U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Federal Aviation Administration ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0288 

Complainant, Judge J.E. Sullivan 

vs. 

AVIONICS MASTERS, INC. 

Respondent U C) 20fli 

lNG DOCKET 

AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES HUNT PER 

COURT ORDER SERVED APRIL 16, 2014 REGARDING AMOUNT OF PENALTY 

THE AFFIANT, being duly sworn, says: 

My name is CHARLES HUNT, I am above 18 years of age, I am competent to testify 

and I state these facts based on my personal knowledge, and a review of the previously 

filed pleadings, affidavits, and evidence. 

1. I have been an FAA-licensed repair station certificated repairman for more than 30 

years. My education with respect to aviation includes college level courses and 

manufacturer's training courses, and subsequent continuing education over the 

years. In my 40 years of experience in the aviation industry, I have serJiced Piper, 

Cessna, and Beechcraft airframes and avionics systems, and have seen many 

types of avionics including the Bendix/King KFC 200 Autopilot. 

2. This affidavit is pursuant to Paragraph 3 of Judge Sullivan's Order Setting Deadline 

for Filing Amended Complaint and Supplemental Materials. The Court's question 

VI/6051415/K-43190 Page 1 of 7 
on Paragraph 3 is with respect to the Respondent's opposition to the FAA's 

proposed civil penalty and support for a lesser, $935, alternate civil penalty. 

3. Based on my detailed review of this case, in my professional opinion it does not 

appear that there is a violation of FAR §145.5(a) or §145.201(b), and the 

Respondent's actions do not warrant a fine of more than $7,000. Even if there is 

a violation of some FARs such as §43.5(a) or §43.9(a)(1), a fine of $935 would be 

much more just, appropriate and reasonable. My reasons are as follows. 

FIRST EVIDENCE 

4. On http://www.bendixking.com/HWL!media/Pilot-Guides/006-08262-0000_0.pdf, it 

is clearly illustrated that there is no one box for the Bendix/King KFC-200 Auto Pilot 

The Auto Pilot is not a self-contained unit. Rather, the Auto Pilot is a "system" that 

exists by virtue of coupling several components and sub-systems to each other 

such that their cooperation with each other provides the human pilot with an 

autopilot system. According to the Respondent's Air Agency Certificate, the 

Respondent clearly is authorized to "install, remove, repair and replace" items 

including autopilots. However, since the KFC-200 Autopilot is not by itself a 

standalone unit contained in a box, the only means of removing or installing the 

KFC-200 Autopilot is to remove or install the sub-systems and components. 

5. The Air Agency Certificate also states that Respondent's maintenance authority with 

respect to the KFC-200 consists of "Level 1: Line and/or bench test, and 

Installation." (Emphasis added) This clearly means that Respondent is authorized 

to remove the KFC-200 from an aircraft, to install the KFC-200 in an aircraft, and 

to replace a KFC-200 in an aircraft with another one. This can only be done by 

W60514i5/K-43190 Page 2 of 7 
removing, installing or replacing individual components, which Respondent is ciearly 

authorized to perform. 

6. The bench test will require hooking up each component to test harnesses, and 

testing them for their functionality consistent with Level 1 inspections. If each 

component functions p;operly, then it is presumed that the autopilot will function 

properly. This is not the same as performing a Level 3 component level internal 

inspection, tear down, or repair. 

7. Therefore, the mitigating circumstances are that a) bench testing components of the 

KFC-200 are a necessary part of a Level1 test of a KFC-200, otherwise the task will 

be impossible; b) using an enforcement action to bar the Respondent from 

removing the components and bench testing them will be a direct contradiction of 

the Respondent's Air Agency Certificate; and c) typographical errors made by 

support staff on a Form 8130-3 do not warrant a $7,000 fine. 

SECOND EVIDENCE 

8. The FAA frequently refers to FAA Order 2150.38 as an enforcement and sanctions 

guideline. Among the many things discussed are risk analysis (See F-6), which 

includes two key ingredients- severity and likelihood. 

9. Severity of the aileged violation in this case is negiigible, since an autopilot is not 

critical to flight. A human pilot can disengage an autopilot and hand f!y the aircraft. 

