5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

c 

1 MICHAEL L. DWORKIN 

2 MICHAEL L. DWORKIN and ASSOCIATES 

3 465 California Street, Suite 210 

4 San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 421-2500 

6 FAX: (415) 421-2560 

7 Email: law@avialex.com 

8 

9 Attorney for SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

11 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

12 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

13 ) 

14 In the Matter of: ) FAA CASE NO. 2009NM060048 

) 

16 ) Docket No. (unassigned) 

17 SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC. ) 

18 ) Judge: (Not Assigned) 

19 ) 

) 

21 ) ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

22 ) 

23 

24 COMES NOW, SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC. (hereinafter referred to as 

"SKYWEST") by and through its undersigned counsel, answers the 

26 Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA")' s Complaint, dated April 2, 

27 2010. 

28 I. 

29 1. Answering Paragraph I. 1. of the Complaint, SKYWEST admits 

that on or about March 26, 2010, it was advised through a Final 

31 Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that the Federal Aviation 

1 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

;; 

-


Administration ("FAA") proposed to assess a civil penalty in the 

amount of $182,500.00, and that on or about March 29, 2010, 

SKYWEST, through its undersigned counsel, submitted a written 

request for a hearing. Except as expressly admitted above, SKYWEST 

denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained 

therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. SKYWEST further 

avers that its written request for a hearing was timely and in full 

compliance with the applicable rules of practice in FAA civil 

penalty proceedings. 

II. 

1. Answering Paragraph II. 1. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

admits that it is now, and at all times mentioned herein was, the 

holder of Air Carrier Certificate No. SWIA011A and that at all 

times mentioned in the Complaint, SKYWEST was conducting its air 

carrier operations under pertinent provisions of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations, including but not limited to Federal Aviation 

Regulation Part 121 (hereinafter "FAR Part 121"). Except as 

expressly admitted above, SKYWEST denies each and every, all and 

singular, allegations contained therein, and each and every part 

thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and 

disjunctively. 

2. 	Answering Paragraph II. 2. of the Complaint, SKYWEST admits 

, S 'f't' ("OpSpecs") that Section D072 of its Operatlons pecl lca lons 

2 

:; 

1 

2 

3 

4 

S 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

lS 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

2Q 

requires it to maintain its aircraft in accordance with its 

Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program ("CAMP"), which 

includes, inter alia, the provisions of its General Maintenance 

Manual ("GMM"). Except as expressly admitted above, SKYWEST denies 

each and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, 

and each and every part thereof, both generally and specifically, 

conjunctively and disjunctively. SKYWEST affirmatively avers that 

in addition to the GMM, the CAMP is comprised of, inter alia, 

Standard Practices, Maintenance/Inspection Programs, OpSpecs, OEM 

Manuals, Substantial Maintenance Vendors' Procedure Manuals and 

Accessory Shop Processes Manuals. 

3. Answering Paragraph II. 3. of the Complaint, SKYWEST admits 

that its GMM incorporates by reference the Embraer EMB-120 

Maintenance and Inspection Program as well as the EMB-120 

Maintenance Manual. Except as expressly admitted above, SKYWEST 

denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained 

therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. SKYWEST 

affirmatively avers that the GMM additionally includes, inter alia, 

SKYWEST's Standard Practices. 

4. Answering Paragraph II. 4. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

admits that OpSpec 0085 authorizes it to use N579SW, an EMB-120-ER 

civil aircraft in the conduct of its FAR Part 121 Operations. 

Except as expressly admitted above, SKYWEST denies each and every, 

3 
-

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

~ 

all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and every 

part thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and 

disjunctively. SKYWEST affirmatively avers that SKYWEST currently 

has 55 EMB-120 aircraft in its fleet, but since 1987, has operated 

over 100 EMB-120's and that at one time, SKYWEST had 94 EMB-120's 

listed in its OpSpecs making it the largest EMB-120 operator in the 

world. 

5. Answering Paragraph II. 5. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained 

therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. SKYWEST 

affirmatively avers that on January 18, 2009, N5759SW's flight crew 

reported that the right main landing gear "took 3 times to come 

up." 

6. Answering Paragraph II. 6. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

admits that maintenance personnel replaced the right main landing 

gear up-lock wire harness. Except as expressly admitted above, 

SKYWEST denies each and every, all and singular, allegations 

contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally 

and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. SKYWEST 

affirmatively avers that the main landing gear was inspected, 

adjusted and functionally tested; that all functional tests were 

satisfactory and that the aircraft was returned to service in an 

airworthy condition. 

