01/26/201 1 15:4 3 FA I 310725881 8 AWP- 7 12100 2

U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA LAVIATIO NADMINISTRATIO N NATIONA LTRANSPORTATIO NSAFET Y BOAR D PARTMEN TO F •••'SPORTATIO N • • i OPERATION S

WASHINGTON , D. C *-k*il*!-liit***-*!-k***1t*'ii********i-i:Je-k**-i,**4tit * I nth e Matte r

of : Trisha nAir , In c Responden t

Respondent . * * * * * * * * * FA A Case : 2007WP01006 1 Judge : Unassigne d

Januar y 26 , 201 1 •k**itit*it * *******************:********* * m i - t

COMPLAINANT^ S REPL Y T O RESPONDENT' S NOTIC EO FMOTION S AN D MOTION S FO RMOR EDEFINIT ESTATEMEN T an dMOTIO NT O STRIK E 

### U 2

2 . Complainant , b y an dthroug hcounsel , pursuan t t o 1 4 CF.R . 13,218 , hereb y replie s t o Respondent' s above name dmotion . Responden t

complain s tha t

th e Complain t

i nthi s cas e fail s t o allegt ; what regulatio n wa s violate db y Responden t i nregard s t o Respondent' s allege dfa i ure to comput e acente r

o f gravity , an dfailur e t o accuratel y comput e gros s takeof f weight . Respondent' s Motion , para . 2 & 3 . Th e violate dregulatio ni s 1 4 CF.R . 91.13 , a s idlege d unde r paragrap hII I (a ) o f

th e Complaint . Responden t

als o complain s that

th e Complain t

fail s t o alleg e wha t

accurac y i s require dregardin g th e calculatio n o f gros s takeof

f weight . Respondent' s Motion , jrara . 4 . Calculatio n o f

a n accurat e gros s weigh t i s necessary to insur e prope r operatio no f

th e subjec t aircraft , includin g prope r settin g o f

th e aircraf

t stabilize r

trim . Complainant' s01/28/201 1 15:4 3 FA X 310725681 6 AWP-7 ElOO S allegatio ntha t

Respondent' s inaccurat e calculatio no f gros s weigh t

constitute da;areles s o r reckles s act , i s afac t

t o prove n at

th e hearing . Respondent' s issu e appear s t o b( i on e o f wantin g t o se e Complainant' s evidenc e t o sho w th e degre e o f accurac y requirec , rather thanan issu e withth e sufficienc y o f th e pleadings . Responden t als o appear s t o b e contendin g that

h e calculate dth e gros s weigh t t o asufficient

degre e o f

accuracy . Responden t

i s free t o mak e suc ha nassertion . However , suc ha nassertio ni s not

[fround s fo r allegin g th e Complain t

i s not i nsufficient

detai l t o provid e notic e o f th e fa<;tua

l o r lega l allegation s agains t

him . Suc ha

nassertio nwoul dals o appear t o b e evidenc e that Responden t

understand s th e allegatio nagains t i t an di s prepare dt o defen dagains t t . 3 . Responden t

als o complain s that

th e Complain t

fail s t o alleg e i f

th e inaccurat e calculatio no f

gros s weigh t

wa s du e t o inad^'ertence , incorrec t informatio nsupplie db

y others , etc . Respondent' s Motion , para . 5 . Th e Complain t simpl y allege s that

th e inaccurat e calculatio n o f gros s weigh t

wa s careles s o r

reckless . Th e evidenc e regardin g th e inaccurat e calculatio n o f gros s weigh t

i s fro mdocumentatio nprovide db y Respondent , whic hshow s tha t th e erro r may hav e bee nth e resul t o f anumbe r

o f factors , includin g thos e suggeste db y Respondent . I nconsiderin g all th e possibl e contributin g factors . Complainan t

determine dRespondent' s conduc t t o b e careles s o r

reckless . Responden t

i s free t o offe

r an y o f hi s suggeste dexplanations , indefens e t o th e conduc t bein g careles s o r

reckless . T o properl y draf t th e Complaint , i t

i s no t Complainant' s dut

y t o alleg e Respondent' s defense s i nthat Complaint . 4 . Responden t

als o complain s that

th e Complain t

fail s t o alleg e whethe r

o r no t th e aircraf t itsel f wa s ou t o f cente r o f gravit y limitation s an dwhethe r th e aircraf

t WE.S ove r gros s takeof

f weigh t a t th e tim e o f

th e [attempted ] takeoff. Respondent' s Motion , j-tara . 6 . Complainan t

doe s no t alleg e eithe r

o f these . I'urthermore , suc hallegation s woul dnot b e require di norde r

t o establis haviolatio no f 1 4 CF R§91.13 .01/26/201 1 15:4 3 FA I 310725681 6 AWP- 7 ®00 4

