f^ECEIVED 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ^^^' ' ^ ^^^^ 

t^liARiMG DOCKET OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

RANDY BABBETT, ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION), 

Complainant, 

vs. 

HI-FLI AVIATION TOO LLC, 

Respondent. 

FAACaseNo. 2009SO130017 

ANSWER 

CO 

- n 

-H " O 

- a 

— I 

O ) 

_..J 

The Respondent Hi-Fli Aviation Too, LLC, by and through his undersigned counsel, 

answers the Complaint of Randy Babbett and the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") as 

follovi^s: 

AS AND FOR A FIRST DEFENSE 

1. Any matter not specifically admitted is hereby denied. 

2. The Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 1 of the Complaint. 

3. The Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the 

Complaint and further asserts that it was neither the operator nor did it operate flights as 

alleged in paragraph 4 of the Complaint which would require an Air Carrier Certificate under 

14 C.F.R. Part 119, or require Operations Specifications under 14 C.F.R. Part 135. 

4. The Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 

Columbia: 1329377 v. 1 
5. The Respondent denies the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Complaint. 

6. The Respondent denies the allegations of paragraph 5 of the Complaint to the 

extent that Mr. Tobin Williamson may have been a crew member on the flights described in 

paragraph 4, but Hi-Fli did not utilize Mr. Williamson's services for such flights. 

7. The Respondent denies the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Complaint. 

8. The Respondent denies the allegations of paragraph 7 of the Complaint. 

9. The Respondent denies the allegations that violated the regulations contained in 

paragraph 8 of the Complaint. 

10. The Respondent denies the allegations of paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Complaint. 

AS AND FOR A SECOND DEFENSE 

11. The Respondent realleges and reasserts each and every response contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 10 as if set forth verbatim herein. 

12. At all times relevant, the flights referenced in paragraph 4 of the Complaint 

were conducted at the behest of a lessee who acted as operator and maintained operational 

control over such aircraft before and during such flights. 

AS AND FOR A THIRD DEFENSE 

13. The Respondent realleges and reasserts each and every response contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 12 as if set forth verbatim herein. 

14. As the flights referenced in paragraph 4 of the Complaint were operated by 

another entity, the Respondent was not required to hold an Air Carrier Certificate nor was it 

Columbia: 1329377 v. 1 
required to have Operations Specifications issued under 14 C.F.R. Part 119 and 14 C.F.R. Part 

135, respectively. 

AS AND FOR A FOURTH DEFENSE 

15. The Respondent realleges and reasserts each and every response contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 14 as if set forth verbatim herein. 

16. At all times relevant, operational control for the flights referenced in paragraph 

4 of the Complaint had been expressly transferred to and accepted by another entity. 

AS AND FOR A FIFTH DEFENSE 

17. The Respondent realleges and reasserts each and every response contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 16 as if set forth verbatim herein 

18. The Respondent asserts that it did not conduct the flights alleged in the 

Complaint for compensation or hire. 

AS AND FOR A SIXTH DEFENSE 

19. The Respondent realleges and reasserts each and every response contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 18 as if set forth verbatim herein. 

20. The Respondent reserves the right to set forth any and all other defenses that 

may arise out of further investigation or discovery in this case. 

Columbia: 1329377 v. 1 
WHEREFORE, having set forth its answer, based upon the foregoing. Respondent prays 

that the Final Notice of Civil Penalty be dismissed, with fees and costs assessed against the 

Administrator. 

Respectfully submitted this 1*' day of April, 2010. 

HAYNSRyORTH SINKLER BOYD, PA 

John A( 

POBo 

1201 Main Street, 22"*^ Floor (29201) 

Columbia, SC 29211-1889 

803-779-3080 

803-765-1243 (fax) 

jhodge@hsblawfirm.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR THE RESPONDENT 

Columbia: 1329377 v. 1 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFHCE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

RANDY BABBETT, ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL AVLVTION ADMINISTRATION), 

Complainant, 

vs. 

HI-FLI AVIATION TOO LLC, 

Respondent. 

FAACaseNo. 2009SO130017 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned employee of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., do hereby certify that I 

have caused the foregoing to be served via U.S. mail, postage prepaid, or by other delivery as 

indicated, to all parties of record at the addresses shown below. 

1. ANSWER 

Parties of Record 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2W1000 

Wilbur Wright Building 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

(Orig. + 3 copies) 

Robert B. Dixon, Esquire 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

Date: April 1,2010 

HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, P.A 

By P-nJ) 

Elaine C. Smith-Foster 

Legal Secretary 

Columbia: 1329377 v. 1