U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration


### February 10, 2014 Northwest Mountain Region Office of Regional Counsel Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, Washington 98057 Tel: (425) 227-1847 Fax: (425) 227-1007 kyle.lomazow@faa.gov



### VIA FACSIMILE AND CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTER

# E 

# cEI 

# vED

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Hearing Docket Federal Aviation Administration (Wilbur Wright Bldg.) 800 Independence Avenue S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 

## FEB I8 2014 

# FAA- 20I 

# :J- 

# 1°7

# 9HEARING DOCKET

Re: Inthe Matter ofJETTECH, LLC,FAA Case No. 2012NM030058 Enclosed is an original and one copy ofa request for hearing and Complaint in the abovereferencedproceeding. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requests thatthe hearing in this matter be held in Denver, Colorado, and expects thatthe hearing will last one 

### (I) day.
For schedulingpurposes, FAA attorney, Kyle E. Lomazow will be unavailable inyear 2014: July 23 through August 11.
Please address all communications for the FAAto the undersigned at:

Sincerely,

KEL!mas Federal AviationAdministration Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 1601 LindAvenue S.W. Renton, Washington 98057 Telephone: (425) 227-1847 FAX: (425)227-1007

Enclosures: Request for Hearing (Appeal) Complaint1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 KYLE E. LOMAZOW FAA OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL 1601 LINDAVE., SW RENTON, WASHINGTON98057 TELEPHONE: (425)227-1847 FACSIMILE: (425)227-1007 

# RECEIVED
FEB 1 8 2014 HEARING DOCKET

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Inthe Matter of: FAA Case No. 2012NM030058 JETTECH, LLC Judge Not Assigned

JUDGE NOT ASSIGNED: COMPLAINT


### The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby files its Complaint,
pursuant to Rule 208 ofthe Rules ofPractice (14 Code ofFederal Regulations (C.P.R.) Section 13.208), and states as follows:

I.
On January 8, 2014, JETTECH, LLC, was advised through a Final Notice ofProposed
Civil Penalty thatthe FAAproposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of$27,500. On

42 

### January 25, 2014, JETTECH, LLC, through its legal counsel, submitted a written request for a 43 44 

### hearing. 45 46 47 

### II.
48 49 50 

### 1. JETTECH is now, and at all times mentioned herein was, the holder ofApproved Repair Station Certificate No. ZYJR157B. 51 52 53 COMPLAINT FAA v. JETTECH, LLC. FAA Case No. 2012NM030058 Page2of8 KYLE E. LOMAZOW, F AAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-1847; FAX: (425) 227-10071 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 

### 2.

3.

4.



### 5.



### 6.



### 7.

8.

9.



### 10.



### II.

12. JETTECH is required to conduct its operations pursuant to its FAA approved Repair Station Manual (RSM). Paragraph A003 ofJETTECH's Operations Specifications (OpSpecs) authorizes JETTECH to conduct maintenance and alterations on airframes, radios and instruments listed on its Capabilities List.
JETTECH is required to conduct its operations in accordance withits RSM prepared pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Section 145.207(a) and 14 C.F.R. Section l45.211(b).
Section 1.7 ofJETTECH's RSM authorizes JETTECH to perform maintenance, preventative maintenance, or alterations on articles listed on its Capabilities List.
Section 5.4 ofJETTECH's RSM states that JETTECH must use only FAA approved technical datawhen it accomplishes a majorrepair or alteration. OnApril10, 2012, JETTECH performed a major alteration onN150BV, a Cessna Model 525 civil aircraft, by installing a Garmin GTN 750 Series, avionics system, and
a GARMIN GDL satellite receiver.
On April10, 2012, JETTECH approved N150BV for return to service after performing the major alterations in accordance with data that was not approved by the Administrator.
OnAprill3, 2012, Nl50BV was operated on a flight from Broomfield, Colorado to Oakland, California. ·
Nl50BVwas operated onAprill3, 2012 after the major alterations mentioned in paragraph 7 were completed in accordance with datathat was not approved by the Administrator.
When JETTECH performed the major alterations, the Cessna Model 525 was not listed on JETTECH's current Capabilities List and therefore JETTECH performed maintenance on an article for which it was notrated.
The above-mentioned Garmin GTN installation did not use FAA approved technical data for the following reasons:

