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 

FED EX: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Wilbur Wright Building -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 Answer to Complaint. 

cc: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law judge 

lryll Robbins-Umel, Esq. 

FAA,AWP-7 

Very truly yours, 

Caitlin M. Miller 

Legal Assistant 
MICHAEL 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 OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

AMERJCAN MEDFLIGHT, INC. 

FDMS Case No.: 2014-0815 

AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT, INC.'S 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

Judge: Hon. Richard C. Goodwin 

AMERJCAN MEDFLIGHT, INC. ("AMERJCAN MEDFLIGHT"), by its counsel, 

hereby files its Answer, pursuant to Rule 213 oftbe Ruies of Practice, (14 CFR § 13.213), and 

states as follows: 

I. 

Answering Part I. of the Complaint, AMERJCAN MEDFLIGHT admits tbat it was 

advised through a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty tbat the Federal Aviation Administration 

("FAA") proposed to assess a civil penalty in tbe amount of $11,000.00 and tbat 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 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

1 
expressly admitted above, AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT denies each and every, all and singular, 

allegations contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and specifically, 

conjunctively and disjunctively. 

II. 

Answering Part II. of tbe Complaint: 

Answering Paragraph 1., AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT admits that it holds Air Carrier 

Certificate No. XPCA800S authorizing it to 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 contained therein, and each and every part thereof, 

both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 2., AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT admits that as an FAA-certificated 

Air Carrier, it operated a Piper PA-31 T aircraft, N7774MF. Except as expressly admitted above, 

AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained 

therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and 

disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 3., AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT admits that the flight departed VFR. 

Except as expressly admitted above, AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT denies each and every, all and 

singular, allegations contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 4., AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT is without information or belief as to 

the matters alleged and based thereon, denies each and every, all and singular, allegations 

FDMS Case No. FAA-2014-0815 

AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT, INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

2 
contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively 

and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph 5., AMERCAN MEDFLIGHT denies each and every, all and 

singular, allegations contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

III. 

Answering Part III of the Complaint: 

Answering Paragraph a., AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT avers that 14 C.F.R. Section 

l35.205(a) speaks for itself. Answering the remainder of Paragraph a., AMERICAN 

MEDFLIGHT denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each 

and every part thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

Answering Paragraph b., AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT avers that 14 C.F.R. Section 9l.l3(a) 

speaks for itself. Answering the remainder of Paragraph b., AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT denies 

each and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and every part thereof, 

both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

IV. 

Answering Part IV. of the Complaint, AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT avers that 49 U.S.C 

Section 4630l(a)(2) speaks for itself but denies that a civil penalty of $11,000, or in 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 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

3 
I. 

The sanction sought by 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 without basis or jurisdiction in law or fact. 

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

As and for a separate distinct defense, AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT alleges: 

I. 

On the date of the subject flight, the A WOS weather equipment was inoperative. Under 

FAR Section 135.213, AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT's pilot was entitled to make his own weather 

observation, which he did. 

II. 

AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT's pilot determined that the weather at Susanville on the date 

and at the time of the flight met the requirements of FAR Section 135.205(a), and specifically 

that the 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 

4 
Without admitting the truth of the Complaint's allegations, AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT 

has taken any and all necessary corrective actions to avoid recurrence such that additional 

penalties are redundant and will not result in any increase in safety. 

WHEREFORE, it is prayed that the Administrative Law Judge not enter an order that 

AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of$11,000.00, or in any 

other amount; that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice; and for such other and further 

relief as 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 

5 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 3rd day of November, 2014, a true and 

correct copy of the foregoing AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

was served as follows: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room El2-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

{Federal Express} 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

Iryll Robbins-Umel, Esq. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western Pacific Region, A WP-7 

15000 Aviation Boulevard 

Lawndale, CA 90261 

FAX: (310) 725-6816 

{Facsimile and Federal Express} 

{Original and one copy via Federal Express} 

Caitlin M. Miller 

FDMS Case No. FAA-2014-0815 

AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT, INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

6