U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 'F1 E c E 'v ED 

DEC 1 0 2014 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, HEARING DOCKET 

Complainant, 

vs. 

AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENGINEERING SERVICES, 

Respondent. 

Docket No. F AA-2013-0291 

FAA Case No. 2011S0290032 

Judge Sullivan 

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

On December 2, 2014, Respondent moved the Judge to impose sanctions on the FAA 

relating to the FAA's expert disclosures. Respondent's motion is, in all aspects, not well taken, 

and should be denied. Further, Respondent has again violated- deliberately- the Judge's Orders 

on conferring with the other party before filing discovery motions. 

First, Respondent accurately asserts that the deadline for expert witness disclosures was 

November 19, 2014, and that the FAA did not complete its expert witness disclosures until 

December 1, 2014. 1 The FAA does not dispute the discovery deadline, but there was good cause 

for the delay. On the morning of November 18, 2014, the undersigned was informed that his 

sister-in-law was gravely ill, and would likely die. As a result, the undersigned, the 

undersigned's wife, and the undersigned's two children immediately packed and drove to Des 

1 The FAA had previously made some expert witness disclosures in response to Respondent's Interrogatories, see 

Attachment A (excerpt from discovery responses served on Respondent on March 24, 2014), and prior to litigation 

even commencing the Respondent had been provided with statements and letters from the FAA Inspectors setting 

out their observations and their conclusions based on those observations, all of which were items of proof in the 

EIR. See Attachments B, C, D, E. 

1 
Moines, Iowa. Ultimately, the undersigned's sister-in-law died,2 and her funeral was held (in 

Clear Lake, Iowa) on November 25, 2014. The undersigned did not return to the office until 

December 1, 2014, and could not reasonably have returned to the office any sooner than that 

date3 Additionally, the nature of the filing to be made - an expert witness disclosure - was not 

one that could be handled by another attorney unfamiliar with the case.

4 When the undersigned 

returned to the office on the morning of December 1, 2014, the undersigned informed opposing 

counsel that the undersigned had been out of the office due to a family emergency. See 

Attachment F. 5 Later that day, the undersigned served the FAA's additional expert disclosures on 

Respondent via facsimile. In the above circumstances, the undersigned acted with all possible 

diligence, and good cause existed for the late discovery disclosure. 

Additionally, Respondent has cited no prejudice whatsoever from the expert disclosure 

being two weeks late, much less the deprivation of "due process" Respondent claims has 

occurred. Even if there was no good cause for the late submission of the expert discovery 

disclosures, a total exclusion of all expert witnesses would be an extraordinary and severely 

disproportionate result.6 Not only was there good cause for the FAA's delayed disclosure, but 

even if there was not good cause, the penalty sought by Respondent is inappropriate. 

2 The undersigned does not believe that the details ofthe undersigned's sister-in-law's medical condition are 

pertinent to this motion, and so does not intrude on her privacy by putting them on the record here. However, to the 

extent the Judge deems it necessary and appropriate, the undersigned can provide additional detail. 3 Clear Lake, Iowa, is approximately a 16-hour drive (not counting stops) from Atlanta, Georgia, and- especially 

with young children- this drive typically takes two complete days. While it would have been physically possible to 

make this trip on November 26 and 27, and for the undersigned to be in the office on Friday, November 28,2014, 

given the circumstances, and that November 27, 2014 was Thanksgiving Day, it would be unreasonable to require 

the undersigned and his family to have left immediately after the funeral and spent Thanksgiving Day on the road. 

4 By contrast, the straightforward response to Respondent's Request to Suspend Litigation dates could be, and was, 

filed by an attorney in the office who was unfamiliar with the case, even though the undersigned was not available. 5 As noted in the e-mail, even prior to the family emergency, the undersigned had been out of the office for most of 

the week prior due to illness, in particular a severe respiratory infection. 6 Respondent also notes that the FAA did not request permission to make a late expert disclosure, but it has not been 

the undersigned's experience for parties to ask the Judge in a case for permission to make late disclosures during 

discovery- the undersigned has literally never seen a litigant seek leave in such a situation, and until now has never 

seen a litigant or judge suggest that such a request should have been filed. Rather, the party simply makes the 

2 
Respondent asserts in its motion that the late submission of the expert disclosures was 

"unexplained." See Motion at 3. This is misleading at best, and to the extent there is any 

accuracy to this statement, it is the result of Respondent's admitted failure to comply with the 

