v~t,V/~VI~ 1~:36 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS ~ 002/007 

BB/17/2012 01:26 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 02/~7 

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 ADlVIINISTRA TION 

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 of the 

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. 

33 interpretation that was a "definitive misrepres~tation.'> 

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 

~ss ~ o.a..v~t~ 1 6 f'.A.fl '13U!I3 0 FAJI 1~.21,. ~ .. FAR1~J 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 

IJI!Si"1'!UME!fT f"ROC!St)UFI!!ll 

s ~-

Maltallillolll!l i:qlirea 

Cismlft 

• 

KIJII'ft'l~ 

D ~ /;;;; 

FAR 1)5.~{111 

"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 

tCI11iCJ:: . ~ . Clo~ P5RFOR~~ (FAA CrJttJ . u Ksr=:z ..,. 

OIJ:m\CT" OFFJCE , . f l'tl!lli10N . 

. . /(/ /t/.\ ' .. -- ' :£)4~114 ~~.F~/Ja • la/~ .. :A .. -· . , ... . 

EIR·Pa.ga 12 

EXHIBIT 1