01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 

JEFFREY M. HARPER 

FAA OFF!CE OF REGION AT. COUNSEL 

1601 LIND AVE., SW 

RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 

TELEPHONE: (425) 227-216! 

fACSfMfLE: (425)227-1007 

ANH7 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

Sky West Airlines, Inc. 

FAA Case No. 20 11 NM060005 

OMS No.: FAA-2012-0777 

Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

MOTION FOR DECISION 

In accordance with 14 C.P.R.§ 13.218(±)(5), Complainaut files this Motion for Decision. 

PAGE 02/28 

This case is currently docketed for heariug in less than 30 days. Motions must generally be filed 

not later than 30 days before the heariug, however, filing at a later date is permitted if "otherwise 

agreed by the parties." 14 C.F.R. 13.218(c). 

Counsel for Respondent, in a phone call with the undersigned counsel on January 22, 2014, 

agreed to the filing of this moti.on. During the phone call, counsel for both patties agreed: 

1. There is no genuine dispute as to any material fact on the question of either liability or 

sat1ction, 

2. Because there is no genuine factual dispute, the case can be decided on cross Motion,s for 

Decision, and 

3. No bearing is necessary. 

Statement of Facts 

On October 18, 2010, a Sky West flight crew reported a discrepancy in the maintenance logbook 

ofN822SK ("the aircraft"), an aircraft operated by Sky West under Part 121 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (FAR). Complaint=> mf II.2 and 6, Answer= mf IL2 and 6. 1 Sky West's 

1 Hyper links to the cited doc~m.ents are marked with 'S." 
01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 03/28 

Operations Specifications (OpSpecs) paragraph D085 allows it to use an approved Minimum 

Equipment List (MEL) to defer maintenance, provided certain conditions and limitations are met. 

Complaint"" '1] II.3, Answer"' '11 II.3. 

For the discrepancy in this case, the relevant MEL conditions and limitations were, at the time, 

found in Sky West Standard Practice (SP) 8175,2 paragraph 21-51-4a. Complaint"' '1] U.S, 

Answer""' '1] II.8. Two of the relevant conditions were that: 

1. Sky West verifY operation of the "pack discharge pressure sensor" and 

2. Make an entry in the Aircraft Maintenance Log. 

Complaint"' '1] II.S, Answer=> '1]1l.8. These actions must be taken once per flight day.!d. 

Sky WeSt's Aircraft Maintenance Log for the aircraft contains no entry demonstrating Sky West 

verified the operation of the pack discharge pressure sensor on October 19, 2010 or 

October 20, 2010. Exhibit 1.""' Sky West specifically admits there was "a failure to accomplish the 

required check." Exhibit 2."" The required veri.fication was performed on October 18,2010 and 

October 21,2010, as documented in the Aircraft Maintenance Log. Exhibit 1,"" Complaint"" 

'1]II.7, Answer"" '11 II.?. Respondent has provided no evidence which would show the daily 

verification took place on October 19 or 20. Exhibit 3,"" Responses to Interrogatory No.9 and 

Request for Production No. 3. 

The aircraft was flown on a total of 17 flights on October J 9 and 20, 2010. Complaint""' '1] II.ll, 

Exhibit 3,""' Request for Admission Nos. 6-9. 

Respondent holds a Scheduled Air Carrier Certificate and conducts its operations under Part 121 

of the FAR. Complaint""~ II.l, Answer"" '1] II.l. It had operating revenues in excess of$100 

million for the year ending December, 2011 and employed more than 1,500 people. Exhibit 3,= 

Requests for Admission Nos. 1 and 2.lt has the ability to pay a $142,500 civil penalty. 

Exhibit 3,""' Request for Admission No.3. In its Response to Complainant's Initial Discovery 

Request, Sky West asserts it took five steps in response to the Letter of Investigation in this case. 

Exhibit 3,"" Interrogatory No.7. The Letter ofinvestigation was sent to Sky West on 

October 27, 2010. Exhibit 2.""' 

Argument 

Standard for Decision 

"The administrative law judge shall gr:mt a party's motion for decision if the pleadings, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, matters that the administrative law judge has 

2 The approved MEL for N822SK. 

Motion for Decision 

In the Mattet of Sky West Airline$, Inc. 

FAA C"-"' No. 2011NM06000S. DMS No. FAA-2012-0777 

Page 2 o:f 12 

JEFFREYM, HAJ'{l'ER, FAAATIOl:tNT~V 

TEL: (425) 2Z7-2161; Ft\X: (425) 227-1007 
01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 ANH7 PAGE 04/28 

officially noticed ... shew that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the party making 

the motiou is entitled to a decisiou as a matter of law. The party making the motion ... has the 

burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact disputed by the parties." 

14 C.FR. § 13.218(£)(5). 

Liability 

Respondent is charged with taking off an aircraft in violation of§ 121.628(a)(5/ of the FAR, as 

it took off an airplane with inoperable equipment when the applicable conditions and limitations 

contained in the MEL had not been complied with. Because Sky West failed to comply with the 

conditions listed in the MEL, it violated§ 1195(g)4 as well, since SkyWest's OpSpecs authorize 

it to use an approved MEL to defer maintenance using the MEL and the approved MEL requires 

compliance with the listed conditions. Because the MEL conditions were not met, the recorded 

discrepancy made the aircraft unairworthy. Thus, when Respondent operated the aircraft on 17 

flights without complying with the MEL, it violated§§ 119.5(1), 121.605, and l21.153(a)(2) by 

dispatching and operating an tmairworthy aircraft in violation of its OpSpecs. 

Respondent has admitted to all relevant facts as alleged in the Complaint. 

Respondent took off an aircraft with inoperable equipment when the applicable conditions of the 

MEL had not been complied with 

Respondent adrnits the aircraft had a discrepancy, that is, inoperable equipment. Answer-> 'I] IL6. 

An applicable condition of the MEL which Respondent was required to rneet in order to operate 

the aircraft was that it "verifY operation of the pack discharge pressure sensor by interrogating the 

MDC" and that this veri.fication be done "once per flight day" with an appropriate Aircraft 

Maintenance Log Entry being made. Answer"' 'I] II.&. Sky West admits it failed to comply wi.th 

those provisions. Exhibit 2,""' Page I (bolded paragraph, emphasis in original). It admits 

operating the aircraft oil. days when th.e MEL conditions had not been complied with. Exhibit 3,""' 

Requests for Admission Nos. 6-9. 

Despite its adrn.i.ssion in Exhibit 2, Respondent claims there is "no evidence [it] failed to comply 

with" the MEL or that the aircraft did not conform to the conditions of the MEL. Exhibit 3,"'" 

Response to Interrogatory No. 9. lt denies that the required procedure was not completed. 

Exhibit 3 ,"'"Response to Requests for Admi.ssion Nos. 4 and 5; Answer"" 'I] II.l 0. 

' "No person may take off an airplane with inoperable instruments or equipment installed unless the following 

conditions arc met ... (5) The airplane is operated under all applicable conditions and limitations contained in the 

lvlinimum Equipment List and the cperations specifications authorizing use of the Minimum Equipment List," 

a "No person may operate as a direct air carrier without1 or in violation of,._ appropriate operations specifioations.'1 

Motion for Decision 

In the Maner ofSkyWe.st Airlines~ Inc, 

FAA Case No. 2011NM060005, DMS No. FAA-2012·0777 

Page 3 of 12 

J'BFFREY M. HARPER,, F AAATTORNBY 

TEL; (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 05/28 

Even if Sky West did not admit "there was in fact a failure to accomplish the required check" 

(Exhibit 2,""' Page 1), its claims conflict with the FAR. 1n this case, the absence of evidence is 

evidence of absence. The evidence Respondent failed to comply with the MEL takes the form of 

an absence of a record documenting the check actually took place. 