COMPLAINT KYLEE. LOMAZOW, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-1847; FAX: (425) 227-1007 FAAv
. .TETTECH, LLC. FAA Case No. 2012NM030058 Page 3 of81 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 

### 13.

14.

15.

16. 

### Installation ofthe Garmin GDL Satellite Receiver:

a. This installation was performed pursuant to Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA01487SE-D.
b. This particular installation deviated from the STC data in that the installation included an antenna and it was interfaced with the GTN installation.

c. As a result, FAA approval was required for the modified data, which JETTECH failed to obtain.


### Installation ofthe Garmin GTN 750 Series Avionics System:
d. This installation was performed referencing STC Number SA02019SE-D as a basis for the installation data.

e. The Cessna Model525 is not onthis STC's approved aircraft list.
f. JETTECH failed to gain approval for this installation and failed to revise the aircraft operating limitations by seeking approval for the issuance ofanFAA approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) supplement as required by the STC.

In performing the maintenance referenced in paragraph 10, JETTECH failed to comply with its RSM inthat it did not use FAA approved technical data in performing a major alteration.
On April16, 2012, five (5) days afterthe above-mentioned installation ofthe GTN avionics system had already been completed andN150BV had been approved for return to service, JETTECH sent the Denver Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) a data package requesting field approval for the Garruin GDL satellite receiver and the Garruin GTN 750 Series avionics installation.
This data package included duplicate copies ofthree (3) FAAForm 337's, which identified the alterations described above, and sought approval for the technical data used, and a request for approval ofthe associated AFM. Additionally, since JETTECH had already performedthe installation without first receiving field approval from the FAA, the above-mentioned Form 337's did not include a stamped statement indicating FAA field approval as required by JETTECH's RSM.

COMPLAINT KYLEE. LOMAZOW, FAA ATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-1847; FAX: (425) 227-1007 FAA v. JETTECH, LLC. FAA Case No. 2012NM030058 Page4of81 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 

### 2. III.
1. Byreason ofthe foregoing facts and circumstances, JETTECH, LLC. violated the following sections ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.R.):

a.



### b.

c.



### d.

e.

f. Section 43 .5(b), in that in that it approved for return to service an aircraft which had undergone maintenance and alteration and for which it failed to execute, in a manner prescribed by the Administrator, an alteration form authorized by or furnished by the Administrator.
Section 43.5(c), in that it approved for return to service an aircraft that had an alteration that resulted in a change in the aircraft operating limitations or flight data contained in the approved aircraft flight manual, and it failed to ensure that those operating limitations or flight data were appropriately revised and set forth
as prescribed in Section 91.9 ofthis Chapter 1 ofTitle 14 C.F.R.
Section 145.20l(b), inthat it maintained or altered an article for which it is not rated.
Section 145.20l(c)(l), in that it approved an article for returnto service whenthe maintenance, preventative maintenance, or alteration was not performed in accordance with the applicable approved technical data or data acceptable to the FAA.
Section 145.20l(c)(2), in that it approved for return to service an article after a major repair or major alteration when the major repair or major alteration was not performed in accordance with applicable approved technical data.
Section 145.207(a), in that it failed to follow the FAA-accepted repair station manual it prepared.

In accordance with Sections 4630l(a) and (d) ofTitle 49 ofthe United States Code (U.S.C.) (Transportation) [49 U.S.C. Sections 4630l(a) and (d)], JETTECH, LLC. is liable for a
civil penalty not to exceed $1,100 for each ofthe violations noted.

46 3. 

