UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF NORTHEASTERN AVIATION CORP. 

Case No. 2012EA110030 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-1264 

Judge I.E. Sullivan 

ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Respondent Northeastern Aviation Corp. ("Respondent"), by its undersigned counsel, 

hereby answers the Amended Complaint ofthe Federal Aviation Administration 

("Complainant") as follows: 

I. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies being "advised through a Final Notice of Proposed 

Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $5,225" as alleged 

in Section I of the Amended Complaint, except denies that it violated any statute or regulation, 

committed any wrongdoing, or is subject to a civil penalty in any amount. Respondent admits 

that on December 24, 2012, it submitted a written demand for a hearing. 

II. 

1. Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 1 of Section II of the 

Amended Complaint (that Northeastern was the holder of a Part 135 Air Carrier On demand 

CertificateNumberAOYA206C). RECEIVED 

FEB 2 2 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 
2. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Section II of the 

Amended Complaint (that "On or about August 23, 2011, AOYA assigned pilot, one Michael 

Kalish, to act as pilot-in-command of a Part 135 flight in a Gulfstream Givx aircraft, 

identification number N451CM, on a flight from Teterboro Airport, NJ, to San Francisco, CA), 

except otherwise denies that it violated any statute or regulation, or c~mmitted any wrongdoing 

to the extent alleged therein. 

3. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of Section II of the 

Amended Complaint. 

4. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of Section II of the 

Amended Complaint. 

III. 

Respondent denies the allegations contained in Section III of the Amended Complaint, 

and respectfully refers all issues of law and applicable regulations to the Administrative Law 

Judge assigned to this action and proceedings. 

IV. 

1.. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of Section IV of the 

Amended Complaint, and respectfully refers all issues oflaw and applicable regulations to the 

Administrative Law Judge assigned to this action and proceedings. 

2. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Section IV of the 

Amended Complaint. 

Defenses & Affirmative Defenses 

First Defense/ Affirmative Defense 
On August 22, 2011, pilot Michael Kalish flew four check rides for Sundance Aviation 

with the FAA. The last check ride started at 1405 UTC and ended at 1445 UTC (See Exhibit 1 ). 

At that time, Respondent was not aware of Mr. Kalish's flight activity for Sundance Aviation. 

Mr. Kalish did not report this flying time to Respondent Mr. Kalish should have entered his 

flight activity for Sundance Aviation on his Northeastern Flight and Duty Time Record as 

required by Respondent's procedures. On August 23,2011, Mr. Kalish reported for duty at 0130 

UTC to fly a Part 135 charter flight for Respondent (See Exhibit 2). 

Mr. Kalish's rest period between his flights for Sundance and Respondent was 10 hours 

and 15 minutes. However, through a clerical error, Mr. Kalish mistakenly entered 1600 UTC as 

his duty off time in the Sundance Aviation Pilot Duty and Flight Time Record. 

Mr. Kalish has affirmed that he had more than 10 hours of rest, in compliance with 

applicable regulations, before accepting the assignment for Respondent on August 23, 2011, and 

that he had made a clerical error (See Exhibit 3). Mr. Kalish told FAA inspectors that his flight 

for Sundance Aviation ended at 1445 UTC; and Mr. Kalish also has indicated that FAA 

inspectors confirmed this time (See id.). 

Second Defense/ Affirmative Defense 

Respondent takes seriously its duty to make sure that pilots assigned to its flights comply 

with all applicable regulations. Respondent requires pilots to report any Part 135 flying activity 

that would interfere with the required rest period before accepting an assignment. At the time, 

however, Respondent was unaware that Mr. Kalish had not complied with the requisite rest 

period when it assigned the subject flight to Mr. Kalish on August 23, 2011. Respondent did not 
violate the applicable rest-period regulation, because Mr. Kalish did in fact satisfy the required 

rest time, despite the clerical error. 

Third Affirmative Defense 

Complainant fails to state a cause of action or claim upon which relief can be granted. 

