08/31/201 1 13.2 3 FA X 202493514 2 08/29/201 1 ]5:4 2 FA I S4 7 294 749 8 FA A F.\ ARE G COUNS L AGL 7 ^ OM S [^1001/00 9 aiOOl/00 9

To : Company : Phone : Fax : From : Tine Date ; Page s w/cover : 

# 4midi9(\^iaiiii

h tMu n L Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Regiona l Counsel' s Office,AGL- 7 230 0 Eas t Devo n Avenu e De s Plaines . Illinoi s 6001 8 T 847-294 - F 047-2S4-749 e Facsimil e

RE : 

# 'AMWMJMmUu^M

^ • av/oaL a <^UI0-6c>^ ^08/31/201 1 13:2 3 FA X 202493514 2 FA A' - OM S (^002/00 9 08/29/201 1 15:4 2 FA X 84 7 29 4 749 8 FA AUE< 1 COUNS L AGL 7 0002/00 9

Serve dAugus t

29 , 201 1 

### ::^R^RTWEN TO F •i^/^NSPORTAIiO N ^UCKETOPERATiOM G U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTIO N ii-! l AI J I i P 2 b b

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . INTHEMATTHRO F Rushroor e Helicopters , Inc . FA A DOCKE T NO . CP10GL000 2 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) DMSNo . FAA-20tO-002 3 Agency' s Post-Hearin g Repl y Bri ^ Th e Federa l Aviatio n Admin i strat i o n (CompiainanO , throug hit s UT>deTsigne dcounsel , hereb y submit s Ihi s Repl y Brie f i n Respons e t o Respondent' s Brie f o n Is.sue o f

La w an dClosin g Argumen t receive db y th e Complainan t o n Augus t

23 , 2011 . A t

hearin g an di n it s Closin g Brie f submitte dJul y 6 , 2011 , Complainan t

assert s tha t

Responden t

violate d1 4 C.F.R . 91.7(a ) an d91.13(a ) o n Augus t 7 , 200 9 whe n Responden t

operate dN2268 Wwhil e th e aircraft' s fue l fille r por t wa s covere dwit hduc t tap e rathe r tha n th e appropriat e fue l cap . I . Responden t

•^Operated" ' N2268 W Respondent' s Brie f

argue s Responden t

di dno t operat e N2268 Wo n Augus t 7 , 2009 . Responden t assert s tha t

becaus e Mr . Leffert , th e pilo t o f th e helicopte r

o n thos e dates , physicall y manipulate dth e control s o f

th e aircraft , h e an donl y h o coul dhav e operate dth e aircraft . Althoug hResponden t ha s quote ddictionar y definition s o f "operate, " h e ha s overlooke dth e specifi c definitio n o f "operate' " provide db y th e Cod e o f Federa l Regulations . Sectio n 1. 1 states , '"Operate , wit hrespec t t o aircraft , moan s use , caus e t o us e o r authoriz e t o us e aircraft , fo r th e purpos e (excep t

a s provide di n if91.I 3 o f thi s08/31/201 1 13:2 3 FA X 202493514 2 FA A - DM S 01003/00 9 08/29/201 1 15;4: i FA X &4 7 29 4 749 8 . F.\ A KliGCOUNS LAGL 7 f2l003/00 9

chapter ) o f

ai r navigatio n includin g th e pilotin g o f aircraft , witho r

withou t th e right o f lega l contro l (a s owner , lessee , o r

otherwise). " 1 4 C.F.R . § ll

- However , o n Apri l 1 , 2010 , Responden t admitte di

n it s Answe r

th e following : 2 . I n it s CA T operatio n Rushmor e employe dth e service s o f acommercia l pilot , Rober t Lero y Leffert (LclTert ) an doperate daBel l 20 6 helicopter , registere da s N2268 Wan downe db y 6 S Whiske y LLC . 3 . A t al l time s relevan t

heret o Leffert

acte da s pilo t

i n comman dan doperate dN226)i" Wa s a pilo t of , an dagen t

of , Rushmor e i n th e C;A T operation . A s indicate db y Respondent' s ow n admissions , Mr . Leffert fle w N226KWa s Respondent' s agent , whil e employe db y Respondent , for th e purpose s o f