### Under the facts and circumstances ofthis case, a civil penalty of$27,500 is appropriate. 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 COMPLAINT FAA v. JETTECH. LLC. FAA Case No. 2012NM030058 Page 5 of8 KYLEE. LOMAZOW, FAA ATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-1847; FAX: (425) 227-10071 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 

### WHEREFORE, the Agency, by counsel, respectfully requests that the Administrative
Law Judge enter an order that JETTECH, LLC. be assessed a civil penalty in

### the amount of $27,500.

Respectfully submitt d this 

### lOth day ofFebruary, 2014.**/~--**

16 

### Kyle E. Lo ow 17 

### FAAAtto ey 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 COMPLAINT FAA v.JETTECH, LLC. FAA Case No. 2012NM030058 Page 6 of8 KYLEE. LOMAZOW, F AAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-1847; FAX: (425) 227-10071**~S~R** 2 3 

### In accordance with Section 13.209 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations, JETTECH, LLC, must 4 

### answer this Complaint not later than thirty (30) days from the time it is served on it. Failure to 5 

### file an Answer within thirty (30) days without good cause shall be deemed an admission ofthe 6 

### truth ofeach allegation contained inthe Complaint [14.C.F.R. Section 13.209(±)]. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 COMPLAINT FAA v. !ETTECH, LLC. FAA Case No. 2012NM030058 Page 7 of8 KYLE E. LOMAZOW, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-1847; FAX: (425) 227-10071 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing Complainthas been served via Facsimile and Certified Mail

- Return Receipt Requested this date, to the following:

Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, D.C. 20591 Fax: (202) 493-5142
Michael L. 

### Poindexter, Esq. Law Offices ofMichael L. 

### Poindexter 2132 Montane Drive E. Golden, CO 80401 TEL: (303) 526-1980 FAX: (303) 526-1981

2 1 

### Dated this lOth day ofFebruary, 2014. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 COMPLAINT FAA v

. .TETTECH, LLC. FAA Case No. 2012NM030058 Page 8 of8

# M~~~- Office ofRegional Counsel (ANM-7) Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Ave. SW Renton, WA 98057 (425) 227-2925

KYLEE. LOMAZOW, FAAATTORNEY TEL: (425) 227-1847; FAX: (425) 227-1007U.S. Department of**Transporta~on** Federal Aviation Administration
January 8, 2014 Northwest Mountain Region Office of Regional Counsel Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming 1601 Lind Avenue SW. Renton, Washington 98057 Tel: (425) 227-1847 Fax: (425) 227-1007 kyle.lomazow@faa.gov

FAA Case No. 2012NM030058
VIAFIRST-CLASS AND CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
To: President JETTECH, LLC 10122 Allport Court Broomfield, CO 80021
FINAL NOTICE OFPROPOSED CIVILPENALTY
OnAugust 19, 2013, JETTECH, LLC (JETTECH) was advised through aNotice ofProposed Civil Penalty (Notice) thatthe Federal AviationAdministration (FAA) proposed to assess a civil penalty inthe amount of$27,500.
After considering all the informationpresently apart ofthis proceeding, including the informationpresented at the informal conference ofDecember 11, 2013, it appears that:
1. JETTECH is now, and at all times mentioned herein was, the holder ofApproved Repair Station Certificate No. ZYJR157B.
2. JETTECH is required to conduct its operations pursuant to its FAA approved Repair StationManual (RSM).
3. ParagraphA003 ofJETTECH's Operations Specifications (OpSpecs) authorizes JETTECH to conduct maintenance and alterations on airframes, radios and instruments listed on its Capabilities List
4. JETTECH is required to conduct its operations in accordance with its RSM preparedpursuantto 14 Code ofFederal Regulations (C.P.R.) Section 145.207(a) and 14 C.P.R. Section 145.2ll(b).
5. Section 1.7 ofJETTECH's RSM authorizes JETTECH to performmaintenance, preventative maintenance, or alterations on articles listed on its Capabilities List
6. Section 5.4 ofJETTECH's RSM states thatJETTECH mustuse only FAA approved technical datawhen it accomplishes a majorrepair or alteration.
7. OnAprillO, 2012, JETTECHperformed amajor alteration on Nl50BV, a Cessna Model525 civil aircraft, by installing a Garmin GTN 750 Series, avionics system, and a GARMlN GDL satellite receiver. 

