.-.»-. ^m ^ yrTM, ^ ^ ,^ __ ^ 

' I 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ; . 

WASHINGTON, D.C. HE ^ J i. .. ^^KE T 

IN THE MATTER OF 

GOJET AIRLINES, LLC 

(VD GEAR PINS) 

FAA Docket No. CP10CE0003 

DMS No. FAA-2010-0025 

Judge: ALJ Richard C. Goodwin 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR DECISION 

COMES NOW Respondent GoJet Airlines LLC (hereafter "GoJet"), by and 

through its counsel of record, and hereby files this Motion for Decision on the Pleadings 

pursuant to §13.218 of the FAA, DOT Investigative and Enforcement Procedures. In 

Support thereof. Respondent states as follows: 

1. On or about February 16, 2010, the FAA filed its Complaint in regards to 

the above referenced matter. 

2. In said Complaint, the FAA requested that Respondent be assessed a civil 

penalty in the amount of Thirty Three Thousand Dollars ($33,000.00). 

3. The parties are in agreement that the FAA was informed about the events 

giving rise to this civil penalty action via a report filed in accordance with the FAA's 

Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program ("VDRP"). (See Complaint P ) 

4. The VDRP is an FAA program in which the FAA agrees to forgo a civil 

penalty action when the certificate holder promptly discloses violations to the FAA, and 

takes prompt corrective action to ensure that the same or similar violations do not recur. 

It is designed to encourage compliance with the FAA's regulations, foster safe operating 
practices, and promote the development of Internal Evaluations Programs. (See AC 00-

58B, 115). 

4. The FAA has published AC 00-58B to provide information and guidance 

material that certificate holders can use when voluntarily disclosing to the FAA apparent 

violations of FAA regulations. (See AC 00-58B, 1|1) 

5. In accordance with AC 00-588, GoJet made a report and submitted a 

comprehensive fix proposal to the St. Louis Flight Standards District Office (STL FSDO) 

in regards to the incident which gave rise to this civil penalty action. (See Complaint 

ini8&9) 

6 After the filing of the voluntary disclosure and comprehensive fix, a dispute 

arose between GoJet and FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector Gary Cooper 

("Inspector Cooper") to the proposed comprehensive fix. (See Complaint 1|10) 

7. Pursuant to AC 00-588, GoJet requested that this issue be reviewed at 

the next level of management within the FAA in order to obtain an independent 

assessment of the areas in disagreement. (See AC 00-588,1|11) 

8. Rather than allowing GoJet to go up the chain of command, as the FAA's 

own guidance document provides for, Inspector Cooper rescinded the voluntary 

disclosure and initiated this civil penalty action. 

9. Because the FAA is acting against its own published guidelines by failing 

to allow GoJet an independent assessment of areas in dispute in regards to the 

comprehensive fix and instead immediately rescinding the voluntary disclosure and 

instituting a civil penalty action, this enforcement action is arbitrary and capricious and 

must be dismissed. 
10. Respondent's Memorandum in Support of this Motion is filed 

contemporaneously herewith. 

Dated: August 2, 2010 Respectfully Submitted: 

David J.A. Hayes, III Esq. Q 

Vice President & General Counsel 

Trans States Holdings, Inc. 

11495NavaidRd., Ste. 340 

Bridgeton, MO 63044 

Phone: 314-222-4316 

Fax: 314-222-4311 

dhayes@transstates.net 

Attorney for Respondent 

GoJet Airlines, LLC 
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Decision was sent this 

2nd day of August, 2010 via U.S. Mail, all postage pre-paid, to the following: 

Original & One Copy: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

One Copy: 

David 8. Kessler 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Central Region, ACE-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

DOT Building 

901 Locust, Room 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, ALJ 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

a^-otu Cruyndur 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF ) FAA Docket No. CP10CE0003 

) 

GOJET AIRLINES, LLC ) DMS No. FAA-2010-0025 

(VD GEAR PINS) ) 

) Judge: ALJ Richard C. Goodwin 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR DECISION 

COMES NOW Respondent GoJet Airlines LLC by and through its undersigned 

Counsel and hereby submits this Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Decision. 

I. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereafter the "FAA") initiated this action 

against GoJet Airlines LLC (hereafter "GoJet" or "Respondent") on or about February 

16, 2010. The FAA alleges that GoJet violated the Federal Air Regulations ("FARs")^ 

based upon the fact that GoJet's contracted maintenance personnel installed lockpins in 

N151GJ's main landing gear while replacing the aircraft's number two brake assembly 

but then failed to remove the gear pins and failed to make the required logbook entry 

stating "landing gear pin installed, remove before flight". The FAA requested that this 

Court enter an order assessing Respondent a civil penalty in the amount of Thirty Three 

' Specifically, the FAA alleges that GoJet violated Sections 43.13(a) by virtue of 43.13 (c), 

91.13(a), and 121.153(a) (2) of the Federal Air Regulations. 
Thousand ($33,000) for said violations. GoJet filed its Answer denying the allegations 

on or about March 12, 2010. 

II. 

STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED MATERIAL FACTS 

GoJet is the holder of Part 121 Air Carrier Certificate Number N6WA249L. (See 

Complaint 1|ll.1) At all relevant times, GoJet was the operator of aircraft N151GJ, a 

Canadair CRJ-700 Regional Jet, Model CL-600-2C10, registered as an aircraft available 

for use in Part 121 revenue operations. (See Complaint 1III.2) 

On or about November 26, 2007, GoJet's contracted maintenance personnel 

removed and replaced N151GJ's number two brake assembly in accordance with the 

CRJ-700 Aircraft Maintenance Manual ("AMM") which requires that maintenance 

personnel lift the main landing gear ("MLG") with a jack and install lockpins in the MLG. 

(See Complaint If 11.3) In addition, GoJet's General Maintenance Manual ("GMM") 

requires that a mechanic make an entry in the aircraft Flight Logbook stating, "landing 

gear pin installed, remove before flight." (See Complaint ^ ) GoJet's maintenance 

personnel failed to make the required logbook entry and failed to remove the lock pins 

from the MLG. (See Complaint 1|5; See also Self Disclosure Details attached hereto as 

Exhibit 1) As a result, GoJet operated N151GJ with the gear pin installed in the left 

main landing gear which forced N151GJ to abort an operation subsequent to take-off. 

(See Complaint 1H|6, 7; See also Exhibit 1) 

On the same day as the incident occurred, GoJet's Chief Inspector Jeff Craig 

verbally informed the FAA about the above described incident and then filed a self-
disclosure utilizing the Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program ("VDRP")^ system. 

(See Disclosure Details attached hereto Exhibit 1) The FAA's initial response was that 

the report was a valid self disclosure. (1&, at 2) Because this was an isolated incident 

and not a systemic problem, GoJet proposed counseling and re-training of the 

mechanic as a comprehensive fix. (Id^ at 4) On January 24, 2008, FAA PMI Gary 

Gooper requested changes to the comprehensive fix because he did not believe the 

proposed comprehensive fix precluded a recurrence of this violation. (]d at 5) Cooper 

insfituted a deadline of February 7, 2008 to implement the amended comprehensive fix. 

