UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION .._ ^ 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION S . ' ^ 

* 

* FAA Docket No.CP 1 OSW0006 

In the Matter of: * : r~,>f, 

* DMSNo.FAA-2010-0532 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. * 

* Hon. Richard C. Goodwin (ALJ) 

UEIVED 

niL2 2 20tO 

HiNG DOCKET 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S FIRST SET OF 

INTERROGATORIES TO COMPLAINANT 

Interrogatory 1. 

•r: ^ 

— H 

Please identify all expert witnesses who might testify on the FAA's behalf at the hearing in this 

matter. For each such witness, state the substance of the expert's expected testimony and opinions, 

the facts upon which that testimony or opinion(s) will be based, the expert's occupation, affiliation, 

business address, telephone number and curriculum vitae. 

RESPONSE: 

The FAA intends to introduce expert testimony through expert witnesses; however, we have not 

identified which witnesses we will use. The FAA will identify those witnesses who will testify on 

the FAA's behalf as experts, and will supplement this discovery request, including the substance 

of the expert's expected testimony and opinions, the facts upon which that testimony and opinions 

will be based, the expert's occupation, affiliation, business address, telephone number, and current 

curriculum vitae. 

Interrogatory 2. 

Please identify all other witnesses who might testify on the FAA's behalf at the hearing in this 

matter. For each such witness, state the substance of the witness's expected testimony, the facts 

upon which that testimony will be based, and the witness's occupation, affiliation, business 

address and telephone number. 

RESPONSE: 

William T. Satterfield 

AA Unit Principal Avionics Inspector 

FAA American Airlines CMO-21 

Centreport Business Park 
14800 Trinity Blvd., Suite 100 

Fort Worth, TX 76155 

(817)684-6806 

Mr. Satterfield is expected to testify regarding American Airlines MEL procedures and 

misapplication of MEL procedures and his knowledge of the incident as they relate to the facts of 

the case. 

Andy Blosser 

Aviation Safety Inspector 

FAA American Airlines CMO-21 

Centreport Business Park 

14800 Trinity Blvd., Suite 100 

Fort Worth, TX 76155 

Mr. Blosser is expected to testify regarding his investigation of American Airlines misapplication 

of the MEL procedures on December 27, 2007, based on the facts of the case. 

Christopher J. Dicesare 

AA Unit Principal Maintenance Inspector 

FAA American Airlines CMO-21 

Centreport Business Park 

14800 Trinity Blvd., Suite 100 

Fort Worth, TX 76155 

(817)684-6916 

Mr. Dicesare is expected to testify regarding American Airlines MEL procedures and 

misapplication of MEL procedures and his knowledge of the incident as they relate to the facts of 

the case 

Richard I. Bell 

AA Unit Avionics Supervisor 

FAA American Airlines CMO-21 

Centreport Business Park 

14800 Trinity Blvd., Suite 100 

Fort Worth, TX 76155 

(817)684-6863 

Mr. Bell is expected to testify regarding American Airlines MEL procedures and misapplication of 

MEL procedures and his knowledge of the incident as they relate to the facts of the case 

Robert E. Talmadge 

AA Unit Principal Operations Inspector 

FAA American Airlines CMO-21 
Centreport Business Park 

14800 Trinity Blvd., Suite 100 

Fort Worth, TX 76155 

(817)684-6804 

Mr. Talmadge is expected to testify regarding American Airlines MEL procedures and 

misapplication of MEL procedures and his knowledge of the incident as they relate to the facts of 

the case 

Interrogatory 3. 

3. Please identify all FAA rules, regulations, orders, policies and/or other reference documents, 

whether formal or informal, that evidence, refer or relate to a Flight Fault Review ("FFR"), as 

alleged in Paragraphs II (7)-(8) in the FAA's Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

Objection is made to this response as it is overly broad and burdensome. All documents in 

Complainant's EIR have been provided to Respondent. Further, Flight Fault Review (FFR) is not 

related to the FAA, but rather is part of the American Airline maintenance program 

4. Please identify all FAA rules, regulations, orders, policies and/or other reference documents, 

whether formal or informal, that evidence, refer or relate to the interpretation of Respondent's DC9 MEL Item 22-2(b). 

RESPONSE: 

Objection is made to this response as it is overly broad and burdensome. All documents in 

Complainant's EIR have been provided to Respondent. 

