### ....

U.S. Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration 

## OEC 142.0\l : :r! f**~~EJ'.?T** Alaskan Region ·, ..',.

## ~~**i;~r~T::\** Office ofthe Regional·Cdunsel •.Ji ' •.it.'·,

-·**~** i f.:! ,.'}**fTC~** j**'·~· ~~'¥-**  .: l_;
CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 Re: In the Matter ofGrant Aviation, Inc. 222 W. 7th Avenue #14 Anchorage, Alaska · 99513-7587 CJ: 

### 3 !.pH: (907) 271-5271 FAX: (907)271-2800 

# RECEIVED DEC 1 92012 

## HEARING DOCKET f'A R

## ~13-AwA-CRP-17575 

## fD-rnS d-OI3 

## .-ct><fl Cases Nos. 2011AL030031, 2011AL030046, 2011AL030047, 2011AL030055 & 2011AL030058 Dear Sir or Madam: OnNovember 29, 2012, we were notified that Grant Aviation, Inc., requested a hearing in the abovereferenced cases. Enclosed are the original and one copy ofthe Complaint in the above-referenced proceeding as required· by§ 13.208(a) ofthe Rules ofPractice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 14 C.F.R. Part 13, Subpart G. By copy ofthis letter, a copy ofthe Complaint is being served on Respondent as required by§ 13.208(b). TheFAA requests thatthe hearing in this matterbe held in Anchorage, Alaska, and expects thatthe hearing will lastno more than two days. HOWARD L. MARTIN, JR. Regional Counsel By: Glenn H. Brown · Senior Attorney Enclosures cc: BrentR. Cole, Esq. (with copy ofFAR 13.16 and Subpart G ofPart 13)

### In the Matter of:
Grant Aviation, Inc. Judge NotAssigned U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
FAA Docket No. Unassigned 

# RECE\VED DEC \ 91\l\1 

# HEAR\NG DOCKET COMPLAINT The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby files its Complaint, pursuant to Rule 208 ofthe Rules ofPractice (14 C.P.R. 

### § 13.208), and states as follows: I. On January 27, 2012, Respondent was advised through a Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty that the FAAproposed to assess a civil penalty inthe amount of$50,000. OnNovember 16, 2012, Respondent was advised through a Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penaltythat the FAAproposed to assess a civil penalty inthe amount of$50,000. On November 28,2012, Respondent submitted a written request for a hearing. II. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Respondent is now, and at all times mentioned herein it was, the holder ofAir Carrier Certificate No. ENHA618D and appropriate operations specifications authorizing it to conduct commuter operations under parts 119 and 135 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).

12. At all times referenced herein, Respondent was authorized by its operations specifications to operate, and did use inits operations under parts 119 and 135 ofthe FAR, the following civil aircraft: Registration Make Model Model Name Number N207DF Cessna CE-207-A Stationair 8 N2162C Cessna CE-207-A Stationair 8 N6295H Cessna CE-207-A Stationair 7 N6908M Cessna CE-207-A Stationair 8 N7396U Cessna CE-207-A Stationair 7 N9651M Cessna CE-207·-A Stationair 8 N9728M Cessna CE-207-A Stationair 8 N9874M Cessna CE-207-A Stationair 8 N9973M Cessna CE-207-A Stationair 8 N207EX Cessna CE-207-207 Skywagon N207VA Cessna CE-207-207 Skywagon

N48CF Cessna CE-207-T207A Skywagon N8NZ Cessna .CE-207-T207A Stationair 7 N162GA Cessna CE-208-B Caravan N207DR Cessna CE-208-B Caravan N208SM Cessna CE-208-B Caravan

N25JA Cessna CE-208-B Caravan N454SF Cessna CE-208-B Caravan N804TH Cessna CE-208-B Caravan N27471 Piper PA-31-350 Navajo Chieftain N15PR Piper PA..:31-350 Navajo Chieftain N28KE Piper PA-31-350 Navajo Chieftain N4105D Piper PA-31-350 Navajo Chieftain N417PM Piper PA-31-350 Navajo Chieftain N77HV Piper PA-31-350 Navajo Chieftain N313HS Beech BE-200-200 King Air N90PB Beech BE-200-200 King Air 3. At all times referenced herein, Respondent was required by its operations specifications to inspect the above aircraft in accordance with its Approved Aircraft Inspection Program (AAIP).