4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

c 

;; 

7. Answering Paragraph II. 7. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

admits that on January 20, 2009, the pilot of N5759SW reported the 

forward left door on the right main landing gear did not close 

after the pilot put the landing gear lever to the "up" position and 

that the pilot cycled the gear and retraction was normal. Except 

as expressly admitted above, SKYWEST denies each and every, all and 

singular, allegations contained therein, and each and every part 

thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and 

disjunctively. 

8. Answering Paragraph II. 8. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

admits that SKYWEST maintenance personnel placed N579SW on jacks 

but could not replicate any discrepancy. Except as expressly 

admitted above, SKYWEST denies each and every, all and singular, 

allegations contained therein, and each and every part thereof, 

both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

SKYWEST affirmatively avers that the main landing gear was 

inspected, adjusted and functionally tested; that all functional 

tests were satisfactory and that the aircraft was returned to 

service in an airworthy condition. 

9. Answering Paragraph II. 9. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

denies that the pilot, or any other crewmember, reported an "unsafe 

landing gear indication". SKYWEST admits that on February 21, 

2009, and after takeoff, the pilot of N579SW cycled the gear three 

times before the landing gear indication was normal and that this 

5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

occurred approximately 32 days and 94 flights/cycles following the 

maintenance performed on January 20, 2009, as alleged in Paragraph 

8 of the Complaint. Except as expressly admitted above, SKYWEST 

denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained 

therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

10. Answering Paragraph II. 10. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

admits that SKYWEST maintenance personnel adjusted the right main 

landing gear up-lock proximity switches and removed and replaced 

the main landing gear handle assembly. SKYWEST affirmatively 

avers that the landing gear was then functionally tested and that 

all functional tests were satisfactory and that the aircraft was 

returned to service in an airworthy condition. Except as expressly 

admitted above, SKYWEST denies each and every, all and singular, 

allegations contained therein, and each and every part thereof, 

both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

11. Answering Paragraph II. 11. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

admits that on February 25, 2009 and on arrival at Portland, 

Oregon, (some 4 days and approximately 12 flights/cycles following 

the accomplishment of maintenance alleged in Paragraph 10 of the 

Complaint), the pilot of N579SW reported that upon departure on 

that leg, the gear would not retract and that the crew cycled the 

gear 3 times. Except as expressly admitted above, SKYWEST denies 

each and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, 

6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

a 

and each and every part thereof, both generally and specifically, 

conjunctively and disjunctively, and specifically denies that the 

crew held the landing gear retraction handle in the up position for 

over one minute. 

12. Answering Paragraph II. 12. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

admits that on February 25, 2009, and in response to the pilot's 

report alleged in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, SKYWEST performed 

maintenance on N57 5 9SW and executed an airworthiness release. 

Except as expressly admitted above, SKYWEST denies each and every, 

all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and every 

part thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and 

disjunctively. 

13. Answering Paragraph II. 13. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

admits that on February 25, 2009, SKYWEST maintenance personnel 

removed and replaced the right main landing gear up-lock actuator. 

SKYWEST affirmatively avers that following this work, maintenance 

personnel functionally tested the gear and executed an 

airworthiness release. Except as expressly admitted above, SKYWEST 

denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained 

therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

14. Answering Paragraph II. 14. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

admits that on February 25, 2009, when a company mechanic affixed 

his or her initials and employee number on N579SW's maintenance 

7 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

= 


log, such employee certified that no known condition existed that 

made the aircraft unairworthy and that the procedures set forth in 

SKYWEST's manuals had been followed. Except as expressly admitted 

above, SKYWEST denies each and every, all and singular, allegations 

contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally 

and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

15. Answering Paragraph II. 15. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained 

therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. SKYWEST 

affirmatively avers the Embraer Maintenance Manual, including but 

not limited to Section 32-32-09, speaks for itself. 

16. Answering Paragraph II. 16. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

denies each and every 1 all and singular, allegations contained 

therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. SKYWEST 

affirmatively avers the Embraer Maintenance Manual, including but 

not limited to Section 32-32-09, speaks for itself. 

