U.S. DEPARTiMENT OF TRANSFORrATlON . 

Ori'JCn OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SCENIC AVIATION, INC. 

FA A Docket No. CP09NlVr001 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMSNo. FAA-2009-0974 

The I lonorable Richard C. Goodwin c3 

Administrative Law Judge ' 

Hearing Location: Salt Lake City, UT 

RESPONDENT'S FlfRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 

AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMEN IS 

Pursuant to Rule 1 .^.220 of the F^ules of Practice (14 CF.R. Part 13), Respondent hereby 

requests that the Complainant, on or before April L 2010, provide the following information:' 

INTERROGATORIES 

Intcrrogsitory No. 1: Identify, by providing the name, occupation, and business address, of each 

person the Complainant intends to call as a witness in this proceeding. 

Interrogatory No. 2; Provide the substance of the testimony lo be ol'lered by each of the 

witnesses identified in InieiTOgatory No. 1. 

^ This is a. continuing request for the Complainant to provide all updated or new records or information, as itemized in 

this discovery request, througli the date of the hearing. New evidence siiould be provided in accordance with 

Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

300/LOOia SWO * VVd StLSGGtSOS XVd S2:eL OLOS/SS/EO 
Interrogatory No. 3: With respect to each expert that the Complainant intends to call as a witness 

in this proceeding, set forth the subject matter upon which each expert witness is expected to 

testify, the facts and opinions composing the testimony of each expert witness, and a summary of 

the grounds for each opinion. 

Interrogatory No. 4: identify any and all documents and other materials in the possession of the 

Complainant that concern, refer to, or involve the circumstances .set forth in the Complaint tiled in 

this matter. 

Interrogatory No. 5: Provide a full description of the altimeter/encoder data correspondence error 

concerning N3221M between July 28, 2007 and .lanuary 23, 2008, as alleged in the Complaint. 

Interrogatory No. 6: State in detail, the factual basis upon which the Complainant relics to prove 

an altimcrcr/cncodcr data correspondence error eoneeraing N3221M between July 28, 2007 and 

January 23, 2008, as alleged in the Complaint. 

Interrogatory No. 7: Provide a full description of the altimeter/encoder data correspondence error 

concerning N588SA between July 10, 2007 and December 10, 2008, as alleged in the Complaint. 

Interrogatory No. 8: State in detail, the factual basis upon which the Complainant relies to prove 

an oitimei;er/encoder data correspondence error concerning N588SA between July 10, 2007 and 

December 10, 2008, as alleged in the Complaint. 

Interrogatory No. 9: Provide a full description of the altimeter/encoder data correspondence error 

concerning N617MM between October 19, 2007 and March 29, 2009, as alleged in the Complaint. 

Interrogatory No. 10: State in detail, the factual basis upon which the Complainant relics to 

prove an altimeter/encoder data correspondence error conceming N617MM between October 19, 

2007 and March 29, 2009, as alleged in the Complaint. 

800/sooi a swo -i- vvj stLseetso s xvd vz-z i OLOS/s3/eo 
laterrogatory No, 11: Provide a full description of the investigation performed by Complainant 

to determine that Scenic Aviation operated aircraft N3221M in an unairworthy condition. 

Interrogatory No. 12; Provide a fiill description of the investigation performed by Complainant 

to determine that Scenic Aviation operaited aircraft N588SA in an unairworthy condition. 

interrogatory No. 13: Provide a lull description of the investigation performed by Complainant 

to determine that Scenic Aviation operated aircraftN6l7MM in an unairworthy condition. 

interrogatory No- 14: State in detail, the specific procedure required to be performed in order to 

render each of the above aircraft airworthy under the circumstances. 

Interrogatory No. 15: Provide a full description of the investigation performed by Complainant 

to determine that the altinieier(s)/encodcr(s) of the above aircraft experienced data correspondence 

error(s) as alleged in the Complaint. 

Interrogatory No. 16: Stale with speeiticity, the legal (i.e., case law) and factual basis upon 

which the Ctjmplainant relies to prove that Respondent operated aircraft N3221M in an 

unairworthy condition in violation of 14 CF.R. § 135,25(a)(2). 