{\± at 4) 

Cooper believed that an appropriate comprehensive fix would be generation of 

an MX 43 which could be inserted as part of GoJet's maintenance manual procedures 

telling the mechanic when he's finished to remove the pin. (See Deposition of Cooper 

at 86, relevant portions of which are attached hereto as Exhibit 2) This step is not 

required by the manufacturer's aircraft maintenance manual. (]d) A dispute arose as 

to whether or not this additional step was an appropriate comprehensive fix and GoJet 

requested that Cooper's proposal be reviewed by the next level of management within 

the FAA in accordance with AC 00-58B. GoJet's request was not honored. 

On January 25, 2008, Cooper sent a letter to GoJet's Chief Operating Officer in 

regards to this and one other incident. (See Letter from Cooper to GoJet Airlines 

^ The FAA established the Voluntary Report and Disclosure Program ("VDRP") to provide an incentive 

to encourage carriers to voluntarily disclose violations and potential violations of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations ("FAR"). The VDRP is the ASAP equivalent for air carriers. Under the VDRP, the FAA vM 

forgo issuing a civil penalty action when a violation is promptly disclosed to the FAA and corrective 

action is taken to ensure that the same or a similar violation does not recur. The FAA has stated that it 

believes that the VDRP program will encourage compliance with the FAA's regulations, foster safe 

operating practices, and promote the development of the Internal Evaluation Programs (lEPs). 
attached hereto as Exhibit 3) In his letter, Cooper instituted a February 8, 2008 

deadline for GoJet to implement his proposed comprehensive fix. (jd) GoJet again 

requested that another member of the FAA weigh in on Cooper's proposed 

comprehensive fix. That request was not honored. Instead on February 15, 2008, 

Cooper rescinded the voluntary disclosure and assigned EIR Number 2008CE030045 

to this matter. (See Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program - Rescind Case attached 

hereto as Exhibit 4) 

The FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty on December 23, 2008 based 

upon the foregoing facts which it learned as a result of GoJet's voluntary disclosure. 

(See NPCP attached hereto as Exhibit 5) Said NPCP proposed assessment of a Thirty 

Three Thousand Dollar ($33,000) civil penalty for the alleged violafions. (jd.) Following 

issuance of the NPCP, an informal conference was held, but the parties were unable to 

resolve this matter. On January 27, 2010 the FAA issued a Final Nofice of Proposed 

Civil Penalty ("FNPCP") again proposing to assess a civil penalty in the amount of Thirty 

Three Thousand Dollars ($33,000) against GoJet for the alleged violations. (See 

FNCP attached hereto as Exhibit 6) Finally, on February 16, 2010, the FAA issued an 

Amendment to the FNPCP indicafing that it had considered the information submitted at 

the informal conference held on September 9, 2009. (See Amendment to FNPCP 

attached hereto as Exhibit 7) One day later, on February 17, 2010, the FAA initiated 

this action. (See Complaint) GoJet has denied each and every allegation. (See 

Answer) 
III. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard 

According to Section 13.218(f)(5) of the Rules of Civil Practice in FAA Civil 

Penalty Proceedings, the ALJ shall grant a party's mofion for decision if the pleadings, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, matters that the administrative law 

judge has officially noticed, or evidence introduced during the hearing show that there is 

no genuine issue of material fact and that the party making the motion is entitled to a 

decision as a matter of law. 

B. BACKGROUND OF THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE REPORTING 

PROGRAM (THE "VDRP") 

The FAA established the VDRP to provide an incentive to encourage carriers to 

voluntarily disclose violations and potential violations of the FARs. (See AC 00-588 

attached hereto as Exhibit 8) Under the VDRP, the FAA will forgo issuing a civil penalty 

action when a violation is promptly disclosed to the FAA and corrective action is taken to 

ensure that the same or a similar violation does not recur. (Id) The FAA has stated that it 

believes the VDRP program will encourage compliance with the FAA's regulations, foster 

safe operating practices, and promote the development of the Internal Evaluation Programs 

(lEPs). (Id.) The FAA has published AC 00-588 to provide information and guidance 

material that may be used by a certificate holder when voluntarily disclosing to the FAA 

apparent violations of the FARs. (jd.) 

C. ARGUMENT 

1 The FAA Cannot Use Data Obtained from a Valid Voluntary Disclosure 

to Bring an Enforcement Action. 
As part of the VDRP, the FAA has agreed to issue a letter of correction in lieu of a 

civil penalty action for covered instances of noncompliance that are voluntarily disclosed to 

the FAA in accordance with AC 00-588. (Id) While AC 00-58B specifically states that "the 

FAA ordinarily will not forgo legal enforcement action if the certificate holder informs the FAA 

of the apparent violation during, or in anticipation of, an FAA investigation/inspection or in 

association with an accident or incident" there are two exceptions specifically noted in the 

published guidance. First, if the FAA learned of the violations via an ASAP report as 

described in the current edition of AC 120-66. Second, if violation was discovered either by 

the company or a member of the FAA during a voluntarily joint audit.^ 

In order to avail itself of the immunity provided in AC 00-588 the carrier must 

demonstrate that it complied with the terms of the program. That means the carrier must 

demonstrate that: 

(1) the certificate holder immediately notified the FAA of the violation after the 

violation was detected and b>efore the FAA had learned of the apparent 

violation through another means; (2) the violation was inadvertent; (3) the 

apparent violation does not indicate a lack of qualification, or a reasonable 

question of the qualification, of the certificate holder; (4) upon discovery of the 

violation, immediate action was taken to correct or temninate the conduct that 

caused the apparent violation; and (5) the certificate holder has developed or 

is developing a comprehensive fix and schedule of implementation 

satisfactory to the FAA. 

(See Exhibit 8 at 7.b) In this case, it is undisputed that as a Part 121 carrier GoJet is 

covered under the VDRP if the above referenced conditions are met. GoJet has met each 

and every one of the above referenced conditions and is entitled to the promised immunity 

from a legal enforcement action. 

3 None of these exceptions are at issue in this case. 

6 
First, the FAA admits in its Complaint that GoJet immediately notified the FAA of the 

violation, before the FAA learned about it through other means. (See Complaint 1J8; See 

also Exhibit 1 and Complainant's Response to Respondent's First Request for Admissions 

attached hereto as Exhibit 9) Second, it is undisputed that the violation was inadvertent. 

(See Exhibit 8 at ^8) Third, it has not been alleged that voluntary disclosure was rejected on 

the basis that the apparent violation indicates a lack of qualification or reasonable question 

of the qualification of GoJet to hoW a part 121 certificate. (See Complaint: See also Exhibit 

4) Fourth, upon discovery of the alleged violation GoJet took immediate action. This 

included returning the flight and sending it to the maintenance hangar for performance of 

operational check of the landing gear retraction/extension system and counseling the 

mechanic who performed the repair on the mandatory procedures outlined in the GoJet 

GMM. (See Exhibit 1 at page 2) The FAA has not alleged to the contrary. (See Complaint) 

Finally, GoJet developed a comprehensive fix. (See Exhibit 1) 

The only issue in this case is the acceptability of the proposed comprehensive fix to 

the FAA. In that regard AC 00-588 cleariy states that in the event of a dispute regarding the 

acceptance of a proposed comprehensive fix, or modification thereto before the fix is 

considered satisfactory, the PI and the pertinent regulatory entity may request that the issue 

be resolved at the next level of management within the FAA. (See Exhibit 8 at H11) GoJet 

invoked that provision and requested that the dispute regarding the comprehensive fix be 

reviewed at the next level of management within the FAA. That request was not complied 

with. Rather Inspector Cooper demanded that GoJet invoke his proposed comprehensive 

fix by February 7, 2008 or he would revoke the voluntary disclosure. Because the parties 

were unable to resolve the issues surrounding the comprehensive fix the voluntary 

disclosure, which met all the qualifications for immunity, was rescinded and this enforcement 
action was commenced using the information the FAA obtained from the disclosure which 

was made on the condition of immunity. (See Exhibit 9) 

Allowing the FAA to use information voluntarily disclosed on the basis of immunity 

from a civil penalty action frustrates the very purposes of the VDRP in that earners will be 

less likely to voluntarily disclose violations. GoJet met each and every condition required for 

anonymity. For that reason it should be entitled to immunity from any civil penalty action in 

regards to tiiis incident. 