Section 121.380(a)(l) of the FAR requires that an air carrier keep records which show all 

requirements for the issuance of an airworthiness relea.se under Section 121.709 have been met. 

Section 121.709 requires that an airworthiness release certify that no knO\vn condition exists that 

would make the airplane unairworthy and that the aircraft is in condition for safe operation. As 

discussed below,"" failure to comply with the conditions of the MEL rendered the aircraft 

unairworthy, thus, Respondent was required to document that the required check was completed 

in order to comply with§§ 12l.380(a)(l). Even if Respondent were arguing that the check was 

actually completed, its responses to discovery have not identified any witnesses that could testifY 

to having actual completed the check. Exhibit 3""', Response to Interrogatory No.3. Without the 

testimony ofthe person actually completing the check, and in light of the requirement that the 

check be documented, in the absence of that docut:nentation, one may infer the check was not 

completed. 

Furthermore, the MEL in question specifically required that the verification of th<:: pack discharge 

pressure sensor's operation be documented in the Aircraft Maintenance Log. Complaint='~ II.S, 

Answer"'" ~ H.8. Exhibit 1 contains the Aircraft Maintenance Log entries for the time period in 

this case, including docw:nentation that the verification was completed on October 18 

and 21, 2010.5 The log entries do not show that the required daily verification was completed on 

October 19 and 20. Exhibit 1.""' Had they been performed, they were required to be documented, 

thus one can infer the daily verification was not completed on the 19th or the 20tb.6 Complainant 

has requested copies of all documents used by Respondent to support its claim that the MEL's 

requirements were actually completed; no documents have been provided. Exhibit 3,"" Respons<:O 

to Interrogatory No. 9 and Request for Production No. 3. Respondent has also not identified any 

witnesses who could testify that the check was actually completed. Exhibit 3,""' Responses to 

Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 3. In the absence of any docw:nentati.on that the verifi.cation was 

performed or any factual witness, one may conclude from the undisputed evidence that the 

verification was not performed. Thus, Sky West did not comply with the conditions of the MEL. 

Respondent further claims some of the flights on October 19, 2010 should not be counted as 

violations, since the daily verification can be completed "at the end of the flight day (24 hour 

5 The page numbers are contiguous, indicating there are no pagesmissing, 5 ln the alternative, the maintenance was completed, but not documented, in which case Sky West violated 

§§ 119.5(g), 119.6(1), and l21.380(a)(l), by failing to document maintenance and failing to comply witn the 

condition of the MEL that require:! that the completion of the daily verification be entered into the Aircraft 

Maintenance Log. Either way, SkyWe5t failed to comply with the conditions of the MEL and violated the FARs. 

Motion for Decision 

Trt the Matter of Sky West Airllncs, lnc. 

rAA Case No. 2011NM060005, DMS No. FAA"2012·0777 

Page 4 of 12 

JEFFREY M. 1-lJ.JtPER, FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL; (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 05./28 

period) and still comply with the applicable MEL." Exhibit 3,,. Response to Interrogatory No.9. 

Presumably, Sky West is claiming not all of the flights on the 19th were in violation as they took 

place within 24 hours of the completion of the check on the 18th. 

TI1is allegation fails due to Respondent's definition of"flight day. A ":flight day" "is a 24 hour 

period (from 3:00a.m. to 3:00a.m.) local time during which at least one flight is initiated for the 

affected aircraft." Complaint"'~ II.9, Answer'"'~ IJ.9. 

Thus, no matter what time the MEL verification was completed on the l8th, the requirement to 

complete the verification arose anew when Sky West operated the aircraft on the 19th, beginning 

a new flight day. There are four "flight days" at issue in this case; the check was only completed 

on two of them. Exhibit 1."" The verifi.cation was not completed at any time on the 19th or the 

20th and thus the flights on the 19th and 20th were operated when the aircraft did not meet th~;: 

conditions and limitations of the MEL. Exhibit 3,"" Responses to Requests for Admission 

Nos. 6-9; Exhibit 4."" 

Section 121.628(a)(5) prohibits taking off an aircraft with inoperable equipment which does not 

meet "all applicable conditions and limitations contained in the Minimum Equipment List and 

the op<;:rations specifications authorizing use of the Minimum Equipment List." By not 

completing the required daily check on October 19 and 20,7 and then operating the aircraft on 17 .. . 

flights, it dispatched, took off, and operated an aircraft 17 times when it did not meet all 

applicable conditions and limitations. 

Respondent dispqtched, released, and operated the aircrafl on 17 flights when it was 

•.mairworthy. 

Section 121.605 prohibits the dispatch or release of an. unairworthy aircraft; Section 

121.153(a)(2) prohibits the operation of an aircraft that is unairworthy.8 To be airworthy, an 

aircraft must: 

L Conform. to its type design and 

2. Be in a condition for safe operation. 

See, e.g., In the Matter ofGoJet Airlines, LLC, FAA Order No. 2012-5"" (May 22, 2012) at 139

, 

citing In the Matter of Ronald Haydon Whitley, FAA Order No. 2009-4"" (January 14, 2009). 

7 Or, in the altemati.ve, by failing to document tl)e verificatio.n had llken place on those days. 

' 121.605: ''No person may dispatch or release an airplane unless it is airworthy .... " 

121.153(a)(2): "Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no certificate holder may operate M aircraft 

unless that aircraft- ... (2) Is in an airworthy condition .... " 9 Page 13 in original decision as hyperlinked. The ci.ted provision is at page 7 i:n the WcstLaw version of the decision 

foundat2012 WL258855l. 00 

Motion for Decision 

In the Matter of Sky West Airlines. Inc. 

i?AA Case No. 2011NM060005, DMS No. FAA-2012·0777 

PageS of 12 

JEFFREY M. HARPER, F M. ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-216L FAX: (425) 227-1007 
01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 PAGE 07/28 

"An aircraft , , , flown without required inspections is not 'airworthy' .... " In the Matter of USAi1; 

Inc., FAA Order No. 1996-25"" (August 12, 1996) at 13, 10 An MEL constitutes an approved 

change to the type design of an aircraft. 14 C.F.R. § 121.628(a)(2). Section 121.628(a)(5) 

requires that the conditions and limitations contained in the MEL be complied with in order to 

take off the aircraft with .inoperable instruments or equipment. Thus, inspections contained 

within the conditions and limitations of the MEL arc required inspections ifthe aircraft is to be 

taken off with inoperable equipment covered by th.e MEL. As a result, failure to comply with the 

conditions and limitations of an MEL renders an aircraft unairworthy, since failing to accomplish 

a required inspection means the aircraft no longer confOJms to its type design as changed by the 

MEL. Section 121 .628(a)(2); In the Matter ofUSAir at 13; Northwest Airlines Inc., FAA Docket 

No. CP98GL0028,"' 1999 WL 33738957~ (April12, 1999) at 2. 

In Northwest, the airline failed to "collar" circuit breakers for a faulty lavatory motor/pmnp unit. 

!d. at 1. This w11s the procedure required to properly defer maintenance to the lavatory 

motor/pump. !d. The court held that failure to follow this procedure rendered the ai:rcraft 

unairworthy as it did not conform to its type design. ld. at 2. Similarly, in this case, the proper 

inspection (daily verification of the pack discharge pressnre sensor's operation) was not 

corn,pleted. Thus, since the MEL was not complied with, the aircraft did not conform to type 

design and was unairworthy. The adrn.itted dispatch, release, and operation ofN822SK on 17 

flights. where the verification had not been completed were in violation of§§ 121.605 

and 121.153(a)(2) .. · 

Respondent operated as an air carrier and operated aircraft in violation of appropriate OpSpecs 

Section 119.5(g) prohibits an air carrier from operating as a direct air carrier in violation of an 

appropriate OpSpec; § 119.5(1) prohibits operation of an aircraft nnder Part 121 in violation of an 

appropriate OpSpec. Here, Respondent's OpSp.,cs authorized it to us" "an approved Minimum 

Equipment List." By failing to comply with the conditions and limitations in SP 8175, 

'1[21-51 ,4a, it failed to use the approved MEL. Thus, it operated as au air carrier in violation of 

an appropriate OpSpec. By then operating the aircraft, it operated an aircraft in violation of an 

appropriate OpSpec. 

