U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

RECEIVED 

APR 2 2 2014 

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 RESPONSE TO REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

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 Answer and Affirmative Defenses (hereinafter referred to as "Second Amended 

Answer") in response to the Administrator's Amended Complaint, and makes a brief 

Response to the Administrator's Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment dated 

April 3, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "Administrator's Reply for MSJ"), stating as follows: 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

This preliminary statement responds to what appears to be a preliminary statement 

in the first page of the Amended Complaint. This preliminary statement also incorporates 

a brief and necessary response to glaring problems with the Administrator's Reply for MSJ. 

The Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses dated 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 8 
statement of the Respondent's defenses and it clarifies Respondent's basis of its 

defenses. The undersigned counsel was hired more than two years after the 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) of FAA Order 8130.21G states that the "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, rather than the Form 101 furnished by Respondent during 

discovery. Further, Section I of the Administrator's Reply for MSJ, beginning bottom of 

Page 2, misstates the content of the Respondent's Pro Se Answer. 

ANSWER 

1. Respondent ADMITS to the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the 

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 of five months and 

removed from the aviation stream of commerce. A Form 8130-3 does not constitute 

approval to install a product or article on a particular aircraft, engine or propeller. 

3. Respondent ADMITS to the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Amended 

W6041514/K.43062 Page 2 of 8 
Complaint. 

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 of the 

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 of the original forms they supersede. Paragraph 1 0 

of the Amended Complaint appears to falsely accuse Respondent of dishonesty 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 of the 

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 uses the Form 8130-3 for internal tracking and in accordance with 

FAA Order 8130.21 G1

, which states in part that use of the Form 8130-3 is optional. 

9. Due to a typographical error, Block 12 of the Form 8130-3was inadvertently marked 

as "Repaired" instead of "Inspected". 

10. Nevertheless, the Form 8130-3 is not the primary document to evidence what kind 

1

FAA 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 of the alleged offense, the effective 

order was 8310.21G. 

W6041514/K-43062 Page 3 of 8 
One copy via Regular U.S. mail, fax, and email: 

c/o Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney 

Office of the 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 copy via 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