# ECEIVE D

Michae l Selig , MD . FACC , CFI- H .;-;• ; 2 7 M i 281 6 0refiei d Roa d ' " ' " \ Allentown , PA . 18104 i^feARIN G V^'-^ \-.r^^ ^ 

## ^l O 

# KET U.S . DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D. C ,•"•-..' ' 

### D

u j Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Laur a Ponto , Latony a William s Complainant s M i R Helicopters , LLC . Responden t Honorabl e Judg e Ronni e Yode r Doclcet : 2010-121 1 C O

RESPONDENT' S REPL

YT O TH E MOTIO N FOR JUDGMEN TT O DISMISS COMPLAIN T AN D NOW , come s respondent . MICHAE LB . SELIG . MD , FACC , principl e fo rM R Helicopters , LLC , (MRH ) (sinc e terminated ] whio m aver s an d file s \h e followin g Repl yt o complainant' s comment s i n regard s t o th e MOTIO N fo r Judgmen tt o th e COMPLAINT . 1 . O n Decembe r4 , 2010 , responden tfaxe d an d maile d t o M s Pont o a Motio n fo rJudgmen tt o Quash . 2 . Complainant s faile d t o repl yor.t o objec tt o tha tcorrespondenc e withi n th e 1 0 da ydeadlin e period . 3 . Th e sol e positio n fo rth e claime d violatio n fo rM rBake roccordin g t o Inspecto rStatemen i lO P 9 record , wo s du e t o inabilit yt o fin d FA Aopprove d 1 o f5

SOO/LOO ® SW Q < • VVJ 2l7LS8G1?20 2 XV d Lt:3 LLL02/S2/L 0dru g an d alcoho l testin g progra m informatio n fo rFligh t Methods . M rBalce rvs/a s no temploye d b yFligh tMethods . M rBolce ra tal l time s wa s employe d an d unde ra n FA

Aapprove d dru g an d alcoho l progra m throug h ER AMe d an d Ai r Method s Corporatio n renderin g th e complain tmoot . 4 . Subsequently , complainant s faile d t o respon d t o mos tal l motion s an d correspondenc e withi n th e rule s o fcivi l penalt yan d filin g deadlines , an d admitte d t o thes e breache s b yM s Dominik , whe n sh e calle d responden tfo ra continuanc e o n Decembers . 2010 . 5 . Complainant s continue d wi) h Ih e movin g forge to fthei rallegation s an d fundamenfa l basi s o fthei rviolation : a . fro m MrBake rno t bein g o n a dru g progra m b . t o no tbein g o n MRH' s ow n progra m c . t o no thavin g authorizatio n t o perfor m maintenanc e unde rAi r Method s Servic e Statio n certificate , eve n thoug h h e is permitte d t o d o maintenanc e unde rhi s ow n A P Certificat e d . claimin g tha tbein g o n a pilot s drug/alcoho l progra m is someho w cJifferen tfro m tha to fa mechanic , eve n thoug h clearl yar e al l safet ysensitiv e functions 6 . Contrar yt o Judicia l Estoppels, th e clai m o fM rBake rno tbein g o n MRH' s ow n dru g program , eve n thoug h n o FA Aofficial s an d MR H knev ^ abou t suc h regulations , tha twer e no t clearl ypublished , wa s alread ywithdraw n o n tha tbasi s i n regar d t o th e othe rmechanic/IA , bu tcomplainant s ar e no wtryin g 2 o f5

S00/200i S SW Q < - VV d StLSeetSO S XV J L1?:9 LUOS/SS/I Ot o cobbl e colo ro fla wargument s t o pul l bac k i n tha tan yallege d violatio n i n attempt s t o revalidat e thei rviolatio n an d Impairin g th e dignif ythi s court . 7 . Complainant s confirme d an d admitte d i n thei rdocumen ttha tthe y di d no tpursu e fh e the n unchallenge d allegatio n o fM rBake ro rth e Mechanic/l Ano tbein g o n MRH' s ow n existin g program , becaus e o f "evidentiar yreosons " an d furthe rconfirme d releas e o ftha tviolatio n o n al l account s b yM rWilliam s lette ro fSeptembe r23 , 2010 . 8 . Complainant s ar e no tentitle d t o continu e thei rfishin g expedition , afte rth e fundamenta l premis e ha s bee n cite d an d ha s bee n foun d defective . 9 . I ti s respondent' s avermen ttha tth e persistenc e t o pursu e thi s complain twit h s o man ydefect s show s th e complainant s i n tru e ligh t as malfeasant , i n abus e o fdiscretio n an d process , i n breac h o fdut yan d conduct . 10 . Th e complainant s ar e aggressivel ypursuin g allegation s agains t a n operato rwho : a . ha s no tbee n i n operatio n durin g mos tal l th e tim e o fth e allege d violation . b . mad e a n informe d decisio n an d goo d judgmen t t o terminat e operation s du e t o persona l reason s relatin g t o qualit yan d safet yo fth e operatio n an d tim e constraints . b . agains ta n operatio n tho t ha s n o financia l asset s o rproperty . c . agains ta n operato rwh o operate d i n goo d faith . d . o n basi s o fa n allege d initia l violatio n tha t ha s bee n show n t o b e 3 o f5 500/800 0 SW O * VV d StLSSGtSO Z XV d 11?:9 L LLOS/SS/L Odefective . e . o n th e basi s o fa ne wpositio n violatio n tha tcomplainant s hav e alread ywithdrawn . f . agains ta n allege d violatio n tha ti s tim e bared . g . cilin g a violatio n tha t wa s no tclearl ydisclosed , tha tn o FA Aofficer s kne wabou to rwer e informe d abou tfo rove r5 years , thu s holdin g MR H t o a highe rstandar d tha n thei row n officers . h . onc e responden t wa s mad e awar e o fth e chang e i n venu e o fth e regulation , h e correcte d th e issue , eve n thoug h no tconductin g business . 12 . Th e sanction s ar e thereb ytrivial . Inappropriate , frivolous , an d i n al l aspects , point s t o issue s tha t ar e o rhav e bee n moot . 13 . I n al l an d bes teffort s fo rjudicia l economy , th e cas e Iherefor e shoul d b e dismisse d t o allo wth e administration s seasone d effort s b e properl y directe d t o othe rarea s o rhig h volume , larg e operatio n violatio n case s mos t pertinen tt o th e publi csafet yo fou rcountry . WHEREFORE , th e responden tpray s t o thi s Honorabl e Cour ttha tth e propose d violatio n (hereb ytim e barred) , consistin g o fo judgmen t agains t MRH , (whic h currentl ydoe s no texist ) an d a fin e o f$540 0 (fift yfou rhundre d dollars ) (al l account s hav e bee n closed ) b e immediatel yDISMISSED . Respectfull ySubmitted ,

soo/tooi a sw o * 4 o f5 y,V j SULSSGtSO Z XV d L1?:9 l U02/S2/ 1Michae l B . Selig , MD , FACC . \-^ ^ ' ' • ^ ^ 

### y...^ U Dat e \>

5 o f5 SOO/SOO E SW Q * VV d StLSeet^O S XV d L1?:9 L LL02/S3/1 0