24. On or aboutNovember 5, 2010, atthe request ofRespondent, the Admi.nistrator approved a newAAIP for Respondent that substantiallyrevised the AAIP it replaced.
5. During the period March 7-24, 2011, the aviation safety inspectors from the Anchorage Flight Standards District Office conducted a system safety special inspection ofRespondent.
6. Most ofthe flights referenced hereinwere subject to part 135 ofthe FAR.
III. SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS A. COUNT I (Case No. 2011AL030046) 1. Beginning with the approval ofthe new AAIP as referenced in SectionII, paragraph 4, Respondent was required by Chapter 1, Sections 12 

### & 13, ofits AAIP to perform either an acceptance or complete inspection ofeach ofthe above aircraft, andthen make entries in the daily aircraft log for each aircraft stating that the aircraft is nowbeing inspected in accordance withthe Respondent's Approved Aircraft Inspection Program, and further stating, "This aircraft has been inspected 

### IJ A/W a Respondent Acceptance (or Complete) Inspection and was determined to be in airworthy condition."
2. On or about the dates shown inthe second column ofthe following chart, Respondent inspected the aircraft listed inthe first column using an old, replaced AAIP, and from then ·until the date shown inthe third column, operated each aircraft onflights in air commerce for the hours oftime in service shown inthe fourth column when**Respond~nt** had not made the


### 3el).try referenced inparagraph 1 andhad not inspected the aircraft underthe new and then current AAIP: Aircraft 1st AAIP Inspection Date Entered Into Time in Service After 11/5/10 New AAIP N207DF February 14, 2011 May 19,2011 432.4 hours N2162C December 17, 2010 May 11,2011 286.9 hours N6295H November 16,2010 April 9, 2011 368.3 hours N6908M November 16,2010 May 17,2011 439.8 hours N7396U December 22,2010 May 19,2011 352.7 hours N9651M February 9, 2011 May 11,2011 078.9 hours N9728M December 23, 2010 May 25,2011 304.1 hours N9874M December 14,2010 May 12,2011 344.6 hours N9973M December 7, 2010 May 8, 2011 433.2 hours N207EX December 10,2010 August 8, 2011 368.9 hours N207VA November 23,2010 May 18,2011 083.7 hours N48CF January 11, 2011 May 13,2011 149.3 hours N8NZ January 2, 2011 May 14,2011 438.8 hours N162GA January 24, 2011 May 20,2011 275.0 hours N207DR November 11, 2010 July 6, 2011 207.6 hours N208SM November 17,2010 May 20,2011 · 689.1 hours N25JA December4, 2010 May 21,2011 795.3 hours N454SF December 8, 2010 May 16,2011 509.3 hours N804TH December 14,2010 May 16,2011 653.2 hours N27471 December2, 2010 May 21,2011 708.5 hours N15PR November 9, 2010 July 6, 2011 823.7 hours N28KE November 15,2010 April 22, 2011 498.5 hours N4105D November 11,2010 May 16,2011 309.9 hours N417PM December 5, 2010 April27, 2011 488.7 hours N77HV December 11, 2010 June 6, 2011 239.6 hours N313HS February 3, 2011 May 24,2011 357.5 hours N90PB January 19, 2011 May28, 2011 175.2 hours 3. At the time ofthe flights referenced inparagraph 2, each ofthe above aircraft was not in an airworthy condition because inspections required by the newAAIP were due buthad not beenperformed.

44. On or about the dates indicated inthe third column inthe chart inparagraph 2, Respondent began inspecting civil aircraftN454SF, N208SM, N162GA, N804TH, and N25JA under the newAAIP whenRespondent had not performed either an acceptance or complete inspection ofthe aircraft.
5. On or about the dates indicated inparagraph 4, Respondent made entries inthe daily aircraft logs for the following civil aircraft that did not fully comply with the requirements identified inparagraph 1 in one ormore respects: N454SF, N208SM, N162GA, N804TH, N25JA, N8NZ, N48CF, N9651M, N2162C, N9973M, N417PM, N4105D, N313HS, and N90PB.
6. The operation ofthe aircraft as described inparagraphs 1-5 was careless or reckless so as to endangerthe life or property ofanother. Based onthe foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violatedthe following Federal Aviation Regulations: · \ (a) Section 43.15(a)(2) in that Respondent performed an inspectionprovided for in part 125, 135, or§ 91.409(e) ofthe FAR and failed to perform the inspection in accordance withthe instructions and procedures set forth 

