### ;;^:ARTMEN T OFn.s . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N • ' -^1'''' ^ ncSo A Wi f

EDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N .ciUitHAHUN S OFFIC E O F HEARING S - ^ t 20f 0 m^'H V - 3 p 2 : 0 U WASHINGTON , D.C .

I n th e Matte r

o f Brenda n Airways , LL C FA A Docke t

No . CP09EA000 7 DM S No . FAA-FAA-2009-003 2 Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e Yode r COMPLAINANT' S ANSWE RT O RESPONDENT' S MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR Y JUDGMEN T AN D MOTIO N T O DISMIS S 91.13ra ^ AMENDMEN T T O COMPLAIN T COME S NOW , th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , (hereinafte r "th e Complainant) , b y an d throug h it s designate d representative , th e Regiona l Counse l for th e Easter n Region , an d hi s dul y designated an d authorize d agent s an d answer s Respondent' s Motio n for

Summar y Judgmen t

an d Motio n t o Dismis s 91.13(a ) Amendmen t t o Complaint ' (hereinafte r

"th e Respondent' s Summar y Judgmen t Motion" ) i n th e above

captione d matte r

pursuan t

t o 4 9 C.F.R . §13.218(d ) an d request s tha t suc h Motion s b e denie d i n all respects . STATEMEN T O F TH E CAS E Th e Complainan t

issue d aNotic e o f

Propose d Civi l Penalty t o Brenda n Airways , LL C (here mafter

"th e Respondent" ) o n Augus t 21,2008 . O n Decembe r 22,2008 , th e Complainan t

issue d aFina l Notic e o f

Propose d Civi l Penalty an d o n January 2,2009 , th e Responden t

submitte d awritte n deman d for ahearing . Th e Complainan t file d aComplain t o n January 14 , 2009^ , an d o n February 12,200 9 Responden t filed aPartia l Motio n t o Dismis s an d Fo r

aMor e Definit e Statemen t (hereinafte r

"th e Respondent' s Partia l Motio n t o Dismiss" ) pursuan t

t o 1 4 C.F.R . §§13.218(f)(l) , 13.218(f)(2) , an d 13.218(f)(3) . O n Marc h

' Attached a s Exhibi t

1 ^ Attache d a s Exhibi t

212,2009 , th e Complainan t filedComplainant' s Answe r t o Respondent' s Partia l Motio n t o Dismiss . Throug h th e Orde r o f Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e Ronnie A . Yode r Denyin g Respondent' s Partia l Motio n T o Dismis s Th e Complain t An dFo r A Mor e Definite Statement , An dGrantin g Complainant' s Motio n T o Strik e Th e Respondent' s Surreply ' serve dJun e 7,2010 , (herei n after "th e Orde r

Denyin g Respondent' s Partia l Motio n T o Dismiss") , th e Respondent' s Partia l Motio n T o Dismis s was denied . O n Octobe r 19,2010 , th e Complainan t

filedan Amende dComplaint' * whic h delete dreferenc e t o Section s 121.153(a)(2 ) an d121.628(a)(5 ) o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s an dadde dSectio n 91.13(a) . Asid e fi-omamino r modificatio n t o paragrap h 1 4 th e factual allegation s i n th e Amende dComplain t

remai n th e sam e a s thos e foun di n th e Origina l Complaint . Th e factua l allegation s an dfindings o f violatio n foun di n Count s I I an dII I i n th e Amende dComplain t stat e a s follows : 1 . Brenda n Airways , LL C (hereinafte r "Brenda n Airways" , "you " o r "your" ) i s th e holde r

o f Ai r Carrie r Certificat e No . U30A762J . 2 . Pursuan t

t o th e abov e reference dai r carrie r certificat e yo u ar e authorize dt o conduc t operation s unde r

Part 12 1 o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s (FAR) . 3 . O n o r

abou t Ma y 17 , 2008 , yo u operate dan Airbu s A320-212 , (hereinafter "th e aircraft") , identificatio n nvimbe r N265AV , o n aflight

tha t too k of f an d lande da t Miam i Internationa l Airport , Florid a(hereinafte r "th e flight"). 4 . Prio r

t o th e flight, maintenanc e was performe do n th e aircraf t i n whic h th e spoile r serv o actuator s for

lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive wer e place d i n th e maintenanc e mode . 5 . Subsequen t

t o th e aforementione dmaintenanc e th e spoile r serv o actuator s for lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive wer e no t returne dt o th e operational mod e prio r

t o th e flight.

3 Attacheda s Exhibit

3 . * Attacheda s Exhibi t

46 . Pursuan t t o th e Airbu s Maintenanc e Manua l fo r thi s aircraf

t i f th e spoiler s are lef t i n th e maintenanc e mod e aerodynami c force s wil l cause dunwante d movemen t

o f th e spoiler . 7 . B y virtu e o f

th e foregoing , yo u performe dmaintenanc e o n th e aircraft' s lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive withou t usin g th e methods , techniques , an d practice s prescribe di n th e curren t manufacturer s maintenanc e manua l o r Instruction s Fo r

Continue dAirworthines s prepare db y it s manufacturer , o r othe r methods , techniques , an dpractice s acceptabl e t o th e Administrator . 8 . B y virtu e o f

th e foregoing , yo u performe dmaintenance , withou t doin g th e work i n suc h amanne r

tha t th e conditio n o f

th e aircraft , airfiume , aircraf t engine , propeller , o r

applianc e worke do n wa s a t leas t equa l t o it s origina l o r properl y altere dcondition . 9 . Durin g th e flight, th e aircraf t too k of f at approximatel y 172 5 Universa l Tim e Coordinate d(UTC ) an dlande dat approximatel y 204 5 UTC . 10 . Durin g th e flight, but prio r t o takeoff

, an amber

"LA F DEGRADED " messag e wa s displaye do n th e aircraft' s Electroni c Centralize dAircraf t Monito r (ECAM) . 11 . Th e ambe r

LA F DEGRADE D messag e o n th e aircraft' s ECA M come s o n whe n ther e i s afailure o f

on e o f th e aircraft' s spoile r

servojacks . 12 . Dtirin g th e flight, but prio r t o takeoff

, th e ECA M indicate dtha t th e followin g win g rol l spoiler s wer e not operationa l and/o r

wer e locke dout : a ) lef t win g rol l spoile r

No . 3 ; b ) lef t win g rol l spoile r

No . 5 ; c ) right win g rol l spoile r

No . 3 ; d ) right win g rol l spoile r

No . 5 13 . Durin g th e flight, bu t prio r t o takeoff

, th e pilot s operatin g th e aircraf t wer e awar e tha t

th e aircraft' s ECA M indicate dtha t th e followin g win g rol l spoiler s wer e no t

operationa l and/o r

wer e locke dout : a ) lef t win g rol l spoile r

No . 3 ; b ) lef t win g rol l spoile r

No . 5 ; c ) right win g rol l spoile r

No . 3 ; d ) right vdn g rol l spoile r

No . 514 . Pursuan t t o th e aircraft' s Minimu mEquipmen t Lis t (MEL ) th e aircraf

t canno t b e dispatche dwhe n tw o pai r o f symmetrical spoile r

surface s thre e an dfive ar e inoperative . 15 . Notwithstandin g th e above , durin g th e flight yo u operate dth e aircraf

t durin g takeof f an dthereafte r

wit h th e followin g inoperativ e instruments : a ) lef t win g rol l spoile r

No . 3 ; b ) lef t win g rol l spoile r

No . 5 ; c ) right v^n g rol l spoile r

No . 3 ; d ) right win g rol l spoile r

No . 5 16 . Durin g th e flight, an dwithi n twenty minute s afte r takeoff , th e ECA M onc e agai n indicate dtha t

th e followin g win g rol l spoiler s wer e not operationa l and/o r wer e locke dout : a ) lef t win g rol l spoile r

No . 3 ; b ) lef t win g rol l spoile r

No . 5 ; c ) right win g rol l spoile r

No . 3 ; d ) right win g rol l spoile r

No . 5 17 . Durin g th e flight, an dth e aircraft' s first landin g attemp t

at Miami Internationa l Airport , th e aircraft' s lef t win g ti p contacte dth e runwa y causin g damag e t o th e lef

t win g tip . 18 . Du e t o th e above-reference dinoperabl e win g rol l spoilers , durin g th e flight, th e firs t landin g attemp t

wa s aborted . 19 . Durin g th e flight, th e aircraf t was operate di n an unairworth y condition . 20 . Durin g th e flight, th e aircraf t wa s operate di n acareles s o r reckles s manne r s o a s t o endange r

th e lif e o r property o f

another . B y reaso n o f

th e foregoin g fact s an dcircumstances , Responden t violate dth e followin g section(s ) o f

th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulations : a . Sectio n 43.13(a) , whic h state s tha t eac h perso n performin g maintenance , alteration , o r

preventiv e maintenanc e o n an aircraft , engine , propeller , o r applianc e shal l us e th e methods , techniques, an dpractice s prescribe di n th e curren t manufacturer' s maintenanc e manua l o r Instruction s for

Continue d Airworthines s prepare db y it s manufacturer , o r othe r methods , techniques , an dpractice s acceptabl e t o th e Administrator , excep t a s note di n §43.16 . H eshal l us e th e tools , equipment , an dtes t apparatu s necessary t o assure completio n o f

th e work

i n accordanc e wit h accepte dindustry practices . If specia l equipmen t

o r tes t apparatu s i s recommende db y th e manufacture r involved , h e mus t

us e tha t

equipmen t

o r apparatu s o r

it s equivalen t acceptabl e t o th e Administrator . Sectio n 43.13(b) , whic h state s tha t eac h perso n maintainin g o r altering , o r performin g preventiv e maintenance , shal l d o tha t wor k i n suc h amanne r

an d us e material s o f

suc h aquality , that

th e conditio n o f

th e aircraft , airframe , aircraf t engine , propeller , o r

appUanc e worke do n wil l b e at leas t equal t o it s origina l o r

properl y altere dconditio n (with regar dt o aerodynami c fimction , structura l strength , resistanc e t o vibratio n an ddeterioration , an dother qualitie s affectin g airworthiness) . Sectio n 91.7(a) , whic h state s that n o perso n ma y operat e acivi l aircraf t unles s i t i s i n a n airworth y condition . Sectio n 91.13(a) , whic h state s tha t n o perso n ma y operat e a n aircraf t i n a careles s o r

reckles s manne r

s o a s t o endange r

th e lif e o r property o f

another . STATEMEN T O F TH E ISSUE S I . Whethe r

th e Complainan t

i s Collaterall y Estoppe dfro mproceedin g wit h hi s Clai mtha t

th e Responden t

Violate d1 4 C.F.R . §§91.7(a ) an d91.13(a) ? U . Whethe r

th e Complainant' s Clai mtha t th e Responden t

violate d1 4 C.F.R . §91.13(a ) shoul db e dismisse dfo r Statut e o f

Limitation s Reasons ? n i . Whethe r

th e Complainant' s Clai mtha t th e Responden t

violate d1 4 C.F.R . §§43.13(a ) an d43.13(b ) shoul db e dismissed ? ARGUMEN T I . Th e Complainan t

i s no t Collateral v Estoppe dfiromproceedin g wit h hi s Clai mtha t th e Responden t

violate d1 4 C.F.R . SS91.7(a) an d91.13(a^ I n th e Respondent' s Summary Judgmen t Motio n th e Responden t

contend s tha t

th e Complainan t

i s collaterall y estoppe dfi:omproceedin g wit h th e claim s tha t th e Responden t violate d1 4 C.F.R . §§91.7(a ) an d91.13(a ) becaus e thes e claim s wer e alread y litigate d befor e th e Nationa l Transportatio n Safet y Boar d(th e NTSB ) i n th e cas e o f Babbitt v . Surratt an dWalker . NTS B Orde r No . EA-551 4 (Marc h 31,2010) , motio n fo r reconsideratio n deniedNTS B Orde r No . EA-552 7 (Jun e 25,2010) . A s Responden t ha spointe dou t collatera l estoppe l ha s four elements^ . Th e first

o f whic h i s tha t

th e issu e decide di n th e prio r

proceedin g i s identica l with th e issu e presente di n th e second^ . Fo r th e reason s tha t

follo w th e issue s decide di n th e Surrat t cas e ar e not

identica l t o th e issue s presente di n th e instan t

matte r an dthu s th e Complainan t i s not collaterall y estoppe dfirom bringin g hi s actio n mthi s case . Surratt involve dcertificat e action s take n b y th e Administrato r agains t pilot s Surrat

t an dWalke r

wh o pursuan t

t o thei r employmen t

with th e Responden t

(Brendan Airways ) operate dth e flight

a t issu e i n th e instan t

case . Specifically , th e Order s o f Suspensio n issue d t o pilot s Surratt

an dWalke r

eac h sough t

18 0 da y suspension s o f

thei r pilo t certificate s fo

r violation s o f

Section s §§91.7(a) , 91.7(b) , 91.13(a) , an d91.213(a ) o f tiie FAR . h i it s decisio n o n th e matte r

th e NTS B state dtha t

th e standar dfor

airworthines s consist s o f tw o prongs : 1 ) whethe r

th e aircraf

t conform s t o it s typ e certificat e an dapplicabl e airworthines s directives ; an d2 ) whethe r th e aircraf

t i s i n conditio n for

saf e operation'' . Th e NTS B furthe r state dtha t i n determinin g whethe r

a n aircraf t i s airworth y i t

als o consider s whethe r

th e operato r kne w o r shoul do f know n o f

an y deviatio n i n th e aircraft' s conformanc e wit h it s typ e certificate* . I n it s applicatio n o f th e aforementione dstandar dt o th e fact s i n Surratt th e NTS B foimdtha t

for th e flight i n questio n th e aircraf

t di dnot fixlfil l both prong s o f

th e airworthines s tes t

an dthu s was unairworthy^ . However , th e NTS B als o foun dtha t th e Administrato r

ha dfaile dt o prov e tha t

Svirrat t an dWalke r

kne w o r shoul dhav e know n that th e aircraf t wa s i n an unairworth y condition'° . Specifically , th e NTS B foun dtha t th e

' Respondent' s Summar

y Judgmen

t Motion a t 10 . * Id . a t 10 . " ^ See Surrat t

a t 6 * Se e Surratt a t 6 ' Se e Surratt a t 7 ' ° See Surratt

a t 7Administrato r di dnot sho w tiiat

Surratt an dWalke r

kne w o r shoul dhav e know n tha t

th e spoiler s wer e i n th e maintenanc e mod e prio r t o takin g of

f an dth e Administrator' s Order s o f Suspensio n wer e reverse daccordingly.' * Th e issue s decide di n Surratt ar e different

fi:omth e issue s presente di n th e instan t matte r becaus e th e existin g preceden t for provin g airworthines s violation s agains t ai r carrier s i s different

fi"omth e preceden t

for provin g airworthines s violation s agains t pilot s suc h a s Surrat

t an dWalker . Specifically , unlik e case s agains t pilots , i n provin g aviolatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . §91.7(a ) agains t a n ai r carrie r th e Complainan t

nee dno t demonstrat e tha t

th e ai r carrie r kne w o r shoul dhav e know n tha t

th e aircraf

t the y operate dwa s unairworthy . Thi s preceden t

was se t fort h i n Alask aAirlines . Inc'^. . FA A Orde r No . 2004- 8 (Octobe r

4 , 2004) . I n Alask aAirlines . Inc. . an ai r carrie r was hel dt o b e no t

responsibl e for

th e maintenanc e deficiencie s performe db y it s independen t contractor s becaus e th e airlin e neithe r kne w no r ha dreaso n t o kno w o f

th e maintenanc e deficiencie s . O n appeal , howeve r th e Administrato r

reversed''* . A s state di n th e Administrator' s decisio n i n Alask a Airlines . Inc . 1 4 C.F.R . §121.36 3 "doe s no t allo w ai r carrier s t o evad e thei r

primary responsibilitie s b y delegatin g thei r maintenanc e obligation s t o thir dparties'^. " I t i s furthe r state di n th e decisio n tha t

"ther e are stron g publi c polic y reason s supportin g holdin g ai r carrier s responsibl e for

th e performanc e o f

maintenanc e b y thei r

independen t

contractors . A holdin g tha t

lac k o f knowledg e alon e exempt s ai r carrier s fi-omresponsibility coul d provid e ai r

carrier s wit h incentiv e t o loo k th e othe r wa y an davoi dal l knowledg e o f

^ ^ Se e Surratt

a t 7 ' ^ Pursuan t t o th e Administrator' s Decisio n andOrde r I n Alask aAirline s Inc. , the carrie

r was foun di n violatio n o f

§121.153(a)(2) , whic

h i s th e equivalen

t o f §91.7(a) , except

tha t i t i s specific to Par

t 12 1 operations . '^FA A Docke

t Nos . CP02NM001 , CP02NM0002 , an dCP02NM0003 , FDMS Nos . FAA-2002-11411 , 11412 , an d11413 , Orde

r Grantin g Respondent' s Motion fo r Decision a

t 3 (Ja n 10 , 2003) . ^ * Alask aAirlines , Inc. . FA

A Orde r No . 2004- 8 a

t 1 (Octobe

r 4 , 2004) . "Id . a t 6 .maintenanc e improprieties'^. " Thus , pursuan t t o Alask aAirline s tiie standar dfor airworthines s violation s i s different for ai r carrier s the n i t

i s for pilots . Additionally , i t

shoul db e note dtha t

th e Responden t

ha s no t offere dan y cas e la w t o successfull y sugges t

otherwise . I n Respondent' s Motio n for Summary Judgmen t

th e Responden t

cite dth e followin g case s for th e propositio n tha t

"cas e la w ha s hel dtha t

a n allegatio n o f

asectio n 91.7(a ) violatio n ha s aknowledg e element" : Administrato r v . Parker . 3 NTS B 2997,299 8 (1980) ; Garve v v . Frost . NTS B Orde r No . EA-468 0 a

t 2 (Jul y 01 , 1998) ; Nunnv.Hinson . 199 4 WL 80807 6 (Novembe r 7,1994 ) NTS B Docke t

207-EAJA

SE-13563) ; Richard s v . Olsen . NTS B Orde r No . EA-374 3 at

2 (Novembe r

23,1992) ; an d FA A V . Empir e Airlines . Inc. . FA A Docke t No . CP94NM0064,199 5 FA A LEXI S 39 9 at 25-2 6 (Marc h 3,1995)''' . A s eac h o f th e aforementione dNTS B case s deal t with th e standar dfor

airworthines s violation s agains t pilots , an dnot

ai r carriers , thes e case s ar e inapplicabl e t o th e instan t case'* . A s t o th e Empir e Airline s case , th e onl y DO T decisio n cite db y th e Respondent , th e decisio n i n thi s cas e wa s anonprecedentia l Administrativ e La w Judg e decisio n tha t

wa s rendere d9 year s before th e Alask aAirline s cas e was decided . Therefore , th e onl y bindin g preceden t tha t i s relevan t

t o thi s matte r

i s th e preceden t

se t i n Alask aAirlines . Fo r thes e reasons , th e issu e decide di n Surratt wit h respec t

t o th e §91.7(a ) clai mi s no t identica l t o th e §91.7(a ) clai mmth e instan t cas e an dtherefor e th e Complainan t shoul d not b e collaterall y estoppe dfi-omproceedin g with thi s claim .

' * Ida t 7 . '^ Respondent' s Motion Fo

r Summar y Judgmen

t a t 1 1 an d32 . " Furfliermore , NTS B decision s ar e no t bindin g precedent s i

n DO T proceedings ; however , the y have weigh t a s authorit

y t o th e exten

t they ar e persuasive . I

n th e Matte

r o f Tr i Stat e Aer o DM S No . FAA-2007

- 2791 7 (Februar

y 22 , 2008 ) citing I

n the Matte

r o f Folsom' s Ai

r Service . Inc. . FA

A Docke t No . CP04NE0002 , DM S No . FAA-2004-17277 , servedMa y 3 , 2006 ; 200 6 W

L 131697 0 a

t 4 .Finally , th e Complainan t shoul dlikewis e not

b e collaterall y estoppe da s t o th e §91.13(a ) clai mbecaus e thi s regulatio n i s allege di n th e Amende dComplain t a s aresidua l o r derivativ e charg e o f

th e §91.7(a ) clai mi n th e Amende dComplaint . Simila r t o th e instan t matter , th e §91.13(a ) clai mallege di n Surratt wa s als o allege da s aresidua l o r derivativ e charge . Furthermore , i n Surratt th e §91.13(a ) clai mfaile dbecaus e th e othe r allege doperationa l violation s [§91.7(a) , §91.7(b) , an d§91.213(a) ] failed . Therefore , sinc e th e §91.7(a ) clai mi s no t

collaterall y estopped , th e §91.13(a ) claim , whic h i s derivativ e o f th e §91.7(a ) claim , shoul dno t b e foun dt o b e collaterall y estoppe deither . II . Th e Complainant' s Clai mtha t th e Responden t

violate d1 4 C.F.R . §91.13("a') shoul d not b e dismisse d I n th e Notic e o f

Propose dCivi l Penalty , th e Fina l Notic e o f Propose dCivi l Penalty , an dth e Complain t

filedi n thi s matte r

b y th e Complainan t

factua l allegatio n numbe r twent y i n Coun t

I I o f thes e document s state s a s follows : "Durin g th e flight, th e aircraf t wa s operate di n acareles s o r reckles s manne r

s o a s t o endange r th e lif e o r propert y o f

another. " Base do n thi s verbiag e i t shoul db e eviden t

tha t th e Complainan t

wa s referencin g §91.13(a ) whic h states : 'TSf o perso n ma y operat e a n aircraf t i n acareles s o r

reckles s maime r

s o a s t o endange r th e lif e o r propert y o f

another. " Unfortunately , however , th e Complainan t inadvertentl y omitte dinclusio n o f §91.1 3 (a ) i n Coun t

II I o f th e aforementione dNotice , Fina l Notice , an dComplaint , an d thi s omissio n wa s no t

remedie dunti l th e Amende dComplain t was issue do n Octobe r

19 , 2010 .A s state dabove , §91.13(a ) i s allege di n th e Amende dComplain t a s aresidua l o r derivativ e violatio n meanin g afinding o f §91.1 3 (a ) shoul donl y b e mad e i f afinding o f §91.7(a ) i s als o made . Therefore , th e additio n o f §91.13(a ) t o th e Amende dComplain t shoul dhav e n o bearin g o n th e proo f tha t mus t b e adduce db y eithe r

part y i n thi s matter . Furthermore , base do n th e verbiag e i n paragrap h 2 0 tha t wa s presen t

i n th e Notice , Fina l Notice , an dComplaint , th e Responden t wa s mos t

likel y awar e o f

thi s oversight . Finally , th e statut e o f

limitation s applie s mos t

appropriatel y t o th e additio n o f ne w factua l allegation s tha t

th e Complainan t

make s know n t o th e Responden t onl y afte r

th e statutory tim e perio dha s passe da s oppose dt o th e additio n o f ne w regulation s t o th e Complain t tha t hav e n o impac t

o n eithe r party' s evidentiar y burden . Thus , th e inclusio n o f §91.1 3 (a ) i s no t

prejudicia l t o th e Responden t an di t shoul dnot

b e dismissed . III . Th e Complainant' s Clai mtiiat tiie Responden t violate d1 4 C.F.R . §^43.13(a ) an d43.13(b' ) shoul dno t

b e dismisse d Throug h allegation s 4 throug h 8 o f Coun t I I i n th e Complaint , a s wel l a s paragrap h (a ) an d(b ) o f

Coun t III , th e Complainan t

allege s tha t

th e Responden t

performe dimprope r maintenanc e o n th e aircraf t i n violatio n o f

section s 43.13(a ) an d43.13(b) . Specifically , i t i s allege dthat : 1 ) prio r t o th e flight, maintenanc e wa s performe do n th e aircraf t i n whic h th e spoile r serv o actuator s for

lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mode ; an d 2 ) subsequen t

t o th e aforementione dmaintenanc e thes e spoile r serv o actuator s wer e no t returne dt o th e operationa l mod e prio r t o th e flight. Th e Responden t

ha s admitte dthat :

1 01 ) prio r t o th e flight

th e spoile r

serv o actuator s for

lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an d five wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mode'' ; 2 ) thes e spoile r

serv o actuator s wer e not returne dt o th e operationa l mod e prio r t o tiie flight^"; an d 3 ) durin g th e flight

thes e spoile r

serv o actuator s wer e i n th e maintenanc e mode^' . Th e Responden t

ha s als o stated : "w e hav e neve r claime dtha t

th e placemen t

o f lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive i n th e maintenanc e mod e wa s no t par t o f an y maintenanc e performe do n th e aircraft. . .Ou r contentio n i s tha t

th e placemen t

o f lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive i n th e maintenanc e mod e wa s no t par t o f an y maintenanc e tha t wa s ordere dby , o r

withi n th e contro l of

, US A 300 0 [Brenda n Airways ] . Additionally , th e Responden t

ha s admitte dtha t

i t exercise doperationa l contro l ove r th e flight i n question^^ . Notwithstandin g th e Respondent' s contention s i t ha s alread y bee n determine di n th e Orde r Denyin g Respondent' s Partia l Motio n T o Dismiss , an dthu s i s th e la w o f thi s case , tha t "a s th e ai r

carrie r operatin g th e aircraft . Responden t wa s responsibl e for

th e aircraft' s maintenance , howeve r th e maintenanc e wa s ordered^'*" . I n trut h th e Respondent' s Summar y Judgmen t Motio n simpl y repackage s th e contention s th e Responden t

ha s alread y mad e i n Respondent' s Partia l Motio n t o Dismis s (a t leas t

" See th e Respondent' s Answe r attache da s Exhibit

5 . ^ ° See the Respondent' s Respons e T o Complainant' s Firs t Se t o f Interrogatories , Reques t

Fo r Admissions , andReques t

Fo r Productio n o f

Documents , Respons e T o Interrogatories , Respons e No . 1 3 attacheda s Exhibit 6 . ^ ' See the Respondent' s Respons e T o Complainant' s Firs t Se t of Interrogatories , Reques t

Fo r Admissions , andReques t

Fo r Productio n o f

Documents , Respons e T o Request Fo r Admissions , Respons e No . 1 . ^ ^ See the Respondent' s Respons e T o Complainant' s Firs t Se t o f Interrogatories , Reques t

Fo r Admissions , andReques t

Fo r Productio n of

Documents , Respons e T o Interrogatories , Respons e No . 13 . ^ ^ See th e Respondent' s Respons e T o Complainant' s Firs t Se t o f Interrogatories , Reques t

Fo r Admissions , andReques t

Fo r Productio n o f

Documents , Reques t

Fo r Admissions , Respons e No . 13 . ^ * Orde r Denying Respondent' s Partia l Motion T

o Dismis s a

t 8 . 1 1concemin g tiie §43.13(a ) an d(b ) claims ) an dfor tha t reaso n alon e th e Respondent' s Summary Judgmen t

Motio n shoul db e denied . I n an y event , pursuan t t o Alask aAirline s an d§121.363(a ) th e Responden t i s primaril y responsibl e for th e performanc e o f maintenanc e o n it s aircraft . I t doe s no t matte r wh o ordere dth e maintenance , wh o performe dth e maintenance , o r whethe r th e Responden t

ha dcontro l ove r

th e maintenance . Quit e simply , pursuan t t o §121.36 3 th e Responden t i s responsibl e for

al l maintenanc e performe do n th e aircraf t n o matte r

wha t th e circumstances . I n th e Respondent' s Summar y Judgmen t Motio n th e Responden t

claim s tha t

becaus e th e Complainan t

canno t prov e tha t

independen t

contracto r

AA Rperforme dth e imprope r maintenanc e th e §43.13(a ) an d(b ) claim s mus t b e dismissed^^ . However , pursuan t t o §121.363(a ) a n ai r

carrier' s responsibilit y for maintenanc e i s no t

limite dt o responsibilit y ove r th e maintenanc e performe db y independen t contractor s wh o perfor mmaintenanc e unde r thei r direction . Pursuan t

t o thi s sectio n a n ai r

carrie r i s responsibl e for

an y an dal l maintenanc e performe do n thei r aircraf t b y an y party , regardles s i f th e part y i s actin g a s thei r independen t

contracto r

o r not , an dregardles s o f

whethe r o r no t th e part y i s performin g maintenanc e unde r thei r directio n o r

not . I n th e Respondent' s Summar y Judgmen t Motio n th e Responden t

als o state s tha t

th e spoiler s coul dhav e bee n place di n th e maintenanc e mod e b y non-maintenanc e personne l a t th e airpor t

throug h anon-maintenanc e activity , o r durin g maintenanc e performe dunde r th e order s o f

th e aircraft' s owner , and/o r th e ne w lesse e o f

th e aircraft , o r

b y vandals^^ . However , th e Responden t offer s n o evidenc e t o indicat e tha t th e spoiler s wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mod e b y non-maintenanc e personne l at th e airpor t

o r b y vandals . I n fac t

^ ' Se e th e Respondent' s Summar y Judgmen

t Motio n a t 25 . ^ Respondent' s Motion Fo r Summar y Judgmen

t Pag e 22 . 1 2i n th e Declaratio n o f Josep h Miller , th e Respondent' s Directo r o f Maintenance , Mr . Mille r state s tha t

h e believe s bu t

canno t prov e tha t

th e spoiler s wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mod e b y painter s wh o painte dth e liver y [o f th e ne w lessee] betwee n Ma y 1 5 an d1 7 ^ . Therefore , i t i s Respondent' s belie f

tha t th e spoiler s wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mod e durin g amaintenanc e operatio n an da s state dearlie r th e Responden t

i s primaril y responsibl e for al l maintenanc e performe do n th e aircraft . Finally , stron g publi c polic y reason s suppor t holdin g ai r

carrier s responsibl e fo r

th e imprope r performanc e o f

maintenanc e o n thei r

aircraf t whethe r o r no t th e ai r carrie r ha s knowledg e o f

ho w o r whe n th e imprope r

maintenanc e wa s performe do r b y who . Suc h a holdin g coul dprovid e incentiv e for ai r carrier s an dindependen t contractor s t o mak e i t difficul t t o determin e ho w an dwhe n th e imprope r maintenanc e occurre di n orde r t o shiel dthemselve s agains t potentia l enforcemen t

action . Th e resul t

coul db e a n avenu e throug h whic h ai r

carrier s coul dunburde n themselve s o f thei r statutor y dut y t o provid e servic e wit h th e highes t

possibl e degre e o f

safety i n th e publi c interest .