17. Answering Paragraph II. 17. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

denies that a hydraulic hand pump was not available. SKYWEST 

admits that a hydraulic hand pump was not used in performing the 

subject maintenance on February 25, 2009. Except as expressly 

q.dmitted above, SKYWEST denies each and every, all and singular, 

allegations contained therein, and each and every part thereof, 

8 

1 both generally and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

2 SKYWEST affirmatively avers that in lieu of the hydraulic hand 

3 pump, SKYWEST availed itself of other procedures, including its 

4 Standard Practices and GMM consistent with the EMB-120 Maintenance 

5 Manual and SKYWEST's GMM. 

6 18. Answering Paragraph II. 18. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

7 denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained 

B therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

9 specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

10 19. Answering Paragraph II. 19. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

11 denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained 

12 therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

13 specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

14 20. Answering Paragraph II. 20. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

15 admits that one of its Portland Maintenance Supervisors contacted 

16 SKYWEST's EMB-120 Fleet Coordinator. Except as expressly admitted 

17 above, SKYWEST denies each and every, all and singular, allegations 

18 contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally 

19 and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

20 21. Answering Paragraph II. 21. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

21 denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained 

22 therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

23 specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

24 22. Answering Paragraph II. 22. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

9 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained 

therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

23. Answering Paragraph II. 23. of the Complaint,SKYWEST 

admits that on February 26, 2009, it dispatched and operated N579SW 

on eight flights, the last one of which terminated at Spokane, 

Washington. Except as expressly admitted above, SKYWEST denies 

each and every, all and singular, allegations contained therein, 

and each and every part thereof, both generally and specifically, 

conjunctively and disjunctively. 

24. Answering Paragraph II. 24. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

admits that on February 27, 2009, it dispatched and operated N579SW . 

from Spokane, Washington. Except as expressly admitted above, 

SKYWEST denies each and every, all and singular, allegations 

contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally 

and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

25. Answering Paragraph II. 25. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

admits that on February 27, 2009, during the departure of N579SW, 

the right main landing gear did not retract after the crew cycled 

the gear three times and that the aircraft returned to Spokane with 

the gear extended. Except as expressly admitted above, SKYWEST 

denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained 

therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

10 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26. Answering Paragraph II. 26. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

admits that on February 27, 2009, it ferried N579SW from Spokane, 

Washington to Portland, Oregon. Except as expressly admitted 

above, SKYWEST denies each and every, all and singular, allegations 

contained therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally 

and specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. 

27. Answering Paragraph II. 273. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

admits that subsequent to N579SW's arrival at its Portland 

Maintenance facility, SKYWEST maintenance personnel removed and 

replaced the right main landing gear drag and locking strut. 

Except as expressly admitted above, SKYWEST denies each and every, 

all and singular, allegations contained therein, and each and every 

part thereof, both generally and specifically, conjunctively and 

disjunctively. 

28. Answering Paragraph II. 28. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained 

therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively. SKYWEST 

affirmatively avers that prior to the ferry flight, SKYWEST had 

determined that the uplock hook had seized and had made an entry 

into the aircraft maintenance log. 

III. 

1. Answering Paragraph III. 1. a. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained 

11 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

specifically, conjunctively· and disjunctively, and specifically 

denies that it violated Section 119.5(g) of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations, or any other pertinent law, rule, regulation or order, 

and further denies that it operated in violation of an appropriate 

operations specification. 

2. Answering Paragraph III. 1. b. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained 

therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively, and specifically 

denies that it violated Section 119.5(1) of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations, orany other pertinent law, rule, regulation or order, 

and further denies that it operated aircraft in violation of its 

operations specifications. 

3. Answering Paragraph III. 1. c. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained 

therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively, and specifically 

denies that it violated Section 121.153(a) (2) of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations, or any other pertinent law, rule, regulation 

or order, and further denies that it operated an aircraft when it 

was not in an airworthy condition. 

4. Answering Paragraph III. 1. d. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained 

12 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and· 

specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively, and specifically 

denies that it violated section 121.605 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations, or any other pertinent law, rule, regulation or order, 

and further denies that it dispatched an aircraft under FAR 121 

when it was not airworthy. 