Judge's Orders. First, Respondent's assertion is not accurate because, as noted above, the 

undersigned had informed opposing counsel that he had been out of the office for two weeks 

because of a family emergency and funeral. See Attachment F. To the extent that explanation 

was insufficient for opposing counsel, opposing counsel could have followed up with the 

undersigned to inquire as to the particular circumstances. And, as Respondent acknowledges in 

its Motion, see Motion at 2 n.l, if Respondent wished to file a motion with this Court concerning 

alleged discovery deficiencies, Respondent was required to engage in further conversation with 

the undersigned about the matter. See Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures (served 

November 7, 2013). Respondent instead engaged in no discussion at all, and simply filed its 

Motions. Perhaps ironically, Respondent in filing its Motion for Sanctions, has itself engaged in 

conduct that could be subject to sanctions, especially given that this is the second time that 

Respondent has made a discovery motion without engaging in any effort to discuss the matter 

with the undersigned in advance. See Order Reserving Respondent's Second Motion to Compel 

and Directing the Parties to Engage in a Rule 37 Discussion, dated June 16,2014.7 

In its Motion, Respondent also argues that, regardless of whether the expert disclosures 

were timely, they were also deficient.· This assertion highlights the problems arising from 

Respondent's failure to confer with the undersigned about what it believes to be deficiencies in 

disclosure (as they are required to do), and then the receiving party, after any appropriate discussions with the 

disclosing party, would decide whether to file a motion to exclude at an appropriate time. In the undersigned's 

experience, a request to the Judge to for permission to make a late filing is only made for a document, such as a 

Motion or Answer, which is actually filed with the Judge. 7 After the issuance of the Judge's June 16, 2014, Order, Respondent did not contact the undersigned to confer about 

the subject of its Second Motion to Compel. Accordingly, the undersigned presumes that Respondent is not 

interested in further pursuing the perceived deficiencies in the FAA's discovery responses referenced in that Motion 

to Compel. 

3 
the disclosures. Respondent seeks to excuse its deliberate failure to engage in good faith 

discussions before filing its Motion on the basis that there was nothing to discuss concerning the 

filing date of the expert disclosures. See Motion at 2 n.l. But this explanation ignores 

Respondent's assertions about the alleged deficiencies in the FAA's disclosures, which are 

exactly the sort of subject matter that would be raised in such a discussion. 

As an initial matter, Respondent asserts that the FAA was required to produce expert 

witness reports, pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See 

Motion at 3. However, none of the FAA's expert witnesses are required to produce reports 

because they are not outside experts and their duties do not regularly involve giving expert 

testimony - not only did the FAA note in its disclosure that these witnesses were covered by 

Rule 26(a)(2)(C), but the Respondent could have discussed this topic with the undersigned, had it 

engaged in good faith discussions. 

Respondent also argues that, even under FRCP 26(a)(2)(C), the FAA's expert disclosure 

was insufficient. As to expert opinions, FRCP 26(a)(2)(C) requires only a "summary" of the 

"opinions to which the witness is expected to testify." While Respondent asserts that the expert 

disclosure did not meet this standard, Respondent fails to identify why it did not. See Motion at 

3-4. It is undisputed in this case that Respondent replaced the main landing gear, and 

accompanying flying doors, on three B727 aircraft, that as part of this replacement the flying 

doors had to be "rigged" by Respondent, and that when these areas of the aircraft were inspected 

in May 2010, various kinds of damage were found to the flying doors and adjacent structures. As 

Respondent has been made well aware both before and during this litigation, through 

conversations, letters, statements, and discovery disclosures, it is the FAA's position that this 

damage was caused by improper installation and rigging of the flying doors. The opinions of the 

4 
FAA's expert witnesses to this effect are expressed in the expert disclosures. It is unclear what 

Respondent finds lacking about this summary of the expert testimony, especially since 

Respondent's own expert disclosure (which does fall under the more stringent standards for paid 

outside experts) essentially says the reverse -that (after discounting unspecified eyewitness 

testimony) he concludes for unspecified reasons that the damage was caused by routine wear and 

tear. 8 In sum, there is no deficiency in the FAA's expert disclosure, and Respondent does not 

identify in the motion what the deficiency is in a marmer that would permit the FAA to respond 

in more detail. This is exactly the sort of discovery dispute that Respondent should have, but did 

not, discuss with the undersigned before seeking the Judge's intervention on the subject. 

Further, even if there was something deficient in the substance of the FAA's expert 

disclosure, Respondent does not present any explanation for why this is the subject of a Motion 

for Sanctions and that the experts should be excluded in their entirety. Even if there was some 

deficiency in the FAA's expert disclosure, this would usually be (after a good faith effort to 

resolve the matter) the subject of a Motion to Compel seeking the provision of additional detail. 

Although there is no deficiency in the FAA's expert disclosures, and Respondent has identified 

none, even if some deficiency is found, the appropriate result would be to order the FAA to 

rectify the identified deficiency. 

Finally, Respondent argues that all of the FAA experts should be precluded on the basis 

that none of them "is indicated as having any particular expertise involving operational wear and 

tear." See Motion at 4. The placement of this argument in this Motion for Sanctions is puzzling. 

To the extent it is a substantive challenge to the qualification of the FAA's expert witnesses to 

opine as to the cause of the damage observed on the aircraft, that is a challenge that is not (and 

8 Respondent's expert disclosure is itself deficient under the standards for paid outside experts, but the undersigned 

has not had the opportunity to complete discussions with opposing counsel on the matter. 

5 
cannot) typically be made until later in the litigation process, with a more developed record 

before the Judge. Indeed, under FRCP 26(a)(2)(C), the Rules do not even require provision of 

information about the witness's qualifications, as that is only a requirement under 26(a)(2)(B), 

which is not applicable here. To the extent that tills is a substantive challenge to the 

qualifications of the FAA experts, Respondent has presented no basis for a final determination 

that they cannot speak as to the cause of damage to an aircraft, and its motion is due to be denied. 

To the extent that Respondent is asserting that there is merely a deficiency of disclosure, it is 

unclear what Respondent believes should have been in the disclosure, but was not. What is 

required under Rule 26(a)(2)(C) is "the subject matter on which the witness is expected to 

present evidence," and that has been amply provided. Additionally, "operational wear and tear" 

is not a topic that one would typically be identified as an "expert" in. Three of the FAA's 

identified experts are experienced mechanics9 and FAA investigators, have broad expertise in 

aviation maintenance and investigations, a topic whlch includes determining the cause of damage 

to an aircraft and whether maintenance was properly performed, whether "wear and tear" is one 

of the possibilities or not. The absence of a specific sentence identifying "operational wear and 

tear" as a sub-category is not necessary, especially where (as here) the Respondent has been 

made well aware of the opinions to be delivered. 

Further, as with the prior topics, even if there was some deficiency in the FAA's 

disclosures, the Respondent has failed to provide any basis for why the appropriate result should 

be the total exclusion of witness testimony. As discussed above, the usual process in this sort of 

situation would be for the Respondent to contact the undersigned about the alleged deficiency, 

for the FAA to rectify (or not) the perceived deficiency, and only after that discussion has 

concluded, for the Respondent to seek the intervention of the Judge. And even then the remedy 

9 The fourth FAA expert is a pilot, whose relevant expertise in this case is narrower. 

6 
would not be the exclusion of witnesses, but rather an Order requiring that the deficiency be 

rectified. 

In sum, Respondent's Motion for Sanctions is wholly without merit. There was more than 

good cause for the delay in the FAA's submission of its additional expert disclosures, and while 

Respondent asserts that the provided disclosure is deficient, Respondent has failed to articulate 

what about the disclosure is deficient, or what else it believes should have been provided. This 

lack of detail only emphasizes Respondent's deliberate disregard for the Judge's Order 

concerning the requirement that parties engage in a good faith discussion about discovery 

matters before bringing them to the Court. 

WHEREFORE, the FAA respectfully requests that Respondent's Motion for Sanctions be 

denied. Specifically, the FAA requests that the Motion be denied, not simply reserved. Not only 

does the Motion fail to identify any deficiency, but this is the second time that Respondent has 

filed a discovery motion with the Court without making any effort to resolve the matter 

informally. In the first instance, the Court reserved ruling on the Motion to Compel to permit 

Respondent to engage in the Rule 37 discussions required. 10 See June 16, 2014 Order. Because 

this is Respondent's second violation- and a deliberate violation- of the Judge's Orders on the 

subject, Respondent should not be given an opportunity to engage in discussions now. 

~r Respectfully submitted this L day of December, 2014. 

CHIDSTOPHERSTEVENSON 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

10 As noted above, Respondent did not follow up, but rather abandoned the matter. 

7 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing Response to Motion for Sanctions was sent: 

original and one copy via certified mail to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

one copy via certified mail and facsimile to: 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. 

1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 120 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Facsimile: (202) 944-3306 

~!h Program Analyst 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

DEC , 5 2014 

Dated 

8 
Interrogatory # 3: The FAA has not identified which experts it will use at hearing, although the 

Aviation Safety Inspectors involved (including Frank Lipinski, Bobby Evans, Jack Gasche, 

Richard D'arcy, and Billie Steffey) may be called upon to provide expert testimony concerning 

their personal observations of the aircraft at issue. When experts are identified, the information 

requested will be provided in the FAA's expert disclosures pursuant to Rule 26. 

