03/30/2011 07;31 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS 121002/009 

120002/0009 

U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

In the Matter of: 

Tiishan Air, Inc. 

Respondent 

Assigned Administrative Law Judge: 

RICHARD C. GOODWIN 

FAA DOCKBT 

F AA CASE NO. 2007WP010061 

r o 

'.. \ J 

o 

i-_ 

J--* 

— 

:::$?S 

< — ^ ^' — ; - — '— 1 ' 

-Q'.—'^T~ 

r-n^r n =33 5;;;; S I 

p-;o O 

..-r; —=• T-1 

0 1 OJ 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

COMES NOW, Respondent, Trishan Air, Inc., and hereby answers the complaint filed 

herein on or about December 17, 2009, by the Federal Aviation Administration as follows!: 

I. 

Respondent admits that it was advised, through a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Psnalty, 

that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $ 15,400 on or about 

Decembers, 2010. 

Respondent admits that on or about December 9, 2010, respondent submitted a vvrjtten 

request for a hearing. 
03/30/2011 07:31 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 0003/009 

^0003/0009 

II. 

I. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 1. 

2. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 except that 

additional damage was suffered by the subject aircraft in addition to sheering the nose geajr off 

the airplane. 

3. Respondent denies that the operation was conducted without a center of gijavity 

location for the aircraft being computed. Respondent denies that the gross takeoff weight had not 

been accurately calculated. I 

4. Respondent denies each and every of the allegations contained in Paragrapji 4. 

5. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 5. 

6. Respondent denies each and every of the allegations contained in Paragraph 6. 

III. 

a. Respondent denies each and every allegation that respondent violated Federal 

Aviation Regulation 14 C.F.R, 91.13. 

b. Respondent denies each and eveiy allegation that respondent violated Federal 

Aviation Regulation 14 C.F.R. 91.405(b). 

IV. 

1. Respondent denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 1 thai 

respondent is subject to a civil penalty in any amount. 

2. Respondent denies that under the facts and circumstances of this case a civjil 

penalty of $ 15,400 is appropriate or that any amount is appropriate hereto. 
03/30/2011 07:31 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 

j.j..i ^ ifi A tj.a'tL>/<u4 i 

lgl004/009 

1210004/0009 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES: 

1. Complainant has failed to serve the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty and tlie 

Complaint herein within a timely fashion pursuant to the rules set forth in 49 C.F.R. secticn 821 

and pursuant to United States Depajiment of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 

Order 2150.3 B, and all other policies and procedures, without showing good cause for su;h 

delay. 

2. Respondent has complied with each and every and all applicable Federal A viation 

Regulations at all times herein as to the happenings and circumstances complained of 

Respondent has performed specifically to all provisions of 14 C.F.R. Parts 43, 91 and, among 

others, 43.5, 43.9, 43.11, 91.3, 91.7, 91.103, 91.213, 91.405, 91.407 and other such specific 

regulations as may be presented at the time of hearing. 

3. A calculation of specific CG location is not required to be made before each flight 

under 14 C.F.R. Pan 91 Operations. Appropriate CG calculations had been made for maximum 

as well as middle conditions to be encountered for takeoff by respondent pursuant to 14 C .F.R. 

Part 91 and prior to the subject flight. As such, there was no actual or potential danger to person 

or property by the actions of respondent. 

4. Calculations of gross takeoff weight were accurately performed pursuant to type 

certification training, applicable manufacture mantials, among others, including Aircraft Flight 

Manual, Loading Manual, Performance Manual, and experience by the pilot in command per 

type certification training and thereafter. 

5. All information utilized for calculation of gross takeoff weight came from 

appropriate logbooks and maintenance records entries, appropriate estimations of passenger 

individual weights and baggage, and fuel load. In mitigation, any inaccuracy in weight 
03/30/2011 07:31 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 

• J. v x V < t V "t X 

21005/009 

1210005/0009 

calculated versus aciual takeoff weight was due to misinformation provided by others thaif 

respondent and any inaccuracy was not apparent to respondent. 

6. The gross takeoff weight of the subject aircraft and center of gravity location were 

within operaiional parameters and limits such thai the aircraft was not exceeding gross lal: eoff 

weight and/or CG limitation specified by the manufacturer for the subject takeoff. 

7. The aircraft was airworthy as defined under the Federal Aviation Regulations in 

all respects for the operation conducted pursuant to Letters of Authorization authorizing tiie 

subject flight to be conducted under 14 C.F.R. Part 9L 

8. The pilot in command of the subject aircraft was type rated in. the aircraft alnd had 

prior experience in calculating gross takeoff weight and center of gravity locations within the 

parameters expected and experienced for the subject take off. 

9. There is no criteria to detemiine any violation of any Federal Aviation Regulation 

or Code of Federal Regulation regarding the accuracy of calculating gross takeoff weight jr CG 

location such that respondent would have notice regarding any violation of inaccurate calculation 

of gross takeoff weight or CG location as applicable in the subject take off 

10. All maintenance records for the subject aircrafl had appropriate entries reg^ding 

the inoperative thrust reverser at the time of the subject take off. 

