### DEPARTMEN T O F 

## ::-KETOPERATION S '- ^

•-&£*¥F D •r"v n ;^r n 

### 0 P |:U U cr p 2 3 201 0



## HEA:-:rv G 0OCK5 T CERTIFIE D MAIL-RETUR N RECEIP T REQUESTE D CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I certif y that th e foregoin g Motio n t o Dismis s ha s bee n place dthi s dat e i n th e Unite d State s mail , postag e prepaid , b y Certifie dMail-Retur n Receip t Requeste daddresse da s follows : Zachar y M . Berman , Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counci l 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Rockawa y Boulevar d Jamaica , N.Y . 1143 4 Hearin g Docke t Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Ave , S W Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0



### Date : Q^'QL V \ ^ Eugen e A . McDonoug h President , Millio n Ai r

Richmon d 40 0 Portuge e Roa d Richmon dIntl . Airpor t Virgini a23250-241 7Motio n t o Dismis s

Respons e t o Complain t

o f 2010EA21001 4 I I 1 . Carolin aBlue Ai r

LL C admit s th e allegation s i n paragrap h 1 o f th e complaint . 2 Carolin aBlue Ai r

LL C admit s th e allegation s i n paragrap h 2 o f th e complaint . 3 . Carolin aBlu e Ai r

LL C admit s th e allegation s i n paragrap h 3 o f th e complaint . 4 . Carolin aBlu e Ai r

LL C admit s th e allegation s i n paragrap h 4 o f th e complaint . 5 . Carolin aBlue Ai r

LL C denies th e allegation s i n paragrap h 5 o f th e complaint . Appropriatel y trainedtechnician s properl y accomplishe dth e airworthines s directiv e withi n th e sixt

h month . 6 . Carolin aBlu e Ai r

LL C denies th e allegation s i n paragrap h 6 o f th e complaint . Th e airworthines s directiv e woul dnot hav e bee n overdu e unti l after th e twenty-eight h o f Februar y 2010 . 7 . Carolin aBlue Ai r

LL C denies th e allegation s i n paragrap h 7 o f th e complaint . Th e aircraf t wa s airworthy . Il l Carolin aBlue Ai r

LLC' s respons e t o allege dspecifi c Federa l Aviatio n Regulatio n violations : a . Sectio n 39.7 , Carolin aBlue Ai r LL C acknowledge s it s responsibilit y t o mee t th e requirement s o f

th e applicabl e airworthines s directives , an di s no t i n violatio n o f

th e rule . b . Sectio n 43.13(a ) i s irrelevan t i n thi s matter . Th e method s an dtechnique s o f th e airworthines s directive' s repetitiv e inspectio n wer e i n accordanc e wit h industr y standards . c . Sectio n 91. 7 Carolin aBlue Ai r LL C acknowledge s it s responsibilit y t o mee t th e requirement s thi s rul e an di s not i n violation . I V Previou s correspondenc e wit h Regiona l Council , date dJul y 20 , 201 0 (attached ) detaile d th e confusio n fro mth e previou s complianc e entry , statin g th e da y o f th e mont h due , instea do f simpl y th e mont h due , a s i n othe r pas t entries . A violatio n an d$17,50 0 fine i s uncalled-fo r

an dimprope r

i n thi s matter .Jul y 20 , 201 0

Mr . Zachar

y M . Berma n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Eastern Regio n Regiona l Counci l 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , Ne w Yor

k 1143 4 Re : Docke t

Numbe r 2010EA21001 4 Dea r Mr . Berman , Wit h respec t t o th e abov e mentione dDocke t Numbe r an dth e associate dNotic e o f Propose dCivi l Penalty , I submi t th e followin g comments . Th e Airworthines s Directiv e reference din th e documen t state s "Thereafter , repeat th e inspectio n a

t interval s no t

t o excee dsi x month s o r

30 0 flight

hours , whicheve r

occur s first". Th e facility tha t

mad e th e lo g entry o n 2 0 Au g 2009 , prio r t o th e interva l in question , entere dth e Directiv e was "nex t du e o n 2 0 Fe b 2010" . Ther e ar e entrie s i n th e twelve-year

histor y tha t

doe s no t stat e th e da

y o f th e month , onl y th e mont h due . Whe n th e Administrato r

desire s consecutiv e months , it i s eithe r state da s such , o r

expresse di

n days . AD 98-13-1 5 doe s not specif y i f th e recurren t

perio di s calendar

o r consecutiv e months . Six month s i s a

n arbitrary numbe r

o f days , eac h month varies . February 16 , 201 0 woul dhav e bee n 18 0 days . Th e sixteenth , th e twentiet h o r th e twenty-eighth o f

February i s subjec t t o interpretation . Throughou t th e histor y o f

thi s Directiv e i n th e aircraft' s logbooks , th e nex t

calenda r du e tim e ha s varie db y eac h sign-off . Neve r was i t accomplishe do

n aconsecutiv e mont

h basis . Th e calenda r

month interpretatio n ha s bee n consisten t in pas t lo g entries . Seventy o f

th e allowe dthre e hundre dhour s accumulate d sinc e th e previou s interval . Whe n no t clearl y state din th e tex t

o f th e Directive , it

woul db e a

n unreasonabl e expectatio n t o accep t

an y interpretatio n unconditionally . Th e logbook s indicat e varie d interpretations . Th e Directiv e recurren t inspectio n wa s accomplishe dhistoricall y withi n th e sixt h month . A $17,50 0 civi l penalt y i n thi s matte r

i s incomprehensible . Singlin g thi s operator , a

t thi s time , wit h suc h a

n enormou s fine i s unfai r an dunjust . We respectfull y elec t

bo x three , that

n o violatio n occurred , an denclos e suc h wit h thi s letter . Than k

yo u fo r you r consideratio n Sincerely , WilliamJ Armfiel dI V Carolin aBlu e LL CI-»« ^ S-"" * f^ ^ P* TM 8 \ 

