Zachary M. Berman, Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Eastern Regional Counsel 

I Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

April3, 2014 

RE: Endless Mountains Air, Inc. 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0848 

Case No. 20!2EA050008 

Dear Attorney Berman, 

Seamans Airport 

727 Windsock Lane 

Factoryville/ PA 18419 

Phone: 570.945.5125 

Fax: 570.945.5953 

http:/ jwww.seamansairport.com 

RECEIVED 

APR -8 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

Following up on our Rule 16 Litigation Conference on March 18,2014 with Judge J.E. Sullivan, 

I submit the following response to the allegations and penalty outlined in the FAA's Motion for 

Decision. 

Regarding the charges that Endless Mountains Air, Inc. violated the oral and flight test 

requirements set forth in Section 135.293(a) of the Federal Aviation Regulations, these violations 

were technical, were not intentional and never compromised the safety of the flights and our 

passengers. 

Let us review the following facts and my explanations related to the above charges: 

On July 7 and July 22, 2010, Mr. Randy Palmer successfully passed oral and flight checks given 

by Mr. Robert Ference and another safety inspector from of the Allentown Flight Standards 

District Office (FSDO). 

On Aprilll, 2011, Mr. Palmer successfully passed both an oral and flight check given by Mr. 

Ference of the Allentown FSDO. 

Toward the end of August 2011, Mr. Palmer and I were unsure as to whether Mr. Palmer was 

due for an oral and flight check in our Cirrus SR20 aircraft so that we could continue to operate 

under Part 135 regulations. After reviewing Mr. Palmer's previous Airman 

Competency/Proficiency Check forms along with FAR's 135.293 and 135.297, we believed an 

oral/flight check would not be necessary until after October 31, 2011. We did however want to 

be sure of our interpretation therefore, Mr. Palmer reached out to Mr. Ference and left numerous 
telephone messages. Mr. Pahner did receive a return call/voicemail from Mr. Ference on August 

29, 2011 and his response was "check your paperwork". 

Mr. Palmer and I again reviewed his previous competency/proficiency check forms and the 

actual oral questioning and flight maneuvers that were done along with the FAR's. My 

understanding of the regulations at that time was such that Mr. Palmer required the same oral and 

flight check every 6 months and that his April 11, 2011 check ride had complied with that 

requirement. We both thus concluded that he was indeed legal to fly and we would be in 

compliance with his oral/flight check requirements for another two months until month end 

October 20 II. 

As stated in the complaint, Endless Mountains Air, Inc. with Mr. Randy Palmer as pilot did then 

make six flights under Part 135 regulations between the period of September 1st and October 9, 

2011. 

In November 2011, Mr. Harry Soudas of the Allentown FSDO conducted a paperwork 

inspection of our charter operation, made copies of trip logs associated with the flights in 

question and stated that he would be in touch regarding a potential violation of regulations. 

On January 2, 2012, we received a letter from the Allentown FSDO advising us that we had 

violated FAR's 135.293 and 135.299 and that we could either respond in writing or request a 

conference. We promptly requested and scheduled a conference. 

Our conference was held on January 18,2012 at the Allentown FSDO with Mr. Ference, Mr. 

Soudas and Mr. Brandon Ghidiu. At that meeting, Mr. Palmer and I explained that we had 

reviewed his previous competency/proficiency check forms along with FAR's 135.293 and 

135.297 and concluded that we would be in compliance. We additionally pointed out that as per 

FAR 135.293( c) "The instrument proficiency check required by 135.297 may be substituted for 

the competency check required by this section for the same type of aircraft used in the check". 

This paragraph gave us confidence that Mr. Palmer's April 11, 2011 oral and flight check was 

sufficient to comply with the requirements of Part 135.293. 

Mr. Ference and Mr. Soudas explained to us in detail how Parts 135.293, 135.297 and 135.299 

should be interpreted. In particular, they explained how Part 135.293 establishes a 12 month oral 

and flight check which sets what they refer to as a "base month", how 135.297 requires a 6 

month oral and flight check and how FAR 135.293(c) does not allow a FAR 135.297 oral and 

flight check to be used as a substitute for an FAR 135.293 flight check. We let them know that 

we now fully understood these regulations and told them that this error would not happen again. 

I followed this up in writing on January 31,2012 and thought that the case was closed. 

Unfortunately, about a month later Mr. Pahner and I received notification of this enforcement 

that I am currently fighting. 

