U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO~ E c E I v ED 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of Wings Air, LLC, Respondent 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0849 

FAA Case Nos. 2012EA110052 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

JAN 2 2 Zat4 

HEARING DOCKET 

AGENCY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR 

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 

The Complainant, the Agency, by its undersigned counsel, hereby requests 

that Wings Air, LLC (Respondent) provide responses to the following discovery 

requests within thirty (30) days of service. This request shall be deemed to be continuing 

to the extent permitted by Rule 26( e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so as to require 

you to file supplemental responses. This request is intended to cover all documents in the 

Respondent's possession or subject to Respondent's custody and control and includes 

documents in the possession of each individual who acts as, or has acted at relevant times 

as, an employee, agent or representative of Respondent. 

DEFINITIONS 

A. When lmowledge or information in possession of a party is requested, such request 

includes knowledge of the party's agents, representatives and, unless privileged, the party's 

attorneys. 
B. The pronoun "you" and "yours" refers to the party to whom these interrogatories are 

addressed. 

C. Unless otherwise indicated, these interrogatories refer to the time, place and 

circumstances of the occurrences mentioned or complained of in the pleadings. 

D. When used with respect to an individual, corporate, business or governmental entity, 

"identizy" means state the name and present business or residence addresses of the 

individuals or entities and the employer, governmental or business affiliation and position of 

the individual. 

E. The terms "document" and "statement" mean without limitation, the following items, 

whether printed or recorded or reproduced by any other mechanical process or written or 

produced by hand: agreements, communications, correspondence, telegrams, memoranda, 

summaries or records of telephone conversations, summaries or records of personal 

conversations or interviews, diaries, reports, notebooks, note charts, plans, drawings, 

sketches, maps, summaries or reports of investigations, opinions or reports of consultants, 

photographs, motion picture films, tape recordings, computerized messages or data, 

brochures, pamphlets, advertisements, circulars, press releases, drafts, letters, any marginal 

conunents appearing on any document, and all other writings, including electronic writings. 

2 
F. When used with respect to a document, "identifY" means furnish the document itself, or 

in lieu thereof, the name and date of the document, the name and address of the person or 

persons originating the document, the name and address, if any, of the person or persons to 

whom the document is addressed, the names and addresses of all persons to whom copies of 

the documents were or have been sent, and the organization, firm or agency with which all 

such persons were connected as of the date of the document, and if not in possession of the 

original or a copy, furnish the name and address of the custodian of the original or a copy, 

or furnish the name and address of a person whom you believe is in possession of the 

original or a copy of such document. 

G. "Oral communication" means any oral exchange with words. 

H. When used with respect to an oral communication, "identifY" means state the date and 

place where such oral communication was made, the names of all individuals who 

participated in the communication, and their positions, employers, and employers' 

addresses, the names of all individuals who were present at the time the communication was 

made and their business affiliations and positions, the nature and substance of the 

communication, the nature and substance of each document recording or pertaining to such 

oral communication, and the name and present address of the present custodian of each such 

document. 

3 
I. For all interrogatories to which the responding individual has an objection, state 

the factual and legal basis for the claimed privilege, or any other authority which 

provides the claimed basis for the objection. 

J. All documents requested as to which the responding individual claims 

privilege or any other objection as a ground for non-production shall be identified 

chronologically as follows: 

(a) date, 

(b) title, 

(c) . type of document (e.g. memorandum, report, chart, etc.), 

(d) subject matter (without revealing the information as to which privilege or 

statutory authority is claimed). 

(e) factual and legal basis for the claimed privilege, or any other authority which 

provides the claimed ground for non-production. 

K. "Aircraft N27WA" means the SNIAS AS350BA helicopter referenced in the Complaint 

in this matter. 

L. "Flight #I" means the flight referenced in paragraph 3 of the Complaint in this matter. 

M. "Flight #2" means the flight referenced in paragraph 8 of the Complaint in this matter. 

N. The term "maintenance" includes any inspections performed. 

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

1. Identizy the names, titles, business or home addresses and telephone numbers of each 

person whom the Respondent intends to call as a witness at the hearing of this matter. 

4 
2. Provide the substance of the testimony to be offered by each of said witnesses. 

