02/19/2010 14:04 FAX 2024935142 

02/03/2010 10:26 FA I 425 227 1007 

FAA 

ANM-7 

* DMS 

1 

2 

2 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

1? 

le 

ly 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

2S 

29 

30 

31 

52 

3J 

34 

3S 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

4,S 

4€ 

47 

48 

43 

50 

5\ 

52 

B3 

i!009/020 

11002 

'\rrr T OF TfiANSPOflWiON 

SCOTT R. NfORRIS 

FAA OFFICE OF REGIONAT. COUNSHL 

1601 LINO AVE,, SW 

KENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 

TBLJil'HONE: 425,227,1417 

FACSIMn.f/. 425,227,1007 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

Frontier Airlines, Inc. 

FAA DOCKET CP 09>JM0Ol 3 

FAA Case No. 2009NM,210020 

DMS No. FAA-2009-1040 

Judge Goodwin 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSK TO RESPONDENT'S INI TIAL DISCOVERY 

REQUEST 

Complainant, through her undersigned counsel, hereby responds to Respondent's initial discovery 

request, served On January 6, 2010. Complainant reserves the right to supplement tliis response if 

additional docunients or witnesses come to its attention. 

DOCUMENT REQUESTS. 

1. A copy of any and all documents identified in your responses to the accompanying 

interrogatories. 

ResBonse: See attached or refer to response to Requests for Production Nos. 2 and 3. 

2. A copy of your entire file with respect to Investigation and Case No, 2008NM210020, 

including a complete copy of rhe Enforcement Investigative Report ('EIR'"), and a copy of 

all niemoratida, notes, c-mail, bulletins, advisories or other writing of any kind or description 

prepared by any person employed by the FAA concerning this case. This may include, but is 

not limited to, any recommendation whenever made as well as any documents, notes, e-raail, 

memoranda, bulletins, advisoi-ies or other writing related to any review of this case, 

Response: Objection overly broad and requests infonnalion concerning the Agency's 

cliberative process, attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. 

Cornplainaiit's Respon,';e lo RespondcnL's Initial 

Discovery RcqiiissL 

Frontier Airlines •• CP09NW0013 

Page 1 of 12 

KCXJTTR. MoRRrs, FA/V ATTORNEY 

TEL; 425.227.1417; FAX: 42,5.227.1007 
/19/201 0 14:0 4 FAX 202493514 2 FAA •>• DMS @l010/02 0 

:!/03/2010 10:26 FAX 425 227 1007 ANM-7 1|003 

1 

2 

3 

4 

0 

e 

7 

8 

3 

10 

H 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

IS 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

2a 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

33 

39 

40 

41 

1Z 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

4S 

49 

50 

61 

p;^ 

53 

product documents which aie withheld and will not be father identified as well as privileged 

communications concerning this matter between counsel and FAA officials. 

Subject lo these objections, the Complainant responds as follows; 

- Section C of the case file has previously been produced and will not be produced anew. This 

copy was provided on March 27, 2009. However, there may be additional Items of I'roof (lOFs) 

that were not produced in this response. Therefore, out of an abundance of caution the Response 

provides copies of lOPs 17 - 19, and 21 - 32. There was no lOP 20. 

- Ih e Agency has a copy of the presentation materials presented by Frontier during the 

September 9, 2009 informal conference. They also are not being copied as they were previously 

provided by Frontier. However, if it requests aaiother copy it will be provided. 

- Documents in addition to tliose described above and not privileged are attached and are as 

follows: 

a. Statement of John Taft, dated September 17, 2009 (1 page) 

b. Statement of William Hoddenbach, dated September 16, 2009 (1 page) 

c. Email subj: Fw: Frontier's Bralce fm Tom Sciaoca to Scott Morris, dated 01/04/2010 

(3 pages) 

d. Frontier Document Control Procedures, 05.10 Technical Publications Department, 

dated 06/11/07, pages 1 ajid 2. 

e. Frontier Airbus MbL/CDL Preamble, 10,05, dated 12/14/07, pages 1-16 

f. I'ronticr Dispatch release printouts (5 pages) 

g. Resumeof Peter S.Ncff (4 pages) 

h. Resume of Ron Reeves (4 pages) 

i. Resume of 'J'om S ciacca (3 page.*?) 

