01/30/2014 14:39 4252271007

JEFFREY 

### M. HARPER FAA OFF!CE OF REGIONAT. 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: SkyWest Airlines, Inc. FAA Case No. 20 11NM060005 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 bythe parties." 14 C.F.R. 

### 13.218(c). Counsel for Respondent, 

### in a phone 

### call withthe undersigned counsel on January 

### 22, 2014, agreed to the filing ofthis moti.on. During the phone call, counsel for both patties agreed: 

### 1. There is no genuine dispute 

### as to any material fact onthe question ofeither 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 ofFacts On October 

### 18, 2010, a SkyWest flight crew reported a discrepancy in the maintenance logbook ofN822SK ("the aircraft"), an aircraft operated by SkyWest under Part 121 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). Complaint=>

## mf II.2 and 6, Answer=

## mfIL2 and 6. 1 SkyWest's

1Hyper 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. Forthe discrepancy in this case, the relevant MEL conditions and limitations were, at the time, found 

### in SkyWest Standard Practice (SP) 8175,2 

### paragraph 21-51-4a. Complaint"' '1] U.S, Answer""' '1] II.8. Two ofthe relevant conditions were that: 1. SkyWest verifY operation ofthe "pack discharge pressure sensor" and 2. Make an entry inthe AircraftMaintenance Log. Complaint"' '1] II.S, Answer=> '1]1l.8. These actions must betaken once per flight day.!d. SkyWeSt's Aircraft Maintenance Logfor the aircraft contains no entry demonstrating SkyWest verified the operation ofthe pack discharge pressure sensor on October 19, 2010 or October 20, 2010. Exhibit 1.""' SkyWest 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 wasflown on a total of 17 flights on October 

### J9 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 ofthe FAR.**Complaint""~** 

### II.l, Answer"" '1] II.l. 

### Ithad operating revenues in excess of$100 million for the year ending December, 2011 and employed more than 1,500 people. Exhibit 3,= Requests for AdmissionNos. 1 and 2.lthas the ability to pay a $142,500 civil penalty. Exhibit 3,""' Request for Admission No.3. Inits Response to Complainant's Initial Discovery Request, SkyWest asserts it took five steps inresponse to the Letter ofInvestigation 

### in this case. Exhibit 3,"" Interrogatory No.7. The Letter ofinvestigation was sent to SkyWest on October 27, 2010. Exhibit 2.""' 

### Argument Standard for Decision "The administrative lawjudge shall gr:mt a party's motion for decision ifthe pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, matters that the administrative lawjudgehas

2 The approved MEL for N822SK.

Motion for Decision In the Mattet ofSkyWest 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) 227-100701/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 ANH7 PAGE 04/28

officially noticed

... shewthat there is no genuine issue ofmaterial fact and that the party making the motiou is entitled to a decisiou as a matter oflaw. The party making the motion

... has the burden ofshowing that there is no genuine issue ofmaterial fact disputedby the parties." 

### 14 C.FR. § 13.218(£)(5). 

### Liability Respondent is charged withtaking offan aircraft inviolation of§ 121.628(a)(5/ ofthe FAR, as it took offan airplane with inoperable equipment when the applicable conditions and limitations contained in the MELhad not been complied with. Because SkyWest failed to comply withthe conditions listed in the MEL, it violated§ 1195(g)4 as well, since SkyWest's OpSpecs authorize itto 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 aircraftunairworthy. 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 ofits OpSpecs. Respondent has admitted to all relevant facts as alleged in the Complaint. 

### Respondent tookoff an aircraft with inoperable equipmentwhen the applicable conditions of the MEL hadnot been compliedwith Respondent adrnits the aircraft 

### had a discrepancy, that is, inoperable equipment. Answer-> 

### 'I] IL6. An applicable condition ofthe MEL which Respondent was required to rneet in orderto operate the aircraft was that 

### it "verifY operation ofthe pack discharge pressure sensor by interrogating the 

### MDC" and that this veri.fication be done "once perflight day" with an appropriate Aircraft Maintenance Log Entry being made. Answer"' 

### 'I] II.&. SkyWest 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 notbeen 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 orthat 

