U. S. Department ofTransportation

# ~;:~~Wonru CoWl

# ,g·~~i{~~~tl~;!,t: #!

### 4 FederalAviation Administration 

## QEC t.4 2.Utl CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 99513-7587 1. ">'J..**~~** 

### i>H::{§07) 271-5271 FAX: (907) 271-2800 

# RECEIVED DEC 1 92012 

# HEARING DOCKET Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 · 71"\

### ~I~ 

### ·rAuJf\- 

### C;p{)**~** l

### r'"(lfu"-" Re: In the Matter ofGrant Aviation, Inc. Cases Nos. 2011AL030031, 2011AL030046, 2011AL030047, 2011AL030055 & 2011AL030058 

## f,D.mS d-0

## \e.- \**~** b 

### 1 Dear Sir orMadam: OnNovember 29, 2012, we were notified that GrantAviation, Inc., requested a hearing inthe abovereferenced cases. Enclosed are the original and one copy ofthe Complaint in the above-referenced proceeding as required· by§ 13.208(a) ofthe Rules ofPractice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 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 that the hearing in this matter be held in Anchorage, Alaska, and expects thatthe hearing will last no more than two days.· HOWARD L. MARTIN, 

### JR. Regional Counsel By: Glenn H. Brown · Senior Attorney Enclosures cc: Brent R. Cole, Esq. (with copy ofFAR 13.16 and Subpart G ofPart 13)In the Matter of:
Grant Aviation, Inc. Judge Not Assigned U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
FAA Docket No. Unassigned 

# RECE\VED DEC \ 92.0\'l. 

# HEAR\NG DOCKET COMPLAINT The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby files its Complaint, pursuant to Rule 208 ofthe Rules ofPractice (14 C.P.R.§ 13.208), and states as follows: 

### I. On January 27, 2012, Respondent was advised through a Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty inthe amount of$50,000. On November 16,2012, Respondent was advised through a Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty that the FAAproposed to assess a civil penalty 

### inthe amount of$50,000. On November 28, 2012, Respondent submitted a written request for a hearing. II. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Respondent is now, and at all times mentioned herein it was, the holder of Air Carrier Certificate No. ENHA618D and appropriate operations specifications authorizing it to conduct commuter operations under parts 119 and 135 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).



### 12. At all times referenced herein, Respondent was authorized by its operations specifications to operate, and did use in its operations under**part~** 119 and 135 ofthe FAR, the following

· civil aircraft: Registration Make ·Model Model Name Number N207DF Cessna CE-207-A Stationair 8 N2162C Cessna CE-207-A Stationair 8 N6295H Cessna CE-207-A Stationair 7 N6908M Cessna CE-207-A Stationair 8 N7396U Cessna CE-207-A Stationair 7 N9651M Cessna CE-207·-A Stationair 8 N9728M Cessna CE-207-A Stationair 8 N9874M· Cessna CE-207-A Stationair 8 N9973M Cessna CE-207-A Stationair 8 N207EX Cessna CE-207-207 Skywagon N207VA Cessna CE-207-207 Skywagon

N48CF Cessna CE-207-T207 A Skywagon N8NZ Cessna .CE-207-T207A Stationair 7 N162GA Cessna CE-208-B Caravan N207DR Cessna CE-208-B Caravan N208SM Cessna CE-208-B Caravan

N25JA Cessna CE-208-B Caravan N454SF Cessna CE-208-B Caravan N804TH Cessna CE-208-B Caravan N27471 Pip_er PA-31-350 Navajo Chieftain N15PR Piper PA.;31-350 Navajo Chieftain N28KE Piper PA-31-350 ' Navajo Chieftain N4105D Piper PA-31-350 Navajo Chieftain N417PM Piper PA-31-350 Navajo Chieftain N77HV Piper PA-31-350 Navajo Chieftain N313HS Beech BE-200-200 King Air N90PB Beech BE-200-200 King Air 3. At all times referenced herein, Respondent was required by its operations specifications to inspect the above aircraft in accordance with its Approved Aircraft Inspection Program

. (AAIP).