Liability- Conclusion 

The undisputed facts of this case demonstrate that Sky West failed to complete a daily verification 

on two days as required by an MEL and as a consequence operated an nnairwortby aircraft 17 

times. There is no genuine issue of material fact on the question of liability. 

10 Page 13 in original decision as hyperlinkcd. The quoted language is foundat page 6 in the WestLaw version of the 

decision at 1996 WL 509937.""' 

Motion for Decision 

In the Maner ofSkyWc;:st Airlines~ Inc. 

FAA CoseNo. 2011NM060005, DMS No. FAA-2012-0777 

Pago 6 of 12 

JJ?.IoPRE,Y M. I-l.A.RPER, FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 08/28 

Sanction 

Contrary to respondent's asserted affinnative defenses, the sanction sought in this case is neither 

"excessive" nor does it violate FAA policy. Complainant seeks a total sanction of$142,500, 

stemming from Respondent's failure to comply with a required condition of an MEL on two days 

and the consequent operation of the aircraft on 17 flights when it was not airworthy. 

The facts relevant to detennining an appropriate sanction are not in dispute; Complainant and 

Respondent disagree over the significance and weight of those facts in determining the 

appropriate sanction. 

Standard of Determination 

Under 49 U.S.C. § 46301 (a)(1), "a person is liable to the United States Government for a civil 

penalty of not more than $25,000 for violating ... (B) a regulation prescribed or order issued 

under any provision to which clause (A) ofthis paragraph applies." Th~ authority for issuing 

Parts 119 and 121 of 14 C.F.R. includes 49 U.S.C Chapters 401, 441, and 447- all of which 

are covered by clause (A). 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(l)(A), 14 C.F.R. Parts 119 and 121 (Preamble). 

The maximum penalty has been adjusted to $27,500. 14 C.F.R. § 13.305. 

In determining an appropriate civil penalty, the Administrator considers a variety offactors: 

I. The nature and circumstances of the violation, 

2. The extent and gravity of the violation, 

3. The person's degree of culpability, 

4. The person's history of prior violations, 

5. The petson's ability to pay the civil penalty, 

6. The effect on the person's ability to stay in business, and 

7. Other matters as justice may require. 

In the MaUer ofWarbelow :~Air Ventures, Jnc., FAA Order No. 2000·3"" at 16-17 n. 22,11 

(February 3, 2000). 

The Admin1strator has th.e burden of justifying the amount of civil penalty sought. 14 C.F .R. 

§ l3.224(a); In the Malter ofLw;emburg, FAA Order 1994-18"" (J~me 22, 1994) at 6. 12 To guide 

the FAA's prosecutorial discretion, the FAA has promulgated penalty guidelines, which are 

found in FAA Order 2150.3B Chapter 7 and Appendix B dated October 1, 2007 (Sanction 

11 Page 7 in Westlaw, 2000 WL 298578."" 

"Page 4 in Westlaw, !993 WL 899676."" 

Motion for Decision 

ln the Matter of Sky West Airlines, Jnc. 

J'AA Caso No. 20IINM060005, DMS No. FAA-2012·0777 

Page 7 of 12 

JEFFREY M. HARPER~ p AA A TTO:RNEY 

TEL: (4Z5) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 ANt·:17 PAGE 09/28 

Guidance). The Sanction Guidance contains tables that establish specific penalty ranges for 

different types ofviolations.13 The starting point for a sanction determination is the middle of the 

sanction range. Sanction Guidance,"' Appendix B, ~ 3.c. The Complainant's sanction 

determination does not, however, reflect a ftxed mathematical computation; in addition to the 

published penalty ranges, it takes into account thirteen factors set forth in Chapter 7, Paragraph 4 

of the sanction guidance, which address the issues set forth in Warbelow. 14 

These factors are used to adjust the sanction upward or downward from the middle of the 

recommended range. The FAA Order reflects the Administrator's general views about 

appropriate civil penalties; civil penalties must reflect the totality of the circumstances 

surrounding the violations. Folsom :S Air Service, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-11"" 

(November 6, 2008). The weight to be given to each of these factors is within the discretion of 

the Complainant; "the Complainl.lllt maintains relative prosecutorial discretion in detew\ning the 

case's final aggregate weight in proposing the level of civil penalty." In the Mattr;r of William A. 

Luker, Jr., FAA Docket No. CP09SW0008""'at 9, 2010 WL 1989430"" at 5 (May 13, 2010). 

Although a Department of Transportation Administrative Law Judge is not statutorily bound to 

follow the Administrator's guidance, "[a]n administrative agency is entitled to substaotial 

deference in assessing the civil penalty appropriate for a violation of its regulations. The. 

Administrator's choice of a ssnction is not to be overturned unless it is unwarranted in law o.r 

without justification in fact." NLindustries, Inc. v. Dept. ofTransponation, 901 F.2d 141,"" 144 

(D.C. Cir. 1990), citing Butz v. Glover Livestock Commission Co., Inc., 4J. J. U.S. 182,"" J.85-86 

(1973). 

Respondent's Affirmative Defenses are unsupported by the evidence. 

In defense, Respondent claims the proposed sanction is excessive l.llld violates FAA policy 

because: 

1. The FAA included too many flights in its sanction calculation and 

"Sanction Guidance, Appendix B. 

" Those factors arc: 

a. Nature of the violation; 

b. Whether the violation was inadvertent and not 

deliberate; 

c. The certificate holder's level of experience; 

d. Tite attitude of the violator; 

e. The degree of hazard; 

f. Whether there was action taken by the 

employer or other authority against tbe 

employee that committed the violation(s); 

Motion for Decision 

In tho Malter of Sky West A1rlines1 Inc. 

FAA Ca_<cNo. 2011NM060005, DMS No. FAA-2012-0777 

Page 8 of 12 

g. Use of the certificate; 

h. Violation history; 

i. Decisionallaw; 

J. Ability to absorb the sanction; 

k. Consistency of Sanction; 

I. \Vhcther the violation was reported voluntarily; 

and 

m. Corrective Action. 

JEFF:R,EY M_ HARPER, fAA J\ TTORNEY 

TEL; (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 ANH7 PAGE 10/28 

2. The FAA failed to account for mitigating factors taking the fom1 of subsequent corrective 

action. 

See Answer,"" Affirmative Defenses, 'j[ 1; Exhibit 3,""' Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 7, 9, 

and 11. As affirmative defenses, Respondent bears the burden of proving them. 14 C.F.R. 

§ l3.224(b). 

As to Respondent's first claim, 17 is the correct number of flights operated by Respondent while 

the aircraft was unairworthy, as discussed above.""' Respondent failed to complete the required 

daily verification on two days; the aircraft was operated on 1 7 flights on those two days. 

As to Respondent's second claim, it details five steps it has taken in response to the Letter of 

Investigation in this case, which it argues is relevant to mitigating the sanction on the basis that it 

has taken corrective action. Complai!lilnt does not dispute that Respondent took the actions laid 

out in Exhibit 3, but contests whether those actions warrant mitigation; Respondent bears tbe 

burden on this point. 