^ ' Se e Th e Declaratio n o

f Jo e Mille r paragraph 4 0 attache das Exhibit 7 . 1 3WHEREFOR E th e Complainan t respectfull y request s tha t th e Respondent' s Motio n b e denie di n al l respects . Respectfull y submitted . Alfi-e dR . Johnson , Jr . Regiona l Counse l

By : /^^CO\— J i^ ^ _Date : Davi dM . Cohe n Attorne y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 1 Aviatio n Pla2 a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 Telephone : 71 8 553-327 0 Facsimile : (718)995-569 9 

# lojl f

I 1 6

1 4CERTFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y tha t o n thi s da y copie s o f th e foregoin g Complainant' s Answe r t o Respondent' s Summar

y Judgmen t

Motio n wer e sen t

b y Federa l Expres s Mai l addresse da s follows : Hearin g Docke t Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 (FAX ) 202-366-753 6 Jaso n Dickstei n Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C & La w Office s o f Jaso n Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 (FAX ) 202-628-894 8 Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 Roo mEl2-32 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 (FAX ) 202-366-753 6

Lxli ^ Hook s 

## Date: OC T 2 9 201 0 ^^ ^ J ^

'ti ^ Hook s Paralega l Specialis t Offic e o f Actin g Regiona l Counse l 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4

1 5EXHIBI T 

# ± BEFOR E TH E U.S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N Th e Honorabl e Chie f

Administrativ e La w Judg e Ronni e A . Yode r

I n th e matte r

o f BRENDA N AIRWAYS , LLC , d^/aUSA300 0 Airline s

Responden t DMSNo.:FAA-2009-003 2

FA A Docke t

No. : CP09EA000 7 FA A Cas e No. : 2008EA17003 8 MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR Y JUDGMEN T o r

DECISIO N an d MOTIO N T O DISMIS S 91.13(a ) AMENDMEN T T O COMPLAIN T Come s no w th e Respondent , Brenda n Airways , LL C d/b/ aUSA300 0 Airline s [hereinafte r

"USA3000" ] an dMOVE S th e Administrativ e La w Judg e t o dismis s al l charge s agains t

th e Respondent . Followin g th e recen t

amendmen t

t o th e Complaint , ther e ar e tw o remainin g charge s unde r

Par t an dtw o remainin g charge s unde r Par t 43 . Th e Par t

9 1 charge s ar e identica l t o thos e tha t

wer e alread y decide di n th e relate dcas e Babbit t v . Surratt . B y usin g collatera l estoppe l an dth e Babbit t v . Surratt . th e Par t

9 1 claim s shoul db e dismissed . Th e Part

4 3 allegation s ca n b e decide do n th e fac t tha t th e Administrato r

ha s admitte dtha t

h e doe s no t

kno w ke y facts tha t

woul db e necessar y t o suppor t th e Par t 4 3 allegations , includin g th e fac t tha t th e Administrato r

canno t poin t t o an y maintenanc e tha t wa s mcorrectl y performe db y US A 3000 , an dcanno t dra w alin k

betwee n th e spoile r issu e an dan y maintenanc e performe db y US A 3000 . 

### Content s L Fact s 3 A . Introductio n 3 B . Th e Administrato r Fail s t o Identif

y Wha t Maintenanc e Wa s Improperl y Performe d4 C . Th e Cas e Agains t

th e Pilot s 6 II . Argumen t

7 A . Standard s fo r

Dispositiv e Motio n 7 1 . Issue s Previousl y Decide dan dSub j ec t t o Collatera l Estoppe l 8 RESPONDENT

S MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR

Y Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e JUDGMEN

T La w Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei

n Pag e 1 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue, NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington

, D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 62 , Issue s tha t Ar e No t Subjec t t o Collatera l Estoppe l 8 B . Th e 9l,7(a ) Clai mMus t B e Dismisse dBecaus e o f Collatera l Estoppe l 9 1 . Element s o f

Collatera l Estoppe l 9 2 . Analysi s o f

Collatera l Estoppe l Argumen t Wit h Respec t

t o th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(a ) Clai m1 0 C . Th e 91.13(a ) Clai mMus t B e Dismisse dfor

Statut e o f

Limitation s Reason s (Motio n t o Dismiss ) 1 4 D . Th e 91.13(a ) Clai mMus t Als o B e Dismisse dDu e t o Collatera l Estoppe l (Motio n for

Summar y Judgment ) 1 6 1 . Th e Issu e Decide di n th e Prio r Proceedin g i s Identica l Wit h th e Issu e Presente di n th e Secon d1 6 2 . Th e Part y Agains t Who mCollatera l Estoppe l i s Asserte dWa s aPart y i n th e Prio r Litigatio n 1 7 3 . Th e Prio r

Adjudicatio n Ende di n aFina l Judgmen t o n th e Merit s 1 8 4 . Th e Administrato r (th e Part y Agains t

Who mth e Doctrin e i s Asserted ) Ha da Fai r Opportunit y t o Litigat e th e Issu e Becaus e th e Administrato r wa s aPart y t o th e Prio r Litigatio n 1 8 E . Conclusio n o f

Collatera l Estoppe l Argument s 1 9 F . Th e 1 4 C.F. R§ § 43.13(a ) an d43.13(b ) Claim s Mus t B e Dismisse d1 9 1 . Lega l Standard s fo r th e Par t 4 3 Claim s 1 9 2 . Th e Admirustrato r Bear s th e Burde n t o Demonstrat e Significan t Probativ e Evidenc e i n Suppor t

o f It s Positio n 2 0 3 . Th e Administrato r Doe s No t

Say What

Maintenanc e Wa s Performe d Inadequatel y 2 1 4 . Th e Administrato r Doe s No t

Know s Wh o Pu t

th e Spoiler s I n Maintenanc e Mod e an dDoe s No t

Kno w Ho w o r

Whe n th e Spoiler s Wer e Pu t i n Maintenanc e Mod e 2 2 5 . Othe r

Possibl e Cause s Mak e i t Inappropriat e t o Assum e Causatio n 2 4 6 . US A 300 0 Di dNo t Perfor mth e Maintenanc e tha t wa s Considere dInadequat e 2 5 G . Statemen t

Concemin g Par t

12 1 Claim s 2 6 II L Conclusio n 2 6 CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E 2 8 APPENDI X A : Potentiall y Moo t Par t 12 1 Argument s 2 9 A . Th e 1 4 C.F. R§ § 121.153(a)(2 ) an d121.628(a)(5 ) Claim s Mus t B e Dismisse d Becaus e th e Fligh t

Wa s Outsid e th e Scop e o f Par t 12 1 2 9 RESPONDENT

S MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR

Y Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e JUDGMEN

T La w Office s o f Jaso n A. Dickstei

n Pag e 2 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue, NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington, D

C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6

### B . Applicatio n of th e Collatera

l Estoppe l Argumen

t to th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.153(a)(2 ) Claim3 2 DECLARATION O F JOSEP H MILLE R3 3 Joseph Mille

r Exhibit s 3 8 APPENDI X C : Judg e Fowler' s Decisio n i n Babbit t v . Surrat t APPENDI X D : NTSB' s Decisio n Affirming Babbit t v . Surrat t (o n appeal ) APPENDI X E : NTSB' s Decisio n Affirming Babbit t v . Surrat t (o n reconsideration ) APPENDI X F : Complainant' s Firs t

Respons e to Respondent' s Firs t Set o f Interrogatories , Request s fo

r Productio n o f

Documents , andRequest s fo r Admissions , Respons e t o Interrogatorie s #1-1 3 (page s 1-4 ) APPENDI X G : Complainant' s SecondRespons e t o Respondent' s Firs t Set o f Interrogatories , Request s fo r Productio n o f

Documents , andRequest s fo r Admissions , Respons e t o Interrogator

y #1 8 andReques t

fo r Productio n #1 1



### Fact s A . Inti'oductio a Thi s i s acas e about

a n Airbu s A32 0 aircraf

t know n b y U.S . registr

y N265A V ["Th e Aircraft"] . Th e Aircraf

t wa s owne db y ILFC , an

dit wa s operate dunder

leas e b y US A 3000 . See Declaratio n o f Josep h Miller

a t 1f t 3-5 . US A 3G0O'

s leas e o n Th e Aircraf

t wa s comin g t o a

n end . See id . a

t 16 . It i s normal , a t th e en do f

suc h alease , t o pu t

th e aircraf t int o heavy maintenanc e in orde r to retur n it to th e conditio n require db y th e lease . Se e id . A t th e en do f th e maintenanc e cycle , such alease daircraf

t woul db e returne dto th e lessor . Se e i da t t | 6-10 . I

n thi s case , thi s wa s exactly wha

t wa s occurrin g i n th e Sprin g o f 2008 . Id L US A 300 0 contracte dwit

h AA Rt o perfor

mlease-en dheavy maintenanc e o n The Aircraft . Se e id . a

t 16 . Th e purpos e o f

th e heavy maintenanc e wa s to mak e Th e Aircraf

t read y to b e returne dt

o ILFC . Se e i da

t t l 6-10 . ILF

C als o contracte dwit

h AA Rt o perfor mcertai n wor

k t o mak e th e aircraf

t read y fo r th e nex t lesse e (State Transpor

t Russia) . See id . a

t Tj l 34-35 . RESPONDENT S MOTIO

N FORSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T Pag e 3 Washington Aviatio n Group , P C an dthe La w Office s o f

Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### On Ma y 15,2008 , test s o n th e aircraf t confirmedtha

t th e spoiler s were i n operationa l mode . Se e id . attT

I 12-14 . O n Ma y 17 , 2008 , Th e Aircraf

t wa s flow n o n amaintenanc e acceptanc e flight. Babbit t v.Sunratt . EA-5514,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 a t * 1 n. 2 (March 23 , 2010) . Th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight wa s flown b y tw o pilot s - Captain Ton y Sco t Surrat t an d Captain Fran

k Willia mWalker , A maintenanc e acceptanc e flight i s a n operationa

l tes t of th e maintenanc e performed . 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.407(b) . !3 . Th e Administrato r FaiL s t o Identif y Wha t Maintenanc e Wa s Improperl y Perlonne d I n th e Complaint , th e Administrato r claime dthat : "Prio r t o th e flight, maintenanc e wa s performe do n th e aircraf t i n whic h th e spoile r serv o actuator s fo

r lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive wer e place din th e maintenanc e mode. " Complain t a t Allegatio n 4 o f

Sectio n II . US A 300 0 sought

discover y o n thi s allegation , andasked : "Interrogator

y #1 : Allegatio n 4 o f

sectio n I I o f

th e Complain

t contend s tha

t th e spoiler serv o actuator s wer

e place di n th e maintenanc e mode durin g maintenance . O n wha t dat e an ddurin g wha

t maintenanc e operatio n wer e th e spoiler

serv o actuator s place din th e maintenanc e mode? " Respondent' s Firs t Set o f Interrogatories . Request s fo r Productio n o f

Documents , an

dRequest s fo

r Admissions , Interrogator

y #1 . Th e Administrato r

answere db y admittin g that : "the Complainant

doe s no t kno w th e exac t

dat e o f th e maintenanc e .. . th e Complainant

doe s no t kno w durin g wha

t maintenanc e operatio n th e spoiler serv o actuator s were place di n th e maintenanc e mode , howeve r it appear s tha

t th e maintenanc e wa s performe db y AAR, " Complainant' s Firs t Respons e t o Respondent' s Firs t

Se t of Interrogatories . Request s fo r Productio n o f

Documents , andRequest s fo

r Admissions . Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 . Th e par t o f thi s respons e tha

t blame s AA

Rfo r placin g th e spoiler s i n maintenanc e mod e i s inconsisten t

wit h document s produce db y th e Administrator in respons e t

o discover y i n thi s case . I

n severa l FA A Progra mTrackin g andReportin g Subsystem RESPONDENT S MOTION FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T Pag e 4 Washington Aviatio n Group , PC an dth e La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6

### (PTRS ) DataSheet , provide di n respons e t o US A 3000' s discover y request , th e Administrator

admit tha t th e FAA' s own investigator s coul dno t determin e tha

t an y AA R employe e put

th e spoiler s i n maintenanc e mode : "05-20-200 8 T O 06-16-200 8 - CONDUCTE D INVESTIGATIO N REGARDING TH E ALLEGE

D IMPROPE

RMAINTENANCE . COUL D NO T PROV

E THA T AN Y AA REMPLOYE

E PERFORME

D TH E IMPROPERPOSITIONING O F TH E LEF T WING SPOILER S 3 AN D 5 T O THE MAINTENANC E MODE. " FA A PTRS recor

dfiromInspector

LX C fo r EI R2008SO19022 0 (al l capital s i n original ) (Foundin Appendi x G to thi s Motion) . Th e discover

y evidenc e show s tha

t the Administrator

doe s no t kno w who placed th e spoiler s i n th e maintenanc e mode ; andth e Administrator canno t sho w tha t an y AA R employe e place dth e spoiler s in th e maintenanc e mode . Thi s i s acritical evidentiar y failure , becaus e there i s als o n o evidenc e tha t an y maintenanc e wa s incorrectl y performed . Instead , th e Administrato r relie s o n th e propositio n tha t th e spoiler s wer

e in maintenanc e mode , andwork s backward s t o assum e all o f th e other fact s about

th e allegatio n - th e relationshi p betwee n performanc e o f som e maintenanc e andth e spoiler s arriva l int o maintenanc e mode (causation ) i s assumed , andals o th e propositio n tha t maintenanc e wa s improperl y performe d(th e allege dcausa l act ) i s als o assumed . Th e Administrato r

canno t reasonably claimtha

t h e ha s foun

dadditiona

l fact s t o suppor t th e allegatio n tha

t US A 300 0 performedmaintenanc e incorrectl y (allegatio n fou r i n th e Complaint) , becaus e i n interrogator y #2 , US A 300 0 asked : Interrogator

y #2 : Pleas e identif

y al l of th e facts tha

t you conten dsuppor

t Allegatio n 4 o f

sectio n II o f

th e Complaint . Respondent' s Firs t Set o f Interrogatories . Request s fo r Productio n of

Documents , andRequest s fo r Admissions . Interrogator

y #2 . I n respons e t

o this , th e Administrato r

explained : Prio r t o th e flight

there wer e severa l indication s in th e cockpi t

suggestin g tha

t lef t andrigh t win g rol l spoiler s 3 an d5 wer e no t operational , durin g th e flight thes e rol l spoiler s di dno t

function , andafte

r th e flight i t wa s determine dthroug h visua l inspectio n tha

t th e spoiler

serv o actuator s wer

e place din th e maintenanc e mode . Complainant' s Firs t

Respons e t o Respondent' s Firs t Set o f Interrogatories . Request s fo

r Productio n o

f Documents , an

dRequest s fo

r Admissions . Respons e t o Interrogator

y #2 . RESPONDENT S MOTIO

N FORSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T Page s Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e La w Office s o

f Jaso n A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsin Avenue , NW, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### I t i s clea r tha t th e Administrator' s positio n i s tha t th e onl y evidenc e o f

an y imprope r maintenanc e i s th e fac

t tha t th e spoiler s (i n som

e identifie dway ) ende du

p in maintenanc e mode . Bu

t nowher e i n thi s answe

r doe s th e Administrato r

specif y an y fact s to suppor t th e allegatio n tha

t US A 300 0 performe dmaintenanc e incorrectly . Anda s w e se e i n th e enforcemen

t cas e agains t

th e pilots . Judg e Fowle

r disagree dwit

h th e Administrator' s contentio n concemin g pre-fligh t indication s o f

failures . C . Th e Cas e Agains t th e Pilot s Th e Administrato r

brought certificat e suspensio n actions , includin g 1 4 C.F.R . § § 91.7(a) and91.13(a ) charges , agains t th e tw o pilot s on thi s flight. The matter wa s hear d befor e th e honorabl e Chie f

Judg e Fowler . Judg e Fowler

foun dtha t th e pilot s di dno t

kno w tha t th e spoiler s wer

e inoperativ e a t tiie tim e o f

take-off . Se e Babbit

t v . Sun-att . SE-18562,200 9 NTS B LEXI S 10 6 a t * 12 , * 14 , * 1 6 (September

2,2009) . H e foundtha

t th e pilot s leane dtha

t th e spoiler s wer

e inoperativ e afte

r take-off . Id . a t * 13- * 14 , * 17 . H e foun

dtha t it wa s reasonabl e fo

r th e pilot s to hav e continue dthei r maintenanc e acceptanc e flight. I da t * 14 , * 17-18 . Judg e Fowle r note dtha t th e pilot s di dno t

hav e knowledg e o f

a n unairworthy conditio n durin g th e flight. I da

t * 10 . Becaus e th e pilot s di dno t hav e knowledg e of

a n unairworthy conditio n a

t th e tim e of

takeoff , there wa s n o violatio n of

91.7(a) a t th e tim e o f

takeoff . I da t * 14 . Becaus e th e QR

H permitte dcontinue dflight upo n learnin g o f

inoperativ e spoilers , andn o other

resourc e provide dcontrar

y guidance , Judg e Fowle

r hel dtha t ther e wa s n o violatio n o f

91.7(a ) afte

r th e time o

f takeoff . I da t *14-*15 . Judg e Fowle

r specifically foundtha

t eac h pilo t di dno t operate th e aircraf

t i n acareles s manne

r s o a s to endange r th e lif e o r propert y o f anothe r an dtherefor e di dno t violate 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.13(a) . I da

t *14,+17-18 . On appeal , th e National Transportatio n Safet y Boar d(NTSB ) affirmedJudg e Fowler' s rulings . Babbit

t v . Surratt . EA-5514,2010NTS B LEXI S 3 1 a t *26-*2 7 (March 23,2010) . Th e Boar

dagree dtha

t th e pilot s ha

dth e discretio n t o continu e wit h th e flight, an dtha t th e decisio n wa s reasonable . I da t *26-*27 . Th e Admirustrator

petitione dfo

r reconsideratio n o f

th e Board' s decision , andth e Boar daffirmedtiieir

ow n decision . Babbit

t v . Surratt . EA-5527,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 RESPONDENT

S MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR

Y Washingto

n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e JUDGMEN

T La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei

n Page 6 223 3 Wisconsin Avenue , NW, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### (Jun e 25,2010) . O n reconsideration , th e Boar dclearly state dtha

t th e Administrator

ha d failedto prov e that

th e pilot s ha

dknowledg e of

a n unairworth

y conditio n prio r

to take

off . I da t *2 . Th e Boar

dexplaine dtha

t th e evidenc e showe dtha

t th e pilot s ha

da "green " ECA

M (free of error messages ) prio r

to take-off

. I da t *6-*7 . Th e Boar

dstate d tha t th e pilot s di dno t

know , nor

shoul dthey hav e reasonably known , tha t th e aircraf t wa s in a n unairworthy condition . I da t *9-*10 . The Boar

dconclude s tha

t th e pilot s acte d reasonably i n thei r

decision s (the

y di dno t ac t recklessly no r

carelessly) . Id . a

t " • 13 . 

## II . Argumen t A . Standard s forDisDOSitiv e Motio n Th e Administrativ e La

w Judg e shal l gran

t aparty' s motio n fo

r decisio n i f th e evidenc e show s tha

t (1 ) there i s n o genuine issu e o f materia l fact and(2 ) tha

t th e part y making th e motio n i s entitle dt o adecisio n a s amatte r of law . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(5) . A Motio n fo

r Decisio n i s adjudicate dunde r th e sam e standard s a s amotio n fo

r summar y judgment . Summar

y judgmen t

i s appropriate whe n ther

e i s n o genuine issu e of

materia l fac t an dth e movin g part

y i s entitle dto judgmen t

a s amatte r o f la w (Se e 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(5) ; cf

. Fed . R . Civ . P . 56(c) ) or

whe n n o reasonabl e decision-make r coul d retur n averdic t

fo r th e nonmovin g party . Anderso n v . Libert y Lobby . Inc. . 47 7 U.S . 242 , 24 8 (1986) . On e o f th e mai n purpose s o f

asummar y judgment

motio n i s to dispos e o f factuall y unsupporte dclaims . See Anderson . 47 7 U.S . a t 249 ; Celotex Corp . v . Catrett . 47 7 U.S . 317 , 323-2 4 (1986) , In thi s motion , US A 300 0 ha s tiie burden o f showin g tiiat ther e i s n o genuin e issu e o f

materia l fact dispute dby th e parties . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(5) . Althoug h th e cour t mus t examin e th e evidenc e i n th e ligh t mos t favorable t o th e non-movin g part

y anddra w al l reasonabl e inference s i n tha t party' s favor , i f

(a s in thi s case ) ther e are n o relevant fact s supportin g th e non-movin g party' s position , ther e i s nothin g t o constru e i n it s favor . See , e.g . Griffit h v Willia mPer mBroadcastin g Co. . 4 F.R.D . 475,47 7 (E.D . Pa . 1945) . A dispositiv e motion , an dit s opposition , ma y no t rely RESPONDENT

S MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN T Pag e 7 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e La w Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washuigton , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677

6

### o n amer e assertion s o r

unsupporte dclaims . I

n R e Horizo n Air

Industries . Fed . Av , Dec . 1996-24 . 1 . Issue s Previousl y Decide dan dSubjec t t o Collatera l Estoppe l In thi s case , th e only materia l fact s tha t ar e arguably i n dispute are fact s tha t have been decide di

n a n earlier cas e andare subjec t

t o th e doctrin e o f

collateral estoppel . Becaus e they hav e alread

y been decided , th e Administrato r i s estoppe dfro

mdenyin g th e facts a s they hav e bee n foun di n th e earlier

case . Thus , thos e materia

l fact s are not reasonably i

n dispute . I n particular , th e Administrator ha s alread

y full y litigate dth e § 91.7(a) and§ 91.13(a) claim s agains t

th e pilot s o f

th e Aircraf

t (claim s III(c ) an dIll(d ) o f th e Amended Complaint) . Th e National Transportatio n Safet y Boar dfoun dthat neither o f thos e claim s coul db e sustaine dagains t

th e pilots . A s th e pilot s are th e only relevant agent s o f th e ai r carrie r fo r purpose s o f

thes e claims , n o agen

t o f th e Responden

t coul dhav e committe d thes e violation s an dthu s th e Respondent di dno t commit thes e violations . 2 . Issue s tha t

Ar e No t Subjec t t o Collatera l Estoppe l Excep t wit h respec t to affirmativ e defenses , th e Administrato r bear s th e ultimat

e burden of proo f i n civi l penalt

y cases . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.224(a) . O n issue s where th e non-movant (th e FAA , i n thi s case ) bear s th e ultimate burde n o f proo f a t trial , th e non-movant

ma y no t defea t amotio n fo

r summar y judgmen t

by relyin g upo n evidenc e tha

t i s "merel y colorable " o r

"no t significantl y probative. " Anderson . 47 7 U.S . a

t 249-5 0 (emphasi s added) . Accor dSummer s v . A , Teicher

t & Son . 12 7 F,3 d1150,115 2 (9 * Cir , 1997) . T o tiie contiary , tiie non-movant mus t present "significan t

probativ e evidenc e tendin g t o suppor t th e complaint, " Summers . 12 7 F.3 d a t 1152 . Summar

y judgmen t

shoul db e grante dagains t

th e complainant

whe n th e complainan

t "rest[s ] o n hi s allegation s .. . without an y significan

t probativ e evidenc e tendin g to suppor

t th e complaint. " Anderson . 47 7 U.S . a t 249 . RESPONDENT

S MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN T Page s Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e La w Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei n 2233 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677

6

### Wit h respec t to th e Par t 4 3 claim s tha

t th e Administrato r

ha s allege din thi s case , th e Administrato r

carmo t presen t significan t probativ e evidenc e tendin g to suppor t th e allegation s o f

th e complaint . I

n fact , a s discusse di n thi s brief , th e Administrato r

ha s admitte dtha

t afte r investigation , i

t stil l doe s no t

hav e an y evidenc e t o suppor

t allegation s tha t woul db e necessar

y t o provin g aPar

t 4 3 clai magains t

US A 3000 , lik

e whether US A 300 0 actuall y wa s th e perso n who performe do r authorize dth e 'inadequat

e maintenance ' action s allege din th e Complaint ! H . Th e 91.7(a ) Clai mMus t B e Dismisse dBecaus e o f Collatera l Estoppe l US A 300 0 i s acorporat

e entit y andtherefor

e it s action s ar

e th e action s o f

it s agents ; it s knowledg e i s th e knowledg e o f it s agents . US A 300 0 ha

dtw o agent s on th e aircraf

t who wer e operatin g th e aircraf

t o n behalfo f the company . They wer

e Captai n Surrat

t andCaptain Walker . The Administrator

ha s alread

y unsuccessfully brough

t certificatio n action s agains t thes e tw o pilots . A s par

t o f th e decisio n i n thos e actions , th e NTS B foun dtha t neither Captai n Surrat t nor Captai n Walke

r kne w tha t th e spoiler s wer

e in maintenanc e mode . Furthermore , th e NTS B foundi t wa s reasonabl e tha

t th e pilot s di dno t

kno w o f th e spoiler s bein g i

n maintenanc e mode . Basedo n lac k

of knowledge , th e Boar

dfoun dtha t th e tw o pilot s coul dno t

hav e violate d91.7(a) becaus e the y di dno t kno w (o r reasonably shoul dhav e known ) o f th e spoile r issue s unti l the y were i n th e air , andthey di dno t kno w tha t th e spoiler s wer

e i n maintenanc e mode unti l afte r th e flight wa s over . 1 . Kleineut s of

Collatera l Estoppe l Collatera l estoppe l prevent s apart

y fi-omrelitigatin g a

n issu e afte

r th e part y ha s ha daful l andfai r opportunit

y t o present

it s cas e in aprio r

proceeding . It

bar s re litigatio n o f

a n issu e o f fact o r la w tha t wa s actuall y litigate dan

dresolve din aprio r

cour t RESPONDENT' S MOTION FORSUMMAR Y JUDGMEN

T Page 9 Washington Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D

C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6determination , eve n i f th e issu e recur s i n th e contex t o f adifferen t

claim . E.g . Taylo r

v . Sttirgell . 55 3 U.S . 880,89 2 (2008) . Collatera l estoppe l ha s fou r elements : 1 ) th e issu e decide di n th e prio r proceedin g i s identica l wit h th e issu e presente di n th e second ; 2 ) th e part y agains t

who mcollatera l estoppe l i s asserte dwa s apart y i n aprior , actual , litigation ; 3 ) th e prio r

adjudicatio n ende di n afinal judgmen t o n th e merits ; and , 4 ) th e part y agains t

who mth e doctrin e i s asserte dha dafai r opportunit y t o litigat e th e issu e (e.g . i t

wa s eithe r

apart y t o th e litigatio n o r i n privit y t o aparty) . E.g . Swerso n v . IBM . 47 2 F.3 d1072 , 107 8 (9ti i Cir . 2007) ; se e als o Parklan e Hosiery Co . V , Shore . 43 9 U.S . 32 2 (1979) , Blonder-Tongu e Lab , v . Univ . o f 111 . Found. . 40 2 U.S . 313,323-324(1971) .

