# RECEIVE[

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION FEDERALAVJATION ADMINISTRATION 

## NOV 142013 

# HEARING DOCKEl In the Matter of: v. Civil PenaltyAction

AVIATION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.,**-----~/** Served: November 13,2013 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0284 CaseNo. 2012CE440003 Judge: J.E. SULLIVAN

ANSWERAND 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 ofAvantair, 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 underthe FAA's owner/operator exception. 4) Denied. Said parts were never intended for sale as FAA-PMA parts and were only improved for AI and in conjunctionwith FAA approval in accordance with AI's approval under the FAA's owner/operator exception. 5) Denied. 6) Withoutknowledge and thereforeDenied. 7) Denied. 8) Withoutknowledge and therefore Denied. 9) Admitted. J0) 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 arelevant response to the allegation as stated, Accordingly, Denied, 13)Denied, 14)Withoutknowledge and therefore Denied, 15)Withoutknowledge 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 FAA-PMAparts 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, Furtherthat 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 anyparts were ever soldbyAECI to AI as FAA-PMA parts, 22)Denied that any hinge fittings were bought by AI from AECL Without knowledge as to which hinge fittings were installed byAI and thereforeDenied, 23)Denied as to the "subject parts" contained in the Administrator's amended complaint as 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, 24)Without knowledge and thereforeDenied, 25)Denied, Further that the FAA had previously approved said parts and their improvement

as noncritical withregard to use on aircraft 26)Denied, 27) Objection, Compound allegation, Otherwise Denied as to alL IIL 1) Denied in its entirety, further that: 

# ra. 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 weremade to AI byAECL 2) Denied for among other reasons that AECI qualifies as a "small business concern" under 49 CFR Sec46301 (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 ifAECI 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 piaced into the stream of commerce any ofthe 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 theParts 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 Administratorunderthe owner/operator exception to theFARs. 5. The FAA has waived any claim against AECI by virtue oftheir prior approval ofthese Parts for use onthe aircraft complained ofin 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 ofin theAdministrator's Amended Complaint. 7. The Parts were not modified and therefore did not need FAA approval as contemplated under aPMA or the Federal Aviation Regulations (the "FARs"). 8. AI contributed to any violation of the FARs 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 ofAECI 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. I0. The FAA is barred from anyrecovery againstAECIunder the Stale Complaintrule. II

. Prior to the filing ofthis action, various agents ofthe FAA made misrepresentations to AECI that led AECI to believe that AECI and AI was granted authorization for the coating ofthe Parts. 10. The Administrator is barred from pursuing this civil penalty action in that the FAA was fully aware ofthe corrosion issues with the Parts and that AECI was coating the Parts for AI under the owner/operator exception to the FARs. 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 coatingthe Parts was aviolation ofthe F ARs. AECIhad no knowledgethatthe FAA would assert a claim for civil penalties againstAECI, so the FAAis 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 dayofNovember, 2013,by: 

# BY(i4/ Douglas l Barnard, Esquire Fla. BarNo. 0928496 Plane Law, P.A 13790 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 ofthe 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. FAAHearingDocket Clerk Hon. J.E Sullivan Mark Camacho, Esq. Douglas J. Barnard, Esquire Fla. BarNo. 0928496 Plane Law, P.A. 13790 Roosevelt Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33762 Telephone: (727) 259-0224 Fax: (727) 259-0223 dougb@planelaw.com RECEIPTNUMBER 7009 0960 0000 8493 3105 7009 0960 0000 8493 3136 7009 0960 0000 8493 3143U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

# RECEIVED NOV 

## 142013 

# .HEARING [)OCKET Served: July 30, 2013 I; ·\

.. Inthe 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 LawJudge: l E. Sullivan AMENDED COMPLAINT

The Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), by counsel, hereby files its Amended Complaint, pursuant to Rule 208 ofthe Rules ofPractice (14 C.F.R 13.208), and the Order servedinthis matter dated July 16, 2013, and states as follows: I. 1. OnMarch 28, 2012, Respondent Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. (AECI)

was advisedthrough a Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty thatthe FAAproposedto assess a civil penalty inthe amount of$44,000. OnApril22, 2013, Respondent Company submitted a written request for a hearing. II. I. At all timeshereinafter mentioned, AECI was the producerofvarious 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 manufacturedtwo types ofelevatorhinge fittings, outboard hinge fittings, part number (PIN) 80-393103-407AEC, 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 elevatorlocated on a Piaggio Avanti Model P-180, a U.S. type-certificated civil aircraft. 4. Incidentto AECI's manufacturing ofthe subject hinge fittings, two center hinge fittings and two outboard hinge fittings, with accompanying straps, were combined to becomeAECI 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 ofthe subject kits to Avantair, Inc., (AI) located at 4311 General Howard Drive, Clearwater, Florida. 6. AI, an exclusive fractional aircraft ownership provider ofthe Piaggio Avanti, also offers private aviation services primarily in NorthAmerica, 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 ofa total ofeight elevator center hinge fittings, 

