RECEIVED 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

MAY 2 9 2013 

Civil Penalty Action HEAA:t'NG ]lOCKET 

In the Matter of: 

v. 

AVIATION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., . 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0284 

Case No. 2012CE440003 

FAA Docket No. TBA 

Judge: J.E. SULLIVAN 

,· _·. :. 

t. } 

----------------------------------~' ·~· .... , ' . .;:, .. 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

COMES NOW, AVIATION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., by and through their 

undersigned counsel, pursuant to Title 14 CFR Part 13 section 13.218(f)(3), and hereby files their Motion 

for More Definite Statement (the "Motion") of the Administrator's Complaint in this cause and as 

grounds therefore alleges: 

1) The basis for Administrator's Complaint against Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. 

relies upon the allegation that " ..... no person may produce a modification or replacement 

part for sale UJor installation on a type certificated product unless it is produced pursuant to 

a Parts Manufacturer Approval issued under this subpart ..... " .(in pertinent part and emphasis 

added). 

2) However, the Administrators Complaint is deficient in that it does not specifically allege: 

A) how and when the A vantair Repair Station (hereinafter "A vantair") came to be in 

possession of the alleged non-conforming parts; 

B) whether the parts were actually sold to Avantair; 

C) who produced the parts; 

D) who marked the parts "F AA-PMA" and the fashion in which they were marked; 

E) how and when the parts came to be installed on the "Piaggo P-180 aircraft, Civil 

Aircraft N134SL"; and 

F) how and when the FAA came to believe that Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. 

Produced these nonconforming pat;ts for sale [f]or installation on the "Piaggo P-180 

aircraft, Civil Aircraft N134SL". 

3) The Administrator bears the burden of pleading with specificity allegations in support oftheir 

complaint against Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. 

4) The lack of this information will hinder Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. in the 

preparation of a proper answer to the Administrator's Complaint and the defense of this 

cause. 

WHEREFORE, Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. requests this honorable court enter an order 

instructing the Administrator supply a more definite statement specifically stating: 
1) How the non-conforming parts came to be in possession of A vantair; 

2) Whether these parts were actually sold to Avantair by Aviation Engineering Consultants, 

Inc.; 

3) When these nonconforming parts were produced and by whom; 

4) The fashion in which these nonconforming parts were marked, when and by whom; 

5) How and when the parts came to be installed on the "Piaggo P-180 aircraft, Civil Aircraft 

N134SL"; and 

6) How and when the FAA came to believe that Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. 

produced these non-conforming parts for sale [f]or installation on the "Piaggo P-180 aircraft, 

Civil Aircraft N134SL". 

or strike the allegations against Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. contained in the Administrators 

Complaint. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via confirmed facsimile 

and United States Mail receipt # ~I 5"~3qb Y "3 6 0 If 5 , on the 

28th day of May, 2013, to: Mark Camacho, Esquire, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the 

Regional Counsel, Central Region, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, MO 64106-2641, facsimile: 

(816) 329-3771, and that this Motion (and one copy) and copy of the Administrator's Complaint were 

filed this 28th Day of May, 2013, with the FAA hearing docket clerk, 800 Independence Ave. S.W., Attn: 

Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, Wilbur Wright Building, Room 2014, Washington, D.C. 20591, and the 

Hon. J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge, Office of Hearings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 

1200 New Jersey Ave. S.E. (Ell-31 0), Washington, D.C. 20590, facsimile: (202) 366-7536. 

BY~ Douglas J. Barnard, Esquire 

Fla. Bar No. 0928496 

Plane Law, P.A. 

14695 Airport Parkway, Suite 6 

Clearwater, Florida 33762 

Telephone: (727) 259-0224 

Fax: (727) 259-0223 

dougb@planelaw.com 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO~ E CEIVED 

FEDERAL AviATioN ADMINISTRA Tio:N n 

MAY 2 9 2013 

In the Matter of: 

FAA 

Served: 

Docket 

May 

No. 

7, 2013 fri};_~ING ~ 

FAA Case No. 2012CE440003 

__ Av_ia_ti_o_n_E_n-'='g'-in_e_er_in~g"'---C_o_ns_u_lt_a_n_ts..:...., _In_c_. _____, Judge Not Assigned 

COMPLAINT 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby files its Complaint, 

pursuant to Rule 208 of the Rules of Practice (14 C.P.R. 13.208), and states as follows: 

I. 

