08/28/2012 17:23 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMs· @001/013 

.. ··~··D;\qTI'·~~~qn OF 

)• , 1 ,I ,I I'-' _ , l\ · ~· ... ·..,\\j~}~O~JA \_I~~J. ,~,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RECEI\IED .. ) .. J£1 Jh:Ht\fi~EPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

"0 A 01:00 

AUG 2 7 2012 

z-~ .- WASHINGTON,D.C. HEARING DOCKET 

IN THE MATTER OF, 

LEADING EDGE AVIATION, INC., 

Respondeat. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. FAA Case No. 2011 NM 070089 

DMS No.: Not Assigned 

Judge Not Assigned 

Respondenfs suggested location for 

hearing: Chicago, Illinois 

NOV! COMES Leadin,e Edge Avi2 .J., .... 1c. ("Leading Edge"), by and through its 

counsel, and answers the Federal Aviation Adminis~ration ("FAA") Complair;t as follows: 

On June 27, 2012, Leading Edge Aviation, Inc. (T ..... eading Edge), 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 July 12,2012, Leading Edge, through legal counsel. submitted a written 

request for hearing. 

ANSWER: Denied that Leading Edge received a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty on 

June 27, 2012. Admit that Leading Edge received a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty on 

June 29, 2012 and that Leading Edge, through legal counsel, timely submitted a written request 

for hearing on July 12, 2011. Leading Edge denies that any penalty should be assessed against it. 

1. Leading Edge js now and was at all times material hereto the holder of Air· Agency 

Certificate No. L9QR350Y, and conducts its operations pursuant to Part 145 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations. 

ANSWER: Admit. 

186J28l\r\22816\4n~z 
OB/28/2012 17:23 FAX 2024835142 FA fl. + OMS 141002/013 

2. Leading Edge holds a limited Airframe rating. 

ANSWER: Admit. 

3. Leading Edge has a combined Repair Station & Quality ManuaL 

ANSWER: Admit. 

4. Leading Edge is only authorized to perform work on airlrames listed on its Capability 

I.ist. · 

ANSWER: Admit only that Leading Edge is authorized to work on airframes in accordance 

with the intent of its Capability List, tak1ng into consideration typographical errors on tl).e 

Capability List that have since been corrected in conformation with FAA requirements. Leading 

Edge denies the remaining allegations. 

5. On February 17, 2011, Bell 206L·l aircr~ft were not listed on Leading Edge's 

Capability List. 

ANSWER: Admit only thafLeading Edge's Capability List contained a typographical error 

.such that Bell 206L-1 was not stated and that at all times Leading Edge was allowed to perform 

work on Bell 206L-1 aircraft. The remainder of these allegations are denied. Further 

answering. Leading Edge's Capability List contained a typographical error, which mistakenly 

listed Bell 206 AlB series, rather than simply Bell 206 series. Leading Edge discussed this 

tYPographical error with Tanya Glines, FAA Aviation Safety Inspector. Inspector Glines 

recommended that Leading Edge contact its PMT about the issue. Leading Edge followed 

Inspector Glines' recommendation and corrected the typographical error at the direction of/to the 

satisfaction of FAA P:Ml Curt Cowley. Further answering, no additional housing, facilities~ 

equipment~ materials, dat2., knowledge, or experience are needed for the Bell 206 series versus 

the Hell 206 AlB series. 

6. Paragraph 8.11 of Leading .Edge• s Repair Station & Quality Manual states "Annual 

inspections will be performed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations 

and will not be less than required by 14 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R) Part 43." 

-2-

18632111\ I \22816\49252 
08/28/2012 17:23 FAX 2024935142 FAA -> OMS ll!003/0 13 

ANSWER: Adm1t only that Section 8 "QUALITY CONTROL SYSTEM" contains subsection 8.11 which inclucles the quoted language in paragraph 6, but is not limited to the quoted 

language. Leading Edge denies the remaining allegations. 

7. Paragraph 8.12 of Leading Edge's Repair Station & Quality Manual states "Before the 

repair station g~nerates an approval for return to service, an appropriately qualified 

person ... shall perform a fmal inspection ... The tinal inspection will include an audit of 

the article and the Shop Order to determine whether ... Any discrepancies in work 

and/or records are appropriately dispositioned. 

