U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration

March 12,2014 Northwest Mountain Region Office of Regional Counsel Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming 1601 Lind Avenue 

### s.w. Renton, Washington 98057 Tel:**(4~5)** 221'-184.7

-- Fax: (425)227-1007 kyle.lomazow@faa.gov

VIAEMAlLAND CERTIFIED MAlL- RETURNRECEIPT REQUESTED
Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Hearing Docket Federal Aviation Administration (Wilbur Wright Bldg.) 800 Independence Avenue S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 

### Re: In the Matter ofJETTECH, LLC, FAA Case No. 2012NM030058
Enclosed is an Amended Complaint inthe above-referenced proceeding.
No. 9 ofthe Complaint statedthat aircraftNl50BV was operated on a flight from Broomfield, Colorado to Oakland, California. This was in error the aircraft's destination was not Oakland California, but Hartford, Connecticut.
Sincerely,

# lCyle~~ow FAAAttorney
leE Limas
Enclosures: Amended Complaint1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 KYLE E. LOMAZOW FAA OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL 1601 LIND AVE., SW RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 TELEPHONE: (425) 227-1847 FACSIMILE: (425) 227-1007

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Inthe Matter of: FAA Case No. 2012NM030058 JETTECH, LLC Judge Not Assigned

JUDGENOTASSIGNED: 

### AMENDED COMPLAINT
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, herebyfiles its Amended Complaint, pursuantto Rule 208 ofthe Rules ofPractice (14 Code ofFederal Regulations (C.P.R.) Section 13.208), and states as follows:

I.
On January 8, 2014, JETTECH, LLC, was advised through a Final Notice ofProposed
Civil Penaltythat the FAAproposed to assess a civil penalty inthe amount of$27,500. On

42 January 25, 2014, JETTECH, LLC, through its legal counsel, submitted a written request for a 43 44 hearing. 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 II.
1. JETTECH is now, and at all times mentioned herein was, the holder ofApproved Repair Station Certificate No. ZYJR157B.

AMENDED COMPLAINT FAA v. JETl'ECH, LLC. FAA Case No. 2012NM030058 Page2of8 KYLE E. LOMAZOW, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-1847; FAX: (425) 227-10071 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 2.



### 3.

4.

5.



### 6.

7.

8.

9.

10.



### 11.

12. JETTECH is required to conduct its operations pursuant to its FAA approved Repair Station Manual (RSM). Paragraph A003 ofJETTECH's Operations Specifications (OpSpecs) authorizes JETTECHto conduct maintenance and alterations on airframes, radios and instruments listed on its Capabilities List.

JETTECH is required to conduct its operations 

### inaccordance withits RSM prepared pursuantto 14 C.F.R. Section 145.207(a) and 14 C.F.R. Section 145.21l(b).
Section I.7 ofJETTECH's RSM authorizes JETTECH to performmaintenance, preventative maintenance, or alterations on articles listed on its Capabilities List.
Section 5.4 ofJETTECH's RSM states thatJETTECH must use only FAA approved technical datawhen it accomplishes a major repair or alteration.

On April!O, 2012, JETTECHperformed a major alteration onN150BV, a Cessna Model 525 civil aircraft, by installing a Garmin GTN 750 Series, avionics system, and
a GARMIN GDL satellite receiver.

On AprillO, 2012, JETTECH approvedN150BV for returnto service after performing the major alterations in accordance with datathat was not approved bythe Administrator.

On April13, 2012, Nl50BV was operated on a flight from Broomfield, Colorado to Hartford, Connecticut.

N150BV was operated on Aprill3, 2012 after the major alterations mentioned in paragraph 7 were completedin accordance with datathat was not approved by the Administrator.
When JETTECHperformed the major alterations, the CessnaModel 525 was not listed onJETTECH's current Capabilities List and therefore JETTECHperformed maintenance on an article for which itwas notrated.

The above-mentioned Garmin GTN installation did not use FAA approved technical data for the following reasons:

AMENDED COMPLAINT FAA v.JETTECH, LLC. KYLE E. LOMAZOW, FAAArrORNEY TEL: (425) 227-1847; FAX: (425) 227-1007 FAA Case No. 2012NM030058 Page 3 of81 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 13.



### 14.

15.

16. Installation ofthe Garmin GDL Satellite Receiver:

a. This installation was performed pursuant to Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SAOI487SE-D.
b. This particular installation deviated from the STC data inthat the installation included an antenna and itwas interfaced with the GTN installation.

c. As a result, FAA approval was required for the modified data, which JETTECH failed to obtain.
Installation ofthe Garmin GTN 750 Series Avionics System:
d. This installation was performed referencing STC Number SA02019SE-D as a basis for the installation data.

e. The CessnaModel525 is not onthis STC's approved aircraft list.
f. JETTECH failed to gain approval for this installation and failed to revise the aircraft operating limitations by seeking approval for the issuance ofan FAA approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) supplement as required bythe STC.