1. On March 28,2012, Respondent Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. (AECI) 

was advised through a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil 

penalty in the amount of$44,000. On April22, 2013, Respondent submitted a written request 

for a hearing. 

II. 

1. On or about December 23, 2010, AECI shipped eight elevator center hinge 

fittings, part number 80-393103-405, and eight elevator outboard hinge fittings, part number 80-

393103-407, to Avantair, Inc. 

2. On or about October 14, 2011, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), while 

conducting an inspection of the A vantair Repair Station, discovered that four of the parts 

described in paragraph 1 above (two elevator center hinge fittings, part numbr 80-393103-

405AEC, and two elevator outboard hinge fittings, part number 80-393103-407 AEC) were 

installed on a Piaggo P-180 aircraft, Civil Aircraft N134SL. 

3. The parts described in paragraph 2 above were marked "FAA-PMA." However, 

the FAA had not granted Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) to Aviation Engineering 

Consultants, Inc. to produce those parts. 
III. 

1. By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated Section 

21.303(a) of the Federal Aviation Regulations, which provides that, except as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section, no person may produce a modification or replacement part for sale 

for installation on a type ce1iificated product unless it is produced pursuant to a Parts 

Manufacturer Approval issued under this subpart [Title 14 of the Code ofFedderal Regulations· 

(CFR), Section 21.303(a)]. 

2. Pursuant to Title 49 U.S.C. 46301, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to 

exce~d $11,000 for each of the violations alleged. 

3. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of$44,000 is 

appropriate. 

WHEREFORE, the Agency, by counsel, respectfully requests that the Administrative 

Law Judge enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of$44,000. 

Dated this ih day of May, 20 13. 

Respectfully submitted, 

A. Lester Haizlip 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

Mark G. Camacho 

Attorney for Complainant 

Federal Aviation Administration 

901 Locust St., Room 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

816-329-3765; Fax (816) 329-3771 

2 
In the Matter of: 

v. 

RE CE' .. :· · VED · .-. 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MAY! 92DD 

Civil Penalty Action HEARING DOCKET FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

AVIATION ENGINEERING CONSULT ANTS, INC., 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0284 

Case No. 2012CE440003 

FAA Docket No. TBA 

Judge: J.E. SULLIVAN 

----------------------------------~' 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

COMES NOW, AVIATION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., by and through their 

undersigned counsel, pursuant to Title 14 CFR Part 13 section 13.218(f)(3), and hereby files their Motion 

for More Definite Statement (the "Motion") of the Administrator's Complaint in this cause and as 

grotmds therefore alleges: 

1) The basis for Administrator's Complaint against Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. 

relies upon the allegation that " ..... no person may produce a modification or replacement 

part for sale UJor installation on a type certificated product unless it is produced pursuant to 

a Parts Manufacturer Approval issued under this subpart ..... " .(in pertinent part and emphasis 

added). 

2) However, the Administrators Complaint is deficient in that it does not specifically allege: 

A) how and when the Avantair Repair Station (hereinafter "Avantair") came to be in 

possession of the alleged non-conforming parts; 

B) whether the parts were actually sold to Avantair; 

C) who produced the parts; 

D) who marked the parts "FAA-PMA" and the fashion in which they were marked; 

E) how and when the parts came to be installed on the "Piaggo P-180 aircraft, Civil 

Aircraft N134SL"; and 

F) how and when the FAA came to believe that Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. 

Produced these nonconforming parts for sale [f]or installation on the "Piaggo P-180 

aircraft, Civil Aircraft N134SL". 

3) The Administrator bears the burden of pleading with specificity a11egations in support of their 

complaint against Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. 

4) The lack of this information will hinder Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. in the 

preparation of a proper answer to the Administrator's Complaint and the defense of this 

cause. 

