U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

RECEIVED 

APR -8 Zni% 

HEARING DOCKET 

In the Matter of Wings Air, LLC, Respondent 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0849 

FAA Case Nos. 2012EA110052 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

AGENCY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR 

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 

The Complainant, the Agency, by its undersigned counsel, hereby requests 

that Wings Air, LLC (Respondent) provide responses to the following discovery 

requests within thirty (30) days of service. This request shall be deemed to be continuing 

to the extent pennitted by Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so as to require 

you to file supplemental responses. This request is intended to cover all documents in the 

Respondent's possession or subject to Respondent's custody and control and includes 

documents in the possession of each individual who acts as, or has acted at relevant times 

as, an employee, agent or representative of Respondent. 

DEFINITIONS 

A. When knowledge or infonnation in possession of a party is requested, such request 

includes knowledge of the party's agents, representatives and, unless privileged, the party's 

attorneys. 
B. The pronoun "you" and "yours" refers to the party to whom these interrogatories are 

addressed. 

C. Unless otherwise indicated, these interrogatories refer to the time, place and 

circumstances of the occurrences mentioned or complained of in the pleadings. 

D. When used with respect to an individual, corporate, business or governmental entity, 

"identifY" means state the name and present business or residence addresses of the 

individuals or entities and the employer, governmental or business affiliation and position of 

the individual. 

E. The tenns "document" and "statement" mean without limitation, the following items, 

whether printed or recorded or reproduced by any other mechanical process or written or 

produced by hand: agreements, communications, correspondence, telegrams, memoranda, 

summaries or records of telephone conversations, summaries or records of personal 

conversations or interviews, diaries, reports, notebooks, note charts, plans, drawings, 

sketches, maps, summaries or reports of investigations, opinions or reports of consultants, 

photographs, motion picture films, tape recordings, computerized messages or data, 

brochures, pamphlets, advertisements, circulars, press releases, drafts, letters, any marginal 

comments appearing on any document, and all other writings, including electronic writings. 

2 
F. When used with respect to a document, "identifY" means furnish the doctunent itself, or 

in lieu thereof, the name and date of the document, the name and address of the person or 

persons originating the document, the name and address, if any, of the person or persons to 

whom the document is addressed, the names and addresses of all persons to whom copies of 

the documents were or have been sent, and the organization, firm or agency with which all 

such persons were connected as of the date of the docwnent, and if not in possession of the 

original or a copy, furnish the name and address of the custodian of the original or a copy, 

or furnish the name and address of a person whom you believe is in possession of the 

original or a copy of such document. 

G. "Oral communication" means any oral exchange with words. 

H. When used with respect to an oral communication, "identifY" means state the date and 

place where such oral communication was made, the names of all individuals who 

participated in the communication, and their positions, employers, and employers' 

addresses, the names of all individuals who were present at the time the communication was 

made and their business affiliations and positions, the nature and substance of the 

communication, the nature and substance of each document recording or pertaining to such 

oral communication, and the name and present address of the present custodian of each such 

document. 

3 
I. For all interrogatories to which the responding individual has an objection, state 

the factual and legal basis for the claimed privilege, or any other authority which 

provides the claimed basis for the objection. 

J. All documents requested as to which the responding individual claims 

privilege or any other objection as a ground for non-production shall be identified 

chronologically as follows: 

(a) date, 

(b) title, 

(c) type of document (e.g. memorandum, report, chart, etc.), 

(d) subject matter (without revealing the infonnation as to which privilege or 

statutory authority is claimed). 

(e) factual and legal basis for the claimed privilege, or any other authority which 

provides the claimed ground for non-production. 

K. "Aircraft N27WA" means the SNIAS AS350BA helicopter referenced in the Complaint 

in this matter. 

