'^WII&i?L RECEIVED 

^B'^T pppq/M OF TRANSPORTATION 

,:\t i l>rtm\ »^g)ERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AUG " 3 2010 

.^•fl M'- on D I- ?q OFFICE OF HEARINGS . .^.oiKir ^ nnrUTF T 

^^ ^h. 21 P I- 2M ^^HINQTON, D.C. HEARING DOCK t i 

In the Matter of Diamond Air Charter, Inc. 

2010EA110008 

Judge Not Assigned ^ ^ A -<ao 1 o - 61? ^ 0 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby files its Amended 

Complaint, pursuant to Rule 208 of the Rules of Practice (14 C.F.R. 13.208), and 

states as follows: 

I 

Respondent, Diamond Air Charter, Inc., was advised through a Final Notice of 

Proposed Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount 

of $1,100. On June 3, 2010, Respondent submitted a written demand for a hearing. 

n 

1. At all times relevant herein. Diamond Air Charter, Inc. (Diamond Air 

Charter), was the holder of Air Carrier Certificate No. D9CA276H. 

2. On or about October 29, 2009, it was discovered by the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) that Diamond Air Charter was advertising or 

otherwise offering to use a Cessna 560 aircraft in Part 135 (Air Carrier On 

Demand) operations. 

3. Some of the advertising referenced in Paragraph (2), above, referred 

specifically to a Cessna 560 aircraft, identification number N365EA 

(hereinafter "the N365EA aircraft"). 
4. At all times relevant herein, under the operations specifications of Diamond 

Air Charter, Diamond Air Charter was not authorized to conduct Part 135 

flight operations with any Cessna 560 aircraft, including the N365EA aircraft. 

5. At all times relevant herein. Diamond Air Charter, Inc., was thus not 

authorized by the FAA to conduct Part 135 flight operations with any Cessna 

560 aircraft, including the N365EA aircraft. 

6. Diamond Air Charter thus advertised or otherwise offered to use a Cessna 560 

aircraft in Part 135 flight operations when Diamond Air Charter was not 

authorized by the FAA to use any Cessna 560 aircraft in Part 135 flight 

operations. 

7. Diamond Air Charter thus advertised or otherwise offered to use the N365EA 

aircraft in Part 135 flight operations when Diamond Air Charter was not 

authorized by the FAA to use the N365EA aircraft in Part 135 flight 

operations. 

8. Diamond Air Charter thus advertised or otherwise offered to perform an 

operation subject to Part 119 when it was not authorized by the Federal 

Aviation Administration to conduct that operation. 

m 

By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances. Respondent violated the 

following section(s) of the Federal Aviation Regulations: 

a. Section 119.5(k), which states that no person may advertise or otherwise 

offer to perform an operation subject to this part unless that person is 

authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct that 

operation. 
IV 

1. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §46301(a)(1), Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to 

exceed $25,000 for each of the violations alleged, or, for a small business concern, 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §46301(a)(5). Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to 

exceed $11,000 for each of the violations alleged. 

2. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of $1,100 is 

appropriate. 

WHEREFORE, the FAA, by counsel, respectfully requests that the 

Administrative Law Judge enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in 

the amount of $1,100. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alfred R. Johnson, Jr. 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

Zachary M. B 

Attomey 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

718 553-3258 

718 995-5699 
NOTE; 

The Rules of Practice for this proceeding are set forth in Part 13, Subpart 

G, of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.R. Part 13). 

The Rules of Practice provide that Respondent must file a written answer 

to this Complaint, or a written Motion to Dismiss if appropriate, not later than 30 

days after the date shown on the Certificate of Service. A general denial is 

deemed a failure to file an answer (Section 13.209(e)). 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Second Amended Complaint has been, on this date, 

sent via first class mail and facsimile to the following: 

Gregory S. Winton, Esq. 

The Aviation Law Firm 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Telefax: (301)294-8^aa^^^^ 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Telefax: (202)366-7536 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Second Amended Complaint has been, on this date, 

sent via first class mail to the following: 

Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attti: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W10000 

Date: ^^^ 2 8 2010 c^A-> ^ . 

sa Hooks 

Paralegal Speciahst 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434