RECEIVE[ 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVJA TION ADMINISTRATION NOV 1 4 2013 

HEARING DOCKEl 

In the Matter of: 

v. 

Civil Penalty Action 

AVIATION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., 

-----~/ 

Served: November 13,2013 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0284 

Case No. 2012CE440003 

Judge: J.E. SULLIVAN 

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DKFENSES 

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

their undersigned counsel, pursuant to Title 14 CFR section 13.209, and hereby files their 

Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Administrator's Amended Complaint in this cause and 

states: 

I. 

I) Admitted. 

II. 

1) Admitted. 

2) Denied as alleged. The alleged violahve parts Complained of in the Administrator's 

Amended Complaint (hereinafter the "Parts") were improved by AECI at the direction 

and request of Avantair, Inc. (hereinafter "AI"). 

3) Denied. Said parts were never intended for sale as FAA-PMA parts and were only 

improved for AI and in conjunction with FAA approval in accordance with AI's approval 

under the FAA's owner/operator exception. 

4) Denied. Said parts were never intended for sale as F AA-PMA parts and were only 

improved for AI and in conjunction with FAA approval in accordance with AI's approval 

under the FAA's owner/operator exception. 

5) Denied. 

6) Without knowledge and therefore Denied. 

7) Denied. 

8) Without knowledge and therefore Denied. 

9) Admitted. 

J 0) Admitted. 
11) Objection, calls for a legal conclusion, Otherwise, without knowledge and therefore 

Denied, 

12) Objection, The allegations contained in Paragraph 12 are vague and ambiguous, AECI 

cannot formulate a relevant response to the allegation as stated, Accordingly, Denied, 

13) Denied, 

14) Without knowledge and therefore Denied, 

15) Without knowledge and therefore Denied, 

16) Denied, 

17) Denied as to the "parts listed herein" contained in the Administrator's amended complaint 

as said Parts were never intended for sale as F AA-PMA parts and were only improved for 

and in conjunction with FAA approval in accordance with AI's approval1mder the FAA's 

owner/operator exception, 

18) Denied, 

19) Without knowledge and therefore Denied, Further that said Parts were never intended for 

sale as FAA-PMA parts and were only improved for and in conjunction with FAA 

approval in accordance with AI's approval under the FAA's owner/operator exception, 

20) Without knowledge and therefore Denied, 

21) Without knowledge and therefore Denied as to the FAA inspection and further Denied 

that any parts were ever sold by AECI to AI as F AA-PMA parts, 

22) Denied that any hinge fittings were bought by AI from AECL Without knowledge as to 

which hinge fittings were installed by AI and therefore Denied, 

23) Denied as to the "subject parts" contained in the Administrator's amended complaint as 

said Parts were never intended for sale as F AA-PMA parts and were only improved for 

and in conjunction with FAA approval in accordance with AI's approval under the FAA's 

owner/operator exception, 

24) Without knowledge and therefore Denied, 

25) Denied, Further that the FAA had previously approved said parts and their improvement 

as noncritical with regard to use on aircraft 

26)Denied, 

27) Objection, Compound allegation, Otherwise Denied as to alL 

IIL 

1) Denied in its entirety, further that: 

r 
a. Without knowledge and therefore Denied as to Al's intended use. Other thar1 the 

subject Parts were only produced for and in conjunction with FAA approval in 

accordance with AI's approval under the FAA's owner/operator exception or other 

exceptions to Part 21.9. 

b. Denied that any Parts were sold by AECI to AI and further Denies that any 

representations were made to AI by AECL 

2) Denied for among other reasons that AECI qualifies as a "small business concern" under 

49 CFR Sec 46301 (a). 

3) Denied. According to the Administrator's own Amended Complaint, only one "kit" was 

ever installed on an aircraft, so $11,000.00 would be the maximum civil penalty 

allowable even if AECI did not qualify as a "small business concern". 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

1. The actions complained of in the Administrator's Amended Complaint were caused by 

third parties including AI. 

2. AECI never sold nor pi aced into the stream of commerce any of the alleged violative 

parts as complained of in the Administrator's Amended Complaint (hereinafter the 

"Parts"). 