### illthe inspection program for the aircraft being inspected. (b) Section 91.7(a) inthat Respondent operated a civil aircraft when it was not in an airworthy condition.
5(c) Section 91.13(a)inthat Respondent operated an aircraft in a careless orreckless manner so as to endanger the life orproperty ofanother. (d) Section 119.5(1) inthat Respondent operated aircraft under part 135 oftheFARin violation ofan air carrier operating certificate, operating certificate, or appropriate operations specifications issued under part 119 ofthe FAR. (e) Section 135.2(a)(2) in that Respondent operated an aircraft under part 135 ofthe FAR

. when it was not in an airworthy condition.

(f) Section 135.419(g) inthat Respondent failed to have an aircraft subjectto an approved aircraft inspectionprogram inspected in accordance with that program. B. COUNT II (Case No. 2011AL030031) 1. At all times referenced herein, the Airworthiness Limitations section ofthe manufacturer's maintenance manual for each ofthe CessnaModel CE-208-B aircraft operatedbyRespondent has required certainperiodic inspections andthe replacement of certainparts, and some ofthese are based onthe number oflandings each aircraft has accumulated.



### 62. During the years preceding the system safety inspectionreferenced in SectionII, paragraph 5, Respondent did not count or keep track ofthe number oflandings each aircraft was accumulating, and hence, did notmaintain records, and at the time ofthe inspection did not have records, containing the current status ofthe parts with a life-limit based on the number oflandings.
3. During the time frame referenced inparagraph 2, Respondent attempted to trackthe due dates for the periodic inspections and replacements referenced inparagraph 1 using cycles rather than landings.
4. At all times referenced herein, the Airworthiness Limitations section ofthe manufacturer's maintenance manual for each ofthe Cessna Model CE-208-B aircraft operated byRespondent required that Respondent determine the operating environment for each aircraft, andthen make an airplane logbook entry that stated which inspection schedule (typical or severe) was being used. 5. During the years preceding the system safety inspectionreferenced in Section II, paragraph 5, Respondent operated each ofthe Cessna Model CE-208-B aircraft listed above when the operating environment was known but Respondent had not made an airplane logbook entry that stated which inspection schedule (typical or severe) was being used.



### 76. Beginning with the approval ofthe new AAIP onNovember 5, 2010, Respondent was

. . required by its AAIP to track and comply with some 36 ofthe maintenance tasks set forth in Chapter 5 ofthe manufacturer's maintenance manual.
7. For some ofthe maintenance tasks referenced inparagraph 6 and the inspections referenced inparagraph 1, the.interval depended onwhich inspection schedule (typical or severe) was b,eing used.
8. Atthe time ofthe system safety inspectionreferenced in Section II, paragraph 5, Respondent was tracking the intervals referenced inparagraph 7 using the typical inspection schedule for civil aircraft N454SF, N208SM, N25JA, andN804TH when the inspection schedule for each ofthese aircraft should have been severe. 9. Atall times referenced herein, the interval for two ofthe inspections referenced in paragraph 1 and for one ofthe maintenance tasked referenced inparagraph 6 depended on the bolt size. 10. Atthe time ofthe inspection referenced in Section II, paragraph 5, the records used by Respondent to keep track ofwhen each inspection and maintenance taskbecame due did not include any informationregarding the bolt size for the inspections and maintenance task referenced inparagraph 9. 11. The periodic inspections referenced inparagraph 1 include the following:
8

### Name Supplemental Inspection Intervals Inspection No. Typical Severe Fuselage to Strut 53-20-07 Initial at 10,000 hours; Initial at 5000 hours; repeat Attach Fittings and repeat every 2500 hours every 400 to 1200 hours Lugs deiJending onbolt size Center Flap Track 57-50-01 Initial at 15,000 landings; Initial at 15,000 landings; repeat every 3000 landings repeat every 3000 landings Inboard Flap Track 57-50-01 Initial at 15,000 landings; Initial at 15,000 landings; repeat every 3000 landings repeat every 3000 landings Outboard Flap Track 57-50-01 Initial at 15,000 landings; Initial at 15,000 landings; repeat every 3000 landings repeat every 3000 landings 12. Atthe time ofthe system safety inspections referenced 

