SILVERBERG 

GOLDMAN& 

BIKOFF, L.L.P. 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

VL4FEDEX 

GEORGETOWN PLACE • Smn 120 • HOI 30TH STREET, NW • WAsHINGTON, D.C. ?0007 

VOICE (202) 944-3300 • fACSIMJLE(202) 944-3306 

July 18, 2013 

RECEIVED 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenne, S. W. 

Wilbnr Wright Building 

JUL 1 9 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

Suite 2WIOOO 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

(Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430) 

Re: 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

In the Matter of Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services 

FAA Docket: [Not Yet Assigned] 

FAA Case No.: 2011 S0290032 

FDMS No.: FAA-20 13-0291 

Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced case please find an original and one copy of 

the Answer of Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services. 

Also enclosed is an additional copy of the Answer and a pre-addressed, postage paid 

envelope. Please date-stamp the additional copy and return it to our office in the enclosed 

envelope. 

Thank you for your assistance. Please call me at the telephone number listed above if 

you have any questions regarding this matter. 

Enclosures 

Very truly yours, 

SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, LLP 

Attorneys for 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES 

cc: Christopher R. Stevenson, Esq. (w/enclosure) 
In the matter of 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

rlt:Ct:IVED 

JUL 1 9 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

FAA Docket No. [Not yet assigned] 

Case No. 2011S0290032 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0291 

ANSWER 

Administrative Law Judge 

J.E. Sullivan 

Pursuant to Rule 209 of the Rules of Practice (14 C.F.R. § 13.209), Respondent Airborne 

Maintenance and Engineering Services, Inc. ("AMES") hereby answers the Complaint filed 

against it by the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") in the above-captioned matter as 

follows: 

I. 

1. AMES admits that it was advised through a Final Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty, dated May 29,2013, that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty against it in the 

amount of $61,875. AMES further admits that on June 13, 2013 it filed a written request for a 

hearing and served a copy of the request for a hearing on the Agency Attorney in this matter. 

II. 

2. AMES admits the allegations of paragraph 2 of section II of the Complaint. 

3. a. AMES denies that civil aircraft N287SC, a Boeing B-727, is currently 

used in Capital Cargo International Airlines' ("CCIA") Part 121 operations since the carrier has 

ceased operations. AMES admits, however, that the aircraft had been used in the past by CCIA 

for its Part 121 operations. 

1 
b. AMES denies that civil aircraft N898AA, a Boeing B-727, is currently 

used in CCIA' s Part 121 operations since the carrier has ceased operations. AMES admits, 

however, that the aircraft had been used in the past by CCIA for its Part 121 operations. 

c. AMES denies that civil aircraft N899AA, a Boeing B-727, is currently 

used in CCIA' s Part 121 operations since the carrier has ceased operations. AMES admits, 

however, that the aircraft had been used in the past by CCIA for its Part 121 operations. 

4. a. AMES admits that on or about March 2010 it replaced both Main Landing 

Gear (MLG) on N287SC, including reinstalling and rigging the landing gear doors, and released 

the aircraft but notes that the landing gear doors that were reinstalled where those that were 

installed on the aircraft immediately prior to the replacement of the MLG. 

b. AMES admits that on or about August 2009 it replaced both MLG on 

N899AA, including reinstalling and rigging the landing gear doors, and released the aircraft but 

notes that the landing gear doors that were reinstalled where those that were installed on the 

aircraft immediately prior to the replacement of the MLG. 

c. AMES admits that on or about October 2009 it replaced both MLG on 

N898AA, including reinstalling and rigging the landing gear doors, and released the aircraft but 

notes that the landing gear doors that were reinstalled where those that were installed on the 

aircraft immediately prior to the replacement of the MLG. 

d. AMES denies the allegations of paragraph 4.d. of section II of the 

Complaint. 

e. AMES denies the allegations of paragraph 4.e. of section II of the 

Complaint. 

2 
5. AMES admits that CCIA had a Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program 

(CAMP) that required the B-727 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) be followed in 

perfonning maintenance on the CCIA B-727 aircraft, but denies that CCIA has a CAMP that is 

still in effect. 

III. 

6. a. AMES denies that it violated section 43 .13(a) of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (FARs). 

b. AMES denies that it violated section 43 .13(b) of the F ARs. 

c. AMES denies that it violated section 145.205(a) of the FARs. 

7. AMES admits that the statute cited in paragraph 7 of section III of the Complaint 

authorizes the assessment of civil penalties, but notes that the maximum civil penalty amount 

under section 46301(a) is now $27,500. AMES, however, denies that it is subject to any civil 

penalties. 

8. AMES denies the allegations of paragraph 8 of section III of the Complaint. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

The FAA failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted. 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

AMES respectfully requests that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. 

PLACE OF HEARING 

Pursuant to Rule 221(b) of the Rules of Practice (14 C.F.R. § 13.221(b)), AMES requests 

that the hearing in this matter be held in Washington, DC. AMES counsel is located in 

Washington, DC. In addition, neither AMES nor any of the potential witnesses in this case are 

located in Orlando, FL, where the Agency Attorney has requested the hearing be held. 

3 
Moreover, there are extensive scheduled air transportation operations between Washington, DC, 

on the one hand and Cincinnati, OH and Dayton, OH, on the other, both of which are near 

AMES' facility in Wilmington, OH. Further there is regular and frequent scheduled air 

transportation service between Atlanta, GA, where the Agency Attorney is located, and 

Washington, DC. Thus, AMES submits that the factors described in Rule 221(b) (i.e., the 

convenience of the parties, the location where the majority ofthe witnesses reside or work, and 

whether the location is served by a scheduled air carrier) strongly support holding the hearing in 

Washington, DC. 

Dated: July 18, 2013 

Respectfully submitted, 

SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, L.L.P. 

Attorneys for 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES 

By: ---f-J_f&_g_t;-;,~~~~1:4 

Robert P. Silverberg, E 

1101 301

h Street, N.W. 

Suite 120 

4 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Tel: (202) 944-3304 

Fax: (202) 944-3306 

Email: rsilverberg@sgbdc.com 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 18'11 day of July 2013, I caused a true copy of the foregoing 

Answer of Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services, Inc. to be served: 

by FedEx overnight delivery (original and one copy) addressed to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building 

Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

(Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430) 

and by telecopier and First Class mail addressed to: 

The Hon. J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Fax: (202) 366-7536 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

Fax: (404) 305-5223