04/27/2012 10:32 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS ~002/018 

PAGE 02/16 04/20/2812 lB:Sl 4252271807 ANM7 

l 

2 

.3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

B 

SOl 

lO 

ll 

12 

l3 

l4 

15 

l6 

17 

18 

H 

20 

21 

:22 

23 

:14 

25 

:2G 

::!7 

J.EF.FREY M. HAlPER .. 

f A.A. OFFICE OP RF..GIONAL COUNSEL 

1601 LlND A V'.S'NUB Sot.TI'HW!ST 

RENTON. WASHlNG1'01'4' 93057 

TELEPHONE: (425) 227-2161 

FACSIMJ.l..E: (425) 227·1007 

!7 

I" 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · 

DEPARTMENT OJ' TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

Cornerstone Aviation, Inc. 

DMSNo. FAA-2011-0481 

DMS No. F.AA-2011-0484 

DMS No. F AA-2011-0489 

·coMPLAINANT'S BRIEF 

Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

·) ·r '··~ ")2 .,) 

2e To: Honorable Richard C. Goodwin: 

.2.9 . 

30 

31 

32 

3l 

34 

35 

36' 

37 

39 

39 

40 

41 

42 

4"3 

44 

45 

46 

47 

4ft 

49 

so 

51 

5::! 

53 

Procedural~tory 

The Compl~t incase DMS No. FAA-2011-0481 'WS flled on May 18j 2011. The Complaint 

alleged Respondent failed to comply "With its. approved training course, a violation of 14.Code of 

Federal Regul~tions (C.P.R.) Section (§)141.83(a)(l) by starting a stUdent, Mr. Stann, on the . 

~trument I commercial training course when be did not meet the prerequisites for that course. It 

also alleged Respondent failed to maintain an accurate record of the date Mr. Stann was enrolled 

in that course, a violationofl4 C.F.R. § l41.1Q1(a)(l). 

On December 8, 2011, the Departro,cnt of Transportation., Office of Hearing (Court) en~red sn 

Order granting Complainant's Motion for Limited. Summary Judgment in case FAA-2011.-0481, 

:fin.cling that tb.e violations charged had been established, and limiting the hearing to the question 

of sanction. 

The Complaint in case DMS No. FAA-2011~0484 was filf'ld on MAy26~ 2011. It alleged 

Respondent did not eomply with its approved training cou:tse. did not maintain current aud 

aecura.t¢ records of the participation. of.an enrolled student, graduated a student who bad not 

completed the curriculum., and issued a graduation ·certificate to that student, violations of 

Complainant's Brief 

Come:rstone Aviation, Inc.- PAA·2011-0481, F AA-:20 1l.c484, 

F AA·20 11-048!;1 

Page 1 of9 

· l:BP'FREY ].\.1(. H.Aia'n.F AA. A'1TO:!l:N8Y 

T!L: (42:5) 227•2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
04/27/2012 10:32 FAX 2024935142 FAA -. OMS 141003/018 

PAGE 03/16 

l 

2 

J 

4 

5 

0 

i 

e 

9 

10 

l1 

'12 

l3 

14 

15 

1"6 

17 

16 

3.9 

:(0 

21 

:!2 

23 

24 

25 

::!6 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

34 

35 

:liS 

37 

3S 

39 

4,0 

41 

42 

43 

-4.4 

45 

4G 

47 

4B 

19 

so 

51 

$2 

5) 

425227Hl87 ANM7 

14 C.P.R..§§ 141.77(aX1), 14~.77(b), 141.83(a)(l), and 141.101(a)_ Tile violations stemmed 

.from a student who had had not completed ground school un.der Part 141. · 

On October 28, 201 L the Court entered an Order granting Complainant's Alternative Motion for 

Summary Judgment Hereafter Limiting Hearing to Sanotion ln. case FAA-201 t-0484, finding that 

the violations ch.arged had been established. and limiting the hearing to the q;uestion. of sanction. 

The Complaint in case DMS No. PAA-2011-0489 was tiled on June 16,2011. The Complaint 

was amended on July 13,2011. As amended, the Contplaint alleged Respondent issued a 

graduating certificate that did not eo:otain the graduate's name~ failed to 'maintain a. current and 

accurate record of a student's participation in training. and failed to certify a student's record at 

the end of training, violations ofl4 C.P.R.§ 14h95(b)(2), 14l.l01(a)~ and 141.101(c). 

On December 8, 2011 ~ the Court entered an Order granting Complainant's Motion for Limited 

Summary Judgment in case F AA-20 11-0489, findi:D.g that the violations charged had been 

established, and limiting the hearing to the question of sanction. 

On October 6, 2011, the Court entered an Order consolidaling these three matters for bearing. 

The hearing on sanction was held March 12~ 2012 in Salt Lake City, UWl. 

Facts 

In determlning an appropriate sanction, tbe Federal Aviation AdminiStration (FAA) follows the 

san~ion guidance found in FAA Order 2150.3B. Transcript, 17:1-11. In these cases, the FAA 

follo~ that guidance. Transcript .. 17:12-15. Respondent is a small busi.o.ess, imd ~as been in 

business for nine years; Transcript, 17:16-18 and 50:19-51:4 

In determining an appropriate sanction., the FAA considered the violations oommittc:d by 

Respondent ~ these cases as non-opera.tional and inadvertent Transcript, 17:22 -,18:12. 

Respondent has a history of being coo_pua.tive with the FAA as it investigates violations, to the 

extent of disclosing Federal Aviation Regulation violations to the FAA. Transcrip~ 18:13- 19:1. 

This fact was taken. into account in determining an appropriate sanction. Transcript~ 19:2.:..5. 

These were purely recordkeepmg violations, where there was no. concern tha.t the pilots whose 

training records were incorreet were competent and qwili:fied to exercise the privileges of their 

newly-earned certificates. Transcript 19:8 -20;11. 

Complainant's Brief 

Comcmone Aviatioll, Inc:.-FM·20J H>48l, FAA-2011·0484. 

FAA-2011..0489 

Pa-ge2 of9 

J:JilillR.EVM. ~ FMA'lTO~ 

T!L: (42S)227..ll61; FAX: (425) 227a1007 
04/27/2012 10:32 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS 141004/018 

PAGE eld/16 64/26/2812 18:51 4252271 El07 ANM7 

1 

:2 

) 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

ll 

12 

13 

l-4 

15 

Argument 

Standard 

Under 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 4630l(a)(5)(A), a "small business concern is liable to 

the Government for a civil penalty ofoot more than $10,000 .. ."" lbe maximum penalty was . I adjusted to $11~000 on June 15,2006. 14 C.P.R.§ 13.305 (Table). 

In determining an appropriate civil penalty t the Agency ccnsiders seven factors. In the Matter of 

Warbelow 's Air Ventures, Inc., FAA Order No. 2000-3 at 1~17 n. 22 and 21 (Febr.uaty 3~ 2000). 

The Agency has the burden of justifying the amount of civil penalty sought. 14 C.F.R. 

16 · § 13.224(a); In the Matter of Luxemburg, FAA Order 1994-18 (June 22, 1994) at 4. To guide the 

~~ F A.A.'s prosecutorial discretion, the Agency bas promulflSle~ penalty guidelines, which.are found 

in FAA Order 21.50.3B Chapter 7 and Appendix B·dated October 1, 2007 (Sanction Guidance). 

The Sanction Guidance con~ tables that establish specific penalty .ranges for different types of 

viola.tions.2 The startin.g point for a sanction detenr.ims.tion is the middle of the sanction range, 

Sanction Guidance, Appendix B, Paragraph 3.c. The PM's sa!letion detennination does not. 

however, reflect a fixed mathematical computation; in addition to the pubUshed penalty ranges, it 

takes into account thirteen factors set. forth in Chapter 7, Paragraph 4 of the sanction guidance, 

whieh address the .issues set forth in Warbelow?' These factors are used to adjU:S.: the sanction 

upward or downward from the middle.ofthe recommended range .. 

19 

20 

~1 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

30 

3l 

32 

33 

34 

3$ 

36 

37 

38 

39 

4.0 

41 

42 

43 

H 

45 

415" 

47 

48 

49 

so 

51 

52 

53 

The FAA Order reflect.&; the Adminlstrator' s gen.eral views about appropriate civil penalties; civil 

penalties must reflect the totality of the circumstanCes surrounding the violations. Folsom's Air 

Service, Inc_, FAA Order No. 2008-11 (November. 6, 2008). The weight to bt: given to each of 

these factors·is within the discretion ofth.e Complainant; "'the Complain~t maintains relative 

1 28 U.s.c. § .2461. (Note). 

: Sanction Guidance, Appendix B. 

' Those f.actors are: 

a. Nature ofthc violation; 

b. Wlletbc;:r the violation W89 inadvertent and not deliberate; 

c. .1he certificate holder's level of experience; 

d.. The :atti.tur::fe of the violator; 

e. The de~ ofhazard; . . 

f. Whether there was Ktlon takeo by the em.ployer or other authority against the employee thar committed rhe 

violation(s); · . 

g. Use of the certificate; 

h. Viol.atioD hlstory; 

i Dccisio.nalla.w; 

j. Ability to absorb the saoetion; 

k. Consistency of Sanction; 

1. Whc:tl'ler the violation was r¢ported voluntarily; and · 

m. Corrective Action. 

Complainant,s Brief 

Cornerstone Aviation, Ine.-~AA-2011..()481, fAA-2011.-04g4, 

FAA·201 r ·04.89 

Pago;J of9 

JEPFREYM.~ FAAAno~ 

Ta: (425) 227-:2]6J; 'FAX: (42:S) 2.17-1007 
04/27/2012 10:32 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS 141005/018 

94/20/2012 10:51 4252271097 ANM7 PAGE BS/15 

1 

:d 

3 

4 

5 

G 

7 

a 

~ 

10 

~1 

l~ 

13 

14 

15 

l~ 

l7 

18 l' 20 

.21 

22 

:2) 

24 

25 

26 

27 

29 

29 

JC 

u 

32 

33 

34 

3$ 

)IS 

. n 

38 

3:i 

40 

41 

42 

43 

i4 

45 

46 

47 

4e 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

...... · 

prosecutorial discretion in detmnining the ease'$ final aggregate weight in proposing the level of 

civil penalty." In the Matter ofWilliam A. Luker, Jr., FAA DooketNo. CP09SW0008, 2010 WL 

1989430 (May 131 2010) (Order ofChlefJudge,Yoder Granting Complainant's ¥otion for . 

Summazy Judgment). Although a Department of Transportation Administrative Law Judge is v.ot 

statutorily bound to follow the Administrator's guidanee, "[a]n administrative agency is entitled 

to substantial deference in assessing the civil penalty approprillte for a violation of its regulations. 

Tile agency's choice of a sanction is not to be overturned .. unless it is unwarranted in law or 

without justification in fact." NL Industries, Inc. v. Dept ofTra.nspo1'tation, 901 F.2d 141~ 144 

(D.C. Cir. 1990). 

Further, the Administrator has the ability to impose the Agency~s sanction policy on appeal if the 

assessed civil penalty is not consistent with the policy. In the matter ojWa,.below 's Air 

VentW'~.r. Inc.~ FAA Order No. 2000·3 (February 3, 2000) -at 20; In the mauer o.f Northwest 

Airlines, FAA Order No. 1990-37 (November 7~ 1990) at 8-9. 

Case DMS No, FAA .. 2011·0481 

Sanction Guidance 

As discussed, the: Satlction Guidanee establishes sanction :ranges for different 1ypes of violations. 

For violations committed by Part 141 pilot schools, the ranges are found in Figun: B-3-d. The 

San.ction Guidance for the violations under th.i,s docket are: 

Violation, 

B-3-d(7) Unquali:Oe:d or unauthorized instruction· 

(14 C.F.R. §§ 141.83(a)(1)) 

B .. 3-d(8) Failure to maintain training record 

(14 C.F.R. § 14Ll0l(a)(l)) 

Sanction Range 

Moderate to Maximum 

Moderate to Maximum 

The Adm.inistrator seeks a; total sanction- of $5~000 in tW.s case. 

Case DMS No. FAA .. 2011·0484 

.MultiplJcity 

Respondent violated 14 C.F.R. §§ 141.77(a)(1), l41.77(b), 14l.83(a)(l), and 141.101(a). 

Complainant concedes, however, that sections 141.77(a)(l) and 141:77(b)requireproofofthe 

same facts and therefore should be considered as OJJe violation under the Block'burger test. Ban 

v. U.S,, 470 U.S. 856~ 861 (1985); Blockburger -v. US., 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932); In the Matter 

of James Walsh, 2008 "WL 926620 at 9 (March-31, 2008); In the Matter ofFolsom 's Ai1' Service, 

Complai~:~ant's :Stief 

Corncr:stooe A viatiQII., Inc. - F AA-201I ·0481, F .AA-20 11-0484, 

FAA-2011·0489 

PaS~=4 of9 

IEI'FREY M 'HARPmt, FAA A'tl"ORNEY 

TEL: (425) 22:7-2161; FAX: (423) l27·1001 
04/27/2012 10:32 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS 141008/018 

04/20/2el2 10:51 4252271007 ANM7 PAGE 135/16 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

~ 

10 

l1 

J.2 

Inc., 2006 WL 1316970 at 11 (May 3, 2006) (stating that one violation that incorporates the 

others may not be considered as a $eparate Yiolation for determining the amount of the sanction). 

The Administrator thus consider! this esse as ~ving three violations for sanction pwposes, each 

of which is subject to the maximum $11,000 civil penalty. 

Sanction Guidance 

As discussed, the Sanction Guidance establishes sanction ranges .for diiferent types of violations. 

Figure B-3-d lists sanction· ranges. The listed penalty ranges for the vjolations under this docket 

~.; are: 

14 

15 

lt> 

17 

18 

1.9 

20 

21 

22 

:l3 

24 

25 

26 

.27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

30" 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44" 

45 

46 

47 

4a 

0 

so 

5J. 

S::l 

$3 

Violati.on 

B-3.-d(5)(b) Improper graduation of student 

(inadvertent) 

(14 C.F.R. §§ 141.77(a)(1) & 141.77(b)) 

B-3~d(8) Failure to main.tain training record 

(14 C.P.R. § 141.101(1)) 

B-3-d(7) Unauthorized instruction 

(14 C.P.R.§ 14.1.83(a)(1)) 

Sanction Range 

Moderate to Maxim.w:n 

Moderate to Maxim'Uin 

Moderate to Maximum 

The Adto.inistrator seeks a total sanction in this case of$5,000. 

Case DMS No. FAA .. 2011-0489 

Multiplicity 

This ease involved disc:repsncies in the rec<:lrds of two (2) students. Complainant c:Onced.es that 

the 14 C-F.R. § 141 .lOl(a) and (c) violatioiiS require proof of :the sam.e facts and therefore should 

be considered as one violation. Ball at 861; Bloclcburger at .304; In the Matter of James Walsh at 

9; ln the Matter of Folsom's Air Service at 1 1.. The Admi.Distratorthus views this case as having 

two (2) violations for sanction purposes> each of which is subject to the maximum $11,000 civil 

penalty. 

Sanction Guidance 

The sanction ranges for the violations in this docket are: 

Violation 

B-3-d(8) Failure to maint.aln tmning record 

Complainant'~ Brief 

CornernoneAviation, Inc. -FAA-:2011...0481, FAA·20ll·0484, 

FAA-2011-()489 

PageS of9 

Sanction Range 

Moderate to Maximum 

J:Ef!FUY M. HABl'ER. F .AA A T'T'OR.NF.Y 

TEL: (425) 227-2161; FAX: (~.lS) .227·1007 
04/27/2012 10:33 FAX 2024835142 FAA + OMS @007/018 

PAGE 67/16 ed/20/2012 1a:s1 4252271007 ANM7 

I --•' 

1 (1'4 C.P.R.§ 14l.95(b)(2), I41.101(a) & 141.10l(e)) 

2 

3 

-4 

5 

6 

' e 

g 

:LO 

11 

l2 

13 

l4 

15 

110 

17 

lB 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2.9 

30 

:n. 

32 

33 

34 

3$ 

3.S 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

4.3 

44 

45 

46 

47 

.ae 

49 

so 

51 

s~ 

53 

The Administrator seeks a total sanction in this case of $S,SOO. 

Application of sanction Guidance to the-se Cases 

Respondent is a small business. Transcript 17:16-18 and 50:19-51:4. For a small business 

concern holding an Air Agency certificate. a moderate penalty is in the range of $3,950- $7, 149; 

a maximllDlpenalty is in the range of$7,150- $11~000. Sanction Guidance, Appendix B, 

Paragraph 3.c(4). The sanction guidance establishes a guideline of a moderate to maximum 

penalty for all of the violations committed in these cases. Sanction Guidance, Appendix B, 

Figure B-3~d. The starting point of a sanction calculation is the nudpoint ofthese ranges, $7,425, 

per violation. 

From this starting point:. the thirteen factors described in Chapter 7> Paragraph 4 of the Sanction 

Guidance are applied to either aggravate or mitigate the sanction. The followmg table is a 

synopsis of those factors applicable to these: cases and the evidence in these cases relevant to 

thos~~: factors: 

Factor 

Natute ofviolation 

Chapter 7> 1 4.a 

Inadvertent v. deliberate 

Chapter 7~ 1 4.b 

E"idence 

Complainant took the n.on-<:lperational nature of these 

violations into accoUllt in selecting a sanction. Transcript 

17:22- 18:12. Mitigating. 

Complainant considered the violations as inadvertent in 

choosing an aprn:opriate sanction. Transcript 17:22-18:12. 

Mitigating. 

----------~------------------------------------------~--------

Certificate holder's level 

of experience 

Chapter 7, 1 4.c 

. Attitude of violator 

Chapter 7, '1J4.d 

Degree ofhazard 

Chapter 7, f 4.e 

Respondent has been in business for nine years. Transcript 

50: 19- 51 :4. Aggravating. Respondent's owner is the 

:responsible party at Cornerstone Aviation, holds an Airline 

Transport Pilot certificate, and has experience operating under 

the Fedeml Aviation Regulations. Transcript 51:5-52:11. 

Aggravat;ing. 

Complainant considered Respondenes ltistory ofhaving a. good 

- compliance attitude. Transcript 18:13 - 19:5. Mitigating. 

The violations were record keeping violations. T~pt 

19:10---11. There is no coneem. that the students trained by 

---------------=&.::e~~J~o:::n:.::d.::.::en::.:t:...;w.::.;:o~ul~J!Ose an aviation safety hazard. Transcript 

cOmpl:llin~t'' Brief 

Coro.mtone Aviation, Inc.-F AA-20 ll·048 J, P AA-20 11·0484. 

F.AA·20! 1·0489 

Paee 6 of9 

J1F'Jili:1V M'. HAuml, .'F' A.AATTO!UlEY 

TBL: (425)227-2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
04/27/2012 10:33 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS ~008/018 

PAGE 08/15 04/28/2812 le:51 4252271887 ANM7 

l 

2 

3 

4 

s 

5 

7 

e 

9 

10 

ll 

12 

13 

H 

15 

16 

l7 

16 

19 

20 

21 

22 

2.3 

24 

25 

2~ 

27 

28 

29 

30 

:u 

32 

33 

:34 

:3S 

36 

37 

.39 

39 

40 

41 

4.2 

43 

44 

4S 

46' . 

47 

. ·U 

49 

50 

51 

· ...... -. 

-------------------- ·----------~------------------------------

Use of certificate 

Chapter 7> 1 4.g 

Ability to absorb 

sanction 

Chapter 7,, 4j 

Voluntary reporting 

Chapter 7, ~ 4.1 

Coneetive action 

Chapter 7, ~ 4.rn · 

19:12 - 20:11. Mitigating. 

Training sru.diimts Ullder 14 C.F'.R Part 141 requires a 

certificate issued underPart 141. 14 C.F.R. § 141..3. 

· Respondent claims that it cannot absorb tbe proposed sanction. 

Transcript 48:12-17. 

Respondent has not presented to the court any evidence to 

support that contentio~ such as tax retu:m.s, fma:ocial 

statements. bank account statements, loan documents·, or past 

due bills. 

Respondent alludes to the possibility that it may have 

voluntarily repo:rted one of these offenses. Transcript 29~3-

30: l. Respondent has been previously told the FAA's 

req~ments for properly making a voluntary disclosure. 

Transcript 33:9- 4r':9. 

There is no evidence that ~ voluntary disclosure was actually 

.made by Respondent, or that such a disclosure complied with 

the FAA)s applicable voluntary disclosure reporting guidelines. 

Respondent asserts that it has taken corrective action in the 

form of a software program, although that corre~ve action is 

ongoing. Transcri.pt48:20- 49:5, 52:12-55:11. 

There is no evidence ofhow tb.e software program would \1ave 

p:revented the violations in these cases or how it will prev~nt 

these types of violations in the future. 

~ sanction sought by Complainant in this ca~e is near or below the bottom of the range given 

in the SBncti.on guidanoe, when considering the number of violations. This reflects the mitigatio~ 

of the sanction by the Complainant based o~ tb.e factors discussed above.4 Althougb Respondent 

ma~ cl~ that a further reduction is warranted based on other factors, RespondeDt has not 

presented e'Vide.nce which would warrant a further reduction of sanction under twt> (2) of the 

52 6 ~ Th.e nature of'th~ violations, 

s J • The fact that the violations wero inadverten~ 

• Respondent•s good complia:oce a:tdtudc. and 

• lhe low de,s.ree ofha:QU'd prescnt.ccl. by the violafiOD$. 

Complainant's Brief 

Corncrsrom: Aviation. Inc. - F' AA-2011 ~0481, F AA-20 Jl-o484, 

F AA·20 11--0489 

Pase 1 o'f9 

.fm'R.EyM, HAkP:EJt, FAAATTO$r.'NJSY 

TEL: (425) 227-.2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
04/27/2012 10:33 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS ~ 009/018 

PAGE 89/16 64/26/2612 16:51 42522711387 ANM7 

1 

:z 

3 

4 

s 

s 

7 

8 

9 

lO 

11 

l2 

l3 

14 

15 

l~ 

17 

18 

19 

20 

2l 

.22 

.... _, 

three (3) factors raised. s With regards to the thil'd, 6 Respondent has~ at be~ shown that some 

corrective action of some sort is being taken, but has not shown how that conective action relates 

to the offenses in tb.ese cases. 

The Administrative Law Judge should defer to the Administrator's selection of sanction under 

NL l'n.d:ustJ-ies, Inc., 901 F .2d at 144, and enter an Order assessing the full $ l S, 500 penalty sought 

in the three (3) Complaints. 

Conc:Jusion 

The Court should defer 1:9 the Administrator's selection of sanction under NL Industries, Inc., 

901 F.2d at 144. Complainant respectfully requests that this Court entering an Order imposing 

tb.e full sanction sought in the Complaints. Any deviation from the Sanctio~ Guidelines has been 

to Respondent•s benefit Respondent has presented no evidence warranting a further reduction of 

sa,netion. 

2l DATED this 20th dayofApril,2012,. 

24 

:25 

2G 

::!7 

28 

.:2.9 

30 

31 

32 

Jeffrey M, Harper 

FAA Attorney 

JJ 

34 

3S 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

SD 

51 

SJ 

S:l 5 

• Respoadent's ability to absorb the S&Dction., ai:ld 

• The alleged voluntary n:port.ing oftb,e violations 

- • Cor.rietive aetion taken by R~ndcnt. 

Complainant's Brief 

Corne~toue Aviation. Inc. -FAA-20Il~0481, FAA·.201J ·0484, P AA·20 11..0489 

Page 8 Of9 

11iFn.ErM. ~ FAAAnoromy 

T'EI.: (425).227•2161; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
04/27/2012 10:33 FAX 2024835142 FAA + OMS ~010/018 

PAGE Hl/16 64/20/2012 10:51 4252271BB7 ANM7 

1" 

.2 

~ 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

SJ 

10 

11 

12 

u 

14 

15 

g 

17 

J,e 

19 

20 

2~ 

' 22 

23 

.24 

2S 

26 

27 

29 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34. 

.35, 

lo 

37 

38 

l!:l 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

Sl 

52 

53 

·-.-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby· certify that the foregoing Complainant's Brief bas been served via facsimile and 

Certified· Mail - Return Receipt Requested this date. to the following: 

Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office ofl·Iearings. M·20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue. S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor~ Rm E12-320 

VVasbin~n.D.C.20590 

FAX: 202.366.75.36 

Attn: Hearing Dooket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wrigh.t Building - Suite 2Wl 000 

Federal 'Avi.ation Admi.Iristration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington) D.C. 20591 

FAX: 202.493.5020 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing Complainant's Brief has been served via Ovemight Courier. 

First Class~ and Certifi.ed:..... Return Receipt Requested Mail tb.is date, to the f9llowing: 

Susan Horstman. 

ChiefExecutive Officer 

Cornerstone Aviation, Inc. 

337 North 2370 We~ #130 

Salt Lake City, or 84116 

Dated this 20th, day of April, 2012. 

MOIFAIR CHIN 

Office of Regional Counsel (ANM • 7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 LindAve. SW 

Renton> WA 98057 

425.227.2160 

CQDlplainant's Brief 

Comemone Aviation. Inc::. -:F'AA-2011-0481, fAA..-.2011-0484, 

FAA·201.1·0489 

Page 9 of9 

J:eFJ:REYM. HAAnlt, FAA AnoRNEY . 

TEL: (425) 227-21El: FAX: (425) 227-1007