### in Section II, paragraph 5, Respondent had operated civil aircraft N25JA on divers flights 

### in air commerce for 4284.4 hours when Supplemental Inspection Number 53-20-07 was due**b~t** had notbeen performed.
13. Atthe time ofthe system safety inspectionreferenced 

### in Section II, paragraph 5, Respondent had operated civil aircraft N208SM on flights in air commerce for at least 320.4 hours when Supplemental Inspection Number 53-20-07 was due buthad not beenperformed. 14. Atthe time ofthe system safety inspectionreferenced in Section II, paragraph 5, the records by which Respondent was tracking when Supplemental InspectionNumber 57-50-01 was next due on civil**a~rcraft** N804TH incorrectly indicated itwas due 15,000 cycles after thefrrstinspection, and bythat date Respondent had operated civil aircraft N804TH on flights in air commerce for at least 12 cycles when, evenunder the measure Respondent was using, Supplemental InspectionNumber 57-50-01 was due buthad notbeen performed.

915. Atthe time ofthe system safety inspection referenced in Section II, paragraph 5, the records by which Respondent was tracking when Supplemental InspectionNumber 57-50-01 was next due on civil aircraft N208SM indicated Respondent had operated the aircraft on flights in air commerce for at least 70 cycles when Supplemental InspectionNumber 57-50- 01 was due buthad not beenperformed.
16. At the time ofthe system safety inspection referenced in SectionII, paragraph 5, the records used by Respondent to keep track ofwhen each ofthe required inspections and maintenance tasks for each ofthe Cessna Model CE-208-B aircraft itoperated became due did not include any information for 23 ofthe 36 maintenance tasks referenced inparagraph 6.
17. The maintenance tasks referenced inparagraph 6 include the following:


### Name Maintenance Supplemental Inspection Intervals Manual Inspection Typical Severe Chpt/Sec/Subj No. Initial/Repeat Initial/Repeat Starter-Generator 5-10-01, Item [None] Every 500 hours Every 500 hours Brush Holders 801002 or 1 year or 1 year Starter-Generator 5-10-01, Item [None] 500 hours or 1 500 hours or 1 Brushes Code 801003 year year Cargo and Passenger 5-14-03 53-20-01 7500 hours/ 2500 7500 hours/ 2500 Door Doublers hours hours Lower Forward 5-14-05 53-20-03 12,500 hours/ 12,500 hours/ Carry-Thru Bulkhead 2500 hours 2500 hours MLG Attach Fittings 5-14-07 53-20-05 12,500 hours/ 12,500 hours/ and Aft Carry-Thru 2500 hours 2500 hours Bulkhead Seat Rails and 5-14-13 53-10-07 7500 hours/ 2500 7500 hours/ 2500 Attachment Structure hours hours Bulkheads and 5-14-14 53-20-12 7500 hours/ 2500 7500 hours/ 2500 Stiffeners Belowthe hours hours SeatRail 