2 . Analysi s o f

Collatera l Estoppe l Argimien t Wit h Respec t

t o th e U C.F.R . § 91.7(a } Clai m

a ) Th e Issu e Decide di n tli e Ftio r I'roceedin g i s Identica l Wit h th e Issu e Presente di n th e Secon d I n thi s case , th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91. 7 allegatio n b y th e Administrato r i s identica l t o tiie 1 4 C.F.R . § 91. 7 issu e tha t wa s raise di n th e prio r

Surrat t an dWalke r

case . Se e Babbit t

v . Surratt , 200 9 NTS B Lexi s 10 6 (Septembe r 2,2009) , affirme do n appea l EA-5514,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 (Marc h 23 , 2010) , motio n fo r reconsideratio n denie dEA-5527,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 (Jun e 25,2010) . Th e final decisio n o f tiie dia l judge , a s wel l a s tiie denia l o f th e Administrator' s appea l t o th e Boar dan dth e denia l o f th e Administrator' s motio n for

reconsideratio n ar e attache da s appendice s t o thi s Motion . I n bot h cases , th e allegation s ar e base dupo n aUS A 300 0 maintenanc e acceptanc e flight o f an Airbu s A32 0 o n Ma y 17,200 8 firomMiam i Internationa l Airport . Compar e RESPONDENT'

S MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN T Pag e 10 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e La w Office s o f Jaso n A. Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue, NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington, D

C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6Babbit t v . Sunratt . EA-5514 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 at * 1 (Marc h 23 , 2010 ) (identifying th e flight) wit h I n th e matte r o f Brenda n Airwavs . LLC . FA A Docke t No . CP09EA0007 , Complain t

at paragrap h 11(3 ) (Januar y 14,2009 ) (identifyin g th e sam e flight i n th e cas e a t bar) . Bot h th e prio r

cas e an dthi s cas e ar e dealin g wit h th e sam e flight. Both case s allege dtha t

th e flight i n questio n wa s operate di n an unairworth y fashio n i n violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(a) . Compar e Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5514,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 a t

* 1 n. 2 (Marc h 23,2010 ) (explainin g tha t th e pilot s wer e charge d wit h violatin g sectio n 91.7(a ) wit h respec t t o th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight) wit h I n th e matte r

o f Brenda n Airwavs . LLC . FA A Docke t No . CP09EA0007 , Complain t a t paragrap h Ill(e ) (Januar y 14,2009 ) (chargin g US A 300 0 wit h violatin g sectio n 91.7(a ) wit h respec t

t o th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight). Cas e la w ha s hel dtha t

a n allegatio n o f

asectio n 91.7(a ) violatio n (allegin g unairworth y operatio n o f a n aircraft ) ha s aknowledg e elemen t (i t i s no t astric t liabilit y offense) . Se e Administi-ato r v . Parker . 3 NTS B 2997 , 299 8 (1980) ; Garve v v . Frost . NTS B Orde r

No . EA-468 0 a t

2 (Jul y 01 , 1998 ) (Docke t SE-14781) ; Nun n v . Hinson . 199 4 W L 80807 6 (Novembe r 07 , 1994 ) (NTS B Docke t 207-EAJA-SE-13563) . Th e behavio r o f pilot s charge dwit h airworthines s violation s shoul db e measure db y wha t th e pilot s kne w o r

shoul dhav e know n abou t th e aircraft , wit h thi s standar drequirin g th e pilot s t o hav e reacte dreasonabl y an dpmdentl y t o informatio n o f whic h the y ar e aware . Richards v . Olsen . NTS B Orde r No . EA-3743 , 199 2 W L 37135 9 a t 2 (NTS B Novembe r 23,1992 ) (Docke t

SE-10883) . It ha s lon g bee n recognize dtha t acorporatio n ca n onl y ac t throug h it s officer s an d agents . E.g . Ne w Yor k

C . & H . R . R . Co . v . Unite dStates . 21 2 U.S . 481,49 5 (1909) ; Fidelit y & Deposi t

Co . v . Courtnev . 18 6 U.S . 342 , 36 1 (1902) . Th e longstandin g genera l ml e i s tha t

acorporatio n i s charge dwit h th e knowledg e o f th e agen t acquire db y th e agen t i n th e cours e o f

th e principal' s business . E.g . Curtis , Collin s & Holbroo k Co . v . Unite dStates . 26 2 U.S . 215,22 2 (1923) . Thus , i n orde r

t o prov e tha t

US A 300 0 ha s th e requisit e knowledg e i n orde r t o b e foun dculpabl e o f

aviolation , th e Administrato r mus t prov e tha t

US A 3000' s agent s ha d th e requisit e knowledge . I n othe r words , th e corporatio n ha s n o knowledg e for purpose s MSPONDENT' S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e JUDGMEN

T La w Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei

n Pag e 1 1 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington, D

C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6

### of

thi s analysi s excep t

th e knowledg e o f

it s own employees , th e pilot s wh o operate dth e aircraft . Surrat

t an dWalke

r were th e pilot s o n boar

dth e aircraf

t s o thei r knowledg e i s th e knowledg e tha

t mus t b e use da s th e corporate knowledge . Respondent' s Interrogator y #1 9 i n thi s matter

aske d "I s it th e Administrator' s contentio n tha t Respondent

wa s aware , befor

e take-of f anddurin g th e flight, tha

t th e spoiler s wer

e no t functioning properl y ('aware') ? I f th e answe r t o thi s questio n i s 'yes, ' the n pleas e identif y eac h natural perso n wh

o wa s 'aware ' an didentif

y an y fact s or evidenc e tha

t support s th e Admirustrator' s clai mtha t th e individua

l wa s 'aware,' " Th e Administrato r

responde dt o tha

t interrogator

y wit h th e followin g statement : "Bot h o f th e pilot s who operate dth e aircraf t durin g th e flight

either were awar

e tha t th e aircraft' s ECA

M indicate dtha

t lef t andright win g rol l spoiler s 3 and5 wer e no t operational . Furthermor

e if th e pilot s actually performe daflight contro l check they woul dhav e bee n awar e tha t th e spoiler s wer

e no t functionin g properly prio r t o takeoff . Th e fact s are tha

t th e pilot s admi t

the y sa w th e ECA

M indications , th e ECA

M systemwa s functioning properly , i f th e ECA M syste mi s functionin g properl y th e ECA M wil l sho w tha

t tiiese spoiler s are no t

operationa

l i f they are pu t

i n th e maintenanc e mode , th e flight contro l check

require s th e pilot s t o tes t

th e spoilers , andi f

th e spoiler s serv o actuator s fo r th e spoiler s ar

e in th e maintenanc e mode then th e spoiler s wil l no t functio n durin g th e flight

contro l check. " I t i s clea r fro mthi s respons e tha

t th e Administrato r

agree s tha

t th e pilots ' knowledg e concemin g th e airworthines s issue s in thi s cas e i s th e only knowledg e tha t i s relevan t i n thi s case . Becaus e th e pilots ' knowledg e wa s acritica l decidin g element

o f th e prio r case , an di s akey element

o f th e cas e a t bar , th e knowledg e issu e decide di n th e prio r proceedin g i s identical wit

h th e knowledg e issu e tha

t i s presente di n thi s matter .

RESPONDENT

S MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN T Pag e 1 2 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e La w Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei n 2233 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677

6h ] Th e Part y Agains t Who mCollatera l Estoppe l i s Asserte dWa s aPart y i n th e Prio r Litigatio n Th e Administrato r

o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , agains t who mthi s collatera l estoppe l i s asserted , wa s th e Complainan t i n th e Surratt

an dWalke r

case . Th e matte r wa s actuall y litigate di n atwo-da y trial . Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5514 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 at

• 1 (Marc h 23 , 2010) .

c ) Th e Prio r

AdjadicaLio n Ende di n aFina l Judgmen t o n th e Merit s Babbit t v . Surrat t

an dWalke r

ende di n afinal judgmen t o n th e merits . Se e Babbit t v . Surratt . 200 9 NTS B Lexi s 10 6 (Septembe r 2 , 2009) . Th e Boar ddenie dboti i an appea l an damotio n fo r reconsideratio n o f

th e appeal . Se e Babbit t

v . Surratt . EA

5514 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 (Marc h 23,2010 ) (affirmin g o n appeal) , an dBabbit t v . Surratt . EA-5527,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 (Jun e 25,2010 ) (motio n fo r reconsideratio n denied) . Th e final decisio n i n th e prio r cas e wa s tha t

Surrat t an dWalke r

- th e tw o pilot s flying th e aircraf

t - di dno t

hav e th e requisit e knowledg e t o suppor t th e contentio n tha t eithe r ha dviolate d1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(a ) b y flying a n unairworth y aircraft ; th e Boar dfoun d tha t US A 3000' s agents , th e pilots , di dno t hav e th e requisit e leve l o f knowledg e t o violat e sectio n 91.7(a) . Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5527,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 a t *1 0 (Jun e 25,2010 ) (explainin g tha t th e pilot s di dno t

kno w tha t

th e aircraf

t wa s unairworthy , an d the y therefor e di dno t

hav e th e requisit e knowledg e i n orde r t o satisf y th e knowledg e elemen t o f asectio n 91.7(a ) allegation) .

RESPONDENT

S MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T Pag e 1 3 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e La w Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue, NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington

, D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6d ) Th e Administrato r (th e Part y Agains t

Who mth e Doctrin e i s Asserted ) Ha daFai r Opportunit y t o Litigat e th e Issu e Becaus e th e Administrato r wa s aPart y t o th e Prio r Litigatior i Th e Administrato r

o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , agains t who mthi s collatera l estoppe l i s asserted , vigorousl y argue dth e knowledg e issu e i n th e prio r case . I n fact , th e Administrato r appeale do n tha t

issue , an dmove dfo r

reconsideratio n o n th e knowledg e issue . See , e^ . Babbit t v . Sun-att . EA-5527,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 a t * 9 (Jun e 25,2010 ) (affirmin g tha t th e pilot s "di dnot

know , no r

shoul dhav e known , tha t th e aircraf t wa s n a n unairworth y condition") . Becaus e th e centra l issu e upo n whic h collatera l estoppe l i s founde dha s bee n fiill y litigate dan dappealed , i t woul dno t

b e an injustic e t o rel y n th e prio r rulin g concemin g thi s issue . I n summary , th e doctrin e o f collatera l estoppe l applie s i n thi s cas e becaus e i n a prio r adjudication , th e NTS B foun dtha t th e pilot s di dno t

hav e th e requisit e knowledg e t o sustai n a n allegatio n o f

a1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(a ) violatio n concemin g th e sam e flight tha t i s at issu e i n thi s case . Th e Administrator' s answe r t o interrogator y 1 9 make s i t clea r tha t ther e ar e n o othe r

agent s throug h who mth e US A 300 0 coul dhav e acted , tha t woul dhav e ha drelevan t

knowledg e relate dt o th e airworthines s o f th e aircraft . Consequently , US A 300 0 coul dno t

possibl y hav e violate dsectio n 91.7(a ) becaus e non e o f it s agent s hav e th e requisit e knowledg e t o sustai n suc h a n allegatio n o f violation . C . Th e 91.13(a ) Clai mMus t B e Dismisse dfo r

Statut e o f Limitation s Reason s (Motio n t o Dismiss ) O n Octobe r

19 , 2010 , th e Administrato r aimounce dtha t

h e wa s amendin g th e Complain t

t o includ e a91.13(a ) claim . Thi s shoul db e treate dbot h a s aMotio n fo r Summary Judgment/Decisio n an dals o a s aMotio n t o Dismis s tha t i s bein g filedi n lie u o f an Answe r

t o th e Octobe r

1 9 amendment . Th e Orde r

o f Chie f Administrativ e La w Judge , serve di n thi s cas e o n Febmar y 19 , 2009 , require dall amendment s t o b e filedb y Apri l 20,2009 . Thi s amendmen t faile dt o RESPONDENT' S MOTION FO RSUMMAR Y JUDGMEN

T Page 1 4 Washington Aviatio n Group , P C an dthe La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsin Avenue , NW, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6mee t tha t deadline. * Notic e i n th e for mo f a n answe r

woul dno t

b e du e unti l o r

unles s thi s Motio n t o Dismis s wa s granted . Therefor e thi s Motio n t o Dismis s th e 91.13(a ) claim s take s th e plac e o f

th e Answe r

t o th e 91.13(a ) claim . Th e underlyin g allegation s o f thi s cas e happene do n o r befor e May 17,2008 . E.g . Complain t

at I f 3 . US A 300 0 wa s no t

apprise dtha t

asectio n 91.13(a ) violatio n woul db e claime da s apar t

o f thi s cas e unti l th e Octobe r 19,201 0 Amendment . Suc h aclai mwa s not par t o f an y o f th e earlie r

pre-Complain t

notices . Civi l penalt y claim s mus t b e initiate dwithi n th e two-yea r statut e o f

limitations . 49U.S.C. § 46301(d)(7)(C) . A civi l penalt y actio n i s initiate db y sendin g anotic e o f propose dcivi l penalt y t o th e perso n charge dwit h aviolatio n 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.16(f) . Notic e o f th e 91.13(a ) clai mwa s no t mad e unti l mor e tha n tw o year s after th e allege deven t

ha doccurred . Th e 91.13(a ) clai mmus t therefor e b e dismisse da s untimely . Th e Administiato r

claim s "inadverten t

error " i n failin g t o includ e th e 91.13(a ) allegatio n o f

violation . However , th e Complain t wa s first serve dJanuar y 6,2009 , an di t wa s areproductio n o f

th e Notic e o f

Propose dCivi l Penalt y tha t wa s first serve dAugus t 21,2008 , s o th e Administrator' s so-calle derro r ha s bee n circulatin g fo r

ove r tw o years . I f thi s reall y wa s a n inadverten t error , the n i t

shoul dhav e bee n correcte dyear s ago . Furthermore , ther e i s N O clai mtha t th e reaso n for

late-filin g th e clai mwa s becaus e th e Administiato r

wa s unabl e t o file i t

earlier . Becaus e ther e i s n o reasonabl e basi s for th e delay , an dbecaus e th e Amendmen t violate s th e Court' s Orde r o f Februar y 19,2009 , th e Court shoul dno t

exercis e an y discretio n i n acceptin g th e late-file dadditio n t o th e Complaint . Th e 91.13(a ) clai mmus t b e dismisse da s untimely .

' Th e Responden

t als o late-file

da n amendment; bu

t th e Responden

t ha d goo d cause . Th

e Responden

t filed notic e o f th e defens e o f collatera l estoppe l o n Augus t 30th, 2010 , whe

n tha t defens e becam e ripe. This wa

s afte r th e 200 9 deadlin e impose db y th e Court' s Order ; however

, th e collatera l estoppe l argumen t di d no t becom e rip e unti l Augus t 24,2010 , whe

n th e tim e fo r appealin g th e underlyin g decisio n o f th e Boar d ha d passe d(on e o f th e element s o f collatera l estoppe l i s finality o

f th e judgmen t upo n whic h collatera l estoppe l i s based) . Th e Responden

t ha s no t filed notice o

f th e defens e o f collatera l estoppe l wit h respec t t o thi s caus e o f actio n unde r § 91.13(a) , because th

e caus e o f actio n wa s no t asserte dunti l Octobe r 19,2010 , afte

r notic e o f tha t defens e ha d bee n filed. Thi s docimien

t serve s a s notice o f th e assertio n o f suc h adefens e i n respons e t o th e § 91.13(a ) claim . RESPONDENT

S MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR

Y Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e JUDGMEN

T La w Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei

n Pag e 1 5 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington

, D C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6

### D . Th e 91.13(a ) Clai mMus t Als o B e Dismisse dDu e t o Collatera l Kstoppe l (Motio n fo r Sunnnar y judgment ) A s wit h th e § 91. 7 claim s discusse dabove , th e § 91.13(a) clai mwa s full y litigate d i n tiie prio r Surrat t andWalke

r case . Se e Babbit

t v . Surratt . 200 9 NTS B Lexi s 106 (Septembe r 2,2009) , affirme do n appea l EA-5514,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 (March 23 , 2010) , motion fo r

reconsideratio n denie dEA-5527 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 (Jun e 25 , 2010) . Th e collatera

l estoppe l argumen

t tha t applie s to th e § 91. 7 clai mi s incorporate d by reference , anda

n abbreviate dsummar

y of th e argumen

t a s i t applie s t o th e § 91.13(a

) claimfollows . 1 . rii e Issu e Decide di n th e Prio r Proceedin g i s Identica l V/it h th e Issu e Presente di n th e Secon d I n thi s case , th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.13(a) allegatio n b y th e Administrato r

i s identica

l t o th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.13(a) issu e tha t wa s raise din th e prio r

Surrat t an dWalke

r case . I n bot h cases , th e allegation s are base dupo n th e sam e US A 300 0 maintenanc e acceptanc e flight

o f a n Airbu s A32 0 o n Ma

y 17 , 200 8 fro

mMiam i Internationa

l Airport . Bot h allegation s clai mtha

t th e flight in questio n wa s flown i n acareles s or reckles s manner . Compar

e Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5514,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 a t * 1 n. 2 (March 23,2010 ) (explainin g that

th e pilot s wer

e charge dwit

h violatin g sectio n 91.13(a) wit h respec t to th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight) wit h In th e matte

r o f Brenda n Airways . LLC . FA A Docket No . CP09EA0007 , Amende dComplain t a t paragrap h Ill(d ) (Januar

y 14,2009 ) (chargin g US A 300 0 wit h violatin g sectio n 91.13(a) wit h respec t to th e sam

e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight). I t ha s lon g bee n recognize dtha t acorporatio n ca

n only ac t throug h it s officers an

d agents . E.g . Ne w Yor

k C . & H . R . R . Co . v . Unite dStates . 21 2 U.S . 481.49 5 ri909) : Fidelit v & Deposit

Co . v . Courtnev . 18 6 U.S . 342 , 36 1 (1902) . Th e longstandin g genera l ml e i s tha t acorporatio n i s charge dwit h th e knowledg e of

th e agen t acquire db y th e agen t i n th e cours e o f

th e principal' s business . E.g . Curtis . Collin s & Holbroo k Co . v . Unite dStates . 26 2 U.S . 215 , 22 2 (1923) . RESPONDENT S MOTIO

N FO RSUMMAR

Y Washington Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e JUDGMEN

T La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstein Page 1 6 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6Thus , i n orde r t o prov e tha t

US A 300 0 ha s th e requisit e knowledg e i n orde r t o b e foun dculpabl e o f

areckles s o r

careles s flight

violation , th e Administrato r mus t prov e tha t US A 3000' s agent s ha dth e requisit e knowledge . I n othe r words , th e corporatio n ha s n o knowledg e for

purpose s o f

thi s analysi s excep t

th e knowledg e o f

it s ow n employees , th e pilot s wh o operate dth e aircraft . Surrat t an dWalke r

wer e th e pilot s o n boar dth e aircraf t s o thei r allege dreckles s o r careles s behavio r

woul db e th e behavio r

tha t mus t b e analyze da s th e corporat e behavior . I n Paragrap h 2 0 o f

th e Complaint , th e Administrato r claime d"Durin g th e flight , th e aircraf

t wa s operate di n acareles s o r reckles s manne r

s o a s t o endange r

th e lif e o r propert y o f

another " Amende dComplain t a t ^ 2 0 (Octobe r

19 , 2010) . I n orde r

t o bette r gaug e th e scop e an dreaso n for th e factua l allegation . Respondent' s Interrogator y # 7 i n thi s matte r

aske dth e Administrato r t o "Pleas e identif

y al l o f th e fact s tha t

yo u conten d suppor t Allegatio n 2 0 o f

sectio n I I o f

th e Complaint. " Th e Administrato r

responde dt o tha t

interrogator y wit h th e statement , "Se e th e abov e an dth e Complaint. " Neithe r th e complain t

no r th e othe r answer s t o th e interrogatorie s identif

y an y perso n wh o acte di n acareles s o r reckles s manner . Onl y th e pilot s action s ar e describe d"above " th e answe r t o interrogator y 7 , s o ther e i s n o othe r perso n whos e behavio r

coul dreasonabl y b e withi n th e scop e o f wha t th e Administiato r claim s t o hav e bee n reckles s o r careles s i n th e 91.13(a ) claim . Becaus e th e pilots ' behavio r wa s acritica l decidin g elemen t o f th e prio r case , an d i s ake y elemen t

o f th e cas e a t

bar , th e reckless/careles s behavio r issu e decide di n th e prio r proceedin g i s identica l wit h th e reckless/careles s behavio r issu e tha t

i s presente di n thi s matter . 2 . Th e Part y Agains t Who mCollatera l Estoppe l i s Asserte d Wa s aPart y i n th e Prio r Litigatio n Th e Administrato r

o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , agains t who mthi s collatera l estoppe l i s asserted , wa s th e Complainan t i n th e Surrat t

an dWalke r

case . Th e RESPONDENT S MOTION FORSUMMAR Y JUDGMEN

T Page 1 7 Washington Aviation Group , P C an dth e La w Office s o f

Jason A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW, Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6matte r wa s actuall y litigate di n atwo-da y trial . Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5514,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 at

* 1 (Marc h 23 , 2010) . 3 . Th e Prio r

Adjudicatio n Ende di n aFina l judgmen t o n th e Merit s Babbit t v . Surrat t

an dWalke r

ende di n afinal judgmen t o n th e merits . Se e Babbit t v . Surratt . 200 9 NTS B Lexi s 10 6 (Septembe r 2,2009) . Th e Boar ddenie dboti i an appea l an damotio n fo r reconsideratio n o f

th e appeal . Se e Babbit t

v . Surratt . EA

5514 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 (Marc h 23 , 2010 ) (affirmin g o n appeal) , an dBabbit t v . Surratt . EA-5527 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 (Jun e 25,2010 ) (motio n fo r reconsideratio n denied) . Th e final decisio n i n th e prio r cas e wa s tha t

Surrat t an dWalke r

- th e tw o pilot s flying th e aircraf

t - di dno t

ac t i n areckles s o r

careles s manne r

an dtherefor e di dno t violat e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.13(a) . Babbit t v . Surratt . SE-18562,200 9 NTS B LEXI S 10 6 a t *14 , *17-1 8 (Septembe r

2,2009 ) (specificall y finding tha t eac h pilo t

di dno t operat e th e aircraf t i n acareles s maime r

s o a s t o endange r

th e lif e o r propert y o f

another) ; se e als o Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5514 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 (Marc h 23 , 2010 ) (denyin g tiie FAA' s appea l o f

th e § 91.13(a ) charge) , an dBabbit t v . Surratt . EA-5527,201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 (Jun e 25,2010 ) (denyin g th e FAA' s motio n fo r reconsideratio n o f

th e § 91.13(a ) charge) .

4 . Th e Administrato r (th e Part y Agains t

Who mth e Doctrin e i s Asserted ) Ha daFai r Opportunit y t o Litigat e tli e Issu e Becaus e th e Administrato r

wa s aPart y t o th e Prio r Litigatio n Th e Administrato r

o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , agains t who mthi s collatera l estoppe l i s asserted , vigorousl y argue dth e knowledg e issu e i n th e prio r case . I n fact , th e Administiato r appeale do n tha t

issue , an dmove dfor

reconsideratio n o n th e knowledg e issue . See , Babbit t v . Surratt . EA-5527 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 5 6 (Jun e 25 , 2010) . Becaus e th e centra l issu e upo n whic h collatera l estoppe l i s foimde dha s bee n full y RESPONDENT

S MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR

Y Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e JUDGMEN

T La w Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei

n Pag e 1 8 22 3 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington

, D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### litigate dan dappealed , i

t woul dno t

b e a n injustic e to rely n th e prio r mlin g concemin g thi s issue . I n summary , th e doctrin e o f collatera l estoppel applie s in thi s cas e becaus e i n a prior adjudication , th e NTS B foundtha t th e pilot s o n th e flight

di dno t ac t recklessl y o

r carelessly i

n violatio n o f

1 4 CF R91.13(a) . The Administrator' s answe r t o interrogator

y 7 make s it clea r tha t there are n o other

agent s through whomth e US A 300 0 coul dhav e acted , tha t th e Administrato r

migh t clai mactedrecklessly o r

carelessl y wit

h respec t t o th e cas e a t bar . Consequently , US A 300 0 coul dno t possibly hav e violate dsectio n 91.13(a ) becaus e non e o f

it s agent s acte di n violatio n of tha t regulation . Conclusio n o f

Collatera l Estoppe l Argument s I n light of th e fact tha t eac h of th e element s o

f collatera l estoppe l hav e been me

t wit h respec t t o th e above-describe dclaims , th e cour t shoul db e boim

dby th e prio r

factua l findings o f

th e NTS B wit

h respec t to thi s matter . • Th e Administrativ e La w Judg e shoul dfindtha

t th e knowledg e element

o f th e airworthines s claim , whic h wa s full y litigate din th e Surrat

t andWalke

r case , ha s been show n to b e missin g andtha t therefor e the airworthines s clai munder 91.7(a ) mus t b e dismissed ; • The Administrativ e La w Judg e shoul dfindtha

t Th e Aircraf

t wa s no t flown recklessl y o r

carelessly , base do n th e ful l litigatio n o

f tha t issu e i n th e Surrat

t an d Walke r case , andtha

t therefor e th e reckles s o

r careles s flight

clai munde

r 91.13(a ) mus t b e dismissed ; and

• The Admirustiativ e Law Judg e shoul dhol dtha t therefor e th e claim s i n thi s cas e brought under section s 91.7(a ) and91.13(a) shoul db e dismissed . F . Th e 1 4 C.F.R . § § 43.13(a ) an d43.13(b ) Claim s Mus t B e Dismisse d 1 , Legal Standaid s fo r th e Par t 4 3 Claim s The Administrato r

ha s allege daviolatio n o

f 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(a) . Tha t section states , i n relevant part : RESPONDENT S MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR Y JUDGMEN T Pag e 1 9 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suite 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6(a ) Eac h perso n performin g maintenance , alteration , o r preventiv e maintenanc e o n a n aircraft , engine , propeller , o r applianc e shal l us e th e methods , techniques, an dpractice s prescribe di n th e curren t manufacturer' s maintenanc e manua l o r Instruction s fo r

Continue dAirworthines s prepare db y it s manufacturer , o r othe r methods , techniques , an dpractice s acceptabl e t o th e Administrator , excep t a s note di n Sec . 43.16 . I n orde r t o prov e aviolatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(a) , th e Administiato r mus t alleg e (1 ) tha t

th e Responden t

ha s use dcertai n methods , techniques , o r practices , an d(2 ) tha t th e Respondent' s methods , techniques , o r practice s faile dt o mee t astandar do f

th e Administiato r

o r wer e otherwis e no t

acceptabl e t o th e Administiator . Th e Administrato r

ha s als o allege daviolatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(b) . Tha t sectio n states : (b ) Eac h perso n maintainin g o r altering , o r

performin g preventiv e maintenance , shal l d o tha t

wor k i n suc h amanne r

an dus e material s o f

suc h aquality , tha t

th e conditio n o f

th e aircraft , airframe , aircraf t engine , propeller , o r

applianc e worke do n wil l b e a t

leas t equa l t o it s origina l o r

properl y altere dconditio n (wit h regar dt o aerodynami c function , structura l strength , resistanc e t o vibratio n an d deterioration , an dothe r

qualitie s affectin g airworthiness) . A s wit h th e 43.13(a ) claim , a n integra l elemen t t o a43.13(b ) clai mi s th e allegatio n tha t

th e Responden t

performe dth e maintenance . Sectio n 43.13(b ) onl y applies it s performanc e standar dt o "eac h perso n maintainin g o r alterin g o r

performin g preventativ e maintenance, " s o i t mus t b e necessar y t o identif

y amaintenanc e i n orde r t o findaviolation .