### U.S . DEPARTMEN

T O F TRANSPORTATION SE ? 2 8 201 0 FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATION 

### OFFIC E O F HEARING

S HbAH^M G DOCKE T WASHINGTON , D. C In the Matte

r o f Carolin aBlu e Air , LLC 2010EA21001 4 Judg e No t Assigned COMPLAIN

T Th e Federa

l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA) , b y counsel , hereb y file s it s Complaint , pursuan t t o Rule 20 8 o

f the Rule s o

f Practic e (1 4 C.F.R . 13.208) , an dstate s as follows ; I Respondent , Carolin aBlu e Ak , LLC , was advisedthrough aFina l Notic e o

f Pi'oposedCivi l Penalt

y tha t the FA A propose dt

o asses s acivi l penalt

y i n th e amoun

t o f $17,500 . O

n Augus t 30 , 2010 , Responden

t submittedawritte n deman dfo r a hearing . I I 1 . A t al l time s relevant

herein , Carolin aBlu e Air , LL C ("Carolin a Blu e Air" ) owned , maintained , an doperate daDassaul t

Falco n Jet aircraft , identificatio n number N450C F (hereinafte

r "th e aircraft") . 2 . A t all time s relevan t

herein , the aircraf

t wa s subjec t

t o the requirement s o

f Airworthines s Directiv e (AD ) 98-13-05 . 3 . A D 98-13-0 5 require drepetitiv e inspection s t o detec t crack s a t the attachin g hole s o

f th e wing-to-fuselag e fairing s an dto ensur e

### tightnes s o f th e attachin g screws , andrepai r o f an y discrepanc y founddurin g such inspections . 4 . Durin g th e perio dFebruar y 23 , 201 0 t

o Februar y 25 , 2010 , Carolin a Blu e Ai r operate dthe aircraf

t on fou r (4 ) flights . 5 . Durin g eac h o

f th e 4 flight s reference di n paragraph (4) , above , th e aircraf t wa s in a n unairworthy condition . 6 . Specifically , the aircraf t wa s overdu e fo

r complianc e wit

h A.D . 98

- 13-05 . 7 . Carolin aBlu e Ai

r thu s performe dmaintenanc e o n a n aircraft , engine , propeller , o

r appliance , andfaile dt o us e th e methods , techniques , andpractice s prescribe di n the curren t manufacturer' s maintenanc e manua

l o r Instruction s fo

r Continue dAirworthines s prepare db

y it s manufacturer , or

other methods , techniques , an d practice s acceptabl e t

o th e Administrator , except a s note di n §43.16 .

Il l B y reaso n o

f the foregoing facts andcircumstances . Responden t violate dth

e followin g section(s ) o

f th e Federa

l Aviatio n Regulations : a. Sectio n 39.7 , whic

h state s tha

t anyon e wh

o operate s aproduc t

tha t doe s no t mee t th e requirement s o

f a n applicable airworthines s directiv e i s in violation o

f thi s section . b . Sectio n 43.13(a) , whic h state s tha

t eac h person performing maintenance , alteration , o r preventiv e maintenanc e o n a n aircraft ,

### engine , propeller , o r applianc e shall us e th e methods , techniques , an d practice s prescribe di n th e curren t manufacturer' s maintenanc e manua l o r Instruction s fo

r Continue dAirworthines s prepare db y it s manufacturer , or

other methods , techniques , andpractice s acceptabl e t o th e Administrator , excep t

a s note di n §43.16 . H e shal l us e th

e tools , equipment , andtes t

apparatu s necessar

y to assur e completio n o f

th e wor k i n accordanc e wit

h acceptedindustr

y practices . I

f specia l equipmen t or tes t apparatu s i s recommende dby the manufacture r involved , he mus t

us e tha t equipmen t o r apparatu s o

r it s equivalen

t acceptabl e to th e Administrator .

c . Section 91.7(a) , whic h state s tha t n o person ma

y operat e acivi l aircraf

t unles s i t i s i n a n airworth y condition . I V

1 . Pursuant

t o 4 9 U.S.C . §46301(a)(l) . Responden t i s subject t o acivi l penalt

y no t t o excee d$25,00 0 fo

r eac h o f th e violation s alleged , or , fo r asmal l busines s concern , pursuant to 4 9 U.S.C . §46301(a)(5) . Responden t i s subject t o acivi l penalt

y not t o excee d$11,00 0 fo

r each o f th e violation s alleged .

### 2 . Under th e facts an

dcircumstance s o

f thi s case , acivi l penalt

y o f $17,50 0 i s appropriate . WHEREFORE , di e FAA , by counsel , respectfull y request s tha

t th e Administrativ e La

w Judg e ente

r a n orde r tha t Responden

t b e assesse dacivi l penalt

y i n th e amount

o f $17,500 . Respectfully subnoitted , Alfre dR . Johnson , Jr . Regional Counsel

By : Zachar

y M . 'Bergha

n Attorney Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , NY 1143 4 71 8 553-325 8 71 8 995-569 9 NOTE : Th e Rule s o

f Practic e fo r

thi s proceedin g ar e se t forth i n Par t

13 , Subpar t G , o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s (1 4 C.F.R . Par t 13) . Th e Rule s o

f Practic e provid e tha t

Responden t

mus t file awritte n answe r t o thi s Complaint , o r

awritte n Motio n t o Dismis s i f appropriate , no t late r tha n 3 0 day s afte r

th e dat e show n o n th e Certificat e o f Service . A genera l denia l i s deeme dafailur e t o file a n answe r (Sectio n 13.209(e)) .