2. Bringing an enforcement action based upon infomiation tfiat was voluntarily 

disclosed in the ASAP Program is a direct violation of the FAA's published 

guidance and therefore arbitrary and capricious, and an abuse of discretion. 

As a general rule, decisions of an administrative agency as to whether to conduct 

an enforcement proceeding for a violation of its organic statute or regulations issued 

there under is a matter that is not reviewable by the courts and, a fortiori, by an agency 

tribunal. However this discretion is not unlimited. Multiple cases have explored the idea 

that when the FAA has issued an official program document (such as AC 00-588), 

inviting parties subject to its jurisdiction to confess their violations in return for more 

favorable prosecutorial treatment, the agency should be held to its commitment if there 

is no sound reason for it to have refused or rescinded the bargain. See In Matter of 

Stebbins Aviation, Inc., FAA Order No. 2006-3; In re Bevil Hart, FAA Docket No. 

CP89SW0455; In Matter of Boston-Maine AinA/ays, DMS No. FAA-2007-0366. 

The Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A), also prohibits all 

federal agencies from acting in a manner that is arbitrary and capricious. "While the 

general rule is that an agency's decision as to how or whether it will prosecute is a 

decision generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion, courts have found an 

abuse of prosecutorial discretion in rare situations where it has been shown that the 

8 
agency's action is arbitrary, capricious, or othenwise not in accordance with law." FAA v. 

David E. Cohen, FAA Docket No. CP93WP0030 at 8. In re Matter of Boston-Maine 

Airways, ALJ Benkin specifically stated that: 

to allow the Complainant [the FAA] to initiate a civil penalty claim 

against a Respondent [Carrier] who had fully complied with the 

requirements of AC 00-58A [now AC 00-58B], in violation of its clear 

and unmistakable promise that such respondents "will receive a letter 

of correction in lieu of civil penalty action for covered instances of 

noncompliance that are voluntarily disclosed to the FAA" would 

sanction lawless behavior that epitomizes action that is arbitrary 

and capricious. 

Boston-Maine AinA/ays, DMS No. FAA-2007-0366 at 10. 

Just as ALJ Benkin found in Boston-Maine Airways, this case epitomizes the 

definition of arbitrary and capricious. AC 00-588 is the FAA's only published guidance 

document in regards to the VDRP. As explained in further detail above, GoJet contends 

that it complied with each and every condition set forth in AC 00-58B required for 

immunity from a legal enforcement action. In fact, the only issue in dispute is whether 

GoJet's comprehensive fix was satisfactory to the FAA. 

This incident involved a single solitary incident by one mechanic. The FAA 

Inspector Cooper spoke with the mechanic in question and the mechanic confirmed that 

he knew about the GMM requirement but he had forgotten at the time, he knew now. 

(See Inspector Statement attached hereto at Exhibit 10) In support of its position that 

this was a systemic problem, the FAA relies on several previous enforcement actions. 

None of which involve a mechanic leaving a gear pin in. In accordance with AC 00-588, 

when the dispute arose regarding the comprehensive fix GoJet requested to take the 

issue up Inspector Cooper's chain of command at the FAA. Those requests were 

denied. 
Because the FAA rejected a self-disclosure which complied with the 

requirements of AC 00-588 and failed to allow GoJet to take issues regarding the 

comprehensive fix up the chain of command, the FAA's actions in regards to this 

incident are clearly arbitrary and capricious and this enforcement action must be 

dismissed. 

IV. 

CONCLUSION 

The purpose of VDRP and ASAP is to encourage the self-disclosure of violations of 

the Federal Aviation Regulations in order to promote better compliance with FAA 

regulations, foster safety, and better develop lEPs. When the carrier or employee has fully 

complied with the program yet the FAA uses the infomiation to instigate a civil penalty 

action, the FAA artDitrary and capricious manner and any such enforcement action must be 

dismissed. 

Dated: August 2, 2010 Respectfully Submitted: 

\\AlS,^.VPt. \\, f^ J l m-^ 

David J.A. Hayes, III Esq. 

Vice President & General Counsel 

Trans States Holdings, Inc. 

11495NavaidRd., Ste. 340 

Bridgeton, MO 63044 

Phone: 314-222-4316 

Fax: 314-222-4311 

dhayesigtransstates.net 

Attorney for Respondent 

GoJet Airiines, LLC 

10 
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Memorandum in Support of Motion 

for Decision was sent this 2nd day of August, 2010, via as indicated below, to the 

following: 

Original & One Copy: via U.S. Mail, all postage pre-paid. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

One Copy: 

Via Email and US. Mail, all postage pre-paid. 

David 8. Kessler 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Central Region, ACE-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

901 Locust, Room 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

Via FedEx. 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, ALJ 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El 2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

^ y 

'<p\j(jAxk 0 CKX yjAcb ( 

11 
ji^-ivtiaii riuiici rnenaiy Fage Page 1 of 5 

Self Disclosure Details 

Notification ID: 1636 

EIR Number: 2008CE034004 

EIR Status: OPEN 

Current Stage: WR 

Notification Title: A/C flew with Ldg Gear Pin installed 

Initial Notification 

Submited By: Jeffrey Craig 

Designator ID: N6WA 

Designator Name: GoJet Airlines, LLC 

Business Concern: Large Business Concern 

Was Alleged Violation Discovered as the Result of an Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) 

Report: No 

Was Alleged Violation Discovered During Air Carrier Program (ACEP) Evaluation: No 

Did Non-Compliance Cease after Detection: Yes 

Is Evaluation Underway to Determine Systemic Problem: Yes 

Will Written Report be Submitted in 10 Working Days: Yes 

Inspector Code: CE03GJC 

Inspector Name: Gary Cooper 

Inspector Type: PMI 

Notification Mode: Web 

Notification Date: 11/26/2007 13:00 

INFORMATION OF THE PERSON PREPARING COMPREHENSIVE FIX: : 

Name: Jeffrey Craig 

Contact Information:314-222-4790 

DESCRIPTION OF ALLEGED VIOLATION: 

GoJet Airlines operated N151GJ with the gear pin installed in the left main landing gear. Mechanic 

forgot to remove the left main landing gear pin after replacing the number 2 brake assembly. 

DESCRIPTION OF IMMEDIATE ACTION: 

Aircraft returned from flight due landing gear would not retract. Had maintenance inspect aircraft, 

found lef main landing gear pin installed. Sent Aircraft to the maintenance hangar to perform 

htlps://av-info.faa.gov/vdrp/SDViewOnly.aspx 1 i'~y A r^^r^r^r^ 
ou-ueian rrmter hnendly Page Page 2 of 5 

operational check of landing gear retraction / extension system. 