3. Upon discovering that the Parts had been removed from AECI's facility, AECI took 

immediate corrective action and recovered the Parts from AI. 

4. The Parts were merely "coated" with additional anticorrosive protection at the direction 

of AI who stated they were doing so under the authority granted to them by the 

Administrator under the owner/operator exception to the F ARs. 

5. The FAA has waived any claim against AECI by virtue of their prior approval of these 

Parts for use on the aircraft complained of in the Administrator's Amended Complaint. 

6. AECI is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $1,100.00 for the single violation (one 

Parts kit) complained of in the Administrator's Amended Complaint. 

7. The Parts were not modified and therefore did not need FAA approval as contemplated 

under a PMA or the Federal Aviation Regulations (the "FARs"). 

8. AI contributed to any violation of the F ARs stated in the Administrator's Amended 

Complaint. 
9. Any amount claimed by the FAA in this action is subject to offset by any amounts 

recovered by the United States in the federal prosecution of AECI in the matter referred 

to as an exhibit attached to Complainant's Response in Opposition to Respondent's 

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join an Indispensable Party. 

I 0. The FAA is barred from any recovery against AECI under the Stale Complaint rule. 

II . Prior to the filing of this action, various agents of the FAA made misrepresentations to 

AECI that led AECI to believe that AECI and AI was granted authorization for the 

coating of the Parts. 

10. The Administrator is barred from pursuing this civil penalty action in that the FAA was 

fully aware of the corrosion issues with the Parts and that AECI was coating the Parts for 

AI under the owner/operator exception to the F ARs. The FAA was also fully aware that 

AECI had applied for a PMA for potential future modification and or alteration of 

the Parts on other civil aircraft and never raised an objection or put AECI on notice that 

coating the Parts was a violation of the F ARs. AECI had no knowledge that the FAA 

would assert a claim for civil penalties against AECI, so the FAA is now barred by the 

doctrine oflaches from doing so. 

11. Any work performed by or services rendered to AECI for AI was conducted pursuant to 

one or more of the enumerated exceptions to Section 21.9 as contained in the 

Administrator's Amended Complaint. 

Respectfully submitted this 13th day of November, 2013, by: 

BY(i4/ 

Douglas l Barnard, Esquire 

Fla. Bar No. 0928496 

Plane Law, P.A 

13 790 Roosevelt Boulevard 

Clearwater, Florida 33762 

Telephone: (727) 259-0224 

Fax: (727) 259-0223 

dougb@planelaw .com 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing answer and affirmative 

defenses were served via confirmed facsimile and United States Postal Service Return Receipt # 
SEE BELOW, on the 13th day of November, 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 pleading (and one 

copy) and copy of the Administrator's Amended Complaint were filed this 131

h Day of 

November, 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, facsimile: (202) 493-5142, and the Hon. J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge, Office 

of Hearings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. S.E. (Ell-310), 

Washington, D.C. 20590, facsimile: (202) 366-7536. 

U.S.P.S. 

FAA Hearing Docket Clerk 

Hon. J .E Sullivan 

Mark Camacho, Esq. 

Douglas J. Barnard, Esquire 

Fla. Bar No. 0928496 

Plane Law, P .A. 

13 790 Roosevelt Boulevard 

Clearwater, Florida 33762 

Telephone: (727) 259-0224 

Fax: (727) 259-0223 

dougb@planelaw .com 

RECEIPT NUMBER 

7009 0960 0000 8493 3105 

7009 0960 0000 8493 3136 

7009 0960 0000 8493 3143 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

RECEIVED 

NOV 1 4 2013 

.HEARING [)OCKET 

Served: July 30, 2013 I; ·\ .. 

In the Matter of: 

FDMS No.: FAA-2013-0284 

_A=v.:::ia:::t:::io:.:n:..:E:::n:og;,:i.:::n:::e:::er:.:i:::ng"'--'C'-'o"'n"'s.:::u:::lt.::an::.t::s,_, :::In.::c:.:_. __j Administrative Law Judge: l E. Sullivan 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

Complaint, pursuant to Rule 208 of the Rules of Practice (14 C.F.R 13.208), and the Order 

served in this matter dated July 16, 2013, 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 Company submitted a written 

request for a hearing. 