# COMPLAINTJETTECH, LLC -FAACase No 2012NM030058 January 8, 2014 Page 2 of5
8. On AprillO, 2012, JETTECH approved Nl50BV for return to service after performing the major alterations in accordance with datathat was not approved by the Administrator.
9. OnApril13, 2012, Nl50BV was operated on a flight from Broomfield, Colorado to Oakland California.
10. N150BV was operated on April13, 2012 after the major alterations mentioned in paragraph 7 were completed in accordance with datathat was not approved by the Administrator.
11. When JETTECH performedthe major alterations, the CessnaModel 525 was not listed onJETTECH's current Capabilities List and therefore JETTECH performed maintenance on an article for which itwas notrated.
12. The above-mentioned Garmin GTN installation did not use FAA approved technical data for the following reasons:
Installation ofthe Garmin GDL Satellite Receiver:

a. Tills installation was performedpursuantto Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA01487SE-D.
b. This particular installation deviated from the STC data in that the installationincluded an antenna and it was interfaced withthe GTN installation.

c. As aresult, FAA approvalwas reqnired for themodified data, which JETTECH failed to obtain.
Installation ofthe Garmin GTN 750 Series Avionics System:
d. Tills installation was performedreferencing STC Number SA02019SE-D
as abasis for the installation data.

e. The CessnaModel 525 is not onthis STC's approved aircraft list.
f. JETTECH failed to gain approval for this installation and failed to revise the aircraft operating limitations by seeking approval for the issuance of
an FAA approved Airplane FlightManual (AFM) supplement as required bythe STC.
13. Inperforming the maintenancereferenced inparagraph 10, JETTECH failed to comply with its RSM inthat it did not use FAA approved technical data in performing a major alteration. 

# COMPLAINTJETTECH, LLC- FAA Case No 2012NM030058 January 8, 2014 Page 3 of5
14. OnAprill6, 2012, five (5) days after the above-mentioned installation ofthe GTN avionics system had already been completed and Nl50BV had been approved for return to service, JETTECH sentthe Denver Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) a datapackagerequesting field approval for the Garmin GDL satellitereceiver andthe Garmin GTN 750 Series avionics installation.
15. This datapackage included duplicate copies ofthree (3) FAA Form 337's, which identifiedthe alterations described above, and sought approval for the technical dataused, and a request for approval ofthe associated AFM.
16. Additionally, since JETTECHhad already performed the installation without first receiving field approval from the FAA, the above-mentioned Form 337's did not include a stamped statement indicating FAAfield approval as required by JETTECH's RSM. Byreason ofthe foregoing circumstances, it appears that JETTECH violated the following sections oftheFederal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.R.).

a. Section 43.5(b), inthatinthat it approved for returnto service an aircraft which had undergone maintenance and alteration and for which it failed to execute, in a manner prescribed bythe Administrator, an alteration form authorized by or furnished by the Administrator.
b. Section43.5(c), in that it approved for returnto service an aircraftthathad an alteration that resulted in a change inthe aircraft operating limitations or flight data contained inthe approved aircraft flight manual, and it failed to ensure that those operating limitations or flight data were appropriately revised and ··setforthas**prescribedinSection-91~9-ofthis** Chapter-1 of-Title-14-C.F:R.-

-

c. Section 145.201(b), inthatitmaintained or altered an article for which it is not rated.
d. Section 145.201(c)(l), inthat it approved an article for return to service when the maintenance, preventative maintenance, or alteration was not performed in accordance with the applicable approved technical data or data acceptable to the FAA.

e. Section 145.201(c)(2), inthat it approved for returnto service an article after a major repair or major alteration whenthe majorrepair ormajor alteration was notperformed 

### in accordance with applicable approved technical data.
f. Section 145.207(a), inthat it failed to follow the FAA-acceptedrepair station manual itprepared. 