In its response to Complainant's Leiter of Investigation, Respondent identified the root cause of 

these violations as a failure to enter the text of the MEL into its flight control SABRE database. 

Exhibit 2.""' Of Respondent's five steps, only one, "Maintenance Database Administrator" is 

relevant to the root cause of tbe violations Respondent identified; the others have at best a 

tenuous connection to the specific violations in this case. In light of Sky West's expanding fleet 

of aircraft, "More Maintenance Controllers," "Enhanced Phone System," and "Supervisor 

Internal Compliance" would be expected courses of action for Respondent to take regardless of 

the viol.ati.ons here. See Sky West, Inc. Annual Reports, available at http://inc.skywest.com/ 

investlreports.php,"" last visited December 31,2013 (fleet size expanding: 281 aircraft in 2008, 

289 in 2009, 294 in 2010, and 315 in 2011). Since Respondent states the violations here were 

due to an outdated database, it is difficult to see how the described "Aircraft blocking program" 

is ru.itigating- presumably, the program would be relying on the outdated database to "know" 

the aircraft required inspection. Exhibit 3,""' Response to Intenogatory No.7. 

Under the Sanction Guidance, co.rrectlve action is a mitigating factor only if it exceeds the 

n1inimum regulatory or statutory requirements. Sanction Guidance,"" Chapter 7, 'j[ 4.m. As the 

holder of an air carrier certificate, Respondent is required to "have sufficient qualified 

management and technical personnel to ensure the highest degree of safety in its operations." 

14 C.F.R. § 119.65(a). Jfthe addition of a "Supervisor Internal Compliance," "Maintenance 

Database Administrator" or more "Maintenance controllers" to its payroll is corrective action, 

that fact only shows that Respondent was understaffed (in violation of Section ll9.65(a)) when 

the violations took place. Adding personnel is thus not mitigating since "[cJorrective action 

... that simply brings [a violator] into compliance with the ... regulatory requirements is not 

considered in mitigation." Sanction Guidance,"" Chapter 7, 'j[ 4.m. 

Motion for Decision 

In the Mnlter ofSkyWcst Airlines. Inc. 

FAA Case No. 2011NM060005, DMS No. FAA-2012-0777 

Page 9 of 12 

JEFJ:'~EY M. HARPER, FAA. AITORNEY 

TEL; (425) 2n-2l6l; FAX: (425) 227-l 007 
01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 11/28 

Even ifit these actions were mitigating, paragraph 4.m of the Sanction Guidance states that the 

amount of mitigation depends on the timing of the corrective action. Action taken after the FAA 

notifies the Respondent of the alleged violations warrants less mitigation then action taken before 

the FAA becomes aware of the violatioJJ.S. Here, Respondent asserts its actions were taken "in 

response to the LOI in this case"- in other words, after the FAA notified Respondent ofthe 

alleged violations. Any mitigation that might be warranted is thus limited at best. 

$142,500 is an appropriate sanction in this case 

Complainant seeks a $142,500 penalty which is appropriate in this case. This case involves two 

instances of Respondent operating contrary to its OpSpecs (failing to perform a daily verification 

required by an MEL condition on nvo dates), and the resultant operation of an unairworthy 

aircraft 1 7 times. 15 

Operation Contrary to OpSpecs: Appendix B, Figure B-1-c-2 of the Sanction Guidance provides 

that a minimum civil penalty is appropriate for"[ o ]peration contrary to ops specs- technical 

noncompliance." As a large business Group I air carrier/ 6 the range for a minimum sanction is 

$2,000-$9,999; the midpoint is $5,999.50. Sanction Guidance,"" Appendix B, '1[ 3.c.l. The MELrequired verifications that took place on October 18 and 21 showed the affected component was 

operational, so there was a low degree of hazard, a mitigating factor accounted for in the 

selection of the sanction range recommended in Figure B-1-c-2.17 Failure to perform 

maintenance ordinarily warrants a moderate to maximum penalty under Figure B-1-g-2 of the 

Sanction Guidan.ce. 

Given Respondent's lengthy experience as an air carrier however, a sanction above the midpoint 

is warranted. Sky West has been flying since 1972 and has held their Air Carrier Certificate 

No. SW1A011A since 1989. Sky West 2012 Annual Report, Page 4; Exhibit 5. Air Carriers are 

held to the highest standard of care. Sanction Guidance,"" Chapter 7, '1[ 4.g. 

Operation of an Unairworthy Aircraft: Appendix B, Figure B-1-1-1 of the Sanction Guidance 

provides that a minimum civil penalty is appropriate for operation. of an unairworthy aircraft, 

"[t]echnical non-conformity to TC [type certificate] no likely effect on safe operation." As with 

Operation Contrary to OpSpecs, the choice of sanction range accounts for the mitigating factor of 

the relatively low degree of hazard, the midpoint of the range is $5,999.50, and a sanction above 

1

' Complainant notes that the verification was only required on October 19 and 20 because Respondent chose to 

operate the aircraft on those dates. 16 Respondent has revenue in excess of$100M, placing it in the Group I category, and has more than 1,500 

employees, placillg it in the large business category. Exhibit3, Requests far Admission Nos. l and 2; Sanction 

Guidance, Appendix B, 111! 3.b and 3 .c, 1. 

17 Arguably, the fact that the affected component turned out to be operational is not mitigating. "Good luck is not an 

acceptable substitute fer proper airc<aft inspections'' French v. CAB, 378 F.2d 468,""' 471 (1Oth Cic 1967). 

Motion for Decision 

In U,"le Matter of Sky West Airlines_, Inc. 

fAA Case No. 2011NM06000S, DMS No, FAA-2012-0777 

Page 10ofl2 

JEFFREYI\.·1. HARPER, FAA ATTORNEY 

TEl .• : (425) 227-2161: FAX: (425) 227-1001 
01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 12/28 

the midpoint is warranted due to SkyWest's experience. Under 49 U.S.C. § 4630l(a)(2), 18 each 

of the flights is a separate violation. 

Thus, there are a total of 19 violations in this case. An average of $7,500 per violation, within the 

guideline range of $2,000-$9,999 and slightly aggravated based on Respondent's experl.ence 

gives a total appropriate sanction of$142,500. This sanction is within RespO!Jdent's financial 

means to pay. Complaint"'~ IIL3; Exhibit 3,""' Request for Admission No.3. 

Sanction- Conclusion 

There is no genuine issue of material fact on the question of sanction; the parties disagree on the 

effect those facts might have on the calculation of an appropriate penalty. 

Exhibits 

l. Aircraft Maintenance Log, N822SK, October I 8-21, 2010. 

2. Response to Letter oflnvestigation. 

3. Respondent's Response to Complainant's Initial Discovery Request 

4. Aircraft Flight Log, N822SK, October 19-20,2010. 

5. Air Carrier Certificate No. SWIAOl JA. 

Conclusion 

For the reasons stated above, the FAA respectfully requests that this court grant this Motion for 

Decision. There are no genuine issues of material fact to be litigated. 

Respectfully submitted this 30'h day of January, 2014. 

FAA 

~-~ Attorney 

18 ~~A separate violation occurs under this subsection .. _ for each flight involving [he violation .... " 

Motion for Decision 

In the Matter of Sky West Airline~, Tnc, 

FAA Case No. 2011NM060005. OMS No. l'AA-2012-0777 

Page 11 of\2 

JEFFREYM. HARPER~ FAAATTOR.NEY 

1'8L; ( 425) 227-2161; FAX; ( 425) 227-1 007 
01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 ANf<17 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion for Decision has been served via facsimile and 

Certified Mail- Return Receipt Requested this date, to the following: 

The Honorable Richard C" Good"'in 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Fax: (202) 366-7536 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2\Vl 000 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Fax: (202) 493-5142 

Todd Emerson, Esg. 