2 . Th e Administrato r Bear s th e Burde n t o Demonstrat e Significan t

Probativ e Evidenc e i n Suppor t o f It s Po.sitio n Excep t wit h respec t

t o affirmativ e defenses , th e Administiato r bear s th e ultimat e burde n o f proo f i n civi l penalt y cases . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.224(a) . A s discusse di n sectio n A. 2 o f thi s brief , supra , th e Administiato r ha s a n obligatio n t o presen t significan t probativ e evidenc e i n favo r o f it s position . Despit e thi s burden , th e Administrato r ha s faile dt o b e abl e t o eve n identif y amaintenanc e operatio n tha t wa s incorrectl y performed . RESPONDENT

S MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T Pag e 2 0 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e La w Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washmgton

, D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6Moreover , th e allege devidenc e o f imprope r

maintenanc e i s limite donl y t o th e fac t tha t tw o spoiler s wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mode , an dth e Admiiustiato r ha s admitte dtha t

h e ha s n o ide awh o place dth e spoiler s i n th e maintenanc e mode . Th e Admiiustiato r

ha s admitte dtha t

h e canno t

poin t t o an y maintenanc e operatio n tha t wa s improperl y performed , an dh e carmo t prov e tha t

th e spoiler s wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mod e durin g an y maintenanc e operatio n (a s oppose dt o som e sor t o f vandalism , o r

unrelate dthir dpart y action , for example) . 3 . I'h e Administrato r Doe s No t

Sa y Wha t

Maintenanc e Wa s Performe dInadequatel y I n th e Complaint , th e Administiato r ha s completel y faile dt o alleg e tha t US A 300 0 performe dth e maintenanc e i n question . Instea do f allegin g tha t

US A 300 0 performe dmaintenance , th e Administrato r state s tha t

maintenanc e wa s performe d (Complain t

a t 4) , an dthe n offer s th e conclusio n tha t "b y virtu e o f

th e foregoing , [US A 3000 ] performe dmaintenance. " Complain t at ^ 7 . Th e reaso n fo r

thi s incomplet e segu e i s simple . US A 300 0 di dno t perfor man y inadequat e maintenanc e i n thi s case . I n interrogator y #1 , US A 300 0 aske dth e Administiato r t o identif y th e improperl y performe dmaintenanc e activit y tha t i s a t th e roo t o f th e Par t 4 3 allegations : Interrogatorv#l : Allegatio n 4 o f sectio n I I o f

th e Complain t

contend s tha t

th e spoile r serv o acmator s wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mod e durin g maintenance . O n wha t dat e an ddurin g wha t

maintenanc e operatio n wer e th e spoile r serv o actuator s place di n th e maintenanc e mode ? Th e Administiato r

answere db y admittin g tha t "th e Complainan t

doe s no t kno w th e exac t

dat e o f th e maintenanc e .. . th e Complainan t

doe s no t kno w durin g wha t

maintenanc e operatio n th e spoile r serv o actuator s wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mode , howeve r i t appear s tha t

th e maintenanc e wa s performe db y AAR. " Complainant' s Firs t Respons e t o Respondent' s Firs t

Set o f Interrogatories , request s fo r Productio n o f

Documents , an dRequest s fo r

Admissions . Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 . I t i s obviou s fro mthi s tha t th e sol e 'evidence ' supportin g th e Administrator' s allegatio n tha t

som e maintenanc e wa s performe dimproperl y i s th e fac t tha t th e spoiler s RESPONDENT'

S MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN T Pag e 2 1 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e La w Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue, NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington, D

C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### wer

e later foundi n th e maintenanc e mode . But th e spoiler s coul dhav e bee n place di n tha t mode by non-maintenanc e personne l a t th e airpor

t through anon-maintenanc e activity . Th e spoiler s coul dhav e bee n place di n tha t mod e durin g maintenanc e performe dunder

th e order s o f

ILF C (th e aircraf

t owne r who wa s takin g possessio n o f th e aircraf t afte r th e maintenanc e wa s complete ) and/o r Stat e Transpor

t Russi a(th e nex

t lessee) , becaus e ILF

C hadordere dwor

k t o b e performe don th e aircraft . Th e spoiler s coul dhav e bee n place di n tha t mode b y vandals . Th e conclusio n tha t US A 3000 maintenanc e mus t

hav e bee n improperly performe dmerely becaus e th e spoiler servo s wer e in th e maintenanc e mode assume s tha t it wa s only durin g aUS A 300 0 maintenanc e activit y tha t thi s "maintenanc e mode " switc h ma y b e activated ; andthi s conclusio n i s simply no t reasonabl e in ligh

t o f th e other possibilities . Th e Administiator' s conclusio n i s actuall y unreasonabl e i n ligh t of th e fac t tha t th e FA A ha s diligently investigate dthi s cas e andwa s unabl e to identif y an y US A 300 0 maintenanc e activit y durin g whic h th e spoiler s coul dhav e been lef t in th e maintenanc e mode . Se e supraa t pp . 4- 6 o f thi s brief . Th e Administiato r

fail s t o sa

y tha t th e maintenanc e performedi n thi s cas e wa s performe dunder

th e directio n o f

US A 3000 , becaus e th e tas k tha t wa s performe d(and tha t ledt o th e spoiler

issue ) wa s no t

performe dunder

US A 3000' s direction . 4 , Th e Administrato r Doe s No t

iCnow s Wh o Pu t

th e Spoiler s I n Maintenanc e iMod

e an dDoe s No t

Kno w Ho w o r

Whe n th e Spoiler s Wer e Puti n Maintenanc e Mod e N o on e know s wh o pu t

th e spoiler s i n maintenanc e mode . Th e FA A doe s not contendtha

t US A 300 0 performe dimprope r maintenanc e themselves . The FA A contend s tha

t US A 300 0 i s responsibl e fo r AAR' s actions , becaus e AA Ri s US A 3000' s maintenanc e contractor . Th e problemwit h thi s contentio n i s tha

t ther e i s no evidenc e tha t AA Rdi danythin g wrong ! I n discovery , US A 300 0 requeste dcopie s o f relevan t document s tha

t th e Administiato r

intend s t o pu t

into evidence . Th e FAA' s Progra mTrackin g an dReportin g Subsystem(PTRS ) Dat aSheet , provide di n respons e t o thi s discover y request , admit

tha t RESPONDENT'

S MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN T Pag e 2 2 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e La w Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677

6

### th e FAA' s ow n investigator s coul dno t determine tha

t an y AA Remploye e pu t

th e spoiler s i n maintenanc e mode : "05-20-200 8 TO 06-16-200 8 - CONDUCTE D INVESTIGATION REGARDIN G TH E ALLEGE

D IMPROPERMAINTENANCE . COUL D NO T PROVE THA

T AN Y AA REMPLOYE

E PERFORME

D TH E IMPROPE

RPOSITIONING O

F TH E LEF T WIN G SPOILER S 3 AN

D 5 TO TH

E MAINTENANCE MODE. " FA A PTR S recor

dfi:omInspecto r

LX C fo r EI R2008SO19022 0 (al l capital s i n original ) (Foun di n Appendi x G t o thi s Motion) . Th e PTR S recor

dgoe s o n t o say : "DU E TO TH E LAC K O F DOCUMENTATIO

N REGARDIN G WHEN , WHO , WH Y AN D HO W WER

E TH E SPOILERS POSITIONE D I N TH E MAINTENANC E MODE , IT I S NO T POSSIBL E FO RTHI S INSPECTO RT O BLAM E ANYON

E FO RTH

E IMPROPE

RPOSITIONIN G O F TH E SPOILERS . " FA

A PTR S recor

dfromInspector

LXC fo r EI R2008SO19022 0 (al l capital s in original ) (Foun din Appendix G to thi s Motion) . A secondPTR S recordconcernin g th e investigatio n wa s als o provide din discovery . Tha

t document

explain s tha

t th e inspector

interviewe dmanagemen

t an d employees , andchecke dwor k cards , andcoul dfindno circumstance s i n whic h non compliant maintenanc e occurred . FA A PTR S recor

dfromInspector

LAB fo r EI R 2008SO19022 0 (Foun di n Appendi x G t o tiiis Motion) . Th e inspector specifie dtiiat tiie "investigatio n di dno t

produc e evidenc e o f

an y wrongdoin g on th e par

t o f AAR. " Id . I n addition , US A 3000' s interrogator y 1 0 asked Interrogator

y 10 : I s i t th e Administrator' s contentio n tha t th e aircraft' s lef

t win g rol l spoiler s thre e andfive were place di n th e maintenanc e mode durin g maintenanc e performe db y USA3000 ? In respons e to interrogator

y 10 , th e Administiato r

replied : Pursuant t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.36 3 i t i s th e Administrator' s contentio n tha t Brenda n Airway s i s responsibl e fo r al l maintenanc e performe do n th e aircraft . Th e Administrato r

doe s no t

kno w wha t

individual s place dth e lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfiv e i n th e maintenanc e mod e prio r t o flight , howeve

r i t i s th e Administiator' s contentio n tha t Brenda n Airway s i s responsibl e fo r thi s maintenance , [emphasi s added] . RESPONDENT

S MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN T Pag e 2 3 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e La w Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677

6Th e Administrator' s document s show s tha t ther e i s n o evidenc e tha t AA R performe dan y maintenanc e improperly . Th e Administiato r admit s tha t

h e simpl y doe s not kno w wh o place dth e spoiler s i n th e inoperativ e mode . Ther e i s absolutel y n o evidenc e tha t

anyon e unde r

US A 3000' s contio l pu t

thos e spoiler s i n maintenanc e mode . US A 3000' s interrogatorie s 1-1 3 all as k th e Administrato r

t o identif

y th e maintenanc e activit y tha t wa s improperl y performed . Th e answer s mak e i t clea r tha t th e Administrato r

carmo t poin t t o an y meiintenanc e tha t wa s improperl y performed . Complainant' s Firs t

Respons e t o Respondent' s Firs t Se t o f Interrogatories , request s for Productio n o f

Documents , an dRequest s for Admissions . Response s t o Interrogatorie s #1

- 13 . I n fact , th e Administrato r specificall y admit s tha t

"[T]h e Complainan t

doe s no t kno w durin g wha t

maintenanc e operatio n th e spoile r serv o actuator s wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mode. " Complainant' s Firs t Respons e t o Respondent' s Firs t Se t o f Interrogatories , request s fo r Productio n o f

Documents , an dRequest s fo r Admissions . Respons e t o Interrogator y #1 .

5 . Othe r

Possibl e Caur,e s Mak e i t Inappropriat e t o Assum e Causatio n I f th e Administrato r

carmo t identif y th e causatio n o f

th e allege doffense , the n th e Administrato r

i s no t free t o ascrib e culpabilit y t o anyon e tha t i s close . Wha t

th e Administiato r

i s tryin g t o d o her e i s aki n t o th e doctrin e o f re s ips aloquitor , bu t

re s ips a loquito r "doe s no t

appl y whe n ther e i s a n intermediar y caus e whic h coul dhav e produce d tiie injury. " E.g . Sam s v . Wal-Mar t Stores . 22 8 Ga . App . 314 , 31 6 (Ga . Ct . App . 1997 ) (refiisin g t o permi t

aplaintif f t o us e re s ips aloquitu r

t o fill th e evidentiar y gap , wher e ther e wa s onl y proo f

o f th e occurrenc e o f

an injury , withou t

more , an dholdin g tha t

an injur y alon e "i s insufficien t

t o establis h liability") . I n thi s case , however , ILF C wa s havin g wor k

performe do n it s aircraf

t (N265AV ) unde r

it s direction , an dthi s i s jus t on e o f severa l possibl e intermediat e actor s tha t coul dhav e bee n th e responsibl e causa l source s o f th e switc h fromoperationa l mod e t o maintenanc e mode . Se e Josep h Mille r Declaratio n a t

| ^ 33-4 2 (explainin g wh y i t i s possibl e tha t

th e spoiler s wer e repositione d b y ILFC' s agent s durin g ILF C painting) . RESPONDENT

S MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR

Y Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e JUDGMEN

T La w Office s o f Jaso n A. Dickstei

n Pag e 2 4 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue, NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington

, D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### In addition , re s ips aloquitor require s proo f

o f negligenc e i n order

t o permit the assumptio n o f

causation , an

dther e i s no allegatio n o f

negligenc e o n th e par

t of US A 3000 . The evidenc e make s it clea r tha t th e Administrator

doe s no t kno w who place dth e spoiler s i n maintenanc e mode . US A 3000 als o doe s no t know wh o place dth e spoiler s i n maintenanc e mode . Bu t

investigation s b y AAR , US A 300 0 an dth e FA A al l confir

mtha t ther e i s no evidenc e tha

t th e spoiler s wer

e place di n maintenanc e mode durin g a maintenanc e activit

y performe db y AAR . An

dth e allegation s of

th e complaint

an dof th e discover y response s do no t

sugges t tha t an y other US A 300 0 agen

t coul dhav e don e this . I f aprincipl e i s accuse do f

th e agent' s malfeasance , but th e accuse

r carmo t prov e th e agent' s malfeasance , then th e principl e carmo t b e culpabl e fo

r non-existent

allegation s of malfeasance . Evidentiar y la w simpl y doe s no t

permit th e Cour t to assum e tha t a maintenanc e activit

y wa s improperly performedi n th e absenc e o f an y evidenc e of imprope r performance . 6 . US A 300 0 Di dNo t

Perfor mth e Maintenanc e tha t wa s Considere dInadequat e Ther e i s n o allegatio n i n thi s cas e tha t US A 300 0 performedmaintenanc e tha t lea dto th e spoiler s bein g place din maintenanc e mode . Instead , th e allegatio n (a s state d in th e Administrator' s answer t o US A 3000' s interrogator y two ) seem s to b e tha

t AA R performedmaintenance , andtha t i t wa s improperly performed . Bu t there i s n o evidenc e of imprope r maintenanc e b y AAR , andth e FAA' s ow n PTR S record s an dletter s t o AA R sugges t tha t AA Rcommitte dn o violation . Thus , it caimot b e tra e that

US A 3000 i s liabl e fo r aviolatio n committe db y AA Ra s it s maintenanc e contiactor . Th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.1 3 clai mmus t b e dismissed , becaus e th e governmen t carmo t identif y amaintenanc e activit

y tha t wa s improperly performed , andit cannot dra w a cormection betwee n th e spoiler s bein g lef t in th e maintenanc e mod

e andan y maintenanc e activit y performe db y US A 30 0 or b y an y US A 300 0 agent . RESPONDENT

S MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN T Pag e 2 5 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e La w Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677

6

### G , Statemen t

Concernin g Par t

12 1 Claim s Shortly befor

e thi s Motio n wa s filed, w e receive dth e Administrator' s withdrawa l o f th e Par t 12 1 claims . Thi s ha s moote dou r (already-drafted ) argument s concemin g th e Par t 12 1 claims . We are mindfu l o f th e fac t tha t th e Court' s Febmar

y 19,200 9 Orde

r forbad e late amendments , andfo

r thi s reason , th e moote dPar t 12 1 claim s hav e bee n include da s a

n Appendi x t o thi s Motion . Pleas e consider themt o b e asserte di f

andonl y i f th e Cour t choose s to rejec t

th e Administiator' s withdrawa l o f th e Par t 12 1 claims . 

### III . Conclusio n The Par t 9 1 claim s foun

din th e Amende dComplain t hav e bot h bee n full

y litigate dagains t

th e pilot s (wh o are th e only relevant agent s of US A 3000) , andth e NTS B foun dtha t (1 ) th e pilot s di dkno w abou t th e spoiler

malfunctio n befor

e th e aircraf

t took off , (2 ) th e pilot s acte dreasonably in continuin g th e maintenanc e acceptanc e fligh t afte r obtainin g knowledg e o f

th e spoile

r malfunction , and(3 ) th e pilot s di dno t ac t recklessly o r carelessly wit

h respec t t o th e flight. Fo

r purpose s o f

th e cas e agains t

US A 3000 , th e pilot s wer e th e onl y relevant

agent s o f US A 300 0 wit

h respec t to th e Par

t 9 1 allegation s agains t US A 3000 . Under

th e doctrin e o f

collatera l estoppel , tiie Par

t 9 1 claim s hav e alread y been decide dagains t

th e Administrator , andtherefor e th e Administrator

i s estoppe dfromraisin g th e sam e Par t 9 1 issue s agains t

US A 3000 . Th e Par t 4 3 claim s foun

di n th e Amende dComplaint bot h assum e tha t US A 300 0 acte dthroug h AA

Rin violatin g th e maintenanc e standards . But th e Administrato r

caimo t point t o an y maintenanc e activit

y tha t wa s improperly performed , an dth e Administiato r ha s n o evidenc e t o suppor t th e contentio n tha

t th e spoiler s wer

e position s to th e maintenanc e mode durin g amaintenanc e operatio n performe db y US A 300 0 or unde r US A 3000' s direction . Th e tw o Par t 4 3 allegation s agains t

US A 300 0 shoul dals o b e dismissed . For th e reason s state dabove , th e fou r claim s foundin th e AmendedComplain t shoul db e dismissed . RESPONDENT

S MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN T Pag e 2 6 Washmgto n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e La w Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677

6RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTE D tiiis 22n dda y o f October , 2010 . WASHINGTO N AVL\TIO N GROUP , P C AN D TH E

LA W OFFICE S O F JASO N A DICKSTEI N

By _ Jaso n Dickstei n Wellingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e a w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3

Washington , D C 2000 7 Tel : (202 ) 628-677 6 Attorne y fo r

Responden t

Brenda n Airways , LL C d/b/ aU S A 3 00 0 Airline s

RESPONDENT

S MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR

Y JUDGMEN

T Pag e 2 7 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e La w Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington

, D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6BEFOR E TH E U S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N Th e Honorabl e Chie f

Administrativ e La w Judg e Ronni e A . Yode r 

### I n th e matter

of BRENDA N AIRWAYS , LLC , d/b/ aUSA300 0 Airiine s

Responden

t DM S No. : FAA-2009-003 2 FA A Docke t No. : CP09EA000 7 FA A Cas e No. : 2008EA17003 8 CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

Th e undersigne dhereb y certifie s tha t sh e cause dth e attache d

• MOTIO N FO RSUMMAR Y JUDGMEN T o r DECISIO N an dMOTIO N T O DISMIS S 91.13(a ) AMENDMEN T T O COMPLAIN T t o b e filedat

th e addresse s liste dbelo w b y two-da y FedE x service , o n th e dat e indicate dbelow . Federa l Aviatio n Administiatio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 An dt o b e serve do n th e person s a t th e addresse s liste dbelo w b y th e sam e metho da s th e filing method , o n th e dat e indicate dbelow . Davi dM . Cohen , Attorne y Federa l Aviatio n Administiatio n Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counsel , EAL- 7 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 Tel : (718 ) 553-327 0 Fax:(718)995-569 9 Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 Roo mEl2-32 0 U S Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Tel : (202 ) 366-214 2 Fax : (202 ) 366-753 6

Kat t Stanle y Octobe r 22 . 201 0 Dat e

CERTIFICAT

E O F SERVIC E Pag e 2 8 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e La w Office s o f Jaso n A. Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue, NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington

, D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### APPENDI

X A : Potentiall y Moo t

Par t 12 1 Argument s Shortly befor

e thi s Motio n wa s filed, w e receive dth e Administrator' s withdrawa l o f th e Par t 12 1 claims . Thi s appear s to hav e moote dour (already-drafted) argument s concemin g th e Par t 12 1 claims . W e ar e mindful o f

th e fact tiiat tiie Court' s Febmar

y 19,200 9 Orde

r forbad e lat e amendments , andfo

r thi s reason , it

i s possibl e tha

t th e Cour t coul dpotentiall y forbidth e Administrator

fro mwithdrawin g th e Par

t 12 1 claims . The potentially-moote dPar t 12 1 claim s hav e been include dfo r us e only i f

the y ar e not moot . Pleas e consider

the mt o b e asserte di f

an donly if th e Cour t choose s to rejec t

th e Administiator' s withdrawal of th e Par t 12 1 claims . A . Th e 1 4 CF.R . § § 121.153(a)(2 ) an d121.623(a)(5 ) Claim s Mus t B e Dismisse dBecaus e th e Fligh t Wa s Outsid e th e Scop e o f Par t 12 1 Th e flight i n questio n wa s amaintenanc e acceptanc e flight. Babbit t v . Surrat t EA-5514 , 201 0 NTS B LEXI S 3 1 a

t * 1 n. 2 (March 23 , 2010) . A maintenanc e acceptanc e flight i s a n operationa l tes t o f th e aircraf

t followin g heav y maintenance . 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.407(b) . A n aircraf t tha t ha s undergon e heav y maintenanc e canno t b e use dfo

r carriag e unti l afte

r tha t operationa

l tes t ha s bee n completed . Id . (there i s a n exceptio n t o thi s requiremen t i n subsectio n (c ) wher

e groun d test s and/o r inspectio n ca

n b e use dt o verif

y airworthiness) . Par t 12 1 o f th e FAA' s regulation s i s limite din it s applicability . I t applie s t o domestic , flag, an dsupplementa

l operations . 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.1(a) . Th e definition s o f thes e term s foun

di n Par t 11 9 ar e applicabl e t o par

t 121 . 1 4 C.F.R . § 119. 3 (explainin g that th e definition s pertai n to all o f Subchapte

r G) .

APPENDD C A (Par t 121 Claims

) Pag e 2 9 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e La w Office s o f Jaso n A. Dickstei

n 2233 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677

6A maintenanc e acceptanc e flight i s no t adomesti c operation . Domesti c operatio n i s define di n 1 4 C.F.R . § 119. 3 t o includ e onl y schedule doperations. ^ A "schedule doperation " i s limite dt o passenger-carryin g operations . 1 4 C.F.R . § 119.3 . Th e operatio n i n questio n i n thi s cas e wa s no t

apassenger-carryin g operatio n s o i t wa s no t aschedule doperatio n (suc h operatio n i s preclude dbefor e completin g th e operationa l chec k describe di n 91.407(b)) . Thu s i t wa s no t a domesti c operatio n a s tha t ter mi s use di n th e Par t 12 1 regulations . A maintenanc e acceptanc e flight i s no t aflag operation . Fla g operatio n i s define di n 1 4 C.F.R . § 119. 3 t o includ e onl y schedule doperations. ^ A "schedule doperation " i s limite dt o passenger-carryin g operations . 1 4 C.F.R . § 119.3 . Th e operatio n i n questio n i n thi s cas e wa s no t apassenger-carryin g operatio n s o i t wa s no t aschedule doperatio n (suc h operatio n i s preclude d

^ Domesti c operatio n mean s an y schedule doperatio n conducte dby an y perso n operatin g an

y airplan e describedi

n paragraph (1 ) o f

thi s definition a

t location s describe di

n paragraph (2 ) o f

thi s defmition : (1 ) Airplanes : (i ) Turbojet-powere dairplanes ; (ii ) Airplane s havin g apassenger-sea t configuratio n o f

mor e tha n 9 passenge

r seats , excluding each crewmembe

r seat ; o r (iii ) Airplane s havin g apayloa dcapacit y of mor e tha n 7,500 pounds . (2 ) Locations : (i ) Betwee n an y point s within th e 4 8 contiguou s State s of th e UnitedState s or

th e Distric t

o f Columbia ; o

r (ii ) Operation s solely within th e 4 8 contiguou s State s o f th e UnitedState s o r

th e Distric t

o f Columbia ; o

r (iii ) Operation s entirely within any State , territory , or possessio n of

th e Unite dStates ; or (iv ) Whe n specificall

y authorize dby th e Administrator , operation s between an y poin t within th e 4 8 contiguou s State s o f

the Unite dState s or

th e Distric t

o f Columbi aan

dan y specificall

y authorize dpoin

t locate doutside th e 4 8 contiguou s State s of the Unite dState s o r

th e Distric t

o f Columbia . 1 4 C.F.R . §119.3 . ^ Fla g operatio n mean s an y schedule doperatio n conducte db y an y perso n operatin g an

y airplan e describe di

n paragrap h (1 ) o f

thi s definitio n a

t th e location s describe di

n paragraph (2 ) of

thi s definition : (1 ) Airplanes : (i ) Turbojet-powere dairplanes ; (ii ) Airplane s havin g apassenger-sea t configuration o

f mor e tha n 9 passenge

r seats , excluding eac h crewmembe

r seat ; o r (iii ) Airplane s havin g apayloa dcqiacity of

mor e tha n 7,500 pounds . (2 ) Locations : (i ) Between an

y poin t within th e Stat

e o f Alask ao r th e Stat e o f Hawaii or an y territor y o r possessio n of

th e Unite dState s andan

y poin t outside the Stat

e of Alask aor di e Stat e of Hawai i o r any territor

y or possessio n o

f th e Unite dStates , respectively ; o r (ii ) Between any point

within th e 4 8 contiguou s State s o f th e Unite dState s or

th e Distric t

o f Columbi aan

dan y poin t outside th e 4 8 contiguou s State s of the Unite dState s an dthe District o f Columbia . (iii ) Between an

y point outside the U.S . andanothe r poin t outsid e th e U.S . 14C.F.R. § 119.3 . APPENDD C A (Par t 12 1 Claims ) Washington Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e Pag e 3 0 La w Office s of

Jason A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW , Suit

e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6befor e completin g th e operationa l chec k describe di n 91.407(b)) . Thu s it wa s not aflag operatio n a s tha t

ter mi s use di n th e Par t

12 1 regulations . A maintenanc e acceptanc e flight i s no t asupplementa l operation . Supplementa l operatio n i s define di n 1 4 C.F.R . §119. 3 t o includ e onl y commo n carriag e operatio n for compensatio n o r

hire.' * Operatio n o f

th e aircraf

t i n commo n carriag e operatio n fo r compensatio n o r hir e i s specificall y preclude dbefor e th e completio n o f th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight. 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.407(b) . Thu s i t wa s no t asupplementa l operatio n a s tha t ter mi s use di n th e Par t

12 1 regulations . I f th e Administrato r

wer e t o appl y 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.153(a)(2 ) t o maintenanc e acceptanc e flights, i t woul dcreat e acatch-2 2 situation , i n whic h th e purpos e o f th e flight

i s t o confirm airworthiness , bu t

b y finding aconditio n tha t neede dt o b e remedie ddurin g thi s operationa l test , th e ai r carrie r woul db e identifyin g aviolatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.153(a)(2) . Thi s woul dmak e every effor

t t o compl y witi i 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.407(b ) apotentia l violatio n o f § 121.153(a)(2) . Luckily , th e Administrato r doe s no t

nee dt o rea dit s regulation s i n suc h aconflictin g manner . Becaus e amaintenanc e acceptanc e flight i s no t adomestic , flag, o r

supplementa ' operation , i t

i s no t covere dwithi n th e scop e o f Par t 121 . Rather , i t

i s considere dt o h

e operatio n withi n th e scop e o f th e Par t 9 1 operatin g rules .