# COMPLAINTJETTECH, LLC- FAA Case No 2012NM030058 January 8, 2014 Page 4 of5
Under 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 46301(a) and (d), with modifications set forth at 14 C.F.R. Part 13, Subpart H, JETTECHis subjectto a civil penalty not to exceed $11,000 for each ofthe violations noted. We propose to assess a civilpenalty inthe amount of$27,500.
Unless JETTECH mails or personally delivers, inwriting, its request for a hearing inthis matter, on or before fifteen (15) days after JETTECH receives this Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty (FinalNotice), we will issue an OrderAssessing Civil Penalty and JETTECH will have no further right to ahearing. IfJETTECH does not submit a writtenrequest for a hearing, JETTECH mustpaythe proposed civilpenalty.
A request for a hearing must be sent to:
Federal Aviation Administration Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591
A copymust also be sent to the undersigned FAA attomey atthe following address:
Federal Aviation Administration Office ofRegional Counsel- ANM-7 NorthwestMountain Region 1601 LindAvenue, SW Renton, WA 98057
JETTECH's request mustbe dated and signed, inaccordance with Section 13.16 ofthe Federal AviationRegulations, sent to JETTECH with the FinalNotice (14 C.F.R. Section 13.16).
JETTECH may paythe proposed penaltyby submitting a certified check or money order payable to the "Federal Aviation Administration," to the Office ofRegional Counsel, Northwest MountainRegion, 160I LindAvenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057.
In the alternative, JETTECH maypay its civil penalty with a credit card, debit card, orbank account debit usingthe Internet. To pay electronically, visitthe web site at http://www.pay.gov. Underthe Search Public Forms option type in "FNM-FINEl." Click on "FAA Civil Penalty Payments," click on ''Northwest Mountain Region," which will bring JETTECH to the "FAA Civil Penalty Payments-Northwest MountainRegion" page. JETTECH must complete the requested information and click "submit" to payby credit card or debit card. To use thebank account debit JETTECH will need its bankrouting number, account number, and checknumber. 

# COMPLAINTJETTECH, LLC-FAA Case No 2012NM030058 January 8, 2014 PageS of5
IfJETTECHhas any questions regarding this Final Notice, please contact FAA Attorney, Kyle E. Lomazow attelephone number (425) 227-1847.
DWIGHT S. WILLIAMS

# -omiCoo~ 

# /;



# _____ / 

# y-- BY: ?.y

### Ieyle~~azow**FA~omey** 

## t/ KEL!mas

# C0~1PLAINT

### January 25, 2014
Federal AviationAdministration Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington DC 20591

Federal AviationAdministration Office ofRegional Counsel-ANM-7 Northwest Mountain Region 1601 Lind Avenue, SW Renton W A 98057
Re: Request for Hearing FAA CaseNo. 2012NM030058
Dear Sir/Madam: 

### RegionalCounsel 

## JAN 29'LG\4**~l-1**

OnbehalfofJETTECH, LLC I hereby request a hearing on all charges stated inthe Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penaltyissued on January 8, 2014. Please address all future correspondence inthis matter to JETTECH's attorney atthe following address:
Michael L. Poindexter, Esq. Law Offices ofMichael 

### L. Poindexter 2132 Montane Dr. E. Golden CO 80401 __....-",._....-._ 

### Vezy trur{yours,

.. ) / 

### ..

. (



### i(**2.:--~** 

### John R. "Rob" 

### Irwin President 1) JETTECH, LLC

11757 W KEN CARYL AVE F-503 LITTLETON, CO 80127 303-697-4262 (OFFICE) 303-697-8080 (FAX) 

### http://www.jettechllc.net