c ^ DMS 0001/00 6 

05/28/2010 10:44 FAX 2024935U2 FAA 

"^'l,.'l- . ... ^ .u.x o oxoi^n^ui FAA ACE 7 PAGE 02/06 

/\i:u 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In the Matter of; 

AIR EVAC EMS, INC., 

Respondent. 

COPY 

Served: May 25, 2010 

F AA Investigation No. 2007CE030026 

FAA Docket No. CPlOCEOOOl 

DMS No. FAA-20)0-0022 

Judge: Richard C Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

COMPLAINANT'S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION 

TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR DECISION 

(MOTION TO DISMISS) 

COMES NOW the Complainant, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, 

and pursuant to Section 13.218(d) of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Proceedings. 

files this answer in opposition to the Reapondent company's Motion for Decision in the ;ibovecaptioned case. The subject motion effectively seeks to dismiss the agency's Amended 

Complaint. 

Respondent company's motion should be denied, and this matter set for hearing as soon 

as possible. The numerous arguments contained in the subject motion for decision (motion to 

dismiss) arc without merit and unavailing. Respondent company seeks to have the Amended 

Complaint in this case dismissed, yet fails to establish or aniculate any legitimate reason why 

such a dismissal is justified, and thus should occur. 

Additionally, the Respondent company attempts to use amotion for sunOTiary judgment 

approach to accomplish what it fails to accomplish by way of its motion to dismiss, all in an 

effort to avoid a trial on the merits. But here again, the Respondent company fails to meet the 

well established legal standard for the granting of a motion for summary judgment, that is, that 

such a motion should only be sustained when there are no genuine issues of material fact in 

comention. 
^ OMS @1002/00G 

05/28/201 0 10:4 4 FAX 202493514 2 ^ 1^^ 

t J —, ^o.L^ .Lcio vib^Z-JJ/a FAA ACE 7 PAGE 03/0G 

Federal courts have granted summary judgment when no genuine issue? of material fact 

exist. Celotex Corp. v. gatrett 477 US, 317, 322-24 (1986). A gamine issue exists if the 

evidence is sufficient for a reasonable fact-fmder to return a verdict for the nomnoving party. 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby. Inc^ 477 U.S. 242, 255-56 (1986). And an issue is material when it 

is relevant or necessary to the ultimate conclusion of the case. Id. at 248. 

In submitting a motion for summary judgment, the burden rests on the moving party to 

establish that no factual issues exist. Moreover, courts will generally view a motion for summary 

judgment in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party when a genuine dispute regarding the 

facts exists. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c\ 

Consequently, summary judgment should be granted only -where a genuine issue or issues 

of material fact do not exi5t(a). That is not the sitMation in this case. As pointed out below, 

Respondent company's motion notwithstanding, genuine issues of material fact do exist 

requiring an evidentiary hearing. 

In support of this answer in opposition. Complainant informs the law judge that: 

L The allegations set out in the Amended Complaint filed in the case with FAA Docket No. 

CP10CE0O02 (DMS No. FA A-2010-0024), make out a cause of action against tlie 

Respondent company involving improper maintenance peri:ormed on a helicopter by the 

Respondent company under its Repair Station Certificate issued to the Respondent 

company by the FAA pursuant to the provisions of Pari 145 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations. The Amended Complaint specifically charges the Respondent company 

with violating certain FAR sections that pertain to aircraft maintenance under FAR Pan 

43 and FAR Pari: 145. 

2. In bold contrast, the allegations set out in the Amended Complaint iiled in this case, FAA 

Docket No. CPlOCEOOOl (DMS No. FAA-2010-0022), make out a cause of action 

against the Respondent company involving the operation of a helicopter by the 

Respondent company under its Air Carrier Certificate issued to the Respondent company 

by the FAA pursuant to the provisions oiparf 1S5 of tlie Federal Aviation Regulations. 
^ DMS 21003/006 

rts/9Q/9fliO 104 5 FAX 2024935142 ^^^ 

0 5 / 28 /2 010_ ^y_ <* 3_ j-_A_A^ ^xo J^3o. / i FAA ACE 7 PAGE 04/06 

The Amended Complaint specifically charges the Respondent company with violating 

certain FAR sections that pertain to operation of a helicopter under FAR Part 91 and 

FAR Part 135. The Respondent company denies such violations of the law. 