Sky West Airlines, lnc. 

444 South River Road 

St. George, UT 84 790 

Fa.'!:: (435) 634-3505 

Dated this 30th day of January, 2014. 

PAGE 13/28 

'f\,fotion for Decision 

ln the Matter of SkyWe$t Airlines~ Inc. 

.TEFFREYTvl. HARPER_, F.A,AATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227·2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007 

FAA Coso No" 2011NM060005, DMS No. l'AA-2012-0777 

Page 12 of 12 
' 

m 

>< 

:::l" 

r::T 

;:;:' 

!-" 

~----~-'"' ww. AJC#N ~21.~1\ Aircraft Maintenance Loa ML 123618 

}!DISCREPANCY D MX CJPIC !D# CORRECTIVE ACTION 

Item Closed By: ·ISTA .. S'L{.. Date jl) 1)& I /c FLT# l/(!\ I STA .(if D•te ) /) I/'& { 0 MX Control II fn fS Jf . 

f.\ ft,,J1 ~.di slams W\.'.il . 

- fX'hrx 0 PIC - ,.J . ail '4o~:~~t~'1/~·r:;Tt.J~ ... 

I I ' v ' 

' A' ~ lnitla!~ 

I'L /J. .1,-L-MJ P.. '10) ~ (L, 1-k '7L u 

' Q ~14" 

OoM!DRll 

1nsp. Initials: 

~---

JD# 

2 DISCREPANCY D MX Ji! PIC ID11 1 S<:;'5" CORRECTIVE ACTION ·--· Item Claw! By: STA:)tf D•<olo IYJJ!v~u FLT# .If \To STA7u• Date I U 1 o<;r/10 MXControl# 

P c.,;( <:"' ':! \ F"""I:T z. tFr /t, < M rr_ G "'"" .o, "' c- =· dl. i> o nf'- [3MX 0PIC "'j' 4,;} ~'"·.no. C,.,JT />lJq L--'~ '"·"- 4. <~ . 4. ..e.~ "~"'" ~-!! C:o:J.-1<7 • fn -R,.._., r7/~;-)J ' vni!.-.. .n.. 'IlL ~=L>. , 1 ""',\ r ~vL Initials: 

{Vt)(_ L.ar...<.. ~....-· #-...;.., ."'l2- "?0-1 '7 Js 

ID!I -··· o<'t'UC: 

------·· Dm11DRJI 

-' 

Insp. Initials: 

. .. 

ID# 

Parts Infonnation 

Disc.# M·l9# I'm Number ON Serial Number-ON Part Number OFF SeriEll Number OFF 

I .. I 

_l - - - --·· I 

FurmM-125 7/IZ/2010 

(S) 

~ 

--... 

L•J 

(S) 

--... 

"' (S) 

~ 

"" 

~ 

"' Lu 

UJ 

.p. 

"' Ul 

"' "' ...) 

~ 

(S) 

(S) 

...) 

]> 

z 

3: 

...) 

-o 

]> 

G) 

f'l 

~ 

.p. 

-•. 

"' m 
liP o111 R L111-£So3o • .&.,/ ._. .... 1 I. .l..l..I.VLU...L\< J.._J..l.u.i.l..J - t L ML 123619 

l DISCREPANCY DMX.Ji'r.PIC IDII-:s.f\l;~ CORRECTIVE ACTION 

STA B£1/l Dote/d 1/';1 J.<~ltJ FLT# '(ff"PJ STA 1)1t' t\..1 Dato ]0 1/ .g 1/.() MX Control # 3 ri{i3 Item Closed By: 

I _ID-tJ {<, fcWll-S'U. 7l.d .N1 { fr- ~ I \).as;_ ----~ J ' ?-4-1 J-LR ' 6 ,__ ·~ I "' '"'-" -- .. - - - -- c-. ~~/ - - -- --.:: ~rM--ol'IC 

---- Initial~ 

-

ID# /tf37/ 

~ ) 

/./.A-(// ~Oru1 

17 ')IV -// Insp. Jniliols: 

cY/ 

!---" JD# 

2 DISCREPANCY 0 MX tl{PIC IDit 5568 CORRECTIVE ACTION 

STA ~ O.te '" I ;:"1 :C.,; ,L! FLT# fl'fi'1f !ITA Lft L o.~Pf'-r<o I t1 MX Contwl # (j/_,t,"l- Item Clowd By: 

SLc ,.. cs svJia records tJ,./J- rh v-- fM"" r -'3/, -z /--£"A- ~MX OF!C 1J V-4.{ Mt?'l 1~v/f ;f-cdu"'· ' 

JL'¢ <"14 "i { C/1 ':) - Initih1-r 

lD~-#7 

cs sv.ria records EttoMI0Rll .• Insp. Initials: 

ID# 

Parts Information 

Disc.# j M-19# j_ Part Numbor ON Serial Numb« ON I Part Number-(}FF ___ Saia11'fumba-OFF 

FonnM-125 711212010 

(S) 

~ 

-~ 

w 

(S) 

-.... 

"' (S) 

~ 

-" 

~ 

_p. 

w 

Ul 

_p. 

" Ul 

"' "' ----1 

~ 

(S) 

CSJ 

- •• j 

D 

z 

"' ----1 

u 

,, 

Gl 

[Tl 

~ 

lJl 

--~ 

"' CD 
Ol'IIIJ'dt;;:;,n A/C#N V-2-S:r<... Arrcratt Mamtenance Log ML li'' .,JIFII.liJlESt . . 

1 DISCREPANCY 5?MX DPIC ID# CORRECTIVE ACITON cs sv~a reoo«<• 

STA~ Dato I/) I~ I JJ FLT# l.jg'J 1 Si'ASLC o.ti!O 21 tO MXCootrol# Item Closed By: 

u.. ,.. J L. '-- J.Jl\ ... "" ~ J>f.J rlll..k h./= ,./ ~ '" •• ~ ~-,-.,..1 ,.,;_, 

l 

I 

I 

~ 

I 1.1-5-1- 'lA '(j it ~< ]:;o ..- 'S ">knX' " .l '"' }-- s:: ~ I . "". ~J. ~ 4! t.i~-q 71/ J - ~PIC- /, .rA •,.,.-- (; fiJI} <~->- "· • \l., ""' , <::" ""'·" lnitia~ F')'~ . 

-~"0. , m#J7'1v 

\..VI'~l IJklnMJ 0 RH 

Insp. Initials: 

ID# 

2 DISCREPANCY i;!1 MX D PIC ID# CORRECTIVE ACTION 

STA/.,J., '(.. I>&w /£1 /_;:~ (/) fLT # STALA-'J.... Dale/~ t; 'PJ/D MX Contl'lll# Hem Closed By: 

P"''"~'. -1//trc:-'hNM~ PL,'dt+ oF C/ fi.l ?A C>fC- " '?,· •. : J £ d"'"'-k_ ~Mk0PtC . I ·. 

"YIFY 'Yutr ::Ch<.V · I5t-/fA 1 'TA-w .;t/- 51~ i.;/1- ' 

(.> . lnitia179 

.. ID g I £,.5.k <g 

OoMIDRJI 

Insp. Initials: 

ID# 

PartsJnfonnaffon . 

Disc.# I M-19 # I Part Numb!;r ON . · Serio! N\lffibcr ON Part Niimber OFF Serlal Number Off 

. j I I J I 

Fonn M-115 7/12!1010 

(S) 

""' -.... 

w 

(S) 

'~ 

" CSl 

""' "" 

""' "" w 

uJ 

"" " Ul 

"' " -..! 