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

### PIN 80-393103- 407AEC, eight straps 

### PIN 80M000095-003, and eight straps 

### PIN 80M000095-001. 8. Each ofthe hinge fittings identified above were marked "FAA-PMA". 9. The acronym "FAA" represents Federal Aviation Administration. 10. The acronym "PMA"represents Parts ManufacturerApproval. 11. The holder ofa PMA has obtained FAA approval to manufacture apart and mark it "PMA". 12. A part marked "PMA" is authorizedto be installed in atype-certificated aircraft and such aircraft can be found to be airworthy relative to the installed PMApart. 13. Based on the foregoing, the use ofthe acronym "FAA-PMA"marked onthe elevator hinge fittings soldby AECI to AI for installation and use onthe elevators ofAI's Piaggio Avanti Model P-180 civil aircraft denoted that AECI had applied to, and received an official grant ofapproval from, the FAA to manufacturer and sell the subjectparts, and further, that such parts were suitable for installation on the elevators ofAI's Piaggio Avanti Model P-180 civil aircraft such thatthe aircraft in question would retain its airworthiness status relative to the installed parts.14. AI installed one ofthe AECI Modification Kits, P/N SB-80-0262 it purchased from AECI on the elevator ofCivil AircraftN134SL, a Piaggio Avanti Model P-180 aircraft, and subsequently operated the same aircraft. 15. The installed subjectkit consisted oftwo elevator center hinge fittings, 

### PIN 80- 393103-405AEC, each with accompanying strap, and two elevator outboardhinge fittings, 

### PIN 80-393103-407AEC, each with accompanying strap. 16. In December 2010 AECI hadnot applied to the FAA for PMA approval to manufacture and sell the hinge fittings identifiedhereinmarked "FAA-PMA" for installation on the elevator ofany Piaggio Avanti Model P-180 aircraft. 17. In December 2010 AECI did nothold a PMA approval grantedto it by the FAA for the manufacture and sale ofthe hinge fittings identifiedherein such thatthey could be marked "FAA-PMA" (or "PMA") and be installed on the elevator ofany 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 ofthe hinge fittings identified herein. 20. On or about October 14, 2011, FAApersonnel conducted an inspection ofthe AI repair station. 21. Incident to the noted inspection FAA personnel discovered that four ofthe parts described in paragraph 14 above (two elevator centerhinge fittings, 

### PIN 80-393103-405AEC, and two elevator outboard hinge fittings, 

### PIN 80-393103-407AEC) sold to AI byAECI onDecember 23,2010, were installed onthe elevator ofCivil Aircraft Nl34SL, aPiaggio Avanti Model P-180 aircraft. 22. The installed hinge fittings bought byAI from AECI, and installedby 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 AircraftNl34SL, were unapprovedparts, and upon installation rendered Civil AircraftNl34SL unairworthy. 25. The installation ofthe unapproved parts in questionresulted ina severity determinationby the FAA'sACO engineer who reviewed the degree ofhazardinvolved with the subject installation as critical, i.e., having the potential for severe injury or substantial damage in the event offailure ofthe part(s). 26. The actions ofAECI, as alleged herein, are significantly aggravated by the fact that the production, and sale, ofthe parts in question were accomplished deliberately and with full knowledge by the Respondent Companythat it did nothave PMA approval from the FAA to markthe hinge fittings in questionthat 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 whichthe Respondent Company sought aformal grant ofapproval to legallyproduce the very parts it hadjust soldto AI- an approval the Respondent Company has yet to receive as itpertains to the subject parts. III 1. By reason ofthe foregoing facts and circumstances, the Respondent Company deliberately circumvented and violated the following sections ofthe Federal Aviation

### 5 Regulations:

a. Section 21.9(a)(2), which states inrelevant partthatthat ifa 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 inrelevant partthat 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. Pursuantto Title 49 U.S.C. 46301, Respondent is subjectto a civil penalty not to exceed $11,000 for each ofthe violations alleged. 3. Underthe facts and circumstances ofthis case, a civilpenalty of$44,000 is appropriate, warranted, andjustified. WHEREFORE,theAgency, by counsel, respectfully requests that the Administrative LawJudge enter an order that Respondent Company be assessed a civil penalty inthe amount of $44,000.

Datedthis 30'11 day ofJuly 2013 Respectfully submitted, A. Lester Haizlip Regional Counsel By: 

### ORIGINAL SIGNED BY MARK G. CAMACHO

Mark G. Camacho SeniorEnforcementAttorney Federal Aviation Administration 901 Locust St., Room 506 Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 816-329-3765; Fax (816) 329-3771 ATTORNEY FOR COMPLAINANTAnswer Section 13.209(a) ofthe Rules ofPractice in FAA Civil Penalty Proceedings states, "A respondent shall file a written answer to the complaint, ormay file a written motionpursuant to Section 13.208(d) or Section 13.218(f)(l-4) instead offiling an answer, not later than 30 days after service ofthe complaint. Section 13.209(£) states, "A person's failure to file an answer without good cause shall be deemed an admission ofthe truth ofeach allegation contained in the complaint. 

### 67 In the Matter ofAviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. FDMS No. FAA-2013-0284

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this date provided a copy ofthe FAA's Amended Complaint via the methods listed below, to: Mr. Kamran Rouhani Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2750 SunsetPoint 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 LawJudge U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 NewJersey 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 2059i ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC:430 Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2Wl000 (Original and one copyvia regular mail)

Datedthis 301 h day ofJuly 2013. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY 

### MARK G. CAMACHO

Mark Camacho Senior Enforcement Attorney