COMMENTS: 

Initial Notification Response 

Is Valid SD?: Yes 

Investigation Commence Date: 1/1/1900 

Submitted By: Gary Cooper 

Submitted Date: 11/29/2007 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION IF NOT VALID SD: 

Written report 

Written Report Date: 12/4/2007 

full Report: Yes 

Discover Date, Time: 11/26/2007 13:00 

Submitted By: Jeffrey Craig 

Submitted Date: 12/10/2007 

Violation Location: St. Louis Missouri 

WR Version: 1 

REASON OF INCOMPLETE WRITTEN REPORT: 

DETAILED SELF DISCLOSURE (VIOLATION) DESCRIPTION: 

GoJet Airlines operated N151GJ with the landing gear pin installed in the left main landing 

gear.Aircraft returned from flight. 

ANALYSIS SUMMARY: 

While changing the left inboard main brake assembly, the mechanic installed the and landing gear pin 

in the left main landing gear. After completing the brake change, the mechanic failed to remove the 

landing gear pin from the left main landing gear. 

GoJet Airlines General Maintenance Manual (volume one,chapter 3 part 12.2) requires you to make an 

entry in the Aircraft Maintenance Flight Logbook stating 'Landing gear pin installed, remove before 

flight'. This was not done. 

https://av-info.faa.gov/vdrp/SDViewOnlv.asDx 
SD-Detail Printer Friendly Page Page 3 of 5 

This was detected by the landing gear not retracting after take off. 

REASON WHY THE VIOLATION WAS INADVERTENT: 

Human Factors: At the time of replacing the brake assembly, the mechanic failed to recall the 

procedures outlined in the GMM to generate a log book discrepancy. 

EVIDENCE DESCRIPTION: 

N/A 

Certificate Type: sch cargo carrier 121 &/or 135 

Time Violation Remained Undetected: 0 Cycles / 

Immediate Action Date: 11/26/2007 

Company Name/Address: GoJet Airlines, LLC/11495 Navaid Road Suite 303 , ,Bridgeton,MO63044 

Equipment: Type-Aircraft, Make-CNDAIR, Model-CL6002C10, group-CL600. 

Aircraft Registration Number: N151GJ 

IMMEDIATE ACTION DESCRIPTION: 

Sent aircraft to the maintenance hanger to perform operational check of landing gear retraction / 

extension system. 

FARCODE(S): 

43.13A - REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMING MAINTENANCE, ALTERATION OR PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ON A PRODUCT 

PERSONNEL INFORMATION: 

Immediate Action - Craig, Jeffrey, jcraig(a)gojetairlines.com, 3142224790 x 

Comprehensive Fix - Craig, Jeffrey, jcraig@gojetairlines.com, 3142224790 x 

Discovered Alleged Violation - Craig, Jeffrey, jcraig@gojetairlines.com, 3142224790 x 

Filing Report - Craig, Jeffrey, jcraig@gojetairlines.com, 3142224790 x 

Monitoring Implementation of Fix - Craig, Jeffrey, jcraig@gojetairlines.com, 3142224790 x 

COMPREHENSIVE FIX PROPOSAL: 

Step Title 

Counsoling / training 

httDS://av-infn fa-j rrr>\/A?Hrr./cr»\/;^...<">-«-• 
SD-Detail Printer Friendly Page Page 4 of 5 

Begin Date 

11/26/2007 

End Date 

11/30/2007 

Name 

Jeffrey Craig 

Details 

The Mechanic was counseled on the mandatory procedures outlined in the General Maintenance 

Manual that requires you to make an entry in the Aircraft Maintenance Flight Logbook stating 

'Landing gear pin installed, remove before flight'. 

Written Report Review 

Designator: N6WA 

Comprehensive Fix Status: AMMEND 

Comprehensive Fix Implementation Deadline: 2/7/2008 

Inspector Name: Gary Cooper 

Inspector Code: CE03GJC 

Inspector Type: PMI 

2150.3 FORM: 

Operation Type: air carrier -121 

Operation Subtype: scheduled passenger 

Violation Category: maintenance 

Violation Source: self disc - flight standards 

Problem Category: maintenance 

Problem Code: other remarks 

Review Date: 

Fix Description: personnel-organization 

SD Identity: sd sched air carrier 121 

Accident Type: no accident 

Management Intervention: No 

Submitted Date: 1/24/2008 

Additional Comments: The following items neeed to be addressed and a comprehensive fix 

established, as described in FAA Order 8900.1, no later than February 7, 2008. 

1. DESCRIPTION OF ALLEGED VIOLATION: Please clarify, current description does not mention 

the GMM required logbook entry, for the gear pins being installed, was not made. 

2. DETAILED SELF DISCLOSURE (VIOLATION) DESCRIPTION: Go into the details of the 

violation (who, what, when, and why) provided in the DESCRIPTION OF ALLEGED VIOLATION 

section (include GMM logbook requirement). 

3. REASON WHY THE VIOLATION WAS INADVERTENT: Please clarify if this is a frequent 

occurance, or isolated incidient (i.e., during the previous twelve months no other landing gear 

pins/twenty-four landing gear pins were left in the gears following maintenance). 

httn<;//aV-inf o fc a rrr.x/A/rlrr,/<:n\/;<>»wnnl„ ac,^v l/O/l/onoQ 
SD-Detail Printer Friendly Page Page 5 of 5 

4. COMPREHENSIVE FIX PROPOSAL: The proposed comprehensive fix does not preclude 

recurrence of this violation. The mechanic involved knew of the GMM requirement to make a logbook 

entry stating the landing gear pin was installed prior to this incident, and yet still forgot to make the 

entry. Counseling (reminding) the mechanic of the GMM requirement does not meet the guidance in 

FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 11, Chapter 1, paragraph 11-4. The comprehensive fix should prevent the 

same mechanic, or any other mechanic, from forgetting to make the logbook entry and subsequently 

forgetting to remove the gear pins following maintenance again. 

QUESTIONS: 

1. Does the specific maintenance manual procedure call for the gear pins to be installed? 

2. Does the specific maintenance manual procedure call for the gear pins to be removed? 

3. Is there any company procedures requiring the flight crew to conduct a walk around, following 

maintenance actions, paying particular attention to the areas where maintenance was performed? 

httDS://av-info.faa.pnv/vdrn/SDViewOnlv a<;nY 1/94/0008 
£ t l 

, M I D W E S T 

L I T I GAT IO N 

SERVICE S 

COUR T REPORTIN G 

& VIDE O 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

W^ASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

GOJET AIRLINES, LLC 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10CE0004 

DMS NO. FAA-2010-0190 

DEPOSITION OF GARY COOPER 

JUNE 11,2010 

NATIONWIDE SCHEDULING 

OFFICES 

MISSOURI Spnngfrelcj JeMeison City knnsasCii y Columbi a Roiic: CoDe G-rorcleau 

KANSAS Ovnr'a.if, s>u't rLLINOIS Sp'inijlei l C n, jnipcn qri Chicti-jo 

HEADQUARTERS: 71 1 North Eleventh Street, ST. Louis. Missouri 63101 

8 00.280..'?' ? 7 6 
GARY COOPER 6/11/2010 

Pagel 

1 U.S. DEPARTMB^ OF TT^ANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINIb 1 RATION 

2 WASHINGTON, DC 

3 

4 INTHEMAIIbROF ) 

)FAA Docket No. CP10CE0004 

5 ) 