""' CSl 

CSl 

-~ 

]> 

z 

:5 

OJ 

D 

Gi 

r'l 

""' en 

-.... 

N 

CD 
01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 

Delivered via e-mail 

Read receipt requested to: ggoodman@skyWestcom 

Original by FedEx 

Tracking Number: Oi/1'3 :241>'2 3b1-J 

Mr. Steven L Crutcher 

Aviation Safety Inspector-Principal Maintenance 

Federal Aviation Administration 

SkyWesl Certificate Management Office 

1 020 North Flyer Way 

Salt Lake City, UT 84116-2959 

RE: File Number· 2011NM060005 

Dear Mr. Crutcher: 

To ensure that SkyWest Airline (SWA) responds to each of the Federal Aviation 

Administration's (FAA) concerns contained in the above referenced document, we have 

reiterated your letter verbatim in italics with our responses In bold. 

Personnel of this office are investigating an Incident, which involved the operation of a 

Bombardier, CL-600-:2024 aircraft, N822SK; at Denver International Airport (DEN) in 

Denver, Colorado; on October 20, 2010. 

On Or:;tober 18, 2010, ths "Right Pack" fault message was illuminated, and deferred per 

Minimum Equipment Ust (MEL) 21-5-48 on Aircraft Maintenance Log page, ML123618. 

An inspection for the operation of the associatii!d peck discharge pressure sensor was 

required once each flight day, The inspection of the pack discharge pressure sensor 

was required to be aocomplished prior to the aircraft being operated in revenue service 

on October 20, 2010. The inspection was not documented as being accomplished for 

the flight day of October 19, 201 o, and the aircraft was operated in revenue service on 

October 20, 2010. Operations of this type are contrary to Trtfe 14 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). 

We have Identified that there was in fad a failure to accomplish the required 

check although subsequent checks of the system verified that the discharge 

pressure sensor was In fact functioning properly. We have ldentlfi&d a failure in 

our system that led to the check not belng accomplished as required. A key 

control to assurlng this type of daily MEl required inspection is accomplished as 

required Is notification to the Flight Crew via printed Flight Release. Appropriate· 

notification text is entered into the flight control Sabre database customized to 

each affected MEL When an MEL is applied to any aircraft the text automatically 

444 S~;~uth River ~aad 

St. Gl!:Orge, umh 81'1!10 

435,63/l.!tr>DO 

Fax:-435.53-1.3607 

Exhibit 2 

PAGE 17/28 
01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 

Mr. Steven L. Crutch-er 

November 10, 201 o 

Page2 

RE: File Number: 2011 NM0600G5 

ANII7 

prints on each subsequent Fllg.ht Release until the MEL is cleared. That 

reminder/notlficatl on system has peen proven to be an effective control for the 

past several months since It was Implemented. 

Unfortunately, we have detennlned that with the Implementation of a recent 

revision to the MEL the requfred text for this particular MEL (21-51-4<3:) had not 

been entered into the database as required. We have taken the following 

corrective actions to prevent future ~currences of this type of event: 

1. We have audited the Sabre database against the current MEL and ensured that 

all comments and restrictions are entered Into the database as specified in the· 

MEL 

2. We have revised our teen writing checklist for MEL development to require 

tllat Immediately after distribution of an MEL revision a validation is to be 

accomplished for all data entered into SkyTrack and Sabre to verify that each 

record contains the required data, including restrictions and comments. 

3. We have established a requirement for Quality Assurance auditors to verify 

that the technica.l writer cllecklist is revised and being used. In addition, ongoing 

Quality Assurance audits of Maintenance Control will include verification that 

comments and restrictions entered Into the Sabre database are accumte and 

reflect tile restrictions listed in tile current MEL's for each fleet type. 

This letter is to Inform you that this matter is under investigation by the Federal Avilltion 

Administration (FAA). We would appr!f!ciate receiving any evidence or statements you 

might care to make regarding this matter, with 1 o days of receipt of this fetter. Any 

discussion or written sMement furnished by yov wm be· given consideration In our 

investigation If we do not hear from you within tire sp'ecified time, our report will be 

processed without the benefit of yotJr statement 

Finally, we believe that with all these actions taken by the company will ~nsure that 

proper notification and reminders of MEL recurrent maintenance actiens will be 

accomplished as required in avery instance. If you require any additional information 

please contact me. 

Sincerely, 

SkyWest 

~~ Airlines 

Gary Goodman - Director of Quality 

I,.·' 

PAGE 18/28 
01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 ANH7 PAGE 19/28 

J.0/1.7/2012 09:11 FAX 4356.34350S PEOPLE t;l)ooz 

Todd C. Emerson, #S175 

444 South River Road 

St. George, Utah, 84 790 

Telephone: (435) 634-3530 

Facsimile: ( 435) 634-3505 

Attorney for SkyWest Airlines, Inc. 

In the Matter of: 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARlNGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

FAA Case No. 2011NM060005 

DMS No. FAA-2012-0777 

SkyWest Airlines, Inc. 

Judge: Richard C. Goodwin 

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO COMPLAlNANT'S INl:r'IAL DISCOVERY 

REQUEST 

INTERROGATORIES 

Interrogatory No. 1: Identify by name, address and telephone number all pcrso.ns whom you 

know to have personal knowledge o;(the matters alleged in the Complaint. 

Response: Individuals known to Sky West that have knowledge of the matters alleged in the 

Camp taint are: 

Darrell Cook- Director Quality Assurance 

Bill Dykes -Director MainteJ)ancc 

Gary Goodman- Manager Ensineering!Comp 

Exhibit 3 
01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 PAGE 20/28 

l0/J.7/2012 09:11 FAX 4~56343505 PEO~l.ll I@ 003 

These individuals are cmrent SkyWest employees and can be contacted through SkyWest's 

counsd, 

Interrogatory No.2: Identify by title, date, author, present custodian, and content, all docW)Jcnts, 

including corrcspoudence, obtained by you or in your possession, relating to the assertions in the 

Complaint, your Appeal, your Answer, and any affirmative defenses which you anticipate raising 

in this matter. See Request for Production No. 1, 

Response: All documents currently constituting the FAA's Items ofProof; FAA Order 

2150.3B; FAA Order 8900, Volume 14. 

Jnterrogatorv No. 3: Identify by name, address and telephone number, all persons whom you 

intend to have testify as a factual or expert witness in your defense at the hellring in this matte~ .• 

and for factual witnesses, provide a detailed summary of each persons anticipated testimony. 

Response: SkyW est .identifies the following factual witnesses: Gary Goodman, Mr. Goodman 

is familiar with the MEL and SkyWest's efforts to ensure that aU MEL procedures are followed 

in a timely fashion, plus efforts since the investigation to improve the maintenance control, flight 

control and training programs to improve compli=ce. 

TuterrogatOJy No. 4: Idontijjr by title, date, author, present custodian, =d content, all docUll).eni:1l 

which you anticipate offering into ~idence or using at the hcllting in this matter, and through 

which witness or w.ituesses the document will be offered, See Request for Production No.2. 

Response: All maintenance ~ecords will be offered through Gary Goodman. Sky West 'will ask 

the FAA to stipulate to anyJ!AA Orders, CRF's or FAR's that it relies upon. SkyWest has not 

detcnnined whether it will call au expert witness at this time and reserves the right to supplement 

this response in the event an e:;,')lert is identified. 

Interrogatory No.5: With respect to each expert witness ideu.tified in response to InterrogatOry 

No. 3, specify their specific area of experti•e, and provide a synopsis of their credentials, 

background, training and experience. 

Response: Sky West has not determined whether it ;vill ca\1 an expert witness at this time and 

reserves the right to supplement this response in the event an expert is identified. 

