":rPARTMENTOF 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA lilANSPORl/^O^ 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION-^ uPr K/iiC!!-

OFFICE OF HEARINGS . ,, r n o o Jh i 

WASHINGTON, D.C. - ^ ^^ 

F t 8 I 2012 

In the Matter of: * 

* FAA Case No. 2010NM010105 

Aviation Technical Services, Inc. * FDMS No. l-AA-20n-0682 

* Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

* 

* 

* 

ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT 

COMES NOW Respondent Aviation Technical Services, Inc. ("ATS"), through counsel, and 

answers the Amended Complaint against it as follows: 

GENERAL DENIAL 

Except to the extent specifically and unequivocally admitted herein, all allegations contained in 

the Amended Complaint are denied. 

ANSWER TO PART I 

ATS admits the allegations contained in Part I of the Amended Complaint. 

ANSWER TO PART II 

I • ATS admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Part 11 of the Amended Complaint. 
2. 

a. With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2.a. of Part II of the Amended 

Complaint, ATS admits only that it performed maintenance on behalf of Southwest 

Airlines (SWA), an air carrier having a continuous airworthiness maintenance program, 

including: the repair of Boeing 737 main landing gear actuator beam assembly part 

number 65-46108-19 serial number 854. The balance of this request is denied. 

b. ATS admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2.b. of Part II of the Amended 

Complaint. 

c. With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2.c. of Part II of the Amended 

Complaint, ATS admits only that it performed maintenance on behalf of Southwest 

Airlines (SWA), an air carrier having a continuous airworthiness maintenance program, 

including: the overhaul of Boeing 737 main landing gear actuator beam assembly part 

number 65-46108-19 serial number 815. The balance of this request is denied. 

d. ATS admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2.d. of Part II of the Amended 

Complaint. 

3. With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Part II of the Amended Complaint, 

ATS admits only that Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2009-09-07, at paragraph (f), states as 

follows: "Except as provided by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD: At the applicable times 

specified in paragraph I.E. of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32AI355, Revision 2, dated 

March 5, 2008, inspect for damage of the retract actuator beam of the MLG and overhaul the 

retract actuator beam, as applicable, by doing all the applicable actions specified in the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32A1355, Revision 2, dated 

March 5, 2008. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further 

flight. Repeat the applicable inspection or overhaul thereafter at the applicable time specified 

in paragraph I.E. of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32AI355, Revision 2, dated March 5, 

2008." ATS further admits that Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2009-09-07, at paragraph (h), 

states as follows: "Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32A1355, Revision 2, dated March 5, 2008, 

specifies that the actions are for airplanes with new MLG retract actuator beams that have not 

been overhauled having part number (P/N) 65-46108-15 and subsequent dash numbers; and 

new or overhauled MLG retract actuator beams having P/N 65-46108-14 and previous dash 

numbers." 

4. ATS admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Part II of the Amended Complaint. 

5. ATS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Part II of the Amended Complaint. 

6. ATS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Part II of the Amended Complaint. 

7. ATS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Part 11 of the Amended Complaint. 
8. ATS admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Part II of the Amended Complaint. 

9. ATS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Part II of the Amended Complaint. 

10. ATS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of Part II of the Amended Complaint. 

11. ATS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of Part II of the Amended Complaint. 

ANSWER TO PART III 

I. ATS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph I of Part III of the Amended Complaint, 

including all subparts. 

2. ATS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Part III of the Amended Complaint. 

3. ATS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Part III of the Amended Complaint. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent Aviation Technical Services, Inc., through counsel, requests that the 

Administrative Law Judge enter an order finding that Respondent Aviation Technical Services, 

Inc., did not violate any of the Federal Aviation Regulations as alleged by the Federal Aviation 

Administration in this matter, and further requests that the Amended Complaint be dismissed and 

that no civil penalty be assessed against it. 

Respectfully submitted this 31st day of January, 2012. 

Dane B. Jaques, Esq. 

Dombroff Gilmore Jaques & French, PC 

1676 International Drive, Penthouse 

McLean, VA 22102 

Tel: 703-336-8800 

Fax: 703-336-8750 

djajjues_(S)dgl itigators.com 

Counsel for Respondent Aviation Technical 

Sei^ices, Inc. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Answer to Amended 

Complaint on the following party's counsel or designated representative, at the address indicated, 

by facsimile and UPS overnight delivery: 

Karen Davis Mubcr, Esq. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, Washington 98057 

Fax: 425-227-1007 

I also certify that I have this day served the original and one copy of the foregoing 

Answer to Amended Complaint on the following, at the address indicated, by facsimile and UPS 

overnight deliver)': 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Fax:202-493-5142 

I also certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Answer to Amended 

Complaint on the following, at the address indicated, by facsimile and UPS overnight delivery: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Fax:202-366-7536 

Dated this 3Ist day of January, 2012. 

v3iA/^>^^^ A ' 

Jam\s\A. Eastwood 

DomBroff Gilmore Jaques & French, P.C. 

1676 International Drive, Penthouse 

McLean, VA 22102 

Tel: 703-336-8800 

Fax: 703-336-8750