ANSWER: Admit only that Section 8 "QUALITY CONTROL SYSTEM" contains subsection 8.11 which includes the quoted language in paragraph 7, but is not limited to the quoted 

language. Leading Edge denies the remainine allegations. 

8. Civil aircraft NS758H, a Bell 206L-1, is maintained in accordance with an inspection 

program recommended by the manufacturer. · 

ANSWER: Leading Edge lacks sutlicient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph and demands strict proof thereof. 

9. The manufacturer's inspection program requires a 100 hour inspection to "be 

accomplished each 100 hours of flight time and each 12 calendar month." 

ANSWER: Assuming the FAA is referring to manufacturer Bell Helicopter's inspection 

program, Leading Edge admits that Bell requires a 100 hour inspection to be accomplished each 

1 00 hours of flight time and each 12 calendar month. Leading Edge denies that the FAA has 

provided any citation for its quote. 

1 0. On or about February 17, 2011, Leading Edge performed a 1 00 hour aidrame and 150 

hour engine inspection on N5758Il in accordance with the manufacturer's 

recommended inspection program. 

ANSWER: The allegations in paragraph 10 do not contain the names of the manufacturer's 

of the airframe or the engine. but assuming. the FAA is referring to airframe manufacturer Bell 

Helicopter and engine manufacturer Rolls Royce, these allegations are admitted. If the FAA is 

- 3-

I !163281\ 1\221116\49252 
08/28/2012 17:24 FAX 2024835142 FAA "' OMS ~ 004/013 

referring to other manufactl.lrers, Leading Edge lacks suflicient knowledge to admit or deny these 

allegations as it is unknown which "manufacturer" the FAA is refe1ring to in paragraph 10. 

11. The manufacturer's 1 00 ·bout inspection requires the following action: 

a. ''Inspect forward cowling for condition and attachment ... 

b. " ... Inspect all control .tubes, links, rod end bearings, bell cranks, supports, and. 

attaching bolts for corrosion, wear, or mechanical damage, and for security of 

attachment. __ 

c. .. ... Inspect transmission moWlts for obvious damage, bushings for wear, a:nd for 

security of attachment. Inspect pylon support assembly to ensure tha:t all bolts ate 

installed in the correct location. Check torque on head of holts only (bolt must 

not rotate). If a bolt !s loose, remove nut. Install new nut and torque 75 to 95 

inch-pounds._. 

d. '" .. .Inspect main driveshaft as follows: ___ a For 20611 and 206Ll Engine 

Upgrade helicopters, inspect for visual damage and couplings for grease leakage. 

Check driveshaft for freedom and smoothness of axial movement Inspect bolts 

for security ... 

e. " Inspect t1rewall for cracks. distortion, and missing rivets and hardware ... 

f. " ... Check aft fuselage structure for condition, damage, cracks and working 

rivets ... Open access door in overhead baggage compartment ... 

g. " ... CAUTION- ANY CRACK, CORROSION, OR LOOSE OR SHEARED 

RIVET IS CAUSE FOR IMMEDTA TE GROUNDING OF THE HELICOPTER 

UNTIL THE PROBLEM IS CORRECTED ... Open access door on the right side 

of aft fuselage and inspect the four tailboom attachment fittings on fuselage aft 

bulkhead and tailboom attachment fittings and bolts, and to fasteners between the 

intercostal. Particular attention must be given to inspection of the upper left 

fitting ... 

h. •• .. .Inspect elevators and auxiliary fans for conditions and security of 

attachment ... 

i. " ... Check segmented driveshafts and Thomas couplings for condition and 

security. Torque check Thomas coupling retention bolts/nuts and apply torque 

seal... 

J- " ••• Start the helicopter and conduct grotmd run at tOO% NR to ensure all systems 

are operational and parameJ.eTs are withir1 Flight Manual Limitations." 

• 4-

18()3Z81\1122816\492S'2 
08/28/2012 17:24 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS 141005/013 

ANSWER: In answer:ir1g this paragraph and ~ubparagraphs (a) through (j), Leading .Edge 

admits only that manufacturer inspection requirements speak for themselves. Leading Edge 

lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny these allegations as the "manufacturer" is not 

identified by the .FAA in the allegations and the FAA has failed to provide any citation to any 

manufacturer document containing the alleged quotations reflected in paragraphs (a) through G). 

12. Leading Edge returned N5758H to service on February 17, 2011, certifying that 

N5758H had been inspected in accordance with a 100 hour inspection, and referred to 

work order SV-10-3988 for additjonal details. · 

ANSWER; Admit. 