Respondent' s commercia l ai r tou r operation . Responden t

di di n fac t

"operate " th e aircraf

t fo r th e purpose s o f

thi s case . I LN2268 Wwa s unairworth y whil e duc t tap e wa s place dove r

it s fue l por t

rathe r tha n th e appropriat e fue l ca p A s Responden t

indicated , th e tes t

fo r airworthines s i s two-fold . '"T o b e aii^worthy , a n aircraf t must : (1 ) confor mt o atyp e desig n approve dunde r atyp e certificat e o r

supplementa l typ e certificat e an d t o applicabl e Airworthine.s s Directives ; an d(2 ) b e i n aconditio n fo r saf e operation.' " In ih e Matte r o f Brenda n AirM'ays , LL C 201 0 W X 232608 2 a

t 5 (Jun e 7 , 2010 ) (citin g Del . Skyway s LLC , FA A Orde r No . 2005- 6 at

2 (Ma r 8 , 2005 ) an dCa l Helifech , FA A Orde r No . 2000-1 8 a

t 2 n. 7 (Au g 11 , 20(JU)) ; f n th e Matte r

o/H'hitley . 200 8 W L44179 8 at 6 (Jan . 30 , 2008)(statin g tha t t o b e "airworthy " an aircraf t "mus t confor mt

o it s typ e desig n ari dmus t b e i n aconditio n fo r

saf e flight). Thi s tes t

require s bot h conformanc e withtyp e desig n an dconditio n saf e fo r flight . Althoug hResponden t properl y cite s th e test , i t confuse s th e conjunctiv e natur e o f th e tes t whe n i t aigue s tha t

"[elve n i f

th e firs t pron g ha dbee n establishe db y th e FAA . i t slil i faile dt o prov e th e secon dprong. " Respondent' s Brief , pg . 5 . Becaus e th e tes t require s bot hconformanc e an dsafety , t o findtha t Respondent' s aircraf

t unairworihy > th e03/31/201 1 13-2 3 FA X 202493514 2 FA A^ D(.1 S 0004/00 9 oy/29/20 U 15-.4. 1 FA AS4 7 29 4 749 5 ^A ARE G COUNS L ACL 7 Q004/00 9

Complainan t

nee donl y establish,b y apreponderanc e o f th e evidenc e tha t

Responden t

faile deithe r

par t o f th e airworthines s test .

1 . N2268 Wwa s unairworth y becaus e i t di dno t confor mt o it s typ e certificate . Responden t

allege s tha t

becaus e Complainan t

di dno t ente r th e aircraft' s 'typ e design " int o evidence , th e evidenc e doc s no t sho w th e aircraf

t wa s unairworthy . However , a s discusse di n Complainant' s Brie f

filedo n Jul y 6 , 2011 , i n th e appea l o f

I n th e Matte r

o f Americ aWes t

Airlines . FA A Orde r No , 96-3 , 1 3 (Feb . 13 , 1996) , th e Administrato r foun da n aircraf

t unairworth y for

failur e t o confor mt o th e aircraft' s typ e certificat e an dtyp e desig n eve n wher e th e Agenc y ha dno t intrtMiuce dth e typ e desig n int o evidence . In tha t case , inspector s testifie dtha t th e aircraf

t wa s n o longe r

i n it s origina l o r properl y altere dconditions . Id . Withou t introducin g evidenc e o f typ e desig n o r

typ e certificate , th e Administrato r

foun dtha t

th e aircraf

t wa s no t airworth y becaus e i t

faile dt o confor mt o it s typ e design . Similarly , a t

th e hearin g i n thi s ca.se , Complainant' s witnesse s testifie dtha t afte r duc t tap e wa s place dove r

th e aircraft' s fue l port , th e aircraf t n o longe r

me t it s typ e design . Th e .Agenc y Inspector s wer e Inspecto r

Jame s BadHorse—a n A& P Mechani c wh o maintaine dArm y helicopter s a s acontractor , worke do n th e "Huey " (Bel l 20 6 an d205) , an dcurrentl y i s aMaintenanc e Airworthines s Inspector-—an d Inspecto r Gar y Kwasniewski-— acertificate dHelicopte r Pilo t wit han A& P Certificat e an dInspectio n Authorizatio n ratin g wh o maintaine dhelicopter s i n th e militar y for ove r seve n years . HTpp . 14-15 , 89