### the aircraft did not conform to the conditions ofthe 

### 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.l0.

' "No person may take offan 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 ofthe 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'BFFREYM. HARPER,, FAAATTORNBY TEL; (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-100701/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 05/28

EvenifSkyWest did not admit "there was in fact a failure to accomplishthe required check" (Exhibit 2,""' Page 1), its claims conflict with the FAR. 1n this case, the absence ofevidence is evidence ofabsence. The evidence Respondent failed to comply with the MEL takes the form of an absence ofa record documenting the check actually took place. Section 121.380(a)(l) ofthe FARrequires that an air carrier keep records which show all requirements for the issuance ofan airworthiness relea.se under Section 121.709 have been met. Section 121.709 requires thatanairworthiness release certify that no knO\vn condition exists that would make the airplane unairworthy and thatthe aircraft is in condition for safe operation. As discussed below,"" failure to comply withthe conditions ofthe 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 ifRespondent were arguing thatthe check was actually completed, its responses to discovery have not identified any witnesses that could testifY to having actual completedthe check. Exhibit 3""', Response to Interrogatory No.3. Without the testimony oftheperson actually completing the check, and in light ofthe requirement that the check be documented, in the absence ofthat docut:nentation, one may infer the checkwas not completed. Furthermore, the MEL in question specifically requiredthat the verification ofth<:: pack discharge pressure sensor's operation be documented in the Aircraft Maintenance Log.**Complaint='~** II.S, Answer"'"**~** H.8. Exhibit 1 contains the AircraftMaintenance Log entries forthe time period in this case, including docw:nentation thatthe verification was completed on October 18 and 21, 2010. 5 The log entries do not showthatthe required daily verificationwas completed on October 19 and 20. Exhibit 1.""' Hadthey 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 ofall 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 InterrogatoryNo. 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. Inthe absence ofany 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, SkyWest did not comply with the conditions ofthe MEL. Respondent further claims some ofthe flights on October 19, 2010 should not be counted as violations, since the daily verification can be completed "atthe end ofthe flight day (24 hour

5 The page numbers are contiguous, indicating there are no pagesmissing, 5 ln the alternative, themaintenance 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 ofthe MEL thatrequire:! that the completion ofthe daily verification be entered into the Aircraft Maintenance Log. Eitherway, SkyWe5t failed to comply with the conditions ofthe MEL and violated the FARs.

Motion for Decision Trt the Matter ofSkyWest Airllncs, lnc. rAA Case No. 2011NM060005, DMS No. FAA"2012·0777 Page 4 of 12 JEFFREY M. 1-lJ.JtPER, FAAATTORNEY TEL; (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-100701/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 05./28



### period) and still comply with the applicable MEL." Exhibit 3,,. Response to Interrogatory No.9. Presumably, SkyWest is claiming not all ofthe flights on the 19th were in violation as they took place within 24 hours ofthe completion ofthe check on the 18th. TI1is allegation fails due to Respondent's definition of"flightday. 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 onthe l8th, the requirement to complete the verification arose anew when SkyWest 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 ofthem. Exhibit 1."" The verifi.cation was not completed at any time onthe 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 ofthe MEL. Exhibit 3,"" Responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 6-9; Exhibit 4."" Section 121.628(a)(5) prohibits taking offan 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 ofthe Minimum Equipment List." By not completing the required daily check on October 19 and 20,7 

### and then operating the aircraft on 17

.. . 

### flights, 

### itdispatched, took off, and operated an aircraft 17 times when 

### it did not meet all applicable conditions and limitations. Respondentdispqtched, released, andoperatedthe aircrafl on 17 flights when it 

### was •.mairworthy. Section 121.605 prohibits the dispatch or release ofan. unairworthy aircraft; Section 121.153(a)(2) prohibits the operation ofan 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 ofGoJetAirlines, LLC, 

### FAA OrderNo. 2012-5"" (May 22, 2012) at 13 9

, 

### citing In the 

### Matter of RonaldHaydon 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) ofthis 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 ofthe decision foundat2012 WL258855l. 00

Motion for Decision In the Matter ofSkyWest Airlines. Inc. i?AA Case No. 2011NM060005, DMS No. FAA-2012·0777 PageS of 12 JEFFREY M. HARPER, FM.ATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-216L FAX: (425) 227-100701/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 PAGE 07/28



### "An aircraft ,,, flown withoutrequired inspections is not 'airworthy'

...." 

