' ··::::'/:;PI'Ti'\iiP\fT C11= ''' f l< '/h,,..j ~ "'i 

;.;,,t\;\iSPORTt\TIOi\J UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . ')i):ET OPERATION~) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

1nl? d!t. ll l<,j· "'· r·a j OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. RECEIVED 

******************************************* 

* 

SEP 11 2012 

HEARING DOCKET 

In the Matter of: 

Aviation Technical Services, Inc. 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

FAA Case No. 2010NM010105 

FDMS No. F AA-2011-0682 

Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

******************************************* 

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

COMES NOW Respondent Aviation Technical Services, Inc. ("ATS"), through counsel, and 

answers the Second Amended Complaint against it as follows: 

GENERAL DENIAL 

Except to the extent specifically and unequivocally admitted herein, all allegations contained in 

the Second Amended Complaint are denied. 

ANSWER TO PART I 

ATS admits the allegations contained in Part I of the Second Amended Complaint. 

ANSWER TO PART II 

1. A TS admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Part II of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 
2. 

a. ATS admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2.a. ofPart II of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

b. ATS admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2.b. of Part II ofthe Second Amended 

Complaint. 

c. With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2.c. of Part II of the Second 

Amended Complaint, A TS admits only that it performed maintenance on behalf of 

Southwest Airlines (SW A), an air carrier having a continuous airworthiness maintenance 

program, including: the overhaul of Boeing 737 main landing gear actuator beam 

assembly part number 65-46108-17 serial number 815 on or about August 12, 2009. The 

balance of this paragraph is denied. 

d. With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2.d. of Part II ofthe Second 

Amended Complaint, A TS admits only that it performed maintenance on behalf of 

Southwest Airlines (SWA), an air carrier having a continuous airworthiness maintenance 

program, including: the overhaul of Boeing 737 main landing gear actuator beam 

assembly part number 65-46108-19 serial number 2565 on February 2, 2010. The 

balance of this paragraph is denied. 

3. With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Part II ofthe Second Amended 

Complaint, ATS admits only that Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2009-09-07, at paragraph (t), 

states as follows: "Except as provided by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD: At the applicable 

times specified in paragraph I.E. of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32Al355, Revision 2, dated 

March 5, 2008, inspect for damage of the retract actuator beam of the MLG and overhaul the 

retract actuator beam, as applicable, by doing all the applicable actions specified in the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32Al355, Revision 2, dated 

March 5, 2008. Do all applicable rela~ed investigative and corrective actions before further 

flight. Repeat the applicable inspection or overhaul thereafter at the applicable time specified 

in paragraph I.E. of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32Al355, Revision 2, dated March 5, 

2008." ATS further admits that Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2009-09-07, at paragraph (h), 

states as follows: "Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32Al355, Revision 2, dated March 5, 2008, 

specifies that the actions are for airplanes with new MLG retract actuator beams that have not 

been overhauled having part number (PIN) 65-46108-15 and subsequent dash numbers; and 

new or overhauled MLG retract actuator beams having PIN 65-46108-14 and previous dash 

numbers." 

4. A TS admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Part II of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

5. ATS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 ofPart II ofthe Second Amended 

Complaint. 

2 
6. ATS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Part II ofthe Second Amended 

Complaint. 

7. A TS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Part II of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

8. ATS admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 ofPart II ofthe Second Amended 

Complaint. 

9. ATS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 ofPart II of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

10. ATS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 ofPart II ofthe Second Amended 

Complaint. 

11. A TS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of Part II of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

ANSWER TO PART III 

1. A TS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Part III of the Second Amended 

Complaint, including all subparts. 

2. A TS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Part III of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

3. ATS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Part III ofthe Second Amended 

Complaint. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent Aviation Technical Services, Inc., through counsel, requests that the 

Administrative Law Judge enter an order finding that Respondent Aviation Technical Services, 

Inc., did not violate any of the Federal Aviation Regulations as alleged by the Federal Aviation 

Administration in this matter, and further requests that the Second Amended Complaint be 

dismissed and that no civil penalty be assessed against it. 

3 
----------------

......... 

Respectfully submitted this lOth day of September, 2012. 

Dane B. Jaques, Esq. 

Dombroff Gilmore Jaques & French, PC 

1676 International Drive, Penthouse 

McLean, VA 22102 

Tel: 703-336-8800 

Fax: 703-336-8750 

djaques@dglitigators.com 

Counsel for Respondent Aviation Technical 

Services, Inc. 

4 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Answer to Second 

Amended Complaint on the following party's counsel or designated representative, at the address 

indicated, by UPS overnight delivery: 

Karen Davis Huber, Esq. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, Washington 98057 

Fax: 425-227-1007 

I also certify that I have this day served the original and one copy of the foregoing 

Answer to Second Amended Complaint on the following, at the address indicated, by UPS 

overnight delivery: 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Fax:202-493-5142 

I also certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Answer to Second 

Amended Complaint on the following, at the address indicated, by UPS overnight delivery: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey A venue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Fax: 202-366-7536 

Dated this 1Oth day of September, 2012. 

Jam s . Eastwood 

DomoroffGilmore Jaques & French, P.C. 

1676 International Drive, Penthouse 

McLean, VA 22102 

Tel: 703-336-8800 

Fax: 703-336-8750 

5