j . Resume of JC Moreno (1 page) 

k. Resumeof Ted Hutton (3 pages) 

1, Resume of Brian Schooley (2 pages) 

m. Frontier GMM 15,07, Daily Check Program (4 pages) 

n. Color photos of brake from Computer screen (2 pages) 

o. Frontier's violation history (7 pages) 

p. FAA MMEL Policy Letter 25, Revision 14 (7 pages) 

q. Frontier Log pages 416096, 416099, 419202, 419203, and 419205 (5 pages) 

3. A copy of any and all documents that contain any type of report or infonnation prepajred by, 

conveyed to, or received by, any employee of the FAA that touches upon or concerns the 

facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged violation, and the subsequent FAA 

investigation. 

Response: Objection overly broad and requests information concerning the Agency's 

deliberative process, attorney-client privileged information and allomey work product. 

Complainant' ^ Respons e to Respondent's Initial ScOTf R. Moiyu.s, FA A AfiOfttJEv 

UiSCwvcry Request 

Frontier Airlines - CPOS'NMOOIS TEL: 425.227.1417 ; FAX: 425.227,1007 

Page 2 of 12 
02/19/2010 14;04 FAX 2024935142 

-_'vT//i,v/iv / XV . C I I'rtA •i.CO C ^ I iUO / 

FAA 

ANiH 7 

+ DMS 0011/020 

@I004 

1 

2 

3 

1 

5 

G 

7 

8 

9 

ICl 

1 1 

12 

13 

14 

IS 

16 

17 

18 

ns 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

2S 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

4S 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

D2 

53 

Documents being witlihcld include the EIR sections A and B, the .KDT worksheet, and 

coordinating Memoranda to AGC-300 concerning this case. In addition there are attorney work 

product documents which arc witliheld and will not be further identified. Otherwise refer to 

response to Request for Production 2 above. 

4, A copy of any and all documents containing statements provided by FAA employees who 

have knowledge of the alleged violation and that relates to the alleged violation. 

Response: See response to Request for Production 2, above. 

5. A copy of any and all documents containing statements provided by any other person, not 

covered in Requests for Production Nos. 3 and 4, v/ho has knowledge the alleged violation 

and that relates to the alleged violation, including employees or agents of t'Yoniicr, the 

Aircraft manufacturer, and any other entity involved in this matter. 

Response: See response to Request for Production 3, above. 

6. A copy of all correspondence that FAA employees have received regarding this case as well 

as all related enforcement cases. 

Response: See rcspon.ses to Request for Production Nos. 2 and 3, All non-privileged related 

correspondence is attached. 

7, A copy of aJl related civil penally actions, gxiidance tables, or sanction information on which 

the FAA relied in arriving at the recommended civil penalty action in this case. 

Response: Sec FAA Order 2150.3B, a copy of which is available on the FAA website 

(www,faa.gov) and so it is not being produced. Copies of tlie files related to prior civil ])enalty 

actions will not be produced as that would be unduly burdensome and not lead to relevant 

material to this case. However, an extract of the electronic record of Frontier's viokition 

history from 2003 - 2009 is attached. 

REQUEST FOR INTHRROGATORIES 

I. Please set forth in detail the exact amount of the $350,000 proposed civil penalty associated 

with each alleged violation set fortli in subparagraphs II(l)(a) dirough ir(I)(d) of your 

Amended Complaint, 

Response: Objection. The request asks for deliberative and work product material. Without 

waiving this objection, this amount is consistent with FAA Order 2150.3B, chapter 7 and 

Appendix D, For multiple flight violations, those violations are capped pci- Chapter 7, paragraph 

Complainant's Response lo Respondent's Initial 

Discoveiy Request 

FroJiTier Airlines - CF09NMO013 

Pages of 12 

ScoTT R. MortRrs, FA A ATTORNI^Y 

TEL: 425.227.1417; FAX: 425.227.1007 
02/19/201 0 14:0 4 FAX 202493514 2 FAA •>• DMS 11012/020 

02/0.'i/2010 10:2 7 FAX 425 227 1007 ANM-7 Si 005 

7.b, figure 7-1, for tlie flights that occurred after the brakes was improperiy MHL'd in Salt Lake 

City, UT. 