### In the Matter ofUSAi1; Inc., FAA Order No. 1996-25"" (August 12, 1996) at 13, 10 

### An MEL constitutes an approved change to the type design ofan aircraft. 14 C.F.R. § 

### 121.628(a)(2). Section 121.628(a)(5) requires thatthe conditions and limitations contained in the MEL be complied with in order to take offthe aircraft with .inoperable instruments or equipment. Thus, inspections contained within the conditions and limitations ofthe MEL arc requiredinspections ifthe aircraft is to be taken offwith inoperable equipment covered by th.e MEL. As a result, failure to comply with the conditions and limitations ofan 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; 

### NorthwestAirlines 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 ofthe pack discharge pressnre sensor's operation) was not corn,pleted. Thus, since the MEL was not complied with, the aircraft did not conformtotype 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 andoperatedaircraft in 

### violation of appropriate OpSpecs Section 119.5(g) prohibits an air carrier from operating as a direct air carrier in violation ofan appropriate OpSpec; § 119.5(1) prohibits operation ofan aircraft nnder Part 121 in violation ofan appropriate OpSpec. Here, Respondent's OpSp.,cs authorized itto us" "an approved Minimum EquipmentList." 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 ofan appropriate OpSpec. 

### Liability- Conclusion The undisputed facts 

## ofthis case demonstrate that SkyWest failed to complete a daily verification on two days as required by anMEL and as a consequence operated an nnairwortby aircraft 17 times. There is no genuine issue ofmaterial fact on the question ofliability.

10 Page 13 in original decision as hyperlinkcd. The quoted language is foundat page 6 in the WestLaw version ofthe decision at 1996 WL 509937.""'

Motion for Decision In the Maner ofSkyWc;:st**Airlines~** Inc. FAA CoseNo. 2011NM060005, DMSNo. FAA-2012-0777 Pago 6 of 12 JJ?.IoPRE,Y M. I-l.A.RPER, FAA ATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-100701/30/2014 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 FAApolicy. Complainant seeks a total sanction of$142,500, stemming from Respondent's failure to comply with a required condition ofan MEL ontwo days and the consequent operation ofthe 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 ofthose facts in determining the appropriate sanction.


### Standard of Determination Under 49 U.S.C. § 46301 (a)(1), "aperson is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty ofnot 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 ofwhich are coveredby clause (A). 49 U.S.C. 

### §46301(a)(l)(A), 14 C.F.R. Parts 119 and 121 (Preamble). The maximum penaltyhas been adjusted to $27,500. 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.305.
In determining an appropriate civilpenalty, the Administrator considers a variety offactors: 

### I. The nature and circumstances oftheviolation, 2. The extent and gravity ofthe violation, 

### 3. The person's degree ofculpability, 4. The person's history ofprior violations, 5. The petson's ability to pay the civil penalty, 

### 6. The effect on the person's ability to stay inbusiness, and 

### 7. Other matters asjustice mayrequire. 

### 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 ofcivil 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'sprosecutorial discretion, the FAAhas 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 ofSkyWest Airlines, Jnc. J'AA Caso No. 20IINM060005, DMS No. FAA-2012·0777 Page 7 of 12 JEFFREY M.**HARPER~** pAA ATTO:RNEY TEL: (4Z5) 227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-100701/30/2014 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 ofthe sanction range. Sanction Guidance,"' Appendix B,**~** 3.c. The Complainant's sanction determination does not, however, reflect a ftxed mathematical computation; inaddition to the published penalty ranges, it takes into account thirteen factors set forth in Chapter 7, Paragraph4 ofthe 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 ofthe recommended range. The FAA Orderreflects the Administrator's general views about appropriate civil penalties; civil penalties must reflect the totality ofthe circumstances surrounding the violations. 

### Folsom :S

### Air Service, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 2008-11"" (November 6, 2008). The weight to be given to each ofthese factors is within the discretion of the Complainant; "the Complainl.lllt maintains relative prosecutorial discretion in detew\ning the case's final aggregate weight inproposing the level ofcivil penalty."

