12/1/2009 

Re: In the Matter of Trevor Miller 

FAA Docket No. CP09SW0004 

FAACaseNo. 2008SW290254 

FDMSNo. FAA-2009-0735 

Ciofn ^ I - j^a c 9 ^em (j^mmm 

Cover Letter 

Pg 1: Cover 

Pg 2: Pre-hearing telephone conference error submittal 

Pg 3: Response letter 

Pg 4: Response letter (cont'd) 

- J O 

> 

O 

o 

o.>>!:p 

n-|,%H:..,i:J 

,,- cor: : 

S w J ••}-•• '^J 

Co 
12/1/2009 

Re: In the Matter of Trevor Miller 

FAA Docket No. CP09SW0004 

FAACaseNo. 2008SW290254 

FDMSNo. FAA-2009-0735 

On Monday, Nov. 30,2009,1 received the transcript for my pre-hearing telephone 

conference. After scanning it, I quickly noticed some errors that need to be remedied. 

These errors, in my opinion, significantly alter the context of what should have been 

recorded. 

Pg. 47, line 16, "out of service, as I just walked by." Should read: "stewardess 

I just walked by (passed by)". 

Pg. 42, line 9 MR. IVIU4ER: I meant June 29th. Should read: "JUDGE: I 

meant..." 

Pg. 67, line 11,"security had taken It." Should read: "security can take it." 

I trust that these issues Mdll be addressed in a timely manner. 

Thank you, j ' /2^-h 0^ 

Trevor Miller 

c~3 r n -.".:.. v:;: 

^ ioo 

o ' 
12/1/2009 Page 1 of 2 

Re: In the Matter of Trevor Miller 

FAA Docket No. CP09SW0004 ^ o 

FAACaseNo. 2008SW290254 S '^^j"^^., 

FDMSNo. FAA-2009-0735 ^ p,:c , 

rn-.,.; 

:T3 

As the respondent in these matters, this response letter is my demurrer to the FAA -^ 

Complaint Letter Dated Nov. 18,2009. «, 

K ) CO 

,. I, Trevor Miller (Respondent), am requesting a complete dismissal in this matter. 

The first three violations I would like to defend myself against are: 

c. Section 121.317(g), in that I smoked a cigarette while a "No Smoking" placard 

was posted. ^_, 

d. Section 121.^1^^), in that I smoked in an airplane lavatory while in flight, 

e. Section 121.317(k)', in that I failed to comply with crewmember instructions 

given to me regarding no smoking in the lavatories. 

My intention is to respond to violations (c), (d), and (e) together as one. For the 

umpteenth time, I did not smoke in the lavatory. I did not smoke while in flight. I did not 

smoke on the aircraft. I'm not sure how I can be more lucid about this. I'm surprised to 

find these accusations still referred to in this complaint. As was implied by Judge Yoder 

in the pre-hearing telephone conference, these allegations need to be fiirther adduced. The 

f smoke detectors didn't go off, there was no smoke present, there were no reports of 

^' cigarette remnants (ashes or butts), and I had no lifter or cigarettes on me at the time. 

^ The complaint that I received states:" When Mr. Miller opened the door the smell of 

cigarette smoke was 'immistakenable'." Perhaps I did smell like smoke but that's no 

more of a crime than the Complainant's butchering of the English language in the 

previous statement from her complaint. 

The next violation I will discuss is: 

a. Section 121.580, was violated when I, (Mr. Miller), interfered with 

crewmembers in the performance of their duties aboard an aircraft being 

operated imder Part 121. 

My response to said instance in this complaint is simple. I did not interfere with 

crevwnembers in any way. As a matter of fact, stewardess (flight attendant) "C" helps to 

confirm this in her statement. As I was standing in the entrance of the lavatory being 

publicly accused of endangering others' lives by smoking, stewardess "C" stated that my 

response at the time was as follows, "If I am endangering lives and am supposed to sit 

down, how about you let me go to my seat." She then implies that I went straight to my 

seat and sat down. Again, in no way was I interfering with any of the crewmembers on 

this flight. I was embarrassed and defensive due to the allegations being made against me 

at the time, but my actions never interfered with anyone. If not for the false accusations 

made by stewardess "A" that allege I was smoking, this would not even be an issue. 
12/1/2009 Page 2 of 2 

The last violation requiring my response is: 

b. Section 121.317(f), was violated when I failed to fasten and keep fastened my 

safety belt while the "Fasten Seat Belt" sign was illuminated. 

My response to this is not so cut and dry. All three flight attendants have attested that the,, 

light was illuminated, and although I personally do not remember if it was on or not, I 

have difficulty believing that it was on for several reasons. For one, I am not new to 

aviation and if the light had been illuminated I wouldn't have gotten up unless there was 

an emergency that required me to do so. Also, stewardess "A" failed to mention anything 

about this not just the first time I walked past her, but the second time as well. The first 

time she had an opportunity was when I walked up to the lavatory and foimd it to be 

occupied. Then, again, after a man exited and I walked back up to lavatory, stewardess 

"A" was still standing up, right outside the lavatory, but said nothing to either of us about 

the seat belt sign. I en^^J^ie lavatory and less than 30 seconds later I heafd a knock at 

the door. However, I coulchi't open it right away since my hands were busy elsewhere. As 

soon as I finished, I opened the door, and as I started washing my hands. I was told 

immediately that I had put others in danger because I was smoking. Nothing was 

mentioned about the safety belt light, I am compelled to believe that this section of the 

complaint is a last resort, backstair attempt to extort money from me in the event that the 

Complainants can't make anything else "stick". Again, if it hadn't have been for 

stewardess "A" falsely accusing me of smoking aboard that flight, this also would not be 

an issue. 

Lastly, I noticed that the Complainant requested the hearing to be held in Arlington, Tx. 

If this case actually makes it to a hearing, I am requesting it to be held in St. Louis, 

Mo. The St. Louis Federal Court is about a fifty-minute drive for me. I am not in the 

financial position to drive or fly all the way to Texas to defend myself against these 

accusations, I am offended by the Complainant's blatant disregard for my financial 

situation. I have earned approximately $15,000 this year from Missouri Unemployment 

Insurance and my only asset is a 1993 Chevy Blazer. If I sold everything I own, including 

my vehicle, it might equal just enough to pay the ludicrous civil penalty. In addition, each 

letter, which I am compelled by the courts to reply to, requires another stamp that I can't 

afford to purchase. As an American taxpayer in a down economy, I am saddened to see 

how this government administration has wasted hard-earned tax dollars on this matter. 

/1^'I-C ^ 

Trevor MUler 

2319 Sundance Dr. 

O'Fallon, MO 63368 

Ph. 314-497-3602 

Email: trevormiUer247@yahoo.com 
°-13S 

pi 

f i g 

S R 5* 

O S "^ 

00 

? '

1 

1 

9 1 

^-

< 

I*.', 

c 

. ',-^'S''^ /"