05/21/2010 15-52 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS lg|001/00S 

^ 

U.S, Deportment 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Southwest Region 

Arkansas, l^ui&iana, 

New Mexico, Oklahoma 

Texas 

Office of Regional Counsel 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Rm. 663 

Fort Worth, TX 76137-0007 

(817)222-5099 

(817) 222-5915/5092 FAX 

April 30. 2010 

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 

r"^ 

C75 

In the Matter of American Airlines. Inc. Crl^SW/fdCX^ /Ob/D^h^^") 

Docket No. CP - To Be Assigned / ^ . / UOO^^L^ 

Case No 2008SW210058 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Enclosed are the original and one copy of the complaint in the above-referenced 

proceeding. 

The Complainant requests that the hearing in this matter be held In the Arlington, Texas 

area, and expects that the hearing will last one (1) day. 

Please serve me with all documents in this matter. 

Yolanda Ayala Bernal, ASW-7E3 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Southwest Region 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

LYNETTE WORD 

Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region r 

By: 

1/ 

/ / 

V 

Yolanda Ayala Beriial 

Attorney ^ 

Safety Enforcement Branch 

Phone: (817)222-5070 

FAX: (817) 222-5945 or 5092 

Enclosure 
05/21/201 0 15:5 2 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS @]002/00G 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

In the Matter of: 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA Case No. 2008SW210058 

FAA Docket CP No. - To Be Assigned 

Judge Not Assigned 

COMPLAINT 

The Complainant files its complaint, under Rule 208 of the Rules of Practice in 

FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 14 CFR §13.208, and states the following: 

Respondent American Airlines, Inc., (AA) was advised through a Notice^ of 

Proposed Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of 

$325,000.00. On April 27. 2010. Respondent submitted a written request for a hearing. 

II. 

1. American Airlines, Inc. (AA) holds Air Carrier Operating Certificate No. 

AALA025A and Operations Specifications issued under Part 121 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) authorizing it to engage in scheduled 

passenger carrying operations as a domestic air carrier. 

2. AA's Operations Specifications require that each aircraft authorized for use 

be maintained in accordance with the continuous ainvorthiness maintenance 

program and limitations specified in the operations specifications. 

3. At all times pertinent herein, AA operated Douglas DC-9-83, civil aircraft no. 

N454AA in its Part 121 operations: 

4. At all times pertinent herein, AA maintenance personnel performed 

maintenance on the aircraft listed in paragraph 3. 

5. On or about December 27, 2007, N454AA experienced an un-cornmanded 

autopilot disconnect when attempting to autoland in St. Louis, Missouri 

(STL) on AA Flight 1060. 

6. The pilot of Flight 1060 made an entry stating, "during an attempt to 

establish an FCC (Flight Confidence Check) the autopilot kicked off when 

the autoland button was pushed. The autopilot kicked off at 1200' AGL". 

7. AA maintenance personnel performed a flight fault review (FFR). 
05/21/201 0 15:5 2 FAX 2024935142 FAA - DMS @|003/00G 

8. The FFR revealed that the autopilot duplex rudder servo had failed. 

9. There is only one autopilot duplex rudder servo on the aircraft. 

10. The autopilot duplex rudder servo is used to control the yaw axis of the 

aircraft during autopilot coupled instrument landing system (ILS) 

operations, autoland, and automatic go-around operations. 

11. A fully functioning autopilot duplex rudder servo is required for the 

autopilot to function properly 

12. Paragraph D-095 of AA's Operations Specifications allows use of an 

approved Minimum Equipment List, provided the conditions and limitations 

of that paragraph are met. 

13. The corrective action taken on the item addressed in paragraph 6 was a 

deferral of maintenance using AA DC-9 Minimum Equipment List (MEL), 

Item 22-2b. 

14. Deferral using MEL, Item 22-2b was improper. 

15. MEL-22-2b is for autoland modes. 

16. MEL 22-2b Is to defer inoperative equipment that is used only for 

conducting an autoland. 

17. The proper deferral option would have been to placard the duplex rudder 

servo in accordance with MEL 22-16. 

18. The use of MEL Item 22-2b led the flight crews to believe that N454AA 

was eligible to be used for autopilot coupled ILS operations, category 2 

operations and automatic go-arounds when it was not. 

19. Further, when MEL Item 22-2b is used as deferral authority, the only 

restrictions are that the lower landing minimum status of the aircraft must 

be downgraded to ILS (CAT tl only). This action allowed all prohibited 

operations except autoland. 

20. With the autopilot duplex rudder servo properly placarded inoperative 

using MEL 22-16, the crews would have been prohibited from using the 

autopilot in any of the operations listed in paragraph 18. 

21. Despite knowledge of a failed autopilot duplex rudder servo, maintenance 

personnel deferred final corrective action by placarding the autoland 

modes inoperative using MEL 22-2b. 

22. AA maintenance personnel replaced the faulty autopilot duplex servo on 

December 28, 2007. 
05/21/201 0 15:5 2 FAX 2024935142 FAA - QMS E|004/00G 

23. N454AA was operated on four flights with an Inoperative autopilot duplex 

rudder servo. 

24. By reason of the foregoing, AA violated the following sections of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (Title 14. Code of Federal Regulations): 

a. Section 119.5(1), in that AA operated an aircraft in violation of 

appropriate operations specifications. 

b. Section 121.153(a)(2) by operating an aircraft when it was not in an 

airworthy condition and failed to meet the applicable airworthiness 

requirements of this chapter, including those relating to 

identification and equipment. 

c. Section 121.628(a)(4). in that AA took off an airplane with 

inoperable instruments or equipment installed when records 

identifying the inoperable instruments and equipment and the 

information required by paragraph (a)(3)(ii) was not available to the 

pilot. 

d. Section 121.628(a)(5), in that AA took off an airplane with inoperable 

instruments or equipment installed when the airplane was not 

operated under all applicable conditions and limitations contained In 

the Minimum Equipment List and the operations specifications 

authorizing use of the Minimum Equipment List. 

e. Section 121,701 (a) when AA maintenance personnel took action in 

the case of a reported or observed failure or malfunction of an 

airframe, engine, propeller, or appliance that was critical to the safety 

of flight and failed to make, or have made, a record of that action in 

the airplane's maintenance log. 

f. Section 121.709(a)(2), in that AA operated an aircraft after 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations were performed 

when the certificate holder, or the person with whom the certificate 

holder arranges for the performance of the maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, or alteration, and failed to prepare or cause to be 

prepared an appropriate entry in the aircraft log, 

g. Section 121.367(a), in that AA, a certificate holder failed to have an 

inspection program and a program covering other maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, and alterations that ensured that 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations performed by 

it, or by other persons, are performed in accordance with the 

certificate holder's manual. 

h. Section 121.367(c), In that AA. a certificate holder failed to have an 

inspection program and a program covering other maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, and alterations that ensured that each 
cftft •> RMS 01005/OOe 

05/21/201 0 15:5 3 FAX 202493514 2 FAA UM^ «! 

aircraft released to service was ainworthy and had been properly 

maintained for operation under this part. 

1. Under 49 U.S C. §46301, AA is subject to a civil penalty for each of the 

violations alleged. The maximum penalty per violation is $25,000.00. 

2. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of 

$325,000.00 is appropriate. 

Complainant respectfully requests that the administrative law judge enter an 

order that Respondent AA be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $326,000.00. 

Submitted this 30'^ day of April 2010. 

LYNETTE WORD 

Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region / ^ 

By: 

Yolanda Ay/ala Bernal 

Attorney 

Safety Enforcement Branch 

Phone: (817)222-5070 

FAX: (817) ITl-^'^A^ or 5092 e-ma//; Yolanda.A.Bernaimaa.aov 
05/21/2010 15:53 FAX 2024935142 FAA - DMS l^OOG/OOG 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that the foregoing Complaint has been mailed this date by Certified Mail, 

Return Receipt Requested, to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 

Evan P. Singer 

JONES DAY 

2727 North Harwood Street 

Dallas, TX 75201 

Phone: (214)969-5021 

FAX: (214) 969-5100 

Francis C. Heil, Esq. 

American Airlines, Inc. 

Legal Department 

P.O. Box 619616, MD 5675 

DFW Airport. TX 75261 

^ jiiAA^ C. Sk^ ^ 

Sylvla^C. Twa. Paralegal Specialist 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Southwest Region 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Date; April 30. 2010