# CEIV AIJG 1 7 2015 !\ 

# u

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

## HEARING DOCKET OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
In the Matter ofClearDayAviation, Inc. 2013EA390075 Judge J.E. Sullivan

AMENDED ANSWER Respondent, Clear Day Aviation, Inc., by counsel, hereby answers the complaint ofthe Federal Aviation Administration pursuantto 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 inthe amount of$19,000
.. On July 13, 2015, Respondent submitted awritten demand for ahearing. ANSWER: Admitted. II 1. Clear Day Aviation, Inc., is the holder of Part 141 Flight School Certificate NumberZBOS756K. ANSWER: Admitted. 2. At all times relevant herein, Clear Day Aviation, Inc., owned, maintained, and operated a Cessna 172S aircraft, identification number N6026S (hereinafter "aircraftN6026S").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 aircraftN6026S at atachtime 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 100-hour inspection within the preceding 100 hours ofservice. ANSWER: Admitted. 8. The flights referenced in paragraph 7, above, were conducted as part 141 flight school operations.

2ANSWER: 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 ofa 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, ofthis chapter. ANSWER: Denied.

III By reason ofthe foregoing, Clear Day Aviation, Inc,. violated the following sections of the Federal AviationRegulations: (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 I00 hours oftime 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 ofthis chapter. ANSWER: The Federal Aviation Regulations speak for themselves. Itis admitted that Respondent unknowingly and inadvertently flew a very limited number of flights outside of the I00 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 withthe requirements for aircraft operated for hire under part 91, subpartE, ofthis chapter. ANSWER: The Federal Aviation Regulations speak for themselves. Otherthan stated above this allegationis denied.

3IV

1. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §4630l(a)(5), Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $11,000 for each ofthe violations alleged. ANSWER: Denied. 2. Underthe facts and circumstances ofthis case, a civilpenalty 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 proofto The Administrator that such a fine threatens the financial viability ofits business and has offered a compromise settlement that The Administrator has rejected. Respondent asserts that, under the Rule of Leniency, $11 ,000/violation maximumpenalty is an incorrect interpretation of49 USC § 46301 and is not applicable to Respondent which is a small business. The correct maximumpenalty per violation is $1,I00. RESPONDENT FURTHER STATES Respondent currently has, and did at the time ofthis 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 ofthe alleged violation and, did and currently employs, safety
measures that exceeds those required by the FAA. The Administrators alleged civil

4penalty is grossly out ofline with FAA Order 2150.3B suggested sanction for the alleged activity.

Attorney for ClearDay Aviation, Inc., Respondent NC State Bar# 12876 3439 SouthAviationDrive 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 certifYthatthe foregoing Answerhasbeenplacedthis date inthe United States mail, postage prepaid, by First Class Mail addressed as follows: ZacharyM. Berman, Esq. Federal AviationAdministration 1Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 Federal AviationAdministration (Original and one copy) Attn: HearingDocketClerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building

- Room 20 14 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591**~IF** 

### FILINGBYFEDERAL EXPRESS Federal AviationAdministration (Original and one copy) 600 Independence Avenue, SW Wilbur WrightBuilding- Room 20 14 Washington, DC 20591 Attn: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430

Date: 

### /0 

### Autb 

### I 

# rAttorney for Clear Day Aviation, Inc.Telephone: (336) 358-6300 (0) (336) 202-0663 (M)
I0 August2015
VIAU.S. MAIL 

## H. Bruce Brandon Attorney at Law 3439 South Aviation Drive

Burlington,NC 27215

Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attn: Hearing DocketClerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building- Room 2014 Email:hbrucebrandon@gmail.com Facsimile: (336) 286-7050

# EIVED AUG 17 2015 

## HEARiNG DOCKET

ATTN: HEARING DOCKET CLERK Re: In the Matter ofClearDayAviation, Inc. DocketNo. 2013EA390075
Enclosedplease find the original and one copy ofRespondent, ClearDayAviation, Inc., AmendedAnswertothe Administrator's Complaint. Please address all communicationsto: H. BruceBrandon 3439 SouthAviation Drive Burlington,NC 27216 Respondentrequestthe hearing be conducted in Greensboro, NC. Respondent expectsthe hearing to lasttwo days.

Attorneyfor ClearDayInc. Enclosures: