AECEIVED 

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

MAR 2 5 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Complainant, 

VS. 

AVIONICS MASTERS INC. 

Respondent 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

_____________ ) 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0288 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

FAA Case. No. 2012S0190209 

RESPONDENT'S NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF ATTORNEY 

Respondent Avionics Masters, Inc., pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 13.209 of the Rules of Practice, 

files this Notice of Appearance of the undersigned attorney. Demand is hereby made that all future 

communications shall be directed to, and pleadings shall be served to, the undersigned counsel. 

Further, in the interest of just and expeditious conclusion of the above cause of action, it 

is hereby requested that the FAA Counsel please furnish the undersigned a PDF courtesy copy of 

pleadings filed, discovery demands made, and discovery responses that the undersigned may not 

yet have received from his client. The undersigned will provide a list documents that he believes 

are not yet furnished to him. 

DATED: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 

W6031514/K-42988 Page 1 of 2 

Counsel for Res n nt 

Mohammad A Faruqui, ESQ. 

Aerolaw Offic PLLC 

Florida Bar# 20875 

633 SE 3'd Ave, Suite 4R 

Trial Lawyers Building 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

Designated Em ails for Service: 

Mohammad@Aerolaw.info 

Barbarad@Aerolaw.info 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have on this date, Tuesday, March 18, 2014, served the 

foregoing to the following parties using the below-described methods: 

Original and one copy via Regular U S mail and fax: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

BOO Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1 000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Fax: 1-202-493-5123 

One copy via Regular U.S. mail only: 

Honorable Judge J. E. Sullivan 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

One copy via Regular U.S. mail, fax, and email: 

c/o Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

Email: chris.stevenson@faa.gov 

Fax: 1-404-305-5223 

One courtesy copy via email only: 

Charles L. Hunt, Jr. 

Vincent Sorentino 

Avionics Master, Inc. 

1001 West Cypress Creek Road, Suite 309 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 

Email: Chadhunt@aol.com 

W6031514/K-42988 Page 2 of 2 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Complainant, 

vs. 

AVIONICS MASTERS INC. 

Respondent 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) _________________________ ) 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0288 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

FAA Case. No. 2012S0190209 

RESPONDENT'S AMENDED ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Respondent Avionics Masters, Inc., by and through its undersigned counsel, and 

pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 13.214(a) and (b)(1) of the Rules of Practice, files this Amended 

Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint, stating as follows: 

1. Respondent ADMITS to the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the 

Complaint filed on June 5, 2013 (hereinafter "the Complaint"). 

2. Respondent DENIES the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint. 

3. Respondent ADMITS to the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint. 

4. Respondent DENIES the allegations contained in Paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 of the 

Complaint. 

FACTS IN SUPPORT OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

5. On or about December 22, 2011, Avionics Masters issued a Form 8130-3 with a 

Work Order No. 8078 for a Bendix/King directional gyro, model KG102A, serial 

number 32301 (hereinafter "the DG"). 

6. Avionics Masters uses the Form 8130-3 for internal tracking and in accordance with 

W6031514/K-42989 Page 1 of 5 
FAA Order 8130.21G1

, which states in part that use of the Form 8130-3 is optional. 

7. Due to a typographical error, Block 12 of the Form 8130-3 was inadvertently marked 

as "Repaired" instead of "Inspected". 

8. Nevertheless, the Form 8130-3 is not the primary document to evidence what kind 

of work Avionics Masters performed. Avionics Masters relies on a Work Order and 

any supporting documents attached to the Work Order, specifically a Form 101. 

9. Avionics Masters prepared a 15-page itemized Form 101 and attached it to Work 

Order #8078, and page 13 of Form 101 remarked only that the DG was inspected. 

10. The DG was not in actuality repaired by Avionics Masters. In fact, Avionics Masters 

did not even tear down the DG, which would have been a necessary task as part 

of repairing a DG. On the contrary, during a broader Level 1 inspection of a 

Bendix/King KFC 200 Autopilot, Avionics Masters only performed a functional test 

of the DG as part of the Level 1 inspection. 

11. The DG was not in actuality returned to service in an aircraft. In fact, the DG was 

not even installed in an aircraft. Instead, upon issuance of Form 8130-3 dated 

December 22, 2011, the DG was inventoried and placed in storage with Southern 

Aero Avionics, LLC. The DG remained in storage for approximately 5 months. 

12. On or about May 10, 2012, the same DG was removed from storage to be reinspected for an appropriate installation. At this time, Respondent discovered that 

Block 12 of the original Form 8130-3 dated December 22, 2011 incorrectly stated 

"Repaired" instead of "Inspected". 

1

FAA Order 8130.21G has since been cancelled by its successor FAA Order 8130.21 H. 

However, at all times relevant to this cause action including the time of the alleged offense, the effective 

order was 8310.21G. 

W6031514/K-42989 Page 2 of 5 
13. Pursuant to FAA Order 8130.21G 3-7, the Respondent then issued a corrected 

Form 8130-3 to reflect the correct disposition of the DG. Section 3-7 of the Order 

permits a repair facility to re-issue a Form 8130-3 to correct typographical errors. 

(Attached and incorporated herein is Respondent's Exhibit 1). 

14. Respondent then re-inspected the DG, determined that it had failed the reinspection, and on June 27, 2012, sent the DG to Velocity Aerospace for further 

testing and subsequent overhauL 

15. Velocity then issued its own Form 8130-3 on June 29, 2012 after completing its 

overhaul of the DG. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

16. Respondent re-alleges and incorporates herein Paragraphs 1 through 12 of its 

Amended Answer to Complaint as stated above. 

17. As its First Affirmative Defense, the Respondent states that its actions are not a 

violation of FAR 145.5(a). 

18. As its Second Affirmative Defense, the Respondent states that its actions are not 

a violation of FAR 145.201 (b). 

19. As its Third Affirmative Defense, the Respondent states that its actions are not a 

violation of any other Federal Aviation Regulation. 

20. As its Fourth Affirmative Defense, the Respondent states that its actions are not 

grounds for a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. Sections 46301 (a)-( d). 

21. As its Fifth Affirmative Defense, the Respondent states that FAA Inspectors Roger 

McGien and Carlton Kitchen did not witness that the DG was actually returned to 

service or installed in an aircraft. 

W6031514/K-42989 Page 3 of 5 
22. As its Sixth Affirmative Defense, the Respondent states that FAA Inspectors Roger 

McGien and Carlton Kitchen were present at Avionics Masters just a few days after 

Avionics Masters discovered the above-described clerical error on the original Form 

8130-3, and that Avionics Masters did not yet have the opportunity to issue 

corrected documents at the time FAA Inspectors discovered the original 8130-3. 

23. As its Seventh Affirmative Defense, the Respondent states that the original Form 

8130-3 and the corrected Form 8130-3 do not constitute as the primary documents 

that evidence what kind of work Avionics Masters performed. Rather, the primary 

documents are the Work Order and the Form 101 attached to the Work Order. 

According to Form 101, Avionics Masters only inspected the DG but did not repair 

the DG. 

24. As its Eighth Affirmative Defense, the Respondent states that a rudimentary 

functional check of a DG, as part of a Level 1 inspection of an auto pilot, does not 

constitute a Level 3 component repair of a DG, and therefore is not a violation of 

FAR 145.5(a) or FAR 145.201(b). 

DATED: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 

VV6031514/K-42989 Page 4 of 5 

Respectfully submited/1 

{J!ffih 

Counsel for R dent 

Mohammad Ahmed Faruqui, ESQ. 

Aerolaw Offices PLLC 

Florida Bar# 20875 

633 SE 3'd Ave, Suite 4R 

Trial Lawyers Building 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

Designated Em ails for Service: 

Mohammad@Aerolaw.info 

Barbarad@Aerolaw.info 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have on this date, Tuesday, March 18, 2014, served the 

foregoing to the following parties using the below-described methods: 

Original and one copy via Regular U.S. mail and fax: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1 000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Fax: 1-202-493-5123 

One copy via Regular U.S. mail only: 

Honorable Judge J.E. Sullivan 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

One copy via Regular U.S. mail, fax, and email: 

c/o Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

Email: chris.stevenson@faa.gov 

Fax: 1-404-305-5223 

One courtesy copy via email only: 

Charles L. Hunt, Jr. 

Vincent Sorentino 

Avionics Master, Inc. 

1001 West Cypress Creek Road, Suite 309 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 

Email: Chadhunt@aol.com 

Page 5 of 5