3. With respect to each expert witness identified in response to request Nos. 1 and 2 above: 

(a) identify the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; 

(b) list the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is 

expected to testify; 

(c) provide a summary of the grounds for each opinion; 

(d) if the Respondent intends to introduce into evidence or otherwise rely upon a 

written curriculum vitae or other written document listing the expert's 

professional qualifications, identify and attach copies of all such documents. 

4. Identify and produce copies of any and all documents or other tangible exhibits on 

which the Respondent anticipates relying, or will rely, in support of the case it will 

present at the hearing in this matter, including but not limited to documents or other 

tangible exhibits it intends to introduce into evidence. 

5. As a result of the bird strike to aircraft N27WA during Flight #1, was there damage 

to aircraft N27W A? 

6. If the answer to interrogatory 5, above, is in the affirmative, describe the damage. 

7. Did Respondent perform (or have performed) maintenance on aircraft N27W A 

during the period oftime between Flight #1 and Flight #2? 

8. If the answer to interrogatory 7, above, 1s m the affirmative, describe the 

maintenance. 

5 
9. IdentifY and produce copies of any and all entries made (or caused to be made) by 

Respondent reflecting maintenance performed on aircraft N27WA during the period 

of time between Flight# I and Flight #2. 

10. IdentifY and produce copies of any and all entries made (or caused to be made) by 

Respondent in the maintenance record of aircraft N27WA, which entry or entries 

reflect that the damaged area of aircraft N27W A was covered with tape on April 28, 

2012. 

11. With respect to Respondent's affinnative defense of reasonable reliance, identifY and 

produce copies of each section of the manufacturer's maintenance manual for 

aircraft N27WA upon which Respondent relied, and explain how Respondent relied 

on that maintenance section. 

12. With respect to Respondent's affirmative defense of reasonable reliance, identifY 

each authorized representative of the manufacturer of aircraft N27W A upon which 

Respondent relied, and explain how Respondent relied on each identified 

representative. 

13. With respect to each authorized representative of the manufacturer of aircraft 

N27WA identified in response to interrogatory 12, above, identifY the substance of 

the representations made by said representative, how said representations were 

communicated to Respondent, and when said representations were communicated to 

Respondent. 

6 
14. Identify and produce copies of any and all documents upon which Respondent relied 

with respect to any decisions made between Flight #1 and Flight #2 relating to 

maintenance on aircraft N27WA. 

15. State all facts to support the affmnative defense that Respondent does not have the 

financial ability to pay a $22,000 civil penalty. 

16. Identify and produce copies of any and all documents to support the affirmative 

defense that Respondent does not have the financial ability to pay a $22,000 civil 

penalty. 

17. State all facts to support the affirmative defense that paying a $22,000 civil penalty 

would have a detrimental effect on the ability of Respondent to continue doing 

18. Identify and produce copies of any and all documents to support the affirmative 

defense that paying a $22,000 civil penalty would have a detrimental effect on the 

ability of Respondent to continue doing business. 

19. State the amount of money that Respondent would be able to afford to pay as a civil 

penalty. 

20. State all facts to support the number stated in response to interrogatory 19, above. 

21. Identify and produce copies of any and all documents to support the number stated in 

response to interrogatory 19, above. 

7 
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 

1. During Flight # 1, aircraft N27W A sustained damage to its nose shell as a result of a 

bird strike. 

2. During Flight # 1, as a result of a bird penetrating the canopy nose skin of the aircraft, 

a hole was made in the canopy nose skin of the aircraft. 

3. Between Flight #1 and Flight #2, a mechanic employed by Respondent, one Louis 

Yara (hereinafter "Mr. Yara"), covered the hole (referenced in request for admission 

2, above) with tape. 

4. Any maintenance perfonned by Mr. Y ara on aircraft N27WA between Flight # 1 and 

Flight #2 was performed with the approval of management ofRespondent. 

5. Any maintenance entries made by Mr. Yara with respect to aircraft N27WA were 

made with the approval of management of Respondent. 

6. Between Flight #1 and Flight #2, there was no maintenance record entry made 

indicating that the damage of aircraft N27WA had been covered with tape. 

7. Between Flight #1 and Flight #2, Mr. Yara, on behalf of Respondent, approved 

aircraft N27WA for return to service. 

8. The covering of the damaged area of aircraft N27W A between Flight # 1 and Flight 

#2 constituted a temporary repair. 