Inperforming the maintenance referenced in paragraph I0, JETTECH failed to comply with its RSM in that it did not use FAA approved technical data in performing a major alteration.
On Aprill6, 2012, five (5) days after the above-mentioned installation ofthe GTN avionics system had already been completed andNl50BV had been approved for return to service, JETTECH sent the Denver Flight Standards District Office (FSDO)
a data package requesting field approval for the Garmin GDL satellite receiver and the Garmin GTN 750 Series avionics installation.
This datapackage included duplicate copies ofthree (3) FAA Form 337's, which identified the alterations described above, and sought approval for the technical data used, and a request for approval ofthe associated AFM. Additionally, since JETTECH had already performed the installation without first receiving field approval from the FAA, the above-mentioned Form 337's did not include a stamped statement indicating FAA field approval as required by JETTECH's RSM.

AMENDED COMPLAINT FAA v. JETTECH, LLC. KYLEE. LOMAZOW, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-1847; FAX: (425) 227-1007 FAA Case No. 2012NM030058 Page 4 of81 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9



### 2. III.

1. By reason ofthe foregoing facts and circumstances, JETTECH, LLC. violated the following sections ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.R.):

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f. Section 43.5(b), inthatinthat it approved for retnrn to service an aircraft which hadundergone maintenance and alteration and for which it failed to execute, in a manner prescribed by the Administrator, an alteration form authorized by or furnished by the Administrator.
Section43 .5(c), inthat it approved for returnto service an aircraft thathad an alteration that resulted in a change inthe aircraft operating limitations or flight data contained inthe approved aircraft flight manual, and it failed to ensure that those operating limitations orflight datawere appropriately revised and set forth
as prescribed in Section 91.9 ofthis Chapter 1 ofTitle 14 C.F.R.
Section 145.20l(b), inthat itmaintained or altered an article for whichit is not rated.
Section 145.201(c)(l), inthat it approved an article for returnto service when the maintenance, preventative maintenance, or alteration was not performed in accordance withthe applicable approved technical data or data acceptable to the FAA.
Section 145.201(c)(2), in that it approved for returnto service an article after a major repair or major alteration whenthe major repair ormajor alteration was not performed in accordance with applicable approved technical data.
Section !45.207(a), inthat itfailed to follow the FAA-acceptedrepair station manual itprepared.

In accordance with Sections 46301(a) and (d) ofTitle 49 ofthe United States Code 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 (U.S.C.) (Transportation) [49 U.S.C. Sections 46301(a) and (d)], JETTECH, LLC. is liable for a
civil penalty not to exceed $1,I00 for each ofthe violations noted.
45 46 

### 3. 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Under the facts and circumstances ofthis case, a civil penalty of$27,500 is appropriate.

AMENDED COMPLAINT FAAv.JETTECH, LLC. FAA Case No. 2012NM030058 Page 5 of8 KYLE E. LOMAZOW, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-1847; FAX: (425) 227-10071 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 

### WHEREFORE, the Agency, by counsel, respectfully requeststhat the Administrative
LawJudge enter an order that JETTECH, LLC. be assessed a civil penalty inthe amount of $27,500.

Respectfully submitted ·s 12th 

### day ofMarch, 2014.

Kyle E. Lorn FAAAtto 

# 7

AMENDED COMPLAINT FAA v. JETTECH, LLC. FAA Case No. 2012NM030058 Page6of8 KYLE E. LOMAZOW, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-1847; FAX: (425) 227-10071 

### ANSWER 2 3 In 

### accordance with Section 13 .209 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations, JETTECH, LLC, must 4 

### answer this Amended Complaint not laterthanthirty (30) days from the time it is served on it. 5 

### Failure to file an Answer withinthirty (30) days without good cause shall be deemed an 6 

### admission ofthe truth ofeach allegation contained inthe Amended Complaint [14.C.F.R. 7 

### Section 13.209(±)]. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 AMENDED COMPLAINT FAA v.JETTECH, LLC. FAA Case No. 2012NM030058 Page7of8 KYLE E. LOMAZOW, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-1847; FAX: (425) 227-10071 2 

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

3 

### I hereby certify thatthe foregoing Amended Complaint has been served viaEmail and Certified 4 

### Mail

- Return Receipt Requested this date, to the following: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 

### Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building

- 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, D.C. 20591 Email: Richard.Goodwin@dot.gov Patricia.Matthews@dot.gov

Michael L. 

### Poindexter, Esq. Law Offices ofMichael L. 

### Poindexter 2132 Montane Drive E. Golden, CO 80401 TEL: (303) 526-1980 Email: poinlaw@aol.com Dated this 1ihday ofMarch, 2014.

Office ofRegional Counsel (ANM-7) Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Ave. SW

AMENDED COMPLAINT FAA v.JETTECH, LLC. FAA Case No. 2012NM030058 Page 8 of8 

### Renton, WA 98057 (425) 227-2925

KYLE E. LOMAZOW, FAAATIORNEY TEL: (425) 227-1847; FAX: (425) 227-1007