U. 14 C.F.R. 43.9 does not require entry in any logbook before completion oflwork 

being performed. The thrust reverser repair was not completed prior to the subject take of: 

12. The thrust reverser repair was performed by a maintenance facility other than 

respondent. Said maintenance facility provided respondent with a list of discrepancies puisuant 

lo FAA Part 43.11 and appropriate placarding was performed pursiiant to 91.213. All suclji work 

was performed in conformance with the manufacturers' provided maintenance manual and 
03/30/2011 07:32 FAX 2024935142 FAA •> DMS lgjOOG/00 9 

El 0006/0009 

procedures set forth therein. The maintenance facility returned the aircraft to service prioi to tlie 

subject takeoff. 

13. Respondent had appropriate entries pursuant to 14 C.F-R. 91.405 in the 

maintenance records for the subject aircraft regarding the thrust reverser such that the ope^tor. 

pilot in command and all maintenance personnel were aware of the thrust reverser being 

inoperative, appropriate entries were made in the maintenance records and the thrust reveijser 

being placarded in the cockpit as inoperative. 

14. l"he subject take off was conducted pursuant to F.A.R. Part 91 which does |iot 

require, pursuant lo the Minimum Equipment List, an operable thrust reverser under the 

circtmistances of this case. 

15. No criteria is set forth as lo what is meant by an appropriate entry and whai: 

maintenance records must contain information for the subject aircraft at the time of the subject 

take off in relationship to tlie inoperative thrust reverser. Appropriate maintenance work orders 

and discrepancy lists were provided to respondent by the outside maintenance facility in 

conformance with appropriate Federal Aviation Regulations. 

16. The aircraft maintenance records had appropriate entries indicating the aire raft 

had been returned to service and signed off by appropriate maintenance personnel at the time of 

the takeoff in this case. ! 

17. Respondent's rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Amendments to 

the United States Constitution, Amendment 14, Article 1 (14 C.F.R. 13,20S(c)), have been 

violated as no clear standard has been alleged in the complaint and/or in the Federal Aviaiion 

Regulations complained of herein (i.e. FAA Pans 91.13 and 91.405(b), among others) of What 

standard of conduct is required, what accuracy of conduct is required, what documents or 
03/30/2011 07:32 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 

j-nj i tiOtu i I yit l 

material are required, such that respondent could comply with applicable Federal Aviation 

Regulations in issue herein, what such conduct as performed by respondent was or would 

@|007/009 

@10007/0009 

be in 

violation of said regulations, and if said regulations had any effect and in what manner to the 

health and safety of others in the acts and circumstances complained of herein. Specifically, but 

not limited to the following, respondent complains that there is no requirement by the Fee eral 

Aviation Regtilations for performance of CG calculation and determination under Pan 91 for 

takeoff on each occasion, there is no criteria as to ihu accuracy of the gross takeoff weigh: 

required for takeoff, there is no criteria as to what constitutes the maintenance records of ihe 

subject aircraft, and there is no criteria for what constitutes a careless and reckless manne:- of 

operation with any degree of accuracy, certainty, or specificity pursuant to FAA Part 91.13. 

IS. Respondent alleges that by the delays of complainant to bring said compla jit 

when complainant full well knew or should have known of any potential accusations or 

allegations of any violations as alleged constitutes latches lo respondent who now suffers loss of 

evidence, witnesses and abilities to present evidence in its defense pursuant to the passage of 

time. 

19. Respondent further alleges that, in mitigation, any and all violations or cot duct, 

as alleged in the complaint, were done iriadvertently and pursuant to negligent and improper 

training by others than respondent, and by defective manuals of the manufacturer of the subject 

aircraft and the pilot training facility who trained respondent pilots in the operation of the subject 

aircraft. 

20. Respondent contends that the sanctions sought to be imposed by complain^t do 

not meet the sanction guideline and are mitigated by, among others things, that any actiorls by 

respondent were inadvertent and not deliberate, that except for a small personal injury, no 
03/30/201 1 07:3 2 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 

^n. tl.Ot^lllVti . 

@1008/009 

@loooa/ooo9 

passengers were injured, actions by respondent were as a resuh of the training, manuals and 

information provided by the manufacturer, the pilot training facility, and maintenance fac: lities 

not a pan of respondent. Ftmher, that said sanctions were selected arbitrarily, capriciously and 

contrary to law. 

21. As a direct result of having to defend this complaint respondent has incurr(|d 

aaomey's fees and costs in an amount according to proof. 

Conclusion 

Respondent requests that the Complaint be dismissed, that no civil penalty be assejssed 

and that respondent be awarded attorney's fees and costs. 

Respectftilly submitted: 

DATED: March 29,2011 

fomey and Counsel for Trishan Air, Inc. 

Franecke Law Group 

1115 Irwin Street, Suite 100 

San Rafael, CA 94901 

(415)457-7040 
03/30/2011 07:32 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS 1009/00 9 

I2looort/ooo,q 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

1 hereby certify that on this date I have mailed, via UPS 2 Day Mail, the executed original 

and faxed one copy of the Answer to Complaint, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC'430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite SWIOOO 

Facsimile: (202)493-5142 

I hereby certify that on this date I have mailed, via UPS 2 Day Mail, a true copy of the 

Answer to Complaint, addressed as follows: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

0£B ce of H earings, M-2 0 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

I hereby certify that on this date I have placed in the United States mail, postage p-epaid, 

certified maU, a true copy of the Answer to Complaint, addressed as follows; 

Don Bobertz 

Attomey 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009 

Datid: March 29,2011 

Karen Corral, Legal Assistant 

Franecke Law Group 

1115 Irwin Street, Suite 100 

San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 457-7040