9. The copy of the log entry (attached herein as Exhibit A-1) is genuine. 

10. The document attached herein as Exhibit A-1 is a copy of the entry made by Mr. 

Y ara on behalf of Respondent incident to the maintenance that he performed on 

aircraft N27WA on April28, 2012. 

8 
11. In the document attached herein as Exhibit A -1, it does not state that the damaged 

area of aircraft N27WA was covered with tape. 

12. The copy of the two-page letter dated May 2, 2012 (attached herein as Exhibit A-2) 

. . 

IS genume. 

13. The signature of Javier Diaz (hereinafter "Mr. Diaz") that appears on the second 

page of the document represented by Exhibit A-2 is genuine. 

14. During the period April-May 2012, Mr. Diaz was the Director of Operations of 

Respondent. 

15. The signature of Kevin Stavola (hereinafter "Mr. Stavola") that appears on the 

second page of the document represented by Exhibit A-2 is genuine. 

16. During the period April-May 2012, Mr. Stavola was the Director of Maintenance of 

Respondent. 

17. The signature of Mr. Y ara (hereinafter "Mr. Yara") that appears on the second page 

of the document represented by Exhibit A-2 is genuine. 

18. During the period April-May 2012, Mr. Yara was employed as an Airframe and 

9 
Powerplant mechanic by Respondent. 

\ 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alfred R. Johnson, Jr. 

Regional Counsel 

Hy ZacharyM~ ~~ Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL:718 553-3258 

FAX: 718 995-5699 

Date: January 7, 2014 

10 
EXHIBIT A-1 
<!> 

0 

·~ 

i'J) 

0 

"'' E 

::;~ 

-

q; 

a:: 

10 ' 

~ t:" ll."i:; 

0 I.IJI ._,_, tt'il 

g 

-1 

Q~ 

(.) 

!;:; 

"' 1::: 

q; 

~ 

!:;; 

~ 

Wingsair 

Eurocopter AS-350BA 

REGISTRATION: SERIAl NUMBER: r--Am:--, HOBBS: I 

N27WA _279~ · 4602.9 · · : 2583.9 E

. 

lOGS: DATE: 

13015 . ---· 4/28[g_ 

Unscheduled Maintenance: Inspected aircraft nose section far possible damage due to bird strike. Inspected inside of 

nose cone for other possible damJge. No internal damage found. Exterior cracking considered minor and airworthy 

per AS350BA SRM. "Repairing elerhents not directly contributing to the stiffness of the cabin structure (overhead panel 

and bubble). The following is ai.Jth9rized: cracks of various directions, stopping cracks as soon as they are detected, 

carrying out repairs as soon as the pircraft is grounded. Figure Crack checks and repairs within the limit of criteria definea 

in the table above, the following is puthorized: :;topping of initial crack development {DETAILS A and D). In this case, carry 

out daily monitoring (after flight) 11 order to ensure that the crack does not develop beyond the stop hole, stopping of 

secondary crack development (DETAII.S Band C).ln both cases, two cracks maximum are authorized over a length of 

500 mm (19.68 in.) " 

Aircraft retumecl to service and permanent repair will be performed ASAP" 

,service..-~~f~~araA, __ _ . 

-

, .... ' 

' 

. . . =·-· ~. 
EXHIBIT A-2 
IV1ay 2, 2012 

Flight Standards District Office 

Republic Airport 

Farmingdale .. NY 

Attn. inspectoi John Gal!igan 

CC, lnsp, James Ciccone 

lNG 

Ref. \:Ving_s Air. LLC VV-IZA367L-Bird Strtke on N27'WA on 4-28-i2 

Mr, Galligan, 

As per your request, we are- writing this letter to describe the events that occurred this 

past AprU 28. 2012 fol!owina a btrd strike to one of our helicopters, 1'-12.7\iVA, while 

conducting tours around Manhattan. Our Purpose is to (i) la·y out a 1:\meline ot events, (ii) 

explain vvhat the reasoning was behind conducting the flight back to base and, (lii) 

lessons learned from the experience as a whole. 