5. Please identify each and every fact that supports your contention in Paragraph II (17) of the 

Complaint that "the proper deferral option would have been to placard the duplex rudder servo in 

accordance with MEL 22-16." 

RESPONSE: 

The Flight Fault Review revealed the autopilot duplex rudder servo had failed. There is only one 

autopilot duplex rudder servo on the aircraft. That servo was bad. A fully functioning autopilot 

duplex rudder servo is required for the autopilot coupled (ILS) operations, category 2 operations 

and automatic go around. The only deferral option would have been to comply with MEL item 

22-lb (not MEL item 22-16. The Complaint will be amended). 

6. Please identify each and every person with knowledge of facts that refer or relate to your 

contention in Paragraph 11 (17) of the Complaint that "the proper deferral option would have 

been to placard the duplex rudder servo in accordance with MEL 22-16." 
The Administrator objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad and burdensome. 

The identity of all persons with knowledge of or information concerning the allegations in Paragraph 

11(17) of the Complaint is not within the actual or constructive knowledge of the Administrator. The 

Administrator has identified all persons and provided the information of which it is aware and will 

dutifully disclose and identify all persons with knowledge of or information concerning the allegation 

in the Complaint who were not identified when such knowledge or information is gained. 

William T. Satterfield 

AA Unit Principal Avionics Inspector 

FAA American Airlines CMO-21 

Centreport Business Park 

14800 Trinity Blvd., Suite 100 

Fort Worth, TX 76155 

(817)684-6806 

Andy Blosser 

Aviation Safety Inspector 

FAA American Airlines CMO-21 

Centreport Business Park 

14800 Trinity Blvd., Suite 100 

Fort Worth, TX 76155 

Christopher J. Dicesare 

AA Unit Principal Maintenance Inspector 

FAA American Airlines CMO-21 

Centreport Business Park 

14800 Trinity Blvd., Suite 100 

Fort Worth, TX 76155 

(817)684-6916 

Richard I. Bell 

AA Unit Avionics Supervisor 

FAA American Airlines CMO-21 

Centreport Business Park 

14800 Trinity Blvd., Suite 100 

Fort Worth, TX 76155 

(817)684-6863 

Robert E. Talmadge 

AA Unit Principal Operations Inspector 

FAA American Airlines CMO-21 

Centreport Business Park 

14800 Trinity Blvd., Suite 100 

Fort Worth, TX 76155 

(817)684-6804 
7. Please identify each and every document that refers or relates to your contention in Paragraph 

11 (17) of the Complaint that "the proper deferral option would have been to placard the duplex 

rudder servo in accordance with MEL 22-16." 

RESPONSE: 

Op Specs, page D-085-10 (lOP 3) 

Log pages form E-6 logbook for aircraft 454 (lOP 4) 

Computers print out from American Airlines computer (lOP 5) 

Copy of American Airlines MD-80 maintenance manual (lOP 6) 

Copy of Page 22-2 of American Airiines MD-80 MEL (lOP 7) 

Copy of page 22-12 of American Airiines MD-80 MEL (lOP 8) 

Copy of page 22-12 of American Airiine MD-80 MEL (lOP 9) 

Copy of repair report from Honeywell Inc (lOP 15) 

8. Please identify and describe each and every fact that supports your contention in Paragraph 11 

(23) of the Complaint that "N454AA was operated on four flights with an inoperative autopilot 

duplex rudder servo." 

RESPONSE: 

The FFR identified that the autopilot duplex rudder servo was inoperative in STL on December 

27, 2007. American Airlines continued operation of the aircraft until December 28, 2007, when it 

replaced the autopilot rudder servo upon arrival in STL. The aircraft was flown from STL to 

LGA, LGA to ATL, ATL to LGA and LGA to STL with an inoperative autopilot duplex rudder 

servo. 

9. Please identify each and every person with knowledge of facts that refer or relate to your 

contention in Paragraph 11 (23) of the Complaint that "N454AA was operated on four flights with 

an inoperative autopilot duplex rudder servo." 

RESPONSE: 

The Administrator objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad and burdensome. 

The identity of all persons with knowledge of or information concerning the allegations in Paragraph 

11(23) of the Complaint is not within the actual or constructive knowledge of the Administrator. The 

Administrator has identified all persons and provided the information of which it is aware and will 

dutifully disclose and identify all persons with knowledge of or information concerning the allegation 

in the Complaint who were not identified when such knowledge or information is gained. 