)DMS No. FAA-2010-0190 

6 GOJET AIRLINES, LLC ) 

)Judge AU Richard Goodwin 

7 ) 

8 

9 

10 

11 DEPOSITION OF GARY COOPER 

12 TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 

13 JUNE 11 , 2010 

14 

Reagan A. Fiorino, RMR, CCR, IL-CSR 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Page 2 

1 INDEX 

2 QUESTIONS BY: PAGE 

3 MR, HAYES 5 

4 

5 

6 EXHIBIIS 

7 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE 

8 1 Advisory Circular AC 120-66B 8 

9 2 Advisory Qrcular AC 00-58B 23 

10 3 Investigation report package 44 

for windshield 

11 

4 Investigation report package 81 

12 for gear pins 

13 (Exhibits attached) 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Page 3 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF ) 

)FAA Docket No. CP10CE0004 

) 

)DMS No. FAA-2010-0190 

GOJET AIRQNES, LLC ) 

)Judge A U Richard Goodwin 

) 

DEPOSmON OF GARY COOPER, produced, sworn. 

and examined on June 11 , 2010, between the hours of 

9:30 o'clock in the forenoon and 11:30 o'clock in the 

forenoon of that day, at St. Louis Right Standards 

District Office, 10801 Pear Tree Lane, Suite 200, St. 

Ann, Missouri, t)efore Reagan A. Fiorino, RMR, CCR, 

IL-CSR, In a certiain cause now pending with the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Washington, DC. 

1 

Page 4 

APPEARANCES 

For the Federal Aviation Administration: 

Mr. David Kessler | 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ! 

901 Loaist, Room 506 ' 

ICansas City, MO 64106 j 

816.329.3763 ^ 

816.329.3771 FAX i 

david.kessler@faa.gov < 

For the Respondent GoJet Airlines, LLC: 

Mr. David J. Hayes, UI 

TRANS STATES HOLDINGS, INC. 

11495 Navaid Road 

St. Louis, MO 63044 

314.222.4316 

314.222.4311 Fax 

The Court Reporter: 

Reagan A. Fiorino, RMR, CCR, IL-CSR 

Midwest Litigation Services 

711 North Eleventh street 

St. Louis, MO 63101 

314.644.2191 

314.644.1334 Fax 

rriorino@midwestligitation.com 

25 

1 (Pages 1 to 4) 

www.midwestlitigation.com 

MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES 

Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 
GARY COOPER 6/11/2010 

Page 81 

1 MR. HAYES: I thinic I'm done with this case. 

2 MR. KESSLER: Do you need a drink? Do you 

3 want to take a brealc? Are you okay? 

4 THE WITNESS: If we are going to be a 

5 minute, I could take a break. 

6 MR. HAYES: That's fine. We can take a 

7 break. Just please dont discuss your testimony with 

8 Mr. Adam since he's my next witness. 

9 (A break was taken.) 

10 (Deposition Exhibit 4 was martced for 

11 identification by the court reporter.) 

12 Q. (By Mr. Hayes) Inspector, I've handed you 

13 what she's marked Deposition Exhibit 4, which I will 

14 represent to you is the information I got from 

15 Mr. Kessler on the other case we are here to talk about 

16 today invohring the landing gear pin. Inspector, if 

17 you could look to the very last page of this document. 

18 Take a mirtute and review that document so I can ask you 

19 some questions about it. 

20 A. (Complying). 

21 Q. This appears to be a May 1, 2008 letter sent 

22 to Mr. Richard Leach from you; is that con-ect? 

23 A. Yes. 

24 Q. And it says that you are —'the purpose of 

25 this letter is to follow up our letter (copy attached) 

Page 82 

1 sent to you on January 25, 2008, and to inform you 

2 both self-disdosures referenced in our letter were 

3 resdnded/dosed out in the VDRP system on 

4 February 15, and are currently being processed using 

5 traditional enforcement methods in FAA Order 2150.3B.' 

6 Is that correct? 

7 A. Yes. 

8 Q. Is this the first notification to Mr. Leach 

9 that the VDRPs have been resdnded or closed out by 

10 the FAA? 

11 A. I don't believe so. I believe I sent 

12 another letter eartier. 

13 Q. Okay. Flipping back a couple of pages, 

14 there's a January 25, 2008 letter. Do you see that? 

15 A. Yes. 

16 Q. Is that the letter you just referred to? 

17 A. Yes. 

18 Q. And that also is to Mr. Leach, it's a one, 

19 two ~ three page letter from you? 

20 A. Yes. 

21 Q. Okay. Now, I want to look at the second 

22 page of that under where it says 'second disdosure'. 

23 Then it says '2008CE034004, aircraft flew with landing 

24 gear pin instailed." Do you see where it says that? 

25 A. Yes. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Page 83 

Q. Below that one, two, three — four lines, it 

says 'No. 4, Comprehensive Fix Proposal: The proposed 

comprehensive fix does not predude a recurrence of 

this violation." Is that what it says? 

A. That's the first line. 

Q. Tell me what — yeah, the rest of it I'm not 

going to read for the time being. 

Tell me, in this case, what was the 

violation that the FAA was concerned al>out? 

A. The violation was they flew with a landing 

gear pin installed which is not a normal everyday 

occurrence. The violation was that they didnt do the 

maintenance procedure properly. 

Q. Okay. And what was that maintenance 

procedure? 

A. Tliey were changing a brake. I believe it 

was the No. 2 bralce. 

Q. Oliay. So what I'm trying to understand is. 

we are changing a brake and the issue with the FAA is 1 

the gear pin. How do the two Interact? 1 

A. Tlie maintenance manual requires a gear pin 

to be installed when you put - when you are changing 

a brake. 

Q. Okay. So at some point someone from Trans 

States maintenance installed a gear pin? 

Page 84 

A. Correct. 

Q. Then they changed a brake? As far as a you 

know? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Okay. The airplane departed on a flight at 

some point? 

A. Yes. 

Q. But the gear pin had not been removed? 

A. Correct. . 

Q. Was there any dispute from Go3et's j 

management team, Jeff Craig or anybody else, about 

those spedfic facts? 

A. Not that I'm aware of. ; 

Q. Okay. So there's really no dispute sitting i 

here today whether there was a gear pin or not; the 

question was about the comprehensive fix in this 

particular case? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Is that fair? Okay. So what was the 

comprehensive fix that GoJet submitted to your office 

initially? 

A. If you look at the self-disclosure report -

Q. Uh-huh. 

A. - it includes the proposed comprehensive 

25 fix under the - somewhere in here. On Page 4 of 5 of 

www.midwestlitigation.com 

MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES 

Phone: 1.800.280.3376 

21 (Pages 81 to 84) 

Fax: 314.644.1334 
GARY COOPER 6/11/2010 

Page 85 

1 the self-disdosure, the comprehensive - the proposed 

2 comprehensive fix was "the mechanic was counseled on 

3 the mandatory procedures outlined In the general 

4 maintenance manual that requires you to make an entry 

5 in the airaaft maintenance logbook stating 'landing 

6 gear pin installed, remove before flight*." 

7 Q. Okay. And that was an unacceptable 

8 comprehensive fix? 