T~m1nf; ~f Everrts: 

i. 13:57: l received notification of t\1e bird strike. Hellcopter is immediately grounded 

at JR8 pending determination of our ability tG fly it back to base at KHPN 

_2. _ _c:::'_l4_:._Q5_:_i _pJac.ed a--Ca~l to Jim -CisGOne,--e-Uf---P8+--to--iAform -him ---at--trrctdent--!n-this 

call he mentioned that he wou!d cal! ,.John Gal!igan to discuss the incident and 

that he would get back to me shortly He asked me about tl1e specifics of the 

damage and I told him that there was a whole in the chin bubble of the aircraft 

and some crachs. 

3, 14:07-1415: I called both our DOM, Kevin Stavola and our EurocopterTech Rep, 

Scott Dodge to Inform them ot incident and to describe damage. Pictures are s-ent 

to both to determine a1nrmrthlness and the possibillty of safely flying helicopter 

back to base. 

4. ~14:50: I called Insp. C~ccone again. He told me that he had spoken to Insp. 

Galligan. He advised me tl1at in order to l'ly the helicopter back, our maintenance 

personnelvvou!d have to determine air-NorthJness ar.d safety and that as Jong as 

that "--vas the case, and the proper !og entries were made In the aircraft's records, 

the aircraft could be- flovm, lf that was not the case, )",B assured me that vve could 

get a ferry permit first thing Monday morning, 

5. --18:30: Foilovt!ng multiple conversations amongst our maintenance personnel a 

thocough visual inspection, the decision is made to fl;_,r the helicopter back to 

KHPN (12 min.) afi:er covering the damage with tape. 

18 H-angar Road. Sufte 200, VVhlte Plains. NY 10604 

Tel ·t-814-202-3440 Fax 1-914-274-9855 
If' 

'I 

Reasoning by maintenance for determining ainvorthiness and safety {Kevin, Luis 

and Eurocopter Tech rep): 

Following the visual inspection, referencing the structural manual and Kevin's 30 

plus year of experience with this type of a\rcratt, we determined that a ferry 

permit was not needed. Scott Dodge oi Eurocopter was also contacted and 

concurred. No structural damage was involved, no systems ware inoperative, no 

effect on aircraft flight was involved, and the aircraft was not overdue any 

inspections. 

The aircraft cabin is not a primary structure: The aircraft can be legally flown 

vi1th the doors ramoved etc. Also. on the exact spot of the damage. a landing 

light can be installed by cutting a 12 x12 hole: this was deemed to be no different 

than then the damage to that area except it was not covered, which we covered 

for the flight back to KHPN. 

"' There ls no question the aircraft was safe and airworthy in our eyes. 

Conclusions/Lessons Learned: 

The decisions made were taken with the best informaf;on that we had available on 

Saturday and taking into consideration the conversations and conclusions of our 

maintenance personnel. Eurocopter and the FAA We had nothing to gain or 'lose; we 

didn't try to hide anything from the FAA or anyone else. and though\ we were acting 

. within the boundan.es of the regulations. 

However. knowing what we now know, you can rest assured tllat none of our aircraft will 

ever move again \Nithout a ferry· permlt if anything is damaged or i"noperative. As always, 

we remain fully commlrted to complylng with the FARs and to maintalning a safe 

operation: \/lfe believe that our track record and our Wyvern Certification are proof of our 

commitment to safety. 

_V~Je are s.:::ny for-an:y:ir:JCG-R~Qf',-ieHGe-tFJs- may- have-caused-Jr'Oth"-otnce~ 

Reg~rds, 

~~.(·1 

I 

I 

: Kevin Stavola LuJs Yara 

Director of Maintenance A/P M9chanic 

.. ,8 Hangar P,oad, Suite 200, VV'nite Plains, f\-U 10604 

Tel -:-914-202-3440 Fax l-9i 4-27 4-9855 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing AGENCY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 

AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUESTS FOR 

ADMISSIONS have been sent via first class mail and facsimile to the following: 

Jared M. Allen, Esq. 

Gregory S. Winton, Esq. 

The Aviation Law Firm 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX: (202)366-7536 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing AGENCY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 

AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUESTS FOR 

ADMISSIONS have been sent via first class mail to the following: 

Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy via first class mail) 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Room 2014 

JAN ~ 9 2014 Date: ______ _ 

/

/·'1·1 f / I 

, __ .. /1 __;/ . 

~\5Ifo~t ~-~-·lc 

Paralegal Specialist 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

12