/ • / • • • • * Supplementa

l operatio n mean s an

y common carriag e operatio n fo r compensatio n or

hir e condu' ' / airplane describe di

n paragraph (1 ) o f

thi s definition tha

t i s atyp e of

operatio n describedi

n pa r / definition : /

- (1 ) Airplanes : (i ) Airplane s havin g apassenger-sea t configuratio n o

f mor e tha n 3 0 S ' crewmembe

r seat ; (ii ) Airplane s havin g apayloadcapacit y o f mor e tha n 7,50 0 pour (iii ) Eac h propeller-powere dairplan e havin g apassenger-sea t ' an dles s tha n 3 1 seats , excludin g eac h crewmembe r seat , th p operation s andtha

t i s s o liste di

n th e operation s specificaf

' thos e operations ; or (iv ) Each turboje

t powere dairplane havin g apassen p / tha n 3 1 seats , excludin g eac

h crewmembe

r seat , tb

- / andtha t i s s o liste di

n th e operation s specificatir / operations . / (2 ) Type s of

operation : , ' (i ) Operation s fo

r which th e departur

e ti r / negotiate dwit

h th e custome

r o r th e cu ' (ii ) All-carg o operations ; o r / (iii ) Passenger-carryin g publi c char u 1 4 C.F.R. § 119.3 . APPENDD C A (Par t 12 1 Claims ) Pag e 3 1 Wash ^

### Becaus e th e flight i n thi s cas e wa s aPar

t 9 1 operation , andno t

a n operatio n covered withi n th e scop e o f

Par t 121 , th e allegation s of

violatio n o f

regulation s under

Par t 12 1 shoul db e dismissed . B . Applicatio n o f

th e Collatera l Estoppe l Argumen t t o th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.153(a)(2 ) Clai m The FA A ha s allege dtiiat

US A 300 0 operate dTh e Aircraf t i n violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . § 121.153(a)(2) . Tha

t sectio n states , i

n relevant part : (a ) Except a s provide di

n paragrap h (c) o f

thi s section , n o certificate holder ma y operat e an aircraf t unles s that

aircraft-

- (2 ) I s i n a n airworth y conditio n an dmeet s the applicabl e airworthines s requirement s o f thi s chapter , includin g thos e relatin g to identificatio n an dequipmen t A s wit h th e 91.7(a ) airworthines s claim , a n airworthines s clai munder § 121.15 3 include s knowledg e a s a

n element . FAA v . Empire Airlines , Inc. , FA A Docket No . CP94NM0064 , 1995 FA A LEXI S 39 9 a

t *25-*2 6 (Marc h 3 , 1995 ) (explainin g tha t th e remedia

l purpos e of

acivil penalt y wouldno t

b e promote db y assessin g penaltie s i n th e absenc e o f

knowledge) . I f

th e pilot s hadknow n of

th e issue s befor

e take-off , the n unde

r traditiona l agenc y theorie s th e ai

r carrie r ma y hav e bee

n liable , bu t

th e pilot s i

n thi s cas e di dnot

hav e th e requisite knowledg e to have forme dafoundatio n fo

r a n airworthines s violation . The argument fo r dismissin g the 121,153(a)(2 ) claimi s therefor e th e same . It i s als o important

t o not e tha

t insteado f

meetin g it s burden , th e Administiato r generall y allege dtha

t th e lega l conclusio n tha

t th e aircraf

t wa s imairworthy , without offerin g factua l allegation s or

objectiv e standard s t o suppor t thi s claim . Therefore , th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.153(a)(2 ) allegatio n shoul db e dismisse dbecaus e prio r cas e foun dtha t th e knowledg e element

o f a n airworthines s violatio n doe s no t exis t i n ou r fac t pattern .

APPENDD C A (Par t 121 Claims

) Pag e 3 2 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an d th e La w Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei n 2233 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677

6

### U.S . DEPARTMEN T OF TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . In th e Matte r

o f Brenda n Airways , LL C 2008EA17003 8 Judg e No t

Assigne d COMPLAIN T Th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA) , b y counsel , hereb y file s it s Complaint , pursuan t t o Rul e 20 8 o f

tiie Rule s o f

Practic e (1 4 C.F.R . 13.208) , an dstate s a s follows : Respondent , Brenda n Airways , LLC , wa s advise dthroug h aFina l Notic e o f Propose dCivi l Penalt y that th e FA A propose dt o asses s acivi l penalt y i n th e amoun t o f $15,000 . O n January 2 , 2009 , Responden t submitte dawritte n deman dfo r a hearing . I I

Brenda n Airways , LL C (hereinafte r "Brenda n Airways" , "you " o r "your" ) i s tiie holde r

o f Ai r Carrie r Certificat e No . U30A762J . Pursuan t t o th e abov e reference dai r carrie r certificat e yo u are authorize dt o conduc t

operation s unde r

Part 12 1 o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s (FAR) .

### 3 . O n o r abou t Ma y 17 , 2008 , yo u operate da n Airbu s A320-212 , (hereinafte r

"th e aircraft") , identificatio n numbe r N265AV , o n afligh t tha t too k of f an dlande dat

Miami Internationa l Airport , Florid a (hereinafte r

"th e flight") . 4 . Prio r

t o th e flight , maintenanc e wa s performe do n th e aircraf t i n whic h th e spoile r

serv o actuator s fo r

lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mode . 5 . Subsequen t

t o th e aforementione dmaintenanc e th e spoile r serv o actuator s fo r

lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive wer e no t returne dt o th e operationa l mod e prio r t o th e flight . 6 . Pursuan t

t o th e Airbu s Maintenanc e Manua l fo r thi s aircraf

t i f th e spoiler s ari

e lef t i n th e maintenanc e mod e aerodynami c force s wil l cause dunwante dmovemen t o f th e spoiler . 7 . B y virtu e o f

th e foregoing , yo u performe dmaintenanc e o n th e aircraft' s lef

t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive withou t usin g th e methods , techniques , an dpractice s prescribe di n th e curren t manufacturer s maintenanc e manua l o r Instruction s Fo r

Continue d Airworthines s prepare db y it s manufacturer , o r othe r methods , techniques , an dpractice s acceptabl e to th e Administrator . 8 . B y virtu e o f

th e foregoing , yo u performe dmaintenance , withou t doin g th e wor k i n suc h amanne r

tha t th e conditio n o f

th e aircraft , airframe , aircraf t engine , propeller , o r

applianc e worke do n wa s at leas t equal t o it s origina l o r

properl y altere dcondition . 9 . Durin g th e flight , th e aircraf t too k of f a t approximatel y 172 5 Universa l Tim e Coordinate d(UTC ) an dlande da t approximatel y 204 5 UTC . 10 . Durin g tiie flight , bu t prio r t o takeoff

, a n ambe r

"LA F DEGRADED " messag e wa s displaye do n th e aircraft' s Electroni c Centralize d Aircraf t Monito r (ECAM) . 11 . Th e ambe r

LA F DEGRADE D messag e o n th e aircraft' s ECA M come s o n whe n ther e i s afailure o f on e o f th e aircraft' s spoile r servojacks .

### 12 . Durin g th e flight , bu t prio r t o takeoff

, th e ECA M indicate dtha t th e followin g win g rol l spoiler s wer e no t operationa l and/o r

wer e locke d out : a ) lef

t win g rol l spoile r

No . 3 ; b ) lef t win g rol l spoile r

No . 5 ; c ) right win g rol l spoile r

No . 3 ; d ) right win g rol l spoile r

No . 5 13 . Durin g th e flight , bu t prio r t o takeoff

, th e pilot s operatin g th e aircraf t wer e awar e tha t

th e aircraft' s ECA M indicate dtha t th e followin g win g rol l spoiler s wer e no t

operationa l and/o r

wer e locke dout : a ) lef t win g rol l spoile r

No . 3 ; b ) lef t win g rol l spoile r

No . 5 ; c ) right win g rol l spoile r

No . 3 ; d ) right win g rol l spoile r

No . 5 14 . Pursuan t

t o th e aircraft' s Minimu mEquipmen t Lis t (MEL ) th e aircraf

t carmo t b e dispatche dwhe n tw o o r mor e spoiler s o n eithe r

win g ar e in an inoperabl e condition . 15 . Notwithstandin g th e above , durin g th e fligh t yo u operate dth e aircraf t durin g takeof

f an dthereafte r

with th e followin g inoperativ e instruments : a ) lef t win g rol l spoile r

No . 3 ; b ) lef t win g rol l spoile r

No . 5 ; c ) right win g rol l spoile r

No . 3 ; d ) right win g rol l spoile r

No . 5

### 16 . Durin g th e flight , an dwithi n twent y minute s after takeoff , th e ECA M onc e agai n indicate dthat th e followin g win g rol l spoiler s wer e no t operationa l and/o r

wer e locke dout : a ) lef t win g rol l spoile r

No . 3 ; b ) lef t win g rol l spoile r

No . 5 ; c ) right win g rol l spoile r

No . 3 ; d ) right win g rol l spoile r

No . 5 17 . Durin g th e flight, an dth e aircraft' s firs t landin g attemp t

at Miam i Internationa l Airport , th e aircraft' s lef t win g tip contacte dth e runwa y causin g damag e t o th e lef t win g tip . 18 . Du e t o th e above-reference dinoperabl e win g rol l spoilers , durin g th e flight , th e firs t

landin g attemp t

wa s aborted . 19 . Durin g th e flight , th e aircraf t wa s operate di n an unairworth y condition . 20 . Durin g th e flight , th e aircraf t wa s operate di n acareles s o r reckles s manne r s o a s t o endange r

th e lif e o r propert y o f

another . Il l B y reaso n o f

th e foregoin g fact s an dcircumstances , Responden t violate dth e followin g section(s ) o f

th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulations : a . Sectio n 121.153(a)(2) , whic h state s that n o certificat e holde r

ma y operat e an aircraf

t unles s tha t

aircraf t i s i n an airworth y conditio n an d

### meet s th e applicabl e airworthines s requirements , includin g thos e relatin g t o identificatio n an dequipment . b . Sectio n 121.628(a)(5) , whic h state s tha t n o perso n ma y tak e of

f a n airplan e with inoperabl e instrument s o r equipmen t

installe dunles s th e airplan e i s operate dunde r al l applicabl e condition s an dlimitation s containe di n th e Minimu mEquipmen t Lis t an dth e operation s specification s authorizin g us e o f th e Minimu mEquipmen t List .

c . Sectio n 43.13(a) , whic h state s tha t eac h perso n performin g maintenance , alteration , o r preventiv e maintenanc e o n a n aircraft , engine , propeller , o r

applianc e shal l us e th e methods , techniques , an d practice s prescribe di n th e curren t manufacturer' s maintenanc e manua l o r Instruction s fo r

Continue dAirworthines s prepare db y it s manufacturer , o r

othe r methods , techniques , an dpractice s acceptabl e t o th e Administrator , excep t a s note di n §43.16 . H e shal l us e th e tools , equipment , an dtes t

apparatu s necessary t o assur e completio n o f th e wor k i n accordance with accepte dindustry practices . I f specia l equipmen t

o r tes t apparatu s i s recommende db y th e manufacture r

### involved , h e mus t us e tha t equipmen t

o r apparatu s o r

it s equivalen t acceptabl e t o th e Administrator . d . Sectio n 43.13(b) , whic h state s tha t eac h perso n maintainin g o r altering , o r

performin g preventiv e maintenance , shal l d o tha t work i n suc h amanne r

an dus e material s o f

suc h aquality , tha t

th e conditio n o f th e aircraft , airfirame , aircraf t engine , propeller , o r

applianc e worke d o n wil l b e at

leas t equa l t o it s origina l o r

properl y altere dconditio n (with regar dt o aerodynami c fimction , structura l strength , resistance t o vibratio n an ddeterioration , an dothe r qualitie s affectin g airworthiness) .

e . Sectio n 91.7(a) , whic h state s tha t n o perso n ma y operat e acivi l aircraf t unles s i t i s i n a n airworth y condition .

I V 1 . Pursuan t

t o 4 9 U.S.C . §46301(a)(l) . Responden t i s subjec t

t o acivi l penalt y no t

t o excee d$25,00 0 for

eac h o f th e violation s alleged , or , fo r asmal l busines s concern , pursuan t t o 4 9 U.S.C . §46301(a)(5) . Responden t i s subjec t

t o a civi l penalt y no t

t o excee d$11,00 0 fo

r eac h o f th e violation s alleged .

### 2 . Unde r th e fact s an dcircumstance s o f thi s case , acivi l penalt y o f $15,00 0 i s appropriate . WHEREFORE , th e FAA , b y counsel , respectfull y request s that th e Administrativ e La w Judg e ente r a n orde r that Responden t

b e assesse dacivi l penalty i n th e amoun t

o f $15,000 . Respectfull y submitted , Alfre dR . Johnson , Jr . Actin g Regiona l Counse l



### By : Davi dM . Cohe n Attorne y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 71 8 553-327 0 (718)995-569 9 NOTE : Th e Rule s o f

Practic e fo r

thi s proceedin g ar e se t fort h i n Par t

13 , Subpar t G , o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s (1 4 C.F.R . Par t 13) . Th e Rule s o f

Practic e provid e tha t Responden t

mus t fil e awritte n answe r t o thi s Complaint , o r

awritte n Motio n t o Dismis s i f appropriate , no t late r tha n 3 0 day s afte r

th e dat e show n o n th e Certificat e o f Service . A genera l denia l i s deeme dafailur e t o fil e a n answe r (Sectio n 13.209(e)) .

### CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y tha t th e foregoin g Complain t ha s bee n place dthi s dat e i n th e Unite d State s mail , postag e prepaid , b y Certifie dMai l - Retur n Receip t Requeste daddresse d a s follows : Jaso n Dickstei n Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C & La w Office s o f Ja s 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (Origina l an don e copy ) 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . / Washington , D.C . 2059 1 ^ Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Roo m201 4 -I F FILESf

G B Y FEDERA L EXPRES S Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (Origina l an don e copy ) 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Roo m201 4 Washington , D C 2059 1 Attii : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0

Date : %ji^

h ^ ^ 7 m \A\mntr\r\e ^ I ^"^- ^ 

### Mig^on e Lega l Technicia n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f Regiona l Counse l 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4s EXHiBr r 

# ! 3 SERVE D JUN E 7,201 0

U.S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D C V7V« . I N TH E MATTE RO F BRENDA N AIRWAYS , LLC . FA A DOCKE T NO . CP09EA000 7 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) DM S NO . FAA-2009-003 2 ' * ',"•+'".*•+'( ! ^^. . • '

ORDE RO F CHIE F ADMINISTRATIV E LA W JUDG E RONNI E A . YODE R DENYIN G RESPONDENT' S PARTIA L MOTIO N T O DISMIS S TH E COMPLAIN T AN D FO RA MOR E DEFINIT E STATEMENT , AN D GRANTIN G COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO N T O STRIK E TH E RESPONDENT' S SURREPL Y B y "Partia l Motio n t o Dismiss , an dfo r aMor e Definit e Statement " ("Motio n t o Dismiss" ) serve dFebmar y 12 , 2009 , Brenda n Airways , LLC , ("Respondent" ) seek s t o dismis s th e Complain t

file db y th e Actin g Regiona l Counsel , Easte mRegio n ("Complainant") , Federa l Aviatio n Administiatio n ("FAA") , arguin g tha t th e Complain t

faile dt o alleg e sufficien t fact s t o mak e ou t aprim afaci e cas e tiiat

Responden t

violate d1 4 C.F.R . § § 43.13(a) , 43.13(b) , 91.7(a) , an d121.153(a)(2). ' I n th e altemative . Responden t seek s a n orde r

fo r amor e definit e statemen t

' Motio n t o Dismis s a

t 3-8 . 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(a

) provides : "Eac

h perso n performin

g maintenance , alteration , o

r preventiv e maintenanc

e o n a n aircraft, engine , propeller, o

r applianc e shal l use th e methods , techniques , an

dpractice s prescribe

di n th e curren t manufacturer' s maintenanc

e manua l o r Instruction s fo

r Continue dAirworthines s prepare

db y its manufacturer

, o r othe r methods , techniques , an

dpractices acceptabl

e t o th e Administrator

, excep t a s note di n § 43.16 . H

e shal l us e th e tools , equipment

, an dtes t apparatus necessar

y t o assur e completio n o f th e wor k i n accordanc

e wit h accepte d industr y practices . I

f specia l equipmen t o r test apparatu s i s recommende

db y th e manufacture

r involved, h

e mus t us e tha t equipmen t o r apparatu s o

r it s equivalen t acceptabl e t o th e Administrator. " 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(b) provides : "Eac h perso n maintainin

g o r altering , o r performin g preventiv e maintenance , shal

l d o tha t wor k i n suc h amanne r an dus e material s o

f suc h aquality , tha

t th e conditio n o f th e aircraft , airframe, aircraf

t 1

-regardin g th e standar dtha t Complainan t

employ s t o "judg e th e airworthines s conditio n o f aircraf t unde r 1 4 C.F. R§ § 91.7(a ) an d121.153(a)(2). ^ B y it s "Answe r t o Respondents ' Partia l Motio n t o Dismis s an dfo r aMor e Definit e Statement " ("Answe r t o Motion" ) serve dMarc h 12 , 2009 , Complainan t

contend s tha t

it provide dResponden t

with sufficien t

notic e o f th e violation s allege di n th e Complain t an drequest s tha t

acivi l penalt y o f

$15,000 ^ b e assessed." * O n Marc h 18 , 2009 , Responden t serve d"Surrepl y t o Partia l Motio n t o Dismiss , an dfor a Mor e Definit e Statement " ("Surreply"). ^ I n response , o n Marc h 25 , 2009 , Complainan t serve d "Motio n t o Strik e th e Respondent' s Surrepl y t o Partia l Motio n t o Dismiss , an dfo r aMor e Definit e Statement " ("Motio n t o Strike" ) contendin g tha t th e Surtepl y i s redundan t an dma y no t b e filedat

thi s poin t

i n th e proceeding. ^ O n Apri l 2 , 2009 , Responden t serve d"Oppositio n t o Complainant' s Motio n t o Strik e Surreply " ("Oppositio n t o Motio n t o Strike") , arguin g tha t th e Surrepl y "i s avaluabl e expansio n o f th e record , an dshoul db e allowe din." ' Fo r th e reason s se t

fort h below , w e den y Respondent' s Motio n t o Dismis s an dgran t Complainant' s Motio n t o Stiike . 

### I . BACKGROUN D 1

engine , propeller , or

applianc e worke

do n will b e a

t leas t equa l t o its origina

l or properly altere dconditio n (wit h regardto aerodynami c function , structura l strength , resistanc e to vibratio n anddeterioration , an dothe r qualitie s affecting airworthiness). " 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(a) provides : "N o perso n ma y operate acivi l aircraf

t unles s i t i s in a n airworth y condition. " 14C.F.R . § 121.153(a)(2 ) provides : "Excep t a s provide di

n paragraph (c ) o

f thi s section , no certificat

e holde r ma y operate a n aircraf t unles s tha t aircraft.. . (2 ) I s in a

n airworth y conditio n andmeet s th e applicabl e airworthines s requirement s of

thi s chapter , including thos e relatin g to identification an dequipment. " ^ Motio n t o Dismis s a

t 7 , 8 . 'Compl.IIV-2 . ' ' Answe r t o Motion a

t 6-8 . ^ Sunepl y a

t 1 . Th e content s o

f the Sunepl y are discusse din Par t D o f thi s Order . * Motio n t o Strik e a t 2 . ^ Oppositio n t

o Motio n t o Strik e a t 1-2 .» N 8

Th e Complain t

allege s fiv e violation s o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s ("FARs") . First , i t allege s tha t

Responden t

operate dan aircraf

t i n an unairworth y conditio n i n violatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § § 121.153(a)(2 ) an d91.7(a). ^ Second , i t allege s tiiat

Responden t

flew tiie aircraf

t wit h inoperabl e instmment s o r equipmen t

an dtha t th e aircraf

t wa s no t operate di n accordanc e wit h th e applicabl e condition s an dlimitation s o f th e Minimu mEquipmen t Lis t ("MEL") , i n violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . § 121.628(a)(5).' ° Third , i t allege s tiiat

Responden t

faile dt o perfor m prope r maintenanc e o n th e aircraf t pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(a ) an d(b).^ ' Responden t argue s tiiat tiie allegation s tiiat i t violate d1 4 C.F. R§ § 43.13(a) , 43.13(b) , 91.7(a) , an d 121.153(a)(2 ) ar e "insufficien t o n thei r fac e an dmus t

therefor e b e dismissed."' ^ Th e Complain t

allege s th e followin g facts : O n Ma y 17 , 2008 , Responden t operate dan Airbu s A320-21 2 ("th e aircraft" ) o n aflight tha t too k of f an dlande da t

Miam i Internationa l Airpor t ("th e flight"). Prio r

t o th e flight, maintenanc e wa s performe do n th e aircraft , durin g th e cours e o f whic h th e spoile r

serv o actuator s fo r

lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive wer e place d i n maintenanc e mode.'' * Afte r th e maintenanc e wa s performed , th e spoile r serv o actuator s wer e no t returne dt o operationa l flight mode.' ^ Responden t

operate dth e flight

wit h th e spoile r

serv o actuator s i n maintenanc e mode.'* ^ Accordin g t o th e Airbu s Maintenanc e Manua l fo r th e aircraft , spoiler s lef

t i n maintenanc e mod e wil l caus e "unwante dmovemen t o f th e spoiler."' ^ Accordin g t o th e aircraft' s MEL , th e aircraf t canno t b e dispatche dwhe n tw o o r mor e spoiler s o n eithe r

win g

" Se e Compl . M ni-(a ) t

o ni-(e) . ' Se e id . H n-19 , m-(a) , in-(e) . ' ° Se e id . U n-1 1 t

o TL-16 , in-(b) . " Se e id . M n- 4 t

o H-S , in-(c) , m-(d) . ' ^ Motio n t o Dismis s a

t 3-8 . Th e Motio n t o Dismis s doe s no

t addres s Complainant' s clai

mtha t Responden t violate d 14C.F.R. § 121.628(a)(5) . " Compl . in-3 . 

### '*w.in-4 . "w.in-5 . " Se e id . irin-5 , H-I

O t o n-13 , H-IS , n-16 . " Id . 1 n-6 .ar e i n a n inoperabl e condition.' ^ Durin g th e flight, but prio r t o takeoff

, th e aircraft' s Electroni c Centralize dAircraf

t Monito r ("ECAM" ) displaye damessag e indicatin g tha t ther e wa s afailur e o f on e o f th e aircraft' s spoile r

servojacks . ' ^ Durin g takeoff , a s wel l a s twent y minute s int o th e flight, th e ECA M wa s indicatin g tha t fou r win g rol l spoiler s wer e "no t operationa l and/o r

wer e locke dout. " Th e aircraft' s pilot s wer e awar e tha t th e ECA M wa s indicatin g tha t fou r win g rol l spoiler s wer e "no t

operationa l and/o r

wer e locke dout."^ ' Durin g tfie aircraft' s firs t landin g attemp t a t Miam i Internationa l Airport , th e aircraft' s lef t win g ti p mad e contac t

wit h th e runwa y an dth e landin g attemp t

wa s aborted . Th e Complain t allege s tha t

thi s faile dlandin g attemp t wa s cause db y th e inoperabl e win g rol l spoilers.^ ^ Respondent' s Motio n t o Dismis s dispute s th e fact s allege di n th e Complaint . Accordin g t o Respondent , th e aurcraf t ha dreache dth e en do f

it s leas e t o Responden t

and , pursuan t

t o th e term s o f th e lease . Responden t

sen t th e aircraf

t fo r maintenance.^' * Responden t allege s tha t

after th e maintenanc e o n th e aircraf t wa s completed , th e aircraf t wa s t o b e returne dt o th e lessor.^ ^ Prio r t o returnin g th e aircraft , amaintenanc e acceptanc e flight wa s performe dt o ensur e tha t th e aircraf t wa s airworthy.'^ ^ Responden t contend s tha t

i t was onl y durin g th e flight, afte r take-off , tha t th e cre w discovere daproble mwit h th e win g rol l spoilers.^ ^ Responden t contend s tha t accordin g t o asubsequen t investigation , th e spoiler s ha dbee n move dint o maintenanc e mod e

"W.^n-14 . " Compl . ^n-10 , n-11 . ^ Id . M11-15 , n-16 . Th e fou r allegedly inoperativ e wing rol l spoiler s were : lef t wing rol l spoile

r No . 3 , lef t win g rol l spoile r No . 5 , right

wing rol l spoile

r No . 3 , andright

wing rol l spoile

r No . 5 . Th e Complain

t doe s no t indicat e wha t cause dright

win g rol l spoiler s No . 3 an dNo . 5 t o becom e inoperative . ^'W.in-13 . "W.1in-17,n-18 . ^^w.in-18 . ^ Motio n t

o Dismis s a

t 1-2 . "id . all . ''I d ''Id .durin g amaintenanc e operatio n conducte da t th e instructio n o f

th e aircraft' s subsequen t lessee.^ ^ Responden t

assert s tha t

"non e o f th e wor k ordere db y [Respondent ] woul dhav e require dth e spoiler s t o b e move dint o maintenanc e mode , an dnon e o f [Respondent's ] wor k

instruction s authorize dshiftin g th e spoiler s int o maintenanc e mode."^ ^

t n . DISCUSSIO N Sectio n 13.208(c ) o f

FAA' s Rule s an dPractic e set s ou t th e standar dfo r

adequac y o f

a Complaint : " A complain t shal l se t fort h th e fact s alleged , an y regulatio n allegedl y violate db y th e respondent , an dth e propose dcivi l penalt y i n sufficien t detai l t o provid e notic e o f an y factua l o r lega l allegatio n an dpropose dcivi l penalty."^ " A motio n t o dismis s fo r

insufficienc y ma y b e grante di f i t i s shown — "tha t th e complain t

fail s t o stat e aviolatio n o f aprovisio n o f

th e Federa l aviatio n statut e liste di n tiie firs t

sentenc e i n 4 9 U.S.C . 46301(d)(2 ) o r i n 4 9 U.S.C . 47531 , o r an y implementin g rule , regulation , o r order , o r aviolatio n o f

th e Federa l hazardou s material s transportatio n statute , 4 9 U.S.C . 5121-5128 , o r an y implementin g rule , regulatio n o r order."^ ' Responden t

argue s tha t

fou r o f th e claim s allege di n th e Complaint , rea di n th e ligh t mos t favorabl e t o Complainant , ar e insufficien t becaus e the y alleg e lega l conclusion s instea do f facts.^ ^ Responden t

cite s Cleg g v . Cul t

Awarenes s Networ k

i n suppor t

o f th e propositio n tha t allegin g solel y lega l conclusion s i s insufficien t i n notic e pleading.^ ^ Yet , a s th e Complainan t

''I d ^ ° 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.208(c) ; Cit y ofPfiila. , FA

A Docket No . CP08EA0009 , FDM S No . FAA-2008-0510 , Administrativ e La

w Judge' s Orde

r Granting in Par

t andDenying in Par

t Motio n t o Dismis s th e Complain

t a t 3 (Au g 5,2008) . ^ ' 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(1) . " Motio n t

o Dismis s a

t 3-8 . Th e fou

r allegedl y insufficien

t claim s ar e 1 4 C.F.R . § § 43.13(a) , 43.13(b) , 91.7(a) , an d 121.153(a)(2) . " Id . a t 3 (citin g generally Cleg g v . Cul t Awarenes s Network , 1 8 F.3 d752 , 754-5 5 (9t h Cir . 1994)) .notes""* , Cleg g was acas e betwee n privat e litigant s i n whic h di e Federa l Rule s o f Civi l Procedur e wer e controlling.'' ^ I n an administrativ e proceeding , acomplain t "i s sufficien t

i f th e responden t 'understoo dth e issue ' an d'wa s afforde dful l opportunity ' t o justif y it s conduc t

durin g th e cours e o f th e litigation.''' ^ O n amotio n t o dismiss , th e complaint' s allegation s ar e accepte da s true.^ ^ Accordingly , w e evaluat e th e sufficienc y o f tiie Complain t

unde r thi s standard . A . Th e 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(a ) an d(h ) Claim s Responden t

contend s tha t

"[i] n orde r

t o prov e aviolatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(a) , th e Admirustrato r

mus t alleg e [ ] tha t

th e Responden t

ha s use dcertai n methods , techniques , o r practices... " an dtha t

"a n integra l elemen t

t o a43.13(b ) clai mi s [an ] allegatio n tha t th e Responden t

performe dth e maintenance. " Responden t argue s that , sinc e th e Complain t fail s t o alleg e tha t

Responden t

performe dth e maintenanc e at issue , o r tha t th e maintenanc e wa s performe dunde r

