DEPARTMENT OF 

::-KETOPERATIONS '-^ •-&£*¥FD 

•r"vn ;^r n 0 P |:UU crp 2 3 2010 

HEA:-:rvG 0OCK5T 

CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that the foregoing Motion to Dismiss has been placed this date in the United 

States mail, postage prepaid, by Certified Mail-Return Receipt Requested addressed as 

follows: 

Zachary M. Berman, 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Council 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Rockaway Boulevard 

Jamaica, N.Y. 11434 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Date: Q^'QL V \ ^ 

Eugene A. McDonough 

President, Million Air Richmond 

400 Portugee Road 

Richmond Intl. Airport 

Virginia 23250-2417 
Motion to Dismiss 

Response to Complaint of 2010EA210014 

II 

1. Carolina Blue Air LLC admits the allegations in paragraph 1 of the complaint. 

2 Carolina Blue Air LLC admits the allegations in paragraph 2 of the complaint. 

3. Carolina Blue Air LLC admits the allegations in paragraph 3 of the complaint. 

4. Carolina Blue Air LLC admits the allegations in paragraph 4 of the complaint. 

5. Carolina Blue Air LLC denies the allegations in paragraph 5 of the complaint. 

Appropriately trained technicians properly accomplished the airworthiness directive 

within the sixth month. 

6. Carolina Blue Air LLC denies the allegations in paragraph 6 of the complaint. The 

airworthiness directive would not have been overdue until after the twenty-eighth of 

February 2010. 

7. Carolina Blue Air LLC denies the allegations in paragraph 7 of the complaint. The 

aircraft was airworthy. 

Ill 

Carolina Blue Air LLC's response to alleged specific Federal Aviation Regulation 

violations: 

a. Section 39.7, Carolina Blue Air LLC acknowledges its responsibility to meet the 

requirements of the applicable airworthiness directives, and is not in violation of the rule. 

b. Section 43.13(a) is irrelevant in this matter. The methods and techniques of the 

airworthiness directive's repetitive inspection were in accordance with industry 

standards. 

c. Section 91.7 Carolina Blue Air LLC acknowledges its responsibility to meet the 

requirements this rule and is not in violation. 

IV 

Previous correspondence with Regional Council, dated July 20, 2010 (attached) detailed 

the confusion from the previous compliance entry, stating the day of the month due, 

instead of simply the month due, as in other past entries. A violation and $17,500 fine is 

uncalled-for and improper in this matter. 
July 20, 2010 

Mr. Zachary M. Berman 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Eastern Region Regional Council 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, New York 11434 

Re: Docket Number 2010EA210014 

Dear Mr. Berman, 

With respect to the above mentioned Docket Number and the associated Notice of 

Proposed Civil Penalty, I submit the following comments. 

The Airworthiness Directive referenced in the document states "Thereafter, repeat the 

inspection at intervals not to exceed six months or 300 flight hours, whichever occurs 

first". The facility that made the log entry on 20 Aug 2009, prior to the interval in 

question, entered the Directive was "next due on 20 Feb 2010". There are entries in the 

twelve-year history that does not state the day of the month, only the month due. When 

the Administrator desires consecutive months, it is either stated as such, or expressed in 

days. AD 98-13-15 does not specify if the recurrent period is calendar or consecutive 

months. Six months is an arbitrary number of days, each month varies. February 16, 2010 

would have been 180 days. The sixteenth, the twentieth or the twenty-eighth of February 

is subject to interpretation. Throughout the history of this Directive in the aircraft's 

logbooks, the next calendar due time has varied by each sign-off. Never was it 

accomplished on a consecutive month basis. The calendar month interpretation has been 

consistent in past log entries. Seventy of the allowed three hundred hours accumulated 

since the previous interval. 

When not clearly stated in the text of the Directive, it would be an unreasonable 

expectation to accept any interpretation unconditionally. The logbooks indicate varied 

interpretations. The Directive recurrent inspection was accomplished historically within 

the sixth month. A $17,500 civil penalty in this matter is incomprehensible. Singling this 

operator, at this time, with such an enormous fine is unfair and unjust. 

We respectfully elect box three, that no violation occurred, and enclose such with this 

letter. Thank you for your consideration 

Sincerely, 

William J Armfield IV 

Carolina Blue LLC 
I-»«^ S-""* f^^ P*TM 8 \ 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SE? 2 8 2010 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS HbAH^MG DOCKET 

WASHINGTON, D.C 

In the Matter of Carolina Blue Air, LLC 

2010EA210014 

Judge Not Assigned 

COMPLAINT 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby files its Complaint, 

pursuant to Rule 208 of the Rules of Practice (14 C.F.R. 13.208), and states as 

follows; 

I 

Respondent, Carolina Blue Ak, LLC, was advised through a Final Notice of 

Pi'oposed Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount 

of $17,500. On August 30, 2010, Respondent submitted a written demand for a 

hearing. 

II 

1. At all times relevant herein, Carolina Blue Air, LLC ("Carolina 

Blue Air") owned, maintained, and operated a Dassault Falcon Jet 

aircraft, identification number N450CF (hereinafter "the aircraft"). 

2. At all times relevant herein, the aircraft was subject to the 

requirements of Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98-13-05. 

3. AD 98-13-05 required repetitive inspections to detect cracks at the 

attaching holes of the wing-to-fuselage fairings and to ensure 
tightness of the attaching screws, and repair of any discrepancy 

found during such inspections. 

4. During the period February 23, 2010 to February 25, 2010, Carolina 

Blue Air operated the aircraft on four (4) flights. 

5. During each of the 4 flights referenced in paragraph (4), above, the 

aircraft was in an unairworthy condition. 

6. Specifically, the aircraft was overdue for compliance with A.D. 98-

13-05. 

7. Carolina Blue Air thus performed maintenance on an aircraft, 

engine, propeller, or appliance, and failed to use the methods, 

techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's 

maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness 

prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and 

practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in §43.16. 

Ill 

By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances. Respondent violated the 

following section(s) of the Federal Aviation Regulations: 

a. Section 39.7, which states that anyone who operates a product that 

does not meet the requirements of an applicable airworthiness 

directive is in violation of this section. 

b. Section 43.13(a), which states that each person performing 

maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, 
engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and 

practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual 

or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its 

manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable 

to the Administrator, except as noted in §43.16. He shall use the tools, 

equipment, and test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the 

work in accordance with accepted industry practices. If special 

equipment or test apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer 

involved, he must use that equipment or apparatus or its equivalent 

acceptable to the Administrator. 

c. Section 91.7(a), which states that no person may operate a civil aircraft 

unless it is in an airworthy condition. 

IV 

1. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §46301(a)(l). Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to 

exceed $25,000 for each of the violations alleged, or, for a small business concern, 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §46301(a)(5). Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to 

exceed $11,000 for each of the violations alleged. 
2. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of $17,500 is 

appropriate. 

WHEREFORE, die FAA, by counsel, respectfully requests that the 

Administrative Law Judge enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty 

in the amount of $17,500. 

Respectfully subnoitted, 

Alfred R. Johnson, Jr. 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

Zachary M. 'Berghan 

Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

718 553-3258 

718 995-5699 

NOTE: 

The Rules of Practice for this proceeding are set forth in Part 13, 

Subpart G, of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.R. Part 13). 

The Rules of Practice provide that Respondent must file a written 

answer to this Complaint, or a written Motion to Dismiss if appropriate, not 

later than 30 days after the date shown on the Certificate of Service. A general 

denial is deemed a failure to file an answer (Section 13.209(e)).