The Aviation Law Firm 

January 3, 2014 

VIA REGULAR U.S. MAIL 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 

One Research Court 

Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

1-877-4-AIR-LAW · 301-294-8550 

866-568-9886 fax 

301-294-2525 fax 

www.AviationlawExperts.com 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building--Suite 2W1 000 

Re: Wings Air, LLC, FAA Docket No. 2012EA110052 

Dear Hearing Docket Clerk: 

Gregory S. Winton, Esq_ 

Admitted in MD, NY, PA, CT 

and D.C. 

Jared M. Allen, Esq.* 

*Admitted in FL and D.C. Only 

RECEIVED 

JAN 1 0 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

As you may recall, this office represents Wings Air, LLC, regarding the above-referenced matter. Enclosed 

please find an original and two copies of Respondent's Answer and Affirmative Defenses. Kindly file stamp one 

copy and return it to this office in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope. 

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, !1 ~~ . J 

~ rv\ !+ff:;e7V 

M. Allen 

Enclosure 

cc: Zachary M. Berman 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

WINGS AIR, LLC, 

Respondent 

FAA CASE NO. 2012EA110052 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

NOT YET ASSIGNED 

Hearing Date: NOT YET ASSIGNED 

Hearing Location: NOT YET ASSIGNED 

RECEIVED 

JAN 1 0 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

COMES NOW, Wings Air, LLC, (hereinafter "Wings Air"), by and through 

undersigned counsel, pursuant to Ru1e 209 of the Ru1es of Practice (14 C.F.R. § 13.209) and 

hereby files the following Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Administrator's Complaint, 

served on December 24,2013. 

ANSWER 

I. 

WINGS AIR admits the allegation contained in section I of the Complaint. 

II. 

1. WINGS AIR admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 1, of the 

Complaint. 

2. WINGS AIR admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 2, of 

the Complaint. 
3. WINGS AIR admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3, of the 

Complaint. 

4. WINGS AIR admits only that the aircraft sustained a bird strike on or about April28, 

2012, and denies the remainder of the allegations contained in Section II, paragraph number 4, of 

the Complaint. 

5. WINGS AIR admits only that the bird penetrated the canopy nose skin of the aircraft, 

and lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the 

remainder of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 5, of the Complaint and 

therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

6. WINGS AIR denies the allegations as stated in section II, paragraph number 6, of the 

Complaint. 

7. WINGS AIR denies the allegations as stated in section II, paragraph number 7, of the 

Complaint. 

8. WINGS AIR admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 8, of the 

Complaint. 

9. WINGS AIR denies the allegations as stated in section II, paragraph number 9, of the 

Complaint. 

10. WINGS AIR denies the allegations as stated in section II, paragraph number 10, of 

the Complaint. 

11. WINGS AIR denies the allegations as stated in section II, paragraph number 11, of 

the Complaint. 

12. WINGS AIR denies the allegations as stated in section II, paragraph number 12, of 

the Complaint. 

2 
13. WINGS AIR denies the allegations as stated in section II, paragraph number 13, of 

the Complaint. 

14. WINGS AIR lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 14, of the Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

III. 

(a). WINGS AIR denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. § 43.5(a)(l). 

(b). WINGS AIR denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. § 43.9(a). 

(c). WINGS AIR denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. § 43.13(a). 

(d). WINGS AIR denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. § 91.405(b). 

(e). WINGS AIR denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. § 91.407(a)(2). 

(f). WINGS AIR denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. § 135.413(a). 

IV. 

1. WINGS AIR denies that pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 4630l(a)(l), it is subject to a civil 

penalty not to exceed $25,000 for each of the violations alleged, and further denies that pursuant 

to 49 U.S.C. § 4630l(a)(5), it is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $11,000 for each of the 

violations alleged. 

2. WINGS AIR denies that under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty 

of $22,000 is appropriate. 

Any other allegations not specifically numbered by paragraph are hereby denied. 