Respondent' s instruction , th e claim s shoul db e dismisse dfo r insufficiency.^ ' Complainan t

respond s tha t

i t i s irrelevan t

whethe r th e maintenanc e was performe dby , o r unde r th e directio n of

. Respondent.'* " "Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.363 , th e Responden t i s primaril y responsibl e fo r th e performanc e o f

th e maintenanc e o f

it s aircraf

t . . . [andthis ] regulatio n doe s no t

allo w ai r carrier s t o evad e thei r

primar y responsibilitie s b y delegatin g thei r maintenanc e obligation s t o thir dparties."'* '

^ Answe r t o Motio n a

t 5 n.3 . " See Cleg g a

t 75 4 (cas e reviewedunde

r FRC P 12(b)(6)) . ^ * Aloh aAirlines . Inc . v . Civi l Aeronautic s Bd. , 59 8 F.2 d250 , 26 2 (D.C . Cir . 1979)(quoting NLR B v . Macke

y Radi o & Tel . Co. , 30

4 U.S . 333.35 0 (1938)) ; Flyin g Foo dGroup , Inc . v . NLRB , 47 1 F.3 d178 , 18 3 (D.C . Cir . 2006) . " Riverdal e Mill s Corp. , FA A Orde r No . 2000-2 5 a

t 1 (Dec 21 , 2000 ) (citing , generally . Unite dState s v . Gaubert , 49 9 U.S . 315,327(1991)) . ' * Motio n t

o Dismis s a

t 4,5 . ''I d '" * Answe r t o Motio n a

t 6 . " " Id . (citin g Alask

aAirlines , Inc. , FA

A Orde r No . 2004-8 , a

t 6 (Sept 30,2004)) . 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.36 3 provides : (a ) Eac h certificat

e holde r i s primarily responsibl e for

- (1 ) Th e airworthines s o

f it s aircraft , includin g airframes , aircraf t engines , propellers , appliances , an dpart s thereof

; an d - 6 -I n Alask aAirlines , Inc. . a n ai r cairie r wa s hel dt o b e not

responsibl e fo r

th e maintenanc e deficiencie s performe db y it s independen t contractor s becaus e th e airlin e neithe r kne w no r

ha d reaso n t o kno w o f

th e maintenanc e deficiencies.'* ^ O n appeal , th e Administiato r reversed.'*' ' Accordin g t o th e Administiator , 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.36 3 "doe s no t allo w ai r carrier s t o evad e thei r primar y responsibilitie s b y delegatin g thei r maintenanc e obligation s t o thir dpartie s ... . Th e court s an dth e Administiato r .. . hav e indicate drepeatedl y i n pas t case s tha t

a n ai r carrier' s duties , whic h includ e astatutor y dut y t o exercis e th e highes t possibl e degre e o f

care , ar e non delegable."'* ^ Unde r

§ 121.363(b) , "arrangm g maintenanc e wit h someon e els e doe s no t reliev e th e ai r carrie r o f it s primar y responsibilit y fo r airworthines s an dmamtenance."'* ^ Th e Administrato r

als o pointe dt o an FAA-issue dguidanc e emphasizin g ai r carriers ' responsibilit y fo r maintenanc e performe db y independen t contractors . Accordingly , w e findtha t th e Complain t

allege s sufficien t

fact s which , i f

proven , woul dsuppor t

aconclusio n tha t

Responden t violate d1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(a ) an d(b) . Th e Complam t

allege s tiiat

Responden t

violate d1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(a ) whe n i t performe d maintenanc e o n th e aircraf t withou t usin g th e methods , technique s an dpractice s prescribe di n th e curren t manufacturer' s maintenanc e manua l fo r th e aircraft.'* ^ Th e Complain t fiirther claim s tha t Responden t

violate d1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(b ) whe n Responden t di dno t perfor mth e maintenanc e u i (2 ) The performanc e o

f th e maintenance , preventiv e maintenance , andalteratio n o f it s aircraft , including airframes , aircraf t engines , propellers , appliances , emergenc y equipment , an dpart s thereof , i n accordanc e wit

h it s manua

l andth e regulation s o

f thi s chapter , (b ) A certificat

e holde r ma y mak e arrangement s wit

h anothe r perso n fo

r th e performanc e o

f an y maintenance , preventiv e maintenance , o r alterations . However , thi s doe s no t reliev e th e certificat

e holde r o f th e responsibilit

y specifie din paragrap h (a ) of thi s section . " ^ FA A Docket Nos . CP02NM0001 , CP02NM0002 . an dCP02NM0003 , FDM S Nos . FAA-2002-11411 , 11412 , an d 11413 , Orde

r Granting Respondent' s Motio n fo r Decisio n at

3 (Ja n 10 , 2003) . " ' Alask aAirlines , Inc. , FA

A Orde r No . 2004- 8 a

t 1 (Octobe

r 4 , 2004) . ^ I da t 6 . * * Id . (emphasi s in original) . ^ Id ; Flight

Standard s Handboo

k Bulletin fo r

Airworthiness , HBAW-1996-05 B a t 2 (1996) : eac h airlin e i s "responsibl e fo

r the performanc e of

al l element s o

f it s continuou s airworthines s maintenanc e program. " '' ^ Se e Complain

t H n- 4 t o H-S , in-(c) . - 7 -amanne r tha t resulte di n th e conditio n o f th e aircraf

t bein g a t leas t equa l t o it s origina l o r A Q properl y altere dcondition . Unde r Alask aAirlines . Inc. . Responden t wa s responsibl e for

th e maintenanc e performe do n th e aircraft.'* ' Althoug h Responden t claim s tha t

i t di dnot orde r tfie maintenanc e procedure s tha t cause dth e spoiler s t o b e lef t i n maintenanc e mode . Responden t admit s tha t

th e aircraf

t wa s unde r leas e t o Responden t

whe n Responden t

sen t th e aircraf

t fo r maintenance^" , an dth e Complain t allege s tha t

Responden t

operate dth e aircraf

t o n th e flight

afte r maintenanc e was performed.^ ' A s th e ai r carrie r operatin g th e aircraft . Responden t was responsibl e fo r

th e aircraft' s maintenance , howeve r

th e maintenanc e was ordered.^ ^ Moreover , th e facts allege dar e sufficien t t o suppor t

th e clai mtha t

th e maintenanc e wa s improperl y conducted . Th e Complain t allege s tha t

Responden t

operate dth e aircraf

t o n th e flight.^^ Prio r

t o th e flight, th e aurcraf

t underwen t

maintenance.^' * A s aresul t o f tha t maintenance , th e aircraft' s spoile r serv o actuator s fo r

lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfiv e wer e allegedl y lef

t i n maintenanc e mod e fo r th e duratio n o f

th e flight, contrar y t o th e Airbu s Maintenanc e Manua l fo r th e aircraft.^ ^ Further , th e aircraft' s ME L allegedl y proscribe s dispatchin g th e aircraf

t whe n tw o o r

mor e spoiler s o n eithe r

whi g ar e i n a n inoperabl e condition.^ ^ Sinc e bot h th e aircraft' s maintenanc e manua l an dth e ME L allegedl y warne dagains t leavin g tiie win g rol l spoiler s i n maintenanc e mod e durin g th e flight, th e Complain t allege s

* ' Se e id . I I n-4 , n-5 , H-S , in-(d) . * ' Se e Alask

aAirlines , Inc. , FA

A Orde r No . 2004- 8 a

t 5- 7 (Oc t 4 . 2004) : UnitedParce l Service , FA A Docket No . CP08SO0007 , FMD S No . FAA-2008-0384 , Administrativ e La w Judge' s Initia

l Decisio n at

2 n. 5 (Nov 13 , 2008) . ^ ° See Motion t

o Dismis s a

t 1- 2 (th e aircraf

t "wa s sen t t o arepair statio n fo r overhaul befor

e being returne dt

o the lessor") . ^ ' Complain

t f U-3 . Responden

t doe s not den y tha t i t operate dth e aircraf

t on th e maintenanc e acceptanc e fligh t an d the Motion t

o Dismis s merel

y state s tha

t th e "aircraf

t was flow n o n amaintenanc e acceptanc e flight. " ^ ' Se e Alask aAirlines , Inc. , a

t 2,5-7 . " Compl . 1 n-3 . ^ * I d1 n-4 . 

### " I dn n- 4 

### t o 

### n-6, n-12 , n-i3 , n-i5 , n-i6 . "w.l[n-i4 . - 8 -sufficien t

facts t o conclud e tha t

th e maintenanc e was conducte dcontrar y t o th e methods , techniques , an dpractice s prescribe di n th e curren t manufacturer' s maintenanc e manual , i n violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(a). " Th e Complain t

als o allege s sufficien t

facts t o conclud e tha t

maintenanc e o n th e aircraf t was conducte di n violatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(b) . Th e Complain t allege s tha t

bot h th e aircraft' s ME L an dth e Airbu s Maintenanc e Manua l warne dagains t dispatchin g th e aircraf

t wit h C O inoperabl e win g rol l spoilers . Th e Airbu s Maintenanc e Manua l allegedl y wam s tha t "i f th e spoiler s ar e lef

t i n th e maintenanc e mod e aerodynami c force s wil l cause d[sic ] unwante d movemen t

o f th e spoilers. " Moreover , th e ME L allegedl y wam s tha t a n aircraf

t ma y no t b e dispatche dwit h tw o o r

mor e spoiler s i n a n inoperabl e condition.^ ° Despit e thes e wamings , afte r maintenanc e wa s performe do n th e aircraft , th e aircraf t wa s allegedl y operate dwit h fou r inoperabl e spoilers.^ ' Thos e allege dfact s suppor t th e conclusio n tha t

Responden t

di dno t perfor mth e maintenanc e i n suc h amanne r tha t th e conditio n o f

th e akcraf

t wa s a t leas t equa l t o it s origina l o r

properl y altere dcondition . Accordmgly , Respondent' s allege dviolation s o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 43.13(a ) an d(b ) ar e sufficiend y pleade di n th e Complaint . Th e motio n t o dismis s thos e claim s i s denied .

B . Th e 1 4 C.F.R . § § 121.153(a¥2 ^ an d91.7(a ) Claim s Responden t

contend s tha t

i n orde r t o violat e 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.153(a)(2) , th e aircraf t mus t hav e bee n operate deitiie r "(1 ) i n a n unairworth y conditio n o r (2 ) mamaime r

tha t fail s t o mee t th e applicabl e aurworthines s requkement s o f Chapte r 1 o f th e CF.R.^ ^ Similarly , Responden t "w . Hn-6,n-14 . '^I d 

### ''w.in-6 . *°w . in-14 . * • I dT i n-5 , n-12 . n-13 . n-i5 , n-i6 . " Motio n t

o Dismis s a

t 6 .



### - 9contend s tha t t o violat e 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.7(a) , tiie aircraf t mus t hav e bee n operate di n a n unairworth y condition . Responden t argue s tha t

thos e claim s shoul db e dismisse dbecaus e th e Complain t

fail s t o describ e th e airwortliines s standar dtha t th e aircraf

t faile dt o meet , cit e a requiremen t

o f th e aircraft' s typ e desig n tha t th e aircraf

t faile dt o meet , o r

describ e aconditio n tha t mad e th e aircraf

t unsaf e t o fly. ' * Despit e Respondent' s concems , th e Complain t allege s fact s sufficien t t o suppor t

afindin g tiiat

tha t Responden t

violate d1 4 C.F.R . § § 121.153(a)(2 ) an d 91.7(a) . Th e akworthines s standar di s clear : "T o b e airworthy , an aircraf t must : (1 ) confor mt o atyp e desig n approve dunde r

atyp e certificat e o r

supplementa l typ e certificat e an dt o applicabl e Airworthuies s Directives ; an d(2 ) b e i n aconditio n for saf e operation."^ ^ Th e Complain t

contain s fact s allegin g tha t Responden t

violate dbot h prong s o f

thi s standard . First , th e Complain t

allege s tha t

th e aircraft' s conditio n durin g operatio n violate dth e aircraft' s MEL.^ ^ Operatin g an aircraf t whos e instrument s o r

equipmen t

ar e not i n conformit y wit h th e aircraft' s ME L ma y b e sufficien t t o dee mth e aircraf

t ou t o f conformit y wit h it s typ e design.** ' Th e Complain t

als o contain s fact s allegin g tha t th e aircraf

t was no t i n aconditio n fo r

saf e operation . Th e Complain t allege s tha t

durin g th e flight. Responden t operate dth e aircraf

t with tw o lef t win g rol l spoiler s i n maintenanc e mode , contiar y t o th e Airbu s Maintenanc e Manual.^ ^ Moreover , Responden t

allegedl y operate dth e flight wit h atota l o f

fou r inoperabl e win g rol l

" I da t 7 . " I da t 7 , 8 . " Del . Skyway

s LLC, FA A Orde r No . 2005- 6 a

t 2 (Ma r 8 , 2005) ; Cal . Helitech , FA

A Orde r No . 2000-1 8 a

t 2 n. 7 (Au g 11,2000) . ^ Se e Compl . I I n-14 , H-IS . Th

e ME L allegedl y indicate s tha

t th e aircraf t canno t b e dispatche dwhe n tw o o r mor e spoiler s o n eithe r win g ar e i n a n inoperabl e mod e an dth e Complain

t allege s that, durin

g di e flight , fou r win g rol l spoiler s (tw o th e lef t win g an d tw o o n th e righ t wing ) wer e inoperative . "Se e Delt aAi r Unes , Inc. , FA

A Orde r No . 97-2 1 a

t I (Ma y 28 , 1997 ) ("I t ha s lon g bee n th e agency' s positio

n tha t withou t a n applicabl e provisio n i n th e Minimu mEquipmen

t List, i f a n instrumen

t o r piece o f equipmen t i s inoperable , tfien th

e airworthines s certificat

e fo r th e aircraf t i s ineffective.") . 

### ^ * Compl . f i n-6 , n-12 , n-13 , n-i5 , n-i6 . -10

-spoilers ; and , accordin g t o th e aircraft' s MEL , th e aircraf t canno t b e dispatche dwhe n tw o o r mor e spoiler s o n eithe r

win g ar e i n an inoperabl e condition.^ ^ Finally , th e Complain t allege s tha t becaus e o f

th e inoperabl e win g rol l spoilers , tiie aircraft' s lef t win g ti p mad e contac t

wit h th e runwa y durin g tiie aircraft' s firs t landin g attempt , causin g th e landin g attemp t t o b e aborted.' " Th e Complain t

assert s tha t

th e aircraf

t ^yas operate di n a n unairworth y conditio n i n violatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § § 121.153(a)(2 ) an d91.7(a) ; an dtiie fact s allege di n tiie Complain t woul dsupport aconclusio n tha t

operatin g th e aircraf

t wit h fou r

inoperativ e win g rol l spoiler s cause dth e aircraf t t o b e operate dma n unsaf e condition. ' Accordingly , Respondent' s allege dviolation s o f 1 4 C.F.R . § § 121.153(a)(2 ) an d91.7(a ) ar e sufficienti y pleade di n tiie Complaint . Th e motio n t o dismis s thos e claim s i s denied . C . Mor e Definit e Airworthines s Standar d I n th e altemative . Responden t request s tha t

w e orde r Complainan t

t o "stat e th e fact s an d objectiv e standard s tha t

support " th e claim s tiiat Responden t

violate d1 4 C.F.R . § § 121.153(a)(2 ) an d91.7(a).' ^ Th e Rule s o f Practic e fo r

FA A Civi l Penalt y Proceeding s provid e tha t "[a ] part y ma y fil e amotio n fo r

mor e definit e statemen t

o f an y pleadin g whic h require s arespons e unde r thi s subpart."' ^ Responden t argue s tha t

th e Complain t

fail s t o provid e adequat e notic e o f "wha t objectiv e standard s th e FA A i s usin g t o judg e th e airworthines s conditio n o f th e aircraft."" * A s note dabove , th e airworthines s standar di s clear.' ^ Indeed , th e Motio n t o Dismis s indicate s tha t

Responden t

i s awar e o f

th e airworthines s standard , stating : "Th e ter m'airworthy ' ha s bee n define db y th e Administiato r an dth e court s t o mea n tha t th e aircraf

t meet s it s typ e *'w.lin-i4,n-i5 . TMw.in-i7,n-i8 . 

### ^'w.1H[n-i9,ni-(a),in-(e) . ' ' Motio n t

o Dismis s a

t 7 , 8 . " 1 4 C.F.R. § 13.218(f)(3) . ' " Motio n t

o Dismis s a

t 7 . " Del . Skyway s LLC , FA

A Orde r No . 2005- 6 a

t 2 (Ma r 8 , 2005) ; Cal . Helitech , FA A Orde r No . 2000-1 8 a

t 2 n. 7 (Aug 11 , 2000) .

- 11

-desig n an di s i n aconditio n fo r saf e operation."' ^ Moreover , Responden t employ s th e airworthines s standar di n settin g ou t it s argumen t

tha t th e Complain t

faile dt o mak e out

aprim a faci acas e tha t

Responden t

violate d1 4 C.F.R . § 121.153(a)(2). " Thus , th e Complain t was clea r enoug h fo r

Responden t

t o fram e aresponsiv e pleading , an dComplainan t i s no t requke dt o provid e amor e definit e statemen t o f airworthiness . ' ^ D . Complainant' s Motio n t o Strike th e Surrepl y Respondent' s Surrepl y contend s tha t th e standar dfor

sufficienc y i n administrativ e pleading s a s propose db y th e Complainan t i n it s Answe r

t o th e Motio n i s overl y lenient.^ " Th e Surrepl y als o contend s tha t FA A regulation s d o no t hol dapart y liabl e fo r

regulator y violation s tha t wer e no t committe db y th e party , an dtha t th e Complain t

fail s t o alleg e tha t

Responden t performe dth e deficien t

maintenance . Finally , th e Surrepl y argue s tha t th e Complain t

onl y allege s lega l conclusion s unsupporte db y prope r allegation s o f

fact.^ ^ Complainant' s Motio n t o Strik e respond s b y arguin g tha t th e Surrepl y shoul db e stricke n becaus e i t i s redundan t

an d because , unde r

1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218 , asurrepl y ma y not b e filedi n respons e t o aComplainant' s answe r t o aRespondent' s motion . Respondent' s Oppositio n t o th e Motio n t o Strik e contend s tha t 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.21 8 doe s no t proscrib e th e Surrepl y an dtha t th e Surrepl y "i s avaluabl e expansio n o f

th e record , an dshoul db e allowe din."^' *

^ * Motio n t o Dismis s a

t 6 (citin g Am

. Ai r Network, Inc. , FA

A Orde r No . 2008-1 0 a

t 1 1 n.3 5 (Oct

07 , 2008)) . ^ ^ Id . ( " .. . th e Administrator mus t alleg e tha t th e aircraf t (1 ) failedto mee

t a n airworthines s requiremen t i n th e regulations , or

(2 ) failedt

o mee t th e requirement s o

f it s typ e design , or

(3 ) was no t

i n aconditio n fo

r saf e operation") . ^ Se e supr anot

e 70 . ^ ' Th e Surreply refer s t

o th e Complainan

t a s "Administrator " i

n thi s proceeding , althoug h th e Complainan t is , i n fact , th e FA

A Actin g Regiona

l Counsel . Sinc e th e Administrator review s A U decision s i

n thes e proceedings , h e i s no t apart y i n thi s proceeding an

dcanno t b e involve din th e prosecutio n o f thi s case . * " 5e e Surreply a

t 1 . "W . at 2 ^ ' I da t 3 . * ^ Motio n t o Strik e a t 2 . ^ * Oppositio n t o Motio n t o Strike a t 2 . -12

-Th e Rule s o f Practic e for

FA A Civi l Penalt y Proceeding s provid e tha t "[a]n y part y ma y mak e amotio n t o stiik e an y insufficien t allegatio n o r

defense , o r

an y redundant , immaterial , o r

O f irrelevan t matte r i n apleading. "

" V I n Warbclow' s Ai r

Venture . Inc. , w e accepte dasurrepl y tha t presente dargument s tha t wer e no t mad e mth e party' s prio r filmgs . Unlik e tha t

proceeding , th e Surrepl y her e merel y reframe s argument s Responden t mad e i n it s Motio n t o Dismiss . First , th e Surrepl y contend s tha t th e standar dfo r

sufficienc y i n administrativ e pleading s a s propose db y th e Complainan t i n it s Answe r t o th e Motio n t o Dismis s i s overl y lenient.^ ' Accordin g t o th e Surreply , th e Complain t mus t alleg e facts , no t

merel y lega l conclusions.^ * Thi s essentiall y reiterate s Respondent' s argumen t i n th e Motio n t o Dismis s tha t "[a]llegm g lega l conclusions , rathe r tha n allegin g facts , i s insufficien t

i n notic e pleading. " Th e Surrepl y goe s o n t o conten dtha t FA A regulation s d o not hol dapart y liabl e fo r

regulator y violation s tha t wer e no t committe db y th e part y an dtha t th e Complain t

fail s t o alleg e tha t

Responden t

performe dth e deficien t

maintenance.' ^ Thi s argumen t mirror s Respondent' s argumen t i n th e Motio n t o Dismis s tha t th e Complaint' s failur e t o stat e fact s linkin g th e Responden t t o th e deficien t

maintenanc e "represent s afailur e t o stat e avita l elemen t i n th e caus e o f

action."' ' Finally , tiie Surrepl y reiterate s Respondent' s argumen t tha t th e Complain t

onl y allege s lega l conclusion s unsupporte db y prope r allegation s o f

facts.' ^ Sinc e tiie

" 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(f)(4) . Cf . Cit y ofChL , FA

A Docke t No . CP05GL0014 , DM

S No . FAA-2005-22671 . Orde r Denyin g Motio n t o Dismis s 1 (Fe

b 17 , 2006 ) (denyin g Motio n fo r Leav e t o File Repl y t o Answer , a s wel l a s Reques t fo r Respon dt o Repl y t o Answer , becaus e "nothin g i n th e Rules permit

s suc h areply , an

d nothin g i n th e repl y convinces u

s tha t i t shoul db e received") . * * Se e Warbelow' s Ai

r Venture . Inc. , FA

A Docke t No . CP00AL0002 , DM

S No . FAA-2000-7215 , Orde r o f Chie f Administrativ

e La w Judge a t 3 (Jun e 14,2005) . "Surrepl y a

t 1 . ^ Id . a t 3 ("[m]erel

y statin g th e lega l conclusions , withou

t factua l support , i s insufficient") . * ' Motio n t o Dismis s a

t 3 (citin g Cleg g v . Cul t Awarenes s Network

, 1 8 F.3 d752,754-5 5 (9t

h Cir . 1994)) . ' " Surrepl y a t 2 " Motio n t o Dismis s a

t 4 . ' ^ Surrepl y a t 3 . Se e Motio n t o Dimis s a t 3-7 . -13

-Surtepl y merel y reiterate s argument s alread y presente db y th e Responden t i n it s Motio n t o Dismiss , it

i s redundant . Accordingly , th e Motio n t o Strike i s granted . II L CONCLUSIO N Accordingly , w e conclud e tha t th e Complain t

allege s sufficien t

fact s an dI T I S ORDERE D THAT : (1 ) Respondent' s "Partia l Motio n t o Dismiss , and . fo r aMor e Definit e Statement " i s denied ; (2 ) Complainant' s "Motio n t o Strik e th e Respondent' s Surrepl y t o Partia l Motio n t o Dismiss , an dfo r

aMor e Definit e Statement " i s granted . (3 ) Pursuan t

t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(2)(ii) , Responden t shal l serv e an dfil e a n answe r no t late r tha n 1 0 day s after

servic e o f

thi s order.^ ^

S O ORDERED .

A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w ludg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis t

' ^ 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(2)(ii ) state s tha t "[i] f the motio n to dismis s i s no t granted , the responden

t shal l file a

n answe r andshall serv e acopy o

f th e answe r o n eac h part

y no t late r tha n 1 0 day s afte

r servic e o f th e administrativ e la w judge' s rulin g or

orde r o n th e motion t

o dismiss. " -14

-FA A Docke t No . CP09EA000 7 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L & ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administiatio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000^' *

ON E COP Y Jaso n Dickstei n Washingto n Aviatio n Group , PC , an dth e La w Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , N.W. , Ste . 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 TEL : (202)628-677 6 FAX : (202)628-894 8 Davi dM . Cohen , Attome y Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counsel , EAL- 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 TEL : (718)553-327 0 FAX : (718)995-569 9 Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r Chie f Administtativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 Roo mE12-32 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : (202)366-214 2 FAX : (202)366-753 6

' * Servic e wa

s b y U.S . Mail . Fo r

servic e i n perso n o r by expedite dcourier , us e the following address : Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 , Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 . 1 5

### U.S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATION FEDERA L AVL^TIG

N ADMINISTRATION OFFICE O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . I n tiie Matte

r o f Brenda n Airways , LLC DM S No . FAA-2009-003 2 FA A Docket No . CP09EA0007 FA A Cas e No . 2008EA17003 8 Chief Administrativ e La

w Judg e Yode

r EXHIBI T 

# J^ ^

AMENDE D COMPLAIN

T Th e Federa

l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA) , b y counsel , hereb y file s it s Amende d Complaint , pursuant

to Rul e 20 8 o f

tiie Rule s o f

Practic e (1 4 C.F.R . 13.214) , and state s a s follows : I Respondent , Brenda

n Airways , LLC , wa s advise dthrough aFina l Notic e o f Propose dCivi l Penalt

y tha t th e FA A propose dt o asses s acivi l penalt y i n th e amoun

t o f $15,000 . On Januar

y 2 , 2009 , Responden

t submitte dawritte n demandfo r a hearing . O n Januar

y 14,2009 , th e Complaman t filedaComplaint . I I 1 . Brenda

n Airways , LLC (hereinafte r "Brenda n Airways" , "you " o r "your" ) i s th e holder

o f Air Carrier Certificat e No . U30A762J . 2 . Pursuan

t to th e abov e reference dair carrie r certificat e you ar e authorize dto conduct

operation s unde

r Par t 12 1 o f th e Federa

l Aviatio n Regulation s (FAR) .

### 3 . O n o r abou t Ma y 17 , 2008 , yo u operate dan Airbu s A320-212 , (hereinafte r

"th e aircraft") , identificatio n numbe r N265AV , o n aflight tha t too k of f an dlande dat

Miam i Internationa l Airport , Florid a (hereinafte r

"tii e flight") . 4 . Prio r

t o th e flight , maintenanc e wa s performe do n th e aircraf t i n whic h th e spoile r

serv o actuator s for

lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfiv e wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mode . 5 . Subsequen t

t o th e aforementione dmaintenanc e th e spoile r serv o actuator s fo r

lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfiv e wer e no t returne dt o th e operationa l mod e prio r t o th e flight. 6 . Pursuan t

t o th e Airbu s Maintenanc e Manua l for thi s aircraf

t i f th e spoiler s ar e lef

t i n th e maintenanc e mod e aerodynami c force s wil l cause dunwante dmovemen t o f th e spoiler . 7 . B y virtu e o f

th e foregoing , yo u performe dmaintenanc e o n th e aircraft' s lef

t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive withou t usin g th e methods , techniques , an dpractice s prescribe di n th e curren t manufacturer s maintenanc e manua l o r Instruction s Fo r

Continue d Airworthiness prepare db y it s manufacturer , o r othe r methods , techniques , an dpractice s acceptabl e t o th e Administrator . 8 . B y virtu e o f

th e foregomg , yo u performe dmaintenance , withou t doin g th e work i n suc h amaime r

tha t th e conditio n o f

th e aircraft , airframe , aircraf t engine , propeller , o r

applianc e worke do n wa s at leas t equal t o it s origina l o r

properl y altere dcondition . 9 . Durin g th e flight, th e aircraf t too k of f a t approximatel y 172 5 Universa l Tim e Coordinate d(UTC ) an dlande dat approximatel y 204 5 UTC . 10 . Durin g tiie flight, bu t prio r t o takeoff

, an ambe r

"LA F DEGRADED " messag e wa s displaye do n th e aircraft' s Electroni c Centralize d Au-craf t Monito r (ECAM) . 11 . Th e ambe r

LA F DEGRADE D messag e o n tiie aircraft' s ECA M come s o n whe n ther e i s afailure o f on e o f th e aircraft' s spoile r servojacks .