5. Answering Paragraph III. 1. e. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained 

therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

specifically, conj unctively and disjunctively, and specifically 

denies that it violated Section 121. 709 (b) (2) (i) of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations, or any other pertinent law, rule, regulation 

or order, and further denies that it operated an aircraft after 

maintenance, preventive maintenance or alterations were performed 

but had not executed the required certification that the work was 

performed per the requirements of its manual. 

6. Answering Paragraph III. 1. f. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

denies each and every, all and singular, allegations contained 

therein, and each and every part thereof, both generally and 

specifically, conjunctively and disjunctively, and specifically 

denies that it violated Section 121.709 (b) (2) (iv) of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations, or any other pertinent law, rule, regulation 

or order, and further denies that it operated an aircraft after 

maintenance was performed when the airworthiness release or log 

13 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

entry did not include a certification that no known condition 

exists that would make the airplane unairworthy. 

7. Answering Paragraph III. 2. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

avers that 49 U.S.C. Section 46301(a) and (d) speak for themselves, 

but denies that it is subject to a civil penalty in any amount. 

3. Answering Paragraph III. 3. of the Complaint, SKYWEST 

denies that (i) the facts and circumstances of this case warrant a 

$182,500.00 civil penalty, (ii) a $182,500.00 civil penalty is 

warranted or appropriate, or (iii) a civil penalty in any amount is 

warranted or appropriate. 

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

As and for a separate and distinct defense, SKYWEST alleges: 

I. 

Certain of the acts complained of were in part those of 

parties independent of SKYWEST. 

II. 

The right main landing gear on N57 9SW had recently been 

overhauled by an FAA-certi"ficated repair station and one of 

SKYWEST's qualified vendors. 

III. 

SKYWEST's EMB-120 fleet, and N579SW in particular, had never 

experienced landing gear problems of the type, nature and frequency 

alleged, until after the installation of the newly overhauled right 

main landing gear. 

14 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

IV. 


Subsequent investigation has revealed that the main landing 

gear problem alleged was caused by an irregular internal bushing 

surface which had not been detected during overhaul and which could 

not have been detected by SKYWEST during its acceptance of the 

landing gear, installation of the landing gear or operation of the 

aircraft. This condition, in and of itself, was not sufficient to 

cause the gear retraction problems. However, when combined with 

the cold and wet conditions in which the aircraft was operated on 

the pertinent dates and flights, the main landing gear experienced 

retraction problems, which could not be replicated in a heated 

hangar. 

V. 

As a result of this investigation, and to prevent recurrence, 

SKYWEST and its approved vendor have developed additional repair 

and overhaul processes. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

As and for a separate and distinct defense, SKYWEST alleges: 

I. 

SKYWEST and its maintenance personnel were actively 

troubleshooting the main landing gear problem. 

II. 

After each reported discrepancy involving the right main 

landing gear, SKYWEST maintenance personnel performed appropriate 

15 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

troubleshooting and corrective actions, including adjustments and 

replacements of parts and components. SKYWEST personnel also 

functionally tested the main landing gear before approving the 

aircraft for return to service. In no instance, were SKYWEST's 

maintenance personnel able to replicate the disorepancy reported by 

the flight crews. 

III. 

The nature, type or frequency of this discrepancy had never 

before been encountered by SKYWEST, despite over 22 years of 

operating experience with the EMB-120. 

IV. 

The nature, type or frequency of this discrepancy was not 

addressed in the Aircraft Maintenance Manual, the Component 

Maintenance Manual or any other manufacturer's publication or 

instruction for continued airworthiness. 

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

As and for a separate and distinct defense, SKYWEST alleges: 

I. 

At all times mentioned herein, SKYWEST was in full compliance 

with its CAMP and its Operations Specifications. 

II. 

Included in SKYWEST's CAMP are its Standard Practices . . 

III. 

SKYWEST's Standard Practices, among other things, establish 

16 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

criteria for alternatives to the tools,: fixtures and support 

equipment specified in the manufacturer's manuals. 

IV. 

Under said Standard Practices, the use of a hydraulic hand 

pump is not required to verify the correct installation and 

operation of the uplock hook and actuator assembly. 

V. 

Under MM 32-32-09 (upon which Complainant relies), a hand pump 

is not used to verify or measure clearances of the uplock hook and 

roller mechanism. 

VI. 

