# RECEIVED BEFORE THE 

## MAY- 22016 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

## HEARING OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

## DOCKET

Inthe matter of DELTA AIRLINES, INC. Respondent WASHINGTON, D.C.

ANSWER DocketNo. FAA-2014-0814 FAA Case No. 2014S0670010 Administrative LawJudge J.E. Sullivan

Pursuant to Judge Sullivan's Order Denying Respondent's Motionto Dismiss for Insufficiency ofPleadings, served April19, 2016, and Rules 209 and 218(f)(l) ofthe Rules ofPractice (14 C.P.R. §§ 13.209 and 13.218(1)(1)), Respondent Delta Air Lines, Inc. ("Delta") hereby answers the Complaint filed by the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") inthe above-captioned matter as follows: I. 1. Delta admits that it was advised through a Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty, dated September 30, 2014, that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty against it in the amount of$14,375. Delta further admits that, on October 15, 2014, it filed a written request for a hearing and served a copy ofthe request for a hearing onthe Agency Attorney in this matter. II. 2. Delta admits the allegations ofparagraph 2 ofsection II ofthe Complaint.

13. Delta admits the allegations ofparagraph 3 ofsection II ofthe Complaint and specifically admits that, onDecember 2, 2013, it operated Flight 402 from John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) to London Heathrow Airport (LHR). 4. Delta admits that, on December 2, 2013, FAA Aviation Safety Inspector Peter Garberg presented his FAA 11OA credential to a Delta gate agent for purposes of conducting an inspection onthe flight but denies the implication that Inspector Garberg's reservationto travel inthejump seat was for the Flight 402 operated on December 2, 2013. The Inspector'sjump seat reservation was for the Flight 402 to be operated by Deltathe following day, onDecember 3, 2013. Delta also admits that, on December 2, 2013, FAA Aviation Safety Inspector Garberg presented his FAA !lOA credential to at least one member ofthe flight crew ofFlight 402, but Delta is without sufficient information at this time to admit or deny whether Inspector Garberg presented his FAA !lOA credential to the Pilot-in-Command ofFlight 402 5. Delta admits that Inspector Garberg was initially given access to the aircraft and to the pilot's compartment ofthe aircraft. 6. Delta admits that, immediatelypriorto departure ofFlight 402 on December 2, 2013, Delta groundpersonnel boarded the aircraft and told Inspector Garber that he could not go onthe flight, but denies the implication that the Inspector had properly completed thejump seat reservation procedure for Flight 402 to be operated on December 2, 2013, since his reservation to travel in thejump seat was for Flight 402 to be operated the next day, onDecember 3, 2013. Delta states that, after its ground personnel advised Inspector Garberg ofthe incorrectjump seat reservation date, the Pilotin-Command expressly offered to intervene in a way that would have allowed Inspector 2Garberg to occupy thejump seat onFlight 402 operated onDecember 2, 2013. Inspector Garberg declined the offer ofthe Pilot-in-Command and voluntarily chose to deplane instead.7. Delta admits that Inspector Gar berg deplaned the aircraft, which he did voluntarily after declining the offer ofthe Pilot-in-Command to intervene in a way that would have allowed Inspector Garberg to occupy thejump seat onFlight 402 operated on December 2, 2013. Delta is without sufficient information to admit or deny what Inspector Garberg's motivation was for declining the offer ofthe Delta Pilot-inCommand and deplaning the flight. 8. Delta denies that Inspector Garberg spoke to Delta ground personnel about being given access to two later flights from JFK to LHRthat day (December 2, 2013) and denies that Inspector Garberg was told that he would not bepermitted to board or conduct

an inspection oneither ofthose flights as the FAA alleges inparagraph 8 ofsection II of the Complaint. Delta further denies the implication that Deltahad more than one Deltaoperated JFK-LHR flight on December 2, 2013, that was scheduled to operate after the departure ofFlight 402. III. Delta denies the allegation inthe first paragraph ofsection III ofthe Complaint thatit violated section 121.548 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.P.R.§ 121.548), including the allegationthat it did not give the Inspector "free and uninterrupted" access to the pilot's compartment ofthe aircraft operating as Flight 402 on December 2, 2013.

3Delta admits that the statute cited in the second paragraph ofsection III ofthe Complaint authorizes the assessment ofcivil penalties, but denies the implicationthat it violated section 121.548 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations. Therefore, Delta denies that it is subjectto any civil penalties inthis case. Delta denies the allegations ofthe thirdparagraph ofsection III ofthe Complaint. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon whichreliefmay be granted. 2. Delta did not fail to provide "free and uninterrupted" access to the pilot's compartment either withregard to Flight 402 operated onDecember 2, 2013, or any other Delta operated flight from JFKto LHR onDecember 2, 2013. Before Delta could have honored the Inspector's request forjump seat access on Flight 402 conducted on December 2, 2013, the standard protocol wouldhave been for the Inspector to make a reservation for thejump seat, consistent with the terms ofF AA Orders 8000.75B and 8900.1. This procedure is necessary for Deltato be compliant with passenger manifesting and weight-and-balance program requirements. The FAA Inspector reserved

or caused to be reserved thejump seat for Flight 402 onDecember 3, 2013--not for Flight 402 on December 2, 2013, for which he appeared at JFK. Eventhough the Inspector did not reserve thejump seat for December 2, 2013, the Pilot-in-Command did not refuse him thejump seat and offered to intervene to assist the Inspector suchthat he could have conducted the enroute inspection ofFlight 402 onDecember 2, 2013. The Inspector stated that he voluntarily deplaned the aircraft operating as Flight 402 onDecember 2, 2013, to avoid any delay inthe departure ofFlight 402. For this and for whatever other

4reasons, known only to the Inspector, he chose to remove himselffrom the aircraft. The Inspector did not deplane the aircraft under an order from the Pilot-in-Command to do so. RELIEF REQUESTED Deltarespectfully requests that the Complaint be dismissed withprejudice. PLACE OF HEARING Delta notes that Judge Richard Goodwin has previously ordered the venue ofthe hearing to be Atlanta, Georgia. 

### See Procedmal Order, servedNovember 24, 2014. This location for the hearing is acceptable toRespondent. Respondent objects to the location ofthe hearing being in the Minneapolis, Minnesota, area as requested by Agency counsel. Respectfully submitted,



# /k-lft:;!itt~

Jon-Peter F. Kelly 

# ;?" Assistant General Counsel

Dated: April 29, 2016



### 5CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that onthis 29th day ofApril2016, I caused the foregoing Answer of Delta Air Lines, Inc. to be served upon the following: Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. Wilbur Wright Building Suite 2Wl000 Washington, D.C. 20591 (Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430) Tel: (202) 267-0377 (original and one copy by UPS) The Hon. J.E. Sullivan Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (EII-310) Washington, D.C. 20590 Tel: (202) 366-2132 Fax: (202) 366-7536 (one copy by UPS) Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region Federal Aviation Administration 1701 ColumbiaAvenue College Park, GA 30337 Tel: (404) 305-5200 Fax: ( 404) 305-5223 (one copy by UPS)

Jon-Peter F. Kelly Assistant General Counsel DeltaAir Lines, Inc. -Dept. 981 1030 Delta Boulevard Atlanta, GA 30354-1989