U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

RE;CEIVED 

MAR 1 1 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, FAA DOCKET NO.: FAA-2012-1262 

CASE NO: 2011S0190332 

Complainant, 

vs. 

AERIAL CROP PROTECTION, 

Respondent. ________________________________ .! 

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Respondent, AERIAL CROP PROTECT! ON ["Aerial Crop"], pursuant to 14 CFR § 13.209, 

hereby files this Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint filed by the Complainant, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ["FAA''], and says: 

1. Admitted. 

2. Without knowledge. 

3. Admitted that on said date Respondent, Aerial Crop, did not have a valid agricultural aircraft 

operator certificate. 

4. Admitted that a discussion took place. All other provisions not specifically admitted are 

hereby denied. 

5. Admitted that a discussion took place. All other provisions not specifically admitted are 

hereby denied. 

6. Admitted that Respondent, Aerial Crop, performed commercial aerial chemical operations 

in western Palm Beach County, Florida. All other provisions not specifically admitted are 
hereby denied. 

7. Denied. 

Federal Aviation Administration vs. Aerial Crop Protection 

FAA Docket No.: FAA-2012-1262 

Case No: 2011S0190332 

Answer and Affirmative Defenses 

Page 2 of 4 

8. The statute speaks for itself. All other provisions not specifically admitted are hereby denied. 

9. Denied. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

10. First Affirmative Defense. Respondent, Aerial Crop, affirmatively asserts the defense of 

estoppel. As confirmed in the Complaint, the Petitioner, FAA, discussed the issue with 

Respondent. Factually, Respondent made an application with Petitioner approximately three 

and one-half years before Petitioner went to Respondent's facility. Petitioner acknowledged 

that it delayed the application process because it did not have enough personnel to process 

Respondent's application and ultimately unilaterally closed the application file without 

addressing the issue with Respondent. During the on-site meeting, when Petitioner spoke 

with Respondent, it did not direct that Respondent cease it's operation. Thus, the Petitioner 

allowed Respondent to continue its operations while Petitioner sought to clean-up its 

administrative issues. Based thereon, the Petitioner is estopped from now asserting that 

Respondent is in violation of any rule or that it should be fined. Accordingly, the Complaint 

should be avoided. 

11. Second Affirmative Defense. Respondent, Aerial Crop, affirmatively asserts the defense 
·~ 

Federal Aviation Administration vs. Aerial Crop Protection 

FAA Docket No.: FAA-2012-1262 

Case No: 2011S0190332 

Answer and Affirmative Defenses 

Page 3 of4 

of unclean hands. Respondent realleges the factual assertions as set forth in the First 

Affirmative Defense and incorporates them herein. Based thereon, the allegations in the 

Complaint should be avoided. 

12. Third Affirmative Defense. Respondent, Aerial Crop, affirmatively asserts the defense of 

bad faith. Respondent realleges the factual assertions as set forth in the First Affirmative 

Defense and incorporates them herein. Based thereon, the allegations in the Complaint 

should be avoided. 

SUBMITTED this 2T day of H~ 

J. FIELDS, SR. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. Mail and Facsimile 

upon: Andrea Michelle Harper, Esquire, Senior Attorney, Federal Aviation Administration, Office 

of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7, Post Office Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320 (Facsimile: 404-

305-5223); the Honorable J.E. Sullivan, DOT, Administrative Law Judge, Office ofHearings, M-20, 

1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310), Washington, D.C. 20590 (Facsimile: 202-366-7536); and 

the Federal Aviation Administration, Hearing Docket, AGC-430, ATTN: Stephanie McClain, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW, Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000, Washington, D.C. 20591 
... 

(Facsimile: 202-493-5020), on this 2--rFederal Aviation Administration vs. Aerial Crop Protection 

FAA Docket No.: FAA-2012-1262 

Case No: 2011SOI90332 

Answer and Affirmative Defenses 

Page 4 of 4 

dayofH_~ '2013. 

PRESTON J. FIELDS, P.A. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

11211 Prosperity Farms Road, Suite C-301 

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 

Telephone: (561) 799-9910 

Facsimile: (561) 799-0388 

PRESTON J. FIELDS, SR. 

Florida Bar Number: 0867616 

E-mail: pjfields@southernlawfirm.com 

\\Cp2-server\cpshare\CPWIN\HISTORY\121121_0001\7D9.09\pjt\163-0 12c-Doc.8