11/05/201 0 10;1 2 FAX 2024935142 FAA + QMS 0001/00 7 

Thomas Newton Boiling 

Managing Attorney- Regulatory Affairs 

713/324-5606 

thomas.bolling@coair.com 

nrPARTMENT OF 

i:W;SPORT/Vr!ON 

•"•-' '"'^1:R/\T1^ 

October] 8, 20 rb 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS - 7940 198X 4646 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S W 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, A(JC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 

Continental 

Airlines 

Legal Department HOSLG 

1600 Smith Street 

Houston TX 77002 

Tel 713 324 5131 

Fax 713 324 5160 

coniinentisl.conn 

Re: Continental Airlines, Inc. - Request lor Heanng ' 

Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty - FAA Case No. 2009SW270060 

Dear Sir or Madam; 

By letter dated October 5, 2010, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a 

Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty in the above-referenced case. Pursuant lo 49 U.S.C. 

§ 46301, as amended, and the FAA Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions as ^tt forth in 

14 C.F.R. § 13.16, Continental Airlines, Inc. (Continental) hereby reque.st5 a hearing in the 

above-referenced case. In addition. Continental ai.so requests all future communications on this 

case be directed to my attention at the address provided below. 

Thoma.s Newton Boiling 

Managing Attorney, Regulatory Affair.s 

Continental Aidines, Inc. 

1600 Smith Street, 15th Floor HQSLG 

Houston, TX 77002 

Tel: (713) 324-5606 Fax:(713)324-5161 

Email: thomas.bolIinti:@c(^air.com 

Thank you. Please let mc know if you need additional 4nfor-Hi^on 

Sincerely, / 

Thofna liofnass Newton Boiling 

Managing Attorney, Regulatory Al 
11/05/2010 10:12 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS 0 002/007 

October 18, 2010 

Page 2 

cc: Tim Duff, E.sq. 

Attorney, Safety Enforcement Branch 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

2601 Mcacham Boulevard 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

(VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS) 

Continental 

Airlines 

A STAR ALLIANCr MFMBER ''"'• 
11/05/2010 10:12 FAX 2024935142 FAA •» DMS @l003/007 

fd 

U.S. Oeparimeni 

of [ransportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administrafion 

Southwest Region 

Arkansas. Louisiana, 

New Mexico, Oklahoma 

Te)<as 

Federal Aviation Adrniiiialralioil 

Southwest Region 

Office of Regional Counsel, ASW-7 

2601 Meacham Blvd 

Fon Worth. TX 76137 

OCT 2 1 2010 

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington. DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerl<, AGC-430 

In the Matter of: Continental Airlines Inc 

Docket No. CP 

Case No, 2009SW270060 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

nC. ; 

Enclosed are the original and one copy of the complaint in the above-referenced 

proceeding. 

The Complainant requests that the hearing in this matter be lield in the Houston, Te.xas 

area, and expects that the hearing will last one day. 

Please serve me with all documents in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

LYNETTE WORD 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

Tim Duff 

Attorney 

- % ^ 

Enclosed; Complaint 
n/05/201 0 10:12 FAX 2024935142 FAA DMS 121004/007 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

In the Matter of: 

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES INC 

FAA Case No. 2009SW270060 

FAA Docket CP 

Judge Not Assigned 

COMPLAINT 

The Complainant files its complaint, under Rule 208 of the Rules of Practice in 

FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 14 CFR §13.208, and states the following: 

I. 

Respondent Continental Airlines Inc.. (hereinafter "CAL") was advised thi'ough a 

Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the 

amount of $156,250. On October 18, 2010, Respondent CAL submitted a written 

request for a hearing. 

II 

1. Continental Aidines Inc. (CAL) holds Air Carrier Operating Certificate 

CALA014A authorizing it to engage in scheduled air transportation under Part 121 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations. 

2. On or about December 9, 2008, in Austin, Texas, a CAL employee documented 

the following problem with CAL Civil Aircraft N19621. a Boeing 737, in the aircraft 

maintenance log at page 8146208: "Auto pressurlzation failed at FL 360. Regained control 

of cabin in ALTN mode at FL 210." 

3. CAL improperly deferred maintenance on the discrepancy citing Boeing 737 

Minimum Equipment List (MEL) 21-14-3A for authority and documented the following 

corrective action on the maintenance log: "Placard automatic mode inop." 

4. CAL continued to operate the aircraft on two flights and again addressed the 

discrepancy December 10, 2008 at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport (DFW). 