13. Work order SV-10-3988 lists as a discrepancy "A/C leak." 

ANSWER: Admit only that work order SV-10-3988 includes under the section "Work Scope 

Description or Discrepancy", in item #16, "A/C leak". Leading Edge denies any remaining 

allegations in this paragraph and demands strict proof thereof. 

14. Work order SV-10-3988 lists the corrective action for the A/C leak as "Unable to 

service due to ambient air temperature." 

ANSWER: Admit only that work order SV -10-3988 states, in part, "unable to service due to 

low ambient temperature" under the heading ''Item Work Scope/Specific Description of Work 

Performed". All remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. 

15. N5758H was subsequently operated for 38.3 hours. 

ANSWER: Leading Edge lacks, sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this 

paragraph and demands strict proof thereof. 

16. On July 7, 2011, the following discrepancies were noted in the logbook for N5758H: 

a. " ... Left cowl access panel latch does not engage to the airframe plate retainer. 

Plate retainer ha.~ worn through ... 

b. " ... Bolt on R/H cyclic control tube at transmission beH crank improperly 

installed ... •• and ..... Cotter pin on Tail rotor control tube 10 bell crank. hydraulic 

. 5-

1 !163281\1122816\49252 
08/28/2012 17:24 FAX 2024835142 FAA -> OMS Ia! 008/013 

suppon area cabin roof panel, installed with head down and not bent over for 

retention ... 

c. " .. .Incorrectly installed transmission restraint, (206-033-506). Bolt 

(NAS6606H60) is a drillec.t bolt that used a locking nut (MS21042L6) and a cotter 

pin (MS24665-73). Too many washers were installed under the nut. The cotter 

point hold of the bolt is under the self-locking nut. Suggest the bolt is scrapped 

for possible elongation in the area of a drill hole ... 

d. " ... Main Drive Shaft found previous installation using incorrect hardware 

buildup, washers found under head of the bolts and shou.ld be under each nut ... 

e. " Engine forward tlrewall has cracks in the pocket, providing clearance to the 

bleed valve, and broken spot welds between the pocket and the firewall resulting 

in diminished fire protection betwee.n the engine and the transmission 

compartments ... 

f. '' ... Tail boom/fuselage access panel installed with incorrect hardware, many 

screws were too long and bottoming on nutplates ... 

g. " ... Tailboom inspected, the attachmeitt fittings have a number of working rivets 

in upper RH, lower LH and lower RH fittings ... 

h. " ... L./H vertica.l fin damage. bent inward at the top believed from the roll-over 

onto left side, Aug. 2000 ... 

1. " ••. Tail Rotor Drive Shaft, two bolts too short (no exposed Threads) at au 

condition compressor drive pulley. 

J. ·" ... Customer reports low rotor tpm and engme out audible warnings are 

crossed ... " 

ANSWER: As the allegations as asserted do not ask Leading Edge to admit or deny the 

accuracy of the purported "discrepancies" in the aircraft's log book and only alleges that certain 

log book entries exist, that were not created by Leading Edge, in answering this paragraph and 

subparagraphs (a) through (j), Leading Edge answers that the existence of any log book entries 

speak for themselves and that J~eading Edge lacks sutlicicnt knowledge t() admit or deny the 

remaining allegations in this paragraph. Further answering, Leading Edge denies the 

characterization of the purported log book: entri~s ao; '"discrepancies". 

17. N5758H was not returned to service on Jtily 7, 2010, as the above discrepancies 

rendered it unairworthy. 

-6-

1863281\ I \221! 16\4')252 
08/28/2012 17:24 FAX 2024935142 FAA ~ OM.S ~007/013 

ANSWER: Denied. 

ill 

1. By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances, Leading Edge violated the 

following sections of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.P.R.); 

a. Section 43.13(a), in that it performed maintenance on an aircraft, engine, 

propeller or appliance without using the methods, techniques, and practices 

prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for 

Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer. 

b. Section 43.13(b). in that it p~rformed maintenance on an aircraft, and failed to 

perform the maintenance in a manner such that the condition of the aircraft was at 

least equal to its original or propedy altered condition. 

c. Section 43.15(a)(1). in that it performed an inspection required under Part 91 and 

failed to petform it so as to determine whether the aircraft, or portion thereof 

under inspection, met all ap..,!ica1

)le airworthiness requirements. 

d. Section 145.201(c)(l), in tl-..at !: approved for return to service an article when the 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration was not performed in 

accordance with the applicable approved technical data or acceptable to the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 

e. Section 145.207(a), in that it failed to follow its approved repair station manuaL 

f. Section 14S.2ll(b), in tha::. it failed to follow its quality control system when 

performing maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations under its repair 

station certificate. 

g. Se:r.:tion 145.215(a), i:n. that it, as a certificated repair station with a limited rating, 

performed maintenance, preventative maintenance, or .alterations on an article 

which was not listed on its current capability list or its operations specifications. 