24. On or aboutNovember 5, 2010, at the request ofRespondent, the Administrator approved a newAAIP for Respondent that substantially revised the AAIP it replaced. 5. During the period March 7-24, 2011, the aviation safety inspectors from the Anchorage Flight Standards District Office conducted a system safetyspecial inspectionofRespondent.
6. Most ofthe flights referenced hereinwere subjectto part 135 ofthe FAR. III. SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS A.COUNTI (Case No. 2011AL030046) 1. Beginning with the approval ofthe new AAIP as referenced in SectionII, paragraph 4, Respondent was required by Chapter 1, Sections 12 

### & 13, ofits AAIP to perform either an acceptance or complete inspection ofeach ofthe above aircraft, and then make entries inthe daily aircraft log for each aircraft stating thatthe aircraft is nowbeing inspected in accordance with the Respondent's Approved Aircraft InspectionProgram, and further stating, "This aircraft has beeninspected IIA/W a Respondent Acceptance (or Complete) Inspection andwas determined to be in airworthy condition." 2. On or aboutthe dates shown inthe second column ofthe following chart, Respondent inspected the aircraft listed inthe first column using an old, replaced AAIP, and from then ·until the date shown inthe third column, operated each aircraft on flights in air commerce for the hours oftime in service shown inthe fourth column when

### Respond~nt had not made the


### 3el).try referenced in paragraph 1 and had not inspected the aircraft under the new and then current AAIP: 

### Aircraft 1st 

### AAIP Inspection Date EnteredInto Time in Service After 11/5/10 

### NewAAIP N207DF February 14, 2011 May 19,2011 432.4 hours N2162C December 17, 2010 May 11,2011 286.9 hours N6295H November 16, 2010 April9, 2011 368.3 hours N6908M November 16,2010 May 17,2011 439.8 hours N7396U December 22, 2010 May 19,2011 352.7 hours N9651M February 9, 2011 May 11,2011 078.9 hours N9728M December 23,2010 May 25,2011 304.1 hours N9874M December 14, 2010 May 12,2011 344.6 hours N9973M December 7, 2010 May 8, 2011 433.2 hours N207EX December 10, 2010 August 8, 2011 368.9 hours N207VA November 23,2010 May 18,2011 083.7 hours N48CF January 11, 2011 May 13,2011 149.3 hours N8NZ January 2, 2011 May 14,2011 438.8 hours N162GA January 24, 2011 May20, 2011 275.0 hours N207DR November 11,2010 July 6, 2011 207.6 hours N208SM November 17,2010 May 20,2011 · 689.1 hours N25JA December 4, 2010 May 21,2011 795.3 hours N454SF December 8, 2010 May 16,2011 509.3 hours N804TH December 14,2010 May 16,2011 653.2 hours N27471 December 2, 2010 May 21,2011 708.5 hours N15PR November 9, 2010 July 6, 2011 823.7 hours N28KE November 15,2010 April 22, 2011 498.5 hours N4105D November 11,2010 May 16,2011 309.9 hours N417PM December 5, 2010 April27, 2011 488.7 hours N77HV December 11,2010 June 6, 2011 239.6 hours N313HS February 3, 2011 May 24,2011 357.5 hours N90PB January 19, 2011 May28, 2011 175.2 hours 3. At the time ofthe flights referenced inparagraph 2, each ofthe above aircraft was not in an airworthy conditionbecause inspections required by the new AAIP were due buthad not beenperformed.



### 44. On or about the dates indicated inthe third column inthe chart inparagraph 2, Respondentbegan inspecting civil aircraftN454SF, N208SM, N162GA, N804TH, and N25JA under the newAAIP when Respondenthad not performed either an acceptance or complete inspection ofthe aircraft. 5. On or aboutthe dates indicated inparagraph 4, Respondent made entries inthe daily aircraft logs for the following civil aircraft that did not fully comply withthe requirements identified inparagraph 1 in one or more respects: N454SF, N208SM, N162GA, N804TH, N25JA, N8NZ, N48CF, N9651M,N2162C, N9973M, N417PM, N4105D, N313HS, and N90PB.
6. The operation ofthe aircraft as described inparagraphs 1-5 was careless or reckless so as to endanger the life or property ofanother. Based onthe foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated the following Federal Aviation Regulations: · \ (a) Section 43.15(a)(2) inthat Respondent performed an inspection provided for in part 125, 135, or§ 91.409(e) ofthe FAR and failed to performthe inspection in accordance withthe instructions and procedures set forth inthe inspection program for the aircraft being inspected. (b) Section 91.7(a) inthat Respondent operated a civil aircraft whenit was not in an airworthy condition.
5(c) Section 91.13(a)inthat Respondent operated an aircraft in a careless orreckless manner so as to endanger the life orproperty ofanother. (d) Section 119.5(1) inthatRespondent operated aircraft under part 135 ofthe FARin violation ofan air carrier operating certificate, operating certificate, or appropriate operations specifications issued under part 119 ofthe FAR. (e) Section 135.2(a)(2) inthat Respondent operated an aircraft under part 135 ofthe FAR

