05/21/2010 16:15 FAX 2024935142 

May, 20, 2010 1;44PM 

FAA 

* DMS @1002/00S 

^0,085 4 P. 2/6 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSFORATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

^AT'n^! 

In the Matter of: 

AIREVACEMS,INC 

) 

) 

) FAA CASE NO.: 2007CE030026 

) 

) Hon. Richard C. Goodwin, ALJ 

ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Air Evac EMS, Inc. (hereinafter "Respondent") hereby answers the FAA's 

Complaint in FAA Case Number 2007CE030026 as follows. 

I. 

1. With regard to § I., Paragraph 1, Respondent admits that on February 27, 

2007 it was issued two notices of proposed civil penalties, one for $15,000 and one for 

$25,000 and that on February 4) 2010 it was issued two final notices of proposed civil 

penalties, one for $15,000 and one for $25,000, all of which were based tipon the same 

act of Aai-on Rogers, which has been resolved. Respondent admits that on February 8, 

2010 it submitted written requests for hearings for this matter, FAA Case Numbei2007CE030026 and the other matter which has been referred to as 2007CEO030008-

The remainder of the allegations in § I, Pavacraph 1 are denied. 

II. 

1. With regard to § II., Paragraph 1., Respondent admits that it was the 

holdei- of the air earner certificate but denies that said certificate had any relevancy to this 

action. 

FAA CAS E NO.: 2007CE030026 
05/21/201 0 16:15 FAX 2024935142 FAA .QM S @|003/00B 

May, 20, 2010 1;45PM No, 0854 P. 3/ 6 

2. Respondent admits § II., Paragraph 2, Respondent Air Evac EMS, Inc. is 

the holder of Repair Station Certificate No. QEVR436K:. 

3. With regard to § II., Paragraphs 3, 4 and $, Respondent admits that Aaron 

Rogers had the slated duties for Respondent's repair station in West Plains, Missouri. 

4. With regard to § 11., Paragraphs 6 and 7, Respondent admits that on or 

about October 18, 2006, the Aii-crafl which was owned and operated by Respondent was 

flying on a non-Part 135 and that upon airival at Sikeston there was no key for the 

narcotics box and they returned to West Plains to retrieve the missing key. The 

remainder of the allegations in § II„ Paragraphs 6 and 7 are denied. 

5. With regard to § 11., Paragraph S. Respondent adnxits that the Aircraft 

upon approach to Respondent's West Plains, Missouri downtown heliport experienced a 

mechanical failure and was able to divert and make a run-on landing at West Plains 

Municipal Aii-port without a fatality or any other injury or damage. The remainder of the 

allegations in § II., Paragiaph 8 are denied. 

6. With regard to § II., Paragraph 9, Respondent lacks sufficient information 

and knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations 

contained therein and therefore denies all and the whole thereof 

7. With regard to § II,, Paragraphs 10 and 11 Respondent is not in a position 

to speak to the findings of the FAA and therefore lacks sufficient information and 

knowledge upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations 

contained therein and theiefore denies all and the whole thereof including all subparts 

thereto. 

FAA CASE NO.; 2CK>7CE030026 
_05/21/2010JI8: 15 FAX 2024935142 FAA .QMS S004/00G 

May, 20, 201C 1:45PM No, 0854 P, 4/ 6 

8. Respondent denies all of the allegations in § II., Paragraph 12. The 

Aircraft was returned to service by Aaron Rogers individually using the authority grarited 

by the FAA to him personally by his A&P Ceitificate 494941510. 

9. Respondent denies all of the allegations in § II., Paragraph 13. 

10. With regard to § II., Paiagraphs 14, 15 and 16 and all subparts thereto, 

Respondent denies the allegations contained thercm. 

11. With regard to § II., Paragraph 17, Respondent denies that the Ahci-aft 

was accepted for flight or knowingly operated in an unairworthy condition and denies the 

remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 17. 

III. 

1. With regard to § III., Paragraphs 1,2 and 3 Respondent denies all and "the 

whole thereof. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

By way of defense and affirmative defense. Respondent states 

1. The Aucraft was not operating on a Part 135 flight or certificate at any 

relevant time. 

2. These claims against Respondent must be dismissed upon the basis of re.t 

judicata and/or double jeopardy because they have been already litigated and fault has 

been found to lay with Aaron D Rogers who personally and individually, without the 

direction or authority of Respondent, signed off the Aircraft as being airworthy using and 

under the authority granted to him by the FAA on his individual A&P Certificate. 

FAA CASE NO.: 2007CE03002(S 
05/2_2/2010 1G:1G FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS 0005/006 

May. 20, 201C 1;45PM ^o, 0854 P. 5/ 6 

3. The claims against this Respondent must be dismissed on the basis o^res 

judicata or double jeopardy as they are the same claim asserted in FAA Case Number 

2007CE030008. 

4. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be giantcd. 

5. The claim asserted in this Complaint had nothing to do with Respondent's 

air cairier certificate. 

6. Respondent was entitled to rely upon the certification by Aai'on Rogers 

that the Aircraft was airworthy and ready for flight 

7. The penalty sought against Respondent is excessive, especially when 

considering the combination of the two cases 2007CE030026 and 2007CE030008. 

8. The a a giving rise to the FAA's Complaint occuiTed on or about October 

18,2006 and the FAA's fust Notice of Propoised Civil Penalty was sent to Respondent in 

February 2007. Approximately three (3) years later in Febitiary 2010, the final Notice of 

Proposed Civil Penalty was sent by the FAA. This extended delay is a violation of 

Respondent's constimtional right to due process and prejudiced Respondent's ability to 

defend this action. 

9. Respondent reserves the right to assert additionzd defenses and/or 

affirmative defenses as investigation and discovery continue. 

Wherefore, Respondent requests dismissal of the Federal Aviation 

Administration's Complaint and all allegations contained therein; with prejudice, an 

award of fees puisuani to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), and such othei- relief as 

the Law Judge deems just and equitable. 

FAA CASE NO.: 20(>7CE030026 
05/21/2010 1G:16 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS @100G/00G 

May, 20. 2010 1:45PM No, 0854 P, 6/ 6 

Respectfully submitted, 

COOLING & HERBERS, P.C. 

E^Raiflscy 

'Main Stieet, Suite 2400^ 

ICansa^ City, MO 64105 

Telephone: (816)474-0; 

Facsimile: (816)472-0790 

jramscv(2).coolinglawxom 

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT 

AIR EVAC EMS, INC. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 20"^ day of May 2010,1 forwarded one (I) copy of tiie 

foregoing Answei- to Amended Complaint via fax transmission and United States regular 

mail, postage prepaid to; 

The Honorable Richard C. Ooodwin 

AdiniQistrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Depamneni of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S,E. 

Bast Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, D.C, 

FAX; 202-366-7536 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Building, Room 2014 

Attention; Heaving Docket Clerk. ACC-430 

Washington, D.C. 205?) 

FAX: 202-493-5142 

Mark 0. Camacho 

Senior Bnforcement Atromey 

Fedeial Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

901 Lociisi, Room 506 

Kanstis City, MO 64106-2641 

FAX: 816-329-3771 

F;VCascs\rAAE>a''ORCCMliNr ACTIOMSVAlR EVAC\PlMdJnes\2007Ce030026\answer to amended 

«oii>pl»iiit.2007CE030(»6.M»yl8.a010rao« 

FAA CASE NO,: 20D7CE030026