1 n 11 n1. I '. 1 P "'· L:,.-, 0 ° 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter ofHeloair, Inc. 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0472, Case No. 2011-EA-210081 

AGENCY'S ANSWER TO MOTION TO DISMISS 

RE-CEIVED 

SEP 1 0 2012 

HEARING DOCKET 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby files its Answer to 

Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Rule 13 .218( d) of the Rules of Practice ( 14 C.F .R. 

13.218(d)) as follows: 

In the original Complaint, it was alleged that Heloair, Inc. (Respondent) improperly 

installed a Garmin GPS 496 on the Bell 427 aircraft, identification number N7NU. 

In the Answer to the original Complaint, Respondent admits that it maintained and 

operated this particular aircraft. In the Motion to Dismiss, it is argued that it was 

not, in fact, Respondent that installed the GPS. In fact, the Agency concedes that it 

was not Respondent that. performed the installation and this allegation has been 

withdrawn from the Agency's Amended Complaint (attached). 

\ ',!' 
Left in the Amended Complaint, however, are the allegations that the wiring for the 

GPS was not properly installed and the GPS was not properly tested, and 

Respondent thereby performed improper maintenance on the aircraft. Also left in 

the Amended Complaint are the allegations that Respondent proceeded to operate 

the aircraft on two flights in. an unairworthy condition, even after being advised by 

the FAA that installation of the GPS may be contrary to the Federal Aviation 

Regulations. 

In the Motion to Dismiss, Respondent argues that it "reasonably relied upon the 

expertise" of Edward & Associates, an FAA-certified repair station, for the / 

installation of the GPS. It is also claimed that Respondent relied upon the FAA, 

which supposedly "inspected the aircraft on numerous occasions and flew in the 

aircraft on numerous check flights" and never previously notified Respondent of any 

problems with the installation of the GPS. 

Respondent, as the holder of a Part 135 air carrier, is subject to 14 CFR Section 

135.413(a), which states, "Each certificate holder is primarily responsible for the 

airworthiness of its aircraft, including airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, rotors 

and appliances, and parts, and shall have defects repaired between required 

maintenance under part 43 of this chapter." Thus, regardless of whether it was 

2 
someone else who installed the GPS and regardless of whether the FAA overlooked 

the discrepancies, it was ultimately the responsibility of Respondent to ensure that 

the GPS installed on the aircraft that it maintained and operated was installed 

properly. As alleged in the Complaint, Respondent failed in this responsibility. The 

fact that the FAA did , not notify Respondent of the problems with the GPS 

installation previously is irrelevant; once the FAA discovered the problem, it notified 

Respondent, and Respondent still insisted on operating the aircraft. 

In the Motion to Dismiss, it is claimed that "The installation of the Garmin 496 has 

been conducted in a similar fashion on numerous (hundreds) aircraft of various 

makes and models across the Country and has been approved by the FAA." There is 

no evidence for this claim, however, and even if it is true, it's not relevant as to the 

issue as to whether the installation was proper in this particular case, and not in other 

"similar" (whatever that means) cases. 

In the Motion to Dismiss, it is claimed that the case is stale because it was initiated 

more than 2 years after the improper GSP installation. As indicated above, 

however, the allegation that Respondent performed the improper installation is 

withdrawn. As indicated in the Amended Complaint, it was actually on January 20, 

2011 that the FAA discovered the improperly installed GPS. Thus, at that time, the 

3 
violation (having the improperly installed GSP) was still ongoing and continued on 

August 6, 2011, when Respondent operated the aircraft on two flights in an 

unairworthy condition. Thus, when the Agency initiated 

the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty on November 3, 2011, it was actually within 

less than 4 months of the violation and thus not stale. 

Thus, the Motion to Dismiss is without merit. 

WHEREFORE, the FAA, by counsel, respectfully requests that the 

Administrative Law Judge deny the Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alfred R. Johnson, Jr. 

Regional Counsel 

By: Zachary~ ~~ an 

Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

718 553-3258 

718 995-5699 

Date: September 4, 2012 

4 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Answer to Motion to Dismiss has been sent this 

date via first class mail and telefax to the following: 

John G. Butler, III, Esq. 

SANDS ANDERSON, PC 

Babank of America Center 

1111 East Main Street, Suite 2400 

Richmond, VA 23219 

FAX: (804)783-7291 

The Honorable J. E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTransportatation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (El1-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX: (2020)366-7536 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Answer to Motion to Dismiss has been sent this 

date via first class mail to the following: 

Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building -Room 2014 

Date: September 4, 2012 

Zachary~~ Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

5 
' . 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

September 4, 2012 

Eastern Region 

Regional Counsel 

Telephone: 718 553-3258 

Facsimile: 718 995~5699 

FIRST CLASS MAIL AND TELEFAX (202)366-7536 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

Re: In the Matter ofHeloair, Inc.Docket No. FAA-2012-0472, Case No. 2011-EA210081 

Dear Judge Sullivan: 

Enclosed herein please find a copy of the FAA's Amended Complaint in the aboveentitled action for filing, together with proof of service upon the Respondent. 

Sincerely, 

Alfred R. Johnson, Jr. 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

Zacha~bllan ~~ 

Attorney 

Enclosures 

cc: John G. Butler, III, Esq., SANDS ANDERSON PC, Bank of America Center, 

Ill East Main Street, Suite 2400, Richmond, VA, FAX: 804-783-2391 (via fax and 

first class mail) 
cc: Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 

2Wl 0000 (via first class mail) 

2 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter ofHeloair, Inc. 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0472, Case No. 2011-EA-210081 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby files its Amended 

Complaint, pursuant to Rule 13.214(b)(l) of the Rules of Practice (14 C.F.R. 