L. "Flight# 1" means the flight referenced in paragraph 3 of the Complaint in this matter. 

M. "Flight #2" means the flight referenced in paragraph 8 of the Complaint in this matter. 

N. The tenn "maintenance" includes any inspections perfonned. 

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

1. IdentifY the names, titles, business or home addresses and telephone numbers of each 

person whom the Respondent intends to call as a witness at the hearing of this matter. 

4 
2. Provide the substance of the testimony to be offered by each of said witnesses. 

3. With respect to each expert witness identified in response to request Nos. 1 and 2 above: 

(a) identifY the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testifY; 

(b) list the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is 

expected to testifY; 

(c) provide a summary of the grounds for each opinion; 

(d) if the Respondent intends to introduce into evidence or otherwise rely upon a 

written curriculum vitae or other written document iisting the expert's 

professional qualifications, identifY and attach copies of all such documents. 

4. IdentifY and produce copies of any and all documents or other tangible exhibits on 

which the Respondent anticipates relying, or will rely, in support of the case it will 

present at the hearing in this matter, including but not limited to documents or other 

tangible exhibits it intends to introduce into evidence. 

5. As a result of the bird strike to aircraft N27WA during Flight #I, was there damage 

to aircraft N27WA? 

6. If the answer to interrogatory 5, above, is in the affmnative, describe the damage. 

7. Did Respondent perfonn (or have perfonned) maintenance on aircraft N2 7W A 

during the period of time between Flight #I and Flight #2? 

8. If the answer to interrogatory 7, above, 1s m the affirmative, describe the 

maintenance. 

5 
9. IdentifY and produce copies of any and all entries made (or caused to be made) by 

Respondent reflecting maintenance performed on aircraft N27WA during the period 

of time between Flight #1 and Flight #2. 

10. IdentifY and produce copies of any and all entries made (or caused to be made) by 

Respondent in the maintenance record of aircraft N27WA, which entry or entries 

reflect that the damaged area of aircraft N27W A was covered with tape on April 28, 

2012. 

11. With respect to Respondent's affmnative defense of reasonable reiiance, identifY and 

produce copies of each section of the manufacturer's maintenance manual for 

aircraft N27WA upon which Respondent relied, and explain how Respondent relied 

on that maintenance section. 

12. With respect to Respondent's affirmative defense of reasonable reliance, identifY 

each authorized representative of the manufacturer of aircraft N27WA upon which 

Respondent relied, and explain how Respondent relied on each identified 

representative. 

13. With respect to each authorized representative of the manufacturer of aircraft 

N27WA identified in response to interrogatory 12, above, identifY the substance of 

the representations made by said representative, how said representations were 

communicated to Respondent, and when said representations were communicated to 

Respondent. 

6 
14. IdentifY and produce copies of any and all documents upon which Respondent relied 

with respect to any decisions made between Flight # 1 and Flight #2 relating to 

maintenance on aircraft N27W A. 

15. State all facts to support the affinnative defense that Respondent does not have the 

fmancial ability to pay a $22,000 civil penalty. 

16. IdentifY and produce copies of any and all documents to support the affinnative 

defense that Respondent does not have the financial ability to pay a $22,000 civil 

penalty. 

!7. State all facts to support the affinnative defense that paying a $22,000 civil penalty 

would have a detrimental effect on the ability of Respondent to continue doing 

18. IdentifY and produce copies of any and all documents to support the affinnative 

defense that paying a $22,000 civil penalty would have a detrimental effect on the 

ability of Respondent to continue doing business. 

19. State the amount of money that Respondent would be able to afford to pay as a civil 

penalty. 

20. State all facts to support the number stated in response to interrogatory 19, above. 

21. IdentifY and produce copies of any and all documents to support the number stated in 

response to interrogatory 19, above. 

7 
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 

1. During Flight # 1, aircraft N27WA sustained damage to its nose shell as a result of a 

bird strike. 

2. During Flight #1, as a result of a bird penetrating the canopy nose skin of the aircraft, 

a hole was made in the canopy nose skin of the aircraft. 