### Inthe Mattr;r of William A. Luker, Jr., FAA DocketNo. CP09SW0008""'at 9, 2010 WL 1989430"" at 5 (May 13, 2010). Although a Department ofTransportation Administrative Law Judge is not statutorily bound to follow theAdministrator's guidance, "[a]n administrative agency is entitled to substaotial deference in assessing the civil penalty appropriate for a violation ofits regulations. The. Administrator's choice ofa ssnction is not to be overturned unless it is unwarranted in law o.r withoutjustification in fact." 

### NLindustries, Inc. v. Dept. ofTransponation, 901 F.2d 141,"" 144 (D.C. Cir. 1990), citing

### Butzv. Glover Livestock Commission Co., Inc., 4J. J. U.S. 182,"" J.85-86 (1973). 

### Respondent'sAffirmative 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 ofthe violation; b. Whetherthe violation was inadvertent and not deliberate; c. The certificate holder's level ofexperience; d. Tite attitude ofthe violator; e. The degree ofhazard; f. Whetherthere was action taken by the employeror other authority against tbe employeethat committedthe violation(s);

Motion for Decision In tho Malter ofSkyWest A1rlines1 Inc. FAA Ca_<cNo. 2011NM060005, DMS No. FAA-2012-0777 Page 8 of 12 g. Use ofthe certificate; h. Violation history; i. Decisionallaw; J. Ability to absorb the sanction; k. Consistency ofSanction; 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) 227-100701/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 ANH7 PAGE 10/28



### 2. The FAA failed to account for mitigating factors taking the fom1 ofsubsequent 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 ofproving them. 14 C.F.R. 

### § l3.224(b). As to Respondent's first claim, 17 is the correct number offlights 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; Respondentbears tbe burden onthis point. In its response to Complainant's Leiter ofInvestigation, Respondent identified the root cause of these violations as a failure to enter the text ofthe MEL into its flight control SABRE database. Exhibit 2.""' OfRespondent's five steps, only one, "Maintenance Database Administrator" is relevant to the root cause oftbe violations Respondent identified; the others have atbest a tenuous connectionto the specific violations in this case. In light ofSkyWest's expanding fleet ofaircraft, "More Maintenance Controllers," "Enhanced Phone System," and "Supervisor Internal Compliance" would be expected courses ofaction for Respondent to take regardless of the viol.ati.ons here. See SkyWest, Inc. Annual Reports, available at http://inc.skywest.com/ investlreports.php,"" lastvisited 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 onthe 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 ifit exceedsthe n1inimum regulatory or statutory requirements. Sanction Guidance,"" Chapter 7, 'j[ 

### 4.m. As the holder ofan aircarrier certificate, Respondent is required to "have sufficient qualified management and technical personnel to ensure the highest degree ofsafety in its operations." 14 C.F.R. § 119.65(a). Jfthe addition ofa "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 ofSection 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 inmitigation." 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-l00701/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 11/28



### Even ifitthese actions were mitigating, paragraph 4.m ofthe Sanction Guidance states that the amount ofmitigation depends onthe timing ofthe corrective action. Action taken after the FAA notifies the Respondent ofthe alleged violations warrants less mitigationthen action taken before the FAAbecomes aware ofthe 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 ofRespondent operating contrary to its OpSpecs (failing to perform a daily verification required by an MEL condition onnvo dates), and the resultant operation ofan unairworthy aircraft 

### 1 7 times. 15 

### Operation Contrary to OpSpecs: Appendix 

### B, Figure B-1-c-2 ofthe 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 ofhazard, 

### a mitigating factor accounted for in the selection ofthe 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 ofthe Sanction Guidan.ce. Given Respondent's lengthy experience as an 

### air carrier however, a sanction above the midpoint is warranted. SkyWest 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 ofcare. Sanction Guidance,"" Chapter 

