v"^/JiTMENT OF 

' S'S?^^J ^ the U.S. Department of Transportation 

l-'i iinnliUNo Federal Aviation Administration 

In the matter of 

M&RHELICOPTER 

Docket No. CPlOSOOOll 

FAA Case No. 2009SO950434 

Chief Judge Ronnie A. Yoder 

^(^K^-I3L\ \ 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO 

MifeR HELICOPTER'S MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT -

HOLDING RESPONDENT TO A fflGHER STANDARD THAN THE FAA 

OFFICIALS; MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT - FAILING TO 

MEET FILING DEADLINES; MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT -

CHANGING THE FUNDAMENTAL CAUSE OF ACTION; 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT -119.69 SHUTDOWN AND 

HUMAN FACTORS; MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT -

"INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE" ALSO FOR MR. BAKER 

Complainant files this response to the four motions for more definite statement 

filed by Respondent M & R Helicopters (Respondent) on January 24, 2011 and an 

additional motion for more definite statement filed on February 1,2011. While 

14 C.F.R. § 13.218(f)(3) provides that a motion for more definite statement may be filed 

if a party is requesting "more definite statement of any pleading which requires a 

response under this subpart," the moving "party shall, set forth in detail, the indefinite or 

uncertain allegations contained in a complaint or a response to any pleading." Id 

Respondent has failed to set forth, in detail, any allegations of any particular 

pleading that are indefinite or uncertain. The Complaint, Amended Complaint, and 

Discovery Request are the only pleadings filed by Complainant for which a response is 

required. Respondent has not identified any allegation or statement in any of these 

pleadings that warrants a more definite statement. Respondent has already filed its 

"!'l aB I ! P |:U2 ^'fe^O ^ilCj 
response to the complaint and the amended complaint. Even if Respondent had identified 

an uncertain of indefinite allegation, the remedy Respondent seeks in most of its motions 

(i.e. the dismissal of this case) would not be an appropriate remedy even if a motion for 

more definite statement were granted. 

In any event, the arguments Respondent makes in these motions are repetitive. 

Complainant has already addressed them in multiple responses. Complainant respectfiilly 

requests that the Chief Administrative Law Judge refer to its prior responses, and in 

particular Complainant's Response to M & R Helicopters Motion For Judgment to 

Dismiss - Truths of Admission, filed on January 14, 2011. 

In its Motion for More Definite Statement - Insufficient Evidence For Mr. Baker, 

Respondent attached a January 21, 2011 letter from the Drug Abatement Division of the 

FAA that concems how the FAA addressed an apparent violation by Respondent 

involving another mechanic, Eugene Mcintosh. As Complainant has explained in many 

prior responses, including Complainant's Response to M & R Helicopters Motion For 

Judgment to Dismiss - Truths of Admission, Respondent has mischaracterized the FAA's 

exercise of prosecutorial discretion in regard to the apparent violation involving the other 

mechanic, Mr. Mcintosh, that was performing safety-sensitive fionctions for M & R 

Helicopters. Respondent claims that the FAA 

formally released the prior lA/Mechanic on all counts, found to be on his fiill time 

[sic] employers [sic] Drug/Alcohol Program by Ms. WiUiam's [sic] letter of 

September 23, 2010 and further confirmed in her revised letter of January 21, 

2011... 

This is a gross mischaracterization of the agency's actions and determination. The FAA 

did not "release" that mechanic or determine that there was no violation with regard to 

that mechanic. Through appropriate exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, the FAA 
determined that, for evidentiary reasons, it would take no attion regarding the other 

violation involving the other mechanic, Mr. Mcintosh. Coinplainant's determination not 

to take action for this apparent violation was not because, a^ Respondent claims, it 

determined that Mr. Mcintosh was on another drug or alcohol testing program. 

WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfiilly requests that the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge deny all five of Respondent's Motions for More Definite Statement. 

Respectfiilly submitted, 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

By: ^ST^^^^-^-^'-^""^^^^^ 

/yKauraPonto 

L/ Attorney 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federail Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone: (202)267-9863 

Facsimile: (202)267-5106 

Date: February 3, 2011 
Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that on this date I have placed in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, 

certified return-receipt, a copy of Complainant's Response To M&R Helicopter's Motion 

For More Definite Statement - Holding Respondent To A Higher Standard Than The 

FAA Officials; Motion For More Definite Statement - Failing To Meet Filing Deadlines: 

Motion For More Definite Statement - Changing The Fundamental Cause Of Action: 

Motion For More Definite Statement --119.69 Shutdown And Human Factors: Motion 

for More Definite Statement - Insufficient Evidence For Mr. Baker In the Matter ofM & 

R Helicopters, Docket No. CPlOSOOOl 10, FAA Case no. 2009SO950434, addressed to: 

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M & R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Dr., Suite 205 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified return-receipt and facsimile one copy of the foregoing document to: 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Facsimile: 202-366-7536 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified return-receipt, the original and one copy of the foregoing document to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Dated: February 3,2011