Interrogatory #4: The only witnesses the FAA has identified at this point are the Aviation Safety 

Inspectors involved (noted above), who are expected to testify as described in the FAA's initial 

disclosures, as described in statements in the EIR, and as noted below. Inspector D 'Arcy has the 

same location information as Inspectors Lipinski and Gasche. Inspector Steffey personally 

observed the condition of the aircraft in question, and spoke with Respondent's personnel 

(including its DQC and DOM) about the situation, including their oral admissions that 

Respondent had not done the rigging properly. 

Interrogatory #5: Inspector Evans received a two-year Electronics/Communications Certification 

from Ashland Technica!Nocational School in Ashland, KY, in 1987. He received an FCC 

general license in 1990. Inspector Evans served as an Avionics/Electronics Technician with the 

Ashland, Inc. Flight Department from 1988 through 2008. Inspector Evans held a repairman 

certificate from 1990 through 2008. He no longer holds the repillnnan certificate because 

repairman certificates are repair station specific and he no longer works for that repair station. 

Since 200 I Inspector Evans has held a Mechanic Certificate with Airframe and Powerplant 

ratings. Inspector Evans has been employed by the FAA as an Aviation Safety Inspector since 

2008. 

GOVERNMENT EXAlT 
Interrogatory #6: Inspector Lipinski served in the United States Marine Corp from 1970 through 

1988 in a number of positions, including Aircraft Maintenance Technician Senior Chief, Crew 

Chief, Plane Captain, Flight Crew Plane captain, Quality Assurance Inspector (All Systems), 

Quality Assurance Representative (All Systems), Quality Assurance Department Chief, 

Maintenance Control Manager/Chief., Flight Engineer, Flight Engineer Check Airman/Standards 

Evaluator, Flight Loadmaster, Radio Operator, and for a number of aircraft, including the 

Grumman S-2, Lockheed P-2 and P-3, Grumman C-IA, Douglas C-54, C-118, C-9B, Convair C131 Series, Sabreliner CT-39 Series, Sikorsky H-3, Convair VC-131 Series, and Sabreliner 40/60 

series. Inspector Lipinski has held a Mechanic Certificate with Airframe and Powerplant ratings 

since 1988, a Flight Engineer certificate since 1988, and a Pilot certificate since 1990. Inspector 

Lipinski performed maintenance and served as chief flight engineer for American Air Freight, 

including B-727 operations, from 1988 through 1991. Inspector Lipinski supervised maintenance 

and inspector activities, and served as an instructor, for Laredo Air from 1989 through 1990. 

Inspector Lipinski supervised maintenance activities at repair station American Jett Center from 

1989 through 1991. From 1992 through 1992 Inspector Lipinski served as chief flight engineer 

and Director of Maintenance for Alcair Air Transport. From 1994 through 1998, Inspector 

Lipinski worked at Trans Air Link Airlines, serving as a flight engineer and maintenance 

supervisor, including on B-727 aircraft. Inspector Lipinski served as a maintenance supervisor 

for Spirit Airlines from 1996 through 2000. Inspector Lipinski worked for International Aviation 

Inc. from 1999 through 2000. Inspector Lipinski has been employed as an Aviation Safety 

Inspector (Airworthiness) since 2000. 
Interrogatory #7: Inspector Gasche studied Architectural Engineering at the collegiate level 

before playing professional baseball, and then later studied marketing at the collegiate level. 

Inspector Gasche holds an Airline Transport Pilot Certificate with ratings including Airline 

Multi-Engine Land, Single-Engine Land, B-757, B-767, B-727, and SAAB 2000. Inspector 

Gasche holds a Flight Engineer certificate with ratings in reciprocating engine, turboprop and 

turbojet. Inspector Gasche served in various positions at Branifflnternational Airlines from 1964 

through 1984, including Chief Pilot and Check Captain for the Boeing B-727. Inspector Gasche 

served as a flight instructor and B-727 pilot for Piedmont Airlines from 1987 through 1989. 

Inspector Gasche served as a pilot for US Airways from 1989 through 2000, including flying B727 aircraft. Inspector Gasche worked for FlightSafety International from 2001 through 2003, 

with duties including simulator and ground school instruction. Inspector Gasche has been 

employed by the FAA as an Aviation Safety Inspector since 2003. 

Interrogatory #8: Inspector D' Arcy has held a private pilot certificate since July 1984. Inspector 

D' Arcy served as an avionics technician in the United States Marine Corps from 1984 through 

1987. Inspector D' Arcy served as an aircraft electrician for Grumman Aerospace from 1987 

through 1989 and for The Boeing Company from 1989 through 1990. Inspector D' Arcy worked 

as a repair station avionics inspector at McDonnell Douglas Commercial Aircraft from 1990 

through 1992. Inspector D' Arcy has held a Mechanic Certificate with Airframe and Powerplant 

ratings since 1991. Inspector D' Arcy obtained an FCC General Radiotelephone Operator license 

in 1994. Inspector D'arcy worked at ValuJet Airlines from 1993 through 1997, first as a 

Maintenance Representative and then as Manager of Liaison Engineering. Inspector D'Arcy 
served as Manager of Quality Assurance at Air Train Airways from 1997 through 2003. Inspector 

D' Arcy has served as a Principle Avionics Inspector since 2003. Inspector D' Arcy received 

FAA-provided training on the B727 in 2007, in addition to standard FAA training. 

Interrogatory #13: The following documents, all of which were contained in the EIR and have 

been provided, support the allegation: Items of Proof I, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 

21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 31. It is additionally noted that the documents produced by 

Respondent may support the allegation as well, but the FAA has not yet had the opportunity to 

fully review those documents. Review at this stage indicates that, in addition to documents 

already included in the EIR, documents supporting the allegation include document numbers 44, 

108, 116, 117, 122, 135. 

Interrogatory #14: As provided in the Administrator's published sanction guidance, FAA Order 

2150.3B, Figure B-3-b(12), the penalty range for a repair station improperly performing 

maintenance for an air carrier is Maximum. As provided in the Administrator's published 

sanction guidance, FAA Order 2150.3B at B-5(4), the Maximum penalty range for an air agency 

that is a large business concern is $16,250 through $25,000. The midpoint of that range is 

$20,625. Respondent engaged in three actions of violation (one for each aircraft), and three 

incidents at $20,625 per incident is $61,875. 

Requests for Production 

Request for Production # 1: There are no such documents beyond the documents identified in the 

interrogatory responses themselves, which have already been produced, and documents covered 
u.s. Deportment 

of Transportot1on 

Federal Avlcfion 

Admlnlstra!lon 

July 22,2010 

RECEIVED 

AUG -f. 20Jl 

Capital Cargo International 

CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

EIR No. 201 OGL050030 

Benjamin Buck 

Manager Quality Control/ Chief Inspector 

Capital Cargo International Airlines Inc. 

7100 TPC Drive, Suite 200 

Orlando, FL 32822 

Dear Mr. Buck: 

Flight Standards District Oftlce 

4358 Ferguson Drive 

Cincinnati OH 45245 

Phone:513-842-9600 

Fax: 513-842-9620 

During the timeframe of March 12,2010 through March 22, 2010, the right hand main landing 

gear was installed on aircraft N287SC, an aircraft operated by your company. Investigation by 

this office has determined that a tubular bearing was not installed during installation of the 

landing gear door; furthermore, this was not discovered during the subsequent required 

inspection. This is in violation of !4 C.F.R. part 12!.363(a) (b), l21.367(c). 

This is to confirm my discussion with you on July 7, 2010, at which time we discussed several 

corrective actions that were being implemented by your company. This included a training 

program for maintenance personnel, work card revisions, and counseling for the inspectors 

involved. I have received the documentation to verify implementation and have found the 

corrections acceptable. 

We have considered all available facts and concluded that this matter does not warrant legal 

enforcement action. In lieu of such action, we are issuing this letter of correction which will 

be made a matter of record. 

Sincerely, 

L)e-l:tbc1 k_/"'t;uc~ 

Bobby W. Evans 

Aviation Safety Inspector 

-~GOVERNMENT j EXHIBIT 

I 6 
Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Memorandum 

Date: 12 December, 2010 

To: Manager ASO 7 

From: Inspector Frank V. Lipinski Li4Li 

Subject: C8GA B-727 Flying Doors Installation Findings- Inspector's Statement 

Dnring the time frame of 25-27 May 2010 I was performing surveillance activities on B-727 type aircraft 

operated by Capital Cargo International Airlines (Capital) at the Toledo, Ohio International Airport. 

Capital Cargo International Airlines is a CFR 14 part 121 certificated "All Cargo" Supplemental Air 

Carrier (Air Carrier Certificate# C8GA881 Y) that operates out of Toledo under contract for BAX Global 

Inc. 

I am assigned as the Principal Maintenance Inspector for the Certificate that is under the jurisdiction of 

the South Florida Certificate Management Office (ASO CMO 29). 

Dnring the night of25 May 2010 and morning of26 may 2010 I inspected, along with Operations 

Inspector Charles Gasche (An ASO CMO 29 shared Geographic Inspector assigned to Capital) three 

aircraft that had recent Main and Nose Landing Gear (MLG, NLG) replacements. The replacements of 

the gears were due to calendar time expirations of ten years time in service. 

The aircraft inspected were N899AA, N898AA, and N287SC. 

Dnring the aircraft inspections numerous discrepancies were found in the installations of the MLG 

(Commonly called "Flying Doors" in the B-727 operator world) doors on all three aircraft. 

All three aircraft had MLG doors that were missing mounting hardware as well as improperly installed 

spacing shims on the doors to airframe attach fittings. 

The aircraft manufacturers' instructions (Capital's approved aircraft maintenance program is Boeing's 

instructions solely) for replacement of the MLG and NLG include removal, installation, and rigging of the 

Flying Doors to facilitate the gear replacements. 

The improper installation/rigging of the Flying Doors caused damage to all three aircrafts structures that 

came in contact with the doors i.e., inboard flap track fairings mating surfaces with the doors, doors 

structures adjacent to the attach fittings, hinge fairing fittings for the doors, hydraulic lines associated 

with the brake system, and the anti-skid wiring conduits for the wheel brakes. 

Four of the six Flying Doors inspected also had damage to various areas of the doors due to incorrect 

positioning of the doors. N287SC had the right MLG anti-skid system wiring conduit improperly 

positioned to front of the MLG strut when the B-727 manufacturers' maintenance manual requires the 

conduit be positioned to the right inboard section of the strut. 

This improper positioning caused damage to the leading edge of the gear door, mating surface of the wing 

to the gear door, strut, and hydraulic line. 

All of the discrepancies found were brought to the attention of the Capital maintenance representatives at 

Toledo. 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

e: 
The discrepancies were placed in the aircrafts Aircraft Flight and Maintenance Log (AFML) and the 

aircraft were taken out of service by Capital. 

I asked Capital who performed the gear changes and when did the gear changes take place. 

2 

Capital responded with "Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Services (An MRO based at Wilmington, 

Ohio designator ABXR) and for N899AA the replacement date was 7/09, for N898AA the replacement 

date was 9/09, and for N287SC the replacement date was 3/10. 

All gear replacements had been accomplished at the Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Services 

(AMES) Wilmington facility. 

I asked if any other MLG maintenance actions had been accomplished on any of the aircraft since the gear 

replacements and the answer was no. 

I asked if any discrepancies had been reported for the doors and structures since the gear replacements 

based on the fact that the doors and attachments are on inspection requirements for Capital Service 

Checks, A Checks, and Flight Crew prefight walk around Airworthiness checks and the answer was no. 

I asked ifMLG and NLG replacements and door riggings were on the Capital Required Inspection Item 

(RII) list and the answer was yes. 

Based on my fmdings, I informed Capital that it appeared that improper maintenance had been conducted 

on all three aircraft and post maintenance inspections had not been conducted to ensure proper rigging 

and, subsequent to the maintenance and inspection oversights, Capital had not found the discrepancies 

while operating the aircraft. 

I further stated that Capital should have found these discrepancies during A Checks and Service Checks 

as required by the Capital Maintenance and Inspection Program (MIP) and Flight Crew Airworthiness 

walk around inspections as required by the Capital Aircraft Operating Manual (Capital derivative of the 

Boeing 727 AFM). 

The Principal Avionics Inspector (Bill Steffey) for AMES came to the Toledo Airport on 27 may 2010 at 

my request and I met with him at the aircraft involved. He asked representatives of AMES to meet with us 

and view the damage. 

The AMES representatives acknowledged the defects. 

All parties concluded the same findings as I did and the AMES P AI elected to conduct his own 

investigation into AMES' involvement. 

All three aircraft had to be ferried to the AMES MRO for repairs. 

The Capital Director of Maintenance had to reposition to AMES at Wilmington to directly supervise the 

MLG doors maintenance actions. 

All of the doors had to be removed. Two doors were damaged beyond repair and had to be replaced. 

Structural repairs had to be effected on all three aircraft and doors. 

Hardware had to be replaced that was missing on all doors to achieve proper rigging. 

Wiring conduits had to be replaced. 

The aircraft were out of service ranging from 3 days to a week based on the damage to each. 

Frank V. Lipinski 

Principal Maintenance Inspector ASO CMO 29 
Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Memorandum 

Date: 

To: 

From: 

Subject: 

Dear Frank: 

September 28, 2010 

Mr. Frank Lipinski- Principle Maintenance Inspector 

Capital Cargo International Airlines 

Jack Gasche- ASI- Operations CM0-29 

B-727 Walk around inspection Toledo Ohio 

On May 25,2010, at 2140 local (0140Z) I started an en-route from Orlando, Florida (MCO) 

to Toledo, Ohio (TOL). When arriving in Toledo at Ol14local (0414 Z), on May 26, I was 

met by Frank Lipinski, Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI) of Capital Cargo 

International. Mr. Lipinski and I performed walk around inspections on a number of Capital 

Cargo's B-727 aircraft. When doing a walk around on aircraft number N898AA we found 

that the right main gear door was out of alignment, and showed rubbing at the hinge. We 

found the same problem on aircraft N899AA, and the left gear piano hinge pin was corning 

out. In both cases the gear door was damaged and binding on the flap track fairing cover. 