. when it was not in an airworthy condition.

(f) Section

### 135.41~(g) inthat Respondent failed to have an aircraft subjectto an approved aircraft inspection program inspected in accordance withthatprogram. B. COUNT II (Case No. 2011AL030031) 1. At all timesreferenced herein, the Airworthiness Limitations section ofthe manufacturer's maintenance manual for each ofthe CessnaModel CE-208-B aircraft operated by Respondent has required certain periodic inspections and the replacement of certainparts, and some ofthese are based onthe number oflandings each aircraft has accumulated.



### 62. During the years preceding the system safety inspection referenced in Section II, paragraph 5, Respondent did not count orkeep track ofthe number oflandings each aircraft was accumulating, and hence, did notmaintain records, and atthe time ofthe inspection did not have records, containing the current status ofthe parts with a life-limitbased onthe number oflandings. 3. During the time frame referenced inparagraph 2, Respondent attempted to track the due dates for the periodic inspections andreplacements referenced in paragraph 1 using cycles rather than landings. 4. At all times referenced herein, the Airworthiness Limitations section ofthe manufacturer's maintenance manual for each ofthe CessnaModel CE-208-B aircraft operated by Respondent required that Respondent determine the operating environment for, each aircraft, and then make an airplane logbook entry that stated which inspection schedule (typical or severe) was being used. 5. During the years preceding the system safety inspectionreferenced in Section II, paragraph 5, Respondent operated each ofthe CessnaModel CE-208-B aircraft listed above when the operating environment was knownbutRespondent had not made an airplane logbook entry that stated which inspection schedule (typical or severe) was being used.



### 76. Beginning with the approval ofthe new AAIP onNovember 5, 2010, Respondent was

. . required by its AAIP to trackand comply with some 36 ofthe maintem.mce tasks set forth in Chapter 5 ofthe manuf;:t.cturer's maintenance manual. 7. For some ofthe maintenance tasks referenced inparagraph 6 and the inspections referenced inparagraph 1,

### the.interv~l depended onwhich inspection schedule (typical or severe) was b,eing used. 8. Atthe time ofthe system safety inspectionreferenced in Section II, paragraph 5, Respondent was tracking the intervals referenced inparagraph 7 using the typical inspection schedule for civil aircraftN454SF, N208SM, N25JA, andN804TH whenthe inspection schedule for each ofthese aircraft should have been severe. 9. At all times referenced herein, the interval for two ofthe inspections referenced in paragraph 1 and for one ofthe maintenance tasked referenced in paragraph 6 depended on the bolt size. 10. Atthe time ofthe inspection referenced in Section II, paragraph 5, the records usedby Respondent to keep track ofwhen each inspection and maintenance taskbecame due did not include any informationregarding the bolt size for the inspections and maintenance task referenced inparagraph 9. 11. The periodic inspections referenced inparagraph 1 include the following:


### 8Name Supplemental Inspection Intervals Inspection No. Typical Severe Fuselage to Strut 53-20-07 Initial at 10,000 hours; Initial at 5000 hours; repeat Attach Fittings and repeat every 2500 hours every 400 to 1200 hollis Lugs depending on bolt size Center Flap Track 57-50-01 Initial at 15,000 landings; Initial at 15,000 landings; repeat every 3000 landings repeat every 3900 landings Inboard Flap Track 57-50-01 Initial at 15,000 landings; Initial at 15,000 landings; repeat every 3000 landings repeat every 3000 landings Outboard Flap Track 57-50-01 Initial at 15,000 landings; Initial at 15,000 landings; repeat every 3000 landings repeat every 3000 landings 12. Atthe time ofthe system safety inspections referenced in Section II, paragraph 5, Respondent had operated civil aircraft N25JA ondivers flights in air commerce for 4284.4 hours when Supplemental InspectionNumber 53-20-07 was due bqthad not beenperformed. 13. Atthe time ofthe system safety inspection referenced in Section II, paragraph 5, Respondent had operated civil aircraft N208SM on flights in air commerce for at least 320.4 hours when Supplemental Inspection Number 53-20-07 was due buthad not beenperformed. 14. Atthe time ofthe system safety inspectionreferenced 

### in. Section II, paragraph 5, the records by which Respondent was tracking when Supplemental InspectionNumber 57-50·01 was next due on civil ai,rcraft N804TH incorrectly indicated itwas due 15,000 cycles after the first inspection, and bythat date Respondent had operated civil aircraft N804TH on flights in air commerce for at least 12 cycles when, even under the measure Respondentwas using, Supplemental InspectionNumber 57-50-01 was due buthad notbeen performed.



### 915. Atthe time ofthe system safety inspectionreferenced in Section II, paragraph 5, the records by which Respondent was tracking when Supplemental Inspection Number**57~50-01** was next due oncivil aircraft N208SM indicated Respondent had operated the aircraft on flights in air commerce for at least 70 cycles when Supplemental InspectionNumber 57-50- 01 was due buthad not beenperformed. 16.- Atthe time ofthe system safety inspectionreferenced in Section II, paragraph 5, the records used by Respondent to keep track ofwhen each ofthe required inspections and maintenance tasks for each ofthe Cessna Model CE-208-B aircraft it operated became due did not include any information for 23 ofthe 36 maintenance tasks referenced inparagraph 6. 17. The maintenance tasks referenced inparagraph 6 include the following:
Name Maintenance Supplemental Inspection Intervals Manual Inspection Typical Severe Chpt/See/Subj No. Initial/Repeat Initial/Repeat Starter-Generator 5-10-01, Item [None] Every 500 hours Every 500hours BrushHolders 801002 or 1 year or 1 year Starter-Generator 5-10-01, Item [None] 500 hours or 1 500 hours or 1 Brushes Code 801003 year year Cargo and Passenger 5-14-03 53-20-01 7500 hours/ 2500 7500 hours/ 2500 DoorDoublers hours hours Lower Forward 5-14-05 53-20-03 12,500 hours/ 12,500 hours/ Carry-Thru Bulkhead 2500 hours 2500 hours MLG Attach Fittings 5-14-07 53-20-05 12,500 hours/ 12,500 hours/ and Aft Carry-Thru 2500 hours 2500 hours Bulkhead SeatRails and 5-14-13 53-10-07 7500 hours/ 2500 7500 hours/2500 Attachment Structure hours hours Bulkheads and 5-14-14 53-20-12 7500 hours/ 2500 7500 hours/ 2500 Stiffeners Belowthe hours hours Seat Rail Attachments 

# ' 10Stringers at Inter- 5-14-15 53-20-13 . 12,500 hours/ 12,500 hours/ sections with Carry- 2500 hours 2500 hours Thru Bulkheads Fuselage Skin 5-14-16 53-20-14 5000 hours(2500 5000 hours/ 2500 Doubler at MLG hours hours Cutout Fuselage to Wing 5-14-21 53-20-06 12,500 hours/ 12,500 hours/ Carry-Thru Attach 2500 hours 2500 hours Fitting and Bulkhead Wing Strut Fittings 5-14-28 57-60-01 10,000 hours/ 5000 hours/ 3600 5000 hours hours 18. During the period from the date indicated for each aircraft until the time ofthe system safety inspection referenced in Section II, paragraph 5, Respondent operated the following aircraft on divers flights for the hours oftime in service indicated when the indicted maintenance task was due buthad notbeenperformed: Name N208SM N162GA N804TH N454SF N25JA N207DR 11117/10 1/24/11 12114/10 12/04/10 12/4/10 11/11110 Starter-Generator 32.4 hours BrushHolders Starter-Generator 32.4 hours Brushes Cargo and Passenger 421.8 98.6 hours 384.8 242.5 462.9 201.4 Door Doublers hours hours hours hours hours Lower Forward 421.8 Carry-Thru hours Bulkhead MLG Attach Fittings 421.8 and Aft Carry-Thru hours Bulkhead Seat Rails and 421.8 98.6 hours 384.8 242.5 462.9 201.4 Attachment hours hours hours hours hours Structure Bulkheads and 421.8 98.6 hours 384.8 242.5 462.9 201.4 Stiffeners Below the hours hours hours hours hours Seat Rail Attachments Stringers at Inter- 421.8 sections with Carry- hours Thru Bulkheads 11Fuselage Skin 421.8 98.6 hours 384.8 242.5 462.9 201.4 Doubler at MLG hours hours hours hours hours Cutout Fuselage to Wing 421.8 Carry-Thru Attach hours Fitting and Bulkhead Wing Strut Fittings 400.3 462.9 hours hours 19. Atthe time ofthe flights referenced inparagraphs 12-15 and 18, each ofthe above aircraft was not in an airworthy condition because the inspections and maintenance tasks referenced above were due buthad not beenperformed. 20. The operation ofthe aircraft as described inparagraphs 1-19 was careless orreckless so as to endanger the life or property ofanother. Based on the foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated the following Federal Aviation Regulations: (a) Section 43.16 inthat Respondent performed an inspection or other maintenance specified in an Airworthiness Limitations section ofa manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness and failed to perform the inspection or other maintenance in accordance withthat section or in accordance with operating specifications approved by theAdministrator under part 121 or 135, or an inspection program approvedunder§ 91.409(e). 

### (b) Section 91.7(a) inthatRespondent operated a civil aircraft whenit was not in an airworthy condition.
12(c) Section 91.13(a) inthat Respondent operated an aircraft in a careless orreckless manner so as to endanger the life or property ofanother. (d) Section 91.403(c) inthat Respondent operated an aircraft for which a manufacturer's maintenance manual or instructions for conti9nued airworthiness had been issued that contains an airworthiness limitations section whenthe mandatory replacement times, inspection intervals, and related procedures specified inthat section or alternative inspection intervals and related procedures set forth in an operations specification approved bythe Administrator under part 121 or 135 ofthe FAR orin accordance with an**inspec~ion progr~**  approved under§ 91.409( e) had notbeen complied with. (e) Section 91.417(a)(2)(ii) inthat Respondent operated an aircraft for which ithadnot kept records containing the current status oflife-limitedparts. 

### (f) Section 119.5(1) inthat Respondent operated aircraft under part 135 ofthe FARin violation ofan air carrier operating certificate, operating certificate, or appropriate operations specifications issuedunder part 119 ofthe FAR, (g) Section 135.25(a)(2) inthatRespondent operated an aircraft under part 135 ofthe FARwhenit was not in an airworthy condition.

13

### ·(h) Section 135.419(g) inthat Respondent failed to· have an aircraft subject to an approved aircraft inspected program inspected in accordance withthat prograin.. C. COUNT III (Case No. 2011AL030047) 1. At all times referenced herein, the Airworthiness Limitations section ofthe manufacturer's maintenance manual for each ofthe BeechModel BE-200-200 aircraft operated by Respondentrequired a hydrostatic test ofthe engine fire extinguishers every five years, a hydrostatic test ofthe cabin fire extinguisher every 12 years, replacement ofthe lower forward wing bolt and nut every five years, the replacement ofthe upper forward, upper and lower 

### aft wing bolts and nuts every 15 years or 15,000 hours oftime in service, the replacement ofthe windshield screws every 10,000 cyCles, and a test ofthe main oxygen cylinder every three or five years, depending on which tank was installed. 2. Atthe time**ofth~** system safety**inspectio~** referenced in Section II, paragraph 5, the records by which Respondent was tracking when the matters referenced in paragraph 1 were due on civil aircraft N3_13HS did notinclude entries for the hydrostatic test ofthe cabin fire extinguisher or the five- and 15-yearreplacements ofthe above-referenced wing bolts and nuts, and the entry for the five-year hydrostatic test ofthe engine fire extinguishers was being tracked 