5 . Responden t

als o complain s tha t

th e C^omplain

t fail s t o alleg e i nwha t

manne r th e allegation s regardin g cente r o f gravity an dgros s weigh t contribute dt o o r

cai,se dth e aborte dtakeoff. Respondent' s Motion , para . 7 . Complainan t doe s no t inten d1 o prov e tha t eithe r o f thes e contribute dt o o r

cause dth e aborte dtakeoff , an dthu s di dne t

alleg e such . Complainan t

simpl y intend s t o sho w that prope r operatio no f

th e subjec t

aircraft , includin g prope r

settin g o f

th e aircraf

t stabilize r

trim , require s computatio no f th^ ; cente r o f gravity an daccurat e computatio no f th e gros s takeof

f weight , an dfailur e t o d o s o i s careles s o r

reckless

6 . Responden t

als o complain s tha t

th e Complain t

fail s t o alleg e whethe r

th e allege d fact s constitute dapotentia l o r actua l endaiigerment . Respondent' s Motion , para . 8 . Whethe r o r no t Respondent' s conduc t

resulte di npotentia l o r actua l endangennen t

i s irrelevan t fo r thi s case . T o prov e whethe r o r not Respondent' s conduc t

resulte di n potential o r

actua l endangermen t

i s no t necessary t o giv e prope r notic e for

aviolatio n o f 1 4 CF R§91.13 . Potentia l endangermen t i s sufficient

t o warran t

afinding that Responden t

violate d1 4 CF.R . 91.13 . 7 . Responden t

als o complain s that

th e Complain t

fail s t o identif

y wha t maintenanc e record s di dnot

hav e a n entry regardin g th e inoperativ e thrus t reverser , an dwhat regulatio n wa s violated . Respondent' s Motion , para . 9 , A s state di nparagrap h11 1 (b ) o f th e Complaint , 1 4 CF.R . 91.40 5 states : "Eac howne r o r operato r o f a naircraft—shal l ensur e tha t

maintenanc e personne l mak e appropriat e entrie s i nth e aircraf t maintenanc e record s indicatm g th e aircraf t ha s bee nreturne dt o service. " Suc ha n"appropriat e entry " followin g th e thrus t

reverse r bein g placarde da s inoperative , woul dinclud e anentr y regardin g th e thrus t

reverse r bein g inoperable . Althoug hComplainan t ha s provide dan invoic e fro mth e Wester n Aircraf t that include s mentio no f

th e inoperabl e thrus t

reverser . Complainant' s inspectio n o f Respondent' s maintenanc e record s followin g th e acciden t reveale dn o suc happropriat e entry regardui g th e thrus t reverser .01/26/201 1 15:4 4 FA I 310725681 8 AWP- 7 S i 00 5

8 . Responden t

make s agenera l allegatio nthat th e Complain t

fail s t o "se t

fort hth e detail , standard s an dspecifi c violation s suc hthat th e genera l allegatio no f violatio no f

1 4 CF.R . 91.1 3 an d91.405(b ) canno t b e ascertaine dwithsuc hdetai l a s t o amoun t t o prope r notice. " Respondent' s Motion , para . 10 . I ns madministrativ e proceeding , acomplain t i s sufficient i f th e responden t

understoo dth e issu e an dwa s afforde dfull opportunity t o justif y it s conduc t

durin g th e cours e o f

th e litigation . Aloh aAirlines , Luc . v . Civi l Aeronautic s Bd. , 59 8 F.2 d250 , 26 2 (D.C . Cir . l979)(quotin g NLR B v . Macke y F'.adi o & Tel . Co. , 30 4 U.S . 333 , 35 0 (1938)) . Bothth e fact s an dth e violation s allege di nt li s cas e ar e quit e simple . Responden t seem s t o attemp t

to complicat e th e case , b y questionin g wh y Complainan t

didn' t mad e anumbe r

o f additional allegation s tha t ar e not relevan t t o prov e th e violation s allege db y Complainant . Complainan t simpl y allege s that Responden t

faile dt o comput e th e cente r o f gravity an daccuratel y comput e th e gros s takeof f weight , botho f

