## r

^••ff l O F[RV^SFORL^Jj^f^

. DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSFORATIO N W. Q« * • *^^» ^ •I S FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N ^^' ^ ' 5 20 © 

# ; - : , ... . ''^^^^^^ 0 DOCKE T ) I n th e Matte r

of : )

) FAACASENO. : 2007CE03002 6 AIREVACEMS,INC . ) ) ANSWE RT O COMPLAIN T Ai r Eva c EMS , Inc . (hereinafte r "Respondent" ) hereb y answer s th e FAA' s Complain t

i n FA A Cas e Numbe r

2007CE03002 6 a s follows .

I . 1 . With regar dt o § I. , Paragrap h 1 , Responden t admit s tha t

o n February 27 , 200 7 i t was issue dtw o notice s o f propose dcivi l penalties , on e for $15,00 0 an don e for $25,00 0 an dtha t

o n February 4 , 201 0 i t

wa s issue dtw o final notice s o f propose dcivi l penalties , on e for

$15,00 0 an don e for

$25,000 , al l o f

whic h wer e basedupo n th e same ac t o f Aaro n Rogers , whic h ha s bee n resolved . Responden t admit s tha t

o n February 8 , 201 0 i t submitte dwritte n request s for hearing s for

thi s matter , FA A Cas e Numbe r 2007CE03002 6 an dth e othe r matte r whic h ha s bee n referre dt o a s 2007CEO030008 . Th e remainde r

o f th e allegation s i n § I , Paragrap h 1 are denied . II . 1 . With regar dt o § II. , Paragrap h 1. , Responden t admit s tha t

i t was th e holde r o f th e ai r carrie r certificat e but

denies tha t

sai dcertificat e ha dan y relevanc y t o thi s action . 2 . Responden t denie s § II. , Paragrap h 2 . Responden t Ai r Eva c EMS , Inc . i s th e holde r o f Repai r Statio n Certificat e No . QEVR436K . FA A CAS E NO. : 2007CE03002 63 . With regar dt o § II. , Paragraph s 3 , 4 an d5 Responden t denie s thos e allegation s a s ther e i s n o suc h entity a s Ai r Evac , Inc . ("AEI") . However , Responden t admit s tha t

Aaro n Roger s ha dth e state ddutie s for Respondent' s repai r

statio n i n Wes t Plains , Missouri . 4 . Wit

h regar dt o § II. , Paragraph s 6 an d7 , Responden t admit s tha t

o n o r abou t Octobe r 18 , 2006 , th e Aircraf

t whic h was owne dan doperate db y Responden t was flying o n anon-Part

13 5 an dtha t

upo n arriva l at

Sikesto n ther e wa s n o ke y for th e narcotic s bo x an dthe y returne dt o Wes t Plain s t o retriev e th e missin g key . Th e remainde r o f th e allegation s i n § II. , Paragraph s 6 an d7 are denied . 5 . With regar dt o § II. , Paragrap h 8 , Responden t admit s tha t

th e Aircraf

t upo n approac h t o Respondent' s Wes t Plains , Missouri downtow n heliport experience da mechanica l failur e an dwa s abl e t o divert an dmak e arun-o n landin g at Wes t Plain s Municipa l Airport

withou t afatality o r

an y othe r

injur y o r damage . Th e remainde r

o f th e allegation s i n § II. , Paragrap h 8 ar e denied . 6 . With regar dt o § II. , Paragrap h 9 , Responden t lacks sufficient

informatio n an dknowledg e wit h whic h t o for mabelie f

a s t o th e truth o r

falsity o f

th e allegation s containe dtherei n an dtherefor e denies al l an dth e whol e thereof. 7 . With regar dt o § II. , Paragraph s 1 0 an d1 1 Responden t i s not i n apositio n t o spea k t o th e findings o f

th e FA A an dtherefor e lack s sufficient informatio n an d knowledg e upo n whic h t o for mabelie f

a s t o th e truth o r

falsit y o f th e allegation s containe dtherei n an dtherefor e denies al l an dth e whol e thereo f includin g al l subpart s thereto .