### 7, '1[ 

### 4.g. 

### Operation of an UnairworthyAircraft: Appendix 

### B, Figure B-1-1-1 ofthe Sanction Guidance provides that 

### a minimum civil penalty is appropriate for operation. ofan unairworthy aircraft, "[t]echnical non-conformity to TC [type certificate] no likely effect on safe operation." As with Operation Contrary to OpSpecs, the choice ofsanction range accounts for the mitigating factor of the relatively low degree ofhazard, the midpoint ofthe 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 theGroup 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, AppendixB, 111! 3.b and 3 .c, 1. 17 Arguably, the fact that the affected componentturned out tobe 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 ofSkyWest Airlines_, Inc. fAA Case No. 2011NM06000S, DMS No, FAA-2012-0777 Page 10ofl2 JEFFREYI\.·1. HARPER, FAAATTORNEY TEl .•: (425) 227-2161: FAX: (425) 227-100101/30/2014 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 ofthe flights is a separate violation. Thus, there are a total of 19 violations inthis 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 ofmaterial fact onthe question ofsanction; the parties disagree on the effect those facts might have on the calculation ofan appropriate penalty. 

### Exhibits l. Aircraft Maintenance Log, N822SK, October I8-21, 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 ofmaterial fact to be litigated. Respectfully submitted this 30'h day ofJanuary, 2014.

# ~-~ FAA Attorney

18**~~A** separate violation occurs under this subsection

.. _for each flight involving [he violation

...."

Motion for Decision In the Matter of SkyWest**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 00701/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 ANf<17



### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoingMotion for Decision has been served via facsimile and Certified Mail- Return ReceiptRequested this date, to the following: The Honorable Richard C" Good"'in Office ofHearings, M-20 1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 Fax: (202) 

### 366-7536 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2\Vl000 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 Fax: (202) 493-5142 Todd Emerson, Esg. SkyWest Airlines, lnc. 444 South River Road St. George, 

### UT 84790 Fa.'!:: (435) 634-3505 Dated this 30th day ofJanuary, 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\** 

# AircraftMaintenance 

# 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**~14"** ' Q 

# 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# 

## Pc.,;( <:"'

### ':! \ 

## 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#


### PartsInfonnation Disc.# M·l9# I'mNumber ON SerialNumber-ON Part Number OFF SeriEll NumberOFF 

### 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.



### - •. 

## "' mliP 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 ]01/ 

### .g1/.() MX Control # 

### 3 ri{i3 

### Item ClosedBy: I _ID-

### tJ {<, 

### fcWll-

### S'U.7l.d .N1 { 

### fr-**~** 

## I \).as;_

----

### ~ J ' ?-4-1 J-LR ' 6 ,__

### ·~ I "' '"'-"

## ~rM--ol'IC -- .. - 

### - - --**~~/** - 

### -- --.:: c-. -



# ----**Initial~**



### - ID# 

# /tf37/**~** )

# ~Oru1 /./.A-(// 

## 17 ')IV -// Insp. Jniliols: cY/ 

## !---" JD# 

# 2 DISCREPANCY 0 MX tl{PIC IDit 5568 CORRECTIVEACTION STA

### ~ O.te '" I ;:"1

### :C.,; ,L! FLT# 

### fl'fi'1f !ITA 

### LftL

### o.~Pf'-r<o 

### I t1 MX Contwl # (j/_,t,"l- ItemClowd By: 

### SLc

,.. cs svJia records 

## tJ,./J- rh v-- 

# fM""r - '3/,

- 

# z/--£"A-**~MX** OF!C 

## 1JV-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#


### PartsInformation Disc.# j M-19# j_ Part Numbor ON SerialNumb« ON 

### I PartNumber-(}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

## li'' Ol'IIIJ'dt;;:;,n 

### A/C#N V-2-S:r<... 

# Arrcratt Mamtenance Log ML .,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** 

# IJklnMJ0 RH Insp. Initials:
ID# 

## 2 DISCREPANCY i;!1 MX DPIC 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 

## ?AC>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 PartNumb!;rON

. · Serio! N\lffibcrON 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 CD01/30/2014 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 1020 North FlyerWay Salt Lake City, UT84116-2959 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 ofthis office are investigating an Incident, which involved the operation ofa Bombardier, CL-600-:2024 aircraft, N822SK; at Denver International Airport (DEN) in Denver, Colorado; on October20, 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 ofthe 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 Crewvia 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 17/2801/30/2014 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** ofthis 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 18/2801/30/2014 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 RiverRoad St. George, Utah, 84790 Telephone: (435) 634-3530 Facsimile: (435) 634-3505 Attorneyfor SkyWestAirlines, Inc.