9 A. In my opinion. 

10 Q. Tell me why it was unacceptable? 

11 A. Going back to the letter we were just 

12 looking at, t)ecause it did not preclude a recurrence 

13 of the violation. 

14 Q. And the violation, just so I understand it, 

15 was the mechanic had failed to remove the pin after 

16 inserting it to change the brake? 

17 A. Yes. 

18 Q. Okay. He made a mistake; is that a fair 

19 characterization? 

20 r^R. KESSLER: Objection. 

21 Q. (By Mr. Hayes) You can still answer the 

22 question even when he objects. Is that a fair — 

23 A. I'm not going to answer if he objects. 

24 MR. KESSLER: No, you can answer it. Tliat's 

25 what he says. 

Page 86 

1 Q. (By Hr. Hayes) He gets to put the objection 

2 on the record. You still get to answer. 

3 A. He should have removed the pin; he didnt. 

4 Q. Okay. You Indicated that that comprehensive 

5 fix was not acceptable elsewhere in this file. What 

6 would have been acceptalile to the FAA as a 

7 comprehensive fix, or what did you tell Mr. Craig that 

8 you wanted? 

9 A. I don't remember specifically what I told 

10 him I wanted, but it was something to remind the 

11 mechanic - I believe what it was is I wanted them to 

12 generate an MX 43, which they could insert as part of 

13 their maintenance manual procedures, telling the 

14 mechanic when he's finished to remove the pin. 

15 Q. Okay. What is an'MX 43"? 

16 A. It's an enhanced - I don't remember the 

17 exact terminology, but basically it's additional steps 

18 that GoJet or whoever can - in this case GoJet - can 

19 include into their maintenance manual that aren't 

20 there by the manufacturer. 

21 Q. Again, I'm not trying to be confusing, I'm 

22 just trying to make the record clear. So what you 

23 wanted them to do was add an additional procedure 

24 beyond what was in the aircraft manufacturer's manual 

25 that provided an additional step to tell the mechanic, 

i-i;»^.i.,v.,.v....-.«--~.--.. .-•v!v',...^.i-i.... J- •••-..•-••.,.. •-..•i-.»,..kW-iifat'j^tnmj»Mm 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Page 87 

hey, dont forget to take out these gear pins? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And did Mr. Craig indicate that they wouM 

or would not do that? 

A. If I recall they said they would not, based 

on all the infomiation here. 

Q. Okay. Do you spedfically recall when you 

had that conversation with him about they wouldn't do 

that? 

A. I don't remember specifically, but this case 

was open for about six months, and we had multiple 

conversations that dealt with this and other things as 

well. 

Q. Okay. Sitting here today, is it your 

testimony that you specifically told Mr. Craig that 

that's what you wanted as a comprehensive fix and he 

dedined to do that? 

A. I dont remember spedfically, but I know 

that that was - I believe that that was part of it. 

Q. Okay. Prior to the resdnding of the 

voluntary disdosure, who did you discuss that with 

here in the FAA? 

A. I dont remember spedfically everyone, but | 

I know I had conversations with Tim Harristhal, but I i 

dont remember the exact dates. And In addition, my | 

Page 88 | 

supervisor. Dean — rephrase your question. I'm not M 

sure what time fi-ame you are talking atx>ut. i 

Q. At any time from the time you learned about | 

this case until the time you resdnded the voluntary 

disdosure, who did you discuss it with up your chain 

of command? That would be the people you've told me 

are Mr. Adam or Mr. Harristhal, the people above you. 

Sitting here today, do you remember talking to either | 

or both of them? 1 

A. I believe I talked to both. \ 

Q. Okay. First let's talk about Mr. Adams ! 

(sic). Do you recall when that conversation took 

place? 

A. I dont remember spedfically, but it would ? 

have been shortly before we resdnded the cases. 

Q. Okay. And do you ~ can you tell me the 

substance of that conversation? I understand you may 

not remember it specifically. Did you want to rescind 

it? Were you looking for guidance? 

A. Basically I was looking for a comprehensive 

fix that was going to meet the guidelines of the AC 

00-58 and also 8900.1. 

Q. Okay. And in your mind that included these 

modifications to the maintenance procedures, not just 

counseling the mechanic? 

www.midwestlitigation.com 

iWlDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES 

Phone: 1.800.280.3376 

22 (Pages 85 to 88) 

Fax: 314.644.1334 
GARY COOPER 6/11/2010 

Page 89 

1 A. Yes. 

2 Q. Okay. And do you recall that Mr. Adam 

3 agreed with you? 

4 A. I dont recall specifically. 

5 Q. Okay. Then you said you had a conversation 

6 with Mr. Harristhal at some point; is that correct? 

7 A. Yes. 

8 Q. When do you think that conversation took 

9 place? 

10 A. Roughly about the same time. 

11 Q. Okay. Tell me about the substance of that 

12 conversation with Mr. Harristhal? 

13 A. I dont remember spedfic details, but 

14 basically it revolved around they need to come up with 

15 a comprehensive fix that's going to prevent the 

16 occurrence from happening again. 

17 Q. Okay. So, again, was it your 

18 characterization in that conversation that you 

19 believed a change to the procedures were warranted and 

20 the carrier was ailegedhr only willing to counsel the 

21 mechanic? 

22 A. Yes. 

23 Q. And did Mr. Harristhal agree with you or 

24 disagree with you? 

25 A. I dont recall, but I believe he agreed with 

Page 90 

1 me. Otherwise, I would have went a different 

2 direction. 

3 Q. Olay. The mechanic, when you did the 

4 investigation following the voluntary disdosure, was 

5 the mechanic who inadvertently left this gear pin in, 

6 did you do any investigation into his training? 

7 A. I dont recall If I looked at his training. 

8 I did interview him and I did - during the interview 

9 I asked him if he was aware of the requirement in the 

10 GMM to make the entry in the togbook. He said he had 

11 known at one time, he forgot, but he was - at the 

12 time that I was talking to him he says, but I remember 

13 now. 

14 Q. Sure. But as part of your interview and/or 

15 review of documents with him, did you come to any 

16 condusion that he was not properly trained by the 

17 carrier? 

18 A. No. 

19 Q. Okay. So what you previously told me is he 

20 made a mistake and left the gear pin in? 

21 A. I dont know if I specifically said he made 

22 a mistake. He just left - I know he left the gear 

23 pin in. 

24 Q. Which was a mistake? 

25 A. If you want to dassify it that way. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Page 91 

Q. Well, it shouldn't have been in there when 

they tried to take off? 

A. Exactly. 

Q. Okay. Did you bring a certificate action or 

an enforcement action against that mechanic? 

A. We issued him a warning notfce. 

Q. Olcay. So you sent Irim a letter of 

Investigation? 

A. I assume so since we sent him a warning 

notice. 

Q. Okay. And then you interviewed him at some 

point? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And then you closed that with administrative 

action with a letter of warning? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Okay. I'm almost done. Referring back to 

the previous case we did, now we are talking for a 

minute about the windshield de-idng case that we were 

talking about before we took a short break. 

A. Right. 

Q. The maintenance controller in that case I 

believe was Mr. Ernie Spence (sic); is that correct? 

A. Spencer. 

Q. Spencer, I'm sorry. Was Mr. Spencer sent a 

Page 92 

letter of investigation? 