II. 

I. At all times hereinafter mentioned, AECI was the producer of various replacement 

parts for type certificated aircraft with facilities located at 2159 McMullen Booth Road and 

2750/2754 Sunset Point Road, Clearwater, Florida. 

2. In 2010 AECI manufactured two types of elevator hinge fittings, outboard hinge 

fittings, part number (PIN) 80-393103-407 AEC, and center hinge fittings, PIN 80-393103-

405AEC, each with accompanying straps. 

3. Both hinge fittings identified above were intended for sale to be installed and used on 

the elevator located on a Piaggio Avanti Model P-180, a U.S. type-certificated civil aircraft. 

4. Incident to AECI's manufacturing of the subject hinge fittings, two center hinge 

fittings and two outboard hinge fittings, with accompanying straps, were combined to become 
AECI Modification Kit, PIN SB-80-0262, produced for sale and installation on the elevator of 

Piaggio Avanti Model P-180 civil aircraft. 

2 

5. On or about December 23,2010, AECI sold and shipped four of the subject kits to 

Avantair, Inc., (AI) located at 4311 General Howard Drive, Clearwater, Florida. 

6. AI, an exclusive fractional aircraft ownership provider of the Piaggio Avanti, also 

offers private aviation services primarily in North America, including aircraft related 

management and maintenance services under its Part 145 repair station certificate, and provides 

limited fixed based operation services in Clearwater, Florida. 

7. The four kits sold to AI noted above consisted of a total of eight elevator center 

hinge fittings, PIN 80-393103-405AEC, eight elevator outboard hinge fittings, PIN 80-393103-

407 AEC, eight straps PIN 80M000095-003, and eight straps PIN 80M000095-001. 

8. Each of the hinge fittings identified above were marked "FAA-PMA". 

9. The acronym "FAA" represents Federal Aviation Administration. 

10. The acronym "PMA" represents Parts Manufacturer Approval. 

11. The holder of a PMA has obtained FAA approval to manufacture a part and mark 

it "PMA". 

12. A part marked "PMA" is authorized to be installed in a type-certificated aircraft 

and such aircraft can be found to be airworthy relative to the installed PMA part. 

13. Based on the foregoing, the use of the acronym "FAA-PMA" marked on the 

elevator hinge fittings sold by AECI to AI for installation and use on the elevators of AI's 

Piaggio Avanti Model P-180 civil aircraft denoted that AECI had applied to, and received an 

official grant of approval from, the FAA to manufacturer and sell the subject parts, and further, 

that such parts were suitable for installation on the elevators of AI's Piaggio Avanti Model P-180 

civil aircraft such that the aircraft in question would retain its airworthiness status relative to the 

installed parts. 
14. AI installed one of the AECI Modification Kits, P/N SB-80-0262 it purchased 

from AECI on the elevator of Civil Aircraft N 134SL, a Piaggio Avanti Model P-180 aircraft, 

and subsequently operated the same aircraft. 

15. The installed subject kit consisted of two elevator center hinge fittings, PIN 80-

3931 03-405AEC, each with accompanying strap, and two elevator outboard hinge fittings, PIN 

80-393103-407 AEC, each with accompanying strap. 

16. In December 2010 AECI had not applied to the FAA for PMA approval to 

manufacture and sell the hinge fittings identified herein marked "F AA-PMA" for installation on 

the elevator of any Piaggio Avanti Model P-180 aircraft. 

17. In December 2010 AECI did not hold a PMA approval granted to it by the FAA 

for the manufacture and sale of the hinge fittings identified herein such that they could be 

marked "FAA-PMA" (or "PMA") and be installed on the elevator of any Piaggio Avanti Model 

P-180 aircraft. 

3 

18. AECI did not submit an application for such PMA approval to the FAA's Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO) in Atlanta, Georgia, until January 21,2011, less than a month after 

AECI sold the four AECI Modification Kits, PIN SB-80-0262, containing hinge fittings 

marked "FAA-PMA", to AI as described herein. 

19. To date the FAA's ACO has not issued AECI any approval for the manufacture 

of the hinge fittings identified herein. 