13.208), and states as follows: 

I 

Respondent, Heloair, Inc., was advised through a Final Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $33,000. 

On May 9, 2012, Respondent submitted a written demand for a hearing. 

II 

I. At all times relevant herein, Heloair, Inc. (hereinafter "Heloair'') was 

the holder of Part 135 Air Carrier Certificate No. RW8A341 W. 

2. At all times relevant herein, Heloair, Inc., maintained and operated a 

Bell 427 aircraft, identification number N7NU (hereinafter "the 

aircraft"). · 

3. At all times relevant herein, the aircraft had installed in it a Garmin 

GPS 496. 

3 
4. The Garmin GPS 496 was a portable electronic device. 

5. On or about July 20, 2011, inspectors of the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) performed an inspection of the aircraft and 

the records associated with the aircraft at Heloair's principal base of 

operations in Richmond, VA (hereinafter "the inspection"). 

6. Incident to the inspection, the FAA inspectors discovered that the 

wiring associated with the installation of the Garmin GPS 496 had 

not been tested in accordance with 14 CPR Section 27.1365(c). 

7. Incident to the inspection, the FAA inspectors discovered that the 

Garmin GPS 496 had not been tested to determine that it would not 

cause interference with the navigation or communication system of 

the aircraft on which it would be used 

8. Incident to the inspection, the FAA inspectors discovered that the 

Garmin GPS 496 was installed with unapproved wiring. 

9. By virtue of the allegation set forth in Paragtaphs (6) through (8), 

above, the aircraft was not in an airworthy condition. 

10. Incident to the inspection, on or about July 20, 2011, the FAA 

inspectors advised Heloair of their findings set forth in Paragraphs 

(6) through (8), above, and advised Heloair that installation of the· 

Garmin GPS 496 may be contrary to the Federal Aviation 

Regulations. 

11. Notwithstanding the above, Heloair released the aircraft for return to 

service when the aircraft was not in an airworthy condition for the 

reasons set forth above. 

12. Heloair thus performed maintenance on an aircraft and failed to use 

the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current 

manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, 

techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as 

noted in §43 .. 16. 

13. Heloair thus performed maintenance on an aircraft and failed to do 

that work in such a manner and use materials of such a quality, that the 

condition of fJle aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or 

appliance worked on would be at least equal to its original or properly 

4 
altered condition (with regard to aerodynamic function, structural 

strength, resistance to vibration and deterioration, and other qualities 

affecting airworthiness). 

14. On or about August 6, 2011, Heloair operated the aircraft on two 

flights, from Richmond, VA to Irving, VA, and return (hereinafter 

"the flights"). 

15. During the flights, the aircraft was in an unairworthy condition, as 

described above. 

III 

By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated the 

following sections of the Federal Aviation Regulations: 

a. Section 43.13(a), which states that each person performing 

maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, 

engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and 

practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual 

or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its 

manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable 

to the Administrator, except as noted in §43.16. He shall use the tools, 

equipment, and test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the 

work in accordance with accepted industry practices. If special 

equipment or test apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer 

involved, he must use that equipment or apparatus or its equivalent 

acceptable to the Administrator. 

b. Section 43.13(b), which states that each person maintaining or 

altering, or performing preventive maintenance, shall do that work in 

such a manner and use materials of such a quality, that the condition of 

the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance worked 

on will be at least equal to its original or properly altered condition 

(with regard. to aerodynamic function, structural strength, resistance to 

vibration and deterioration, and other qualities affecting 

airworthiness). 

c. Section 91.7(a), which states that no person may operate a civil aircraft 

unless it is in an airworthy condition. 

5 
) 

d. Section 91.21(a)(l), which states that no person may operate, nor may any 

operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any 

portable electronic device on aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier 

certificate or an operating certificate. 

IV 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §46301(a)(l), Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to 

exceed $25,000 for each of the violations alleged, or, for a small business concern, 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §46301(a)(5), Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to 

exceed $11,000 for each of the violations alleged. 

2. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of $33,000 is 

appropriate. 

WHEREFORE, the FAA, by counsel, respectfully requests that the 

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

6 
in the amount of $33,000. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alfred R. Johnson, Jr. 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

Zachary 

~~ ~flllan 

Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

718 553-3258 

718 995-5699 

NOTE: 

) 

The Rules of Practice for this proceeding are set forth in Part 13, 

Subpart G, of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.R. Part 13). 

The Rules of Practice provide that Respondent must file a written 

answer to this Complaint, or a written Motion to Dismiss if appropriate, not 

later than 30 days after the date shown on the Certificate of Service. A general 

denial is deemed a failure to file an answer (Section 13.209(e)). 

7 
) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing Amended Complaint has been sent this date via 

tirst class rna: 1 and telefax to the following: 

John G. But· er, III, Esq. 

SANDS 1\.r iDERSON, PC 

Babank c ; America Center 

1111 East Main Street, Suite 2400 

Richmond, VA 23219 

F ·~ : (804 )783-7291 

The Honorable J. E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTransportatation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX: (2020)366-7536 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing Amended Complaint has been sent this date via 

first class mail to the following: 

Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) 

800 Independence Avenue, S. W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building -Room 2014 

Date: September 4, 2012 

Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

I Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

8