.**  C:ln!l1lar**~l'larl;** LC7.J1:0'1**~;** 

### :,g A11!t)t..(IU.J**C-E-1~** DL

......**·-u.;.,n-f~-~** 21.**r.r.....tA~a:t!IIS ~.....S·F.i,:;~-fl'll;.~\1** **-~** 

# . . '·'



### . :29.**~"'"·~!'VI** ', St 2Q.. \J!!:I.cf**A~r~D. ~t**  :S 

### ,. fi{ESIJI.T OF**~j:IIDII'IIIt'** tl-(GC,I( AI ru.tA.N':I 

# Ksr=:z tCI11iCJ:: 

### .**~** .**Clo~ P5RFOR~~**  (FAA CrJttJ . u ..,. OIJ:m\CT" OFFJCE , 

### . f l'tl!lli10N

.

# la/~ . . /(/ /t/.\ '**:£)4~114**

## ~~.F~/Ja '

.. 

# -- •

. . :A


# .. 

# -· . , 

### ... . 

### EIR·Pa.ga 12 

## EXHIBIT 1