U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

# RECEIVED APR 222014 

## HEARING DOCKET Federal Aviation Administration ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. FAA-2013-0288 Complainant, Judge J.E. Sullivan vs. FAA Case. No. 2012S0190209 AVIONICS MASTERS INC. Respondent



# _________________________)

RESPONDENT'S SECOND AMENDED ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES IN RESPONSE TO ADMINISTRATOR'S AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND BRIEF RESPONSETO REPLY IN SUPPORTOF MOTION FORSUMMARYJUDGMENT Respondent Avionics Masters, Inc., by and through its undersigned counsel, and pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 13.214(a) and (b)(1) of the Rules of Practice, files this Second Amended Answerand Affirmative Defenses (hereinafter referred to as "Second Amended Answer") in response to the Administrator's Amended Complaint, and makes a brief Response to theAdministrator's Reply in SupportofMotionforSummaryJudgmentdated April 3, 2014 (hereinafter referred toas "Administrator's Replyfor MSJ"), stating as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This preliminarystatement respondstowhatappearsto be a preliminarystatement in thefirst page ofthe Amended Complaint. This preliminary statement also incorporates

a briefand necessary responseto glaring problemswiththeAdministrator's Replyfor MSJ. TheAmendedAnswerandAffirmative Defensesdated March 20, 2014 (hereinafter "First Amended Answer") clearly does not contradict the initial Answer dated September 3, 2013 (hereinafter "Pro Se Answer"). Rather, it is merely a better and less confusing

W6041514/K-43062 Page 1 of 8statement of the Respondent's defenses and it clarifies Respondent's basis of its defenses. The undersigned counselwas hired morethan twoyears afterthe above-styled matter commenced, and the undersigned filed the First Amended Answer to clarify the issues. It is highly prejudicial to the Respondent for the Administrator to take undue advantage of Respondent's lack of expertise or experience in legal practice, and for the Administrator to deceptively make the Court to believe that the foregoing pleading or the First Amended Answer contradict the Pro Se Answer. With respect to the Administrator's Reply for MSJ, the Administrator completely ignores Section 1-7(d) ofFAAOrder8130.21G statesthatthe "FAA Form 8130-3 does not constitute approval to install a product or article on a particular aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller". This strikes at the heart of the FAA's assertion that Form 8130-3 should be treated as the legal document, ratherthan the Form 101 furnished by Respondent during discovery. Further, Section I ofthe Administrator's Reply for MSJ, beginning bottom of Page 2, misstates the content ofthe Respondent's Pro Se Answer. ANSWER 1. Respondent ADMITS to the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 ofthe Amended Complaint filed on April3, 2014 (hereinafter "the Amended Complaint"). 2. Respondent DENIES the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint. Although a Form 8130-3 stated the DG was "approved for return to service", the DG was in actuality placed in storage for a period offive months and removed from the aviation stream ofcommerce. A Form 8130-3 does notconstitute approval to install a product or article on a particular aircraft, engine or propeller. 3. Respondent ADMITS to the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 ofthe Amended

W6041514/K.43062 Page 2 of 8Complaint. 4. Respondent DENIES the allegations contained in Paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 of the Amended Complaint. 5. Respondent DENIES the allegations contained in Paragraph 9, 10, and 11 ofthe Amended Complaint. Respondent executed a corrective Form 8130-3 describing the device as "inspected", which superseded any previous Form 8130-3. Corrective forms relate back to the date ofthe original forms they supersede. Paragraph 10 ofthe Amended Complaintappearsto falsely accuse Respondentofdishonesty or subterfuge, when in fact Respondent merely corrected paperwork errors pursuant to FAA Order 8130.21G. 6. Respondent DENIES the allegations contained in Paragraph 12, 13 and 14 ofthe Amended Complaint. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 7. On or about December 22, 2011, Avionics Masters issued a Form 8130-3 with a Work Order No. 8078 for a Bendix/King directional gyro, model KG102A, serial number 32301 (hereinafter "the DG"). 8. Avionics Masters usesthe Form 8130-3 for internal tracking and in accordancewith FAA Order 8130.21 G 1

, which states in partthat use ofthe Form 8130-3 is optional. 9. Due to atypographical error, Block 12 ofthe Form 8130-3was inadvertently marked
as "Repaired" instead of "Inspected". 10. Nevertheless, the Form 8130-3 is not the primary documentto evidence what kind

1FAA Order 8130.21G has since been cancelled by its successor FAA Order 8130.21 H. However, at all times relevant to this cause action including the time ofthe alleged offense, the effective orderwas 8310.21G. W6041514/K-43062 Page 3 of 8One copy via Regular U.S. mail, fax, and email: c/o Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel, Southern Region Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 Email: chris.stevenson@faa.gov Fax: 1-404-305-5223 One courtesy copyvia email only: Charles L. Hunt, Jr. Vincent Sorentino Avionics Master, Inc. 1001 West Cypress Creek Road, Suite 309 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Email: Chadhunt@aol.com

W6041514/K-43062 Page 8 of 8