10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDON 

Joseph R. Maridon, Jr. 

Respondent's Counsel 

6130 Elton Ave 

Las Vegas, NV 89107 

Tel. 702-514-0102 

Fax 702-410-6396 

In the Matter of: 

U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATlON ADMINlSTRATION 

Joseph R. Maridon, Sr. FAA DOCKET NO. 2014-0116 

Respondent 

Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

PAGE 01/27 

RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO COMPLAINANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL DECISIQN 

(SUMMARY JUDGMENTI 

The Respondent files his Opposition to Complainants Motion for Partial Decision (Srunmary 

Judgment) pursuant to 14 CPR§ 13.218 (f) (5) i.Uld Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

(FRCP) and renews and realleges Respondent's previous Motion to Dismiss herein. 

I. Backgi'OUnd a11,d Argume11,t 

The Complainant alleges there is no genuine dispute of fact and that this case does not require a 

hearil:lg. This is incorrect. The motion is based on an unpublished and specious interpretation of 7 6 FR 

76611, 766!2 (Dec. 8, 201!) which is based from 14 CFR §9U 1. The gravamen of the complaintis 

whether respondent's parked vehicle interfered with the flight crewmembers performance of their duties 

~an aircraft. Simply, complainant cannot establish that the material fact of interference as the 

evidence now stands. Complainant asks the court to make a legal interpretation and finding unsupported 

on any facts in the record. 

Pagel of? 
10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDON PAGE 02/27 

Complainant's motion and paragraph 4 ofthe complaint states in a conclusory fashion that "the 

respondent's parked vehicle interfered with the flight crewmentbers perfonnance of their duties aboard 

that aircraft." 

Complainant cites Respondent's statements in the requests to admit that he blocked the path of an 

oncoming aircraft. They do not state or admit interference. 

Moreover, the evidence does not show how long the alleged blocking took place, whether the 

vehicle was voluntarily removed, whether the airport rules of the road were complied with, whether the 

pilots were able to see and avoid the vehicle or the extent of physical contact, if any, respondent had with 

the aircraft. Consequently, complainant has not established that there was inte1ference, the crucial 

material issue of fact. What he seeks by motion is a judicial reaffinnation of a specious unpublished 

interpretation of an inexperienced FAA Ailworthiness Jnspector. 

Furthennore, there are other issues that were completely ignored by the Complainant, namejy, 

what were the duties of the crewmembers and exactly how were these duties allegedly interfered withThe Flight Crew had a duty to operate the aircraft in a mamter that was consistent with their traini!lg and 

experie!lce in a safe and careful manner, keeping a proper look out and avoiding obstacles in their path. 

Nothillg alleged in the Complaint or the instant motion suggests that the Flight Crew lost the ability to 

control the aircraft or that the control of the aircraft was interfered with in any manner. It is apparent that 

the Flight Crew could see both inside and outside of the aircraft, they were able to maintain directional 

control and the still had full use of the brakes at all times. Thus, none of the duties of the crewmembers 

Were interfered with. 

The pilot on board the aircraft had a duty as a matter of law to not operate the aircraft "on any 

part of the surface of [the] airport ... in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property 

of another." 14 C.F.R. 91.13(b). At the time of the incident alleged, the pilot was attempting to operate 

the aircraft in a manner that would bring the aircraft in such close proximity to the Respondent's hangar 

so as to endanger the life, health and safety ofRespcmdent. See Responses to Complainant's Requests 

for Admissions, Numbe.-s Oue and Two attached hereto as EXJDBIT 1, see also Respondent's 

Page 2 of7 
10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 f~ARIDON PAGE 03/27 

Affid:wit previously filed with Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, attached hereto as EXHIBIT 2. 

Furthennore, it is believed that the flight crew had been directed through training and should have known 

through experience to avoid the area around Respondent's hangar because the specific route that this 

flight crew bad chosen hacl proven to be dangerous, with nwnerous blind alleys and out of sight of the 

control tower.Jd. As the crewmembers were apparently avoiding the duty to not operate the aircraft in a 

reckless or careless manner in contradiction of their training at the time of the alleged incident, it cannot 

not be said that their duties were interfered with. 

Indeed, the discovery shows that FAA Airworthiness Inspector Paciolla had never before alleged 

or charged anyone with a violation of 14 CFR §91.11: 

INTERROGATORY No. 1 O: State whether or not FAA Airworthiness Inspector Anthony 

Paciolla has investigated alleged violations of 14 C.f.R. 9l.ll at any time prior to September 29, 

2012. 

RESPONS)3: To tho best of undersigned's knowledge, he has not. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No. !: Admit that FAA Airworthiness Safety lospector Anthony Paciolla has not 

conducted invo5tigations of allegations of violations of 14 C.F.R. 91.11 prior to Septem.bet· 29. 2012. 

REPL Yo Admit 

Indeed, the Complainant was more coy in discovery responses when asked to admit if the FAA 

had prosecuted a case under 14 C.F .R. § 91,11 with the set of facts alleged in the complaint and it 

is a unique case of first impression for the FAA: 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No.2: Admit that the FAA has not prosecuted a case under 14 

C.!'.R. 91.11 with the set of facts alleged in the complaint and it is a unique case of firs\ impression for the FAA. 

Page 3 of7 
10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDDN PAGE 04/27 

REPLY: Objcctio~ cans for a legal conclusion, Respondent is just as capable as conducting legal n:::seatch in-w this 

issue. Not\vithstanding ~d while not waiving this objection! undersigned lacks sufficient information to admit or 

dony and therefore denies. 

J,UlQUEST FOR ADMISSION No, 3; Admit that the J'AA did not publish any opinion '"garding or prosecute any 

alleged vtolation of 14 C.P.R. 19.11 that did not involve tl;J,e entry into an aircraft by M individual or an object 

(such as a laser beam) controlled by au individual prior to this case. 

REPLY: Objection" calls for a legal conclusion. Respondent is just as capable as conducting legal research into this 

issue. Notwithstanding and while not waiving tbjs objection, undersigned looks sufficient information to admit or 

deny and therefore denies. 

The undersigned has researched and caused to be researched this issue and finds no case as 

described by the requested admissions. Thus, it now appears that the Complainant has invented a new 

way of violating 14 C.F .R. § 91,11 without publication, precedent or legal research and wants this 

comt to sanctifY its actions without hearing all of the facts. 

Every case cited by complainant shows some physical connection to or entry into the aircraft 

~f. In re A.broms, FAA order 2008-2 (2008) (Improperly operating a Portable 

Electronic Device on a flight and interference with a flight crew) ln re. Wal/esa FAA order No. 

2013-2(2013)( finding that Wallaesa violated 14 C.P.R.§§ 121.317(£),' 121.317(k:),' and 121.580," 

while he was a passencyr on board a Southwest Airlines flight). The complainant misdirects the 

cowt otating there need be no actual physical contact with crewmembers,(Complainant's. Briefp.6, 

l.3) Complainant ignores the fact that in each of the cases complainant cites, the individual was 011 

board the flight and had actual physical contact with the aircraft. Respondent's position has always 

been that there must be some contact with the aircraft not necessarily the crewmembers for 14 C.F .R. 

§ 91.11 to apply. (Respondent's Motion to Dismiss.) Respondent's position is consistent with all 

published interpretations ofl4 C.P.R. § 91.11. 76 FR 76611,76612 (Dec. 8, 2011). Moreover, none 

Page4of7 
10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 I~ARIDDN PAGE 05/27 

of the cases cited by Complainant address a first amendment right to protest of the failure of a 

governmental unit to redress a grievance with ex post facto interpretation and due process 

consequences. The factual basis which have been recognized in the discovery materials provided by 

complainant and adopted by him in his use ofthem to support his position in his position in the 

instant motion. (Complainant's Motion p.3 citing Respondent's admissions) (those constitutional 

issues will be further addressed in a subsequent motion to dismiss, if necessary) 

Complainant asks the Court for deference to an unpublished, ex post facto interpretation of 

14 CFR 19.11 particularly when complainant is unwilling to concede or admit that this is a unique 

case of first impression where there is no contact of any sort with the aircraft 

REQUESI FOR ADMISSION No. 6; Adroit that at no time did Respondent move toward, touch, entet' or cause 

any object under his control to enter the Vision Airlines Domier Do 228 on September 29, 2014. 

REPLY:Objection, vague as to "Vision Airlines'\ etc_ Notwithstanding the objection, adroit Respondent did not 

pbyska11y enter the aircraft. 

The complah1ant again argues that1he "plain language" of 14 CFR §19.11, the FAA's 

unpublished interpretati0!1ll)ld legal precedent establish that the acts ofthe Respondent fall under the act. 

Simply the FAA's unpublished interpretation is ex post facto to justify its position that is unsupported by 

publication, precedent or plain language. The interpretation therefore should be disregarded and the 

Complaint dismissed. 

To argue that the "plain language of the regulation does not specify the person interfe1ing with a 

crewmember must be onboard the ail·craft" is clearly inconsistent with the history of the FAA's own 

previous interpretation of §91.11. "In a later amendment to the 1ule, the FAA stated that this section was 

"clearly intended to apply to passengers• • *and any other 'person' onboard the aircraft." 64 FR 1076, 

Page 5 of7 
10/30/2014 03:05PM 70241053g5 MARIDDN PAGE 05/27 

1077 (Jau. 7, 1999) as cited iu 76 FR 76611, 76612 (Dec. 8, 2011) (Exhibit 1). The individual need not 

be onboatd the aircraft, but there must be some physical connection to the aircraft whether by touch or by 

object controlled by the respondent. The case cited in 76 FR 76611, 76612 (Dec. 8, 2011 ), (Admt•. v. 

Siegel) and the danger sought to be prevented (laser beams) involved entry into or connection with an 

aircraft. The purpose ofthe use of the plain language or plain meaning rule in 76 FR 76611, 76612 

(Dec. 8, 2011) was clearly to justify 14 CFR §19.11 's application to lasers regardless of whether they 

were used from the ground or another aircraft. It was not intended to extend to legitimate acts of 

protest by further illlpublished ex post facto interpretation. If it had been intended to extend beyond 

lasers, the plain language would bave clear:ly stated so to give notice of additional applications of 14 

CFR § 19 .11. It should not be extended to Respondent in the instant circumstances. ''An agency may not, 

for example, depart from a prior policy sub silentio or simply disregard. rules that are still on the books. 

See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 696, 94 S.Ct. 3090,41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974)"cited with 

approval in Federal Communicarions Commission v. Fox Television Stations, inc., 556 U.S. 502, 129 

S.Ct. 1800, 173 L.Ed.2d 738, 77 USLW 4337 (2009). The interpretation sought by Complainant clear:ly 

violates the notice, due process and ex post facto clauses of the United States Constitution. 

Conclusion 

L Complainants motion should be denied; and 

2. the Complaint should be dismissed for the reasons set forth herein and in Respondent's Motion 

to Dismiss 

Is/ Joseoh R. Mar/don. Jr. 

Joseph R. Maridon, Jr. 

Attorney at Law 

Counsel for Respondent 

6130 Elton Ave. 

Las Vegas, NV 89107 

DATED: October 30, 2014 

/s/ Walter L. Avers 

Walter L, Ayers 

Attorney at Law 

Counsel for Respondent 

13435 North Whitehouse Court 

Spokane, WA 99208 

DATED: October 30, 2014 

Page 6 of7 
10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDDN PAGE 07/27 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that Respondent's RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO 

COMPLAINANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL DECISION (SUMMARY JUDGMENT) has 

been served viw Facsiullle and/or electronic mail this date, to the following: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur-Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 000 

Fax 202-493-5142 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-31 0) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

David Shayne, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

1601 Lind Ave., SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2165 

FAX:425-227-1007 

(~.----····· ~:=::--~: 

!sf Joseph R. Maridon, Jr. 

Page 7of7 
1~/3~/2~14 ~3:~5PM 7~241~5395 MARIDDN PAGE ~8/27 

EXHIBIT 1 
10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 

Joseph K Maridon, Jr. 

Respondent's Counsel 

6130 Elton Ave 

Las Vegas, NV 89107 

MARIDON 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASI:IINGTON D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH M.<\RJDON, SR. 

FAA Case No. 20l2WP190142 FDMS NO. FAA 2014-0116 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

JUDGE RJCHARD GOODWIN 

PAGE 09/27 

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT'S INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS 

To: Complainant through his attomey, David Shayne. 

In accordance with 14 C.F-R-§13.220 and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

Respondent responds to the following Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, 

and Req!l<'st for Admissions, Submitted by Complainant .. 

INTERROGATORIES AND BEQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

INTERROGATORY No. 1: Describe with specificity all of the facts and argmnents which you 

anticipate presenting in the course of the Department of 'fransportation (DOT) hearing in tins 

matter pertaining to the avoidance or mitigation of the sanction sought by the FAA in this case. 

l have owned and operated an ahport and have knowledge of the rules ond regulations regarding their 

safe operations. I am further aware that vehicular land operations on art airport are w:ithin the jurisdiction 

and !'esponsibility of the operator of the ahport as represented in FAA Advisory Circular No: 150/5210-20 

, GROUND VEHICLE OPERATIONS ON AIRPORTS on which I have relied and continue to rely. 

On a nmnber of occasions before September 12, 20 12! contacted the Nortl1 Las Vegas Airport Manager 

and requested th.at Vision Airlines not taxi by my hanger due to the excessive noise generated by the 

1 of7 

RESPO!-lDENT'S RESPONSES TO 

COMPL-AJNA.l-I'T'S INIT!J\L DISCOVERY REQUESTS 
10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDDN PAGE 10/27 

Do228 Domier operated by Vision Airlines due to its adverse effect on myself and my visiting grand child. 

Despite my requests to the Airport manager, Vision Airlines continued to taxi by my hangar. 

I am 72 years of age and retired. The excessive noise generated by Vision Airlines Dornier 228s was 

sufficiently piercing to cause me to b.ave to remove my hearing aids and cover my ears. Normally, I am in 

my hangar, working on my personal airplanes and the removal of my hearing aids is difficult as my 

hands are dirty and/or greasy from working on my airplanes and must be washed prior to the removal of 

my hearing aids, by which time the Vision A.iJ:lines aircraft have passed my hangar. 

I have owned the hanger depicted in EwibitA before September 12, 2012. When the fAA Control Tower 

(old tower)was between my hanger and the Vision Airlines ramp, Vision aircraft did not use the route that 

passed next to my hanger. Xt was my understanding based on infonnation and belief that this was du.e to 

noise abatement and safety issues, although the controller from the old tower could clearly see the aircraft 

on the taxiway in question and in the hanger rows near the taxiway. 

The new FAA Control Tower is now across the airfield and has a restricted view of those hanger rows and 

does not control the taxiway that passed by my hanger. The Controllers in the tower frequently state over 

the radio to pilots words to the effect, "Ramp is uncontrolled" wh.en the pilots request taxi instructions. The 

controllers at North Las Vegas Airport have also noted that their visibility from the new tower is limited in 

th.at area. (VGT Bulletin page 2, July 2013,) 

I also b.ad serious safety concerns about large commercial aircraft taxiing in that area because there are 

t.mrnerous "blind alleys" from the rows of enclosed hangers on the right and left of that taxiway. I have 

seen small aircraft on the taxiway in question come nose to nose with other aircraft taxiing from those 

enclosed hanger rows to the right and left of the taxiways. There is a safer, alternative route that was 

previously used by Vision aircraft It passes the open shade hangers and the fuel pumps and on to Taxiway 

"A" that gives the controllers in the new tower a far better view of taxiing commercial aircraft, is less 

noisy to the tenants, and gives the Vision pilots a better view of small aircraft and vehicles to moving in 

and about the open shade hangers, because there are no blind alleys. 

2of7 

RES~ONDENT'S RESPONSES TO 

COMJ'LAJ:NANT'S INITIAt- DISCOVERY REQUESTS 
10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDDN PAGE 11/27 

The "back way" taken by the Do228 Dornier pilots (as described in the pilot's and copilot's statements) is 

a shorter route to the runup area than the safer, alternative route described in paragraph 7. On iofm:mation 

and belief, it is apparent that the Vision pilots were taking an tmsafe short cut to save time and fuel since in 

my experience there is nrrdy any "congestion" at the fuel pumps that would hinder an aircraft taxiing in 

the area of the fuel pumps at the North Las Vegas Airp011. 

INTERROGATORY No.2: IdentifY by name, address and telephone number all persons whom you 

know to have personal knowledge of the matters alleged in the Complaint. 

See attachment A 

INTERROGATORY No. 3: IdentifY by title, date, author, present custodian, and content, all 

documents, including correspondence, obtained by you or in your possession, relating to the 

assertions in the Complaint, your appeal, your answer, and any affirmative defenses which you 

anticipate raising in this matter. 

See Attachment A 

INTERROGATORY No. 4: Identify by name, address and telephone number, all persons whom 

you intend to have testify as a factual or expert witness in your defense at the hearing in this matter, 

and for factual witnesses, provide a detailed summary of each persons anticipated testimony_ 

Joseph Ma:Iidon, Jr., s<::e Attachment A 

Joseph Maridon, Sr., see Attachment A 

INTERROGATORY No. 5: IdentifY by title, date, author, present custodian, and content, all 

documents which you anticipate offering into evidence at the hearing in this matter, and through 

which witness or witoesses. 

See Attachment A 

INTERROGATORY No. 6: With respect to each expert witness identified in response to 

Interrogatory No. 4, above, specify their specific area of expertise, and provide a synopsis of their 

credentials, background, training and experience. 

See Attachment A 

3 of7 

RESPONDllNT'S !illSPONSES TO 

COMPLAINANT'S INITIAL DISCOVERY lillQlJESTS 
10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDON PAGE 12/27 

INTERROGATORY No.7: With respect to ~ach expert you expect to call as a witness, state the 

subject matter on w)J.ich the expert is expected to testify, and state the substance of the facts and 

opinions to which the expert is expected to testify, and a sunnnary of the grounds fur each such 

opm1on. 

See Attachment A 

INTERROGATORY No.8: State by name, address, telephone number, date of conversation, and 

substance of conve<Sation, all persons [other than legal counsel or spouse] with whom you have 

discussed the matters alleged in the Complaint. 

Gary Gabbard 

5212 Rrunbling Rd. 

Las Vegas, NV 89120 

702-592-5732 

Rich Martin, M.D. 

8853 W. Rio Verde Ave. 

Las Vegas, NV 89147 

702-371-4941 

Mike Scalera 

17229 E. Temple Rd. 

Spokane, WA992l7 

509-998-410 I 

I have no way to date these conversations. They described that the FAA had charged me with 

interfering with a flight crew at VGT on an uncontrolled area of the ramp by using my pickup 

tmck to block the taxi path and that it was a way to gct the attention of the airport management to 

resolve a noise problem. 

The result was no response from the airport management but this charge from the FAA. I also 

explained to them that this looked like Visiou Airlines was using the FAA to harass me. I arn sure 

I related other details like the Vision chief pilot visiting my hangar and rather thau trying to 

resolve the issue he informed me that the issue had been turned over to the P AA and TSA. Some 

of these conversations go back two years and I cannot provide more details or dates. Ifl can recall 

others that I had any substantive conversations with I will add them to the Jist. 

INTERROGATORY No.9: If you deny any or all of Requests for Admissious l and 2, please 

el(p\ain in detail the specific reason for each and every fact denied. 

Respondent objects to request for admission 1, because it is uon-specific and does not identify the 

aircraft. Respondent Admits parking a vehicle with the hood up and hazard lights flashing in the vicinity 

of his hangar on the North Las Vegas AiJport preventing an aircraft froro proceeding past his hanger. 

Respondent denies blocking the forward motion of the aircraft since it was able to proceed forward, and 

alter its course and North Las Vegas airport rules do not give aircraft on the ground the right of way and 

the aircraft b,ad the obligation to see and avoid any hazards. AiJport Mllllllger was previously informed 

of but did not resolve the tfL"<i, and noise issues. 

4of7 

RESPONDENT'S .RESPONSES TO 

COMPLAINANT'S !NIDAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS 
10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDDN PAGE 13/27 

As to request for admission Z, Resl'ondent objects to the non-specific reference to "one or more persons" 

and tbe "aircraft," both of which remain unidentified in this request for admission, other than Vincent 

Rivas. Respondent admits telling Vincent Rivas an airyort employee that i't'SlJOndent parked his truck in 

frol\t of the aircraft to protest the overly noisy aircraft travelling in tbe area directly adjacent to 

RespondOI\t's hangar after the airPott manager had been notified of the 1\0ise and taxi issues North Las 

Vegas Airport Rules do not give aircraft on tbe ground the right of way and the aircraft had the 

obligation to see and avoid potential hazards. Airport M:mager was previously infonned of but did not 

resolve the taxi~ and noise issues. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Provide a copy of all documents referred to m your 

answer to the preceding interrogatories No. 1 through No.9. 

See Attachment A 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 

REOlmST FOR ADMISSION NO 1. Admit that, on or about Sevtember 9, 201Z, you ll\tentionally 

parked a vehicle on a portion of the North Las Vegas AirPort in the vicinity of a hanger you either · 

owned, rented, or were otherwise using at the time an aircraft was atten)pting to travel along the 

same portion of the airport in manner preventing the forward movement of the aircraft. 

Respondent objects to this request for admission because it is non-specific al\d does not identify the 

aircraft. Respondent Admits parking a vehicle with the hood up and hazard lights flashing in the vicinity 

of his hangar on the North Las Vegas Aiqlort preventing an aircraft from proceeding past his hanger. 

Respondent denies blocking the forward motiol\ of the aircraft since it was able to proceed forward, and 

alter its course and North Las Vegas airyort rules do not give aircraft on the ground the right of way and 

the aiJ:craft had the obligation to see and avoid any hazards, AirPort Manager was previously infonned 

of but did not resolve the taxi, and noise issues. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSTON NO 2. Adroit that, following the il\cident referenced in Request for 

Admission No. 1, you stated to one or t.nore persons, including Vil\cent Rivas, that you parked your 

truck in frol\t of the aircraft il\ order to protest the aircraft travelling il\ the area neat your hangar. 

Respondent objects to the non-specific reference to "one or more persons"' and the "aircraft," both of 

which remain unidentified in this request for adrnissiol\, other than Vincent Rivas. Respondent admits 

telling Vincent Rivas an aiJ:port employee that respondent parked his truck ill front of the aircraft to 

protest the overly noisy aircraft travelling in the area directly adjacent to Respondent's hangar after the 

5 of7 

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSES TO 

COMPLAINANT'S INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS 
1B/3B/2Bl4 B3:B5PM 7B241B53g5 MARIDDN PAGE 14/27 

airport manager had been notified of the noise and taxi issues North Las Vegas Airport Rules do not 

give aircraft on the ground the right of way and the aircraft had the obligation to see and avoid potential 

hazards. Airport Manager was previously informed of, but did not resolve the taxi, and noise issues. 

DATED this_ day of _____ 2014. 

Joseph R. Maridon,Sr., Respondent 

DATED this30day of September 2014. 

s::;2-- ,~;_--· '"• . 

""' Attorney( s) for Respondent 

6of7 

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSES TO 

COMPLAINANT'S INTIIAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS 
10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 I~ARIDDN 

CERTIFICATE OF SEBYJCE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Complainant's Initial Discovery Request has been served via 

Facsimile and/or electronic mail this date, to the following: 

David Shayne 

FAA Office of Regional Counsel 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, Washington 98057 

Telephone: (425) 227-2165 

Facsimile: ( 425) 227-1007 

Dated September :;JJ, 2014. 

c;;;?---~--····· .......... . '"Foseph R. Maridon, Jr. 

RESPONDENT'S RESPONSES TO 

COMPLAINANT'S !NillAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS 

7 of7 

PAGE 15/27 
10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 

u.s,. oepoilJnent 

otT~tl 

Fiod<nol AV~d!!Ct1 

A,drrtlnl$\rdll<!ll' 

Mr, J()saph R Marldon, Jr., esq, Th~ ME!rii;loi1 Law f'lttn 

6130 Eillotl Avenue 

Las. Vf.II'J$ll. Nevada 89101 

Dear Mr. MaridQl).: 

~IARIDON 

~e: Freedom ()f.infrom;rtlon AsHFOIAl ReaueJ>t#2013-W!§!5WP 

PAGE 15/27 

Thblletter I!'!· in response to your Freedpm of hifoqn~tlon Ac;t {FQI~) requ!*ltdated ·. Octob§r 31 , 2012. You requested irllfe&tif!.;ltive raportlil concerlliflS allegations. of violations. 

of 14 CFR $t 11, in tl:te !asHen years. · 

A 1;earch fonecords was oonc!ucte(l at. th.e ·. LasVegas fljg'ht standar<l!3 l;li$ttict Office. 

Thetawere no hwestlgatlva records<:ol'lducte«;~ b)i.li111Jpact()rAnthony Paciolla, concemins 

all!19atlcms of violation of 14 CFR9U'1, In the last ten years. 

· Tl'l,er'll· ~ra no fees associated With this request. 

)];e undatsigMd ~nd Niche~ Reyes, Manager, Flight Stan~args Pivislon,. are responsible 

for thiS n_o (eCO£dS d.etermina\i(lQ, Y QU.JTiay. reque;'it reconsiqet~tlol'l ot tt)i:;i det~rmln~tion by 

wliting to the.;f'.sslst.)ntAdmlnistratl)r for Finan~ ~nd Management (AFN•1), Federal 

Aviat!Qn Admil'liStra\ion, ao.o tl'ldepenclence Avenue. sw, Washington, DQ, 20591, Your 

request fot reconsl.deratiori must be made in'Wiiting williin 30 days from the date Of receipt. 

of thl.s letter ~ild lrlt,~st include all information and a~guments relied upon, Your lettet must 

s!'!te thatlt is·M ~WpeaiJrom tile itbt;~~escribed denilll of a request made under ~he 

FQIA. the envel()pe containing tlie appeal !lhould b;! marked 'FOIA.' 

$ihC!!!rtillY. 

"-.......... ~ .. , " ,,., .. .. 

wJ.4~c~~~~ W~llam C. Wrtl'!yroiribe · · 

Fl.~icm$1 Atlmini.strator 

ATTACHMENT A 
10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDON PAGE 17/27 

EXHIBIT 2 
10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDDN PAGE 18/27 

-~ p_$DEJ'AAlmNT 011 'I.'RANSPORT<\TION 

FJtDERALAVIATION ADMJNJSTRATION 

In the i\.h:tter nfl 

Jo~b R. Maridon, Sr. 

Relipondent 

Mwiiiisttative Law Judge Richard C. (.ilx}dwill . 

FAA DOCKET 

FAA CASE NO. lll12WP1!1014Z 

(Civil Penaltr Aet.{nn) 

AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPf! R. MARIDQN. SK 1N SU:PPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS 

.STATEOFWASHINGTON ) 

; ss 

COUNTY OF SPOJ<ANE ) 

I, JOSEPH R. MARIDON, SR., l>t<il:ig fir~(luly SWQ)n on o~th, ~der pen11lty ofpetjury, \.leposes and 

says; 

). I am 71 y~ar:s of age. 1 have perwnlll knowledge of the fat::ts s.et fu~ jl~ein,. except .ful: those. 

ma:~rs st:ated to be based upon :information ,Bl:uf belief; which matters I belleve to b¢ ttue. 

2.. I am a licensed Profes$i:(>JI(!l Englneetc, I have owned arid operate\1 ~· alrpol't ,I!Dd haye 

knowledge eftbe rules and regulations rtlglftdirig their safe op~ratioPS'.l iltn further a;wlU:e tbat vehh;ular 

land ol'erations on an a:tr.,ort are within the Jurisdiction and responsihmty of the epetator of the airport ru; 

repres·enttd jn f M Advisory CJ.icul>¥ No; 150/52.1 0-~0 , GROUND vEHICLE OP:ltltATIONS ON 

.AJRI>ORTS on whiCh 1 have relied !ll1d <;(tnt)nue to rely, 

3. On a number o:f'occ&iOlls \b!lfure Septetnber 11, 20121. contal)ted the NQrth Ltw VegllS Airport 

Manager and requested that Vision Airlines not taxi by IllY hariger due fi> the ~ce_E;Si;ve Mise geneynf!'d by 

l;h:e Do228 Do!1lier operated by VisiOn Alrliney due to. its advet'S() effeCt WI myself and 1\l)' vi$iting g;rand 

cllild. 

4, 1 also ha(! serious ~e;ty ¢tln~m~~ 11\>ofit.larg<: conwerci!ll aircra_tl tl\xiins in th(lt area because 

there are· numeroUs ''blind alll:!y»" from :th!i rows of enclosed h$lge~ on the rig!!.~ ~ h•fl of that taxiwey. 
10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDDN PAGE 19/27 

1 have $el$ SIIUIII aircraft oo the taxiway in question come nose to nose W~th other ~~jj: taxiing frwn 

!hos:e ~n¢losed hanger rows t!) ti).e. rigll\ M4left of the taxiways. (Depict<:d in.exhfuit A.~W\ched hereto 

and incolJlorated bo;rein by this l"'ference) 

5. I have owno;d the haliger depicted l.rCEldlibitA before Se)Mmb~r 12, .2.012. When the F A.A 

(]!oQ.irdl Tower (old toW<:r) was betwe.en .m,y b.anget and the Vision Airlil\~ f'>fllP, Visi<>p; l!ircraft did not 

l):le the route that passed nel>t to t!l;yhanger: It w.ascmy und~rstanding ba~ed on.infotma~on.and belief 

that tbi~ was due to noise ab~t<;IIlent Md $llfety issues, although the oontrollcr frpmthe.o!d to~t could 

clearly see till' aircraft on. the t:ruci\.vay i!1 q,1w~ti.On and in the hange;noW» near the f~!Xiway. 

6 .. The newFAA Control Tower is now actOss the ;~.irfield and.hM!l r¢stricted view ofthose 

hanger rows and dol's not control' tile taxiway that passed by my hanger .. The COil):!'ollers :ix; the tower 

ti:egnently state owr the radio to pilots wOJ'dl; to tb,e effect, "Ramp is uncontrQll¢d'' when the. pilots 

request .taxi instmctlQns. The corittollers atl;'lorth L.as Vegas A,irpol;t have .alil<!Y noted that their visibility 

fi:orn the n~~Wtower is limited in. that area .. (ExhibitB, VGT Bulletin page :2, Jufy 2013, aWJc;IJ:ed hereto 

and inc<:\!po.rated lwrein by tl\is (efl'fencc) 

7. ·There is a safer, al~v~ rpJ,~te th'l.t. ~ previously used by V)siQil a$ta.t1:. lt passes the 

~n ~Q.ade hangers and the fue1 pumps Md on., to J:I!Xiway "A'' that ~dves ~e controllers in the. new tower 

a fatbettlli' ¥lew of taxiing co~~lll .aircraft; ilf less noisy to the tenahfl>, ll!:ld gives tbe Vision. pilot& a 

. better view ofsma!J aircraft md V<~hicl!:$ inPvlt!g .in. md aboutthe open shade hangers, becyuse there ~ 

UQ. b~ind l\ll~y!>. (Exhibit A) 

!L The ''ba!'k way" fuken by the Do228 Dtltnier pilots, l!S cbara¢terized in the pilot's and copilot's 

statements, is a shortenout<; to the run~up area than the safer, alteroative t(:J\)te descrij)ed in paragraph 7, 

· On infotllllitioo and belief, it ia app~nt that the Vision pilots were taking 1m unsafe shQrt cUl; to saw time 

B,Itcl fuel.since in my experieuce: the(f.l is rarely IIDY "con~stion" at the fuel pumps that :Wo~ld. hinder B,Il 

·aircraft fal<.iing in the 3rea of tlJe.fuef pnrops at th<l North Las Vegas Airj;lort . 

.. , . .,,.. 

... 2 
10/30/2014 03:05PM 70241053% MARIDON PAGE 20/27 

-··. 

···,,:' 
10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDON 

F.xlu'bit A to Af!:id!lvit ofJO$ep)l JL Ml!rldoll. Sr. 

AM;ii Vlew~ ofNorth, Ll!.s V~ Airport and· FAA Diagram 

L$<JENp 

1. N.ew TQwet 

2. ~ef allege\\ incident . 

~. Y~on Airlines Ramp 

4. Enclosed ''Blind .Alley" ~gers (RigJ'lt M4 Le:ft .ofTaxlway) 

5. Ojleil Shade Han gel'S 

6. Ftu:l Pl,lm,ps 

1. M<ltiJlon Hllpger 

3. Olq ToWill' Site 

•• ~- B.~ area Runway 7 1 

• ·~· .fi::: . ..:.~· 'r • • , 

"G~~. 

· ···~F' J)vctway F · 1 ·••· ., .,,,,, -~- ,.,,,, '""'' 

:AAA.,. Shortcut "B~k waf' taken by VlsiM Airlines pilots 

BBQ .... Sa.fer route by SWe Ra!Ig~ via Taxiway A 

•~ \4''tQ 50' (enl~edae!,i!jl.vl~) .. 

11<ti21 Wingspan 5S'.8'' 

'·· ,. 

_ .. :.· 

·, 

,, . ' . '.:.' 

PAGE 21/27 

. .. ,.,· 

··' 
10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDDN PAGE 22/27 
10/30/2014 03:05PM 70241053% MARIDON PAGE 
10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 

NORll! I,AS'Vl;GA:> T6W~;R* 

125.7 360;75 

GNOCON 

j~l? . 

Cl.NCOE\ 

124;() 

J.!I.NuAwt 2lllil 

ANNUAL AAll' Of CHANGe o:J•w 

MARIDDN 

CAUTION' SE-AtERT TO ll!JNWAY CROSSING CLEARANCES. 

PAGE 24/27 

REAOSACK OP.All RUNWAY'fiOLDING INS!RUOlONS IS IU'QLJIREO_ 

i i ... DIAGRAM NORTH lAS VEGAS (VGT) 
10/30/2014 03:05PM 70241053% MARIDON 

' ,, 

-.,.;!i:·!::'·',•,' ':!·.:,,:, 

.. ;· .. -·:·' 

"·,' .. · .. ,,;::'''' 

·:.,, 

PAGE 25/27 

·.!' 

' \ :· ' .. ·, ', '·i'.: 
10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDDN 

Alrs:u' 

STAKEHOLDER~ MEETING 

The next Stakeholder meeting is 

scheduled on $eptember 19, 2013. 

ate:OO p.m. · 

PAGE 25/27 

hall fue. pleasure of knowing oim, r.t~ 

wm bed~:~eply missed. 

PRQJECJC()NCEPT 

FAClllf' UPDATE - For your APPROVAL -If you are plannivn 

conyemenoe· there are S!3YE!ral ;:~ny improVI;)ITientl> to your hangar or 

Wl!sti;l (lil collection barrels iocated cotntnert:Jai facility y<;~u must receive. 

tt>roqghout the airport. Please dis- approval from the · DOA before 

-~-,.,-wasttoiHmiY in·tl!ese·oolfee..-·-·--@??!'l!l.cJ.1!19o_::rh~ E!lls.i!'i~.~s Offi~ win 

tion s1te.s. The DOA rou~nely has complete aProject ConceptApproval 

tile wa~e oil removed and repro- form l:!a:ed O!il. yourcornptete project 

c.esaed. descnpt1on and concept drawmg {eMEMORIAL - Larry James Sig-

!Jalkow left us too soon, 0n April 

2!}, ;w.13 <!l~r living a ver; full lire 

an(j tqucl:ilng so many lives along 

the Way. He ·Was bol'll on December 24th, 194 7 and grew up In 

G$tden City an(j was vecy active 

In the community Christian can-. 

!Em H•N~amE!d hi1;1 pilot:s license on 

his 1tlth ~lrthd!!Y and continued to 

fly his. t>ntlre life. In Las Wgas. hfl 

joined ,the< police departrr\el'lt Where 

he proudly 's.~.tVed for over 30 years. 

ih ~~tlol.l~ '<!!Pacitief<, He was i.n· 

strumental' lr~' helping the polk:i3. 

fore!"' integrate wJth aviation il!Jsets 

and speaih!i!aded many of its penal 

transportation Ptotlr<ims .. 

AlWaY$ kllQWn as a hard worker 

who posli.e.lll!$d many c~flve and 

Innovative Ideas, Larry wow.ld tak.e 

hi~ nalj.Jral e:ntrepreoeurial spirit 

,andii:>~us~$ on buUd!ng one of 

th9 most succ.essful ch.11rter airlines 

in the Las Vegas area. He retired 

in2011~:~ncf ff)tl,imed to Boise to be 

near hi$ fiimily anti spend what. he 

called his H-A-P-P-Y years, fishing in bls backyard, doing regular 

9Pt\S$ patrt\ls. ru·oning on his fa• 

Vbtlte, trail~. and spe~dlhg tim~< with 

his beloved wife. Larry was a true 

9!!.!lllr:>man and served' as ,a, genuine 

exarnoiEI of humatHtv to all who 

mail to the.Airport Manager B~<ru:i@ 

.mcc.arfl!n,com or submit to the 

office). · ·· 

'Nqrth Las Vegas Airport 

Airport ManaQE!r 

2730 Alrpbrt Drive, $uite 1M 

Nq~ Lei:;; Vegas, Nevada 89032 

DQA wlll respo11d to your reqt<est.as 

soon •as pqssJple (mEiy take a fl'.w 

weei<S based on tile compl~xity of 

the project). A Pro]Mt Coordinai:Qr: 

will be assigned to assist you and ,~ 

.pr&-eof'lstru9tlon l<lck-off meeting wiil 

be. Sl!1heduled. 

Duling construction, the cbntraotor 

Will ~qrk With the DOA Project 

Coordina!Dr and lnspeGtor to 

complete the l>rq)acl Aeoeptance 

C.heckllst.- Vllhen all cheoklist i~ms 

ha>.re been completed (includWi 

the submiUjon cif As~Builts ), DOA 

ConstruooowEnglneeiingwill confin;n 

that all business/ acquisition issues 

have been \10mpletelil t)efore (:losing 

.\he projeot. 

All Pri:!jecl$ shall be Jn accordahse 

with ihe Tenant lmpmvemellt 

Manual located on~llne · ai http;(/ 

www.mPilartllll .. comJDoing Bushess 

/tenant.lmprqvement.htmt 
10/30/2014 03:05PM 7024105395 MARIDDN 

VGT CONTROLLER TALK 

K~ep off the Gr:assl More precis~ly, kf:lep offthe green painted 

areas in the vicinitY ofRwy 7 ahd Taxiway G & F. In :.)n ~ffort 

to reduce the number ofpilot qevlatlonl!, many airport.l<!yout 

c:hanges have l:)een made or an'~ in progress. Over the last 

decade, VGT has const<:~ntly been. near the top nationwide 

for the m.ost runwayfncutsiOrts. aqnu;;~l!y; but we're changhig 

th!lt. currently, we· are well below are historical year to date 

average and well on ovr W<!Y to a spectacular year. However, 

With the change in g®graphloal layout come. some issue!;l 

that.aU pilots shoJ,Jj(j l;le aware .. 

lights while taxiing after sunset as blue reflectors are being temporarily utiliti!d 

to delineate taxiWay edges where the (lreen il!l<imds have been added. Third,, 

the rurit:ip ar~a is no longer a movement area~ ATC may orr;nay not be all{ar~ 

ofthe pre.seh~. of aircraf< @Xiing in the ylclt:~ity .. And last, the t:;~xi cle?ranc"!, 

'Runway '7, taxi. via G' authorizes. airor11ft to cross taxiway A at\d up to the 

hold short marking for RunV!Iay 1, Many ~ircrqft are stopping short ottaxiway 

A and contaotirig Tbwar prjor ta .emtering the movement an~a. While not :<In 

issue In itself, during peak traffic periods, l:rol\iing short of taxiway A may 

!<ause bloo~ges in the taxUane. · 

As summar approaches, I! is vital fot pilots t.o sta)! aware of w~ther 

canditicms anc! its impa.ct to. the p:erformance ohircraft lncraa$ed V!keoff 

distam;.e, reduced rnte of climb, increased true air speed on landing aM 

approaeb, and !nc:r~aseci ian(ling roll distan.ce are all affected by density 

altitude. Additionally, thundersh;mns car,~ develop rapidly anct sho,uld be cause 

fo~ concern, Until nexttime, heads.·yp, hOld' short, 'IIY right. 

Fra.tarne!ly, At:~thony V?ifl.f'iO, VGT Cc;ntrofler 

· p..'lll~~on M~tlrrg.s 

·~ra,nd c;a"yon ~oo!1l · Ccmferenee Ro.om 

2nd l\ii9!Jday- 9AP- NelliS Sr. squadron 

All) Mol'\day -GAP • Nellis Sr. Squadroll 

1st tueSllay-!=M Chapter t63 

2nd Tuesday~ 1/4 ScaleA.s~o.:: -6:45pm 

t\>t \IVerlnesdSIY - Commemorative Air Force 

2nd Wedt.'esday-:Rebef Squadron (lh 

Mod1.ilar Bliiltfing} 

4th Wl3Qne&tay - P,r<Jp - Nut~ 

.Eyacy TJ:IU(8. • Clelrk Co~llty 

oompqs!te ,:Sq!1Mf011 CiVIl Air Patrol 

4th Thursday'- FAA FASTTEAM 

4ih Monday - Dust Devils 

1st Tuesday- CAP 

2r)d Tu~s.day- LV Ea!Jies 

3f!l: T-uesday - 99s - 5~30pm -7:00pm 

4th TU.ell;d!>y- LV Ball(}on :G!ub 

.3~· Wednesday - co.mrnemorative Air 

Force 

t:\i:J!iryl'hut~;, - Cl!llrk County Composite 

S(luadron CivitAir Patrol: 

(All meetingS an!J at 7PM unless otherwlsll noted.) 

PAGE 27/27