A. No. Not that I recall. 

Q. Olcay. Would there have iteen somelwdy else 

in this office who would have sent him a letter of 

investigation other than you, or would it likely have 

come to you? 

A. I would have either likely known about it or 

it would have come through me. 

Q. So sitting here today you don't believe 

Mr. Spence (sic) got a letter of investigation? 

A. No. 

Q. Olcay. The pilots who flew that airplane 

with the windshield allegedly improperiy deferred, do 

you know did any of them get a letter of 

investigation? 

A. I dont know. 

Q. Okay. 

MR. HAYES: Dave, give me a minute or two, 

and I might be finished and we can do Mr. Adam. 

(A break was taken.) 

MR. HAYES: Inspertor, thank you for your 

time this morning. I'm ready for Mr. Adam. 

MR. KESSLER: All right. I don't have any 

further questions. 

25 (Signature of the witness is not waived, by 

www.midwestlitigation.com 

MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES 

Phone: 1.800.280.3376 

23 (Pages 89 to 92) 

Fax: 314.644.1334 
GARY COOPER 6/11/2010 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

agreement of counsel.) 

Page 93 

Page 94 

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 

I, Reagan A. Ftorino, RMR, CCR, IL-CSR, do 

hereby certify that the witness whose testimony 

appears in the foregoing depositton was duly sworn t)y 

me; that the testlnrrony of saW witness was taken by me 

to the best of my ability and thereafter reduced to 

typewriting under my direction; that I am neither 

counsel for, related to, rmr employed by any of the 

parties to the actton in which this deposition was 

taken, and further that I am not a relative or 

emptoyee of any attorney or counsel employed by the 

parties thereto, nor financially or otherwise 

interested in the outcome of the actton. 

Certified Court Reporter 

-s:!!!gsaasaexasssaBm!Bsaatsc!S^!^;a?i^':sx:T: nsnsssiraseRSK^Tis^ 

1 Midwest Litigation Services 

711 North Eleventh Street 

2 St. Louis, Missouri 63101 

3 Phone (314) 644-2191 * Fax (314) 644-1334 

4 June 21, 2010 

5 Mr. Gary Cooper 

ST. LOUIS FUGHT STANDARDS DISTRICT OFRCE 

6 10801 Pear Tree Une, Suite 200 

St. Ann, MO 63074 

7 

In Re: IN THE MATrtR OF GOJET AIRUNES, UC 

Dear Mr. Cooper: 

Please Find enclosed a copy of your deposition taken 

on June 11, 2010, in the atjove-ieFerenced case. Also 

enclosed is ttie original signature page and enata 

sheets. 

Please read your copy of the transcript, indicate any 

changes and/or corrections desired on the enata 

sheets, and sign the signature page before a notary 

public. 

Please return the executed signature page and errata 

sheets to CapL David J.A. Hayes, III , Esq. virlthin 

thirty days after receiving the transcript. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Page 95 

Reagan A. Rorino, RMR, CCR, IL-CSR 

Enckjsutes 

cc: Capt. David J.A. Hayes, HI, Esf). 

Mr. David Kessler 

Page 96 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

STATE OF ) 

)SS. 

COUNTY OF ) 

I, Gary Cooper, do hereby certify: 

Tliat I have read the foregoing deposition; 

That I have made such changes in form and/or 

substance to the within deposition as might be 

necessary to render the same true and corect; 

That having made such changes thereon, I 

hereby subscribe my name to the deposition. 

I dedare under penalty of perjury that the 

foregoing is true and correct. 

at 

Gary Cooper 

Executed this day of 

County, 

,20 

Notary Public 

My Commission Expires: 

Signature page to: Capt. David J.A. Hayes, III, Esq., 

Trans States Holdings, 11495 Old Natural Bridge Road, 

St. Louis, Missouri 63044 

CM/GARY COOPER, June 11, 2010 

Re: IN THE MATTER OF GOJET AIRLINES, LLC 

) 

www.midwestlitigation.com 

MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES 

Phone: 1.800.280.3376 

24 (Pages 93 to 96) 

Fax: 314.644.1334 
© 

U.S. Department St. Louis Flight Standards District Office 

of Transportation 10801 Pear Tree Lane 

Federal Aviation Suite 200 

Administration St. Ann, Missouri 63074 

January 25, 2008 

GoJet Airlines, LLC 

Mr. Richard Leach, Chief Operating Officer 

11495 Navaid Road, Suite 303 

Bridgeton, MO 63044 

Dear Mr. Craig: 

This letter is to inform you of two self-disclosures submitted by GoJet Airlines to this office using 

the web based VDRP (Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program). These self-disclosures were 

returned on January 23 and 24, 2008 to GoJet for additional action/information, as defined below 

and in the web based VDRP system. The items listed for each disclosure need to be addressed 

and a comprehensive fix established, as described in FAA Order 8900.1, by close of business on 

February 8, 2008. Failure to provide a comprehensive fix acceptable to this office by the close of 

business on February 8 2008 will result in the self-disclosures being closed out of the web based 

VDRP system and processed as enforcements utilizing FAA Order 2150.3. 

A. First Disclosure 

2008CE034003 Thrust Reverser Deferral 

1. DESCRIPTION OF ALLEGED VIOLATION: Please clarify, The cunent description does not 

stale that the right thrust leverser was defeixed inipioperly. resulting in both thrust re\'ei"sers being 

cIcaeliA aled, whicli is conlraiy lo llie i\'lL.L. and llic aiivrat'i llcw IIIIVL ilighl^ in ihal condilioi). 

2. DESCRIPTION OF IMMEDIATE ACTION: Please clarify the immediate action taken to 

terminate the conduct that resulted in the apparent violation, including when it was taken, and who 

was responsible for taking the action. 

3. DETAILED SELF DISCLOSURE (VIOLATION) DESCRffTION: Go into details of the 

violations (who, what, when, how) provided in DESCRIPTION OF ALLEGED VIOLATION 

section, providing date and location maintenance deferral occurred, and dates and locations of 

flights flown while in that condition. 

4. ANALYSIS SUMMARY: Please clarify the aircraft was flown after the flight crew/s identified 

both thrust reversers were inadvertently deactivated following the deferral of the right thrust 

reverser. Also, please include any conclusions reached regarding possible or probable systemic 

deficiencies. 
5. REASON WHY THE VIOLATION WAS INADVERTENT: None provided earlier. 

6. EVIDENCE DESCRIPTION: None provided earlier. 

7. FAR CODE(S): FAR 121.153(a)(2) was not included. 

8. COMPREHENSrVE FIX PROPOSAL: None provided earlier. 

B. Second Disclosure 

2008CE034004 A/C flew with Ldg Gear Pin installed 

1. DESCRIPTION OF ALLEGED VIOLATION: Please clarify, current description does not 

mention the GMM required logbook entry, for the gear pins being installed, was not made. 

2. DETAE^ED SELF DISCLOSURE (VIOLATION) DESCRIPTION: Go into the details of the 

violation (who, what, when, and why) provided in the DESCRIPTION OF ALLEGED 

VIOLATION section (include GMM logbook requirement). 

3. REASON WHY THE VIOLATION WAS INADVERTENT: Please clarify if this is a frequent 

occurrence, or isolated incident (i.e., during the previous twelve months no other landing gear 

pins/twenty-four landing gear pins were left in the gears following maintenance). 

