U. S. Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration 

## APR t8l015 Alaskan Region Office ofthe Regional Counsel

CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURNRECEIPT 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 ofMach One Air Charters, Inc. CaseNo. 2014WP210018 Dear Sir or Madam: 222 W. 7th Avenue #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 inthe abovereferenced case. Enclosed are the original and one copy ofthe Complaint inthe above-referenced proceeding as required by§ 13.208(a) ofthe Rules ofPractice in FAA Civil PenaltyActions, 14 C.F.R. Part 13, Subpart G. By copy ofthis letter, a copy ofthe Complaint is being served on Respondent as required by§ 13.208(b). The FAA requests thatthe hearing be held in St. Paul, Minnesota, and anticipates it will last two days. St. Paul is the location ofthe repair station that inspectedthe aircraft immediatelyprior to the flights in question andreported its concerns to the FAA. The FAA anticipates it will presentthe testimony ofat leastthree employees. While theirpresence at the hearing will unavoidably result in some disruption to the business, we should not compound itby forcing them to travel to Californiajustbecause that's where the operator happens to be based. HOWARD L. MARTIN, JR. Regional Counsel By: Glenn H. Brown SeniorAttorney EnclosuresU.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, pursuantto Rule 208 ofthe Rules ofPractice (14 C.P.R.§ 13.208), and states as follows: I. OnNovember 4, 2014, Respondent was advised tlnough a Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of$40,000. On April2, 2015, a Final Notice ofProposed 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 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) that authorize it to conduct on-demand operations under part 135 ofthe FAR.

12. At all times referenced herein, Respondent operated civil aircraft N881A, a CessnaModel 500-S550, in its operations under part 135 ofthe FAR. 3. On or about May 10,2014, Respondent operated civil aircraftN881A onpassengercarrying flights inair commerce underpart 135 ofthe FARfrom Chapel Hill, North Carolina, to Cape Girardeau, Missouri, and then to St. Paul, Minnesota. 4. During the above flights it came to the attention ofthe flight crew that the outside air temperature was unreliable andthatthe circuit-breaker for the left engine air intake anti-ice system hadpopped 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 TechnicAirto perform maintenance on civil aircraft N881A that included troubleshooting the mechanical irregularities referenced in paragraph 4. 6. Uponlearning thatthe problem with the popped circuitbreaker 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 onjustthe 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
2confirmed the gauge was still inoperable, and then reconnected the original temperature probe. 8. After the events referenced inparagraph 7, Signature TechnicAirprovided to Respondent a logbookinsert for inclusioninthe maintenance records ofcivil aircraftN881A in which it sets for the maintenance referenced inparagraph 7 and specifically advises thatthe aircraft is not in an airworthy condition. 9. On orabout May 12, 2014, after the events reference above, Respondent operated civil aircraft N881N 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 underpart 135 ofthe FARfrom Chicago Executive Airport, Wheeling, Illinois, to George Bush Intercontinental Airport, Houston, Texas. 11. Atthe time ofthe flights referenced inparagraphs 9 and 10, the maintenance record entry required by§ 43.9(a) ofthe FARfor the maintenance referencedinparagraph 7 had not been included in the maintenance records for civil aircraftN881A, andthat maintenance had not been approved for return to service.

312. Atthe time ofthe flight referenced in paragraphs 9 and 10, civil aircraftN881A 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 ofcivil aircraft N881A as described above was careless or reckless so as to endanger the life or property ofanother.

III. 1. By reason ofthe foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated the following Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR): (a) Section 91.7(a) inthat 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 orproperty ofanother. (c) Section 91.405(a) 

### inthat Respondent failed between required inspections to have discrepancies repaired on an aircraft it operated as prescribed inpart 43 ofthe FAR.

4(d) Section 91.407(a) inthat Respondent operated an aircraft that had undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration when the aircraft had not been approved for retumto service and the maintenance record entry required by§ 43.9 or§ 43.11 ofthe FAR, as appropriate, had notbeenmade. (e) Section 135.25(a)(2) in that Respondent operated a civil aircraft in operations subject to part 135 ofthe FARwhenthe aircraft was not in an airworthy condition. (f) Section 135.179(a) in that Respondent took offan aircraft with inoperable instruments or equipment installed when the conditions listed inthat section were not met. (g) Section 135.413(a) in that Respondent failed to have defects in its aircraft repaired between required maintenance under part43 ofthe FAR. 2. Pursuantto 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 ofthe FAR. 3. Under the facts and circumstances ofthis case, a civil penalty of$40,000 is appropriate.

5WHEREFORE, the Federal Aviation Administration, by counsel, respectfully requests that the administrative lawjudge enter an orderthat 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 

# L~ Glenn H. Brown Senior AttorneyCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Re: Mach One Air Charters, Inc. FAA Case No. 2014WP210018 FAADocketNo. To Be Assigned I hereby certify that onthis date I served a copy ofthe FAA's Complaint and a copy ofthe foregoing letter byplacing 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. StevenL. Graff, Inc. 43399 Calle De Velardo Temecula, CA 92592 I further certify that on this date I have served the original ofthe foregoing letter and the original and one copy ofthe 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 ofthe Regional Counsev 222 West 7th Avenue #14 Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587

7 

# fve. /Jf

# :Jo; Date 1