Also see response to Interrogatory 2. 

10. Please identify each and every document that refers or relates to the contention in Paragraph 11 

(23) of the Complaint that "N454AA was operated on four flights with an inoperative autopilot 

duplex rudder servo." 
RESPONSE: 

See Response to Interrogatory 7. 

Also, copy of routing for aircraft 454 (lOP 11) 

11. Please identify all FAA rules, regulations, orders, policies and/or other reference documents, 

whether formal or informal, that support FAA's allegation in the Complaint that American 

violated Section 119.5(1) of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

RESPONSE: 

Objection is made as it is overly broad and burdensome. All documents in Complainant's EIR and 

expected to be used at time of trial have been provided to Respondent. 

Complainant objects to this interrogatory in that it is improper and relates to irrelevant matter. 

Respondent knows or has constructive notice, of the existence and requirements of Federal law, 

including FAA rules and regulations, that apply to its air carrier certificate and its conduct under 

that certificate. Under 44 USC Section 1507, the FAA regulations published in the Federal 

Register are required to be judicially noticed and persons affected are bound by such regulations 

upon publication or by actual knowledge. In effect. Respondent requests Complainant to perform 

its legal research and provide the results under the guise of permissible discovery. 

12. Please identify all FAA rules, regulations, orders, policies and/or other reference documents, 

whether formal or informal, that support FAA's allegation in the Complaint that American violated 

Section 121.153(a)(2) of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

RESPONSE: 

See Response to Interrogatory 11. 

13. Please identify all FAA rules, regulations, orders, policies and/or other reference documents, 

whether formal or informal, that support FAA's allegation in the Complaint that American 

violated Section 121.628(a)(4) of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

RESPONSE: 

See Response to Interrogatory 11. 

14. Please identify all FAA rules, regulations, orders, policies and/or other reference documents, 

whether formal or informal, that support FAA's allegation in the Complaint that American violated 

Section 121.628(a)(5) of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

RESPONSE: 

See Response to Interrogatory 11. 
15. Please identify all FAA rules, regulations, orders, policies and/or other reference documents, 

whether formal or informal, that support FAA's allegation in the Complaint that American 

violated Section 121.701 (a) of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

RESPONSE: 

See Response to Interrogatory 11. 

16. Please identify all FAA rules, regulations, orders, policies and/or other reference documents, 

whether formal or informal, that support FAA's allegation in the Complaint that American 

violated Section 121.709(a)(2) of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

RESPONSE: 

See Response to Interrogatory 11. 

17. Please identify all FAA rules, regulations, orders, policies and/or other reference documents, 

whether formal or informal, that support FAA's allegation in the Complaint that American violated 

Section 121.367(a) of the Federal Aviation Regulafions. 

RESPONSE: 

See Response to Interrogatory 11. 

18. Please identify all FAA rules, regulations, orders, policies and/or other reference documents, 

whether formal or informal, that support FAA's allegation in the Complaint that American 

violated Section 121.367(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

RESPONSE: 

See Response to Interrogatory 11. 

REOUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

1. All Documents referred to in your responses to Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories to 

Complainant. 

RESPONSE: 

All documents in Complainant's EIR have been provided to Respondent. Documents not 

previously provided are enclosed. 

2. All Documents on which You anticipate relying, or will rely, in support of the case that FAA 

will present at the hearing in this matter, including but not limited to documents that You intend 

to introduce into evidence. 

RESPONSE: 
All documents have been provided or are being provided herewith to Respondent. 

3. All Documents related to any side or personal file(s) kept or maintained by FAA personnel 

regarding FAA Case No. 2008SW210058, specifically including FAA Inspectors Andrew Blosser, 

C,J. Di Cesare and William T. Satterfield. 

RESPONSE: 

Any documents responsive to this request are enclosed. 

4. All Documents related to Section B of the of the Enforcement Investigative Report ("EIR") for 

FAA Case No. 2008SW210058. 

RESPONSE: 

Objection is made to Request for Production No. 4 as it is vague and ambiguous. All documents 

in Complainant's EIR have been provided to Respondent. 

5. All Documents otherwise releasable to a party in litigation with FAA that thus far have been 

withheld from production to American. 

RESPONSE; 

All documents have been provided or are being provided herewith to Respondent. 

6. All Documents related to American's DC-9 Minimum Equipment List ("MEL") Item 22-2(b) 

and Item 22-16. 