20. On or about October 14, 2011, FAA personnel conducted an inspection of the AI 

repair station. 

21. Incident to the noted inspection FAA personnel discovered that four of the parts 

described in paragraph 14 above (two elevator center hinge fittings, PIN 80-3931 03-405AEC, 

and two elevator outboard hinge fittings, PIN 80-393103-407 AEC) sold to AI by AECI on 
December 23,2010, were installed on the elevator of Civil Aircraft Nl34SL, a Piaggio Avanti 

Model P-180 aircraft. 

22. The installed hinge fittings bought by AI from AECI, and installed by AI, were 

marked "FAA-PMA." 

23. The FAA had not granted Parts Manufacturer Approval to Aviation Engineering 

Consultants, Inc. to produce and sell the subject parts installed on Civil Aircraft N134SL by AI. 

24. The four hinge fittings bought by AI from AECI marked "FAA-PMA", and 

4 

installed by AI on Civil Aircraft Nl34SL, were unapproved parts, and upon installation rendered 

Civil Aircraft Nl34SL unairworthy. 

25. The installation of the unapproved parts in question resulted in a severity 

determination by the FAA's ACO engineer who reviewed the degree of hazard involved with the 

subject installation as critical, i.e., having the potential for severe injury or substantial damage in 

the event of failure of the part(s ). 

26. The actions of AECI, as alleged herein, are significantly aggravated by the fact 

that the production, and sale, of the parts in question were accomplished deliberately and with 

full knowledge by the Respondent Company that it did not have PMA approval from the FAA to 

mark the hinge fittings in question that it sold to AI "FAA-PMA". 

27. The foregoing is evidenced by the fact that less than a month after selling and 

shipping the parts in question to Al, AECI submitted its application to the FAA's ACOin 

Atlanta, Georgia, for the very approval it did not have; an application by which the Respondent 

Company sought a formal grant of approval to legally produce the very parts it had just sold to 

AI- an approval the Respondent Company has yet to receive as it pertains to the subject parts. 

III 

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

deliberately circumvented and violated the following sections of the Federal Aviation 
5 

Regulations: 

a. Section 21.9(a)(2), which states in relevant part that that if a person 

knows, or should know, that a replacement or modification article is reasonably likely to be 

installed on a type-certificated product, that person may not produce the article unless it is 

produced under an FAA production approval. 

b. Section 21.9(b), which states in relevant part that a person who produces 

a replacement or modification article for sale may not represent that part as suitable for 

installation on a type-certificated product. 

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 of this case, a civil penalty of $44,000 is 

appropriate, warranted, and justified. 

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

Law Judge enter an order that Respondent Company be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of 

$44,000. 

Dated this 30'11 day of July 2013 

Respectfully submitted, 

A. Lester Haizlip 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY 

MARK G. CAMACHO 

Mark G. Camacho 

Senior Enforcement Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

901 Locust St., Room 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

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

ATTORNEY FOR COMPLAINANT 
Answer 

Section 13.209(a) of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Proceedings states, "A 

respondent shall file a written answer to the complaint, or may file a written motion pursuant to 

Section 13.208(d) or Section 13.218(f)(l-4) instead of filing an answer, not later than 30 days 

after service of the complaint. 

Section 13.209(£) states, "A person's failure to file an answer without good cause shall be 

deemed an admission of the truth of each allegation contained in the complaint. 

6 
7 

In the Matter of Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. FDMS No. FAA-2013-0284 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date provided a copy of the FAA's Amended Complaint 

via the methods listed below, to: 

Mr. Kamran Rouhani 

Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. 

2750 Sunset Point Road 

Clearwater, FL 33759 

(Copy via regular mail) 

Douglas J. Barnard, Esq. 

Plane Law 

j 

14695 Airport Parkway, Suite 6 

Clearwater, FL 33762 

(Copy via regular mail) 

The Honorable J. E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

(Copy via fax; hard copy via regular mail) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW. 

Washington, DC 2059 i 

ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC:430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2Wl 000 

(Original and one copy via regular mail) 

Dated this 301

h day of July 2013. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY 

MARK G. CAMACHO 

Mark Camacho 

Senior Enforcement Attorney