U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS FEDERALAVIATION 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: Myname isCHARLES HUNT, Iam above 18years ofage, Iam competenttotestify and I state these facts based on my personal knowledge, and a review ofthe previously filed pleadings, affidavits, and evidence.

1. I have been an FAA-licensed repairstation certificated repairman for morethan 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 my40years ofexperience 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 affidavitis pursuantto Paragraph 3ofJudge Sullivan's OrderSetting 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 supportfor a lesser, $935, alternate civil penalty. 3. Based on my

### detailed review ofthis 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 notwarrant a fine of more than $7,000. Even 

### ifthere is
aviolation ofsome FARs such as §43.5(a) or§43.9(a)(1), afine of$935 would be much morejust, 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 thatthere is no one boxforthe Bendix/King KFC-200Auto Pilot TheAuto Pilot is not a self-contained unit. Rather, theAuto 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. TheAirAgencyCertificatealsostatesthat Respondent's maintenanceauthoritywith respect to the KFC-200 consists of "Level 1: Line and/or bench test, and Installation." (Emphasis added) This clearly meansthat 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 7removing, installingorreplacing individualcomponents,which Respondentisciearly 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,themitigating circumstancesarethata) benchtestingcomponentsofthe KFC-200 are a necessarypart ofa Level1 testofa KFC-200, otherwisethetaskwill 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 FAAfrequently refers to FAA Order2150.38 as an enforcementand sanctions guideline. Among the many things discussed are risk analysis (See F-6), which includes two key ingredients- severity and likelihood. 9. Severity ofthe aileged violation in this case is negiigible, since an autopilot is not criticaltoflight. A human pilot can disengage an autopilot and hand 

### f!y the aircraft. 10. Likelihood ofinjury 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 7routinely 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. Redundanttesting eliminates the likelihood that the violations alleged in this case would result in injury or property damage. 11. Therefore,the mitigating circumstances arethata) there is negligibleseverityofthe alleged violations; b) there is no likelihood that either a maintenance violation ora paperwork violation would have affected the end user because of Respondent's policy or habitof re-testing inventoried products; and c) typographical errors made by support staffon a Form 8130-3 do notwarrant a $7,000 fine. THIRD EVIDENCE 12. Upon receiving the FirstAmended 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. IntheAmended Complaint, the FAA charged Respondentwith alternateviolations of§43.5(a) and 43.9(a)(1). 14. The FAA Order2150.38 is again a relevant tool in this case (See Section 8). 15. On Page B-21 oftheOrder, the FAA relies on B-3-b(13)tostatea maximum penalty range maybe 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 716. In this case only a minimum penalty is warranted because of the facts and circumstances ofthis case. Respondent acted in good faith, there is no indication of multiple violations. severity is negligible, likelihood of injury or propertydamage 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 Respondentcorrectedthetypographicalerrors, Respondent's redundant testing habits caughtthe error, Respondent obtained an overhaul ofthe Directional Gyrofrom an appropriate agency, the alleged violation - ifany- was inadvertent, a substantial disregard for safety or security was not involved, the circumstances of theallegedviolationwerenotaggravated,atrend ofnoncomplianceis notindicated, 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. FURTHERAFFIANT 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 7presence, 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 WilburWright Building- Suite 2W1000 Washington, D.C. 20591 Fax: 1-202-493-5123
One copy via Regular U.S. mail only:

W6051415/K-43186Honorable 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 7One copyvia Regular U.S. mail, fax, and email: c/o Christopher R. Stevenson, Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel, Southern Region Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box20636 Atlanta, GA30320 Email: chris.stevenson@faa.gov Fax: 1-404-305-5223 One courtesy copyvia 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