Interrogatory No. 17: State with specificity, the legal (i.e., case law) and factual basis upon 

which the Complainant relies lo prove that Respondent operated aircraft N588SA in an 

unairworthy condition in violation of 14 CF.R. § 135.25(a)(2). 

Interrogatory No. 18: State with specificity, the legal (i.e., case law) and factual basis upon 

which the Complainant relies lo prove tliat Respondent operated aircraft N617MM in an 

unairworthy condition in violation of 14 C-F.R. § 135.25(a)(2). 

Interrogatory No. 19: Describe, with specificity, whether aircraft N3221M met its type 

certilicaie design during the flights alleged in the Complaint. 

900/GOOia sua <• vv i stLseetso s XVd t?2:eL OLOS/SS/eO 
Interrogatory No, 20: Describe, with specilicity, whether aircraft N588SA met its type 

certificate design during the flights alleged in the Complaint. 

Interrogatory No. 21: Describe, with .specificity, whether aircraft N617MM met its type 

certificate design during the flights alleged in tlic Complaint. 

Interrogatory No. 22: TfComplainant alleges that any of the above aircraft failed to meet its type 

cerlilicaU; design during the llighls in question, describe in detail why each aircraft did not. 

Interrogatory JSo, 23: Describe in detail, whether each of the above aircraft was in a condition 

that was safe for llight during the llighls alleged in the Complaint. 

Interrogatory No. 24: If C^omplainant alleges that the above aircraft were not in a condition thai 

was safe for flight during the flights alleged in the Complaint, describe in detail why each was not. 

REQUEST FOR PRODCUTION 

Request for Production of Documents No. 1: Produce copies of all documents and other 

materials that the Complainant intends lo introduce into evidence. 

Request for Production of Documents No, 2; Produce copies of any statements made by 

wiinesscs. including expert witnesses, identilied in Interrogatory No. 1, concerning, referring to, 

or involving the circumstances set fonh in the Complaint, 

Request for Production of Documents No. 3: Produce copies of any and all documents and other 

materials in the possession of the Complainant that concern, refer to, or involve the circumstances 

set forth in the Complaint. 

Request for Production of Documents No. 4: Produce copies of current curricula vitae for each 

expert witness the Complainant identified in Interrogatory No. 1, 

300/l700i a SWQ <• VVd St7LSS6tS0S XVd t?2:eL OL02/3S/B O 
Request for Production of Documents No. 5: Provide a copy of all articles, treatises, 

moriograptts, or other sources that the Complainant may use or introduce into evidence at the 

hearing. 

Request for Production of Documents No. 6: Provide a copy of all handbooks, manuals, 

maintenance records, schematics, and/or other sources that the Complainant may use or introduce 

into evidence at the hearing or otlierwi.se rciy upon to detemiine that the altimeter(s)/encoder(s) 

referenced in the Complaint had experienced data correspondence error(s). 

Request for Production of Documents No. 7: Provide a copy of the type certificate data for each 

aircraft identified in the Complaint. 

Dated: March 1,2010 

Respectfully/Suibmitted, 

QR^GOR-p^. WIN ION, ESQ. 

Ai^iation Law Experts, LLC 

-^30 Aviation Way 

Frederick, MD 21701 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax:(301)294-2525 

Grea(a!AviationLawLxperts.com 

Counsel for Respondent 

900/500 0 SHO -i- VVd StLSCetSOS XVd t2:e L OLOg/SS/GO 
CF.RTTFTCATF OF SERVICE 

1 hereby certify that I have this date served by regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, an original and 

one (1) copy of the foregoing discovery requests addressed to: 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Suite 2 Wl 000 

Washington, D.C 20591 

And. further, that I have this date served via regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, a copy of the 

foregoing discovery requests addressed to: 

Scott R. Morris, Esq. 

Office of Regional Counsel, ANM-7 

F AA Northwest Moimlain Region 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

Tel: 425 227-1417 

Fax:425 227-1007 

Dated: March 1,2010 

GREOORftTS. WINTON, ESQ. 

AviaiKin Law Experts, U>C 

33p<Aviation Way 

ly^derick, MD 21701 

[el: (301) 294-8550 

Fax: (301) 294-2525 

800/300ia SWQ VVd St?LSS6t20 2 XVd t?2:S L OLOS/SS/C O