Interrogatory No. 6: With respect to each expert you expect to call as a witness, state the 

subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and state the substance of the facts and 

opinions to which the expert is expected to testify, and a summary of the grow1ds for each s~ch 

opinion. 

Response: SkyWest has not detexmined whether it will call an expert witness at this time and 

.reserves the light to supploment this response in the event an. export is identified. 

2 
01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 i\NH7 PAGE 21/28 

10/17/2012 09:12 FAX 4356543505 PEOPLE lfl]004 

Jntenogatory No. 7: Describe with specificity all of the facts which you anticipate presenting in 

the course of the hearing in this matter pertaining to the avoidance or )l1itigation o:f the sanction 

sottght by the FAA in this case. 

Response: SkyWcst has taken the following steps in response to the LOI in this case: 

New Position Created: Supervisor Internal Compliance. This was proposed in the SkyWcst 

l'esponse letter to FAA Case No. 201.1NM6005. This position has daily oversight of the internal 

nuditor group and n·acks complia11ce for actdit functions. Cost: $60,000· 

Ail~cr.aft b1oddng program. T9 reduce the human error factor 1 we have established an electronic 

block on aircraft that require d<lily inspeotioJJS, This program prevents the crew !'r~m printing a 

telease with an open maintenance item. Cost: $10,000 

JY.[aintena11ce Database Admlnist~ator. This new position nas been created to monitor and enhance 

the database used by the mainte11ance con(Tol group. The administrator ensutes the aircraft blocking 

program is working. Cost: $62,000 

.Enhanced Phone System. At times ofhigh cal1 volume flight crews were not getting tbnely 

comrounicatlon of maintenance information. This et;hancem~nt prevents call waiting and provides a 

more sts.bJe coT-nmunication environment for crew contact to lna.1ntenanae control. Cost: $120,000 

More Mninten~nce Contt·ollers. SkyWest lias added seven hdditional controllers since 10/20/10. 

They provide more comprehensive daily oversight and maintain operational control of Sky West 

aircraft Cost por year: $370,400 

[lltetrogatory No. 8: State by name, address, telepho11e number, date of conversation, and 

substance of conversation, all persons, other th~n legal cot\nsel, or your spouse, with whom you 

have discussed the matters alleged .\n the Complaint. 

Response: SkyWest objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. 

Interrogatory No. 9: For each allegation in the Complaint that is denied, state with specificity the 

facts that ore the basis for !hat denial as well as the inq Llirios taken to determine that the 

allegation in the complaint is not correct. See Request for Production No.3, 

Response: There is no evidence that SkyW ,;t failed to' comply with MEL 27 -51-4a or that at 

the time of the flights, N728SK did not conform to all applicable conditions and limitations 

contained in the alleged MEL. Fmthcr, maintenance checks can be done at the end of the flight 

day (24 hot•r period) and still comply with the applicable MEL, thus it is improper to count all of 

the flights on the 1.911' as alleged violations. · 

3 
01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 ANI~7 PAGE 22/28 

10/,1,7/2012 09:12 FAX 4356343505 PEOPLE ~005 

Inten·ogatoa No. I 0: For any of the <<':quests for ad,pjssions below that is denied, state with 

sp~cificity the facts that are the basis for that denial as well as the inquiries taken to determine 

I hat the faces in the request for admission are not correct. See Request for Production No, 4. 

Respondent's Response: RFA #4 and #5. A:A:er a thorough review of the FAA's items of 

proof, there is no evidence that Sky West fai..led to comply with MEL 27-51Al. 

Interrogatory No. ll: Describe with specificity all facts or evidence you .intend to rely upon in 

support of any affirmative defenses raised in any Answer to the Complaint, to include identifying 

the specific FAA policy you claim is violated by the proposed penalty in these cases. Soc 

ltequest for Production. No. 5. 

Respondent's Response: T11e FAA. has included 'too many :O.ights in its sanction calculation 

and has failed to 'account for the considerable mitigation in this case, contrary to sanction 

!,'Ui dance found in FAA Order 2150.3B and 8900. 

E,EOUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

Request for Production No. l: Provide a copy of all documents referred to in your answer to 

lnterrogatory No. 2. 

Response: The FAA has copies of all referenced documents. 

RcqlJest for Production No. 2: Provide a copy of all documents referred to in your answer to 

Jntenogatory No.4. 

Response: The FAA has copies of all rofm·encod documents. 

Regt~es't for Prod\1ction No. 3: Provide a copy of all documents that suppmt yo~r answer to 

l nterrogatory No. 9. 

Re.sponse: The FAA has copies of all rcfetenced documents. 

jZequest for Prod\J.Ction No. 4: Provide a copy of all documents that support your answer to 

lllten-ogatory No. 10. 

Response: 111e FAA has copies of all referenced documcrots. 

4 
01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 23/28 

J.0/),7/2012 09:13 F<IX ~356343505 PEOPLE iill 00 6 

Request for Production No. 5: Provide a copy of all documents that support your answer to 

lnterrogatoryNo. 11. 

Response: The FAA ms copies of all referenced documents. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 

Request fur Admission No.1: Admi.t that, for the 12 month period ending December 2011, 

SkyWcst Airlines had operating revenues in excess of$100 million, as shown by e;o Airline 

Quarterly Financial Review (4'" Quarter 2011) published by the Department of Transportation, 

Office of Aviation Anal)"lis, Competition and Policy Analysis Division. 

Respondent's Response: Admi.t. 

Request for Admissiou No.2: Admit that, as of December 31, 2011, SkyWest Airlines employs 

more than 1,500 employees, as shown by Sky West Airlines' 2011 Annual Report. 

Respondent's Response: Admit. 

Request for Admission No. 3: Admit that Sky West Airlines b!lll the financial ability to pay the 

$142,500 re'luested civil penalty in FAA Case No. 20l!NM060005, FDMS No. FAA.-:2.012-

0777. 

Response: Admit. 

Request for Admission No- 4: Admit that the procedure described in lviEL 27-51-4 J and 

paragraph 8 of the Complaint was not completed on the flight day beginning 3:00A.M. local 

time on October 19,2010. 

Response: Deny. 

Request for Admission No. 5: Admit that the procedure described in MEL 27-51-41 and 

paragraph 8 ofthe Complaint was oot completed on the flight day beginning 3:00A.M. local 

time au October 20, 2010. 

Response; Deny. 

Request for Admission No. (i: Admit that SkyWost operated N822SK in comme<Cial sc:rvice au 

5 
01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 I\NM7 PAGE 24/28 

10/17/2012 og, 13 FAX ·1~66343505 PEOPLE l1ll 007 

the flight day begin:ning 3:00A.M local time on October 19, 2010. 

Besponse: Adroit. 

Request for Admission No.7: Adroit that SkyWest operated N822SK in commercial service on 

the flight day beginning 3:00AM. local time October 20,2010. 

Response: Adroit. 

Request for Admission No.8: Adn1it that SkyWest operated N822SK in comro.ercial service on 

the flight day beginning 3:00A.M. local thne October21, 2010. 

Response: Admit. 

Request for Admission No. 9: Adroit that N822SK wa.~ flown 17 flight cycles between October 

19, 2010 and the completion of the MEL 27~51-4a procedure on October 21, 2010. 

Response: Admit. 

DATED this 17'h day of October, 2012. 

~ 

~cL__ Todd C. Emerson 

Attorney for Sky West Airlines 

6 
01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 25/28 

l0/17120.1.2 09:14 FH 4356343505 PEOPLE lilloos 

CERTIF1CATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 17°' day o,f October, 2012, a true and correct 

copy ofthe fOregoing RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S INITIAL 

DISCOVERY REQUEST was served as follows: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Rm E12-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

{Federal Express} 

Federal Aviation Adm.inistration 

8(10 Independence A venue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

(Federal Express} 

Jeffrey M. Harper 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Northwest Mountain Region, A_NM-7 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, Washington. 98057 

{Facsimile and Federal &;pres.') 