### as due every 12 years. 3. Atthe time ofthe system safety inspection referenced in Section II, paragraph 5, the records by which Respondent was tracking whenthe matters referenced in paragraph 

### l were due on civil aircraft N90PB did not include entries for the hydrostatic test ofthe cabin fire 14extinguisher, the three-yeartest ofthe main oxygen cylinder, or the replacement ofthe windshield screws, and the entry ofthe five-year hydrostatic test ofthe engine fire extinguishers was being tracked as due every 12 years. 4. Duringthe period from Apri120, 2010, until October 5, 2010, Respondent operated civil aircraft N90PB on divers flights in air commerce for some 265 hours oftime in service when the replacement ofthe right hand windshield screws was overdue by more than 3700 cycles but had not beenperformed. 5. At all times referenced herein, Airworthiness Directive (AD) 89-19-04 R1 required an inspection ofthe center wing fuel bay upper skinpanels on civil aircraft N313HS every 600 hours oftime in service or 18 months, whichever occurs first. 6. Atthe time ofthe system safety inspectionreferenced in Section II, paragraph 5, civil aircraftN313HS had a total time in service of7663.9 hours. 7. Atthe time ofthe system safety inspection referenced in Section 

### II, paragraph 5, the most recenttime the inspection required by AD 89-19-04 R1 had been performed on civil aircraft N313HS and properly documented inthe maintenance reco!ds for the aircraft was on February 13, 2009, at aircraft total time of6659.7 hours. 8. Onor about February 22, 2010, at aircraft total time of6756.6 hours, the area on civil aircraftN313HS covered by AD 89-19-04 R1 was inspected, but the maintenance record
15entry for this inspection does notindicate thatthe'inspection was done in accordance with either the AD orthe service bulletin the AD references. 9. During the period from November 5, 2010, until March 8, 2011, Respondent operated civil aircraft N313HS on divers flights in air commerce for 288.4 hours whenthe inspection required by AD 89-19-04 R1 was overdue but had not beenperformed. 10. Atthe time ofthe system safety inspection referenced in Section Ii, paragraph 5, the records by which Respondent was tracking AD compliance for civil aircraft N313HS indicated that AD 89-19-04R1 was not applicable to the aircraft and did not indicate the time and date whenthe nextaction was due. 11. At all times referenced herein, Respondent was required by its AAIP to track and comply with the following maintenance tasks at the intervals indicated: Item Action Required Intervals Altitude Warning Switch Inspect 12 Months Oxygen System Passenger Replace 24 Months ShutoffValve 0-ring Windshield Comers Inspect Initial at 10,000 cycles; each Doublers and Clips 1000 cycles thereafter Inconel Wing Bolts, L and R Inspect 5 years Inconel Wing Bolts, L and R Replace 15 years Exterior Frame Skin Inspect Initial at 10,000 cycles; each 1000 cycles thereafter Fuselage Frame Web Inspect 5 years Fuselage Subfloor Frames Inspect Initial at 10,000 cycles; each 1000 cycles thereafter

1612. During the period March 1-18,2011, Respondent operated civil aircraft N313HS on divers flights in air commerce for 64.3 hours when the inspection ofthe altitude warning switch was due but had not been performed. 13. During the period from February 1, 2011, until March 18, 2011, Respondent operated civil aircraft N90PB on divers flights in air commerce for 62.7 hours when the inspection of the altitude warning switch was due but had not beenperformed. 14. During the period from April20, 2010, until Apri127, 2011, Respondent operated civil aircraft N313HS on divers flights in air commerce for some 1062.2 hours whenthe replacement ofthe oxygen system passenger shutoffvalve o-ring required every 24 months by the AAIP was due but had notbeen done since July 1998. 15. At the time ofthe system safety inspection referenced in Section II, paragraph 5, the records by which Respondent was tracking when the maintenance tasks referenced in paragraph 11 were due on civil aircraftN313HS did not include an entry for the oxygen . system passenger shutoffvalve o-ring. 16. Atthe time ofthe flights referenced in paragraphs 4, 

### 9, 12, 13, and 14, civil aircraft N313HS and N90PB were not in an airworthy condition because, as described above, they had not been maintained as required.