3. Between Flight #1 and Flight #2, a mechanic employed by Respondent, one Louis 

Yara (hereinafter "Mr. Yara"), covered the hole (referenced in request for admission 

2, above) wit.~ tape. 

4. Any maintenance performed by Mr. Yara on aircraft N27WA between Flight #1 and 

Flight #2 was perfonned with the approval of management of Respondent. 

5. Any maintenance entries made by Mr. Yara with respect to aircraft N27WA were 

made with the approval of management of Respondent. 

6. Between Flight #1 and Flight #2, there was no maintenance record entry made 

indicating that the damage of aircraft N27WA had been covered with tape. 

7. Between Flight #1 and Flight #2, Mr. Yara, on behalf of Respondent, approved 

aircraft N27WA for return to service. 

8. The covering of the damaged area of aircraft N27W A between Flight # 1 and Flight 

#2 constituted a temporary repair. 

9. The copy of the log entry (attached herein as Exhibit A-!) is genuine. 

10. The document attached herein as Exhibit A-1 is a copy of the entry made by Mr. 

Y ara on behalf of Respondent incident to the maintenance that he perfonned on 

aircraft N27WA on April 28, 2012. 

8 
11. In the document attached herein as Exhibit A-1, it does not state that the damaged 

area of aircraft N27WA was covered with tape. 

12. The copy of the two-page letter dated May 2, 2012 (attached herein as Exhibit A-2) 

. . 

IS genume. 

13. The signature of Javier Diaz (hereinafter "Mr. Diaz") that appears on the second 

page of the document represented by Exhibit A-2 is genuine. 

14. During the period April-May 2012, Mr. Diaz was the Director of Operations of 

Respondent. 

15. The signature of Kevin Stavola (hereinafter "Mr. Stavola") that appears on the 

second page of the document represented by Exhibit A-2 is genuine. 

16. During the period April-May 2012, Mr. Stavola was the Director of Maintenance of 

Respondent. 

17. The signature of Mr. Yara (hereinafter "Mr. Yara") that appears on the second page 

of the document represented by Exhibit A-2 is genui11e. 

18.During the period April-May 2012, Mr. Yara was employed as an Airframe and 

9 
Powerplant mechanic by Respondent. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alfred R. Johnson, Jr. 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

Zachary MB ~u&- rman 

Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jruuaica, NY 11434 

TEL:718 553-3258 

FAX: 718 995-5699 

Date: March 26,2014 

10 
EXHIBIT A-1 
I[@ 

0 

-~ 

if» "' 

0 

'{~ 

E 

~ 

'"' (lJ

lil( 

nQ "' 

'1)1, ?:' [l~ 

a IlL! =~ 

© 

-1 

ij) 

0 

~ 

"' ~ 

<iii~ <:);;., 

-~ 

~ "' 

Wings({ffir 

IEum!Cop~eir J!.~S~35016A 

[ [ RliGi~slrnAT!ON~i f- s~:!u""rr:!JIJMI:IER: T- Acrr:--=r-----u;los~:~s: ·-_ .L _ ~J)lr.,-s:=r=_- ____ . --~AfE-::--= i\127WA 2792 · 4602.9 I 2583.9 [ 13015 4/28/12 -.. ·~~·--~-~--·-~-~ -~-- -- - . - - _____ j___·--~----·--- -----~--·~.. ··------·--...... __ .. , __ ,. 