Inthe Matter of: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFHEARlNGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

FAA CaseNo. 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: Identifyby name, address and telephone number allpcrso.ns whom you know to havepersonal knowledge o;(thematters alleged in the Complaint. Response: Individuals known to Sky West thathave knowledge ofthe matters alleged in the Camptaint are: Darrell Cook- Director QualityAssurance Bill Dykes -DirectorMainteJ)ancc Gary Goodman- ManagerEnsineering!Comp



### Exhibit 301/30/2014 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, allpersons whom you intend to have testify as a factual or expert witness in your defense atthe hellring inthis**matte~**.• and for factual witnesses, provide a detailed summary ofeach persons anticipated testimony. Response: SkyWest .identifies the following factual witnesses: Gary Goodman, Mr. Goodman is familiar with the MEL and SkyWest's efforts to ensure that aU MELprocedures 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: Idontijjrby title, date, author, present custodian, =d content, all docUll).eni:1l which you anticipate offering into**~idence** or using atthe hclltingin this matter, and through which witness or w.ituesses the document will be offered, SeeRequest for ProductionNo.2. Response: All maintenance**~ecords** will be offered through Gary Goodman. SkyWest 'will ask theFAA to stipulate to 

### anyJ!AA Orders, CRF's orFAR's that itrelies 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. InterrogatoryNo.5: Withrespect to each expert witness ideu.tified inresponse to InterrogatOry No. 3, specify their specific area ofexperti•e, and provide a synopsis oftheir 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. InterrogatoryNo. 6: With respect to each expert you expect to call as a witness, state the subject matter on whichthe expert is expected to testify, and state the substance ofthe facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify, and a summary ofthe grow1ds for each**s~ch** opinion. Response: SkyWest has not detexmined whether it will call an expertwitness at this time and .reserves the lightto supploment this response in the event an. export is identified.

201/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 i\NH7 PAGE 21/28

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

JntenogatoryNo. 7: Describe with specificity all ofthe facts which you anticipate presenting in the course ofthe hearing in this matter pertaining to the avoidance or)l1itigation o:fthe sanction sottghtby the FAA in this case. Response: SkyWcsthas taken the following steps inresponse to the LOI in this case: New Position Created: Supervisor Internal Compliance. This

### was proposed inthe SkyWcst l'esponse letter to FAA Case No. 201.1NM6005. This position has dailyoversight ofthe 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 aircraftthat require d<lily inspeotioJJS, This programprevents 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 aircraftblocking program is working. Cost: $62,000 .Enhanced Phone System. At times ofhigh cal1 volume flight crews were not getting tbnely comrounicatlon ofmaintenance 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. SkyWestlias added seven hdditional controllers since 10/20/10. Theyprovide more comprehensive daily oversight and maintain operational control ofSky West aircraft Costpor year: $370,400 [lltetrogatoryNo. 8: Stateby name, address, telepho11e number, date ofconversation, and substance ofconversation, 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, statewith specificity the facts that ore the basis for !hatdenial as well as the inq

### Llirios taken to determine that the allegation in the complaint is not correct. See Request for ProductionNo.3, Response: There is no evidence that SkyW,;tfailed to' comply with MEL 27-51-4a or that at the time ofthe flights, N728SK didnot conform to all applicable conditions and limitations contained in the alleged MEL. Fmthcr, maintenance checks can be done at the end ofthe flight day (24 hot•rperiod) and still complywith the applicable