3. It just so happens that the Respondent company chose to operate the same helicopter 

under its Part 135 air carrier certificate that it had previously worked on in its 

maintenance shop under its Part 145 repair station certificate, as eilleged in both cases, 

The maintenance allegations contained in the Amended Complaint, which involves the 

alleged illegal Part 135 operation, were set out therein to establish how the aircraft got 

into its alleged unairworthy condition at the hands of the company that holds both 

certificates. 

4. Remarkably, the Respondent company is not happy with the fact that the FAA wants to 

hold it responsible for allegedly violating different laws while exercising the privileges of 

two separate, stand-alone certificates. By happenstance, the same helicopter served as a 

common denominator threading these two cases together when the Respondent company 

exercised privileges of two different certificates, each impacting the same helicopter but 

in different ways. Accordingly, the Respondent company stands accountable for its 

actions associated with the same helicopter but as they pertain, to the exercise of 

privileges under each of its two separate certificates. 

5. Putting aside the fact that the FAA has both the burden of going forward and the burden 

of proof in both of these cases, the Respondent company simply cannot accept the fact 

that the Respondent company's pilot operated a helicopter under its Part 135 certificate 

at a time when it v/as unairworthy. And this event occurred, the FAA alleges, because the 

day before the Respondent company's maintenance personnel who worked on the 

helicopter under its Part 145 certificale left it such that it was not in a condition for safe 

operation and thus, in the alleged unairworthy condition, The FAA alleges the operation 

violated the law. Tlie Respondent company denies such violations of the law. It must 

therefore be concluded that a genuine dispute concerning the alleged facts exists. 
05/28/2010 10:45 FAX 2024935142 

. . . . x^.A O OJ.DJiCnJ/' / i 

FAA + DMS 

FAA ACE 7 

gl004/00G 

PAGE 05/06 

6. It is axiomatic that the Respondent company's denial of the alleged operation as charged 

places genuine material facts in contention. Consequently, aii evidentiary hearing is 

required for the appropriate resolution of the fact question, did the Respondent company 

operate an aircraft while it was in an unairworthy condition, contrary to the law. Only in 

the crucible of a hearing will the whole truth be able to rise to the storfacc. 

7. Nothing presented by the Respondent company in its motion for Decision (Motion to 

Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment) justifies the dismissal of this case. 

8. Based on the foregoing, an order sustaining the Respondent company's motion for 

decision seeking to dismiss diis case is neither warranted nor justified, 

WHEREFORE, the undersigned respectfully requests the issuance of an Order denying 

the Respondent company's Motion for Decision and a separate Order setting this matter :for 

hearing as soon as possible. 

Dated this 25'" day May 2010. 

Respectfully submitted, 

A. Lester Haizlip 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY 

MARK G. CAMACHO 

Mark Camacho 

Senior Enforcement Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

901 Locust Street, Room 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

(816) 329-3765; Fax (S16) 329>377I 

Attorney for Complainant 
+ DMS @1005/00G 

05/28/2010 10:45 FAX 2024935142 FAA 

t,-.< ^o/^oj.o io-. IB tHb'J29377l FAA ACE 7 PAGE e6/0& 

AIR EVAC EMS. INC.. FAA Docket No, CPlOCEOOOl, DMS No. FAA-2010-0022 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that T have this date sent the Complainant's An,<!wer in Opposition to 

Respondent's Motion for Decision, via methods listed, to the below named addressees; 

Mr. James E. Ramsey, Esq, 

Cooling & Herbers P.C. 

2400 City Center Square 

1100 Main Street 

Kaitsas City, MO 64105 

(1 copy via regular mail; 1 copy via facsimile to 816-472-0790) 

The Honorable Richard C Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S-E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room. El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

(1 copy via regular mail; 1 copy via facsimile to 202 366-7536) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention; Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Room 2014 

(Original & 1 copy via regular mail; 1 copy via facsimile to 202>493-5l42) 

Dated this 25'*" day May 2010. 

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY 

MARK G. CAMACHO 

Mark Camacho 

Senior Enforcement Attorney