### 12 . Durin g tiie flight, bu t prio r t o takeoff

, th e ECA M mdicate dtiiat th e followin g win g rol l spoiler s wer e no t operationa l and/o r

wer e locke d out : a ) lef

t win g rol l spoile r

No . 3 ; b ) lef t win g rol l spoile r

No . 5 ; c ) right win g rol l spoile r

No . 3 ; d ) right win g rol l spoile r

No . 5 13 . Durin g th e flight, bu t prio r t o takeoff

, th e pilot s operatui g th e aircraf t wer e awar e tha t

th e aircraft' s ECA M indicate dtha t th e followin g win g rol l spoiler s wer e no t

operationa l and/o r

wer e locke dout : a ) lef t win g rol l spoile r

No . 3 ; b ) lef t win g rol l spoile r

No . 5 ; c ) right win g rol l spoile r

No . 3 ; d ) right win g rol l spoile r

No . 5 14 . Pursuan t

t o th e aircraft' s Minimu mEquipmen t Lis t (MEL ) th e aircraf

t canno t b e dispatche dwhe n tw o pai r o f symmetrica l spoile r

surface s thre e an dfive ar e inoperative . 15 . Notwithstandin g th e above , durin g th e flight yo u operate dth e aircraf

t durin g takeof

f an dthereafte r

wit h th e followin g inoperativ e instruments : a ) lef t win g rol l spoile r

No . 3 ; b ) lef t win g rol l spoile r

No . 5 ; c ) right win g rol l spoile r

No . 3 ; d ) right win g rol l spoile r

No . 5

### 16 . Durin g th e flight, an dwithi n twenty mmute s after takeoff , th e ECA M onc e agai n indicate dtha t th e followin g win g rol l spoiler s wer e no t operationa l and/o r

wer e locke dout : a ) lef t win g rol l spoile r

No . 3 ; b ) lef t win g rol l spoile r

No . 5 ; c ) right win g rol l spoile r

No . 3 ; d ) right win g rol l spoile r

No . 5 17 . Durin g th e flight, an dth e aircraft' s firs t landm g attemp t

at Miam i Internationa l Airport , th e aircraft' s lef t win g ti p contacte dth e runway causin g damag e t o th e lef t win g tip . 18 . Du e t o th e above-reference dinoperabl e win g rol l spoilers , durin g th e flight, th e firs t

landin g attemp t

wa s aborted . 19 . Durin g th e flight, th e aircraf t wa s operate di n a n imairworth y condition . 20 . Durin g th e flight, th e aircraf t wa s operate di n acareles s o r reckles s manne r s o a s t o endange r

th e lif e o r property o f

another . Il l B y reaso n o f

th e foregoin g fact s an dcircumstances , Responden t violate dth e followin g section(s ) o f

th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulations :

### a . Sectio n 43.13(a) , whic h state s tha t eac h perso n performin g maintenance , alteration , o r preventiv e maintenanc e o n an akcraft , engine , propeller , o r

applianc e shal l us e th e methods , techniques , an d practice s prescribe di n th e curren t manufacturer' s maintenanc e manua l o r Instruction s for

Continue dAirworthiness prepare db y it s manufacturer , o r

othe r methods , techniques , an dpractice s acceptabl e t o th e Administrator , excep t a s note di n §43.16 . H e shal l us e th e tools , equipment , an dtes t

apparatu s necessary t o assur e completio n o f th e work u i accordanc e wit h accepte dindustry practices . I f specia l equipmen t

o r tes t apparatu s i s recommendedb y th e manufacture r involved , h e mus t

us e tha t equipmen t

o r apparatu s o r

it s equivalen t acceptabl e t o th e Administrator . b . Sectio n 43.13(b) , whic h state s tha t eac h perso n maintainin g o r altering , o r

performin g preventiv e maintenance , shal l d o that work m suc h amanne r

an dus e material s o f

suc h aquality , tha t

th e conditio n o f th e aircraft , airframe , aircraf t engine , propeller , o r

applianc e worke d o n wil l b e at

leas t equa l t o it s origina l o r

properl y altere dconditio n (with regar dt o aerodynami c fimction, structura l strength , resistanc e t o

### vibratio n an ddeterioration , an dotiie r qualitie s affectin g airworthiness) .

c . Sectio n 91.7(a) , whic h state s tha t n o perso n may operat e acivi l aircraf t unles s i t i s i n an airworth y condition . d . Sectio n 91.13(a) , whic h state s tha t n o perso n ma

y operat e a n aircraf

t in acareles s o r

reckles s manne r

s o a s t o endange r

th e lif e o r property o f another . I V 1 . Pursuan t

t o 4 9 U.S.C . §46301(a)(l) . Responden t i s subjec t

t o acivi l penalt y no t

t o excee d$25,00 0 for

eac h o f th e violation s alleged , or , fo r asmal l busines s concern , pursuan t t o 4 9 U.S.C . §46301(a)(5) . Responden t i s subjec t

t o a civi l penalt y no t

t o excee d$11,00 0 for

eac h o f th e violation s alleged . 2 . Unde r th e fact s an dcircumstance s o f thi s case , acivi l penalt y o f $15,00 0 i s appropriate .

### WHEREFORE , th e FAA , b y counsel , respectfull y request s that th e Administrativ e La w Judg e ente r an orde r tha t Responden t

b e assesse dacivi l penalty i n tiie amoun t

o f $15,000 . Respectfiill y submitted , Alfre dR . Johnson , Jr . Regiona l Counse l

By : Davi dM . Cohe n Attome y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 71 8 553-327 0 (718)995-569 9 NOTE ; Th e Rule s o f

Practic e fo r

thi s proceedin g ar e se t fort h i n Par t

13 , Subpar t G , o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s (1 4 C.F.R . Par t 13) . Th e Rule s o f

Practic e provid e tha t Responden t

mus t fil e awritte n respons e t o thi s Amende dComplaint , o r awritte n Motio n t o Dismis s i f appropriate , no t

late r tha n 2 0 day s afte r

th e dat e show n o n th e Certificat e o f Service . A genera l denia l i s deeme dafailur e t o file a n answe r (Sectio n 13.209(e)) .

### CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y tha t th e foregoin g Amende dComplain t ha s bee n place dthi s dat e i n th e Unite dState s mail , postag e prepaid , b y Certifie dMai l - Retur n Receip t Requeste daddresse da s follows : Th e Honorabl e Roimi e A . Yode r Chie f o f Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 Roo mEl2-32 0 U S Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Jaso n Dickstei n Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C & La w Office s o f Jaso n Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (Origina l an don e copy ) 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Athi : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Roo m201 4

Date : 

# !0\±li} . 

# ^Lf L Lis aHook s Paralega l Specialis t Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f Regiona l Coimse l 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4b.«.*A« ^ ^^ « ^J«JFI' I i_ni u ui-hiut s O F JRSO N DIC K202628894 8 p . 2 EXHIBI T 

## J T BEFOR E TH E U S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N Th e Honorabl e Chie f

Administrativ e La w Judg e Ronni e A . Yoder 

### I n th e matter

o f BRENDAN AIRWAYS , LLC , d/b/aUSA300 0 Airline s

Respondent DM S No. : FAA-2009-003 2

FAA Docket

No. : CP09EA000 7 FAA Cas e No. : 2008EA17003 8

AM£ND£ B ANSWE R

Come s no w th e Respondent , Brendan Airways , LL C d/b/aUSA300 0 Airlme s [hereinafte r 'TJSAaOOO'

T andAMEND S it s ANSWERi n th e above-«aptiane dmatter , previousl y file dJun e 16,2010 , t o includ e a n AFFIRMATIV E DEFENS E that becam e ripe o n Augus t

24,2010 . For th e convenienc e o f

th e partie s an dth e Court , th e entire Answe r i s restate d her e a s i t wa s originall y state d(wit

h onl y th e additio n o f

th e afiflnnative defense) . Thi s amendment

i s filedtoda

y becaus e th e affiinuitiv e defens e becam e ripe o n Augus t 24,2010 , bu t

Counse l fel

t th e nee dt o allo w sufficien t time t o assure tha

t n o appea l wa s bein g fde dan dthat

th e underlyin g matte r

upo n whic h collatera l estoppe l i s base dhadbecome final . 1 . Paragrap h 11(1 ) i s admitted . 2 . Paragrap h 11(2

) i s admitted . 3 . Paragrap h 11(3 ) i s admitte di n part , bu t denie dt o th e exten t

that th e us e o f

th e word"operated " implie s anythin g other than a n operational chec k o f maintenanc e perfonned . 4 . Pan^rap h 11(4

) i s admitte di n part , t o th e exten t tha t maintenanc e wa s perfonned , bu t denie di n part , in tha

t placement

o f spoile r serv o actuator s i n th e maintenanc e mod e wa s no t

par t o f th e maintenanc e performe do n th e aircraf t

RESPONDENT s AMENDE D ANSWE R Page t Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e LA W Office s o f

Jaao n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wiscons mAvenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6i_nu j urriut b UI - JHSO N DIC K202628894 8 p. 3



### 5 . Paragrap h II(S ) i s denie dt o th e exten t tha t i t implie s alin k

betwee n th e maintenanc e an dth e spoiler serv o actuator s bein g place di n th e maintenanc e mode . 6 . Paragrap h 11(6

) i s admitted . 7 . Paragrap h 11(7

) i s denied . 8 . Paragrap h 11(8

) i s denied . 9 . Paragrap h 11(9

) i s admitted . 10 . Paragrap h 11(10

) i s admitted . 11 . Paragrap h 11(11 ) i s denied . 12 . Paragrq) h 11(12

) i s admitte di n part , to th e exten t that suc h awarnin g wa s visibl e o n th e ECAM , bu t

denie di n part , i n that

th e warnin g wa s cleare dandreasonabl y deeme db y th e flight

cre w t o b e spurious . 13 . Paragrap h 11(13 ) i s denied . 14 . Paragrap h 11(14

) i s denied . 15 . Paragrap h 11( 1 S ) i s admitted . 16 . Paragrap h 11(16) i s admitted . 17 . Paragrap h 11(17 ) i s admitted . 18 . Paragrap h 11(18 ) i s admitte dmpart , i n tha t th e landin g wa s aborted , bu t denie dt o th e extent that th e paragrap h claim s acausa l relationship . 19 . Paragrap h 11(19) i s denied . 20 . Paragrap h 11(20

) i s denied . 21 . Th e Lega

l Conclusion s o f

Paragrap h H

I ar e denied . 22 . Th e Legal Conclusion s Concemin g Penalt y foim di n Paragn^ h I V ar

e denied . AFFIRMATIV E DEFENS E O F COLLATERA L ESTOPPE L 23 . Ton y Sco t

Suiratt an dFran k

WilliamWalker

were th e pilot s o n th e aircraf t i n thi s case . 24 . Th e Administrato r

brought claim s agains t

Suirat t an dWalker

fo r violatio n of 91.7(a) , whic h i s th e sam e violatio n tha t i s allege di n th e cas e a t

bar . R£SPOND£>rr

s AMENDE D ANSWE RWashingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e Pag e 2 La w Office s o f Jaso n A . DickMei n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW , Suit e S0 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677

6. v^b:. ^ u r onau n uiU K i;a2B28894 a p. 4



### 25 . Th e 91.7(a ) issu e decide di n th e prio r adjudicatio n i s identica

l wit h th e 91. 7 and 121. 1 S 3 issue s i n thi s adjudication . 26 . Th e NTS B hel dthat

th e Administiato r

di dno t prov e tha t tiie pilot s ha dth e requisite knov^edg e t o fon n th e foundatio n o f aviolation . Thi s decisio n wa s a judgmen t o n th e merits . 27 . Th e Administrato r

claime dthat

Surratt andWalker

fedle dt o compl y wit

h th e applicabl e Mimmu mEquipment Lis t (MEL) . 28 . Th e MEL issu e decide di n th e prio r adjudicatio n i s identical wit h th e 121.62 8 issu e i n thi s adjudication . 29 . Th e NTS B hel dtha t

th e MEL s di dno t

appl y t o thi s situation , becaus e th e pilot s di dno t hav e knowledg e o f

th e spoile r

issue s befor

e th e flight . 30 . Th e NTS B rejecte damotio n fo r reconsideratio n o f

it s Order o n Jun e 25,2010 . 31 . Th e prio r

adjudicatio n becam

e fina l o n Augus t

24 , 2010 , whe n th e perio dfo r appea l lapse dwithou t

anotic e o f

appeal . 32 . Th e Administrato r

wa s apart

y t o th e prio r

litigation . 33 . Applicatio n of

estoppe l i n thi s cas e woul dno t wor k a n injustic e to an y party . RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED thi s 30ti i da y o f August , 2010 . WASHINGTO N AVIATIO N GROUP , P C AND TH E LA W OFFICE S O F JASO N A DICKSTEI N By _ ("^ ^ 

### Jaso n Dickstei n Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C andth e ^a w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3

WasWngton , D C 2000 7 Tel : (202 ) 628-677 6 Attome y fo

r Respondent

Brendan Airways , LLC d^/ aUSA300 0 Airline s

RESPONDENT S AMENDE D ANSWE

R Pag^ 3 Wasliingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsin Avenue , NW, Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6wii w Kj i rxi.>i=. o u r ji-iau n UIU K202G28894 8 p . 5

BEFOR E TH E U S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N 27t e Honorabl e Chie f

Administrativ e La w Judg e Ronni e A . Yode r I n th e matte r

o f BRENDA N AIRWAYS , LLC , d/b/ aUSA300 0 Airline s DM S No. : FAA-2009-003 2 FA A Docke t

No. : CP09EA0O0 7 FA A Cas e No. : 2008EA17003 8 CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E Responden t Th e undersigne dhereb y certifie s tha t sh e cause dth e attache d

• AMENDE D ANSWE R t o b e fileda t

th e addresse s liste dbelo w b y FedE x three-da y service , o n th e dat e mdicate d below . Federa l Aviatio n Adnainistratio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W WUbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 Washington , D C 2059 1 Atbi : Hearin g Docke t

Cleik , AGC-43 0 An dt o b e serve do n th e person s a t th e addresse s Uste dbelo w b y th e sam e metho da s th e filui g method , o n th e dat e indicate dbelow . Davi dM . Cohen , Attome y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counsel , EAL- 7 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 Tel : (718 ) 553-327 0 Fax:(718)995-569 9 Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e OfCc e o f Healings , M-2 0 Roo mE12-32 0 U S Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Tel : (202 ) 366-214 2 Fax : (202 ) 366-753 6

Augus t 31 . 201 0 Dat e CERTIFICAT

E O F SERVIC E Pag e 4 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e La w Offices o

f Jaao n A Dickstei

n 223 3 Wisconsi

n Avenue , NW

, Suit e 50 3 Washington , I X 2000

7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

# (S O 

# F Y BEFOR E TH E U.S . DEPARTMEN

T O F TRANSPOR f

ATIO N Th e Honorabl e Chie f

Administrativ e La

w Judg e RonnieiA . Yode

r I n th e matter

o f BRENDA N AIRWAYS , LLC , dOj/ aUSA300 0 Airline sResponden t DM S No. : FAA-2|09-003 2 FA A Docket No. : fcP09EA0007 i^y

^ FA A Cas e No. : 2(i)8EA17003 8 m RESPONS E T O COMPLAIN ; FIRS T SE T O F INTERROGATORIES , REQUES T FO RADMISSIONS , AN D REQUES T FO RPRODUCTIO N OF

DOCUMENT S Come s no w th e Respondent , Brenda n Airways , LLC d/b/ aUSA300 0 Airline s [hereinafte r "USA3000" ] andRESPOND S to tiie Complainant' s Firs t Set o f Interrogatories , Reques t

fo r Admissions , andReques t

fo r Productio n o f

Documents . Response s t o Interrogatorie s 1 . Identif y th e names , titles , busines s or hom e addresse s andtelephon e number s o f eac h perso n whomth e Responden t intend s to cal l a s awitnes s a t th e hearin g of

thi s matter . Response : Th e identit y o f an y witnesse s i s amatter

o f trial strateg y tha

t ha s no t yet bee n decided . The Responden

t reserve s th e right

t o amendthi s answe

r a s trial witnesse s ar

e identified . 2 . Provide th e substanc e o f th e testimon

y t o b e offeredb y eac h o f

sai dwitnesses . Response : Th e identit y of an y witnesse s i s amatte

r o f tria l stiateg y tha

t ha s no t yet bee n decided . Th e Responden

t reserve s th e right

t o amendthi s answe

r a s tria l witnesse s ar

e identified . 3 . Wit h respec t t o eac h exper

t witnes s identifie di n respons e t o reques t Nos . 1 and2 above : (a) identif y th e subjec t

matte r o n which th e exper

t i s expecte dt o testify ; (b ) lis t th e substanc e o f

th e fact s andopinion s t o whic h th e exper t i s expecte dt o testify ; (c ) provid e asummar

y o f th e ground s fo

r eac h opinion ; (d ) i f th e Respondent

intend s t o intioduc e into evidenc e o r otherwis e rely upo n a writte n curriculu mvitae or othe r writte n document

listin g th e expert' s professiona

l qualifications , identif

y andattac h copie s o f

all such documents .

### Response :

Th e identit

y o f an y exper t witnesse s i s amatter

o f tiial strateg y tha

t ha s no t yet bee n decided . The Responden

t reserve s th e right

to amendthi s answe

r a s exper t witnesse s ar

e identified . 4 . To th e extent

no t encompasse di n your

respons e to Nos . 1,2 , and3 above , identif y and produc e statement s o f

al l individual s who spok

e to , or were interviewe dby , th e Responden t regardin g thi s matter . Response : W e objec t t o thi s interrogator

y t o th e extent

tha t i t migh t b e interprete dt o includ e interview s conducte db y Counsel , o n th e ground s that such interview s ar

e protecte dfiro

mdiscover

y a s Attome y Wor

k Product . Al l Responden

t conversation s ar

e detaile di n aJun e 11,2008 , letter fro mRespondent

t o Laurenc e Johnson , outlinin g th e interview s conducte danddescribin g th e informatio n gleaned fro mthem . Tha

t letter i s attached . Tw o additiona l document s exis t

tha t are als o responsiv e (bot h ar e als o attached) :

• The Respondent

intervie w o f

Jo e Miller

resulte di n aseparat e summar y o f th e interview . A cop y o f th e Jun e 13 , 200 8 letter

tha t wa s produce da s asummar y o f th e intervie w i s attached . • Th e Respondent

aske dChie f

Pilo t Ti mLyon s wh

y Captain Walke

r wa s in th e lef

t sea t durin g th e flight. A Jun e 3,200 8 emai l describin g th e answe r i s attached . 5 . Identif y andproduc e copie s o f

an y an dal l document s o n whic h th e Respondent anticipate s relying , o r

wil l rely , i n suppor

t o f th e cas e i t

wil l presen

t a t th e hearin g i n thi s matter , includin g bu t

no t limite dt o document s you inten dt o intioduc e int o evidence . Response : Responden

t anticipate s relyin g o n • The transcrip t

o f th e enforcemen

t actio n Babbit

t v . Surrat t andWalke

r (NTS B Docke

t Nos . SE-1856 2 an dSE-18563) . • Th e Decisio n o f

Judg e Fowle

r i n th e enforcemen

t actio n Babbit

t v . Sunat t andWalke

r NTS B Docket

Nos . SE-1856 2 andSE-1856 3 (Issue dorally Augus t 12,200 9 an

dissued in writin g o n Septembe

r 2,2009) . • Th e Decisio n o f

th e NTS B denyin g th e appea l o f th e enforcemen

t actio n Babbit

t v . Surrat t andWalker

EA-551 4 (NTS B Marc h 23,2010) . • Th e Decisio n o f

th e NTS B denyin g th e petitio n fo r reconsideratio n i n th e appea l of the enforcemen

t actio n Babbit

t v . Sunrat t andWalke

r EA-552 7 (NTS B Jun e 25 , 2010) . • The fou

r document s attache dt

o th e Respondent' s Discover y Reques t date dJun e 21 , 2010 , whic h hav e previousl y bee n provide dt o th e Complaman t (wit h tha t Discover y Request) . • The document s attache dt o thi s Response .

### Responden t object s t o th e directio n t o produc e copie s o f th e case s andtranscript s mentione d above , a s th e tianscripts an dcas e decision s are alread

y in th e possessio n o f

th e FA A an dth e case s ar e als o availabl e throug h standardonlin e researc h mechanisms . Th e specifi c identit

y o f additionei l exhibit s i s amatte

r o f tria l strateg y tha

t ha s no t ye t bee n decided . Th e Respondent

reserve s th e right

t o amen dthi s answe

r a s trial exhibit s ar

e identified . 6 . Identif y who place dth e aircraft' s spoile r serv o actuator s fo

r lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive i n th e maintenanc e mode prio r t o th e flight

andbetween Apri l 29 , 200 8 andMarch 17 , 2008 . Response : During th e perio dApri l 18-April 29 , AA Rplace dth e aircraft' s spoile r serv o actuator

fo r lef t win g spoile

r thre e in th e maintenanc e mode . AA Rstate din aMa

y 30,200 8 letter

t o th e FA A tha t th e aircraft' s spoiler

serv o actuato r

fo r lef t win g spoile

r thre e wa s returne dto operationa l mod e on Apri l 29 . Thi s th e only tim e tha t th e aircraft' s spoiler

serv o actuato r

fo r lef t win g spoile r thre e wa s place din th e maintenanc e mode between March 17,200 8 andApri l 29,2008 . According t o th e record s w e have , th e aircraft' s spoile r serv o actuator

fo r lef t win g spoile

r five wa s no t place din maintenanc e mode betwee n March 17,200 8 andApri l 29,2008 . 7 . Explai n al l reason s wh

y th e aircraft' s spoile

r serv o actuator s fo

r lef t wm g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mode prio r to th e flight

andbetwee n Apri l 29 , 200 8 an dMarc h 17,2008 . Response : To ou r knowledge , th e aircraft' s spoiler serv o actuator

fo r lef t win g spoile

r thre e (bu t no t five) shoul dhav e been place di n th e maintenanc e mode onl y onc e betwee n Marc h 17,200 8 andApri l 29,2008 . Between Apri l 1 8 an dApri l 29,2008 , AA Rwa s workin g o n tiie lef

t wing' s numbe

r thre e spoile

r contiol . Thi s wa s don e a s par t of anon-routin e maintenanc e activit y tha t wa s accomplishe dpursuant

t o A32 0 AM

M 27-64-43 . A successful operationa l chec k o n Apri l 2 9 confirmedtha

t thi s spoile

r wa s returne dto th e operationa l mode . 8 . Identif y who and/o r

wha t entit y i s responsibl e fo

r th e aircraft' s spoile

r serv o actuator s fo

r lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e andfive bein g place di n maintenanc e mode prio r t o th e flight

an d explain wh

y yo u believ e tha

t perso n o r entit y i s responsible . Response : Aside fromth e wor

k describe di n th e respons e t o interrogator

y 7 , w e d o no t kno w who and/or wha t entit y i s specifically responsibl e fo r tiie aircraft' s spoile

r serv o actuator s fo

r lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e andfive bein g place di n maintenanc e mod e prio r t o th e flight.

### 9 . Answe r whether afailur e of one of th e aircraft' s spoiler

servojack s coul dcaus e a

n ambe r LA F DEGRADE

D messag e t o appea

r o n th e aircraft' s ECAM . Response : Yes , tha t i s one o f th e man y scenario s under

which a n ambe r LA F DEGRADE

D messag e migh

t appea r o n th e aircraft' s ECAM . 10 . Explai n al l reason s fo

r your belie f tha t th e aircraf t ca n b e dispatche dwhen lef

t an dright wing spoiler s thre e an dfive are inoperative . Response : W e object to thi s interrogator

y o n th e ground s tha

t it assume s a"belie f

tha t Responden

t ha s no t professed . Respondent

als o object s to thi s interrogator y o n th e ground s o f

relevance , becaus e th e ter minoperativ e i s define da s " asyste mor componen

t malfunction " andth e spoiler s i n thi s cas e wer e i n maintenanc e mode , no t

malfunctionin g 11 . I f you believ e that

th e aircraf

t i s in aconditio n fo

r saf e operatio n when th e aircraft' s lef t andright win g rol l spoiler s thre e andfive are inoperativ e pleas e state andexplai n al l reason s fo r you r belie f Response : Responden

t object s t o thi s interrogator y o n th e ground s tha

t thi s interrogator

y call s fo r a n opinio n concemin g safety , fo r whic h Responden

t doe s not hav e appropriate engineerin g datato respond . Respondent

als o object s t o thi s interrogator y o n th e ground s of

relevance , becaus e th e ter minoperativ e i s define da s " asystemo r componen

t malfimction " andth e spoiler s i n thi s cas e wer e in maintenanc e mode , no t medfunctionin

g Withou t waivin g thes e objections . Responden t state s tha t generally , i f

spoiler s are know n to b e inoperative , the n th e aircraf t shoul donly b e dispatche din accordanc e wit h th e aircraft' s MEL . 12 . If you believ e that

th e aircraf

t conform s t

o it s typ e certificat

e and/or typ e desig n whe

n th e spoile r serv o actuator s fo

r lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive ar e place di n th e maintenanc e mod e pleas e state andexplai n all reason s fo r your belie f Response : Maintenanc e mode i s provide db y th e manufacture r a s origina l equipment

o n th e aircraf

t an di s therefor e describe di n th e typ e desig n fo r th e aircraft .