1717. The operation ofthe aircraft as described inparagraphs 1-16 was careless orreckless so as to endangerthe life or property ofanother. Based onthe foregoing facts and cirqumstances, Respondent violated the following Federal Aviation Regulations: (a) Section 39.7 in that Respondent operated a product that did notmeet the requirements ofan applicable airworthiness directive. (b) Section 43.16 in that Grant Aviation performed an inspection or other maintenance specified in an Airworthiness Limitations section ofa manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness and failed to perform the inspection or other maintenance in accordance withthat section or in accordance with operating specifications approved by the Administrator tinder part 121 or 135, or an inspection program approved under§ 91.409(e). (c) Section 91.7(a) inthat Respondent operated a civil aircraft when it was not in an airworthy condition. (d) Section 91.13(a) in that Respondent operated an aircraft in a careless orreckless manner so as to endanger the life or property ofanother. (e) Section 91.403(c) inthat Respondent operated an aircraft for which a manufacturer's maintenance manual or instructions for continued airworthiness had been issued that
18contains an airworthiness limitations section whenthe mandatory replacement times, inspection intervals, and related procedures specified inthat section or alternative inspection intervals and related procedures set forth in an operations specification approved bythe Administrator under part 121 or 135 ofthe FAR, or in accordance with an inspection program approved under§ 91.409(e), had notbeen complied with. (f) Section 91.417(a)(2)(ii) inthat Respondent operated an aircraft for which it had not kept records containing the current status oflife-limitedparts. (g) 91.417(a)(2)(v) inthat Respondent operated an aircraft for which it had notkept records containing the current status ofan applicable AD and the time and date whenthe next action was due. (h) Section 119.5(1) inthat Respondent operated aircraft under part 135 ofthe FARin violation ofan air carrier operating certificate, operating certificate, or appropriate operations specifications issued under part 119 ofthe FAR. (i) Section 135.25(a)(2) inthat Respondent operated an aircraft under part 135 ofthe FARwhenit was not in an airworthy condition. 

### G) Section 135.419(g) inthat Respondent failed to have an aircraft subject to an approved aircraft inspection program inspected in accordance withthat program.

19D.COUNTIV (Case No. 2011AL030055) 1. On or about January 26, 2011, Respondent performed maintenance oncivil aircraft N9973M that included fixing aninoperative turn coordinator, and then approved the aircraft for returnto service. 2. Dll!ing the period from January 27, 2011, until March 9, 20.11, Respondent operated civil aircraftN9973M on divers flights in air commerce for some 102 hours.

. 3. Atthe time Respondent approved civil aircraft N9973M for returnto service as referenced

inparagraph 

### 1. and atthe time ofthe flights referenced inparagraph 2, the maintenance record entry required by 

### § 43.9(a) for the maintenance referenced inparagraph 1had not been made. 4. The operation ofthe aircraft as described above was careless or reckless so as to· endanger the life or property ofanother. Based onthe foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violatedthe following Federal Aviation Regulations: (a) Section 43.9(a)-in that Respondent maintained, performed preventive maintenance, rebuilt, or altered an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, orcomponent

20part and failed to make an entry inthe maintenance record ofthat equipment containing the information specified inthis section. (b) Section 91.13(a) in that Respondent operated anaircraft in a careless orreckless manner so as to endanger the life orproperty ofanother. (c) Section 91.407(a)(2) inthat Respondent operated an aircraft thathad undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration when the maintenance record entry required by§ 43.9 or§ 43.11 ofthe FAR, as applicable, had notbeen done. E.COUNTV (Case No. 2011AL030058) 1. At all times referenced herein, AD 2003-24-07 was applicable to civil aircraftN77HV, and required an inspection every 12 calendar months. 2. During the period from February 1, 2011, until March27, 2011, Respondent operated civil aircraftN77HV for some 15 hours whenthe inspection required byAD 2003-24-07 was due buthad not been performed. 3. Atthe time ofthe flights referenced inparagraph 2, civil aircraft N77HV was not in airworthy condition because the inspectionrequired by AD 2003-24-07 was due but had not beenperformed.