FA A CAS E NO. : 2007CE03002 68 . Responden t denie s al l o f

th e allegation s i n § II. , Paragrap h 12 . Th e Aircraf t was returne dt o servic e b y Aaro n Roger s individuall y usin g th e authority grante d b y th e FA A t o hi mpersonally b y hi s A& P Certificat e 494941510 . 9 . Responden t

denies al l o f

th e allegation s i n § II. , Paragrap h 13 . 10 . With regar dt o § II. , Paragraph s 14 , 1 5 an d1 6 an dal l subpart s thereto . Responden t

denies th e allegation s containe dtherein . 11 . Wit h regar dt o § II. , Paragrap h 17 , Responden t denies tha t

th e Aircraf

t was accepte dfor

flight o r knowingl y operate di n a n unairworth y conditio n an ddenie s th e remainde r o f th e allegation s containe di n Paragrap h 17 . III . 1 . With regar dt o § III. , Paragraph s 1, 2 an d3 Responden t denie s all an dth e whol e thereof. AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE S B y way o f

defens e an daffirmativ e defense . Responden t states : 1 . Ther e i s n o suc h entity a s Ai r Evac , Inc . (AEI) . 2 . Th e Aircraf

t wa s no t operatin g o n aPart

13 5 flight

o r certificat e at

an y relevan t time . 3 . Thes e claim s agains t Responden t

mus t b e dismisse dupo n th e basi s o f re s judicat aand/o r

doubl e jeopard y becaus e the y hav e bee n alread y litigate dan dfault ha s bee n foun dt o la y wit h Aaro n D . Roger s wh o personall y an dindividually , withou t th e directio n o r

authority o f

Respondent , signe dof

f th e Aircraf

t a s bein g airworth y usin g an d unde r th e authority grante dt o hi mb y th e FA A o n hi s individua l A& P Certificate . 3 FA A CAS E NO. : 2007CE03002 64 . Th e claim s agains t thi s Responden t

mus t b e dismisse do n th e basi s o f re s judicat ao r

doubl e jeopard y a s the y ar e th e sam e clai masserte di n FA A Cas e Numbe r 2007CE030008 . 5 . Th e Complain t

fail s t o stat e aclai mupo n whic h relie f may b e granted . 6 . Th e clai masserte di n thi s Complain t ha dnothin g t o d o with Respondent' s ai r carrie r certificate . 7 . Responden t

wa s entitle dt o rel y upo n th e certificatio n b y Aaro n Roger s tha t th e Aircraf

t was airworth y an dread y fo r flight. 8 . Th e penalt y sough t agains t Responden t

i s excessive , especiall y whe n considerin g th e combinatio n o f th e tw o case s 2007CE03002 6 an d2007CE030008 . 9 . Th e ac t

givin g ris e t o th e FAA' s Complain t occurre do n o r

abou t Octobe r 18 , 200 6 an dth e FAA' s first Notic e o f

Propose dCivi l Penalty was sen t t o Responden t

i n February 2007 . Approximatel y thre e (3 ) year s late r i n February 2010 , th e final Notic e o f Propose dCivi l Penalty was sen t b y th e FAA . Thi s extende ddelay i s aviolatio n o f Respondent' s constitutiona l righ t t o du e proces s an dprejudice dRespondent' s ability t o defen dthi s action . 10 . Responden t

reserve s th e righ t

t o assert

additiona l defense s and/o r affirmativ e defense s a s investigatio n an ddiscovery continue . Wherefore , Responden t

request s dismissa l o f

th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration' s Complain t an dal l allegation s containe dtherein ; with prejudice , a n awar do f fee s pursuan t

t o th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Ac t (EAJA) , an dsuc h othe r

relie f a s th e La w Judg e deem s jus t an dequitable .

FA A CAS E NO. : 2007CE03002 6Respectfiill y submitted , COOLIN G& HERDER S

Ra Main ; lansa s City , M O 6410 ^ Telephone : (816)474-077 7 Facsimile : (816)472-079 0 jramsey@,coolinglaw.co m ATTORNEY S FO RRESPONDEN T AI REVA C EMS , INC . CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E I hereb y certif

y tha t o n th e lO" ' da y o f

Marc h 2010, 1 forwarde dth e origina l an d on e (1 ) cop y o f

th e foregoin g Answe r

t o Complain t

viaUnite dState s mail , certified , retur n receip t

requeste dto : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Wilbu r Wrigh t Building , Suite 2W1000 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Additionall y on e (1 ) cop y o f th e foregoin g Answe r

t o Complain t

wa s forwarde d viaUnite dState s mail , certified , retur n receip t requeste dto : Mar k G . Camach o Senio r Enforcemen t

Attorne y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f Regiona l Counse l 90 1 Locust , Roo m50 6 Kansa s City , M O 64106-264 1

FA A CAS E NO. : 2007CE03002 6