# ' Attachments 10Stringers at Inter- 5-14-15 53-20-13 . 12,500 hours/ 12,500 hours/ sections with Carry- 2500 hours 2500 hours Thru Bulkheads Fuselage Skin 5-14-16 53-20-14 5000 hours(2500 5000 hours/ 2500 Doubler at MLG hours hours Cutout Fuselage to Wing 5-14-21 53-20-06 12,500 hours/ 12,500 hours/ Carry-Thru Attach 2500 hours 2500 hours Fitting and Bulkhead Wing Strut Fittings 5-14-28 57-60-01 10,000 hours/ 5000 hours/ 3600 5000 hours hours 18. During the period from the date indicated for each aircraft until the time ofthe system safety inspectionreferenced in Section II, paragraph 5, Respondent operated the following aircraft on divers flights for the hours oftime in service indicated when the indicted maintenance task was due buthad notbeenperformed: Name N208SM N162GA N804TH N454SF N25JA N207DR 11/17/10 1/24/11 12/14110 12/04/10 12/4/10 11111/10 Starter-Generator 32.4 hours Brush Holders Starter-Generator 32.4 hours Brushes Cargo and Passenger 421.8 98.6 hours 384.8 242.5 462.9 201.4 Door Doublers hours hours hours hours hours Lower Forward 421.8 Carry-Thru hours Bulkhead MLG Attach Fittings 421.8 and Aft Carry-Thru hours Bulkhead Seat Rails and 421.8 98.6 hours 384.8 242.5 462.9 201.4 Attachment hours hours hours hours hours Structure Bulkheads and 421.8 98.6 hours 384.8 242.5 462.9 201.4 Stiffeners Below the hours hours hours hours hours Seat Rail Attachments Stringers at Inter- 421.8 sections with Carry- hours Thru Bulkheads 11Fuselage Skin 421.8 98.6 hours 384.8 242.5 462.9 201.4 Doubler at MLG hours hours hours hours hours Cutout Fuselage to Wing 421.8 Carry-Thru Attach hours Fitting and Bulkhead Wing Strut Fittings 400.3 462.9 hours hours 19. Atthe time ofthe flights referenced in paragraphs 12-15 and 18, each ofthe above aircraft was not in an airworthy conditionbecause the inspections and maintenance tasks referenced above were due but had notbeenperformed.
20. The operation ofthe aircraft as described inparagraphs 1-19 was careless orreckless so· as to endangerthe life or property ofanother.
Based onthe foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated the following Federal Aviation Regulations: (a) Section 43.16 in that Respondent performed an inspection or other maintenance specified in anAirworthiness Limitations section ofa manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness and failed to perform the inspection or othermaintenance in accordance with that section or inaccordance with operating specifications approved by the Administrator under part 121 or 135, or an inspection program approvedunder§ 91.409(e). (b) Section 91.7(a) inthat Respondent operated a civil aircraft when itwas not in an airworthy condition.
12(c) Section 91.13(a) inthat Respondent operated an aircraft in a careless orreckless manner so as to endanger the life orproperty ofanother. (d) Section 91.403(c) inthat Respondent operated an aircraft for which a manufacturer's maintenance manual or instructions for conti9nued airworthiness had been issued that contains an airworthiness limitations section whenthe mandatory replacement times, inspection intervals, and related procedures specified inthat section or alternative inspection intervals andrelated procedures set forth in an operations specification approved bythe Administrator underpart 121 or 135 ofthe FAR orin accordance with an inspectionprogram approved under§ 91.409(e) had notbeen complied with. (e) Section 91.417(a)(2)(ii) inthat Respondent operated an aircraft for which ithad not keptrecords containing the current status oflife-limited parts. 

### (f) Section 119.5(1) inthat Respondent operated aircraft under part 135 ofthe FAR in violation ofan air carrier operating certificate, operating certificate, or appropriate operations specifications issued under part 119 ofthe FAR, (g) Section 135.25(a)(2) inthat Respondent operated an aircraft underpart 135 ofthe FARwhen it was not in an airworthy condition.

13·(h) Section 135.419(g) inthat Respondent failed to· have an aircraft subject to an approved aircraft inspected program inspected in accordance with that prograiil.
C. COUNT III (Case No. 2011AL030047) 1. At all times referenced herein, the Airworthiness Limitations section ofthe manufacturer's maintenance manual for each ofthe Beech Model BE-200-200 aircraft operated by Respondent required a hydrostatic test ofthe engine fire extinguishers every five years, a hydrostatic test ofthe cabin fire extinguisher every 12 years, replacement ofthe lower forward wing bolt and nut every five years, the replacement ofthe upper forward, upper and lower aft wing bolts and nuts every 15 years or 15,000 hours oftime in service, the replacement ofthe windshield screws every 10,000 cyCles, and a test ofthe main oxygen cylinder everythree or five years, depending on which tank was installed. 