RESPONSE: 

Objection is made to Request for Production No. 6 as it is vague and ambiguous. 

7. All Documents related to FAA's process of reviewing and/or approving DC-9 MEL 

provisions submitted by American and/or other Part 121 air carriers. 

RESPONSE: 

Objection is made to this Request for Production in that it is overly broad and burdensome. 

Objection is made to Request for Production No. 7 as it is vague and ambiguous. Objection is 

made to this request in that the information sought is not relevant to the facts of this case nor 

calculated to lead to any relevant information. 

RESPONSE: 

8. All Documents related to the development of or amendments to the DC-9 Master Minimum 
Equipment List System 22 (Autoflight). 

RESPONSE: 

Objection is made to this Request for Production in that it is overly broad and burdensome. 

Objection is made to Request for Production No. 8 as it is vague and ambiguous. Objection is 

made to this request in that the information sought is not relevant to the facts of this case nor 

calculated to lead to any relevant information. 

9. All Documents related to "MEL SAT" meetings held between representatives of the FAA and 

American during Spring-Summer 2008. 

RESPONSE: 

Objection is made to Request for Production No. 9 as it is vague and ambiguous. Objection is 

made to this request in that the information sought is not relevant to the facts of this case nor 

calculated to lead to any relevant information. 

10. All Documents related to a Flight Fault Review, specifically including its intended use and/or 

limitations. 

RESPONSE: 

Flight Fault Review is not an related to FAA, but rather is part of the American Airlines 

maintenance program. All documents in Complainant's EIR and expected to be used at time of 

trial have been provided to Respondent. 

11. All Documents related to other FAA enforcement proceedings in which FAA has alleged that a 

Part 121 air carrier improperly relied on DC-9 MEL System 22 (Autoflight) to defer maintenance. 

RESPONSE: 

Objection is made to this Request for Production in that the information sought is not relevant to 

the facts of this case nor calculated to lead to any relevant information. Objection is made to this 

Request for Production in that it is overly broad and burdensome. 

12. All Documents related to meetings of the FAA Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, 

Air Carrier/General Aviation Maintenance Issue Area or Air Carrier Operations Issue Area, 

during which the Committee or subgroup discussed the proper method to defer 

Maintenance pursuant to an MEL. 

RESPONSE: 

Objection is made to this Request for Production in that it is overly broad and burdensome. 

Objection is made to this Request as it is vague and ambiguous. Objection is made to this request 

in that the information sought is not relevant to the facts of this case nor calculated to lead to any 
relevant information. 

13. All Documents (to the extent they are discoverable) related to any complaint(s), including any 

whistleblower complaint, filed by any FAA Inspector within the AMR Certificate Management 

Office concerning American's compliance with FAA regulations. 

RESPONSE: 

Objection is made to Request for Production No. 13 as it is vague and ambiguous. Objection is 

made to this request in that the information sought is not relevant to the facts of this case nor 

calculated to lead to any relevant information. 

14. All Documents related to the training or qualification records of FAA Inspector Andrew 

Blosser. 

RESPONSE: 

A curriculum vitae will be provided upon receipt. 

15. All Communications between FAA Inspector Andrew Blosser and anyone else regarding 

American's compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations. 

RESPONSE: 

See Response to Request for Production 12. 

16. All Documents related to policy, interpretations or guidance concerning Volume 4, Chapter 4 

of FAA Order 8900.1 (other than the Order itself). 

RESPONSE: 

Complainant objects to this Request for Production as it is that it is overly broad and burdensome. 

Objection is made to Request for Production No. 16 as it is vague and ambiguous. 

17. All Documents related to FAA legal interpretations regarding Federal Aviation Regulation 

121.628(a)(4) or (a)(5). 

RESPONSE: 

See Response to Interrogatory 11. 

18. All Documents related to Your contention that "[a] fully functioning autopilot duplex rudder 

servo is required for the autopilot to function properly," as alleged in Paragraph II (11) of the 

Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 
Objection is made to Request for Production No. 18 as it is vague and ambiguous. All documents 

in Complainant's EIR have been provided to Respondent. 

19. All Documents related to Your contention that "[djeferral using MEL, Item 22-2b was 

improper," as alleged in Paragraph II (14) of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

Objection is made to Request for Production No. 19 as it is vague and ambiguous. All documents 

in Complainant's EIR and expected to be used at time of trial have been provided to Respondent. 

20. All Documents related to Your contention that "[t]he proper deferral option would have been 

to placard the duplex rudder servo in accordance with MEL 22-16," as alleged in Paragraph II (17) 

of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

Objection is made to Request for Production No. 20 as it is vague and ambiguous. All documents 

in Complainant's EIR and expected to be used at time of trial have been provided to Respondent. 

21. All Documents related to Your contention that "N454AA was operated on four flights with an 

inoperative autopilot duplex rudder servo," as alleged in Paragraph 11 (23) of the Complaint. 

RESPONSE: 

Objection is made to Request for Production No. 21 as it is vague and ambiguous. All documents 

in Complainant's EIR and expected to be used at time of trial have been provided to Respondent. 

22. All Documents that evidence, refer or relate to the use (if any) of the autopilot on N454AA 

during the four flights alleged in Paragraph 11(23) of the Complaint, including whether the 

autopilot was operated in "Takeoff," "ILS," "Autoland" and/or "Go-Around" modes. 

RESPONSE: 

Objection is made to Request for Production No. 22 as it is vague and ambiguous. All documents 

in Complainant's EIR and expected to be used at time of trial have been provided to Respondent. 

REOUESTS FOR ADMISSION 

1. Admit that American's DC-9 Minimum Equipment List ("MEL") Item 22-2(b) in effect on 

December 27-28, 2007 did not require a flight fault review to be performed as part of its stated 

conditions and limitations. 

RESPONSE: 

11 
Deny. FAR 25.1529 requires manufacturers to provide Instructions for Continued Airworthiness 

(ICA). Appendix H.25.3(b)(2) of FAR 25 describes the troubleshooting information required to 

be in ICA. FAR 43.13 (a) and (b) require use of ICA's in performing maintenance. 

2. Admit that neither the DC-9 Master MEL Item 22-2(b) nor the corresponding item in the 

Dispatch Deviation Guide in effect on December 27-28, 2007 required a flight fault review to be 

performed as part of its stated conditions and limitations. 

RESPONSE: 

Cannot Admit nor Deny due to vagueness and ambiguity of Request for Admission No. 2. The 

Dispatch Deviation Guide is a source for deactivation of the appropriate MEL item, and not a 

troubleshooting device. It cannot be used as a means of determining a malfunctioning component 

or system. The only way to diagnose a malfunction is by troubleshooting. The FFR should have 

been part of the troubleshooting process. 

3. Admit that American's DC-9 MEL Item 22-2(b) in effect on December 27-28, 2007 permitted 

the flight crew to defer repairs of both autoland modes of the autopilot. 

RESPONSE: 

Cannot Admit or deny. The flight crew can defer repairs, however, only if they are able to 

first determine that both autoland modes of autopilot are the equipment or components that are 

indeed inoperative. 

4. Admit that American's DC-9 MEL Item 22-2(b) in effect on December 27-28, 2007 permitted 

Respondent to defer repair of both autoland modes of the autopilot for up to 10 

days, provided that Respondent complied with the stated conditions and limitations of Item 22-

2(b). 

RESPONSE: 

Cannot Admit or deny. The "10 days" Respondent is referring to relates to repair of a component 

or equipment once the inoperative component has been diagnosed and identified. The "10 days" 

does not give American Airlines 10 days to diagnose and identify an inoperative component as it 

appears to be implied in this Request. 

5. Admit that American's DC-9 MEL Item 22-16 in effect on December 27-28, 2007 did not 

require an operative dual rudder servo for departure. 

RESPONSE: 

Deny. An airworthy DC-9 aircraft requires an operative dual rudder servo for 

departure. Once a dual rudder servo has been identified as being inoperative, American's DC-9 

MEL Item 22-lb allows American to defer repair of the dual rudder servo provided stated 

conditions and limitations are met. 

12 
6. Admit that American's DC-9 MEL Item 22-16 in effect on December 27-28, 2007 permitted 

Respondent to defer repair of the dual rudder servo drive for up to 10 days, provided that 

American complied with the stated conditions and limitations of Item 22-16. 

RESPONSE: 

Cannot Admit or Deny. American was not permitted to defer repair of the dual rudder servo drive 

unless it first identified that it was the dual rudder servo drive that was inoperative. American's 

DC-9 MEL does not allow deferral of components or equipment without first diagnosing and 

identifying the inoperative component or equipment. Once the diagnosing and identification of 

the inoperative component or equipment has occurred, if part of the MEL, American can defer 

repair if it complies with the stated conditions and limitations stated. 

7. Admit that "Inoperative" was defined by American's DC-9 MEL in effect on December 

27-28, 2007 as "a system and/or component malfunctions to the extent that it does not accomplish 

its intended purpose and/or is not consistently functioning normally within its design operating 

limits or tolerances." 

RESPONSE: 

Admit 

8. Admit that an air carrier may operate legally with certain instruments and equipment 

inoperative if they are included on an approved MEL, and the air carrier operates the airplane 

under all applicable conditions and limitations contained in the approved MEL. 

RESPONSE: 

Cannot Admit or Deny. An air carrier may take advantage of the approved MEL to operate 

legally with certain instruments and equipment inoperative if they are included on an approved 

MEL only after diagnosing and identifying the inoperative instruments and equipment. That 

instruments or equipments may be on an approved MEL does not give an air carrier license to 

operate legally under the MEL unless they have first determined that the item to be deferred is the 

actual inoperative instrument or equipment. 

Respectfully submitted, 

LYNETTE WORD 

Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region 

By:. 

Yolanda AyaVbemal 

Attorney 

13 
Safety Enforcement Branch 

Phone: (817)222-5070 

FAX: (817) 222-5945 or 5092 

14 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

1 hereby certify that on July 20, 2010, an original and one copy of COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE 

TO RESPONDENT'S INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS was sent by Federal Express Mail to: 

Federal Aviation Administration (w/o exhibits) 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

TEL: 202-385-8229 

I hereby certify that on July 20, 2010, a copy of COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO 

RESPONDENT'S INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS was sent by Federal Express Mail to: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin (w/o exhibits) 

US Department of Transportation, Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 

I hereby certify that on July 20, 2010, a copy of COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO 

RESPONDENT'S INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS was sent by Federal Express Mail to: 

Evan P. Singer, Respondent's Counsel 

JONES DAY 

2727 North Harwood Street 

Dallas, TX 75201-1515 

TEL: 214-969-5021 

Marquitta Jfobinson, Paralegal Specialist 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Fort Worth, Texas 76137 

Date: June 20, 2010 

15 
07/22/2010 THU 16:57 FAX 817 222 5092 regional counsel iOOl/002 

To: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Company: Federal Aviation Administration 

Telephone: 

Fax: 202.493.5142 

From: Yolanda Ayala Bernal 

Title: Agency Attorney 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Southwest Region 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Fort Worth, Texas 76137 

Package/Courier Address 

2601 Meacham Boulevard 

Fort Worth, Texas 76137 

T (817.222.5099) 

F (817.222.5945/5092) 

Facsimile 

Date: July 22, 2010 

Pages w/cover. 2 

In the Matter of: American Airiines, Inc.—FAA Docket No. CP10SW0006 

The attached Certificate of Service is being submitted to replace the previous 

one issued with Complainant's Response to Respondent's First Set of interrogatories to 

show a correction of date served. 

Please Note: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to 

which it is addressed an<J may contain Information that is privileged, confidential, and 

exempt from disclosure under applicable law." 

^ U.S. Departnwntof Transpoitadon 
07/22/2010 THU 16:57 FAX 817 222 5092 regional counsel 

CERriFlCATF. OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on July 20, 2010, an original and ones copy of COMPLAIN ANl'S RESPONSE 

TO RESPONDENT'S INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS was sent by Federal Express Mail to: 

Federal Aviation Administration (w/o exhibits) 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000 

Wa.shington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

TEL: 202-385-8229 

I hereby certify that on July 20, 2010. a copy of COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO 

RESPONDENT'S INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS was sent by Federal Express Mail to: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin (w/o exhibits) 

US Department of Transponation, Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 

I hereby certify that on July 20,2010, a copy of COMPLAfNANT'S RESPONSE TO 

RESPONDENT'S INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS was sent by Federal Express Mail to: 

Evan P. Singer, Respondent ',y Counsel 

JONES DAY 

2727 North Harwood Street 

Dallas, TX 75201-1515 

TEL: 214-969-5021 

Marquitta Jfobinson, Paralegal Specialist 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Fori Worth, Texas 76137 

Date; Jul y 20. 2010 

r^ 15