U. S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

APR t8l015 

Alaskan Region 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 

Re: In the Matter of Mach One Air Charters, Inc. 

Case No. 2014WP210018 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

222 W. 7th A venue # 14 

Anchorage, Alaska 

99513-7587 

Ph: (907) 271-5271 

Fax: (907) 271-2800 

Email: glenn.brown@frut.gov 

RECEIVED 

MAY 0 5 2015 

. HEARING DOCKET 

JO\C:S- OLR'-\3 

On April 24, 2015, we were notified that Mach One Air Charters, Inc., requested a hearing in the abovereferenced case. 

Enclosed are the original and one copy of the Complaint in the above-referenced proceeding as required 

by§ 13.208(a) of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 14 C.F.R. Part 13, Subpart G. By 

copy of this letter, a copy of the Complaint is being served on Respondent as required by§ 13.208(b). 

The FAA requests that the hearing be held in St. Paul, Minnesota, and anticipates it will last two days. St. 

Paul is the location of the repair station that inspected the aircraft immediately prior to the flights in 

question and reported its concerns to the FAA. The FAA anticipates it will present the testimony of at 

least three employees. While their presence at the hearing will unavoidably result in some disruption to 

the business, we should not compound it by forcing them to travel to California just because that's where 

the operator happens to be based. 

HOWARD L. MARTIN, JR. 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

Glenn H. Brown 

Senior Attorney 

Enclosures 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

In the Matter of: 

FAA Docket No. Unassigned 

Mach One Air Charters, Inc. 

Judge Not Assigned 

COMPLAINT 

RECEIVED 

MAY 0 5 20!5 

HEARING DOCKET 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby files its Complaint, 

pursuant to Rule 208 of the Rules of Practice (14 C.P.R.§ 13.208), and states as follows: 

I. 

On November 4, 2014, Respondent was advised tlnough a Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $40,000. On April2, 

2015, a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty in the amount of$40,000 was issued. On 

April21, 2015, Respondent submitted a written request for a hearing. 

II. 

1. Respondent is now, and at all times mentioned herein it was, the holder of Air Carrier 

Certificate No. DRFA176M and appropriate operations specifications issued under part 119 

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) that authorize it to conduct on-demand operations 

under part 135 of the FAR. 

1 
2. At all times referenced herein, Respondent operated civil aircraft N881A, a Cessna Model 

500-S550, in its operations under part 135 of the FAR. 

3. On or about May 10,2014, Respondent operated civil aircraftN881A on passengercarrying flights in air commerce under part 135 of the FAR from Chapel Hill, North 

Carolina, to Cape Girardeau, Missouri, and then to St. Paul, Minnesota. 

4. During the above flights it came to the attention of the flight crew that the outside air 

temperature was unreliable and that the circuit-breaker for the left engine air intake anti-ice 

system had popped and could not be reset. 

5. On or about May 12, 2014, while the aircraft was in St. Paul, Minnesota, Respondent 

contacted Signature TechnicAir, an FAA-certificated repair station in St. Paul, to arrange for 

Signature TechnicAir to perform maintenance on civil aircraft N881A that included 

troubleshooting the mechanical irregularities referenced in paragraph 4. 

6. Upon learning that the problem with the popped circuit breaker for the left engine air 

intake anti-ice system would likely result in delaying the aircraft's departure, Respondent 

directed that Si!,mature TechnicAir work on just the problem with the outside air temperature 

probe. 

7. On or about May 12,2014, and after the events referenced in paragraph 6, Signature 

TechnicAir confirmed the gauge was inoperable, connected a different temperature probe and 

2 
confirmed the gauge was still inoperable, and then reconnected the original temperature 

probe. 

8. After the events referenced in paragraph 7, Signature TechnicAir provided to Respondent 

a logbook insert for inclusion in the maintenance records of civil aircraft N881A in which it 

sets for the maintenance referenced in paragraph 7 and specifically advises that the aircraft is 

not in an airworthy condition. 

9. On or about May 12, 2014, after the events reference above, Respondent operated civil 

aircraft N881 N on a flight in air commerce from St. Paul, Minnesota, to Chicago Executive 

Airport, Wheeling, Illinois. 

10. On or about May 13,2014, Respondent operated civil aircraft N881A on a passengercarrying flight in air commerce under part 13 5 of the FAR from Chicago Executive Airport, 

Wheeling, Illinois, to George Bush Intercontinental Airport, Houston, Texas. 

11. At the time of the flights referenced in paragraphs 9 and 10, the maintenance record 

entry required by§ 43.9(a) of the FAR for the maintenance referenced in paragraph 7 had not 

been included in the maintenance records for civil aircraft N881A, and that maintenance had 

not been approved for return to service. 

3 
12. At the time of the flight referenced in paragraphs 9 and 10, civil aircraft N881A was not 

in airworthy condition because neither the outside temperature gauge nor the left engine air 

intake anti-ice system functioned properly. 

13. Respondent's operation of civil aircraft N881A as described above was careless or 

reckless so as to endanger the life or property of another. 

III. 

1. By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated the 

following Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR): 

(a) Section 91.7(a) in that Respondent operated a civil aircraft when it 

was not in an airworthy condition. 

(b) Section 91.13(a) in that Respondent operated an aircraft in a careless 

or reckless marmer so as to endanger the life or property of another. 

(c) Section 91.405(a) in that Respondent failed between required 

inspections to have discrepancies repaired on an aircraft it operated as prescribed in part 

43 ofthe FAR. 

4 
(d) Section 91.407(a) in that Respondent operated an aircraft that had 

undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration when the 

aircraft had not been approved for retum to service and the maintenance record entry 

required by§ 43.9 or§ 43.11 of the FAR, as appropriate, had not been made. 

(e) Section 135.25(a)(2) in that Respondent operated a civil aircraft in 

operations subject to part 135 of the FAR when the aircraft was not in an airworthy 

condition. 

(f) Section 135.179(a) in that Respondent took off an aircraft with 

inoperable instruments or equipment installed when the conditions listed in that section 

were not met. 

(g) Section 135.413(a) in that Respondent failed to have defects in its 

aircraft repaired between required maintenance under part 43 of the FAR. 

2. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 4630l(a) and 14 C.F. R. § 13.305, Respondent is subject to a 

civil penalty of$11,000 for each violation of the FAR. 

3. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of$40,000 is 

appropriate. 

5 
WHEREFORE, the Federal Aviation Administration, by counsel, respectfully requests 

that the administrative law judge enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the 

amount of$40,000. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this .:::w':ih_ of A{k: l J_o I) 

HOWARD L. MARTIN, JR. 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

6 

Glenn 

L~ H. Brown 

Senior Attorney 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Re: Mach One Air Charters, Inc. 

FAA Case No. 2014WP210018 

FAA Docket No. To Be Assigned 

I hereby certify that on this date I served a copy of the FAA's Complaint and a copy of the 

foregoing letter by placing them in the United States Mail, postage-prepaid, certified mail, return 

receipt requested, addressed as follows: 

H. Dan Hill, CEO 

Mach One Air Charters, Inc. 

through counsel 

Steven L. Graff, Esq. 

Steven L. Graff, Inc. 

43399 Calle De Velardo 

Temecula, CA 92592 

I further certify that on this date I have served the original of the foregoing letter and the original 

and one copy of the FAA's Complaint by postage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt 

requested, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO 

Office of the Regional Counsev 

222 West 7th A venue # 14 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587 

7 

fve. /Jf :Jo; 

Date 1