In addition to the above, I have had an informal conference with you on June 21, 2012 and have 

also provided federal tax returns and other financial information. This information demonstrated 

that any fine would be an extreme hardship and Endless Mountains Air, Inc. would likely have to 

file for bankruptcy. Unfortunately, the attempt at relief was also denied. 
From the above narrative, it is clear that: 

1) Endless Mountains Air, Inc. (EMA) strongly believed at the time of the alleged violations 

that it was adhering to the word of the applicable regulations. 

a. After reviewing previous competency/proficiency check forms along with 

applicable FAR's, Endless Mountains Air, Inc. and Mr. Pahner understood it that 

Mr. Palmer was legal to make the charter flights in question. 

b. Additional interpretation and clarification was sought with Mr. Ference of the 

Allentown FSDO. Unfortunately, little guidance was received. 

c. Based on the information and our interpretation, EMA decided that it would be in 

compliance with regulations and operated during the time in question. 

2) If EMA had intentionally disregarded regulations, it would not have completed or kept 

any paperwork associated with these flights. Why would EMA keep a paper trail for 

unlawful charter flights? Clearly, any paperwork would have been absent for an FAA 

inspection had we intentionally violated FAA regulations. 

3) EMA has been a Part 135 charter operator since 2003 and has not had any other 

enforcements or violations. 

4) Pilot Mr. Palmer did not have any prior enforcements or violations on his record. 

5) EMA has been cooperative and has shown good faith throughout: 

a. Immediately after we were made aware of possible violations, we met as soon as 

possible with the Allentown FSDO for an explanation of our mistake and 

instruction in the regulations. We dealt with the issue right away and assured 

corrective action. 

b. We later met with Mr. Berman at the Eastern Region Office to state our case and 

seek a resolution of this enforcement action. 

c. The FAA's own report on the case states that I have "been cooperative with this 

investigation and his company has no prior violations, he has expressed remorse 

for these violations occurring. This would make this inadvertent". 

6) Over the past 15 years, Mr. Randy Palmer has taken approximately two dozen, Part 135 

competency/proficiency checks under Part 135.293 and 135.297 with EMA and another 

local charter operator and in his own words, he has "never been able to differentiate one 

from the other". 

7) At NO TIME did Endless Mountains Air operate unsafely. Bear in mind that Mr. Palmer 

did receive and successfully pass an oral and flight check less than six (6) months prior to 

these flights. 

I submit to you that at the end of the day, this was a technical error and nothing more. In 

addition, a $46,200 fine is completely unwarranted, extremely excessive and payment would 

result in Endless Mountains Air, Inc. having to cease operations. Please also remember that I 

have made every effort to learn from this and make sure this never happens again. 

1n closing, I would like to refer you to the attached article written by then Flight Standards 

Director John Allen in the July/August 2012 issue of the FAA's publication Flight Safety 
Briefing. His piece was written during the time both Allentown and your office were reviewing 

my case and moving forward with enforcement and penalties. The piece is exceedingly 

appropriate to this case and while I'm sure you'll read it through, I'd like to draw particular 

attention to the final paragraphs in his article. 

Mr. Allen writes that "The FAA has a wide range of tools to perform the functions associated 

with continued operational safety. Because enforcement is the most obvious tool, it is often the 

first to be used. My message to the FAA 's inspector workforce, though, is that enforcement may 

not be the most effective means ofachieving compliance and, more importantly, it may not be the 

best way to achieve our goal of promoting safety. In fact, I believe that an enforcement-only 

approach is counterproductive. It obscures the goal of achieving safety compliance. It misses 

opportunities to educate. It undermines efforts to develop a strong safety culture. It wastes FAA 

and industry resources. And it dilutes our ability to focus on real risk. 

My staff is working on updated guidance for our inspectors that outlines a more thoughtful 

approach. The key question is what best serves our safety promotion goal. Enforcement should 

be reserved for events and incidents where intentional disregard, flagrant safety violations, 

dangerous complacency, or outright stupidity pose a systemic threat to continued operational 

safety in aviation. For an unintentional infraction, I want inspectors to first seek resolution via 

positive, corrective action that most likely would include additional education and skills 

training". 

Without a doubt, our technical violation was not intentional, nor a flagrant safety violation, nor 

showed dangerous complacency, or outright stupidity, nor did it pose a systemic threat to 

continued operational safety. 