Fourth Affirmative Defense 

Complainant's allegations as set forth in the Amended Complaint, which are expressly 

denied, are due to the affirmative, wrongful, improper, unreasonable, fraudulent, illegal and 

inequitable conduct, breaches of duty, lack of diligence, poor judgment, misconduct or omissions 

by other parties, persons or entities not under Respondent's control. 

Fifth Affirmative Defense 

Complainant's allegations, which are expressly denied, are the result, in whole or in part, 

from intervening, superseding, affirmative, wrongful, improper, unreasonable, fraudulent, illegal 

and inequitable conduct, breaches of duty, lack of diligence, poor judgment, misconduct or 

omissions by other parties, persons or entities not under Respondent's control. 

Sixth Affirmative Defense 

Complainant's claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of collateral 

estoppel and/or res judicata. 

Seventh Affirmative Defense 

Complainant's claim may be barred, in whole or in part, by the failure to join a necessary 

and/or indispensible party. I 

Eighth Affirmative Defense 

At all times relevant to the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint, Respondent 

has acted in good faith and complied with all applicable statutes and regulations. 
Ninth Affirmative Defense 

Respondent reserves the right to assert and rely upon such other and further defenses as 

may be supported by the facts to be determined by full and complete discovery. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent Northeastern Aviation Corp. respectfully requests that the 

Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, and that it be awarded, fees, costs, expenses, 

and such other and further relief as is just and proper. 

Dated: 

February2/, 2013 

Respectfully submitted, 

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 

Evelyn D. Sahr, Esq. 

James G. Ehrig, Esq. 

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., 12th Floor 

Washington, DC 20006 

(302) 425-0430 

Fax: (302) 425-0432 

esahr@eckertseamans.com 

jehrig@eckertseamans.com 

Attorneys for Respondent 

Northeastern Aviation Corp. 
. .......... .. ..... . .. ............ . ' . . .. . . .. 

EXHIBIT 1 
AIRCRAFT FLIGHT LOG 

-

FUEL From 

DATE No. ofPex Fit UP- I 91 Code !5P UFT .TIME. OUT 

•1 €1 ?? - - ? S1J To: RIJ;- /OS'J 

2 II I ·-r To: I'} HJ 

3 1[ I 7 To: L 5P lts4o 

4 II I ....,. To: fi/J.:, i4of" 

5 I To: 

6 To: 

7 I To: 

(A} Aeromedical (P) Positioning (C) Charter (0} Owne;

1 

Transport iTi Tralnlno irvfl Malntanance_lS) Sa!esJlemo iRl Rena 

CarefuOy Print 

the Numbers 

AIRCRAFT 

HOURS 

AIRCRAFTF!-IGHT LOG Form 86-401c (01127104) 

File: B5-4D1.doc 

. . ..

...... 

··-

.... ; .......... .. -·r·-· A. , 

".· 

_ 

.. ;·L ... f: ·r r1: }! .. .11.4 r.-.. .• .. f - .. 1 .. _.., .... · VJza 

(J#"' 

T!ME (UTC} Flight Block IFR Night I•!IG

Time Time 

Time Time 

Hobbs Off Hobbs On TIME IN (1Gths) (10ths) • T/0 

I (}o,z. l' lurr. r i ,5 

J ildJZV ·8 rJ.eto J? ,'2. 

1 r ct'JtJ-J' fttrJS- :'7- .4 1'2 

!J3/. 2 J I 114f'] 'I , 2. I 

\ ./ 

I TOTAL I 

ENGINE VOR CHECK DUE@ r! rlr

DATE 

__ _ 

TYPE: AIR_ GND VOT 

Time Cycles 

N0.1VOR NO.2 VOR 

certify that the enllias on this log ere true and ecqurate to the best of my knowledge: 

Date: 8/22 /r/ 

?!fll c 
EXHIBIT2 
DUJ)' STAJUS• 

Place an X In tha appropri•t• oaJumn 

S: Schvduled rarD Flight 

NS = NoJ Sdledufed fora Flight 

Remorln OVemighl orl:ayover 

o=otr(Vat:ation, Sick. Personal Day, ale.} 

A :1:1! Adminlslratlve OLIIy {Offlce Wori(,. Maatfng,Sk:. 

