EECUTIVE 

'FLITEWAVS 

April 29, 2014 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

ONE CLARK DRIVE, RONKONKOMA, NY 11779 

(631) 588-3480 ext. 128 fax: (631) 588-5527 

RECEIVED 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilber Wright Building, Suite 2W1 00 

MAY -5 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

RE: FAA Case No. 201280950377 

Please consider this letter an amended written response to the Complaint that we 

received on March 11, 2014. 

Complaint Item number 1. Executive Fliteways, Inc. admits that it received a Final 

Notification of Proposed Civil Penalty advising that a civil penalty in the amount 

of $15,400.00 was proposed. 

Complaint Item number 2. Executive Fliteways, Inc. admits that it is the holder of 

Air Carrier Certificate Number A)QA201 C. 

Complaint ttem number 3. Executive:Fiiteways, Inc. admits that it is required to 

comply with 14 C.F.R. part 120 and 49 C.F.R. part .40 for its drug. and alcohol 

testing program. 

Complaint item number 4. Executive Fliteways, Inc. admits that it failed to 

conduct random drug and alcohol testing in accordance with the procedures set 

forth in 14 C.F.R. part 120 when we did not include mechanic Leon Parra in the 

random testing pool: 

Mitigating factor: Mr. Parra received a pre-employment drug test and was enrolled in 

the N.A.D.E. random pool via facsimile. For some undetermined reason, Mr. Parra's 

name did not appear in the random pool, however he was continuously under the 

assumption that he was subject to random alcohol and drug testing. 

The 16 months that elapsed between his pre-employment drug test and the recognition 

of ciLiromission was not an uncommon period of time between random tests. Looking 

back since 2010, the average period between random tests for all our covered 

employees is over 30 months! •' 

Immediately upon recognition of the om1ss1on of Mr. Parra from the random pool, 

Fliteways self·disi::los~d the· apparent omission to the FAA and sent Mr. Para to a 

testing facility for a random drug test which came back negative. It is Fliteways' 
contention that the inadvertent omission of Mr. Parra in the random testing pool does 

not truly represent a serious safety violation. 

Fliteways has instituted a procedure to preclude this type of error for all future new 

hires. 

Complaint item number 5. Executive Fliteways, Inc. admits that it failed to 

conduct a drug and alcohol records check on Michael Martinez, Peter 

Schouwenaars, and Leon Parra prior to hiring them to perform safety-sensitive 

functions. 

Mitigating Factor: Prior to this most recent audit of our Drug and Alcohol Testing 

Program, Fliteways, had never requested drug and alcohol records from previous 

employers for new hire maintenance technicians. In the four previous audits of our 

Drug and Alcohol Testing Program, no mention of this omission has ever been cited by 

any of the auditors. Additionally, until recently, we have never received a SINGLE 

request for the records for- any maintenance technician that had left our employ and 

went on to work for other FAR Part 121 or 135 carriers or the Long Island Railroad! 

Our procedures manual has been amended to reflect the requirement to obtain these 

records for all future maintenance technicians. All technicians, in addition to their peremployment drug tests were subjected to a Criminal History background check and a 

check of their driver's licenses for any alcohol or drug related violation. All were 

negative. 

Complaint item number 6. Executive Fliteways, Inc. admits that it violated 14 

C.F.R. part 120 when we included non-safety-sensitive employees in the same 

random drug and alcohol testing pool as DOT covered safety-sensitive 

employees. 

Mitigating Factor: It was explained to the auditor that each of the individuals listed had 

unregulated access to company aircraft, were authorized to energize aircraft systems 

and assisted in aircraft towing operations. Based on the "spirit" of the law, it seems that 

these employees did perform safety sensitive functions. Consequently, we felt it 

prudent to conduct pre-employment testing and include these employees in the random 

testing pool. Once again, in all previous FAA audits this was never cited as a violation. 

However, the auditor demanded that they be removed from the random pool with which 

we immediately complied. The fact that we incurred the additional expense to include 

these individuals in the testing program should be proof that we take our responsibilities 

to provide our passengers with aircraft operated and maintained by employees that are 

free of the effects of drugs and/or alcohol. 

Executive Fliteways, Inc. admits to the three major violations cited in the Complaint. 

However, we feel that the proposed Civil Penalty of $15,400.00 is excessive and 

unwarranted based on the mitigating factors of this case. The three violations that were 

cited were addressed immediately upon discovery and actions have been taken to 

prevent recurrences. 
Please advise the date and location of the proposed hearing as I look forward to 

presenting our case that each of these issues is of small consequence in regards to 

ensuring that our workforce is drug free and never operating under the influence of 

alcohol. 

Sincerely, 

~ / Kenneth S. Gray 

Director of Operations 

Cc: John W. Grillo, President