UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIBt:CEl\/^ f Q 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

, JUL 2 0 2010 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, * FAA Docket CP^OS\M^RlN G DOCKP T 

Complainant. * '-"^f\ C I 

* 

V. * FAA Case No. 2008SW210058 

* 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. * 5^ 

Respondent. * Hon. Richard C. Goodwin o 

* Administrative Law Judge 3=-i 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT g 

Ttie Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby files it's First Amended 

Complaint, pursuant to Rule 214 of the Rules of Practice (14 C.F.R. 13.214), and states 

as follows: 

I. 

1. On July 15, 2008, Respondent American Airlines, Inc., (AA) was advised 

through a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil 

penalty in the amount of $325,000.00. 

2. On April 27, 2010, Respondent submitted a written request for a hearing. 

American Airlines, Inc. (AA) holds Air Carrier Operating Certificate No. 

AALA025A and Operations Specifications issued under Part 121 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) authorizing it to engage in scheduled 

passenger carrying operations as a domestic air carrier. 

AA's Operations Specifications require that each aircraft authorized for use 

be maintained in accordance with the continuous airworthiness maintenance 

program and limitations specified in the operations specifications. 

At all times pertinent herein, AA operated Douglas DC-9-83, civil aircraft no. 

N454AA in its Part 121 operations: 
4. At all times pertinent herein, AA maintenance personnel performed 

maintenance on the aircraft listed in paragraph 3. 

5. On or about December 27, 2007, N454AA experienced an un-commanded 

autopilot disconnect when attempting to autoland in St. Louis, Missouri 

(STL) on AA Flight 1060. 

6. The pilot of Flight 1060 made an entry stating, "during an attempt to 

establish an FCC (Flight Confidence Check) the autopilot kicked off when 

the autoland button was pushed. The autopilot kicked off at 1200' AGL". 

7. AA maintenance personnel performed a flight fault review (FFR). 

8. The FFR revealed that the autopilot duplex rudder servo had failed. 

9. There is only one autopilot duplex rudder servo on the aircraft. 

10. The autopilot duplex rudder servo is used to control the yaw axis of the 

aircraft during autopilot coupled instrument landing system (ILS) 

operations, autoland, and automatic go-around operations. 

11. A fully functioning autopilot duplex rudder servo is required for the 

autopilot to function property 

12. Paragraph D-095 of AA's Operations Specifications allows use of an 

approved Minimum Equipment List, provided the conditions and limitations 

of that paragraph are met. 

13. The corrective action taken on the item addressed in paragraph 6 was a 

deferral of maintenance using AA DC-9 Minimum Equipment List (MEL), 

Item 22-2b. 

14. Deferral using MEL, Item 22-2b was improper. 

15. MEL-22-2b is for autoland modes. 

16. MEL 22-2b is to defer inoperative equipment that is used only for 

conducting an autoland. 

17. The proper deferral option would have been to placard the duplex rudder 

servo in accordance with MEL 22-1 b. 

18. The use of MEL Item 22-2b led the flight crews to believe that N454AA 

was eligible to be used for autopilot coupled ILS operations, category 2 

operations and automatic go-arounds when it was not. 

19. Further, when MEL item 22-2b is used as deferral authority, the only 

restrictions are that the lower landing minimum status of the aircraft must 
be downgraded to ILS (CAT II only). This action allowed all prohibited 

operations except autoland. 

20. With the autopilot duplex rudder servo properly placarded inoperative 

using MEL 22-16, the crews would have been prohibited from using the 

autopilot in any of the operations listed in paragraph 18. 

21. Despite knowledge of a failed autopilot duplex rudder servo, maintenance 

personnel deferred final corrective action by placarding the autoland 

modes inoperative using MEL 22-2b. 

22. AA maintenance personnel replaced the faulty autopilot duplex servo on 

December 28, 2007. 

23. N454AA was operated on four flights with an inoperative autopilot duplex 

rudder servo. 

24. By reason of the foregoing, AA violated the following sections of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations): 

a. Section 119.5(1), in that AA operated an aircraft in violation of 

appropriate operations specifications. 

b. Section 121.153(a)(2) by operating an aircraft when it was not in an 

ainvorthy condition and failed to meet the applicable airworthiness 

requirements of this chapter, including those relating to 

identification and equipment. 

c. Section 121.628(a)(4), in that AA took off an airplane with 

inoperable instruments or equipment installed when records 

identifying the inoperable instruments and equipment and the 

information required by paragraph (a)(3)(ii) was not available to the 

pilot. 

d. Section 121.628(a)(5), in that AA took off an airplane with inoperable 

instruments or equipment installed when the airplane was not 

operated under all applicable conditions and limitations contained in 

the Minimum Equipment List and the operations specifications 

authorizing use of the Minimum Equipment List. 

e. Section 121.701 (a) when AA maintenance personnel took action in 

the case of a reported or observed failure or malfunction of an 

airframe, engine, propeller, or appliance that was critical to the safety 

of flight and failed to make, or have made, a record of that action in 

the airplane's maintenance log. 

f. Section 121.709(a)(2), in that AA operated an aircraft after 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations were performed 

when the certificate holder, or the person with whom the certificate 
holder arranges for the performance of the maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, or alteration, and failed to prepare or cause to be 

prepared an appropriate entry in the aircraft log. 

g. Section 121.367(a), in that AA, a certificate holder failed to have an 

inspection program and a program covering other maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, and alterations that ensured that 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations performed by 

it, or by other persons, are performed in accordance with the 

certificate holder's manual. 

h. Section 121.367(c), in that AA, a certificate holder failed to have an 

inspection program and a program covering other maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, and alterations that ensured that each 

aircraft released to service was airworthy and had been properly 

maintained for operation under this part. 

III. 

1. Under 49 U.S.C. §46301, AA is subject to a civil penalty for each of the 

violations alleged. The maximum penalty per violation is $25,000.00. 

2. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of 

$325,000.00 is appropriate. 

Complainant respectfully requests that the administrative law judge enter an 

order that Respondent AA be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $325,000.00. 

Submitted this 19*^ day of July 2010. 

LYNETTE WORD 

Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region 

By: 

Yolanda Ayala Bernal 

Attorney 

Safety Enforcement Branch 

Phone: (817)222-5070 

FAX: (817) 222-5945 or 5092 e-mail: Yolanda.A.Bernamfaa.aov 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that the foregoing Administrator's Firsf Amended Complaint has been 

sent this date by Federal Express Mail to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 

Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: (202) 336-3239 Attorney-Advisor 

(202) 366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

Evan P. Singer 

JONES DAY 

2727 North Hanwood Street 

Dallas, TX 75201-1515 

Phone: (214)969-5021 

FAX: (214)969-5100 

SyWfa C. Twa, Paralegal Specialist 

Feaeral Aviation Administration 

Southwest Region 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Date: July 19. 2010