c ^ DM S 0001/00 6 05/28/201 0 10:4 4 FA X 2024935U 2 FA A "^'l,.'l- . ... ^

.u.x o oxoi^n^u i FA A AC E 7 PAG E 02/0 6

/\i: u UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C In th e Matter

of ; AI REVA C EMS , INC. , Respondent . 

# COP Y Served : Ma

y 25 , 201 0 F A A Investigatio n No . 2007CE03002 6 FAA Docke t

No . CPlOCEOOO

l DM S No . FAA-20)0-002 2 Judge : Richar dC Goodwi n Administrativ e La w Judg e COMPLAINANT' S ANSWE RI N OPPOSITIO N T O RESPONDENT' S MOTIO N FO RDECISIO N

(MOTIO N T O DISMISS ) COME S NO W th e Complainant , th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA) , b y counsel , an dpursuan t

t o Sectio n 13.218(d ) o f

th e Rule s o f

Practic e i n FA A Civi l Penalty Proceedings . files thi s answer

i n oppositio n t o th e Reapondent company' s Motio n for

Decisio n i n th e ;ibove

captione dcase . Th e subjec t motio n effectively seek s t o dismis s th e agency' s Amende d Complaint . Responden t

company' s motio n shoul db e denied , an dthi s matte r set for hearin g a s soo n a s possible . Th e numerou s argument s containe di n th e subjec t motio n for

decisio n (motio n t o dismiss ) arc withou t

meri t an dunavailing . Respondent company seek s t o hav e th e Amende d Complain t

i n thi s cas e dismissed , ye t

fail s t o establis h or

aniculat e any legitimat e reaso n wh y suc h adismissal i s justified , an dthu s shoul doccur . Additionally , th e Responden t company attempt s t o us e amotio n fo r sunOTiar y judgmen t approac h t

o accomplis h wha t

it fail s t o accomplis h b

y wa y o f it s motio n t o dismiss , al l i n a n effor t to avoi datrial o n th e merits . Bu t here again , th e Responden t compan y fail s to mee t

th e wel l establishe dlegal standar dfo r th e grantin g o f

amotio n fo

r summary judgment , tha

t is , that suc h amotio n shoul donl y b e sustaine dwhen there ar e no genuin e issue s o f material fac t

i n comention .^ OM S @1002/00 G 05/28/201 0 10:4 4 FA X 202493514 2 ^ 1^ ^ t J — , ^o.L

^ .Lci o vib^Z-JJ/ aFAA AC E 7 PAG E 03/0 G

Federa l court s hav e grante dsummar y judgment

whe n n o genuin e issue ? o f materia l fac t exist . Celote x Corp . v . gatret t 47 7 US , 317 , 322-2 4 (1986) . A gamin e issu e exist s i f th e evidenc e i s sufficient

for areasonabl e fact-fmde

r t o return averdic t

for th e nomnovin g party . Anderso n v . Liberty Lobby . Inc ^ 47 7 U.S . 242 , 255-5 6 (1986) . An dan issu e i s materia l when i t i s relevan t o r necessary t o th e ultimat e conclusio n o f th e case . Id . at

248 . I n submittin g amotio n fo

r summar y judgment, th e burde n rest s o n th e movin g part y t o establis h tha

t n o factua l issue s exist . Moreover , court s wil l generall y vie w amotio n fo r summar y judgment i n aligh t mos t favorabl e t o th e nonmovin g part y whe n agenuin e disput e regardin g th e fact s exists . Fed . R . Civ . P . 56(c \ Consequently , summary judgmen t shoul db e grante donly -wher e agenuin e issu e o

r issue s o f materia l fact

d o not exi5t(a) . Tha t

i s no t th e sitMatio

n i n thi s case . A s pointe dou t below , Responden t

company' s motio n notwithstanding , genuin e issue s o f materia l fac t

d o exis t requirin g an evidentiary hearing . I n support o f thi s answe r

i n opposition . Complainan t inform s th e la w judg e that : L Th e allegation s se t out i n th e Amende dComplain t file din th e cas e with FA A Docke t No . CP10CE0O0 2 (DM S No . F A A-2010-0024) , make ou t acaus e o f

actio n agains t

tli e Responden t

compan y involvin g imprope r maintenanc e peri:orme do n ahelicopte r by th e Responden t

compan y unde r

it s Repai r

Statio n Certificat e issue dt o th e Responden t compan y b y th e FA A pursuan t t o th e provision s o f

Par i 14 5 o f

th e Federal Aviatio n Regulations . Th e Amende dComplain t specificall y charge s th e Responden t company with violatin g certai n FA Rsection s that pertai n t o aircraf

t maintenanc e unde r

FA RPa n 4 3 an dFA RPari : 145 . 2 . I n bol dcontrast , th e allegation s se t out i n th e Amende dComplain t iile di n thi s case , FA A Docke t No . CPlOCEOOO

l (DM S No . FAA-2010-0022) , make out acaus e o f

actio n agains t th e Responden t

company involvin g th e operatio n o f ahelicopte r

b y th e Responden t

compan y unde r

it s Ai r Carrie r Certificat e issue dt o th e Responden t company by th e FA A pursuan t

t o th e provision s oipar f

1S 5 o f tli e Federa l Aviatio n Regulations .^ DM S 21003/00 6 rts/9Q/9fliO 104 5 FA X 202493514 2 ^^ ^ 0 5 / 2 8 / 2 010