MM 32-32-09 is not and was not intended to serve as the 

exclusive guidance in functionally checking the landing gear for 

operation. The EMB-120 Aircraft Maintenance Manual ("AMMlf), and the 

EMB-120 manufacturer, authorize landing gear functional tests 

utilizing the aircraft's electrical system. In addition, MM 32-32­

09, on its face is incomplete as it fails to specify the make, 

model or capacity of the hand pump, how the hand pump is to be 

connected to the aircraft or how the hand pump is to be 

disconnected from the aircraft. 

VII. 

SKYWEST, in accordance with its Standard Practices and the 

AMM, utilized the aircraft's electrical system to functionally test 

the operation of N579SW's main landing gear. 

17 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 


As and for a separate distinct defense, SKYWEST alleges: 

I. 

In performing all work alleged, SKYWEST, by and through its 

maintenance personnel, executed all required certifications that 

the work was performed per the requirements of SKYWEST's pertinent 

manuals and that no known condition existed that would make the 

airplane unaitworthy. 

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

As and for a separate distinct defense, SKYWEST alleges: 

I. 

This matter came to Complainant's attention through the a 

report made to the FAA by a SKYWEST Maintenance Supervisor under 

the Aviation Safety Action Plan (ASAP) in effect between the FAA, 

SKYWEST and the SkyWest Airlines Maintenance Association ("SAMA"). 

II. 

Under FAA Advisory Circular AC 120-66B, the stated purpose of 

an ASAP is to encourage air carrier employees to voluntarily report 

safety information and to resolve safety issues through corrective 

action rather than through punishment or discipline. In its AC, the 

FAA has acknowledged that without ASAP, much of this information 

would not otherwise be obtainable and is necessary to develop 

corrective actions for safety concerns and prevent recurrence. The 

AC states: 

18 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

The ASAP is based on a safety partnership that 

will includes the FAA and the certificate 

holder, and may include a third party, such as 

the employee's labor organization. 

III. 

A fundamental component of the ASAP is the Event Review 

Committee ("ERC"), comprised of a representative from each party, 

in this case, the FAA, SKYWEST and SAMA. The ERC reviews and 

analyses reports submitted under the ASAP, identifies actual or 

potential problems and proposes solutions for any perceived 

problems. The ERC is required to govern by consensus when deciding 

on corrective actions and in making recommendations. 

IV. 

Initiation and prosecution of an enforcement action based upon 

an ASAP report, defeats the FAA's stated purpose underlying an ASAP 

program and undermines the integrity of all FAA-industry data 

sharing programs. 

IV. 

Initiation and prosecution of an enforcement action based upon 

an ASAP and enforcement investigative reports prepared by the FAA's· 

ASAP ERC representative, defeats the FAA's stated purpose 

underlying an ASAP program and undermines the integrity of all FAAindustry data sharing programs. 

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

19 
1 As and for a separate distinct defense, SKYWEST alleges: 

2 I. 

3 The sanction sought by Complainant is unwarranted by the 


4 facts, safety in commerce and the public interest and is excessive. 


5 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 


6 As and for a separate distinct defense, SKYWEST alleges: 


7 I. 


8 The Complainant's case, is unwarranted and without basis or 


9 jurisdiction in law or fact. 


10 WHEREFORE, it is prayed that the Administrative Law Judge not 

11 enter an order that SKYWEST be assessed a civil penalty in the 

12 amount of $182,500, or in any amount; that the Complaint be 

13 dismissed with prejudice, and for such other and further relief as 

14 may be deemed appropriate. 

Attorney for 

15 Dated: April 19, 2010 

16 

17 

18 

19 SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC. 

20 

20 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

(49 C.F.R. §821.8; 14 C.F.R §13.211) 

I hereby certify that I have this day s.erved the following document: 

Answer to Complaint 

(SkyWest Airlines,FAA Case No. 2009NM060048) 

via FAX and FEDEX standard overnight delivery, to the persons and at the addresses indicated 

below: 

Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 


Federal Aviation Administration 


Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2Wl000 


800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 


Washington, D.C. 20591 


FAX: 1-202-493-5142 


(Executed Original plus one copy via FEDEX; one copy via FAX) 


Scott R. Morris, Esq. 


Federal Aviation Administration 


Office ofthe Regional Counsel, ANM -7 


1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 


Renton, W A 98057 


FAX: 1-227-1007 


(One copy each via FAX and FEDEX) 


Executed this 19th day ofApril, 2010 at San Francisco, California. 

~ Jolen . Brown . 

Secretary