2. Please set forth in detail each fact that fonns the basis for your allegation in: 

a. Paragraph 1(5) (sic) of your Amended Complaint, that: "Frontier's GMM, section 30.05 sets 

forth the brake wear limit for its aircraft and requires the removal of brakes when there is 1/16 of 

an inch or less wear pin showing." 

Response: Although the initial Aircraft Flight Log #416095 states that the Brake was 'Beyond 

Limits', then it was subsequently revised lo stale '#2 Brake to be less than 1/16'"', Not Flush, both 

Aircraft Flight Log pages indicates that the brake met the requirements for removal and 

replacement, GMM 30,05 clearly states that during a Daily Check and Higher Check Level (SLC 

performed Hea-vy Check), 'Remove brakes when there is 1/16'"' of an inch or less wear pin 

showing.' 

b. Paragraph 1(8) of your Amended Complaint, that: "Frontier's CAMP prohibits the use of the 

MHL when the brake wear indicator is flush or recessed in the brake housing as was the case 

here." Please further specify the facts that form the basis for your conclusion that the brake wear 

indicator was flush or recessed. 

Resffonsfe; Frontier's Repair Order, dated Nov 4, 2008, provides the defect and rcmov»]l 

information, which states that "During a heavy check, found #2 brake indicator below limits." 

Frontier Airlines sent the brake in question to BF Goodrich in Santa Fe Springs, California on 

Nov 7, 2008. According to the Overhaul Service Report from BF Goodrich (also to be added as 

an TOP), the brake pin indicator was indeed below l/ie^** of an inch. See D095 and GMM 

section for MEL management by MCC. 

c. Paragraph 1(12) of your Amended Complaint, that: "The brake was overheating because it was 

not bled per the maintenance instructions specified in the maintenance manual and the MEL "M" 

procedures." 

Response: When the hydraulic line is disconnected, the brake assembly retains its pressiu-e, thus 

causing the brake to remain in an engaged position. When the brake is 'bled', it removes the 

pressure, which disengages the brake, allowing it to rotate without causing friction, preventing a 

heat build-up as it rotates. Even though the brake was beyond limits, the brake might not be 

enough to stop an aircraft during landing or emergency, but it will still cause a rise in temperature 

during aircraft movement if the system is not bled. See also log page documenting the BTB due 

to overheating brake and statement by Greg Tatt. 

d. Paragraph 1(13) of your Amended Complaint that: "Frontier Maintenance Control Center 

(MCC') called SLC contract maintenance and directed them to re-bleed the ^2 brake assembly per 

MEL 32-42-01 A." 

Compl!iinan['.f Responiic to Respondent's Initial SodnrR. MORJUs, FAA A'lTORNEY 

Uiiicoveiy KeCiuc^l 

Frontier Airlines - CPOWMOOl3 TEL: 425.227.1417; FAX: M5.m. 1007 

Page 4 of 12 
02/19/2010 14:05 FAX 2024935142 

vi./vs y ivi v lO-.ZI t-Ai 42.=> 227 1007 

FAA 

ANM-

+ QMS 121013/020 

§1006 

Regpon.se; SLC contract maintenance was in contact with MCC that moraing. After the aircraft 

had a 'Block Turn Back (BTB)' due to excessive heat build-up on the #2 wheel, MCC instructed 

contract maintenance to re-bleed the brake. All contract maintenance providers (outside of DEN, 

PHX, MCJ) are instructed to get a hold of MCC to get instructions regarding any maintenance to 

be performed and how lo sign off an Aircraft Flight Log. See CiMM procedures for MCC at 

SLC; the log page documenting the BTB due to brake overheating; and MEL 32-42-01 A, 

e. Paragraph 1(14) of your Amended Complaint that: After the brake was re-bled, Frontier 

operated the N938FR for eleven (11) flights while in an unairworthy condition because the U 2 

wheel brake was worn beyond limits and improperly defened." Please ftirther specify tlie facts 

that form the basis for your conclusion that the brake was improperly deferred. 

Response: MliL 32-42-01A provides dispatch for an inoperative brake. There is no MEL 

dispatch for a brake 'beyond limits'. According to the mechanic and MCC that evening, the 

brake was beyond limits, and it was defeixed improperiy under those pretenses. By Frontier 

allowing the brake to be incorrectly MEL, not finding out that there was a brake and available 

manpower on station that evening, not notifying DEN of an impending brake change (it flew in 

and out of DEN more than 5 times), Frontier allowed the aircraft to fly in an un-airworthy 

condition. See statement of Greg 'faft and WilHam Hoddenback, Frontier's SLC inventory 

history and its operation report Oct 29 - 31, 2008 

f. Paragraph 1(15) of your Amended Complaint, that: "FLirther, on October 31, 2008, Av.Latioti 

Safety Inspectors, while performing surveillance discovered that the mechanic that pcrfoimed the 

heavy check inspection back on October 28, 2008 had failed to comply with the MEL "M" 

procedure because he failed to properly secure the brake hose." 

Response: Both ASI Moreno and Reeves saw aircraft N938FR -at the gate, they decided to take a 

look at the brake because it was noted earlier that day that it was on the MEL list. When they 

approached the aircraft, they were greeted by two Frontier mechanics. As they all looked at the 

brake in question, it was immediately notice by all that it was incorrectly secured. The MUL 

instructs lo wind lock-wire around the tape attached to the hydraulic sleeve, and then attach the 

loose hydraulic sleeve to the hexagonal head of the fixed half coupling. The hydraulic sleeve was 

seciured to another hydraulic line using a strap-tie. See log page. 

g. Paragraph I()6) of your Amended Complaint, that: 

its operations specifications." 

'Frontier operated N93SFR in violation of 

Response: Operation Specification D072, CAMP, is sumrnariy.ed simply when it states that each 

aircraft and its component parts, accessories, and appliances are maintained in an airworthy 

condition in accordance with The time limits tor the accomplishment of the routine checks of the 

aircraft. When Frontier's MCC incorrectly authorized the MEL for the brake, Ops Specs D072, 

CAMP, was circumvented and Frontier violated the FAR's. When a MEL is applied to an 

aircraft, the type certificate is temponuily amended. When the MBL procedures are not 

Complajnam's Response to Respondent's InitiBl 

Plscovery Rcquesl 

Frontier Airlines - CP09NM0()13 

Pae«5 oflS 

SCOTT R. MOJURI,?, FAA ArtoRNnv 

TEL: 425.227.1417; FAX: 425.227.1007 
02/19/2010 14:05 FAX 2024935142 

02/03/2010 10:27 FAX 425 227 1007 

F AA 

ANM 7 

+ DMS 121014/020 

©007 

accomplished per the MEL, the aircraft is no longer airworthy becaxise it no longer conforms to 

the amended type certificate. MEL conditions and limitations do not relieve tlie operator from 

determining that the aircraft is in condition for safe operation with items of equipment 

inoperative. When using the MEL, compliance with the slated intent o[ the preamble, definitions, 

and the conditions and limitations specified in the MEL is required. 

3, Please identify each individual with personal knowledge of the alleged violation, incltiding 

witliout limhation, each employee or agent of the Federal government or any other person 

who assisted in the investigation of the matters set forth in the Amended Complaint. 

Response: The following persons are disclosed: 

Principal Maintenance Inspector Tom Sciacca, 

Rocky Mountain CMO 

26805 E. 68'^ Ave., #200 

Denver. CO 80249-6361 

(303)342-1100 

Surmnary of Testimony: PMI Sciacca will testify about tlie Frontier's CAMP program; 

integration of the CAMP prograna; troubleshooting procedures; required logbook entries; 

requhcmcnts to clear a log entries; compliance witti the MEL and the required maintenarLCc 

associated with M ElJng the brake. He will render an opinion concerning the violations in the 

Complaint, tliat the aircraft was unairworthy, that improper maintenance was performed on the 

aircraft, that the maintenance was improperly deferred, and what were the proper maintenance 

procedures that Frontier should have followed under its CAMP. 

Inspector JC Moreno 

Rocky Mountain CMO 

26805 E. 68"* Ave., #200 

Denver. CO 80249-6361 

(303)342-1100 

Summary of Testimony:. 