ANSWER: Leading Edge denies this paragraph and subparagraphs (a) through (g). 

2. In accordance with Sections 4630l(a) and (d) of Title 49 of the United States Code 

(U.S.C.) (Transportation) [49 U.S.C. Sections 46301(a) and (d)]. Leading Edge is liable 

for a civil penalty not to exceed $27~500 for each of the violations noted 

ANSWER: Denied. 

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

ANSWER: Denied. 

18632g 1 \I \22816\49252 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

. 7-
08/28/2012 17:24 FAX 2024835142 FAA + OMS ~ 008/013 

NOW COMES Leading Edge Aviation, Inc_ ("Leading Edge''), by and through its 

COWlsel, and asserts the follo'wi.ng affirmative defenses to the Federal Aviation Administration 

("FAA'') Complaint as foJiows: 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE #1 

1. Prior to Leading Edge completing the 100 hour inspection ofN5758H o.r;t or about 

February 11, 2011, the FAA had completed a Part 135 confonnity inspection of N5758H. 

Moreover, several repair stations ·completed inspections of and repairs to the aircraft before 

Leading Edge completed its 100 hour ins1"lectio:1 on or about February II, 201 L 

2. Because N5758H was investigated by the FAA, repaired by various repair 

stations. and approved for 135 operations ~y t~le FAA, Leading Edge reasonably believed that a 

hidden damage inspection ofN5758H was unnecessary, and Bell Helicopter's guidelines do not 

require a hidden damage inspection, at the time Leading Edge performed its 100 hour inspection 

of the aircraft, that was completed or about February 11, 20 ll. 

3. On infonnation and belief, in July 11, 2011, another repair station, Helicopter 

Services of Utah, allegedly performed a hidden damage inspection of the aircraft and noted 

various issues with the aircraft that the FAA is relying upon in this Complaint. 

4_ The FAA is wrongfully seeking certain violations and penalties against Leading 

Edge for alleged discrepancies raised by a competing repair station that only could have 

potentiaUy be discovered in a hidden damage inspection of N5758H, which was not required at 

the time Leading Edge performed its 100 hour inspection in February 2011. 

5. The FAA is also wrongfully seeking certain violations and penalties. against 

Leading Edge tbr alleged discrepancies that do not exist 

I 363281\J \22816\49252 -8-
---------------------------------------------,--------

08/28/2012 17:25 FAX 2024935142 FAA ~ OMS 141 009/013 

6. The FAA is also wrongfully seeking certain violations and penalties against 

Leading Edge for alleged discrepancies for work that was not perfonned, and wa_~ not required to 

be performed, by Leading Edge. 

AFFIRMATiiVE DEFENSF. #2 

1. Leading Edge relied upon work performed by others, including Part 145 

certificate holder~, including·their.retum to service ofN5758H. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE N-3 

1. Leading Edge self-reported issues related to the issues referenced in paragraphs 

16( c) and (d) and therefore should enjoy immunity with respect to those issues. 

AFFIRM I.. TIVR DEFENSE #4 

1. The FAA has failed to state a cause of action. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE #S 

I. Leading Edge was authorized to perfoJm work on Bell 206L-l aircraft. Leading 

Edge's Capability List contained a typographicel error, which mistakenly listed Bell 206 AlB 

series, rather than simply Be' I 206 series. Leading Edge discussed this typographical error with 

Tanya Glines, FAA Aviation Safefl; Inspector. Inspector Glines recommended that Leading I 

Edge contact its PMl about the issue. Leading Edge followed Inspector Glines' recommendation 

and corrected the typographical error at the direction of/ to the satisfaction of FAA PMI Curt 

Cowley. Further answering, no ad.ditional housing, facilities, equipment, materials, data, 

knowledge, or experience are needed for the Bell 206 series versus the Bell 206 AlB series. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE #6 

-9-

I !1632111 \I \22816\4?,252 
08/28/2012 17:25 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS ~010/013 

1. An air conditioning leak is not required to be repaired jn connection with a 100 

hour inspection by manufacturer BeH Helicopter and has no bearing on the airworthiness of the 

aircraft. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE #7 

1. The purported "discrepancy" in paragraph 16(a) of the Complaint is incorrect 

because the latch engaged appropriately during Leading Edge's 100 hour inspection when the 

aircraft was returned to service. 