_^y

_ < * 3

_j-_A_A ^ ^x o J^3o . / i FA A AC E 7 PAG E 04/0 6

Th e Amende dComplain t

specificall y charge s th e Responden t compan y with violatin g certai n FA Rsection s tha t

pertai n t o operatio n o f

ahelicopte r

unde r FA RPart

9 1 an d FA RPar t 135 . Th e Responden t

company denie s suc h violation s o f th e law . 3 . It jus t s o happen s tha t

th e Responden t

compan y chos e t o operat e th e sam e helicopte r unde r it s Part 13 5 ai r carrie r certificate that

i t hadpreviousl y worke do n i n it s maintenanc e sho p unde r

it s Part 14 5 repai r

statio n certificate , a s eillegedi n bot h cases , Th e maintenanc e allegation s containe di n th e Amende dComplaint , whic h involve s th e allege dillega l Part

13 5 operation , were set

ou t therei n t o establis h ho w th e aircraf t go t int o it s allege dunairworth y conditio n a t th e hand s o f

th e compan y that

hold s bot h certificates . 4 . Remarkably , th e Responden t company i s no t

happ y with th e fac t

tha t th e FA A want s t o hol dit responsibl e fo r

allegedl y violatin g different law s whil e exercisin g th e privilege s o f tw o separate , stand-alon e certificates . B y happenstance , th e sam e helicopte r serve da s a commo n denominato r

threadin g thes e tw o case s togethe r when th e Responden t

compan y exercise dprivilege s o f

tw o differen

t certificates , eac h impactin g th e sam e helicopte r bu t i n different

ways . Accordingly , th e Responden t compan y stand s accountabl e for it s action s associate dwith th e sam e helicopte r but a s the y pertain , t o th e exercis e o f privilege s unde r

eac h o f it s tw o separate certificates . 5 . Puttin g asid e th e fac t tha t th e FA A ha s bot

h th e burde n o f

goin g forwardan dth e burde n o f proo f in both o f

thes e cases , th e Responden t compan y simpl y canno t

accep t th e fact that th e Responden t

company' s pilo t

operate dahelicopte r

unde r it s Par t 13 5 certificate at atim e whe n i t

v/a s unairworthy . Andthi s even t occurred , th e FA A alleges , becaus e th e da y befor e th e Responden t

company' s maintenanc e personne l wh o worke do n th e helicopte r unde r it s Par t 14 5 certifical e lef

t i t suc h tha t i t wa s no t i n aconditio n fo

r saf e operatio n an dthus , i n th e allege dunairworthy condition , Th e FA A allege s th e operatio n violate dth e law . Tli e Responden t company denie s suc h violation s o f th e law . I

t mus t therefore b e conclude dtha t agenuin e disput e concernin g th e allege dfact s exists .05/28/201 0 10:4 5 FA X 202493514 2

. . . . x^.A O OJ.DJiCnJ/ ' / i FA A + DM S FA A AC E 7 gl004/00 G PAG E 05/0 6

6 . It i s axiomati c tha t

th e Responden t

company' s denial o f

th e allege doperatio n a s charge d place s genuin e materia l fact s i n contention . Consequently , ai i evidentiary hearin g i s require dfo

r th e appropriat e resolutio n o f th e fact question , di dth e Responden t compan y operate a n aircraf t whil e i t wa s i n a n unairworth y condition , contrary t o th e law . Onl y i n th e crucibl e o f

ahearin g wil l th e whol e trut h b e abl e t o rise t o th e storfacc . 7 . Nothin g presente db y th e Responden t company i n it s motio n fo r Decisio n (Motio n t o Dismiss/Motio n fo r

Summar y Judgment ) justifie s th e dismissa l o f thi s case . 8 . Base do n th e foregoing , a n orde r sustainin g th e Responden t company' s motio n for decisio n seekin g t o dismis s dii s cas e i s neither warrante dno r

justified , WHEREFORE , th e undersigne drespectfull y request s th e issuanc e o f an Order denyin g th e Responden t

company' s Motio n for

Decisio n an daseparat e Order settin g thi s matte r

:fo r hearin g a s soo n a s possible . Date dthi s 25' " day Ma

y 2010 . Respectfull y submitted , A . Leste r Haizli p Regiona l Counse l By : ORIGINA L SIGNE D B

Y MAR KG . CAMACH O Mar k Camach o Senio r Enforcemen t

Attorne y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 90 1 Locus t

Street , Roo m50 6 Kansa s City , M O 64106-264 1 (816 ) 329-3765 ; Fa x (S16 ) 329>377 I Attorne y fo

r Complainan t+ DM S @1005/00 G 05/28/201 0 10:4 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A t,-. < ^o/^oj. o io- . I B tHb'J29377 l FA A AC E 7 PAG E e6/0 &

AI REVA C EMS . INC. . FA A Docke t No , CPlOCEOOOl , DM S No . FAA-2010-002 2 CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E I hereb y certif

y tha t T hav e thi s date sen t

th e Complainant' s An,<!we r i n Oppositio n t o Respondent' s Motio n fo

r Decision , viamethod s listed , t o th e belo w name daddressees ; Mr . Jame s E . Ramsey , Esq , Coolin g & Herber s P.C . 240 0 City Cente r

Square 110 0 Mai n Stree t Kaitsa s City , M O 6410 5 ( 1 cop y vi aregula r

mail ; 1 cop y vi afacsimil e t o 816-472-0790 ) Th e Honorabl e Richar dC Goodwi n Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U S Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S-E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Room . El2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 ( 1 cop y vi aregula r

mail ; 1 cop y vi afacsimil e t o 20 2 366-7536 ) Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention ; Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wright Building , Roo m201 4 (Origina l & 1 cop y vi aregula r mail ; 1 cop y vi afacsimil e t o 202>493-5l42 ) Date dthi s 25'* " day May 2010 . ORIGINA L SIGNE D B Y MAR KG . CAMACH O Mar k Camach o Senio r Enforcemen t

Attorne y