whic har e require dfo r

prope r operatio no f

th e subjec t

aircraft , an d tha t Respondent' s failure t o d o wa s careles s o r reckless . Complainan t

fiarther alle<|e s tha t responden t

fiiiledt o mad e aprope r maintenanc e entry regardin g th e inoperabk : thrus t reverse r whe n th e aircraf

t wa s approve dfor

retur nt o service , a s require db y 1 4 CF.R . 91.405(b) . 9 . Responden t

als o complain s that

th e Complain t

fail s t o alleg e th e standar dfor "appropriat e entrie s [i n th e aircraf t maintenanc e records]. " Respondent' s Motion , para . 11 , Evidenc e regardin g th e "appropriat e entry " that Responden t

shoul dhav e made , bu t faile dt o make , wil l b e provide dat th e hearing . Th e regulatory standard s fo r an appropriat e entry , i n thi s case , ar e i n1 4 CF Rpart 43 . 10 . Responden t

als o complain s that

th e Complain t

fail s t o identif

y tha t maintenanc e wa s don e b y an outsid e maintenanc e facility , Ihat Respondent' s Directo r

o f Maintenanc e wa s mad e awar e o f

th e inoperativ e thrus t

reverser , an dth e outsid e maintenanc e 'acility provide dawor k

orde r lis t o f discrepancies , includin g th e thrus t reverser . Respondent' s Motion , para . 12 . Althoug hthes e assertion s may o r may no t b e true , the y are no t01/26/201 1 15:4 4 FA I 310725681 8 AWP- 7 il00 6

necessary t o pu t

Responden t

o n notic e a s t o th e basi s for allegin g that

it violate d1 4 CFR § 91.13 . Rather , th e assertion s appear t o b e allegation s tha t

ther e may b e mitigatin g circumstances . T o properl y draf t th e Complaint , i t

i s no t Complainant' s duty t o alleg e possibl e mitigatio n i n tha t Complaint . 11

- Responden t

make s additiona l complaint s mparagraph s 1 3 an d1 4 that appear t o b e mor e o f

affirmativ e defense s thancomplaint s regardin g th e sufficienc y o f Complainant' s pleadmgs . Affirmativ e defense s shoul db e ple dinth e Answer . 12 . Responden t

allege s i n paragrap h1 5 tha t Complainan t

doe s not identif y whethe r

o r no t th e thrus t

reverse r o r an y lac k o f maintenanc e entry woul dhav e mad e any differenc e durin g th e aborte dtakeoff , Again , th e Complainan t doe s no t inten dt o prov e that

eithe r o f thes e contribute dt o o r cause dth e aborte dtakeoff , an dthu s di dno t

allegt ; such . Complainan t

simpl y intend s t o sho w that prope r operatio no f

th e subjec t

EJrcraft, includin g prope r

settin g o f

th e aircraf

t stabilize r

trim , require s computatio no f th e cente r o f gravity an daccurat e computatio no f th e gros s takeof

f weight , an dRespondent' s failure t o d o s o wa s careles s o r

reckless . CONCLUSION . Fo r th e reason s state dabove , Complainan t respectfull y request s tha t Respondent' s "MOTION S FO RMOR EDEFINIT ESTATEMEN T an dMOTIO NT O STRII^JE " b e denied . Respectfidl y submitted , NAOM I TSUD A Regiona l Counse l By : DonBobert z Attorne y Dated : January 26 , 201 101/26/201 1 15:4 4 FA I 310725681 6 AWP- 7 i2]00 7

CERTIFICATE ; O FSERVIC E I hereb y certif

y tha t o n thi s date I ser^'e db y fa x an dplace di nth e Unite dState s mail , postag e prepaid , COMPLAINANT' S REPL Y T O RESPONDENT' S NOTIC E O FMOTION S AN D MOTION S FO RMOR EDEFINIT ESTATEMEN T an d MOTIO NT O STRIK Eto :

Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , ACTC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e SWIOOO O FAX : 202-493-514 2 I further certif y tha t o n thi s dat e I sen'e db y fa x an dplace di nth e Unite dState s mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dmail , returnreceip t requested , atru e cop y o f th e abov e addresse dto : Loui s S . Franecke , Esq .

111 5 Irwi nStreet , Suit e 100 Sa n Rafael , C A 9490 1 FAX : 415-457-704 1

Dated : January 26 , 201 1 Agnes Ebilan e Legal Technicia m Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Lawndale , Californi a