465 California Street Suite 210 

### •
San Francisco California 94104 

## • (415) 421-2500 hx (415) 421-2560

www.avialex.com law@avialex.com 

### Michael 

### L. Dworkin and Associates Law Offices



### FEDEX: FederalAviation Administration Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 800 Independence Avenue SW Wilbur WrightBuilding -Suite 2W1000 Washington, DC 20591
RE: American Medflight, Inc. 

### FDMS Case No.: 2014-0815



### Dear Hearing Docket Clerk: 

# RECEIVED NOV -4 2014 

## HEARING DOCKET

November 3, 2014

Enclosed herewith for filing is the following document: American Medflight, Inc.'s Answerto Complaint.

cc: The Honorable Richard C. 

### Goodwin Administrative Lawjudge lryll Robbins-Umel, Esq. FAA,AWP-7 Verytrulyyours,

Caitlin M. Miller Legal AssistantMICHAEL L. DWORKIN (SBN 64047) MICHAEL L. DWORKIN AND ASSOCIATES 465 California Street, Suite 210 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415-421-2500 FAX: 415-421-2560 Email: law@avialex.com 

# RECEIVED NOV -4 2014 

## HEARING DOCKET

UNITED STATES OFAMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
In the Matter of:

AMERJCAN MEDFLIGHT, INC. FDMS Case No.: 2014-0815 AMERICANMEDFLIGHT, INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Judge: Hon. Richard C. Goodwin

AMERJCAN MEDFLIGHT, INC. ("AMERJCAN MEDFLIGHT"), by its counsel, hereby files its Answer, pursuantto Rule 213 oftbeRuies ofPractice, (14 CFR § 13.213), and states as follows: I. Answering Part I. ofthe Complaint, AMERJCAN MEDFLIGHT admits tbat it was advised through aNotice ofProposed Civil Penalty tbat the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") proposedto assess a civil penalty intbe amount of$11,000.00 andtbat on October 22, 2014 AMERJCAN MEDFLIGHT submitted a timely written request for a hearing. Except as FDMS Case No. FAA-2014-0815 AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT, INC.'S ANSWERTO COMPLAINT 1expressly admitted above, AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and every partthereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. II. Answering Part II. oftbe Complaint: Answering Paragraph 1., AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT admits thatitholds Air Carrier Certificate No. XPCA800S authorizing itto operate under Part 135 oftbe Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR's). Except as expressly admitted above, AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT denies each and every, all and singular, allegations containedtherein, and each and every partthereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. Answering Paragraph2., AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT admits that as anFAA-certificated Air Carrier, it operated a Piper PA-31T aircraft, N7774MF. Except as expressly admitted above, AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and everypartthereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. Answering Paragraph 3., AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT admits thatthe flight departed VFR. Except as expressly admitted above, AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and every partthereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. Answering Paragraph 4., AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT is without information or beliefas to the matters alleged andbasedthereon, denies each and every, all and singular, allegations

FDMS Case No. FAA-2014-0815 AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT, INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 2containedtherein, and each and every partthereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. Answering Paragraph 5., AMERCAN MEDFLIGHT denies each and every, all and singular, allegations containedtherein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

### III. Answering Part III ofthe Complaint: Answering Paragraph a., AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT avers that 14 C.F.R. Section l35.205(a) speaks for itself. Answering the remainder ofParagraph a., AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT denies each and every, all and singular, allegations containedtherein, and each and every partthereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. Answering Paragraphb., AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT avers that 14 C.F.R. Section 9l.l3(a) speaks for itself. Answering the remainder ofParagraph b., AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT denies each and every, all and singular, allegations containedtherein, and each and every partthereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. IV. Answering Part IV. ofthe Complaint, AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT avers that 49 U.S.C Section 4630l(a)(2) speaks for itselfbut denies that a civilpenalty of$11,000, orin any other amount, is appropriate.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As and for a separate and distinct defense, AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT alleges: FDMS Case No. FAA-2014-0815 AMERICAN MEDFLTGHT, INC.'S ANSWERTO COMPLAINT 3I. The sanction soughtby Complainant is unwarranted by the facts, safety in commerce and the public interest and is not only excessive, but, far exceeds policy, precedent and Complainant's
own Sanction Guidance Table. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As and for a separate distinct defense, AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT alleges: I. The Complainant's case, is unwarranted and withoutbasis orjurisdiction in law or fact. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As and for a separate distinct defense, AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT alleges: I. Onthe date ofthe subjectflight, the AWOS weather equipment was inoperative. Under FAR Section 135.213, AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT's pilot was entitledto make his own weather observation, which he did. II. AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT's pilot determined thatthe weather at Susanville onthe date and atthe time ofthe flight met the requirements ofFAR Section 135.205(a), and specifically thatthe ceiling was greater than 1,000 feet. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As and for a separate distinct defense, AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT alleges: I.

FDMS Case No. FAA-2014-0815 AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT, INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 4Without admitting the truth ofthe Complaint's allegations, AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT has taken any and all necessary corrective actions to avoid recurrence suchthat additional penalties are redundant and will not result in any increase in safety.
WHEREFORE, it is prayed thatthe Administrative Law Judge notenter an order that AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT be assessed a civil penalty inthe amount of$11,000.00, or in any other amount; thatthe Complaint be dismissed withprejudice; and for such other and further reliefas may be deemed appropriate. Respectfully submitted,

Michael L. Dworkin Attorney for AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT, INC. Dated: November 3, 2014

FDMS Case No. FAA-2014-0815 AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT, INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 5CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that onthis 3rd day ofNovember, 2014, atrue and correct copy ofthe foregoing AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
was served as follows: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. East Building Ground Floor RoomEl2-320 Washington, D.C. 20590 {FederalExpress} Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur WrightBuilding- Suite 2Wl000 Iryll Robbins-Umel, Esq. Federal Aviation Administration Western Pacific Region, AWP-7 15000 Aviation Boulevard Lawndale, CA 90261 FAX: (310) 725-6816 {Facsimile andFederal Express}

{Original andone copy via FederalExpress}

Caitlin M. Miller

FDMS Case No. FAA-2014-0815 AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT, INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 6