### 2. At the time ofthe system safety inspectionreferenced in Section II, paragraph 5, the records by which Respondent was tracking when the matters referenced inparagraph 1 were due oncivil aircraft N313HS did not include entries for the hydrostatic test ofthe cabin fire extinguisher or the five- and 15-yearreplacements ofthe above-referenced wing bolts and nuts, andthe entry for the five-year hydrostatic test ofthe engine fire extinguishers was being tracked as due every 12 years. 3. Atthe time ofthe system safety inspection referenced in Section II, paragraph 5, the records by which Respondent was tracking when the matters referenced inparagraph 

### 1were due on civil aircraft N90PB did not include entries for the hydrostatic test ofthe cabin fire 14extinguisher, the three-year test ofthe main oxygen cylinder, or the replacement ofthe windshield screws, and the entry ofthe five-year hydrostatic test ofthe engine fire extinguishers was being tracked as due every 12 years. 4. During the period from April20, 2010, until October 5, 2010, Respondent operated civil aircraftN90PB on divers flights in air commerce for some 265 hours oftime in service when the replacement ofthe right hand windshield screws was overdue by more than 3700 cycles buthad not beenperformed.
5. At all times referenced herein, Airworthiness Directive (AD) 89-19-04 R1 required an inspection ofthe center wing fuel bay upper skinpanels on civil aircraft N313HS every 600 hours oftime in service or 18 months, whichever occurs first.
6. Atthe time ofthe system safety inspectionreferenced in Section II, paragraph 5, civil aircraftN313HS had a total time in service of7663.9 hours.
7. At the time ofthe system safety inspectionreferenced in Section II,paragraph 5, the most recent time the inspectionrequired by AD 89-19-04 R1 had beenperformed oncivil aircraft N313HS and properly documented inthe maintenance records for the aircraft was on February 13, 2009, at aircraft total time of6659.7 hours.
8. On or about February 22, 2010, at aircraft total time of6756.6 hours, the area on civil aircraft N313HS covered by AD 89-19-04 R1 was inspected, but the maintenance record
15entry for this inspection does not indicate that the-inspection was done in accordance with either the AD orthe service bulletinthe AD references.
9. During the period from November 5, 2010, until March 8, 2011, Respondent operated civil aircraft N313HS on divers flights in air commerce for 288.4 hours when the inspection required by AD 89-19-04 R1 was overdue buthad notbeenperformed.
10. Atthe time ofthe system safety inspectionreferenced in Section II, paragraph 5, the records by which Respondent was tracking AD compliance for civil aircraft N313HS indicated that AD 89-19-04R1 was not applicable to the aircraft and did not' indicate the time and date whenthe next action was due.
11. At all times referenced herein, Respondent was required byits AAIP to track and comply with the following maintenance tasks at the intervals indicated:
Item Action Required Intervals Altitude Warning Switch Inspect 12 Months Oxygen System Passenger Replace 24 Months ShutoffValve 0-ring Windshield Corners Inspect Initial at 10,000 cycles; each Doublers and Clips 1000 cycles thereafter Inconel Wing Bolts, L and R Inspect 5 years Inconel Wing Bolts, L and R Replace 15 years Exterior Frame Skin Inspect Initial at 10,000 cycles; each 1000 cycles thereafter Fuselage Frame Web Inspect 5 years Fuselage SubfloorFrames Inspect Initial at 10,000 cycles; each 1000 cycles thereafter



### 1612. During the periodMarch 1-18,2011, Respondent operated civil aircraft N313HS on divers flights in air commerce for 64.3 hours when the inspection ofthe altitude warning switch was due but had not been performed.
13. During the period from February 1, 2011, until March 18,2011, Respondent operated civil aircraft N90PB on divers flights in air commerce for 62.7 hours when the inspection of the altitude warning switch was due but had not beenperformed.
14. During the period from April20, 2010, until April27, 2011, Respondent operated civil aircraft N313HS on divers flights in air commerce for some 1062.2 hours when the replacement ofthe oxygen system passenger shutoffvalve o-ring required every 24 months by the AAIP was due but had not been done since July 1998.
15. At the time ofthe system safety inspection referenced in Section II,paragraph 5, the records by which Respondent was tracking when the maintenance tasks referenced in paragraph 11 were due on civil aircraftN313HS did not include an entry for the oxygen . system passenger shutoffvalve o-ring. 16. Atthe time ofthe flights referenced inparagraphs 4, 9, 12, 

### 13, and 14, civil aircraft N313HS and N90PB were not in an airworthy conditionbecause, as described above, they had notbeenmaintained as required.