3 
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

1. In determining the civil penalty amount, the Complainant has failed to consider ( 1) the 

nature and circumstances of the violation; (2) the extent and gravity of the violation; (3) the 

respondent's degree of culpability; ( 4) the respondent's history of prior violations, if any; (5) the 

respondent's ability to pay the civil penalty; (6) the effect on the entity's ability to stay in 

business; and (7) other matters as justice may require. See 49 U.S.C. §4630 I ( e )(2); See also 

Folsom's Air Service, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-11 (November 6, 2008), p. 11. 

2. WINGS AIR relies upon the affirmative defense of reasonable reliance. Specifically, 

Respondent asserts that it relied upon the manufacturer's maintenance manual for the 

Aerospatiale AS350BA rotorcraft, registration number N27W A, and authorized representatives 

of the manufacturer. Respondent further asserts that given the facts of this case and the entire 

circumstances, the alleged violation must be dismissed. 

3. In determining the civil penalty amount, the Complainant has failed to determine 

whether the violation was inadvertent or deliberate. 

4. In determining the civil penalty amount, the Complainant has failed to consider the 

Respondent's size, particularly in determining the alleged offender's ability to absorb the 

sanction. 

5. The proposed civil penalty fails to reflect the totality of the circumstances surrounding 

the violations. See Folsom's Air Service, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-11 (November 6, 2008), p. 

12; Eastern Air Center, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-3 (January 28, 2008). 

6. Finding multiple violations for the same offense would constitute '"piling on' [that] 

should be avoided except under the most egregious circumstances." In the Matter of Carr, FAA 

Order No. 1998-2 at 11-12 (March 12, 1998). 

4 
7. WINGS AIR does not have the financial ability to pay the proposed civil penalty. 

8. The proposed civil penalty would have a detrimental effect on the ability of WINGS 

AIR to continue doing business. 

9. The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) interpretation of its Federal Aviation 

Regulations in this case is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in 

accordance with law. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (A); Watkins v. NTSB, 178 F.3d 959, 961 (8th Cir. 

1999). 

10. The FAA's interpretation of its aviation regulations is unconstitutionally vague. See 

Thomas v. Hinson, 74 F.3d 888, 889 (8th Cir. 1996); see also Trans States Airlines, Inc. v. FAA, 

439 F.3d 863, 864-865 (8th Cir. 2006); Heath v. SEC, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 24128 at 53-55. 

11. The FAA's application of its Federal Aviation Regulations in this case is contrary to 

the regulation's plain language. See Advanta USA, Inc. v. Chao, 350 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 

2003), quoting Gardebring v. Jenkins, 485 U.S. 415, 430, 108 S. Ct. 1306, 99 L. Ed. 2d 515 

(1988). See also Trans States Airlines, Inc. v. FAA, 439 F.3d 863, 864-865 (8th Cir. 2006). 

12. WINGS AIR asserts that the Complainant has failed to state a claim upon which the 

relief requested may be granted. 

13. WINGS AlR asserts that the Complainant lacks substantial basis in law and fact to 

continue prosecution of this matter against it. 

5 
Dated: January 3, 2014 

Respectfully submitted, 

GORY S. WINTON, ESQ. 

JARED M. ALLEN, ESQ. 

The Aviation Law Firm 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax: (866) 568-9886 

JAllen@AviationLawExperts.com 

Counsel for Respondent 

6 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date sent via U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, an original and one 

copy of the foregoing Respondent's Answer and Affirmative Defenses addressed to: 

ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2Wl 000 

And, further, that I have this date sent by electronic mail and by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, a 

copy of the foregoing addressed to: 

ONE COPY 

Zachary M. Berman, Esq. 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

FAA Eastern Region, AEA-7 

1 Aviation Plaza, Room 561 

Jamaica, New York 11434 

Tel: 718 553-3258 

Fax: 718 995-5699 

zachary.berman@faa.gov 

Dated: January 3, 2014 

7 

c U10 M .. ~rJ ared M. Allen, Esq. 

The Aviation Law Firm 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax: (866) 568-9886