- 92 . Inspecto r

Ba dHors e Stated : "[T]h e aircraf t i s manufacture dan dit cam e ou t

o f th e factory , with , obviously , i

n tlii s case , afue l cap , s o tha t i n par t o f typ e desig n fo r

th e typ e certificate. " H T p g 95 , line s 15-19 . Inspecto r

Ba dHors e continued , "[Th e fticl cap ] no t bein g o n th e aircraft , i t i s no t airworthy." ' IITpg . 96 , line s U-12 . Additionally : Inspecto r Kwasniewsk i testified , "S[o] , i f it' s no t configure dwit h that fue l cap , o r

properi y altere dwit ha n SD C o r

-ius t tha t alon e woul dmak e i t

unworthy. " ILTpg . 46 . line s 4-6 . Moreover , th e Complainan t introduce dan emai l fro maBel l Helicopte r Enginee r

whic h08/31/201 1 1 3 2 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A - OM S 2)005/00 9 OS/29/:i01 1 15.4 3 FA X 84 7 29 4 749f

i FA

A RE GCOUNS LAGl. 7 0005/00 9 

### specificall y stated , "Th e fue l filler ca p assembl y i s a

n essential (a s oppose dt o optional ) component linke dto the Bell Helicopter model 20 6 engineerin g lo p drawing. " Agenc y Hearin g Exhibi t 7 . I n other words , aBel

l Enginee r

explaine dtha

t th e fue l filler ca p i s par t o f th e aircraf

t drawings , it s design , whic h i t mus t confor mt o i n order

t o mee t th e definitio n o f

airworthy . I

n this case , whe n th e aircraf t wa s operate do n Augus t

8 , 2009 , th e aircraf

t ha dduc t tap e ove r it s fue l por t rather tha n th e fue l fille r cap ; therefore , the aircraf

t di dno t confor mto th e aircraf

t desig n andfaile dth e firs t pron g o f th e airworthines s definition . Respondent

agai n attempt s to argu e tha t th e aircraf

t wa s i n conformanc e wit

h it s typ e certificate becaus e aBell Representativ e allegedl y tol dRespondent' s President tha t th e fue l ca p i s no t astructural componen t

o f the aircraft . Respondent' s Brief , pg . 5 . A s previousl y di.scussedI n th e Agency' s Brief

, the Agenc y i s no t

claimin g N2268 Wwa s i n danger o f breakin g apar

t i n mid-air becaus e o f

astructura l failure . Whether

o r no t the fue l ca p i s a"structural componenf " o f th e aircraf

t i s not relevan t t o the issu e a t hand . Wha

t i s important

i s tha t without th e fue l ca p the aircraf

t doe s not

confor mt o it s typ e certificate and , therefore , th e aircraf t wa s no t airworthy . 2 . N2268 Wwa s unairworth y becaus e wa s no t i n aconditio n saf

e fo r flight. I n additio n t o no t

conformin g to it s typ e certificate whe n i t ha dduc t tap e coverin g it s fue

l port , N2268 Wwa s als o not

airworth y becaus e i

t failedthe secon dpar

t o f the airworthines s test—i t wa s no t i n aconditio n saf

e fo r flight . Responden t

argue s thai becaus e it s pilo t di dnot , a

t the time , fee

l thai there wa s asafet

y concer n wit h flying the aircraf

t wit h duc t tap e ove r th e fue l port , tha t automaticall y require s th e conclusio n tha

t N2268 Wwa s i

n aconditio n saf

e fo r flight . However , significant credibl e evidenc e wa s admitte da

t hearin g leadin g to th e opposite conclusion . Inspecto r Kwasniewsk

i testifie dtha

t th e aircraft , wiihduc t

tap e ove r th e fue l filler port , wa s a

t risk o f fue l contamination , whic h i n turn coul d caus e fue l siarvalion . IlTpg