1717. The operation ofthe aircraft as described inparagraphs 1-16 was careless or reckless so as to endanger the life or property ofanother.
Based onthe foregoing facts and cirGumstances, Respondent violated the following Federal Aviation Regulations: (a) Section 39.7 inthat Respondent operated a productthat did not meet the requirements ofan applicable airworthiness directive. (b) Section 43.16 inthat Grant Aviationperformed an inspection or other maintenance specified in an Airworthiness Limitations section ofa manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness and failed to perform the inspection or other maintenance in accordance withthat section or in accordance with operating specifications approved by the Administrator tinder part 121 or 135, or an inspection program approved under§ 91.409(e). (c) Section 91.7(a) in that Respondent operated a civil aircraft when it was not in an airworthy condition. (d) Section 91.13(a) in that Respondent operated an aircraft in a careless orreckless manner so as to endanger the life or property ofanother. (e) Section 91.403(c) in that Respondent operated an aircraft for which a manufacturer's maintenance manual or instructions for continued airworthiness had been issuedthat


### 18contains an airworthiness limitations section whenthe mandatoryreplacement times, inspection intervals, and related procedures specified inthat section or alternative inspection intervals and related procedures set forth in an operations specification approved bythe Administrator under part 121 or 135 ofthe FAR, or in accordance with an inspectionprogram approved under § 91.409(e), had notbeen complied with. (f) Section 91.417(a)(2)(ii) inthat Respondent operated an aircraft for which ithad not kept records containing the. current status oflife-limitedparts. (g) 91.417(a)(2)(v) in that Respondent operated an aircraft for which ithad notkept records containing the current status ofan applicable AD and the time and date whenthe next action was due. (h) Section 119.5(1) inthat Respondent operated aircraft under part 135 ofthe FAR in violation ofan air carrier operating certificate, operating certificate, or appropriate operations specifications issued under part 119 ofthe FAR. (i) Section 135.25(a)(2) in that Respondent operated an aircraft under part 135 ofthe FARwhenit was not in an airworthy condition. 

## G) Section 135.419(g) inthat Respondent failed to have an aircraft subject to an approved aircraft inspectionprogram inspected in accordance withthat program.

19

## .. D.COUNTIV (CaseNo. 2011AL030055) 

### 1. On or about January 26, 2011, Respondent performed maintenance on civil aircraft N9973M that included fixing an inoperative turn coordinator, and then approved the aircraft for return to service.
2. During the period from January 27, 2011, until March 9, 2011, Respondent operated civil aircraftN9973M on divers flights 

### inair commerce for some 102 hours.

. 3. Atthe time Respondent approved civil aircraft N9973M for return to service as referenced

inparagraph 

### 1. and at the time ofthe flights referenced inparagraph 2, the maintemince record entry required by§ 43.9(a) for the maintenance referenced inparagraph 1had not been made.
4. The operation ofthe aircraft as described above was careless or reckless so as to· endanger the life orproperty ofanother. Based onthe foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated the following Federal Aviation Regulations: (a) Section 43.9(a)-in that Respondent maintained, performedpreventive maintenance, rebuilt, or altered an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component

20part and failed to make an entry inthe maintenance record ofthat equipment containing the information specified in this section. (b) Section 91.13(a) in that Respondent operated anaircraft in a careless orreckless manner so as to endanger the life orproperty ofanother. (c) Section 91.407(a)(2) in that Respondent operated an aircraft that had undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration whenthe maintenance record entry required by§ 43.9 or§ 43.11 ofthe FAR, as applicable, had not been done.
E. COUNTV (Case No. 2011AL030058) 1. At all times referenced herein, AD 2003-24-07 was applicable to civil aircraftN77HV, andrequired an inspection every 12 calendarmonths. 2. During the period from February 1, 2011, until March 27, 2011, Respondent operated civil aircraft N77HV for some 15 hours when the inspection required byAD 2003-24-07 was due but had notbeenperformed. 3. Atthe time ofthe flights referenced inparagraph 2, civil aircraftN77HV was not in airworthy condition because the inspectionrequired by AD 2003-24-07 was due but had not beenperformed.