It is my hope that both your office and the Allentown FSDO will again review the facts and 

circumstances relating to this case, take note of Mr. Allen's wise words and sensible guidance 

and come to the conclusion that this case has already gone too far and should be dismissed. 

If you have any questions; please feel free to contact me at any time. ,_,,!"' ,~ 

Sincerely, 

I 

,/LJ/ 

// ', / ' 

W'il}iam J. Dobitsch, Jr., President 

EIJI1less Mountains Air, Inc. 

l 
Adventure, Commerce, and Service 

We live in a complex world, and there's not 

much we can do to change that reality. But when it 

comes to such basic thlngs as our mission statement, 

short, sweet, and simple is the only way to go. That's 

why I pushed for adoption of a new Flight Standards 

Service mission statement, one that explains the 

what, the why, and the who of what we do in a way 

that everyone can easily remember. Our mission is: 

To assure the safety, while enabling the adventure, commerce and service of aviation. 

For me, and I hope for you, this simple statement captures the essence and the heart of what 

the FAA Flight Standards Service is charged to do. 

But let me take a moment to talk about the individual elements. 

Adventure: Aviation is very much about adventure, 

and about having ftm- the focus of this issue of FAA 

Safety Briefing magazine. Much of what the FAA does 

is necessarily associated with commercial aviation, 

so I put "adventure" right at the beginning of the 

mission statement. I want to be sure we remember 

that enabling the ftm, adventure, and passion of 

personal flying is also an important part of the FAA's 

aviation safety mission. 

Commerce: The FAA's mission with respect to commercial aviation is better known, and understandably 

so. Civil aviation contributes $1.3 trfllion to our 

economy and generates more than 10 million jobs in 

the United States alone. Millions of people travel by 

air each day, and the work we do contributes to making our aviation system the envy of the world. 

Service: Aviation serves not only our nation's 

economy, but also the American spirit of service and 

volunteerism. Our safety work enables and facilitates 

the kind of service performed through programs like 

BAA's Young Eagles, Grace Flight, Pilots 'n Paws, and 

numerous others. 

Safety: Assuring safety might seem to be the most 

obvious component of our mission statement, but 

I want to spend a little more time explaining the 

nuances of our safety role. 

The Flight Standards Service has three main 

safety functions: setting the certification standards 

for airmen and operators; issuing certification based 

on those standards; and conducting oversight and 

surveillance of certificate holders to assure continued operational safety. 

Though the FAA clearly has a significant role 

in assuring continued operational safety, everyone 

bears that responsibility. The}<~ cannot "inspect 

safety into the system:' It is the duty of each individual and each organization that we certificate to operate in accordance with the established standards. 

The agency's role is to verify that certificate holders 

continue to meet standards. 

The FAA has a wide range of tools to perform 

the functions associated with continued operational 

safety. Because enforcement is the most obvious 

tool, it is often the first to be used. My message to the 

FAA's inspector workforce, though, is that enforcement may not be the most effective means of achieving compliance and, more importantly, it may not be 

the best way to achieve our goal of promoting safety. 

In fact, I believe that an enforcement-only approach 

is counterproductive. It obscures the goal of achieving safety compliance. It misses opportunities to 

educate. It undermines efforts to develop a strong 

safety culture. It wastes FAA and industry resources. 

And it dilutes our ability to focus on real risk. 

My staff is working on updated guidance for 

our inspectors that outlines a more thoughtful 

approach. The key question is what best serves 

our safety promotion goal. Enforcement should be 

reserved for events and incidents where intentional 

disregard, flagrant safety violations, dangerous 

complacency, or outright stupidity pose a systemic 

threat to continued operational safety in aviation. 

For an unintentional infraction, I want inspectors 

to first seek resolution via positive, corrective action 

that most likely would include additional education 

and skills training. 

Thank you for the passion you have for aviation 

safety, and for helping to keep the adventure, commerce, and service of aviation alive and well. 

July/August 2012 Safety 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2WI 0001 

Mr. Zachary M. Berman 

Complainant's Counsel 

ONE COPY 

Office of Regional Counsel, Eastern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3258 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

Mr. William J. Dobitsch, Jr. 

Endless Mountains Air, Inc. 

Respondent 

Seamans Airport 

727 Windsock Lane 

Factoryville, PA 18419 

TEL: 570-945-5125 

FAX: 570-945-5953 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536