"WG •Trainln.s (School crt compeny} 

NORTHEASTERN 

·· · ·ilvit..TioN coRFi.- ·· · 

AIRCRAFT 

. 

DllTY STATUS DUTY Tl:y PILOT FUGHT TIME """"' TAIL I I FARo 

• ' .. 

_ 

• ""'" ---" " _.,_ "" - "" •-' TOTAL -·- -·- -- TOTAL WTAlS le1f # Ns IRoNI smoNj o I A I TNG OC !TOTAL! 

X 

x 

0.0 0.0 

.Q.;QQ_ 0.0 

0:00 0.0 

x 0:00 0.0 0,0 

x O:DO 0.0 0.0 x 0:00 o.o o.o 

x 0:00 0.0 0.0 x 0:00 0.0 0.0 

x 

x 

o.o 0.0 

.Q.;QQ_ 

0:00 

0.0 

0,0 

x 0:00 o.o 0.0 

x O:OO 0.0 0,0 

x O:Do o.o 0.0 

x O:Oo 0:0 0.0 

x D:iiO 0.0 0.0 

x D:iiO 0.0 0.0 

XI I X I 0.0 .1:.i O:Oo 11:45 17:00 5:15 I I 1.4 0.0 1.4 

X 0:00 0.0 1.4 

:=c 18:00 22:30 4:30 1.8 1.8 3.2 

X o:oo 0.0 3.2 

x O:Oo 0,0 3.2 

x I_,........, 0:00 0.0 3.2 

I I X 

X 

6.4 

0.0 

1;3Q 14:45 13:151 6.4 

I'-./ 0:00 

9.6 

9.8 

J O:OO 0.0 

10:30 I 5.9 5.9 

zr I I X I I I I I I I I I I o:oo I I I I o.o I 15.5 

28 I I X I I I I I I I I I I o:oo I I I I o.o I 15.5 

29 I I X I I I I I I I I I I o:oo I I I I o.o I 15.5 

30 I I X I I I I I I I I I I o:oo I I I I o.o I 15.5 

I 

I 

.l 

f 

I 

.L 

I 

. .L 

.l 

J 

.... I ... . ·:,I .. >· ...... 

. ... -: ...... ·.· .. · .. -. r '· 

DELA

1=AT

2: W

3 = La

-4 1!1 M

S =AU

RON S!Tl! 

cYUL CYUl 
EXHIBIT3 
Submitted by: Michael Kalish 

Certificate #:1729649 

Statement to Northeastern Aviation Corp. 

Re: _Discrepancy in Record of Rest Period 

On August 22, 20111 flew Sundance Aviation aircraft N345MJ for the purpose of conducting,a Part 

135.293,297,299 check ride, I blocked In after the check ride at 1445 UTC and left the airport off duty at 

1515 UTC. 

I reported for duty to fly a Part 135 charter for Northeastern Aviation on the Gulfstream N451CM 10 

hours and 15 minutes after going off duty from the previ~s flight on N345MJ. 

When I filled out the Sundance Aviation flight and duty log I inadvertently entered'1600 UTC for the duty 

off time from the Sundance Aviation check ride. When I filled out the Northeastern Aviation flight and 

duty log I copied the information from the Sundance Aviation log and carried over the mistake to the 

Northeastern log again entering the wr~ng time of 1600. 

The flight and duty records from both Sundance Aviation and Northeastern Aviation are wrong because 

of my clerical error. I knew at the time that I reported for duty for the Northeastem.charter that I did 

have more than 10 hours of rest between the two flights. I told the FM about this when they 

interviewed me and I again confirm in this statement that this was the case. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by Federal 

Express this 22nd day of February 2013 on: 

Zachary M. Berman, Esq., Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, New York 11434 

(718) 553-3258 

Fax: (718) 995-5699 

Hon. I.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, D.C. 20590 

(202) 366-2132 

Fax: (202) 366-7536