214. On or about January 13, 2011, Respondent performed maintenance on civil aircraft N77HV that included fixing a broken passenger door support cable bracket and a loose passenger door seal plate, and then approved the aircraft for return to service.
5. During the period from January 14,2011, until March 9, 2011, Respondent operated civil aircraft N77HV on divers flights in air commerce for some 24

### .I hours oftime in service.


### 6. Atthe time Respondent approved civil aircraft N77HV for return to service as referenced inparagraph 4 and at the time ofthe flights reference inparagraph 5, the maintenance record entry required by§ 43.9(a) for the maintenance referenced in paragraph 4 hadnot been made.
7. On or aboutFebruary 5, 2011, at a time when Respondent was operating civil aircraft N417PM on a flight in air commerce, the landing gear would not extend normally, and had to be extended using emergencyprocedures. 

### 8. The events referenced inparagraph 7 constituted a failure, malfunction, or defect in an aircraft component that resulted inthe taking ofemergency action during flight. 9. Respondent failed to report the failure, malfunction, or defect referenced inparagraph 7 within the time specified in§ 135.415(d) ofthe FAR. 10. Respondent's operation ofcivil aircraftN77HV 

### as described above was careless or reckless so 

### as to endanger the life orproperty ofanother.
22Based onthe foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated the following Federal Aviation Regulations: (a) Section 39.7 in that Respondent operated a productthat did not meet the requirements ofan applicable airworthiness directive. (b) Section43.9(a) inthat Respondent maintained, performed preventive maintenance, rebuilt, or altered an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part and failed to make an entry inthe maintenance record ofthat equipment containing the information specified inthis section. (c) Section 91.7(a) in that Respondent operated a civil aircraft when it was not in an airworthy condition. (d) Section 91.13(a) inthat Respondent operated an aircraft in a careless orreckless manner so as to endanger the life orproperty ofanother. (e) Section 91.407(a)(2) inthat Respondent operated an aircraft that had undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration when the maintenance record entry required by § 43.9 or§ 43.11 ofthe FAR, as applicable, had not been made.

23(f) Section 135.25(a)(2) 

### inthat Respondent operated an aircraft under part 135 ofthe FARwhen it was not in an airworthy condition. (g) Section 135.415(a)(16) inthat Respondent failed to report the occurrence or detection ofa failure, malfunction, or defect 

### in an aircraft conceining an aircraft component or system that resulted intaking emergency action during the flight.

24IV. SANCTION 1. On October 20,2010, inFAA Case NO. 2009AL030061, Respondent was found to have violated§§ 91.13(a) and 91.417(a)(2)(ii) by operating five Cessna Model CE-208-B aircraft in 2009 when Respondent had notkept an accurate**reco~d** ofcycles, and was assessed a $12,000 civil penalty, which Respondent has, to date, failed to pay. 2. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

### § 46301(a) and 14 C.F. R. 

### § 13.305, Respondent is subjectto a civil penalty of$11,000 for each violation ofthe FAR.
3. Under the facts and circumstances ofthis case, a civil penalty of$50,000 is appropriate. WHEREFORE, the Federal Aviation Administration, by counsel, respectfully requests thatthe administrative lawjudge enter an orderthat Respondent be assessed a civil penalty inthe amount of$50,000. RESPECTFULLYSUBMITTEDthis

# ~~+~ of 

# Ikce(tlkr- JO!,'l.

25 HOWARD 

### L. MARTIN, JR. Regional Counsel By:

# L~ Glenn H. Brown Senior Attorney

### 26CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Re: Grant Aviation, Inc. FAA Cases Nos. 2011AL030031, 2011AL030046, 2011AL030047, 2011AL030055 & 2011AL030058 FAA DocketNo. To Be Assigned I hereby certify that onthis date I served a copy ofthe FAA's Complaint and a copy ofthe foregoing letter byplacing them inthe United States Mail, postage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: Brent R. Cole, Esq. Law Office ofBrent R. Cole, P.C. 821 N Street, Suite 208 Anchorage,AJC 99501 I**~rther** certify that onthis date I have served the original ofthe foregoing letter and the original and one copy ofthe FAA's Complaintbypostage-prepaid, certified mail,**r~turn** receipt requested, addressed as follows: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 AT1N: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000
Office ofthe Regional Counsel 222 West 7th Avenue #14 Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587

27 

# £J;A.**I~** QDI::(_ Date 

### I