U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

# RECEIVED

Inthe Matter of: Learjet, Inc. 

## APR - 12014 

## HEARING DOCKET Served: March 24,2014 FAADocketNo.c)()IL{ · 

## Ol**\~** FAA Case No. 2012CE430011 ----------------' Judge NotAssigned COMPLAINT The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby files its Complaint, pursuant to Rule 208 ofthe Rules ofPractice (14 C.F.R. 13.208), and states as follows: I. 1. On March 6, 2014, Respondent was advised through a Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty thatthe 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 mentionedbelowwas, the holder of Federal AviationAdministration (FAA) Production Certificate Number 329CE, authorizing the production ofairplanes and related parts. 2. OnAugust4, 2011, Learjet applied to the FAA's WichitaMIDO (FAA) for issuance ofan 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 hadbeen inspected, was airworthy and eligible for the airworthiness certificate requested; andb. FAAform 8130-9, Statement ofConfom1ity, 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 conformto its approved design and was not in a conditionfor safe operation; and d. SIN 408 was denied m1 airworthiness certificate. 4. Byletter 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. Inresponse to the above noted letter, Lemjetproposed corrective actions to their methods documents, engineering andprocedures to address the 19 issues noted inparagraph 4 above. 6. Byletter 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 ofimplementation 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 FAAform 8130-6 for four ofthe aircraft (omitting SIN 403), stating all ADs were complied with and thatthe aircraft had been inspected, was airworthy and eligible for the airworthiness certificate requested; and b. Failedto 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 of55 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 ofall five airworthiness certificates. 9. By letter dated January 27, 2012, the FAA informed Lemjet of47 out ofthe 55 unsatisfactory conditions noted in paragraph 8(a) above as they related to three ofthe five aircraft noted in paragraph 7 above.4 10. Inresponse to the above letter and multiple follow up communications with the FAA, Learjet proposed corrective actions to address the unsatisfactory conditions noted inparagraph 9 above. 11. The FAA conditionally accepted Learjet's proposed corrective actions noted inparagraph 10 above, pending the FAA's on-site verification ofimplementation and effectiveness. 12. Between May 1, 2012 and September 25,2012, the FAA conductedmultiple Leaijet on-site airworthiness inspections for the verification ofimplementation and effectiveness ofthe conditionally acceptedproposed corrective actions noted in paragraphs 6 and 11 above. 13. As a result inspections noted 

### inparagraph 12 above, the FAA determined Learjet's proposed corrective actions noted inparagraphs 5 and 10 above were ineffective. 14. On September25,2012, 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 conditionfor safe operation. 15. Based onthe on-site inspections noted inparagraph 12 above and the seventh denied airworthiness certificate within a single year as noted inparagraphs 3, 8 and 14 above, the FAA5 withdrew its conditional acceptances, as noted in paragraphs 6 and II above and notified Learjet ofthis determinationby letter dated September 26,2012. 16. Notwithstanding the repeated and explicit FAA feedback regarding Learjet's nonconforming aircraft being presented for airworthiness inspections as noted above, on September 27, 2012, Learjetpresented an airworthiness certificate application for SIN 447, including:

a. FAAform 8130-6, stating all ADs were complied with and thatthe aircraft had beeninspected, was airworthy and eligible for the airworthiness certificate requested; and b. FAA form 8130-9, StatementofConformity, with no deviations listed. 17. Byletter dated October4, 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 onthemultiple 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 ofits FAA approved procedures and regulatory requirements.6 III. 

### 1. By reason ofthe foregoing facts and circumstances, Learjet violated the following sections of the Federal Aviation Regulations (Title 14 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations): a. 21.146(b) whichprovides thatthe holder ofa production certificate must maintainthe quality system in compliance with the data and procedures approved for the production certificate. b. 21.146 (c) which provides thatthe holder ofa production ce1iificate must ensure that each completedproduct or article for which aproduction certificate has been issued, including primary category aircraft assembled under a production certificate by another personfrom a kitprovided by the holder ofthe production certificate, presented for airworthiness certification or approval conforms to its approved design m1d is in a condition for safe operation; 2. Pursuantto Title 49 U.S.C. 46301, Lemjet is subject to a civil penaltynotto exceed $25,000 for each ofthe violations alleged. 3. Under the facts and circumstances ofthis case, a civil penalty of$247,500 is appropriate. WHEREFORE, the Agency, by counsel, respectfully requests that the Administrative LawJudge enter an order thatRespondent be assessed a civil penaltyinthe 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) ofthe Rules ofPractice in FAA Civil Penalty Proceedings states, "A ondent shall file a written answer to the complaint, or may file a writtenmotionpursuantto ion 13.208(d) or Section 13.218(£)(1-4) instead offiling an answer, not later than 30 days ·service ofthe complaint. ion 13.209(£) states, "Aperson's failure to file an answer without good cause shall be ned an admission ofthe truth ofeach allegation contained inthe complaint. 7