U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

LIBERTY FOUNDATION, 

Respondent. 

Docket No. F AA-2012-0477 

FAA Case No. 2011GL030070 

Judge Sullivan 

SUPPLEMENT ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Pursuant to the Judge's request during the February 27, 2014 motion conference on the 

FAA's Motion for Summary Judgment, the FAA hereby submits the following documents: 

The Judge requested better copies of the photographs constituting FAA Exhibits D through P. 

Improved, full-color copies of these photographs are attached. 

The Judge requested a copy of the first page of FAA Exhibit BB that did not have the 

INACTIVE DOC watermark, which obscured some of the text of that page. A copy of the 

first page ofF AA Exhibit BB, with no watermark, is attached. 

The Judge requested documentation concerning the lack of dispute over the fact that the 

aircraft had been operated at least 12 times prior to the June 13, 2011 flight. In Paragraph 11 

of the Complaint (and Amended Complaint) the FAA charged that the aircraft was operated 

at least 12 times in an unairworthy condition. See Complaint '1!11. The Respondent denied 

this allegation. See Answer '1!11. In Interrogatory #15, the FAA asked Respondent to 

identify all facts and reasons supporting Respondent's denial of '1!11 of the Complaint. 

Attachment KK '1!15. Respondent sole basis provided for denying the allegation is that the 
aircraft was airworthy, and Respondent did not deny the existence of the flights. I d. The 

Administrator also notes that the documentary evidence already submitted demonstrates that 

the aircraft had been flown for over 105 hours after the February 24, 2011 alteration and 

before the June 13, 2011 repair. Compare Attachment Qat 4 (reflecting an aircraft total time 

of2474.7 hours) with Attachment Qat 8 (reflecting an aircraft total time of2579 hours). 

VV\ Rc~i<kd <hi• '1_ day ofM=h, 2014. 

CHRISTOPHER R. STEVENSON 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing FAA's Supplement on Motion for Summary Judgment was 

sent: 

Original and one copy via certified mail to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

One copy via Federal Express to: 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

Stuart A. Goldstein, P .A. 

7300 North Kendall Dr., Suite 380 

Miami, FL 33156 

Facsimile: (305) 400-0685 

A 

\\};YI lY\JtD \}M)JY\ 0!1JA 

DONNA STANDEY (j 

Legal Assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

MAR I 4 2014 

Dated 
GOVERNMENT 

EXDT 
GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

t=:-
GOVERNMENT 

e~um 

r 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

H 
GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

]2. 
. GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

\j 
GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

tz 
GOVERNMENT EXT BIT 
GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

/""1., 
GOVERNMENT 

EXNIT 
GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

0 
GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

p 
7/28/09 8900.1 CHG 71 

Figure 4-68, Major Alterations Job Aid 

NOTE: Aviation Safety Inspectors (ASI) should see guidance in Figure 4-68 to 

determine when additional coordination with a Designated Engineering 

Representative (DER) or the Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) may be 

necessary. 

I. The following lists indicate which method(s) may be used for approving major alterations to 

TC'd and STC'd products. These lists are not all-inclusive, and each alteration should be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Consult each section that concerns your product. Additionally, 

ASis should review current bulletins, ACs, etc., for specific types of installations that have been 

identified as candidates for field approval. The legend is as follows: 

2. Items with the letters SIC require an SIC. 

3. Items with the letters EVL may be eligible for approval by means other than an STC, 

depending on the scope and complexity of the alteration. These items will not automatically 

qualify for a field approval; they require evaluation and review of guidance to determine if the 

field approval process may be used. 

4. Items with the letters ENG may be eligible for approval by means other than an STC, but I require either DER or ODA approved engineering data or concurrence from the ACO for field 

approval. 

19 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check with FSIMS to verify current version before using 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

(38 
Response: First, Mr. Schneider did not "fabricate" almninum tanks. Second, the work 

performed on the fuel tanks was not a major alteration because the work performed did not 

change the "basic design" of the fuel system. Unless there is a change to the "basic design" of 

the fuel system, there is no major alteration. 

II. Identify all facts and reasons that support your denial of 1f 6 of the Complaint. 

Response: See answer to Interrogatories 8, 9, and I 0 above. 

12. Identify all facts and reasons that support your denial of1[ 7 of the Complaint. 

Response: It is FAA's burden to prove this allegation. Since the maintenance did not 

constitute a "major alteration," the aircraft was not unairworthy. FAA Inspector Thomas F. 

Duellman testified in the Schneider case that B-17s were manufactured with aluminum fuel 

tanks. 

13. Identify all facts and reasons that support your denial of1[ 9 of the Complaint. 

Response: Mr. Schneider did not "fabricate" alllnlinum fuel tanks, nor were almninum fuel 

tanks fabricated at all. The description in the log book is accurate. 

14. Identify all facts and reasons that support your denial of 1f I 0 of the Complaint. 

Response: Mr. Schneider did not "fabricate" aluminum fuel tanks and there was not a major 

alteration of the fuel system. 

15. Identify all facts and reasons that support your denial of 1f II of the Complaint. 

Response: The aircraft was not unairworthy since there was no major alteration of the fuel 

system. 

16. Explain in detail why you believe that the "almninum tanks" Mr. Sclmeider 

allegedly repaired per the log entry for N390TH dated February 24, 2011 

conformed to the type design and type certificate ofN390TH. 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

f;-\c_