### 13 . Explain all reason s fo r your belie f tha t th e placement

o f lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an d five i n th e maintenanc e mod e wa s no t part o f an y maintenanc e performe do n th e aircraft . Response : W e objec t t o thi s interrogator

y o n th e ground s tha

t i t misstate s ou

r contention . W

e hav e neve

r claime dtha

t tha t th e placement

of lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e andfive i n th e mauitenanc e mod e wa s not par t o f an y maintenanc e performe do n th e aircraft . We do no t kno w ho w o r

whe n th e lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e andfive wer e place din th e maintenanc e mode . Ou r contentio n i s tha t th e placemen

t o f lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e andfive i n th e maintenanc e mod e wa s not par t of an y maintenanc e tha

t wa s ordere dby , o r

withi n th e contio l of

, US A 3000 . In alette r to th e FA A date dMa

y 30,2008 , AA

R(th e maintenanc e contiactor ) admitte dtha t durin g th e cours e o f

th e visit , o n or

befor e Apri l 29,2008 , th e serv o sv/itche s fo r th e #2 , #3 an

d # 4 LEF T spoiler s andth e #4 and# 5 RIGH T spoiler s wer e place di n th e 'Maintenance ' mode. " AA Rindicate s tha

t o n or befor e Apri l 29 , it s investigatio n show s tha t th e serv o switc h fo

r th e #3 LEF T spoile r wa s place di n th e 'Maintenance ' mode " but the n wa s returne dt o th e operationa l mode . AA

Rindicate s that

it s record s andinvestigatio n sugges t tha t th e serv o switc h fo

r th e # 5 LEF T spoile r wa s never

place din th e 'Maintenance ' mod e durin g maintenanc e performedfo r USA3000 . AAR' s lette

r indicate s that

th e servo s wer e returne dt o th e operationa l mod e o n o

r befor e April 2 9 andtherefor

e i f the y wer e place din th e maintenanc e mod e i t hadt o hav e happene dafte

r th e Apri l 2 9 inspectio n that

confirme dthey were in th e operationa l mode . Tha t Ma y 3 0 lette r explain s tha

t whil e th e physica

l evidenc e show s tha

t o n o r befor e Ma y 17 , 2008 , lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e andfive wer e place di n th e maintenanc e mode , "there i s n o recor do f such actio n an dw e wer

e unabl e t o determin e who ma y hav e bee n involved. " USA300 0 require s al l maintenanc e to b e performe daccordin g t o wor k card s o r non-routin e cards . Th e USA300 0 wor

k card s were completed , andthere appear s t o b e n o other spoiler

relate dirregularitie s i n th e wor k card s or th e non-routin e cards . Non e o f th e wor k card s an dnon routin e card s tha

t were accomplishe do n o r

afte r Apri l 29,200 8 require dth e lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e andfive t o b e place di n th e maintenanc e mode . O n Ma y 15,2008 , Mr . Miller

an dMr . Beal o f

US A 300 0 performe dengin e test s o n th e aircraft . During th e cours e o f

thos e tests , Mr . Miller

ha doccasio n to perfor

maflight contio l test . H

e receive dn o ECA

M waming s abou

t th e spoiler s an dreceive dn o indicatio n that th e spoiler s wer

e i n maintenanc e mode . A s o f thi s date , al l o f

th e maintenanc e performe do n th e aircraf t befor e th e flight, ha

dbee n accomplished . 14 . Identif y wha t sectio n o f th e US A 300 0 Airline s MinimumEquipment List , if any , states , implies , or infer s tha t th e aircraf

t ca n b e dispatche dwhe

n tw o pair o f symmetrica

l spoile r surface s thre e andfive are inoperative . Response : Non e

### 15 . Pleas e identif y an y malfunction s tha

t occurre di n th e aircraft' s ECA M systemtha

t occurre dduring th e flight

bu t prio r t o takeoff . Response : Unknown . 16 . Pleas e describ e al l way s i n whic h i t wa s determine dtha

t th e ECA M syste m malfunctioneddurin g th e flight bu t prior t o takeoff . Response : W e object t o thi s interrogator

y i n tha t i t either i s duplicativ e o f

interrogator

y 15 , or els e i f i t i s substantively differen

t frominterrogator

y 1 5 then i t

i s askin g fo

r somethin g tha

t w e canno t understan d(to o vague) . 17 . If it i s you r belie f that th e ECA M failedt o repor

t tha t lef t andright win g rol l spoiler s thre e andfive wer

e inoperativ e and/or

wer e locke dout

a t an y tim e prio r

t o takeof f pleas e explai n all reason s wh

y you hol dthi s belief

. Response : Durin g th e matter

Babbit t v . Surrat t andBabbit

t v . Walker . Captai n Walke r andCaptai n Surrat

t each testifie dtha

t a t th e time o f

take-off , th e only messag e o n th e ECA M wa s "LA

F Degraded. " LA F Degrade dindicate s that

th e Loa dAlleviatio n Functio n (LAF) i s no t operatin g correctiy , an

d i s fo r cre w awarenes s only . 18 . If i t i s your belie f that th e pilot s aboar

dth e aircraf

t performe dasuccessful flight contio l chec k fo r th e flight, wit

h respec t t o th e check s fo

r th e spoilers , pleas e explai n al l reason s wh y yo u hol dthi s belief

. Response : W e object t o thi s interrogator

y o n th e ground s o f

relevance . Without

waivin g th e objection , w e stat e tha t durin g th e matter

Babbit t v . Surrat t andBabbit

t v . Walker . Captai n Walke r testifie dtha

t he complete dasuccessful flight contio l check

fo r th e flight, andCaptai n Surrat t testifie dtha

t hi s flight contio l chec k

wa s deeme dcomplete afte r th e seemingly-spuriou s waming s wer e cleared . 19 . Identif y anddescrib e al l reason s wh y durin g th e flight

th e aircraft' s lef

t win g ti p contacte dth e runwa

y durin g th e aircraft' s firs t landin g attempt . Response : Object on th e ground s that

i t call s fo r speculation . Without

waivin g thi s objection , th e force o f gravit y overcam e th e counteractin g force s of lif t wit h respec t t o th e wing .

### 20 . Identif y anddescrib e wha

t mechanica

l malfunction s in th e aircraft , if any , occurre d durin g th e flight. Response : A copy of th e aircraf t lo g page s describin g th e mechanica l malfunction s i s attached . 21 . Identif y an ddescrib e wha

t error s wer

e committe db y th e pilot s durin g th e flight, i f any , tha t ledto th e aircraft' s lef

t win g ti p contactin g th e runwa y durin g th e flight. Response : None identified . 22 . Describ e wha

t impact , i f any , th e inoperativ e win g rol l spoiler s hado n th e pilot s abilit y to maneuve r th e aircraf t durin g th e flight. Response : W e objec t o n th e ground s tha

t th e spoiler s were in maintenanc e mode - they wer e no t inoperative . Inoperativ e mean s asystemor componen

t malfunction , andmaintenanc e mode i s differen t from amalfunction . Withou t waivin g thi s objectio n w e repl y tha t th e actua l impac t th e win g rol l spoiler s hado n th e pilot s abilit y t o maneuve

r th e aircraf t durin g th e flight

i s unknown . Durin g fli^t, th e aircraf

t neede dt o b e trimme dandthi s ma y hav e bee n cause db y th e win g rol l spoiler s bein g in maintenanc e mod e bu t th e specifi c causa

l effect i s unknown . 23 . Answe r whether a n ambe r LA F DEGRADE

D messag e o n th e ECA

M i s suppose dt o g o of f i f spoile r 5 i s inoperable . Response : W e object o n th e ground s tha

t thi s i s argumentativ e and(a s drafted) no t relevant . Ther

e are man y reason s wh

y aLA F degrade dmesse^ e migh

t appear . Without

waivin g thi s objection . Responden

t state s tha t spoiler five wa s par

t o f th e loa dalleviatio n functio n system . If spoile r 5 wer e inoperable , the n yes , thi s i s on e o f th e event s tha

t migh t caus e a n amber LA F DEGRADE

D messag e to appea

r o n th e ECAM .

### 24 . Pleas e stat e whethe r th e documen

t attache da s Exhibit

1 i s a n accurate recordin g of

a conversatio n tha

t Jo e Miller , Director

o f Maintenanc e and Engineerin g fo r Brenda n Airway s LLC , d/b/ aUS A 300 0 Airlines , ha

d wit h a n Aviatio n Safet

y Inspecto r

employe dwit

h th e FAA . Response : Although it

appear s t o b e generally accurate a s to th e inspector' s perception , it i s no t averbatim recor do f th e conversation . 25 . I f yo u disagre e wit

h th e followin g statemen

t foun din Exhibi t

1 , or i f yo u don' t believ e thi s statement

wa s made by Mr . Miller , explai n all reason s fo r your belief: "Canno t

hav e bot h # 3 an d# 5 spoiler s INOP. " Response : W e object t o thi s questio n o n th e ground s tha t it misleadingly misstate s th e Jo e Miller statemen t b y takin g th e statement

out o f context . In context , th e statemen t wa s limite dt o arespons e t o a questio n about

dispatchin g a

n aircraf t know n to hav e inoperativ e spoilers , pursuan t t o th e USA3000 MEL . Taking th e interrogator

y a t fac e valu e (i n whic h th e statemen t doe s no t hav e it s limitin g context) , w e do disagree , becaus e i f

aproble mi s discovere ddurin g flight, the n th e pilot s are expecte dto refe r t o th e Quick

Referenc e Handbook

(QRH ) fo r instructions . If

tw o set s o f

spoiler s ar

e discovere dt o b e inoperativ e durin g flight, th e QR H state s tha

t th e pilot s shoul dconfir

mtha t th e intende dlandin g site ha s arunwa y tha t i s at leas t 1.2 5 time s longe

r tha n th e minimu mrunwa

y requirement . The QR

H provide s n o other

operatin g instructio n fo

r inoperativ e spoilers . Thus , one coul dhav e tw o set s o f

inoperativ e spoiler s durin g flight. 26 . Describ e th e relationship between AARAircraf t Service s an d Brenda

n Airways , LLC , d/b/ aUS A 300 0 Airlines , wit

h regard s t o th e aircraf

t i n th e time betwee n Apri l 1,200 8 an dMa y 17,2008 . Response : AA RAircraf t Service s wa s amaintenanc e vendo r fo r US A 300 0 Aurlines . 27 . Answe r whethe r o r no t yo u pai dAA

RAircraf t Service s fo

r maintenanc e performedo n tiie aircraf t betwee n Apri l 1,200 8 andMa y 17,2008 . Response : W e object t o thi s interrogator

y o n th e ground s tha

t it i s ambiguou s whethe

r it i s seekin g information about

maintenanc e performe ddurin g thi s period , or payment durin g thi s period . Without waivin g th e objection , th e answe r i s yes , w e pai dAA

RAircraf t Service s fo

r maintenanc e tha

t wa s performe do n th e aircraf t between Apri l 1,200 8 and Ma y 17,2008 .

### 28 . Answe r whether o r no t Internationa

l Leasin g Financ e Corporatio n (ILFC ) pai dAA R Aircraf t Service s fo

r an y maintenanc e performe do n th e aircraf t between Apri l 1,200 8 an

dMa y 17,200 8 andif

payment wa s made identif

y wha t typ e o f maintenanc e th e paymen

t wa s for . Response : Responden

t object s t o thi s interrogator y o n th e ground s tha

t it seek s informatio n outside of Respondent' s knowledg e tha t woul dpos e an undu e burden o n respondent to obtain . Withou

t waiving thi s objection , an dfollowin g reasonabl e inquiry . Responden t doe s no t kno w th e answe

r to thi s question . 29 . Answe r whether o r no t Stat e Transpor

t Compan y Russi a(STCR) pai dAARAurcraf t Service s fo

r an y maintenanc e performe do n th e aircraf t betwee n Apri l 29 , 200 8 andMa y 17 , 200 8 andi f

paymen t wa s mad e identif

y wha t typ e o f maintenanc e th e payment

wa s for . Response : Responden

t object s to thi s interrogator y o n th e ground s tha

t it seek s informatio n outside o f Respondent' s knowledg e that woul dpos e a n undu e burde n o n respondent t o obtain . Withou

t waivin g thi s objection , an dfollowin g reasonabl e inquiry . Respondent doe s no t kno w th e answe

r to thi s question . Response s t o Reques t fo r Admission s 1 . During th e flight

th e aircraft' s spoiler

serv o actuator s fo

r lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an d five wer e in th e maintenanc e mode . Response : Admitte d 2 . Whe n th e aircraft' s spoiler

serv o actuator s fo

r lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e andfive ar e in th e maintenanc e mode th e aircraf t i s no t i n asaf e conditio n fo

r flight. Response : We objec t

t o thi s reques t

fo r admission s in tha

t i t seek s a n opinio n about

safet y tha t woul drequir

e detaile dengineerin g analysi s usmg engineerin g dat atha t i s no t in th e possessio n of US A 3000 , andthat

suc h an analysi s woul dconstitute a n undu e burden . Followin g reasonable inquiry , thi s i s reques t

i s Denie dfo

r lack o f knowledge . 3 . Whe n th e aircraft' s spoiler

serv o actuator s fo

r lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e andfive ar e i n th e maintenanc e mode th e aircraf t doe s no t confor mto it s typ e certificat

e and/o r typ e design . Response : Denie d

### 4 . Whe n th e aircraft' s spoiler

serv o actuator s fo

r lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive ar e i n th e maintenanc e mode th e aircraft' s lef t andright win g rol l spoiler s thre e an dfive ar e inoperative . Response : Denie d 5 . Whe n th e aircraft' s spoiler

serv o actuator s fo

r lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e andfive ar e in th e maintenanc e mod e th e symmetrica l spoile r surface s thre e andfive ar

e inoperative . Response : Admitte d 6 . Pursuan

t t o th e US A 300 0 Airline s Minimu mEquipmen

t Lis t th e aircraf

t canno t b e dispatche dwhen tw o pai r

of symmetrica

l spoile r surface s thre e andfive are inoperative . Response : Admitted . 7 . Page s 2-27-1 0 an d2-27-1 1 o f tiie US A 3000 Airiine s Mimmu mEquipment

Lis t provide informatio n a s t o th e condition s unde r whic h th e aircraf

t ca n b e dispatche dwhen on e o r mor e of th e spoiler s i s inoperative . Response : Admitte d 8 . Page s 2-27-1 0 an d2-27-1 1 o f tiie US A 3000 Au-lme s MinimumEquipment Lis t d o no t identif y an y condition s unde

r whic h th e aircraf

t ca n b e dispatche dwhen lef

t win g spoiler s thre e an dfive ar e inoperative . Response : Admitte d 9 . Page s 2-27-1 0 an d2-27-1 1 o f tiie US A 3000 Akline s MinimumEquipment Lis t d o no t identif y an y condition s unde

r whic h th e aircraf

t ca n b e dispatche dwhen tw o pair o f symmetrica

l surface s 3 and5 are inoperative . Response : Admitte d

### 10 . Th e aircraf t i s no t i n aconditio n fo

r saf e operatio n whe n lef

t win g andright

win g rol l spoiler s No . 3 andNo , 5 , ar e inoperative . Response : We objec t

t o thi s reques t

fo r admission s in tha

t i t seek s a n opinio n about

safet y tha t wouldrequir

e detaile dengineerin g analysi s usin g engineerin g dat atha t i s no t i n th e possessio n o f US A 3000 . Th e requirement to perfor msuc h detaile dengineerin g analysi s usin g engineerin g dat atha t i s no t i n th e possessio n o f

US A 300 0 woul db e overl y burdensome . Without waiving thi s objection , andfollowin g reasonabl e inquiry , thi s i s reques t i s Denie dfo

r lack o f knowledge . 11 . Durin g th e flight, but

prio r t o takeoff , th e ECA M indicate do n mor

e than on e occasio n tha t th e followin g win g rol l spoiler s wer e no t operationa

l and/o r were locke dout : lef

t win g rol l spoile r No . 3 ; lef t win g rol l spoiler

No . 5 ; right

win g rol l spoiler

No . 3 ; andright

win g rol l spoile r No . 5 . Response : W

e objec t t o thi s reques t

fo r admissio n o n th e ground s tha t thi s i s acompound statement . Without

waivin g thi s objection , paragrap h 1 1 i s admitte di n part , to th e exten t tha t suc h awarnin g wa s visibl e o n th e ECA M durin g eac h res t

o f th e spoile r elevato r computers , but denie di n part , i n tha

t th e warnin g wa s cleare dan dreasonabl y deeme db y th e flight cre w to b e spurious , s o i t

di dno t indicate aproblem . 12 . A t al l time s durin g th e flight

th e aircraf t wa s on th e operation s specification s o f Brenda n Aurways , LL

C d/b/ aUS A 300 0 Aurlines . Response : Admitte d 13 . Brenda n Airways , LL

C d/b/aUS A 300 0 Airline s exercise doperationa l contio l ove

r th e flight. Response : Admitte d 14 . A t th e time of

th e flight Brenda n Airways , LL

C d/b/ aUS A 300 0 Airlme s wa s leasm g th e aircraf t fromInternational Leasin g Financ e Corporatio n (ILFC) . Response : Admitte d

### 15 . A

t th e tim e o f

tiie flight Brenda n Airways , LL

C d^/ aUS A 300 0 Airlines ' leas e of th e aircraf t wa s nearin g it s endan

dth e flight

wa s undertake n a s par

t o f th e proces s o f

th e aircraf

t bein g tiansferredinto th e possessio n of ane w lessee . Response : We objec t

t o thi s reques t

fo r admissio n o n th e ground s tha t thi s i s acompoun d statement . Withou t

waivin g th e objection , th e reques t i s admitted . 16 . The ne w lesse e i s th e air carrie r Stat e Transpor

t Compan y Russi a(STCR) . Response : We objec t

t o thi s reques t

fo r admissio n o n th e ground s tha t it i s vague . Without waiving th e objection , i f

th e reques t

i s referrin g to th e ne w lesse e o f th e aircraft , the n th e reques t i s Admitted . 17 . Th e flight

wa s considere da"maintenanc e acceptanc e flight". Response : Admitte d 18 . Prior t o th e flight, th e liver

y of th e ne w lesse e (STCR) wa s painte do n th e aircraft . Response : Admitte d 19 . Pursuant

to th e term s of

th e Brenda

n Airways , LL C d/b/

aUS A 300 0 Airline s leas e wit h ILF C th e aircraf

t wa s require dt o b e repainte dbefor e th e aircraf

t lef t th e possessio n o f

Brenda n Airways , LLC d/b/aUS A 300 0 Aklines . Response : Admitte d 20 . Th e spoiler serv o actuator s fo

r lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e andfive were put in th e maintenanc e mod e durin g th e proces s o f paintin g th e aircraf

t wit h liver y of th e ne w lesse e (STCR) . Response : Followin g reasonabl e inquiry . Respondent i s unabl e t o Admi t

or Den y thi s statemen

t becaus e Respondent

ha s n o specifi c knowledg e o f when th e spoiler

serv o actuator s fo

r lef t win g rol l spoiler s thre e andfive were pu t in th e maintenanc e mode . Discover y fromthirdpartie s int

o th e factua l basi s o f thi s statement

i s ongoing .

### 21 . Th e aircraf t wa s painte dwit

h th e liver y o f th e new lessee , (STCR) , b y AARAircraf t Services . Response : Followin g reasonabl e inquiry , Responden t i s unabl e t o Admi t

o r Deny thi s statemen

t becaus e Responden

t ha s no specifi c knowledg e o f wh o painte dth e liver

y o f th e ne w lessee , (STCR) o n th e aircraft . Discover y fro mthirdpartie s int

o th e factua

l basi s o f thi s statemen

t i s ongoing . 22 . AA RAircraf t Service s i s arepai r

statio n tha

t i s th e holde

r o f an FAA Air

Agency Certificat e qualifying i t

to conduc t

operation s unde

r Par t 145 of th e Federal Aviatio n Regulations . Response : Admitte d 23 . Prior t o tiie flight, Brenda

n Airways , LLC d^/ aUS A 300 0 Airline s hire dAA RAircraf t Service s t o perfor

mmaintenanc e o n th e aircraf t s o a s t o allo w i

t to b e returne dt o aconditio n tha t woul dpermi t

i t to b e returne dt o ILFC . Response : Admitte d 24 . Pursuant

to th e manual s of

Brenda n Airways , LL

C d/b/ aUS A 300 0 Airline s painting th e aircraf t coul di n som

e case s require that

th e spoiler

serv o actuator s fo

r spoiler s thre e an

dfive b e pu t in th e maintenanc e mode . Response : Denie d 25 . If th e aircraft' s ECA

M systemi s workin g properly it will repor t that lef t an dright wing rol l spoiler s thre e an

dfive ar e inoperativ e when th e spoile r serv o actuator s fo

r lef t win g roll spoiler s thre e andfive are place di n th e maintenanc e mode . Response : Denie d 26 . A t n o tim e subsequent

t o th e flight

di da n inspectio n o f

th e ECA M syste mrevea

l tha t ther e wa s aproblemwit

h th e systemtha

t coul dhav e causedit

t o malfimctio n jus t

prio r t o takeof f durin g th e flight. Response : Admitte d

### 27 . Withi n tw o day s afte r th e flight th e spoile r serv o actuator s o n lef

t win g rol l spoiler s thre e andfive wer

e agEii n pu t i n maintenanc e mode t o se e wha t message s woul dappea

r o n th e ECA

M andth e ECA

M reporte dtha

t lef t andright win g rol l spoiler s thre e andfive were inoperable . Response : Admitte d 28 . During th e flight

andprio r t o takeof f th e pilot s aboar

dth e aircraf

t faile dt o complet

e a successfu l flight contto l check . Response : Denie d 29 . During th e flight

an dprio r t o takeof f th e pilot s aboar

dth e aircraf

t faile dto complet

e a successfu l flight contto l chec k

becaus e i t wa s impossibl e fo

r th e spoiler s t o hav e reacte din respons e to input s fromth e cockpit . Response : Denie d

RESPECTFULL

Y SUBMITTED tiiis 22ndda y o f July , 2010 . WASHINGTO

N AVIATIO N GROUP , P C AN D TH E LA W OFFICE S O F JASO N A . DICKSTEI N

Jaso n Dickstei n Washingto n Aviatio n Group , PC an dth e La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstein 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 Tel : (202 ) 628-677 6 Attome y fo

r Respondent

Brenda n Airways , LL

C d^/ aUSA300 0 Airline s

### BEFOR E TH E U.S . DEPARTMEN

T O F TRANSPORTATIO N Th e Honorabl e Chie f

Administrativ e La

w Judg e Ronni e A. Yode

r In th e matter

o f BRENDA N AIRWAYS , LLC , d/b/ aUSA300 0 Airline s

Respondent DM S No. : FAA-2009-003 2

FA A Docke t No. : CP09EA000 7 FA A Cas e No. : 2008EA17003 8 RESPONS E T O COMPLAINANT' S FIRS T SE T O F INTERROGATORIES , REQUES T FO RADMISSIONS , AN D REQUES T FO RPRODUCTIO N O F

DOCUMENT S 

### 1 Th e undersigne dhereb y certifie s tha t sh e cause dth e attache d

• RESPONS E T O COMPLAINANT' S FIRS T SE T O F INTERROGATORIES , REQUES T FO RADMISSIONS , AN D REQUES T FO RPRODUCTIO N O F DOCUMENT S T o b e filed a

t th e addresse s liste dbelo w b y overnigh t FedEx service , o n th e date indicate d below . Federa

l Aviatio n Administtatio n (^a\^VNA L ^^ ^ "^^ ^ <LOP)f ) ^ 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildmg - Suit

e 2W100 0 Washington , D C 2059 1 Attii : Hearin g Docket

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Andto b e serve do n th e person s a t th e addresse s liste dbelo w b y th e sam e metho da s th e filing method , o n th e date indicate dbelow . Davi dM . Cohen , Attome y Federa l Aviatio n Administtatio n Office of th e Regiona

l Counsel , EAL- 7 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , NY 1143 4 Tel : (718 ) 553-327 0 Fa x (718 ) 995-569 9 Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La

w Judg e Office o f Hearings , M-2 0 RoomE12-32 0 U S Department

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Tel : (202 ) 366-214 2 Fax : (202 ) 366-753 6

Kat t Stanle y 

### Dat yEXHIBT T

BEFOR E TH E U.S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N The Honorabl e Chie f

Administrativ e Law Judg e Ronni e A . Yode r

I n th e matte r

o f BRENDA N AIRWAYS , LLC , d^/ aUSA300 0 Airiine s

Responden t DM S No. : FAA-2009-003 2

FA A Docke t

No. : CP09EA000 7 FAA Cas e No. : 2008EA17003 8 

### DECLARATIO N O F JOSEP H MILLE R

I , JOSPEP H MILLER , unde r penalt y o f perjury , declar e a s follows : 1 . I a man employe e o f

Brendan Airways , whic h doe s busines s unde r th e nam e US A 300 0 Airlines .

2 . 1 serv e a s th e Directo r o f Maintenanc e fo

r US A 3000 . 3 . Prio r t o Apri l 2008 , US A 300 0 hadbee n operatin g a n A32 0 aircraf

t bearin g U S registry N265A V ("th e Aircraft " o r "N265AV") . 4 . Th e Aircraf

t was owne db y Internationa l Leas e Financ e Corporatio n ("ILFC") . 5 . Th e Aircraf

t was lease db y ILF C t o US A 3000 . 6 . Durin g th e Sprin g o f 2008 , th e leas e o n th e Aircraf t wa s comin g t o a

n end , s o US A 300 0 hire dAARCor p t o perfor

mlease-en dheav y maintenanc e o n th e aircraf t in orde r t o b e abl e t o return it

t o th e lesso r

(ILFC ) a t th e en do f

th e lease . 7 . Th e maintenanc e o n N265A V at AA Rtoo k

plac e durin g Apri l 200 8 an dMa y 2008 . 8 . Th e maintenanc e performe db y AA Rfor US A 300 0 wa s performe daccordin g t o US A 3000' s writte n instruction s fo r completin g th e work . 9 . Ther e i s n o evidenc e tha t AA Rdiverge dfromth e wor k instmction s provide db y US A 3000 , in completin g th e US A 300 0 work .

APPENDD C B (Declaratio n o f Jo e Miller ) Pag e 3 3 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e La w Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suite 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6

### 10 . A t th e time tha

t th e Aircraf

t wa s provide

dt o AA Rto perfor

mlease-en

dheav y maintenance , USA 300 0 ha dno furthe

r inten t tha t the aircraf t wouldeve

r agai n be operate

dfo r revenu e servic e b y US A 3000 , becaus e th e leas e wa s comin g to a n end . 11 . O n Ma y 15 , 2008 , w e move

dth e aircraf

t an dperformeda

n engine chec

k a s par t of th e movement, becaus e tha t sor t of chec k i s norma l to perfor mbefor e taxiing . 12 . During the Ma

y 15 , 200 8 engin

e check, w

e als o checkedthe control surfac e operation becaus e tha

t i s anorma

l pre-movemen

t check . 13 . Th e Ma y 15 , 200 8 contto l surface operation chec k includedachec

k o f th e spoiler s (a s wel

l a s othe r contro l surfaces) . 14 . Th e Ma y 15 , 200 8 contro l surface operation chec k wa s successful , wit

h n o failure s an dn o erro r messages . I ca

n therefor e verif y tha t th e spoiler s wer

e operationa

l durin g thi s check . 15 . O

n Ma y 17 , 2008 , Captain Fran

k Willia mWalke r an dCaptain Ton

y Sco t Sunrat t wer e taskedwit

h performing amaintenanc e acceptanc e tes t fligh t of th e Aircraft . 16 . Th e maintenanc e acceptanc e tes t fligh t o f th e Aircraf t wa s operatedou

t o f Miam i Internationa

l Airpor t (MIA) - it departedan

dreturnedt o MIA . 17 . Walke r an dSurrat t wer e bot h employee s o

f Brenda n Airways , whic

h doe s busines s unde

r th e nam e US A 300 0 Airlines . 18 . Captai n Surratt , Captain Walke r an dI reviewedth e releas e t o service documentation , an

dthe n th e tw o pilot s proceededt o th e aircraft , wher

e they eac h performe da separat e wal k aroun dt o ensur e tha t th e aircraf t was i n prope r condition 19 . I t i s not possibl e to se e whethe

r the spoiler s ar

e i n maintenanc e mod

e fi-omth e ground . 20 . Afte

r th e walk-around , th e pilot s enteredth e cockpit . 21 . Durin g th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight, I was presen t i n th e cockpit . APPENDIX B (Declaratio n o f Jo e Miller ) Pag e 3 4 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e Law Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suite 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 .Tel : 202-628-677 622 . Durin g th e maintenanc e acceptanc e flight, th e pilot s discovere dtha t tw o set s o f th e spoiler s wer e inoperative .

23 . After discoverin g th e spoile r

malfunctio n durin g th e flight, th e pilot s consulte d th e guideline s foun di n th e Quic k Referenc e Handboo k

(QRH ) fo

r tw o set s o f

spoiler s inoperative .

24 . Th e QR H manua l calle dfo r anorma l landin g at

ful l flaps, wit

h n o spee dincrease , whe n tw o set s o f

spoiler s ar e inoperative . I t als o include s amultiplie r fo r minimu mrunwa

y length , whic h MI A easil y met . N o further guidanc e i s provide din th e QR H fo r tw o set s o f inoperativ e spoilers .

25 . After landing , w e analyze dth e aircraf t an dfoun dthat

tw o o f th e spoiler s wer e i

n maintenanc e mode .

26 . W e communicate dwit h AA Rabou t

thi s finding (spoiler s foun din maintenanc e mode) . 27 . AA Rreporte dt o u s tha t AA Rperforme dacomplet e revie w o f thei r documentatio n t o identif

y whe n th e spoiler s coul dhav e bee n place din th e maintenanc e mode . 28 . Base do n thei r

review , AA Rconclude dtha t the y coul dfindn o circumstance s unde r whic h th e spoiler s coul dhav e bee n place di n th e maintenanc e mod e durin g a n AA R maintenanc e operation .

29 . AA Rinforme dUS A 300 0 tiiat th e FA A ha ddroppe dth e investigatio n o f AAR whe n it becam e clear

tha t ther e wa s n o evidenc e that anyon e fromAA Rplace dth e spoiler s in maintenanc e mode .

30 . W e performe darevie w o f th e maintenanc e operation s performe db y AA Ron N265AV , includin g arevie w o f th e maintenanc e records . 31 . W e coul dno t

findan y poin t

durin g th e maintenanc e in whic h th e spoiler s coul d hav e bee n lef

t in th e maintenanc e mode , becaus e operational check s o f th e spoiler s mad e i

t impossibl e fo

r th e spoiler s t o hav e bee n lef t i n th e maintenanc e mod e before Ma y 15,2008 . APPENDD C B {Declaratio n o f Jo e Miller ) Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e Pag e 3 5 LawOfficeso f Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suite 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 -Tel : 202-628-677 6