u^mr,,,,omm RECEIVED 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSFORATION ,^. p 4 j- ^„-„ 

Fl:DfeRAL[iiVIATION ADMINISTRATION ^^^ ^ ^^''' 

HEARING DOCKET 

In the Matter of: 

AIR EVAC, INC. [sic] 

FAA CASE NO.: 2007CE030008 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

Air Evac EMS, Inc. (hereinafter "Respondent") hereby answers the FAA's 

Complaint in FAA Case Number 2007CE030008. The FAA has entitled the case in the 

name "Air Evac, Inc.". There is no such entity. The Repair Station Certificate number 

referenced in the Complaint is the Repair Station Certificate held by Respondent, Air 

Evac, EMS, Inc., not Air Evac, Inc. If there were an Air Evac, Inc. then this would be the 

first notice to such entity and the Complaint would be subject to dismissal under the stale 

complaint rule since the alleged event occurred over two years ago. The FAA is well 

aware of the fact that there is no such entity, as Air Evac, Inc. since all of the previous 

notices of proposed civil penalties against the repair station recognized that the Repair 

Station Certificate holder is Air Evac EMS, Inc., the exact same party that the FAA has 

brought case number 2007CE030026 against for the exact same actions and alleged 

violations. It appears that the FAA is attempting to rename Air Evac EMS, Inc. in this 

Complaint in an obvious attempt to get a double penalty against Air Evac EMS, Inc. for a 

single violation. 

2007CE030008 
I. 

1. Respondent denies the allegations in § I. Paragraph 1. There is and was no 

such entity as Air Evac, Inc. Respondent admits that on February 27, 2007 it was issued 

two notices of proposed civil penalties, one for $15,000 and one for $25,000 and that on 

February 4, 2010 it was issued two final notices of proposed civil penalties, one for 

$15,000 and one for $25,000, all of which were based upon the same act of Aaron 

Rogers, which has been resolved. Respondent admits that on February 8, 2010 it 

submitted written requests for hearings for this matter, FAA Case Number 

2007CE030026 and the other matter which has been referred to as 2007CEO030008. 

The remainder of the allegations in § I, Paragraph 1 are denied. 

II. 

1. Respondent denies § II. Paragraph 1. Respondent Air Evac EMS, Inc. is 

the holder of Repair Station Certificate No. QEVR436K. 

2. With regard to § II. Paragraph 2, Respondent admits that it is the holder of 

the air carrier certificate described but denies that such certificate has any relevancy to 

this action. 

3. Respondent denies the allegations in § II. Paragraphs, 3, 4 and 5 since 

there is no such entity as AEI. However, Respondent admits that Aaron Rogers had the 

stated duties for Respondent's repair station in West Plains, Missouri. 

4. With regard to § II. Paragraphs 6 and 7, Respondent admits that on or 

about October 18, 2006, the Aircraft which was owned and operated by Respondent was 

flying on non-Part 135 flights and that upon arrival at Sikeston there was no key for the 

FAA CASE NO.: 2007CE030008 
narcotics box and they returned to West Plains to retrieve the missing key. The 

remainder of the allegations in § II., Paragraphs 6 and 7 are denied. 

5. With regard to § II., Paragraph 8, Respondent admits that the Aircraft 

upon approach to Respondent's West Plains, Missouri downtown heliport experienced a 

mechanical failure and was able to divert and make a run-on landing at West Plains 

Municipal Airport without a fatality or any other injury or damage. The remainder of the 

allegations in § II., Paragraph 8 are denied. 

6. With regard to § II., Paragraph 9, Respondent lacks sufficient information 

and knowledge wiih which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations 

contained therein and therefore denies all and the whole thereof 

7. With regard to § II., Paragraphs 10 and 11 Respondent is not in a position 

to speak to the findings of the FAA and therefore lacks sufficient information and 

knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations 

contained therein and therefore denies all and the whole thereof including all subparts 

thereto. 

8. Respondent denies all of the allegations in § II., Paragraph 12. The 

Aircraft was returned to service by Aaron Rogers individually using the authority granted 

by the FAA to him personally by his A&P Certificate 494941510. 

9. Respondent denies all of the allegations in § II., Paragraph 13. 

10. With regard to § II., Paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 and all subparts thereto. 

Respondent denies the allegations contained therein. 

III. 

1. Respondent denies the allegations contained in § III., Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. 

3 

FAA CASE NO.: 2007CE030008 
AFFIRMATrVE DEFENSES 

By way of defense and affirmative defense. Respondent states: 

1. There is no such entity as Aur Evac, Inc. (AEI). 

2. The Aircraft was not operating on a Part 135 flight or certificate at any 

relevant time. 

3. These claims against Respondent must be dismissed upon the basis of res 

judicata and/or double jeopardy because they have been already litigated and fault has 

been found to lay with Aaron D. Rogers who personally and individually, without the 

direction or authority of Respondent, signed off the Aircraft as being airworthy using and 

under the authority granted to him by the FAA on his individual A&P Certificate. 

4. The claims herein against this Respondent are subject to res judicata or 

double jeopardy as they are the same claim asserted in FAA Case Number 

2007CE030026. 

5. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

6. The claim asserted in this Complaint had nothing to do with Respondent's 

Air Carrier Certificate. 

7. The penalty sought against Respondent is excessive, especially when 

considering the combination of the two cases 2007CE030026 and 207CE030008. 

8. The act giving rise to the FAA's Complaint occurred on or about October 

18, 2006 and the FAA's first Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty was sent to Respondent in 

February 2007. Approximately three (3) years later in February 2010, the final Notice of 

Proposed Civil Penalty was sent by the FAA. This extended delay is a violation of 

FAA CASE NO.: 2007CE030008 
Respondent's constitutional right to due process and prejudiced Respondent's ability to 

defend this action. 

9. Respondent reserves the right to assert additional defenses and/or 

affirmative defenses as investigation and discovery continue. 

Wherefore, Respondent requests dismissal of the Federal Aviation 

Administration's Complaint and all allegations contained therein; with prejudice, an 

award of fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), and such other relief as 

the Law Judge deems just and equitable. 

Respectfully submitted, 

COOLING & HERBERS 

Ramsej 

Iain Str ^ Suite 2400 

Kansas City, MO 64105 

Telephone: (816)474-077'/ 

Facsimile: (816)472-0790 

iramscv(a).coolinglaw.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT 

AIR EVAC EMS, INC. 

FAA CASE NO.: 2007CE030008 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the lO"^ day of March 2010,1 forwarded the original and 

one (1) copy of the foregoing Answer to Complaint via United States mail, certified, 

return receipt requested to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Additionally one (1) copy of the foregoing Answer to Complaint was forwarded 

via United States mail, certified, return receipt requested to: 

Mark G. Camacho 

Senior Enforcement Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Coimsel 

901 Locust, Room 506 

Kansas-CiWiMO 64106^2641 

FACases\FAA ENFORCEMENT ACTI0NS\AIR EVAOPleadingsVanswer to complaint2007CE030008.Mar.2.2010.doc 

FAA CASE NO.: 2007CE030008