U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOJl ^ ^ FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WISCONSIN AVIATION, INC. 

1741 River Drive -, 

Watertown, Wl 53094 

Defendant 

V. FAA Case No. 2007SW9100S0 

(Judge not assigned) 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION fs^UT^ 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. lH-\f\ O-tilO " ' 

Plaintiff, 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT 

Wisconsin Aviation, Inc., Defendant, Pro Se, moves the Court, pursuant to 14CFR, Sec. 13.218(1) and (2) 

to dismiss the Complaint filed in this action on May 18, 2010. An affidavit in support of this motion is 

attached hereto and as grounds for such dismissal. Defendant alleges the following: 

1. That the length of time the case has been pending is excessive. 

2. That the Plaintiff has failed to answer all the Defendant's questions. 

3. That the four individuals initially hired/transferred do not fall under the auspices of 14 CFR Part 

135.251(a) nor 14 CFR Part 121, Appendix I. 

4. That the four employees were drug tested and negative results obtained prior to their 

hiring/transferring from non-safety-sensitive functions to safety-sensitive functions. 

5. That there were no Part 121/Part 135 drug-related regulations violated. 

WHEREFORE, 

for the reasons stated herein and as supported by Defendant's Affidavit, Wisconsin Aviation, Inc., 

respectfully requests that the Court enter an order dismissing the Complaint filed in this matter on 

May 18, 2010. 

Dated: 0//^/ D Bv: ^M^fiW €'S^^ J 

fj^pf l^fithi [ pTeaum A Ba, President/C President/CEI O 

isconsin Aviation, Inc. 

Defendant 

CEIVED Wisconsin Aviation, Inc. 

1741 River Drive 

Watertown, Wl 53094 

Defendant JUM 2 2 2010 

Ph: 920/261-4567 

HbARING DOCKET 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WISCONSIN AVIATION, INC. 

1741 River Drive 

Watertown, Wl 53094 

Defendant 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Plaintiff, 

FAA Case No. 2007SW910050 

(Judge not assigned) 

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 

THE STATE OF WISCONSIN } 

}ss 

DANE COUNTY } 

James A. Schumacher, after first being duly sworn under oath, states the following: 

1. I am an employee with the Defendant, Wisconsin Aviation, Inc., and have acted as the special 

projects manager on the above-captioned matter. 

2. After conducting a review of my files and records, I determine the following to be an accurate 

account of this matter. 

3. This complaint has been pending for over 42 months, including two excessive periods of no 

communications whatsoever from the Plaintiff, one lasting 9 months and the second for a 

period of 21 months. 

4. The Defendant, throughout this process, has expeditiously responded to any and all written 

correspondence, telephonic conversations, and email exchanges in a complete and informative 

manner within the response times requested by the Plaintiff. 

5. Throughout the complaint, the Plaintiff stated that the Defendant failed to administer requisite 

drug tests and/or receive negative test results as required by 14 CFR Part 135.251(a) prior to 

hiring or transferring four personnel to perform safety-sensitive functions as listed in 14 CFR 

Part 121, Appendix I. 

[The above two references apply to Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 121, Air Carrier 

Operations, and Part 135, Commuter and On-Demand Operations only.] 

6. Throughout the complaint, the Plaintiff identified four employees that were either hired for or 

transferred to "maintenance functions." References listed in paragraph three above identify 

"maintenance duties" as safety-sensitive functions. 
7. Throughout the exchange of correspondence, the Defendant attempted to explain the fact that 

while some of its maintenance operations fall under the auspices of FAR Part 135, the 

preponderance of its maintenance operations are conducted under FAR Part 91, a section that 

does not require drug or alcohol testing. 

8. The Defendant's maintenance records of the year 2006 revealed that a total of 2,473 

maintenance work orders were completed, of which 1,961, or 79% of the work, was performed 

on Part 91 aircraft. The remaining 512, or 21% of the maintenance, was performed on Part 135 

aircraft. 

9. Defendant has proven that in all of the four cases, the individuals in question were not hired nor 

transferred into positions identified in 14 CFR Part 121, Appendix I. Individuals in question 

clearly were tested and negative results were verified before the individuals were allowed to 

perform safety-sensitive functions. Defendant requested Plaintiff to cite the regulations and 

authority that precludes hiring mechanics for non-safety-sensitive duties and then testing them 

prior to assigning them to safety-sensitive duties (letter dated 4/9/2010). To date, no response 

has been received. 

10. The Defendant explained numerous times to the Plaintiff that when personnel are 

hired/transferred for "maintenance duties," they are specifically hired/transferred into either a 

non-safety-sensitive position (Part 91) or, only if or when deemed qualified by the Defendant, 

assigned to safety-sensitive positions (Part 121/135). 

11. The Plaintiff totally failed to acknowledge that the preponderance of the Defendant's operations 

do not occur under auspices of the safety-sensitive regulations, that the Defendant does hire 

numerous employees for non-safety-sensitive operations, and that the Defendant does drug 

test those prior to that performing duties in safety-sensitive areas. The Plaintiff fails to 

distinguish between the Defendant's FAR 91 and FAR 135 operations and failed to show where 

safety was compromised in any way, shape, or form. 

12. Of the four personnel listed in the complaint, two were new hires and two were transferred 

from other positions. All four were assigned to fill Part 91, non-safety-sensitive maintenance 

duties. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me 

this 11*" day of June, 2010. 

Notary Public, State of Wisconsin 

My commission is permanent. 
, f • 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion to Dismiss and Supporting Affidavit, in the Wisconsin Aviation, 

FAA Case No. 2007SW910050, have been mailed this date by Certified Mail, Return Receipt. 

Requested,to: 

Autumn Killingham 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

The original and a copy were mailed to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk 

AGC-400, Room 2014