U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
IntheMatter ofClearDayAviation, Inc. 2013EA390075 Judge J.E. Sullivan

ANSWER 

# Er'El\/ D

**.~V** 

### .t\.!JG 17 ZOi5 

## HEARING DOCKET

Respondent, Clear Day Aviation, Inc., by counsel, hereby answers the complaint of the FederalAviationAdministrationpursuantto 14 CFR 13 as follows: I Respondent, Clear Day Aviation, Inc., was advised through a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penaltythat the FAA proposedto assess a civilpenalty in the amount of$19,000
.. On July 13, 2015, Respondent submitted awritten demand for ahearing. ANSWER: Admitted. II 1. Clear Day Aviation, Inc., is the holder of Part 141 Flight School CertificateNumberZBOS756K. ANSWER: Admitted. 2. At all times relevant herein, Clear Day Aviation, Inc., owned, maintained, and operated a Cessna 172S aircraft, identification number N6026S (hereinafter "aircraftN6026S"). ANSWER: Admitted.3. At all times relevant herein, Clear Day Aviation, Inc., operated aircraft N6026S inpart 141 flight school operations. ANSWER: Denied.
4. On or about January 17, 2013, an annual/100-hom inspection was completed on aircraft N6026S at a tach time of2,450 homs. ANSWER: Admitted.
5. Aircraft N6026S was next due for a 100-hour inspection at 2,550 tach hours. ANSWER: This allegation implies that the aircraft was to be used solely for rental operations and the math for such a conclusion is simply 2450 +I00 = 2550, which speaks for itself. Except as described before, the allegationis denied.
6. Notwithstanding the above, a 100-hom inspection was not performed on aircraft N6026S until on or about April 12, 2013, when the aircraft had 2,559.4 tachhours. ANSWER: It is admitted that the annual inspection was performed on N6062S at 2,559.4 tach homs. Except as described before, the allegation is denied.
7. During the period from April 3, 2013 through April 8, 2013, Clear Day Aviation, Inc., operated aircraft N6026S for approximately 14 flights when the aircraft had not received an annual or I00-hour inspection within the preceding 100 hours ofservice. ANSWER: Admitted. 8. The flights referenced in paragraph 7, above, were conducted as part 141 flight school operations. ANSWER: This allegation is vague, confusing and assumes facts that are notinevidence andtherefor this allegation is denied.

29. Clear Day Aviation, Inc., thus, as the holder ofa flight school certificate, failed to maintain and inspect each aircraft used by it for flight training and/or solo flights, in accordance with the requirements for aircraft operated for hire under part 91, subpart E, ofthis chapter. ANSWER: Denied.

III By reason ofthe foregoing, Clear Day Aviation, Inc,. violated the following sections of the Federal AviationRegulations: (a) Section 91.409(b), which states that except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire, and no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides, unless within the preceding 100 hours oftime in service the aircraft has received an annual or 1 00-hour inspection and been approved for return to service in accordance with part 43 ofthis chapter. ANSWER: The Federal Aviation Regulations speak for themselves. Itis admitted that Respondent unknowingly and inadvertently flew a very limited number of flights outside of the I00 hour inspection period because of a dislocation of its operation to an alternate airport while its home airport was closed for runway repairs and its computer monitoring system was not available. Other there stated above this allegation is denied. (b) Section 141.39(a) (3), which states that when the [flight] school's training facility is located within the U.S., an applicant for a pilot flight school or provisional pilot school certificate must show that each aircraft used by the school for flight training and solo flights is maintained and inspected in accordance with the requirements for aircraft operated for hire underpart 91, subpartE, ofthis chapter. ANSWER: The Federal Aviation Regulations speak for themselves. Otherthan stated above this allegation is denied.

3IV

1. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §46301 (a)(5), Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $11,000 for each ofthe violations alleged. ANSWER: Denied. 2. Under the facts and circumstances ofthis case, a civilpenalty of 19,000 is appropriate. ANSWER: Denied. While Respondent admits that a few flights were flown outside of the 100 hr. inspection period but within the 10% overfly allowance. Respondent has provided adequate proofto The Administrator that such a fine threatens the financial viability of its business and has offered a compromise settlement that The Administrator has rejected. Respondent asserts that, under the Rule of Leniency, $11,000/violation maximum penalty is an incorrect interpretation of49 USC§ 46301 and is not applicable to Respondent which is a small business. The correct maximum penalty perviolation is $1,100.

**~ -~~-~** 



# ~/~ H. Bruce Brandon ,fY Attorneyfor Clear DayAviation, Inc., Respondent NC State Bar# 12876 3439 South AviationDrive Burlington, NC 27215 (336) 358-6300 (0) (336) 202-0663 (M) (336) 286-7051) (Fax) hbrucebrandon(a)gmail.com

4 

### t{V:.. 

## ?- 

# /5'" Date

## H. Bruce Brandon Attorney atLaw 3439 South Aviation Drive

Burlington, NC 27215 Telephone: (336) 358-6300 (0) (336) 202-0663 (M) Email:hbrucebrandon@gmail.com Facsimile: (336) 286-7050

VIAU.S. MAIL 

# REG IVED Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWrightBuilding- Room 2014 

## AUG 1

## 72015 

## HEARING DOCKET

ATTN: HEARINGDOCKETCLERK Re: Inthe MatterofClearDayAviation, Inc. DocketNo. 2013EA390075
Enclosedplease find the original and one copy ofRespondent, ClearDayAviation, Inc., Answerto the Administrator's Complaint. Please address all communicationsto: H. BruceBrandon 3439 SouthAviationDrive Burlington,NC 27216 Respondent requestthehearing be conducted in Greensboro, NC. Respondent expectsthe hearingto lasttwo days. Sincerely,



# /~~~~

H. Bruce Brandon Attorneyfor ClearDayInc. Enclosures:

••