### Flying High LLC POBox 1005

### Higle~, 

### AZ85236 Phil: 480) 252-0021 Fax: 877) 849-0021 

# RECEIVED MAR 2

# 7

# 2012 

# HEARING DOCKET

United States ofAmerica NATIONALTRANSPORTATION SAFETYBOARD OFFICE OFADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

Inre the Matter of 

### FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Petitioner, and 

### Flying High LLC, Respondent, ) DocketNo. TBA ) FAAMatter No. 2011WP0701l6 

### ) 

### ) RESPONDENT'SANSWERTO 

# j ADMINISTRATOR'S COMPLAINT ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### RESPDNDENT'S ANSWER Respondent, Flying High LLC, hereinafter "Respondent," hereby files hisAnswer toAdministrator's Complaint as follows: l. Respondent affinns the information contained inparagraph 1 in part and denies currently owningthe subject aircraft. 2. Respondent affirms the information contained in paragraph 2. 3. Respondent affirms the information contained inparagraph 3,but adds that at thetime 

### Mr. Bell made such entry Flying High LLC was notthe registered owner ofthe subject 

### aircraft. 4. Respondent affirms the information contained inparagraph 4, but adds that the FAA made no recommendation on arriving at an accurate Prop total time with outhaving such records available from the previous registered owners. Respondent made numerous attempts at contact 

### Mr. Portillo with no success. Additionally, the respondent was

### in contact with the Albuquerque FSDO, Las Vegas FSDO as well as McCauley Propeller

1Systems. A letter dated October 12, 2011 was drafted and sentto 

### Mr. Adam Runkle detailing the findings. See attached exhibitA. 5. Respondent affirms the information contained in paragraph 5. 6. Respondent affirms the information contained in paragraph 6 inpart and adds that after 

### Mr. Bellresearched the aircraft times a corrected entry was made; however, the Prop total time couldnotbe established accurately based onthe log books thathad been kept through outthe life onthe subject aircraft. 7. Respondent aftirms the information contained in paragraph 7. 8. Respondent affirms the information contained inparagraph 8. 9. Respondent affrrms the information contained inparagraph 6 in part and adds the complete response from Flying HighLLC to the FAAas follows: "This is inresponse to your letter concerning irregularities with

### the total time in service for the listedpropeller and the status ofairworthiness directives for N8087S, datedApril 11th 2011. The propeller was installed atthe time ofengine overhaul. No record ofthe total time in service ortime since overhaul wasmade in the current logbook or any logbook thereafter. When I purchasedthe aircraft an entry was made stating the total time in service was "unknown" in compliance with 14 C.ER. 91.417. At 

### the time ofthe next annual inspection the prop will be removed and sent offto be overhauled. A newrecord will be kept from thatpointforward indicating time since overhaul". This is in accordance with AC43-9C. 10. Respondent denies it violated 14 C.F.R. 91.417(b)(2), as well as, 14 C.F.R 91.203(a)(l). AFFIRMATIVE DEfENSES 

### TheAdministrator has failed to state a claimupon which reliefmay be granted. TheAdministrator's interpretation ofFederal Aviation Regulations is arbitrary or capricious and contrary to law. PRAYER Based onthe foregoing, Respondent prays that this matterproceedbefore an Administrative Law Judge and thatthe FAAAdministrator's Order ofCivil Penalty, which serves as the Complaint inthis matter, be reversed.



### 2

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have onthis date sent via facsimile one copy and mailed, by regular U.S. Mail, an original and one copy ofthe foregoing Respondent'sAnswer addressed 

### to: FederalAviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing DocketClerk, AGC-430 Wilbur-Wright Building, Suite 2WI000 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, 

### Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. DepartmentofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 Fax: (202) 366-7536 And further, thatI have this date sentvia facsimile one copy and mailed, by regular U.S. Mail, a copy ofthe foregoing Respondent'sAnswer addressed to: Adam Runkel, Esq. Office ofthe Regional Counsel FederalAviation Administration Western-Pacific Region P.O. Box 92007 LosAngeles, CA90009-2007 Fax: (310) 725-6816 Dated: March 21, 2012

# @nB~ eanB. Cooke, Manager



### 410/12/2011 Mr. Adam Runkle, After much research Into the time and what to put for Total Time for the Propeller times as per FAR 93.417 (a) (1). These are the results. 1. Italked with Mr. Gary Peak, Field Service Engineer for McCauley Propeller Systems, (316-831-3844); Mr. Peak said this Is a common problem with the older aircraft where propeller time was not always tracked as were the engines and airframe times. He further stated that an entry as to "Total Time Unknown" has been a common and appropriate entry. He also stated that these propellers were certified to a 70,000 hour life, over the years they will wear, mechanics filing on the leading edges would over time take them out of specs causing replacement of the propeller before the time has reached the 70,000 hours. Mr. Peak also said it would be possible to come up with an "Estimated Total Prop Time", take the propeller to a propeller shop and let them take the measurements ofthe said propeller to make sure It is within limits and then they would figure out how many hours a year are flown and subtract that from the 70,000 hours and come up with an "Estimate" on the time left on the propeller; however, that is not an accurate record for Total Prop Time and thatthat the record should still be kept at "TT Prop: UKN, Est. TT Prop 

## xxx· 2. I have talked to several propeller shops, Warner Propeller, in Tucson, AZ, johnson & Sons Propeller, Shafter, CA, Santa Monica Propeller, Santa Monica, CA. These shops all came up with the same answer, "Total Time Unknown" ifthe propeller is sent out for "Overhaul" they will sign ofas "Total Since Propeller Overhaul" iftotal time is unknown they will enter "Total Time Unknown or Estimated Total Time". 3. I have talked with numerous lA's and have come up with the same answer, "Total Time Unknown". My lA has spoken with his PMI from the SOL FSDO and explained the same scenario and was told that was a suitable answer and log entry. 4. To best of my knowledge I have complied with the Propeller time In question. Additionally the aircraft In question has been relocated to Bullhead City. The lA whojust recently completed the annual Inspection has also signed offthe logbook entry as "Prop TT: UNK", as it has been recorded this way by numerous owners and lA's in the past and have been told by those mentioned above that this does not affect the "airworthiness" ofthe aircraft. 5. Mr. Johnny Portillo had never responded to my letter indicating our findings to his list ofdiscrepancies or offered an alternative solution. 6. Due to the outcome ofthe trial and the loss of income over the past six months Iam sincerely asking thatthis civil penalty be reduced to $0. I can provide documentation as Indicated on AWP-7 Form 2150-25, showing that Iam financial unable to pay the proposed civil penalty. In addition, Mr. Peak from McCauley Propeller Systems agreed to speak with you concerning the entry ifthis letter did not suffice. Thank you,

# ;;;~~ Sean Cooke