CEIV 

AIJG 1 7 2015 

!\ u 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HEARING DOCKET 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of Clear Day Aviation, Inc. 

2013EA390075 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

AMENDED ANSWER 

Respondent, Clear Day Aviation, Inc., by counsel, hereby answers the complaint of the 

Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to 14 CPR 13 as follows: 

I 

Respondent, Clear Day Aviation, Inc., was advised through a Final Notice of Proposed 

Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $19,000 .. On 

July 13, 2015, Respondent submitted a written demand for a hearing. 

ANSWER: Admitted. 

II 

1. Clear Day Aviation, Inc., is the holder of Part 141 Flight School 

Certificate Number ZBOS756K. 

ANSWER: Admitted. 

2. At all times relevant herein, Clear Day Aviation, Inc., owned, maintained, 

and operated a Cessna 172S aircraft, identification number N6026S 

(hereinafter "aircraft N6026S"). 
ANSWER: Admitted. 

3. At all times relevant herein, Clear Day Aviation, Inc., operated aircraft 

N6026S in part 141 flight school operations. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

4. On or about January 17, 2013, an annual/100-hour inspection was 

completed on aircraft N6026S at a tach time of2,450 hours. 

ANSWER: Admitted. 

5. Aircraft N6026S was next due for a 100-hour inspection at 2,550 tach 

hours. 

ANSWER: This allegation implies that the aircraft was to be used solely 

for rental operations and the math for such a conclusion is simply 2450 

+ 100 = 2550, which speaks for itself. Except as described before, the 

allegation is denied. 

6. Notwithstanding the above, a 100-hour inspection was not performed on 

aircraft N6026S until on or about April 12, 2013, when the aircraft had 

2,559.4 tach hours. 

ANSWER: It is admitted that the annual inspection was performed on 

N6062S at 2,559.4 tach hours. Except as described before, the allegation 

is denied. 

7. During the period from April 3, 2013 through April 8, 2013, Clear Day 

Aviation, Inc., operated aircraft N6026S for approximately 14 flights when 

the aircraft had not received an annual or 1 00-hour inspection within the 

preceding 100 hours of service. 

ANSWER: Admitted. 

8. The flights referenced in paragraph 7, above, were conducted as part 141 

flight school operations. 

2 
ANSWER: This allegation is vague, confusing and assumes facts that are 

not in evidence and therefor this allegation is denied. 

9. Clear Day Aviation, Inc., thus, as the holder of a flight school certificate, 

failed to maintain and inspect each aircraft used by it for flight training 

and/or solo flights, in accordance with the requirements for aircraft 

operated for hire under part 91, subpart E, of this chapter. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

III 

By reason of the foregoing, Clear Day Aviation, Inc,. violated the following sections of 

the Federal Aviation Regulations: 

(a) Section 91.409(b), which states that except as provided in paragraph (c) of 

this section, no person may operate an aircraft carrying any person (other 

than a crewmember) for hire, and no person may give flight instruction for 

hire in an aircraft which that person provides, unless within the preceding 

I 00 hours of time in service the aircraft has received an annual or 1 00-hour 

inspection and been approved for return to service in accordance with part 

4 3 of this chapter. 

ANSWER: The Federal Aviation Regulations speak for themselves. It is 

admitted that Respondent unknowingly and inadvertently flew a very 

limited number of flights outside of the I 00 hour inspection period 

because of a dislocation of its operation to an alternate airport while its 

home airport was closed for runway repairs and its computer monitoring 

system was not available. Other there stated above this allegation is 

denied. 

(b) Section 141.39(a) (3), which states that when the [flight] school's training 

facility is located within the U.S., an applicant for a pilot flight school or 

provisional pilot school certificate must show that each aircraft used by the 

school for flight training and solo flights is maintained and inspected in 

accordance with the requirements for aircraft operated for hire under part 91, 

subpart E, of this chapter. 

ANSWER: The Federal Aviation Regulations speak for themselves. 

Other than stated above this allegation is denied. 

3 
IV 

1. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §4630l(a)(5), Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to 

exceed $11,000 for each of the violations alleged. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

2. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of 19,000 is appropriate. 

ANSWER: Denied. While Respondent admits that a few flights were flown 

outside of the 100 hr. inspection period but within the 10% overfly allowance. 

Respondent has provided adequate proof to The Administrator that such a fine threatens 

the financial viability of its business and has offered a compromise settlement that The 

Administrator has rejected. Respondent asserts that, under the Rule of Leniency, 

$11 ,000/violation maximum penalty is an incorrect interpretation of 49 USC § 46301 and 

is not applicable to Respondent which is a small business. The correct maximum penalty 

per violation is $1, I 00. 

RESPONDENT FURTHER STATES 

Respondent currently has, and did at the time of this alleged violation, a compliant safety 

attitude and a spotless enforcement record. Respondent has continually worked with 

FAA inspectors, including FAA FAASTeam, to ensure enhanced safety was employed 

during the pertinent times of the alleged violation and, did and currently employs, safety 

measures that exceeds those required by the FAA. The Administrators alleged civil 

4 
penalty is grossly out of line with FAA Order 2150.3B suggested sanction for the alleged 

activity. 

Attorney for Clear Day Aviation, Inc., Respondent 

NC State Bar# 12876 

3439 South Aviation Drive 

Burlington, NC 27215 

(336) 358-6300 (0) 

(336) 202-0663 (M) 

(336) 286-7050 (Fax) 

hbrucebrandon@,gmail.com 

5 

,.---

/0 A~ l ') 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing Answer has been placed this date in the United States mail, 

postage prepaid, by First Class Mail addressed as follows: 

Zachary M. Berman, Esq. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Room 20 14 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

~IF FILING BY FEDERAL EXPRESS 

Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Building- Room 20 14 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Date: /0 Autb I rAttorney for Clear Day Aviation, Inc. 
Telephone: (336) 358-6300 (0) 

(336) 202-0663 (M) 

I 0 August 2015 

VIA U.S. MAIL 

H. Bruce Brandon 

Attorney at Law 

3439 South Aviation Drive 

Burlington, NC 27215 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Room 2014 

Email:hbrucebrandon@gmail.com 

Facsimile: (336) 286-7050 

EIVED 

AUG 1 7 2015 

HEARiNG DOCKET 

ATTN: HEARING DOCKET CLERK 

Re: In the Matter of Clear Day Aviation, Inc. 

Docket No. 2013EA390075 

Enclosed please find the original and one copy of Respondent, Clear Day Aviation, Inc., 

Amended Answer to the Administrator's Complaint. 

Please address all communications to: 

H. Bruce Brandon 

3439 South Aviation Drive 

Burlington, NC 27216 

Respondent request the hearing be conducted in Greensboro, NC. Respondent expects the 

hearing to last two days. 

Attorney for Clear Day Inc. 

Enclosures: