Date: July 15, 2013 

Reference: 2012EA680047 

24/7 Charter Dispatch 

Customer Service 

866.824.9394 

Jetlogistics.us 

scheduling@Jetlogistics.us 

Defendant, Jet Logistics, Inc., hereby notifies the United States Department of 

Transportation, Office of Hearings, and the Complainant, that is shall be 

represented by it's President listed below. All communications, notices, 

pleadings, or documents are respectfully requested to be forwarded as follows: 

W. Ashley Smith Jr. 

President 

Jet Logistics, Inc. 

5400 Airport Drive 

Charlotte, NC 28208 

Telephone: 919-840-0555 

Fax: 919-840-0554 

Email: A.~hjcy@ j etiQ gi O>ti£"'1lS 

Respectfully submitted, 

W. Ashley Smith Jr. 

President 

FAA AIR CARRIER #ZP7A427J 

RECEIVED 

JUL 1 8 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

PAGE f OF 1 

FAA CRS #R40R880N 

JetLiiCJrgistics TECHNIC"L SERVICES 
July 15, 2013 

CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Room 2014 

Washington, DC 20591 

Reference: 2012EA680047 

24/7 Charter Dispatch 

Customer Service 

866.824.9394 

Jetlogistics.us 

scheduling@Jetlogistics.us 

The following is the response from Jet Logistics, Inc., to the Complaint filed by the Federal 

Aviation Administration against Jet Logistics in the matter of 2012EA680047. These items are 

listed in the same order as the Complainant has listed in its Complaint. 

1. Respondent agrees. 

2. Respondent agrees. 

3. Respondent agrees. 

4. Respondent agrees. 

5. Respondent agrees. 

6. Respondent agrees. 

7. Respondent agrees. 

8. Respondent agrees. 

9. Respondent agrees. 

10. Respondent agrees. 

11. Respondent agrees, but with mitigating circumstances. 

12. Respondent disagrees that it knowingly operated the flight in question in violation of it's 

Operations Specifications. 

13. Respondent disagrees that it knowingly operated the flight in question in violation of it's 

Operations Specifications. 

14. Respondent disagrees that Robin Dill did not receive a check under Section 

135.293(a)(l). Mr. Dill was given a written exam to which he successfully passed. 

15. Respondent disagrees that Robin Dill did not receive a check under Section 

135.293(a)(4). Mr. Dill was given a written exam to which he successfully passed. 

16. Respondent disagrees that Robin Dill did not receive a check under Section 

135.293(a)(5). Mr. Dill was given a written exam to which he successfully passed. 

PAGE 1 OF 3 

FAA AIR CARRIER #ZP7A427J FAA CRS #R40R880N 

JetU/)1gistics T<CHNICJ\L SERVICES 
17. Respondent disagrees that Robin Dill did not receive a check under Section 

135.293(a)(6). Mr. Dill was given a written exam to which he successfully passed. 

18. Respondent disagrees that Robin Dill did not receive a check under Section 

135.293(a)(7). Mr. Dill was given a written exam to which he successfully passed. 

19. Respondent disagrees that Robin Dill did not receive a check under Section 

135.293(a)(8). Mr. Dill was given a written exam to which he successfully passed. 

20. Respondent disagrees that Luis Rios did not receive a check under Section 135.293(a)(l). 

Mr. Rios was given a written exam to which he successfully passed. 

21. Respondent disagrees that Luis Rios did not receive a check under Section 135.293(a)(l). 

Mr. Rios was given a written exam to which he successfully passed. 

22. Respondent disagrees that Luis Rios did not receive a check under Section 135.293(a)(4). 

Mr. Rios was given a written exam to which he successfully passed. 

23. Respondent disagrees that Luis Rios did not receive a check under Section 135.293(a)(5). 

Mr. Rios was given a written exam to which he successfully passed. 

24. Respondent disagrees that Luis Rios did not receive a check under Section 135.293(a)(6). 

Mr. Rios was given a written exam to which he successfully passed. 

25. Respondent disagrees that Luis Rios did not receive a check under Section 135.293(a)(7). 

Mr. Rios was given a written exam to which he successfully passed. 

26. Respondent disagrees that Luis Rios did not receive a check under Section 135.293(a)(8). 

Mr. Rios was given a written exam to which he successfully passed. 

27. Respondent disagrees that Robin Dill did not receive a check under Section 

135.293(a)(l), and 135.293(a)(4-8). Mr. Dill was given a written exam to which he 

successfully passed. 

28. Respondent disagrees that Luis Rios did not receive a check under Section 135.293(a)(l), 

and 135.293(a)(4-8). Mr. Rios was given a written exam to which he successfully 

passed. 

29. Respondent disagrees that the aircraft was operated in a careless or reckless manner, and 

at no time was any life or property in danger. 

a. Respondent disagrees that the aircraft was operated in contradiction to 91.13(a). 

b. Respondent agrees that the flight in question was operated m violation of Section 

119.5(g), but with mitigating circumstances. 

c. Respondent agrees that the flight in question was operated m violation of Section 

119.50), but with mitigating circumstances. 

d. Respondent agrees that the flight in question was operated m violation of Section 

119.5(1), but with mitigating circumstances. 

e. Respondent disagrees that it violated Section 135.95(b) as both pilots were qualified to 

perform the services for which the persons were to be used. 

f. Respondent disagrees that it violated Section 135.95(a) as both pilots were qualified to 

perform the services for which the persons were to be used. 

g. Respondent disagrees that it violated Section 135.343 as both pilots had been given the 

required training in accordance with it's FAA approved training program, and 

documented as such. 

PAGE 2. OF .3 

FAA AIR CARRIER #ZP7A427J FAA CRS #R40R880N 

TECHNICAl SERVICES 
Jet Logistics, Inc. does not feel the proposed civil penalty in the amount of $40,000 has been 

properly assessed by the Complainant, nor is it fair and just given the violations that occurred 

and the mitigating circumstances that were not given any weight by the Complainant. 

Further, Complainant was provided financial proof that a fine of the proposed amount was not 

financially viable for Respondent, and Complainant ignored such data. A copy of that 

financial data is enclosed. Therefore Jet Logistics, Inc. respectfully requests that the 

Administrative Law Judge enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the 

amount of $1 000. 

Respectfully submitted, 

W. Ashley Smith Jr. 

President 

Jet Logistics, Inc. 

FAA AIR CARRIER#ZP7A427J FAA CRS #R40R880N 

JetL@;gistics TECHNICAL SE~IIICES