December 6, 2010 ' 

1 . (.•;; > I 

Clerk of Hearing Docket 

Hearing Docket, Federal Aviation Administration, Orville Wright Building, 800 Independence 

Avenue S. W., Washington D. C. 20591 

FAA Docket No. CP lOSWOOlO 

FDMS No. FAA-2010-0974 ^ 

Case No. 2009 SW910051 ;^ -^ 

cr) 

Dear Sir of Madam: 

Enclosed please find the respondent's motion regarding the time period for filing an 

answer. 

Cc: Agnes Rodriguez, Laurence E. Rohl, President 

Counsel for Complainant Air Z Flying Service Inc. 

355 Richmond Rd. Hangar 5 

Richmond Heights, Ohio 44143 

216-261-2992 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

In the matter of; 

AIR Z FLYING SERVICE INC. 

FAA Docket No. CP lOSWOOlO 

FDMS NO. FAA-2010-00974 

Case No. 2009 SW910051 

JUDGE: (to be assigned) 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER 

Respondent Air Z Flying Service Inc., by and through its president, Laurence E Rohl, 

hereby requests that he be permitted to file an answer to the complaint in the above entitled case. 

The respondent a licensed charter pilot, and the owner of the company that is the subject of this 

case, states that he was given an extension of time to file the answer from the docket clerk, due 

to the fact of his travels resulted in him being unaware of the original time constraints in the 

matter. He in fact sent the answer to the court by fax on November 8, 2010 (copy attached). 

However a recent communication received from the court on November 10, 2010 has indicated 

that the proper procedure is to receive an extension from the Court. That notice from the judge 

also stated the answer respondent sent on November 8, 2010 was forwarded to the docket clerk 

for filing. That notice did not specifically state that the previous answer submitted had actually 

been accepted as the official answer in the case, therefore the respondent makes this motion as 

was apparently suggested by the Court. 
The respondent's confusion in this matter has resulted from receiving different 

information from different persons, and did not intend to sidestep any procedures. Permitting this 

extension of time ,and / or acceptance of the answer sent to the docket clerk will result in no 

prejudice to either party. 

Therefore respondent requests that the previous answer sent by fax to the Court on 

November 8, 2010 (attached) be accepted as respondent's answer, or that this Court grant 

respondent time to file the same directly to the clerk. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Laurence E. Rohl, President 

Air Z Flymg Service Inc. 

355 Richmond Rd. Hangar 5 

Richmond Heights, Ohio 44143 

216-261-2992 
Certificate of Service 

. A copy of this motion for extension of time to answer to the complaint was served this 

6 day of December 2010 by regular mail on: 

1. Agnes Rodriguez, Senior Attorney, Enforcement Division, AGC-300, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, 800 Independence Ave. S.W. Washington D. C. 20591. 

2. Hearing Docket, Federal Aviation Administration, Orville Wright Building, 800 Independence 

Avenue S. W., Washmgton D. C. 20591 

Laurence E. Rohl 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

In the matter of: 

AIR Z FLYING SERVICE INC. 

FAA Docket No. CP (to be assigned) 

Case No. 2009 SW910051 

JUDGE: (to be assigned) 

ORDER 

1. For good cause shown the respondent is granted an extension of time to file its answer 

until 

Date Judge 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

In the matter of: 

AIR Z FLYING SERVICE INC. 

FAA Docket No. CP (to be assigned) 

CaseNo. 2009 SW910051 

JUDGE: (to be assigned) 

ORDER 

1. For good cause shown the respondent's answer transmite4d by fax to this Court on 

November 8, 2010 and thereafter transmitted and filed with docket clerk is accepted as it answer. 

Respondent shall ensure that the Complainant has been served a copy of said answer. 

Date Judge 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

In the matter of: 

AIR Z FLYING SERVICE INC. 

FAA Docket No. CPIOSWOOIO 

FDMS NO. FAA-2010-0974 

Case No. 2009 SW910051 

JUDGE: (to be assigned) 

Respondent Air Z Flying Service Inc., by and through its president, Laurence E Rohl, 

and states for its answer to the complaint as follows: 

The allegations of Section I are admitted. 

The allegations of Sections II responded to as follows: 

The allegations of paragraph 1 are admitted. 

The allegations of paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the complaint are denied for want of knowledge. 

The allegations of paragraph 6 are denied and denied for want of knowledge. 

The allegations of Section III are denied, and denied for want of knowledge. 

Affirmative Defenses: 

The complaint is barred by the statute of limitations 
The complaint is barred by the equitable doctrines of waiver, laches and estoppel. 

The complaint is barred by intervening and superseding events of third parties over which 

respondent has no control 

The complaint is barred by the failure to join necessary and indispensible parties. 

Any allegations of the complaint not specifically admitted, are hereby denied. 

The respondent requests that the hearing be held in Cleveland, Ohio. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Laurence E. Rohl, President 

Air Z Flying Service Inc. 

355 Richmond Rd. Hangar 5 

Richmond Heights, Ohio 44143 

216-261-2992 
Certificate of Service 

/ A copy of this answer to the complaint was served this (/ day of November 2010, and 

^ day of December 2010 by regular mail on: 

1. Agnes Rodriguez, Senior Attorney, Enforcement Division, AGC-300, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, 800 Independence Ave. S.W. Washington D. C. 20591. 

2. Hearing Docket, Federal Aviation Administration, Orville Wright Building, 800 Independence 

Avenue S. W., Washington D. C. 20591 

Laurence E. Rohl