214. On or about January 13,2011, Respondent performedmaintenance on civil aircraft N77HV that included fixing a broken passenger door support cable bracket and a loose passenger door seal plate, and then approved the aircraft for return to service. 5. During the period from January 14,2011, until March 9, 2011, Respondent operated civil aircraft N77HV on divers flights in air commerce for some 24.1 hours oftime in service.
6. At the time Respondent approved civil aircraftN77HV for return to service as referenced inparagraph 4 and at the time ofthe flights reference inparagraph 

### 5, the maintenance record entry required by§ 43.9(a) for the maintenance referenced in paragraph 4 had not been made. 7. On or about February 5, 2011, at a time when Respondent was operating civil aircraft N417PM on a flight in air commerce, the landing gear would not extend normally, and had to be extended using emergencyprocedures. 

### 8. The events referenced in paragraph 7 constituted a failure, malfunction, or defect in an aircraft component that resulted inthe taking ofemergencyaction during flight. 9. Respondent failed to report the failure, malfunction, or defect referenced inparagraph 7 withinthe time specified in§ 135.415(d) ofthe FAR. 10. Respondent's operation ofcivil aircraftN77HV 

### as described above was careless or reckless so 

### as to endanger the life orproperty ofanother.
22Based onthe foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated the following Federal Aviation Regulations: (a) Section 39.7 inthat Respondent operated a product that did not meet the requirements ofan applicable airworthiness directive. (b) Section 4 3.9(a) inthat Respondent maintained, performed preventive maintenance, rebuilt, or altered an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part and failed to make an entry inthe maintenance record ofthat equipment containing the information specified inthis section. (c) Section 91.7(a) inthat Respondent operated a civil aircraft when it was not in an airworthy condition. · (d) Section 91.13(a) inthat Respondent operated an aircraft in a careless orreckless manner so as to endanger the life or property ofanother. (e) Section91.407(a)(2) inthat Respondent operated an aircraft that had undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration when the maintenance record entry required by§ 43.9 or§ 43.11 ofthe FAR, as applicable, had not been made.

23(f) 

### Section 135.25(a)(2) inthat Respondent operated an aircraft under part 135 ofthe FAR when it was not in an airworthy condition. (g) Section 135.415(a)(l6) in that Respondent failed to report the occurrence or detection ofa failure, malfunction, or defect in an aircraft conceining an aircraft component or system that resulted in taking emergency action during the flight.

24IV. SANCTION 1. On October 20, 2010, in FAA CaseNO. 2009AL030061, Respondent was found to have violated§§ 91.13(a) and 91.417(a)(2)(ii) by operating five CessnaModel CE-208-B aircraft in 2009 when Respondent had not kept an accurate**reco~d** ofcycles, and was assessed a $12,000 civilpenalty, which Respondent has, to date, failed to pay. 2. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46301(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$50,000 is appropriate. WHEREFORE, the Federal Aviation Administration, by counsel, respectfully requests thatthe administrative lawjudge enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty inthe amount of$50,000. 

### RESPEC1FULLY SUBMITTED this

# {~+

# ~ of 

# J).ce""**k~** 

# JO[ J. .

25 HOWARD 

### L. MARTIN, JR. Regional Counsel By:

# ~LJL Glenn H. Brown Senior Attorney

### 26CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Re: Grant Aviation, Inc. FAA Cases Nos. 2011AL030031, 2011AL030046, 2011AL030047, 2011AL030055 

### & 2011AL030058 FAA DocketNo. 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 inthe United States Mail, postage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: Brent 

### R. Cole, Esq. Law Office ofBrent 

### R. Cole, P.C. 821 N Street, Suite 208 Anchorage, AK 99501 I :fipiher certify that on this date I have served the original ofthe foregoing letter and the original and one copy ofthe FAA's Complaint hypostage-prepaid, certified mail,

### r~turn 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 2W1000
Office ofthe Regional Counsel 222 West 7thAvenue #14 Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587

27

# &.1/fQOI~ Date I



# ............... __________________________