Utrli:£d1!eli/ggffedl Maln~em:nu:e: dnspectedl ain::mjt nose section forr {JQssibi~t damag«: due to bird strike. ifflspe-.:ted insidl! of 

I'III(J:£1': rwne jorr othcr::r po:o;:o;iblcr:: damage. No into~ mal damage found. iEJd:l':rior cracking ,rxm:sid<l!redl minor ~:md airwartfly 

fP«!:r A5350BA SfiM. "Repairing elements not directly contributing to the stiffness of the cabin structure {o11erheod pone/ 

and bubble). The following is at.Jthorized: cracks of various directions, stopping cracks as soon as they are detected, 

canving out repairs as soon as the aircraft is grounded. Figure Crack checks and repairs within the limit of criteria definea 

in the table abo11e, the following is authorized: stopping of initial crack development {DETAILS A and D). In this case, carry 

o11t daily monitoring (ofter.flight) in order to ensure 1chat t'he crack does not develop bevond the stop hole, slopping of 

secondwv crack development {DETAILS Band C). In both cases, two cracks maximum are auihorizerf over a length of 

500 mm (19.68 in.}" 

l>lnll"Uillu'~ u-~Wm~IIJ1 ~@ §~ll"IIDJC~ ;m!IJ1 p<ewmilllJe!l~ F<ep<~iw wiii l'!e pmformedl ASAI>, 

I Ff th·-'t all the won I ner f orme d d ~n deta 1.ied ,·n thic , entry .. has· been pe_.r ..--- .. med in -~ccord·~-~ce witi~tfi-~ 

cero.~ 'I - "' ,. . _ _ _ -M -<· · ---" . ···e-")l: '" <~· nee and the Aircraft is returned app~icable Maintenance lnstnJ~~:;rjlf&J.£~~--:::'- ~cia t:-~ ' · __ .. 

to service. ~" .~-- ~~~-~,~:;t'~_.Lul~~araA/1'2 ___ 79:796 ··--· 

---·-~------~- Jit::::,.,~~.::. /7 ""'~~.~~,.-~~ . : '"· -·= ' ' i_.. - .:F': ,- ~~~------ - ~~.--
EXHiBIT A-2 
May 2. 2012 

Flight Standards D'lstrict Office 

Republic Airport 

Farmingdale, NY 

Attn. inspector John Gall'1gan 

CC. Insp. James Ciccone 

JCJP # 8 Response to Letter of 

JnvestigBtion 

Ref. \Vings Air, LLC \NiZA367L-Blrd Strike on N27WA on 4-28-12 

Mr. Galligan, 

As per your request, we are writing thls letter to describe the events th2t occurred this 

past April 28, 2012 following a bird strike to one of our helicopters. N27VVA, while 

conducting tours around Manhattan. Our purpose is to (i) lay out a timellne ot events, (il) 

explain what th5- reasoning ;.vas behind conducting the flight back to base and, {!i!) 

lessons learned from the experience as a whole. 

Timing of Ev'ents: 

J. 13:57: I received notification of the bird strike. Helicoptei" is immediately ground,sd 

at JRB pe-nding deterrnin.stian of our 2bility to fly it back to basG at KHPN 

2. -14:05: I placed a call to Jim Ciccone, our PO\ to iniorm h":m of lncldent. ln this 

can he mentioned that h·.s would cal! John Ga!i;gan to discuss the incident and 

that he wou\d get back to me shortly, Hs asked me abcu! the specific:= of the 

damage and I told him that there was a whole ln the d--,i,n b'Jb'ole of the alrcrait 

and some cracks. 

3. 14:07-1415:\ called both our DOi\il, Kevin Stavola and our EurocopterTech Rep . 

.Scott Dodge to inform them of incident and to describe damage. Pictures are sent 

to both to determine airworthiness and the p0S3ibility of saf-ely nying he!lcopter 

back to base. 

4, ~14:50: I calied Insp. Ciccone agairL He told me thnt he h2d spoken to lnsp. 

Gallig2.n. He advised me that in orde( to fly the he:icopter back. our maint-enance 

personnel ~Jvould have to determine alruorthiness and safety and that as long as 

that was the case, and the proper log enlries ~;vere mad-3: ir; the aircraft's records, 

the air-craft cou!d be fiown. Jf ttat -.,vs.s not the c2se, he assured me th-2.t V/e cou!d 

get 2 fsrry permit first thing ~;l.crlday morniJ1g. 