AFF!RM:A T1IVE DEFENSE #8 

1. Leading Edge did not perform the work referenced in paragraph 16(b) of the 

Complaint and had no obligation to inspect this part of the aircraft during its 100 hour inspection. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE #9 

1. The purported "discrepancy" in paragraph 16( e) of the Complaint was not present 

when Leading Edge performed its ins~ection. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE #10 

1. The purported "discrepancy" in paragraph 16( f) of the Complaint docs not exist. 

The screws are not too long or bottoming on nut plates. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE #11 

1. The purported '"discrepancy" in paragraph 16(g) of the Complaint does not exist. 

"Working" rivets are not required to be corrected per Dell Helicopter's inspection checklist. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE #12 

1. The purported ••discrepancy" in paragraph· I6(h) does not exist The fin damage 

was very slight. If the fin damage was caused during an accident that occurred in 2000 as 

speculated by the FAA, the damage was visible to the FAA during its conformity inspection and 

• 10-

1 863 28 I\ I 1228 I fi\4 9251. 
08/28/2012 17:25 FAX 2024835142 FAA + OMS 141011/013 

inspections by other service providers as discussed in Affirmative Defen5e #I. Leadjng Edge did 

not remove or install the fin. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE #13 

1. The purported discrepancy in paragraph 16(i) of the Complaint docs not exist. 

The hardware installation is correct per the instructions for the STC to allow proper clearance of 

the compressor drive pulley. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE #14 

1. The pUiported discrepancy in paragraph 16(i) docs not exist. The system is 

operational and was checked during the post 100 hour run up. There is no requirement to verify 

the frequency of the two alerts in the run up checklist. Further, several very experienced pilots 

have flown the aircraft since Leading Edge's J.OO hour inspection and never noted any 

abnormalities with the horns. 

STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT 

Leading Edge requests that this matter be dismissed as Leading Edge has complied with 

all applicable laws and requirements in connect~on with the subject aircraft. Leading Edge has 

incurred attomey's fees and expenses associated with this matter as well as spent significant time 

in connection with this matter. If this matter is required to proceed to hearing, Leading Edge 

respectfully requests that this matter proceed to hearing in Chicago, Illinois as that would 

signiticantly reduce the attorney's fees and expenses that Leading Edge would have to incur 

given that Leading Edge's counsel is located in Chicago, Illinois. 

LEADING EDOE AVIATION, INC. 

1&632SI\I\228l6\49252 

-11-
08/28/2012 17:25 FAX 2024835142 

Fred C. Begy 

Carri A. Conlon 

CIIUHAK & TECSON, P.C~ 

30 S-- Wacker Drive 

Suite 2600 

Chicago. IL 60606 

(312) 444-9300 

1863281\1122816\49252 

FAA + OMS ~012/013 

One of Its Attorneys 

- 12-
08/28/2012 17:25 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS 141013/013 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath, certifies that a true and correct copy of this 

Respondent's Answer to Complaint was served upon counsel-of-record as indicated above by 

dcpositin~ same, proper postage prepaid, in the U.S. mailbox located at 30 South Wacker Drive, 

Chicago,.Illinois 60606 at or about 5:00p.m. this 22"d day of August, 2012 and also sending "ia 

Federal Express on this 22n~ day of August, 2012. 

s 

Notary Public 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Cieri::~ AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 

Jeffrey M. Harper, FAA Attorney 

Dana Stephenson, FAA Attorney 

FAA Office of Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

~~n~t~,-------

re me on this 22nd day of August, 2012. 

My commission expires: ~~~~~.-:::~,........::~~~~~o-:::::FF:::-::Ic~rAL~SEA __ L__ _ 

OENISEGORE 

Nobiry Public • State of Illinois 

My Commission Expires Nov 12,2013 

-13-

!863281\1 1221116\49257.