Later that day we found the same gear door problem on aircraft number N287SC. Also on 

aircraft N287SC the anti- skid conduit was tied to the front of the main landing gear not tied 

to the side of the main landing gear. Capital Cargo International took these three aircraft out 

of service. I have been an Aviation safety Inspector (Operations) for eight years, and am part 

of the Capital Cargo International CMO team. I am currently qualified on the B-727, and 

have 12,000 flight hours of experience in the B-727 aircraft. 

Sine ly: i./ , 

.':0.-L /~VI._ 

ack Gasche 

Aviation Safety Inspector 

Operations 

CM0-29 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

.D 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

March 03, 2011 

South Florida Certificate Management Office 

CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

File No. 201150290032 

Brady Templeton, Accountable Manager 

Airborne Maintenance and Engineering Services 

145 Hunter Drive 

Wilmington, Ohio 45177 

Dear Mr. Templeton, 

5950 Hazeltine National Dr. Suite 410 

Orlando, FL. 32822 

On or about May 25, 2010 The Principal Maintenance Inspector (PM I) and a Geographic 

Inspector from the Capital Cargo International Airlines (Capital) Certificate Management 

Team (GMT) conducted inspections on 8-727-200 series aircraft operated by Capital at the 

Toledo International Airport (TOL) in Toledo, Ohio. 

Three aircraft inspected had Main Landing Gear (MLG) Wing (Commonly known in the 8-

727 industry as "Flying" doors due to their design) doors that were improperly installed and 

incorrectly rigged on the aircraft which caused structural damage to the doors and 

associated mating surfaces of the aircraft. One aircraft had wiring harnesses associated with 

the Right hand (RH) brake anti-skid system improperly routed and damaged along with the 

doors improper installation. 

The three Capital aircraft affected by the improper maintenance actions were: 

N898AA, a 8-727-223, serial number 22014. 

N899AA, a 8-727-223, serial number22015. 

N287SC, a 8-727-2A1, serial number21345. 

The Capital PMI's reviews of the MLG maintenance records for the aircraft indicate that all 

three aircraft had received MLG replacements at the Airborne Maintenance and Engineering 

Services (AMES) facility at Wilmington, Ohio. 

AMES forms and work documents were used for recording the tasks and required 

inspections. 

The MLG replacements were conducted during heavy maintenance (C Check) visits at the 

AMES facility. 

The MLG replacement completion and inspection dates for the return to service for the 

aircraft were as follows: 

N899AA, 07/31/2009. 

N898AA, 09/29/2009 (LH) and 09/30/2009 (RH). 

N287SC, 03/22/2010. 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

13. 
The Capital PMI's findings indicated that AMES failed to follow the approved Capital B-727 

Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) directions for the landing gear replacement actions as 

required by the AMES approved Repair Station Quality Manual (RSQM), current Federal 

Aviation Regulations, and authorizing Operations Specifications (Ops Specs) issued to 

AMES. 

2 

Additionally, the Capital PMI's findings indicate that AMES failed to follow Capital and AMES 

approved Required Inspection Item (RII) procedures for the return to service for the aircraft 

following replacement of the aircraft landing gear which is contrary to the AMES approved 

RSQM, current Federal Aviation Regulations, and authorizing Ops Specs issued to AMES. 

These requirements are delineated in the Capital General Maintenance Manual (GMM), 

Capital approved CAMP called the Capital Maintenance Inspection Program (MIP), AMES 

RSQM, and current Federal Aviation Regulations. 

AMES adherence to its RSQM and Capital MIP is required by authorizing Ops Specs. 

AMES adherence to Rll programs is required by regulations. 

These actions are contrary to current Federal Aviation regulations specifically: 

• The maintenance conducted on the landing gear replacements was not performed in 

accordance with the approved aircraft manufacturers or FAA approved manual or 

Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (Capital's MIP). Inspections revealed that 

the doors were not rigged properly, bushings and shims were missing from the 

doors attach fittings, bushings and shims were misplaced on the attach fittings, and 

the doors and airframe were damaged due to the doors binding. Capital's MIP 

requires Capital to utilize the Boeing B-727 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 

maintained by Boeing (On myboeingfleet.com.) for the Capital B-727 fleet. The 

Capital MIP must be used by AMES. The AMM has complete instructions for door 

rigging, post landing gear replacement. 

Failure to utilize the approved AMM is contrary to CFR 14 part 43.13(a). 

• The aircraft were released to service in an unairworthy condition and not inspected 

in accordance with the Capital MIP by AMES. AMES release to service for the 

aircraft included maintenance and Rll certifications that were not correct or proper 

and not in accordance with the Capital Airworthiness Release requirements. 

This is contrary to CFR 14 part 121. 709(b)(2)(i) and (ii). 

• AMES improper maintenance and Rll actions on the aircraft were in violation of the 

Ops Specs authorized and issued to AMES. The Ops Specs issued to AMES 

require AMES to utilize its approved RSQM and the approved Capital MIP, AMM for 

the aircraft, and Rll program. 

This is contrary to CFR 14 part 145.5(a). 

• The Capital MIP, AMM, and GMM was not followed for the maintenance actions for 

the gear door replacements/riggings and the anti skid conduit placement was not 

correct after the gear replacement on N287SC. In addition, the Rll designation for 

the landing gear replacements was apparently ignored based on the fact that all 

three aircraft had unairworthy installations of all Flying Doors. 

This is contrary to CFR 14 part 145.205(a). 
• The AMES RSQM was not followed in the fact that AMES failed to ensure correct 

maintenance and inspection procedures were followed for the MLG changes along 

with AMES not following procedures of the customer/air carrier's manuals as 

required by the RSQM. 

This is contrary to CFR 14 part 145.207(a). 

3 

• AMES failed to inspect the articles (MLG replacements and Flying Doors removals 

and reinstallations) that it performed maintenance on. In fact, the articles that AMES 

performed maintenance on received a certification of Rll but that certification was 

obviously improper, incorrect, or false. The maintenance tasks were accomplished 

improperly, the certifying inspectors for the actions did not ensure that the tasks 

were done properly, and the inspectors did not determine the articles to be 

airworthy. The maintenance releases for the articles was invalid. 

This is contrary to CFR 14 part 145.213(a),(b), (b)(1), and (b)(2). 

Due to the improper maintenance and inspection actions, Capital conducted 1 ,584 flights 

with the three aircraft in an unairworthy condition (reference Capital EIR # 201 OS0290120). 

N287SC had to make an emergency landing due to AMES improper Flying door 

maintenance (reference AMES EIR # 2010GL050030). 

The aircraft were removed from service and returned to AMES to effect repairs and return 

the aircraft to service properly. Two gear doors had to be replaced, structural components 

had to be repaired/replaced, missing/improperly positioned Flying door attaching 

fittings/hardware had to be installed/replaced, MLG wiring conduits had to be replaced, and 

the Capital Maintenance Department had to direct the repairs and the return to service 

actions. 

Currently this office is investigating this matter. 

We wish to offer you an opportunity to discuss the incident in person or submit a written 

statement within 10 days following receipt of this letter. Your statement should contain all 

pertinent facts and any mitigating circumstances you believe may have a bearing on this 

incident. If we do not hear from you within the specified time, we will process this matter 

without the benefit of your statement. 

Frank V. Lipinski 

Principal Maintenance Inspector 

SO FLA CMO 29 Team D Orlando 

407-812-3027 
Stevenson, Chris (FAA) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Bob, 

Stevenson, Chris (FAA) 

Monday, December 01, 2014 8:39AM 

'Robert Silverberg' 

RE: Lipinski Deposition 

I have been out of the office for the past two weeks, and most of the week before that, due to personal illness and then 

a family emergency ultimately resulting in a funeral. I am back in the office for part of today (I have to go to the doctor 

again), and should be fully back tomorrow. As you may have noted, I did not submit the response to your motion, and 

while I have been able to skim the Judge's Order, I have not had the opportunity to follow up on it yet. I will follow up 

with Inspector Lipinski, and get back with you. 

Christopher Stevenson 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

(404) 305-5200 

From: Robert Silverberg [mailto:rsilverberg@sgbdc.com] 

Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 4:46PM 

To: Stevenson, Chris (FAA) 

Cc: Jeff Johnson 

Subject: Lipinski Deposition 

Chris, 

In view of the Judge's Order dated Nov. 21st, please provide me with the dates when Mr. Lipinski would be available to 

sit for his deposition between now and the end of December as ordered by the Judge. Once I have the dates we can 

discuss logistics. 

Bob 

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and is (1) subject to attorneyclient privilege; (2) attorney work product; or (3) confidential. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or 

taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 

unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from 

any computer. 

Robert P. Silverberg 

Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, L.L.P. 

1101 30th Street N. W 

Suite 120 

Washington, D. C. 20007 

rsi/verberg@sgbdc. com 

direct line 202-944-3304 

fax 202-944-3306 

mobile 301-922-8895 

1 

~GOVERNMENT 

; EXHIBIT 

i I~