U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

In the Matter of: 

Aero Micronesia, Inc. 

dba Asia Pacific Airlines 

Respondent 

) 

) FAA DOCKET 2012-0469 

) 

) FAA CASE NO 2011WP350005 

) 

) 

) 

TO: CHIEF JUDGE RONNIE A. YODER 

MOTION TO STRIKE AND ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT 

MOTION TO STRIKE 

Respondent Aero Micronesia, Inc. d/b/a Asia Pacific Airlines ("Aero Micronesia") 

hereby moves to strike the Amended Complaint filed by the FAA on June 25, 2012. According 

to the Order Establishing Procedure, issued May 22,2012, any amendment to the Complaint was 

to be filed by June 22, 2012. Complainant cannot ignore the Order Establishing Procedure 

without showing good cause for its delay. Complainant had ample opportunity to file a 

Complaint based on an alleged violation of §12l.l37(a) but chose to proceed under subsection 

(b) because through correspondence with FAA counsel Aero Micronesia established that there 

was no violation of 14 CFR § l21.137(a) as alleged in the Amended Complaint. Complainant 

changed the violation to §12l.l37(b) in the Final Notice of Civil Penalty because there was no 

basis for a violation of subsection (a), and now, Complainant switches the allegation again 

because Respondent has shown that subsection (b) is inapplicable. 

1 
In re AERO MICRONESIA 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0469 

FAA CASE NO 2011 WP350005 

ANSWER 

In the event that Complainant is permitted to file the Amended Complaint, Aero 

Micronesia, by and through the undersigned counsel, repeats the allegations below and admits, 

denies, and alleges as follows in Answer to the FAA's Amended Complaint: 

I. 

Respondent, Aero Micronesia, Inc. dba Asia Pacific Airline, [sic] Inc., through its 

President, Michael Quinn, was advised through a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty dated 

April24, 2101 [sic], that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of$6,600.00. 

On May 4, 2012, Mr. Quinn submitted a written request for a hearing. 

ANSWER: Respondent admits. 

II. 

1. Aero Micronesia, Inc. d/b/a Asia Pacific Airlines ("Aero Micronesia") is now, and at 

all times mentioned herein was, the holder of Air Carrier Certificate No. 15P A400I, 

authorized to conduct flight operations, cargo only, under part 121 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations ("F ARs"). 

ANSWER: Respondent admits. 

2. On or about December 8, 2010, the current versions of Aero Micronesia's "Flight 

Operations Training Manual" and "General Operations Manual", contained up 

through revision 9, and revision 22, respectively. 

ANSWER: Respondent admits. 

3. Mr. Richard Gaza [sic] was the manager of Aero Micronesia's flight crewmember 

training at Sanford International Airport, Sanford, Florida. 

ANSWER: Respondent admits with the clarification that the correct name of the person 

referred to by the FAA is Mr. Richard Gazda. In fort her clarification, Mr. Gazda is not an 

employee of Aero Micronesia but rather an independent vendor providing FAA approved 

training services to Aero Micronesia. 

2 
In re AERO MICRONESIA 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0469 

FAA CASE NO 2011WP350005 

4. Mr. Richard Gaza [sic] was furnished with copies of Aero Micronesia's "Flight 

Operations Training Manual" and "General Operations Manual", revision 9, and 

revision 22, respectively. 

ANSWER: Respondent admits. 

5. On or about December 8, 2010, the latest revisions contained in Mr. Gaza's [sic] 

Aero Micronesia's "Flight Operations Training Manual" and "General Operations 

Manual", were revision 5, and revision 21, respectively. 

ANSWER: Respondent admits that the latest revisions contained in the "Flight 

Operations Training Manual" and "General Operations Manual" shown to the FAA Inspector 

on or about December 8, 2010 were revision 5 and revision 21 respectively. Notwithstanding, on 

that date Mr. Gazda was in possession of all the revisions for both manuals and no training was 

being conducted at that time. 

III. 

By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated the following 

Federal Aviation Regulation (Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations): 

14 C.F.R.§l21.137(a), which states that "[e]ach certificate holder shall furnish copies of 

the manual ... (and the changes and additions thereto) or appropriate parts of the manual 

to-its appropriate ground operations and maintenance personnel ... " 

ANSWER: Respondent denies each and every allegation contained in Part III and 

,1pecijically denies that it violated §121.137(a) of the Federal Aviation Regulations or any other 

provision of the Federal Aviation Regulations. As stated in II4 of the Amended Complaint, Aero 

Micronesia did furnish the manual and all changes and additions thereto to Mr. Gazda. These 

revisions were provided by Aero Micronesia to Mr. Gazda at the time they were issued pursuant 

to the Respondent's established distribution procedures. 

3 
In re AERO MICRONESIA 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0469 

FAA CASE NO 2011 WP350005 

IV. 

I. Pursuant to Title 49 U.S. C. Section 46301, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty 

not to exceed $27,500.00 

2. Under the facts and circumstances of this case a civil penalty of $6,600 is appropriate. 

ANSWER: Respondent denies each and every allegation contained in Part IV 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Complainant fails to even state a prima facie case for a violation by the Respondent of 

§ 121.137(a). 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

The Respondent denies that Complainant has plead, or can show at trial, allegations or 

evidence sufficient to support the proposed amount of civil penalty sought and Respondent 

demands strict proof of the amount of any such proposed civil penalty at the hearing of this 

matter. To the extent the Complainant is able to carry the required burden of proof as to the civil 

penalty, Respondent is entitled to a mitigation of the civil penalty based upon the facts and 

circumstances of the case. 

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

The sanction sought by Complainant is unwarranted by the facts, safety in air commerce, 

the public interest, and is excessive. 

4 
In re AERO MICRONESIA 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0469 

FAA CASE NO 2011 WP350005 

WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests the Chief Administrative Law Judge 

not enter an order that the Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $6,600.00, or 

in any amount, the Complaint be dismissed, and any other and further relief as may be deemed 

appropriate. 

Respectfully submitted, 

~~~~~~~··· irstein 

Joann . Young 

Lyn sey M. Grunewald 

Kirstein & Young, PLLC 

1750 K Street NW, Suite 200 

Washington, DC 20006 

TEL: 202.331.3348 

FAX: 202.331.3933 

dkirstein@yklaw.com 

jyoung({v.vklaw.com 

lgrunewald@yklaw.cmn 

Counsel for Respondent Aero Micronesia, Inc. 

Dated: July 13, 2012 

5 
In re AERO MICRONESIA 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0469 

FAA CASE NO 2011WP350005 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this date I have placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid, regular 

mail the executed original Motion to Strike and Answer and faxed one copy of the same, 

addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 00 

FAX: (202) 493-5142 

I certify that on this date I have placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid, regular 

mail, a true copy of the Motion to Strike and Answer and faxed one copy of the same, addressed 

as follows: 

DonBobertz 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, 

AWP-7 

PO Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

Dated: July 13,2012 

avi irstein 

Ki tein & Young, PLLC 

1750 K Street NW, Suite 200 

Washington, DC 20006 

Counsel for Respondent; Aero Micronesia, Inc. 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE (Ell310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX: 202-366-7536