5. -~18:3C: Fol!owing mu!t!p!e conversations artongst ou:e mslntenance personnel a 

thorough 1/rsua! ·rnspection, the decision is mad-s to Tli the helicopter back to 

KHPi\i ( 12 after covering t:-:e darn2ge wiJr, tape 

13 Har:g_ar Rvad. 2utte 200 '·Nl-'.ite P!,a:,ns, NY 1QISO"'-

Tei i-Sl-4-202:-3..:!40 Fax i-814-274-9855 
Reasoning by maintenance for detsrn1ining airwoithiness and safety (Kevin) Lu!s 

and Eurocopter Tech rep): 

Following the visual inspection, referencin,g the stru<:tura\ manual and Kevin's 30 

plus year of experience with this type of aircraft, we determined that a ferry 

permit was not ne-eded. Scott Dodge of Eurocopter was also contacted and 

concurred. i\lo structural damage was involved, no systems were 'moperatlve: no 

Effect on aircraft flight vvas involved, and the aircrcJt was not overdue any 

Inspections. 

The aircraft cabin is not a primary structure: The aircraft can be legally flown 

v;1th the doors removed etc. A!so. on the exact spot ot the damage, a landing 

light can be installed by cutting a 12 x12 hole: !his was deemed to be no d'1iierent 

than then the damage to that area except lt was not covered, which we covered 

lor the ilig:1t bacil to KHPN. 

Them is no question the aircraft was safe and airworthy in our eyes. 

Conclusions/Lessons Learned: 

The decisions made were taken with the best information that we had avcilable on 

Saturday and taking into consicleration the conversations and conclusions of our 

maintenance personnel, Eurccopter and the FAA. We had nothing to gain or lose: we 

didn't try to hide anything from the FAA or anyone e!se, and thought 'Ne were actlng 

wlth\n the boundaies of the regulations. 

However. knowing vvhat we no'N know, you can rest cssured that none of our aircraft \tVili 

ever move agaln \l\iit\1out a ferry peimit if anything is darnaqed or inop.srativs . .t\s ahvays, 

we remain fully committed to comply!ng with the F/~.Rs and to maintaining a sa1e 

operation; VVe believe that our track record and our V/yvern Certification are proof of our 

commitment to safety. 

We ate sorry for any inconvenience tills may have caused your office. 

Rsgaras. 

Ke\iln Stavola Lu.is Yara 

Di(ector o·f i\:l2!r:tenance FJP J\-lechsn\c 

13 Hangar F.oad, Su:te 20C, \1Vf1i·te Pia ins. ~iY 1 020.± 

:-cl i~SH-202-"3.440 Fax 1-814-274-9855 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing AGENCY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 

AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUESTS FOR 

ADMISSIONS have been sent via first class mail and facsimile to the following: 

Jared M. Allen, Esq. 

Gregory S. Winton, Esq. 

The Aviation Law Finn 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTraJlsportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX: (202)366-7536 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing AGENCY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 

AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUJ\1ENTS, AND REQUESTS FOR 

ADMISSIONS have been sent via first class mail to the following: 

Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy via first class mail) 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Room 2014 

Date: -------

Lisa Hooks 

Paralegal Specialist 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

12 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing AGENCY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 

AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUESTS FOR 

ADMISSIONS have been sent via first class mail and facsimile to the following: 

Jared M. Allen, Esq. 

Gregory S. Winton, Esq. 

The Aviation Law Finn 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

TT" l...J,U, Arlmu'..,.j"'t \..1-! .!.UJ!...!U_v.,_,D ....... t·,-.rc. T an.r 

.... n uU- T~ld~e i5 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX: (202)366-7536 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing AGENCY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 

AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUESTS FOR 

ADMISSIONS have been sent via first class mail to the following: 

Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy via first class mail) 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Room 2014 

M.4R 27 7014 

Date: -------

i ooks 

Paralegal Specialist 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

II