5. CAL Work Card D5852641 indicates the following maintenance action was taken 

in DFW: "T/S per M/M 21-31-00. Sys tests normal. Bite of both Press ctlr's, sys ok. FLT 

fault shows lo flow/high leak, code 30. Needs leak health ck, ref M/M 21-30-00. Ext 

054566. No fault In press ctl sys. Table "B" of ref." 
11/05/2010 10:13 FAX 2024335142 FAA + DMS §1005/007 

6. The corrective action indicated that CAL trouble shot the problem by performing 

a built in test equipment (Bite) test of both pressure controllers. That test indicated that the 

pressure controllers were operating normally but found an inflight fault with a lo flow/high 

leak. The corrective action also stated that the system needed a health check. 

7. CAL maintenance improperly assigned the discrepancy an Extension Control 

Number -054566 (Ext CH # 054566) in order to continue to operate Civil Aircraft N19621 

under the original MEL deferral. 

8. CAL operated Civil Aircraft N19621 on three flights under the MEL extension. 

9. The original MEL deferral, pursuant to MEL 21-14-3A, addressed potential 

problems with the automatic modes of aircraft's digital control system. 

10. The maintenance performed at DFW revealed that N19621's problem was not 

in the pressure controllers but that there was a pressurlzation leak in the fuselage and/or 

insufficient air flow to pressurize the fuselage. 

11. CAL's operations specifications require that CAL aircraft must be maintained 

according to CAL's Continuing Airworthiness Maintenance Program (CAMP), 

12. Use of the MEL as described herein is a part of CAL's General Maintenance 

Manual and CAMP. 

13. CAL's failure to properly identify the cause of the problem described in 

paragraph 2 above, and its subsequent MEL deferral referencing an aircraft system that 

did not cause the problem were contrary to the provisions of CAL's maintenance program 

and operations specifications, 

14. CAL's operation of Civil Aircraft N19621 under an incorrect MEL deferral 

procedure was contrary to the provisions of CAL's maintenance program and operations 

specifications. 

15. Continued operation of Civil Aircraft Ml9621 under the original MEL deferral for 

three additional flights after a determination that the original deferral did not address the 

problem with the aircraft was contrary to the provisions of CAL's maintenance program and 

operations specifications. 

16. After CAL was notified of the problem by an FAA inspector, CAL inspected the 

aircraft and found that a misplaced ty-wrap prevented the cabin outflow valve from 

operating properly and that an aft cargo drain outflow valve was stuck open. CAL 

corrected the problems by removing and replacing the drain valve and by removing the tywrap. 

17. CAL operated Civil Aircraft N19621 on 5 flights while in was in an unairworthy 

condition as a result of its use of the incorrect MEL maintenance deferral procedure. 
S n/05/201 0 10:13 FAX 2024935142 FAA + QMS @l00G/007 

!-1 

By reason of the foregoing, CAL violated the following sections of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations: 

a. Section 121.369(b) in that while performing, maintenance, preventive 

maintenance or alterations it failed to follow the maintenance program set out in its 

manual; 

b. Section 119.5(1) in that it operated an aircraft under Part 121 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations in violation of an air carrier operating certificate, operating 

certificate, or appropriate operations specifications issued under this Part 119 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations; and 

c. Section 121.153(a)(2) in that it as a certificate holder operated an aircraft 

when it was not in an airworthy condition, 

III. 

1, Under 49 U.S,C. §46301, respondent is subject to a civil penalty for each of the 

violations of the regulations cited. The maximum penalty for each violation of each of the 

regulations is $25,000.00. 

2. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of $156,250 is 

appropriate. 

Complainant respectfully requests that the administrative law judge enter an order that 

respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $156,250. 

Submitted this 2.1^ ^ day of C>cr • Z^ i 0 

LYNETTE WORD 

Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region 

By: v^<'*» AJM4 ^ 

Tim Duff 

Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

817-222-5099 

817-222-5092 
11/05/2010 10:13 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS 0007/00 7 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Complaint has been mailed this date by 

Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington. DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Room 2W1000 

President 

Continental Airlines Inc. 

HQSEO 

P.O. Box 4607 

Houston, Texas 77210-4607 

Thomas Boiling 

Legal Department HQSLG 

1600 Smith Street 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Aileen C^fsTllas Ayala, Program Analyst 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Southwest Region 

Office of Regional Counsel 

2601 Meacham Blvd 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

Date:_3Cf_LL20ia