WHEREFORE, Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. requests this honorable court enter an order" 

instructing the Administrator supply a more definite statement specifically stating: 
1) How the non-conforming parts came to be in possession of A vantair; 

2) Whether these parts were actually sold to A vantair by Aviation Engineering Consultants, 

Inc.; 

3) When these nonconforming parts were produced and by whom; 

4) The fashion in which these nonconforming parts were marked, when and by whom; 

5) How and when the parts came to be installed on the "Piaggo P-180 aircraft, Civil Aircraft 

N1 34SL"; and 

6) How and when the FAA came to believe that Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. 

produced these non-conforming parts for sale [f]or installation on the "Piaggo P-180 aircraft, 

Civil Aircraft NJ34SL". 

or strike the allegations against Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. contained in the Administrators 

Complaint. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via confirmed facsimile 

and United States Mail receipt # J!; I § 3 3 o/6 .¥ ;363 US , on the 

28th day of May, 2013, to: Mark Camacho, Esquire, Federal. Aviation Administration, Office of the 

Regional Counsel, Central Region, 901 Locust , Room 506, Kansas City, MO 64106-2641, facsimile: 

(816) 329-3771, and that this Motion (and one copy) and copy of the Administrator's Complaint were 

filed this 28th Day of May, 2013, with the FAA hearing docket clerk, 800 Independence Ave. S.W., Attn: 

Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, Wilbur Wright Building, Room 2014, Washington, D.C. 20591, and the 

Hon. J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge, Office of Hearings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 

1200 New Jersey Ave. S.E. (El 1-310), Washington, D.C. 20590, facsimile: (202) 366-7536. 

BY:~--- ~~~ 256 __ ...L..:::::V __ ~------- Douglas J. Barnard, Esquire 

Fla. Bar No. 0928496 

Plane Law, P.A. 

14695 Airport Parkway, Suite 6 

Clearwater, Florida 33762 

Telephone: (727) 259-0224 

Fax: (727) 259-0223 

dougb@planelaw.com 
In the Matter of: 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Served: May 7, 2013 

FAA Docket No. 

FAA Case No. 2012CE440003 

---.:...:.A::..:_v.::..:ia.:...::ti:..::.o=n-=E=n::>;;g~in=e.:...::er=-=i=ng~C..::..o=n.::..:su:...:l..:..::tan=ts , =In:::..c::..:_.---' Judge Not Assigned 

COMPLAINT 

RECEIVED 

MAY 2 9 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby files its Complaint, 

pursuant to Rule 208 of the Rules of Practice (14 C.P.R. 13.208), and states as follows: 

I. 

1. On March 28,2012, Respondent Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. (AECI) 

was advised through a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil 

penalty in the amount of $44,000. On April22, 2013, Respondent submitted a written request 

for a hearing. 

II. 

1. On or about December 23, 2010, AECI shipped eight elevator center hinge 

fittings, part number 80-393103-405, and eight elevator outboard hinge fittings, part number 80-

393103-407, to Avantair, Inc. 

2. On or about October 14, 2011, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), while 

conducting an inspection ofthe Avantair Repair Station, discovered that four of the parts 

described in paragraph 1 above (two elevator center hinge fittings, part numbr 80-393103-

405AEC, and two elevator outboard hinge fittings, part number 80-393103-407 AEC) were 

installed on a Piaggo P-180 aircraft, Civil Aircraft N134SL. 

3. The parts described in paragraph 2 above were marked "FAA-PMA." However, 

the FAA had not granted Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) to Aviation Engineering 

Consultants, Inc. to produce those parts. 
III. 

1. By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated Section 

21.303(a) of the Federal Aviation Regulations, which provides that, except as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this· section, no person may produce a modification or replacement part for sale 

for installation on a type certificated product unless it is produced pursuant to a Parts 

Manufacturer Approval issued under this subpart [Title 14 of the Code ofFedderal Regulations. 

(CFR), Section 21.303(a)]. 

2. Pursuant to Title 49 U.S.C. 46301, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to 

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

3. Under the facts and circumstances ofthis case, a civil penalty of $44,000 is 

appropriate. 

WHEREFORE, the Agency, by counsel, respectfully requests that the Administrative 

Law Judge enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of$44,000. 

Dated this 7th day of May, 2013. 

Respectfully submitted, 

A. Lester Haizlip 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

Mark G. Camacho 

Attorney for Complainant 

Federal Aviation Administration 

901 Locust St., Room 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

816-329-3765; Fax (816) 329-3771 

2