Inspector Moreno will testify about his investigation and his personal observations of the brake 

on N938FR; MEL procedures; the brake system; required maintenance entries; documentary 

evidence he gathered; statements gathered during the investigation; Frontier MCC operations; the 

existence of a brake at SLC; FAA Order 2150.3B sanction guidance. He will render an opinion 

concerning the violations in the Complaint, that the aircraft was unairworthy, that improper 

maintenance was performed on the aircraft, that the maintenance was improperly defeired, and 

what were the proper maintenance procedures that Frontier should have followed under its 

CAMP. 

Inspector Ronald Reeves 

Seattle FSDO 

Complainant's Response to Rejtpondcnt's Initial 

Discovery Request 

Frontier Airlines - CP09NM0013 

Pa6e6on2 

SCOTT R. MOKXIS. FA A AiTL»w<iiY 

TEL: 425.227.1417; FAX: 425.227.1007 
02/19/2010 14:05 FAX 2024935142 

02/U3/Z010 10:2» FAX 42.') 227 1007 

FAA 

ANM-7 

+ DMS 121015/020 

Igiooa 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

(425)227-1802 

Siunmary of Testimony: Summary: Inspector Reeves will testify about his investigation and his 

personal observations of the brake on N938FR; the existence of a brake at SLC; MEL 

procedures; the brake system; required maintenance entries; documentary evidence he gathered; 

statements gathered during the investigation; Frontier MCC operations; FAA Order 2150.3Ji 

sanction guidance. lie will render an opinion concerning the violations in tlic Complaint, that the 

aircraft was unairworthy, that improper maintenance was performed on the aircraft, that the 

maintenajice was improperly deferred, and what were the proper maintenance procedures that 

Frontier should have followed under its CAMP. 

Inspector Andy Gambardella 

Rocky Mountain CMO 

26805 £.68"^ Ave., #200 

Denver, CO 80249-6361 

(303)342-1100 

Principal Operations Inspector Steve Scully 

Rocky Mountain CMO 

26805 E. 68'" Ave., #200 

Denver, CO 80249-6361 

(303)342-1100 

Airworthiness Supervisor Joe Hanley 

Rocky Mountain CMO 

26805 E. 68"" Ave., #200 

Denver, CO 80249-6361 

(303)342-1100 

Rich Palmersheim 

Frontier Airlines 

7001 Tower Road 

Denver, CO 

FJ Riggio 

Frontier Airlines 

7001 Tower Road 

Denver, CO 

Dave Pagelinan 

Millionaire 

303 North 2370 We.sl 

Complainant's Response lo Respondent's Initial 

Discovery Request 

Frontier Airlinea - CP09NM0013 

Page 7 of 12 

Scon- R. MoftRj.^, FAA /ATTORNEY 

TEL: 425.227.1417; FAX: 425..227.1007 
02/19/2010 14:05 FAX 2024935142 

02/03/2010 10:28 FAX 425 227 1007 

FAA 

ANM-7 

^ DMS I2101G/020 

li!]00.<) 

Sah Lake City, UTK4116 

(801)359-2085 

Summary of Testimony: 

John O. Taft 

Millionaire 

303 North 2370 West 

Salt Lake City, UT 84116 

(801) 359-2085 

Summary of Testimony; See his written statement 

David Krili 

Frontier Airlines 

7001 Tower Road 

Denver, CO 

William Hoddenbach 

Director of Maintenance 

Million Air-SLC 

303 North 2370 West 

Sah Lake City, UT 84] 16 

(801) 933-7542 

Summary of Testimony: See his written statement 

4. Identify the name, title, address and business or home telephone number of each witness 

whoije testimony the F/LA intends lo proffer, and provide a short siaiiement of tlie substance of 

the testimony to be offered by each witness in his or her testimony. 

Response: Objection to the extent of the home telephone number. However a business 

telephone number will be provided. The individuals with Sxmunaries in Response to 

Interrogatory No. 3 above arc those the Agency currently anticipates using as witnesses in this 

case. 

In addition to those specifically referenced in Response to Interrogatory No. 3, the following 

additional witnesses arc disclosed: 

Ainivorthlness Specialist Ted Hutton 

ANM-240, Suite 560 

1601 Lind Ave,, SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

(425) 227-2240 

Complainant's Response to Respondent's Ijijtial 

Diswvcty KequcsT 

Frontier Airlines - CP09NM0013 

Page 8 of 12 

RCOTT R,'M0R1US, FAA /iiTTORNEV 

TEL: 425.227.1417; PAX: 425.227.1007 
02/19/2010 14:05 FAX 2024935142 

02/03/2010 10:2« FAX 425 227 1007 

FAA 

ANM-7 

^ DMS 12)017/020 

©01 0 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

a 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

2i 

SI; 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

3B 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

s:i 

53 

Summary: FAA Order 2150.3B sanction guidance; maintenance records and requirements for 

Part 121 operators; CAMP requirements. He will render an opinion concerning the violations in 

the Complaint, that Frontier violated its CAMP, that the aircraft was unairworthy, and tlie proper 

procedures the mechanic and Frontier should have followed. 

Airworthiness Specialist Brian Schooley 

ANM-240, Suite 560 

1601 Lind Ave., SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

(425) 227-2240 

Summary: FAA Order 2150,3B sanction guidance; maintenance records and requirements for 

Part 121 operators; CAMP requirements. He will render an opinion concerning the violations in 

the Complaint, thai Frontier violated its CAMP, that the aircraft was unairworthy, and thie proper 

procedures the mechanic and Frontier should have followed. 

Peter S. Neff 

Aircraft Evaluation Group 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

(425)917-6628 

Currently detailed at Flight Standards, AF S 202 in Washington, D.C. 

Summary: FAA pohcy on use of a MEL. Application of the Airbus/Frontier's MHL to this case, 

explaining the requirements of the provisions of the Frontier MEL Main Braking System 

provisions to the facts of this case. He will render an opinion concerning whether or not Frontier 

complied with its MEL, why not that Frontier, violated its CAMP, tliat the aircraft was 

imairwoithy, and the proper procedures the mechanic and Frontier should have followed. 

Note: For interrogatories 3 and 4 above, the Agency has not made a final determination of which 

witnesses will testify to which violations. However, at a minimum ASI Reeves, ASI Moreno, 

and PMI Sciacca will testify concerning these violations. 

5. Plea.s!e identify the dates and times that the individuals identified in Interrogatories No«. 3 

and 4 will be available for a deposition by Frontier's counsel, Pillsbtuy Winthrop Shaw 

Pittman LW, in Denver, CO. 

Response: Oirrenlly, the following days seem to work for FAA employees. 

a. March 3-5 

b. The week of March 22 (less hispector Reeves) 

c. The week of April 12 

d. April 22, 23 

e. The week of April 26 

Complainant's Re.'iponsc to Re:>-ponilcni's Initial 

Discoveiy Request 

Frontier Airlines - CP09NM0013 

Page 9 of 12 

SCOTT k. MORRIS, FAA ^.TTORNEV 

TEL; 425,227.1417: FAX: 425.227.1007 
02/19/2010 14:05 FAX 2024935142 FAA •> DMS 13018/020 

02/03/2010 10:28 FAX 425 227 1007 ANM-7 12 Oil 

f. The first 3 weeks in May 

Later dates may be available as well. 

6. With respect to each witness named in Interrogatory No. 4 who is an cxpcn witness: (a) 

identify the topics about which the expert is expected to testify; (b) describe the substance of 

the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify (c) provide a summary of 

the basis for each opinion; and (d) provide a copy of any document describing the expert's 

professional qualifications, if the Complainant intends to introduce into evidence or otherwise 

rely on said document, 

Response; See responses to interrogatory nos. 3 and 4. All FAA employees whose name is 

followed by a summary of expected testimony may also be qualified as an expen witnes.=! as 

referenced in their summary of expected testimony. See attached copies of the Agency's expert 

witnesses qualifications, 

7. To the extent the Complainant's response to the above questions do not include it, provide 

statements of all individuals who either spoke to, or were interviewed by, the Complainant 

regarding this case. 

RcspoiDse: Objection concerning attorney work product. None other are currently known. 

S. Identify and produce copies of any and all documents on which the Complainant anticipates 

relying, or will rely, in furtherance of the case it will present in this case before the 

administrative law judge. This request includes, but is not limited to, documents that the 

Complainant intends lo introduce into evidence. 

Response: See the previously provided documents, the documents produced by Frontier during 

its September 9, 2009 informal conference, and the documents attached to this response. 

9. Identify with specificity the documents and/or witnesses' testimony that the FAA intends to 

produce in support of, and set forth in detail each fact that forms the basis for, its allegation 

that Respondent Frontier violated 14 C.F.R. § 119.5(g). 

Response; See the previously provided documents, the documents produced by Frontier during 

its September 9,2009 infomial conference, and the documents attached to this Tcsi>onse. In 

particular, see the air carrier certificate, OpSpec D085 and D072, extracts of its GMM, and MEL. 

10. Identiiy with specificity the documents and/or witne.<;.<?es' testimony that the FAA intends to 

proffer in support of, and set forth in detail each fact that fonns the basis for, its allegation 

that Respondent Frontier violated 14 C.F.R. § 119.5(1). 

Complainant's Response to Respondent's Initial SCOIT R. MORIOS, FAA ATVORNI-Y 

Discovery Request 

Frontier Airlines-CP09NMOO13 TEL: 425.227,1417; FAX: 425,227,1007 

Page to of 12 
02/19/2010 14:0G FAX 2024935142 

02/03/2010 10:2« FAX 425 227 1007 

FAA 

ANM- 7 

•J- DMS 121019/020 

li]012 

Response; See the previously provided documents, the documents produced by Krontier during 

its September 9, 2009 informal conference, and the documents attached to this response, 

11. Identify with .specificity the documents and/or witnesses' testimony that the FAA intends to 

proffer in support of, and set forth in detail each fact that forms the basis for, its allegation 

that Respondent Frontier violated 14 C.F.R §121.153(a)(2). 

Response: See the previously provided documents, the documents produced by Frontier during 

its September 9, 2009 infonnal conference, and the documents attached to this response. See in 

particular, the a/c flight logs and extracts from Frontier's GMM and MEL. 

12. Identify witli specificity the documents and/or witnesses' testimony that the FAA intends to 

proffer in support of and set fonh in detail each fact that form the basis for, its allegation that 

Respondent Frontier violated 14 C.F.R. § 121.628(a)(5): 

Response: See the previously provided documents, the documents produced by Frontier during 

its September 9, 2009 informal conference, and the documents attached to this response. 

Submitted this 3rd day of February 2010 

R. Morris 

FAA Enforcement Altomey 

Compluinant's Response to Respondent's Initial 

Discovery Rcquis.vt 

Frontier Airlines - CP05»NMOOI3 

Page II ofU 

SCOTT R. MORRIS, FAA A-rroRNitv 

TEL: 425.227.1417; FAX; 425.227.1007 

J 
02/19/2010 14:0G FAX 2024935142 

02/03/2010 10:28 FAX 425 227 1007 

FAA 

ANM-7 

•s- DM S 121020/020 

121013 

CERTIFTCATB OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Complainant's Initial Response to Respondent's Initial 

Discoveiy Request has been served via facsimile and certified mail - Rctiirn Receipt Requested 

this date, to the following: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin (without Exhibits) 

Office of hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Rm El 2-320 

Washington. D.C. 20590 

TEL: 202.366.2139 

FAX: 202.366.7536 

Federal Aviation Administration (without Exhibits) 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2WI000 

FAX; 202.493.5020 

The foregoing Complainant's Initial Response to Respondent's Initial Discovery Request has been 

served via Federal Express Courier to and Fax to: 

Jennifer E. Trock, Esq. 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP 

2300 N Street, NW 

WaslMngton, D.C. 20037-1122 

TEL: 202,663.8000 

FAX: 202,663.8007 

Dated this 3rd day of February, 2010. 

M OIF AIR CHIN 

Office of Regional Counsel (ANM-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave, SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

425.227.2160 

Complainant's Response to Respondent'.': Initial 

Discovery Requii'sl 

Frontier Airl ines - CP09NMOO13 

Pae« 12 of 12 

.•^cori' R. MoRRjs, FAA ArroKNtr 

THL: 425.227.1417; F.'VX: 425.:227.1fi07