7 
01/30/2014 14:39 425227WB7 ANM7 PAGE 25/28 

~ Aircraft Flight Log AL 00477 

I AIC # N cr.zz vc: DATE 10 //9 /<'o 

' 

Airworthiness Release Slgnature JOMP # DATE STA Hour11 11nd Cycl•s at tlmn of 

Alrworthif'lMll ROJOMQ, 

M:x Sign~ro I I HR I"L Mt~lnt..nane~ Check Complied With •ndlor Additional Work Performed critical to the Safety of F\lgh\. 

NAME EMP# NAME EMP# NAME EMP# NAME EMP# 

PIC I 

~ ~~'-"'L ~ !.11~h11m /I<; I.; PIC 

=r:c:~-~ i'l-Y:>J 

SIC SIC SIC~ SIC 

,_,.,,. ""'~ 

~· ')}v-h "{ p ..,,.., l '/,{,~1> ~~- ....,,._ 1&,...-

"agfi'~ df.. ~nalu~- /1 ~ re .-:? PlC Slgneture 

~ ~ / 

Ptc.J FUGHT rtiertiil --. .. Add 011 CYC~E CRJ 

INT. NO. FROM TO TIME L.Te R. Te +L. OIL +R. OIL +APU CREDIT CAT II 

1 1 .. -n. Y¥~1 r? ..&<". '7<-- C. /.'o I 

2 ])k. </7'>/ $U.. t..+Y. n7,o 

3 IPk., 'i"1 ~:;s,. ;1....,4-K 41)-7 !'1-6 

4 lOki '1'11-£ .:'A-s l..,£t)( I "'/?J 

5 £A< '-(q ':Z~ l. A l'- LA~ :4-6 I 

6 :;n -<r.:l'r /.AS LAJC :-v; 

7 3/. 't.Bil'¥ .vfl' £JJ<; :"'r 

8 1.,.-.l- . 'II§,!' .1.4' ,-AI ;ft. I 

9 l.::rt.. rrtw ~ """"" 'T? 

10 L 

I This page total flight time: 7-t// :xxx;. ' ' 'xS! ' " ' . .. -

EM6 ENG~E TREND TREND 1 FLT # ' TREND 2 FLT# 

FL!GH OA.TA. LEFT RIGHT. LEFT RIGHT *Note: For EMB 120 Aircraft only. OAT PIC signature indicates that 

PRESS AL T (29.92) FFOD checks have been 

lAS accorn.pli~l:\ed in accordance 

T6 with aircraft daily check 

TORQUE procedures. PROP RPM (No) 

CP-SPEED (Nh) 

f'UEL FLOW 

BLEED AIR AUTO/NORM AUTO/NORM AUTO/NORM AUTO/NORM 

DE-ICE OFF OeF OF~ OFF 

OIL TEMP 

OIL PRESSURE 

07109 

Form M-127 0613012010 

Exhibit 4 
01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 AN~·17 PAGE 27/28 

Aircraft Flight Log AL 00478 

Airworthlne~s Re.lea•e Signature EMP# 0/I.TE STA \4our• tmd Cyelu nt -time of 

Atrwor'thlncs.s R.eleasG, 

I I HR Icc Mx Slgnature 

Maintenance Check Compiled W1th and/or Additional Work Performed CritJcal to the Safety of Flight. 

NAME ; EMP # NAME EMP# NAME _EMP # NAME IEMP# 

~ ~P~ Pl~e~~~ 

~ FL!G!-IT 1 EMI3 Start Temp • Add Oil 

INT NO. .FROM _TQ_ TIME L. T6 1 R. 'f6 + L. OIL + R, OIL + A!'U 

CYCLE 

CREDIT 

CRJ 

CAT II 

9 I 

10 : 

T~s page total fllght_tlme: ~ X)Q()<X)< 

EMB ENGINE TREND IFTRE':'-=:fiD:,;1;-:F..=llT Tr-"-:: #=:;--111-'-Tr'-7:R_SJ:':ID=• 2'-'~ F-=TL·~ #=-::::--1 

FLIGHT DATA LEFT _RIG I-I.!_ LEFT Rl_GHT 

·OAT 

i AL T (29.92) I 

lAS 

TO ROLl<= 

~RPM(I'!p) 

(Nh) 

FUEL FLOW 

BLEED AIR 

OIL TEMP 

OIL l"l'l""'"' ""' 

07/09 

. 

AUTO I NORM _!\liTO I NORM I AUTO I NOR!4 AUTO I NORM 

_(ll'l'_ _oFF OFF 2FF 

Form M-t27 081:)01201 o 

*Note: For EMB 120 Aircraft only. 

PIC signature indicates that 

FFOD checks have been 

accomplished in accordance 

with aircraft daily check 

procedures. 
01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 ANM7 

PAGE 28/28 

I 

'· 

US. ~:!opal,_. . 

Q')~· 

' l'<dotol .. _ 

,.AdmJn.ls~.. '· 

i 

. ' 

.'' 

'•' 

•' 

,. 

,. 

;. 

•' _ . 

Air Carrier Certificate 

This certifies tl).at 

. ikrwsst AIJruNES~ ni~. >~44 sonm· :ru:mB. :ROAD 

s:r. GEO:RGE. 'lJVJI 54790 

. " 

,., 

•'' . 

,. ,·· 

has rnet·the requirements of the Feder' a! Avia11on Acl of 1958, as aJ!lended, and the rules, · · 

regulalions, and standards prescribed thereunder for the issuance of tbls certificate and Is 

herebY autrorized to operate ,as an air carrier and conduct commo'n carriage operations In· 

ac:cordanc'e with Sfiid Acl ani:l. the rules, regulaUons, and standards_ prescribed thereunder. 

and -~~F terms, conditions, snd fimilalion~ contained in the sP,proved operations specificallons. 

' -This cerlificate is not transferable aniunless sooner surrendered, suspended, or revok!3d, ., 

shall continue in effect indefinitely. · · 

. Certilicate'numt>ei:' · Sl.':UOlU 

EIJec1ive d~le:fEllJ!UAJ!Y Ja;: 1989 

JlllSSUl! IJEcmsER 6, 2007 

rss~ed at ID!Oii 

'• 

of th6 Admlnistlator: 

. (Sigootul'lt)·. · 

~GER. 

.. _(Title) 

J10R:rm.'EST }.IOUNT.AJ){ JtEGlOII-

(Aegion/Ot(iae) 

FAA form ll43CH616-IJ7J 

J::xhibit 5 

l•' 

''. 

., 

'' 
01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 ANM7 

FACSIMILE MESSAGE 

Jeffrey M. Harper 

FEDERAL A VJATJON ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL 

ANM-7 

1601 LIND A VENUE S.W. 

RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 

PAGE 01/28 

The information contained in this facsimile message is legally privileged and confidential 

information and is intended only for the use of the individual named on tllis cover sheet 

If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 

use, dissemination, distribution, or copy of this facsimile is strictly prohibited. If you 

have received this facsimile in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 

425-227-2007. 

DATE: January 30, 2014 NO. 27 including cover 

PAGES: 

TO: Hearing Docket Clerk AGC430 FROM: Jeffi·ey M. Harper 

FAX NO: 202-493-5142 FAX 425-227-1007 

NO.: 

PHONE NO.: PHONE 425-227-2161 

NO.: 

RE: SkyWest Airlines, Inc. Email: Jeffrey .harper@faa.gov 

DMS No.: FAA-2012-0777 

FAA Case No. 2011NM060005 

MOTION FOR DECISION