- 46 . line s 18-22 . Moreover , Inspector Kwasniewsk

i explaine dtha

t i f there08/31/201 1 13:2 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A- DM S 21006/00 9 08/29/201 1 15:4 4 l-A A 84 7 29 4 749 8 FA ARE G COU.NS L AGL 7 SlOOy/00 9

wa s an y accident , suc ha s arol l over , ther e wa s ahig hrisk o f afire wher e th e aircraf t ha s duc t

tap e coverin g it s fue l por t

rathe r tha n th e approve dfuel cap . HTpg . 47 , line s 14-19 . Inspecto r Ba dHorse , a

n A& P Mechani c an dcurren t Maintenanc e Airworthines s Inspector , similarl y testifie da s l o th e unsaf e conditio n o f

th e aircraft . UTpp . 89-92 . Inspecto r Ba dHors e specificall y explaine dtha i "i f th e aircraf

t ha dgon e dow n fo r

an y reason , an dit

ha dlande do n ii s side...no w w e hav e achanc e o f th e fiael spillin g ou t an dpossibl y causin g afire." H T pg . 97 . line s 4-H . No t onl y di dth e Agenc y presen t th e abov e credibl e testimony , it

als o submitte dan emai l fro mBel l Engineerin g whereb y BelT s Enginee r pu t i n writin g tha t

"Bel l Helicopte r

believe s tha t

i f High v operation s ar e perfonme dwhe n vh e Helicopter s doc s no t hav e a n approve dfue l filler

ca p installed , th e safet y o f th e helicopte r

an dit occupant s i s compromise dan dw e conside r th e Helicopte r

i s a n unairworth y condition. " Agenc y Hearin g Exhibi t 7 . A s Responden t

pointe dou t

i n it s brief

, th e Respondent' s aircraf t di dno t hav e extensiv e damage ; however , tha t

doe s no t negat e th e fac t

tha t Respondent' s aircraf

t wa s no t onl y no t i n conformanc e wit h it s typ e certificate , bu t

als o no t i n aconditio n saf

e fo r flight. N2268 Wwa s unairworth y o n eac h fligh t operate db y Responden t o n Augus t

8 , 2009 . in.Rcsponden t

violate d1 4 C.F:R . § 9M 3 Pursuan t t o FA A Orde r

2150.3B , "Whe n aperso n operate s an aircraf t i n violatio n o f

aspecifi c regulatio n othe r

tha n U C.F.R . § 91.13 , .. . tha t violatio n constitute s acareles s o r reckles s operatio n i n an do f itsel f I n thes e cases , th e misconduc t ma y als o resul t

i n aviolatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . § 91.1 3 i f

i t actuall y o r

potentiall y endanger s th e live s o r propert y o f

others. " Re.spondent' s violatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(a) , operatin g a n unairworth y aircraf t o n a t leas t 1 0 separat e passenge r

carryin g flights, con.'Jtitute s careles s operatio n i n an do f itsel f unde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 9L13(a) . H T pg . 4 0 line s 17-21 , pp . 73-77 ; pg . US ; Agenc y Hearin g Exhibi t 4 . Agenc y Hearin g Exhibi t 5 . In thi s case . Respondent' s operatio n o f N2268 Wwa s no i merel y atechnica l violatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . 91.13(a) . bu t th e operatio n wa s aseparate ,08/31/201 1 1 3 2 4 FAX 202493514 2 FA A ^ DMS 0007/00 9 08/:;«'201 1 15:J 4 F. W84 7 29 4 749 8 FA A RE G COtiNS L AGL 7 i2]007/00 9 

### independen t

violation . Respondent' s operafion wa s no t only no t i n a n airworthy aircraft , bu t

i t wa s not safe . Respondent

place dit s passenger s a

t risk. IV . Sanctio n Th e Agency' s propose dsanctio n i s well withi n the guidanc e foun di n FA A Order 2150.3 3 fo

r the abov e regulator

y violations . Agency Hearin g Exhibi t 6 . Fo r asmal l busines s concern , sucha s Respondent , th e Sanctio n Guidanc e Tabl e set s ou t th e civi l penalt

y rang e fo

r eac h violatio n a s follows : niodcrate , $2,20 0 l o S4,39 9 andmaximum , $4,40 0 t o $11,000 . Therefore , amedia n penalt y of $6,60 0 fo r eac h violatin g fligh

t i s suggested . However , th e Agenc y ha s propose dapenall y o f onl y $2,50 0 fo

r eac h o f th e te n flights i n violatio n o f th e regulations , fo

r atotal propose dcivi l penalt y o f $25,000 . Respondent

allege s that

th e FA A failedt o prov e tha

t Responden t

operate d1 0 passenger-carryin g flight s o n Augus t

7 , 2009 . However , Inspecto r Kwasniewsk

i credibly testifie dregardin g th e flight lo g provide db

y Respondent' s employe e fo r Augus t 7 ^ 200 9 whic h UF;t

s ten passenger

flights . .Agenc

y Hi^arin g Exhibi t 4 . A s Inspecto r

Kwasniewsk

i explained , Respondent' s employe e a t th e Keystone , S D location , pulle dtha