10. Likelihood of injury or property damage from the alleged violation is almost none, 

since the Respondent presented testimony that after several months of storing 

components of an autopilot, the Respondent re-tested them as a pre-requisite to 

installing them. Further, Respondent's last affidavit states that Respondent 

W6051415/K-43190 Page 3 of 7 
routinely re-tests any avionics components that it stores in inventory, and many 

times components that fail are then sent to the appropriate agency for repair. 

Redundant testing eliminates the likelihood that the violations alleged in this case 

would result in injury or property damage. 

11. Therefore, the mitigating circumstances are that a) there is negligible severity ofthe 

alleged violations; b) there is no likelihood that either a maintenance violation or a 

paperwork violation would have affected the end user because of Respondent's 

policy or habit of re-testing inventoried products; and c) typographical errors made 

by support staff on a Form 8130-3 do not warrant a $7,000 fine. 

THIRD EVIDENCE 

12. Upon receiving the First Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses, the Answer 

Opposing the FAA's Motion for Summary Judgment, and their supporting exhibits, 

the FAA filed an Amended Complaint. 

13. In the Amended Complaint, the FAA charged Respondent with alternate violations 

of §43.5(a) and 43.9(a)(1). 

14. The FAA Order 2150.38 is again a relevant tool in this case (See Section 8). 

15. On Page B-21 ofthe Order, the FAA relies on B-3-b(13) to state a maximum penalty 

range may be warranted, and then demands $7,000. The $7,000 demand was for 

the alleged violation of FAR §145.5(a) or §145.201(b). The alternate pleadings 

demanded $4,020 for alleged violation of §43.5(a) and 43.9(a)(1). A matching 

sanction would be under B-3-b(6) of the Order, which states a minimum range 

penalty. The minimum penalty is $935, which clearly sounds more reasonable for 

a support clerk's typographical error. 

VV6051415/K-43190 Page 4 of 7 
16. In this case only a minimum penalty is warranted because of the facts and 

circumstances of this case. Respondent acted in good faith, there is no indication 

of multiple violations. severity is negligible, likelihood of injury or property damage 

is none, there was only a typographical error that was later corrected, there is 

authorization under FAA Order 8130.21G with respect to correcting typographical 

errors, the Respondent corrected the typographical errors, Respondent's redundant 

testing habits caught the error, Respondent obtained an overhaul of the Directional 

Gyro from an appropriate agency, the alleged violation - if any- was inadvertent, a 

substantial disregard for safety or security was not involved, the circumstances of 

the alleged violation were not aggravated, a trend of noncompliance is not indicated, 

and the Respondent has a constructive attitude toward compliance. 

17. In conclusion, in my professional opinion there is no violation of any FARs. 

However, if the judge finds a violation. a fine of $7,000 is clearly no! warranted. 

Further, a fine of $935 is more just, appropriate and reasonable than any higher 

amount. 

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT: 

STATE OF FLORIDA } 

} 

COUNTY OF BROWARD } 

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared CHARLES HUNT, 

known to me to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument in my presence, or 

Page 5 of 7 
presence, or produced his Florida Driver's License as proof of identification. 

WITNESS my hand and official seal, thi~ay of May 2014 in the County and 

State aforesaid. 

--;/ I / 

My commission expires: <1//uj/y' 

3d:W,~ Date 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

TAMMY S. WHtTMIER 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have on this date, Tuesday May 6, 2014, served the 

foregoing to the following parties using the below-described methods: 

Original and one copy via Regular U.S. mail and fax: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Fax: 1-202-493-5123 

One copy via Regular U.S. mail only: 

W6051415/K-43186 

Honorable Judge J.E. Sullivan 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E1i-310) 

Washington, D.C. 2D590 

Fax: 1-202-366-7536 

Page 6 of 7 
One copy via Regular U.S. mail, fax, and email: 

c/o Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

Email: chris.stevenson@faa.gov 

Fax: 1-404-305-5223 

One courtesy copy via email only: 

Charles L. Hunt, Jr. 

Vincent Sorentino 

Avionics Master, Inc. 

1001 West Cypress Creek Road, Suite 309 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 

Email: .Q1l!Q!llii1!:@1!Ql&Q!IJ. 

Page 7 of 7 

Counsel for e ondent 

Mohammad med Faruqui, ESQ. 

Aerolaw Offices PLLC 

Florida Bar# 20875 

633 SE 3'ct Ave, Suite 4R 

Trial Lawyers Building 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

Designated Emails for Service: 

Mohammad@Aerolaw.info