### MEL, thus it is improper to count all of the flights on the 1.9 11' as alleged violations. ·

301/30/2014 14:39 4252271007**ANI~7** PAGE 22/28

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

Inten·ogatoa No. I0: For any ofthe <<':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 Ihat the faces in the request for admission are not correct. SeeRequest for Production No, 4. Respondent's Response: RFA #4 and #5. A:A:er a thorough review ofthe FAA's items of proof, there is no evidence that Sky West fai..led to comply withMEL 27-51Al. Interrogatory No. ll: Describe with specificity all facts or evidence you .intend to rely upon in support ofany affirmative defenses raised in any Answer to the Complaint, to include identifying the specific FAA policy you claim is violated bythe 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 !,'Uidance found inFAA Order 2150.3B and 8900. E,EOUESTS FORPRODUCTION
Request for Production No. l: Provide a copy ofall documents referred to in your answer to lnterrogatoryNo. 2. Response: TheFAA has copies ofall referenced documents. RcqlJest for Production No. 2: Provide a copy ofall documents referred to in your answer to Jntenogatory No.4. Response: The FAA has copies ofall rofm·encod documents.**Regt~es't** for Prod\1ction No. 3: Provide a copy ofall documents that suppmt**yo~r** answer to lnterrogatory No. 9. Re.sponse: TheFAA has copies ofall rcfetenced documents.
jZequest for Prod\J.Ction No. 4: Provide a copy ofall documents that support your answer to lllten-ogatory No. 10. Response: 111e FAA has copies ofall referenced documcrots.

401/30/2014 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 ofall documents that support your answerto lnterrogatoryNo. 11. Response: The FAAms copies ofall referenced documents.

REQUESTFOR ADMISSIONS
Request fur Admission No.1: Admi.t that, for the 12 month period ending December2011, SkyWcstAirlines had operating revenues in excess of$100million, as shownby e;o Airline Quarterly Financial Review (4'" Quarter 2011) publishedbythe Department of Transportation, Office ofAviation Anal)"lis, Competition and Policy Analysis Division. Respondent's Response: Admi.t. Request for Admissiou No.2: Admit that, as ofDecember 31, 2011, SkyWest Airlines employs more than 1,500 employees, as shownby Sky West Airlines' 2011 Annual Report. Respondent's Response: Admit. Request forAdmission No. 3: Admit that Sky West Airlines b!lll the financial abilityto paythe $142,500re'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 ofthe Complaint was not completed on the flight day beginning 3:00A.M. local time on October 19,2010. Response: Deny. Request for AdmissionNo. 5: Admit that the procedure described inMEL 27-51-41 and paragraph 8 oftheComplaint was oot completed on the flight day beginning 3:00A.M. local time auOctober 20, 2010. Response; Deny. Requestfor AdmissionNo. (i: Admit that SkyWost operated N822SK in comme<Cial sc:rvice au

501/30/2014 14:39 4252271007 I\NM7 PAGE 24/28

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

the flight daybegin:ning 3:00A.M localtime on October 19, 2010. Besponse: Adroit. Requestfor Admission No.7: Adroit that SkyWest operated N822SK in commercial service on the flight daybeginning 3:00AM. local time October 20,2010. Response: Adroit.
Request for AdmissionNo.8: Adn1it that SkyWest operated N822SK in comro.ercial service on the flight daybeginning 3:00A.M. local thne October21, 2010. Response: Admit. Request for AdmissionNo. 9: Adroit thatN822SK**wa.~** flown 17 flight cyclesbetween October 19, 2010 and the completion oftheMEL**27~51-4a** procedure on October 21, 2010. Response: Admit.

DATED this 17'h day ofOctober, 2012.

## ~

# ~cL__ Todd C. Emerson Attorney for SkyWestAirlines

601/30/2014 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,fOctober, 

### 2012, a true and correct
copy ofthe fOregoing RESPONDENT'S RESPONSETO COMPLAINANT'S INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUEST was served as follows:
TheHonorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. EastBuilding GroundFloor, Rm E12-320 Washington, D.C. 20590 {Federal Express} Federal Aviation Adm.inistration 8(10 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 Attn: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 (Federal Express} Jeffrey M. Harper Federal Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain Region, A_NM-7 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, Washington. 98057 {Facsimile andFederal &;pres.')

701/30/2014 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 AdditionalWork 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 ALT (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 401/30/2014 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/orAdditional 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 1R. '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 TOROLl<=**~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 

### andconduct 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 thesP,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 AVJATJON ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL ANM-7 1601 LIND AVENUE 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 ofthe individual named ontllis cover sheet Ifthe reader ofthis message is notthe intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copy ofthis facsimile is strictly prohibited. Ifyou 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 FORDECISION