t flight lo g fro mabinder

an dtol dth e Inspecto r

tha t i t wa s th e flight

lo g fo r that date , Augus t 7 , 2009 , andan

y previou s flight

log s ha dalready been taken t

o the mai n facilit

y i n Custer , SD . H T pg . 37 . Althoug h Exhibi t 4 ha s adal e o f

Augus t 6 , 2009 , th e uncontradicte dtestimon y a t hearin g clarifie s tha

t tha t flight log , showin g 1 0 passenger carryin g flights, wa s fo

r Augus t 7 , 2009 . Respondent presente dno testimon y or evidenc e suggestin g tha

t Inspecto r Kwasniewski' s explanilio n regardin g the flight lo g fro mAugus t 7 , 200 9 i s incorrect . I

n fact , Respondent

presente dno testimony o r evidenc e a

t al l to attemp t

t o hav e th e sanctio n i

n thi s cas e mitigated . I h e Agenc y seek s acivi l penalt y o f $2,50 0 fo

r each o f the ten passenger

carryin g flights operate di n a n unairworth y condition , lotalin g $25,000 . Thi s propose dcivi l penalt y i s wel l withi n th e08/31/201 1 13.2 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A - DM S 0008/00 9 08/29/:i01 1 15:4 4 FA X 64 7 29 4 749 8 FA A RE GCOUNS LAGL. T [2]OOS/00 9

rang e provide dfo r

b y th e Sanctio n Guidanc e Tabl e an di s appropriat e fo r ihes e violation s wher e Responden t

operate da n unairworth y aircraf t o n 1 0 passenge r

carryin g flights. V . CONCLUSIO N I n sum . Responden t

ha s violate d1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(a ) an d1 4 C.F.R . § 91.13(a ) b y operatin g an unairworth y aircraf

t o n 1 0 separat e pas.senge r carryin g flights o n Augus t 7 , 2009 . Th e propose dcivi l penalt y o f

$25,00 0 i s sustainabl e fo r th e cite dviolation s an di s i n accordanc e wit hth e Agency' s Complianc e an dEnforcemen t Progra ma s outline di n FA A Orde r 2150.3B . WHEREFORE . Complainan t respectfull y request s th e Administrativ e La w Judg e issu e a n Initia l Decisio n finding aviolatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(a ) an d1 4 C.F.R . § 91.13(a ) an dissu e acivi l penalt y i n accordanc e wit hth e Agency' s Sanctio n Guidanc e an dth e Agency' s Fina l Notic e o f Propose d Civi l Penalt y i n th e amoun t o f $25,000 . Respectfull y submitted , 

### ^tL/ViA ^ /l\^l>i^t ^ -^< ^ Drian aMartin o Auomey , Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l Grea t Lake s Regio n 230 0 Cas t

Devo n Avenu e De s Plaines . I

L6001 8 (T ) 847-294-731 3 (F ) 847-294-749 8 briana.martino@faa.go v08/31/201 1 13:2 4 FA X 202493514 2 06/29''20i l 15:4 4 FAX ' $4 7 20 4 749 ! F A A FA A RP GCOHNS L AGL 7 - DM S 0009/00 9 3009/00 9

CKkTlKICAT K

O FSERVIC E I hereb y certif

y tha t I have , thi s date , serve dth e foregoin g Agenc y Repl y Brie f b y mailin g copie s t o th e followin g addresse s a s follows : Origina l an dOn e Cop y (Facsimil e an dRegula r Mail ) Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention ; Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building , Suit e 2W100 0 FAX- . 102-493-514 1

Mr . Michae l Jaco b Rushmor e Helicopters , Inc . 2456 4 Highwa y 16/38 5 Cu.<;ter , S D 5773 0 FAX : 605-673-216 3 Email : michacljj@goldenwest.ne t Th e Honorabl e Richar dC

- Goodwi n Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloo r RoomEU-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 FAX : 202-366-753 6 On e Cop y (Facsimil e an dRegula r

Mail )

(Facsimil e an dRegula r

Mail )

Date dthi s 29" ^ da y o f

August , 201 1

Yol^ddaQuile s Leg WTechnicia n