4. COMPREHENSIVE FIX PROPOSAJL: The proposed comprehensive fix does not preclude 

recurrence of this violation. The mechanic involved knew of the GMM requirement to make a 

logbook entry stating the landing gear pin was installed prior to this incident, and yet still forgot to 

make the entry. Counseling (reminding) the mechanic of the GMM requirement does not meet the 

guidance in FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 11, Chapter 1, paragraph 11-4. The comprehensive fix 

should prevent the same mechanic, or any other mechanic, from forgetting to make the logbook 

entry and subsequently forgetting to remove the gear pins following maintenance again. 

QITSTIONS: 

1. Does the specific maintenance manual procedure call for the gear pins to be installed? 

2. Does the specific maintenance manual procedure call for the gear pins to be removed? 

3. Is there any company procedures requiring the flight crew to conduct a walk around, following 

maintenance actions, paying particular attention to the areas where maintenance was performed? 
Please note the submitted comprehensive fixes to these disclosures should address (what appears 

to be) a systemic issue of maintenance personnel not following established maintenance 

procedures and logbook entries not being made to address maintenance issues. I can be reached 

at (314) 890--4812 if you need additional information. 

i Sincerely, 

Gary J. Cooper 

Principal Maintenance Inspector 

cc: Richard Leach, Chief Operating Officer 
2/15/2008 2:19:50 P^ 

f^??exal_Aviation 

Movin g Americ a Safel y FAA.gov Hom e 

.,*. i-t..-;-Vfi ,-,,•.:.•-..r.' 

Voluntary 

Disclosure 

Reporting Program 

Self Disclosures 

• View SD List 

Report s 

• Standard Reports 

Administratio n 

• Update Profile 

« Add New User 

• Edit User 

• Change Password 

• Change SDStatus 

• Rescind Case 

Hel p 

• General Help 

• Feedback 

• VDRP Demo 

» VDRP User Guide 

•••• '•-I:'' , . C- ;;'; = 

Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program - VDRP 

CE03GJC Home 

Rescind Case 

* indicates a Required Field 

Enter EIR Number or Notification ID and Click Get SD Status 

Details button to View SD Details then click Rescind Button (This will 

rescind the case). 

Lc 

H 

Enter EIR 

Number* 

OR 

Enter 

Notification 

ID* 

r 

|1636 Get SD Status Details 

Case Details (Click on Rescind button to rescind this case

SD Title A/C flew with Ldg Gear Pin installed 

SD Status RESCINDED 

SD Curent Stage RESC 

Enter the Reason for Rescindina the Case* 

CARRIER FAILED TO PROVIDE Al-l ACCEPTABLE C0MP:REHENSIVE FI:>: TO THl.S .SELIDISCLOSURE. THE VIOLATION WILL BE DEALT WITH USING "TRADITIONAL" EIR 

METHOD. SEE NEW EIR TRACKING NUMBER 2008CE030045 AND NEW PTRS NUMBER 

CE03200804271. 

•Rgscirid I Cancel j 

firstgov.gov | Privacy Policy | Web Policies & Notices | Site Map I Contact Us | Frequently Asked Questions i Fi 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 
,p--5^., WasHington, DC 20591 

Readers & Viewers: PDF Reader | MS Word Viewer | MS PowerPoint Viewer ( MS Excel Viewer \ WinZip 

2/15/2008 2:19:50 
o 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

In Reply Refer To: ACE-7 

D tU 2 d .£C'D 

Office of Regional Counsel 

901 Locust St., Room 506 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2641 

Area Code: 816-329-3760 

OVERNIGHT DELIVERY VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS. US Airbill No. 8682 1742 9341 

REGULAR and CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Cert. No. 7004 1350 0003 4892 8169 ^ ' 

December 23,2008 

Richard A. Leach, President 

GoJet Airlines LLC 

11495 Natural Bridge Rd., Suite 303 

Bridgeton, MO 63044 

Docket No. 2008CE030045 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CrVIL PENALTY 

Based on a report of investigation, it appears that: 

1. At all times hereinafter-mentioned, GoJet Airlines, LLC (GoJet), d/b/a United Express, 

was the holder of Part 121 Air Carrier Certificate Number N6 WA249L. 

2. At all times hereinafter mentioned GoJet was the operator of Civil Aircraft N151GJ, a 

Canadair CRJ-700 Regional Jet, Model CL-600-2C10, registered as an aircraft available 

for use in Part 121 revenue operations. 

3 On or about November 26,2007, GoJet's contracted maintenance personnel removed and 

replacedNlSlGJ's number two brake assembly in accordance with the CRJ-700 Aircraft 

Maintenance Manual (AMM), which requires that maintenance personnel: 

a. Lift the main landing gear (MLG) with a jack using task 07-12-01-582-801 

(AMM task 32-43-26-000-801-AOl). 

b. Install lockpins in the MLG. (AMM task 07-12-01-582-801-A01). 

4. GoJet's General Maintenance Manual (GMM) Volume 1, Part 12.2 states that anytime 

maintenance personnel install landing gear pins into any landing gear, the mechanic must 

make an entry in the aircraft Maintenance Flight Logbook stating, "Landing gear pin 

installed, remove before flight". 
5. GoJet's contracted maintenance persormel who performed the maintenance noted in 

paragraph 3 above failed to remove the subject MLG lockpins and also failed to make the 

required entry in the aircraft Maintenance Flight Logbook, noted in paragraph 4 above, 

contrary GoJet's GMM, and contrary to FAR Section 121.363(a)(2). 

6. Consequently, at the time N151 GJ was returned to service the subject MLG lockpins 

were still inserted in the aircraft's MLG. 

7. Incident to the above-noted maintenance failure, N151 GJ was forced to abort an operation 

subsequent to take-off" after encountering a Gear Disagree Warning Message during a 

gear-retraction effort. 

8. On November 26,2007, GoJet informed the FAA about the above events utilizing the 

Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program (VDRP) system. 

9. On December 10,2007, GoJet submitted a comprehensive fix proposal to the Flight 

Standards District Office, St. Ann, Missouri (STL FSDO). 

10. On January 25,2008, a letter was mailed to GoJet by the STL FSDO identifying items that 

needed to be addressed and corrected by GoJet, including establishing a comprehensive fix, 

as described in FAA Order 8900.1, by no later than February 8,2008, or the VDRP would 

be rescinded. A copy of the noted letter was also hand-delivered to GoJet by STL FSDO 

persoimel. 

11. Incident to receipt of the above-noted letter, GoJet's chief inspector advised STL FSDO 

personnel that GoJet would not implement the above noted comprehensive fix. The STL 

FSDO received no ftirther reply fi-om GoJet regarding this incident and consequently the 

VDRP was rescinded on May 1,2008. 

12. Based on the foregoing findings, Nl 51 GJ was not in an airworthy condition on November 

26, 2007, at the time it was returned to service, due to the fact that GoJet's maintenance 

personnel failed to comply with GoJet's GMM requirements and, consequently, failed to 

remove the subject MLG lockpins as noted above. 

13. Accordingly, the operation of N151GJ, while in an unairworthy condition, constituted a 

careless act on the part of GoJet, which endangered the lives and property of the flight 

and cabin crews, and any passengers aboard, as well as the fives and property of others on 

the ground. 

14. By reason of the foregoing, GoJet violated the following sections of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations: 

a. Section 43.13(a), by virtue of 43.13(c), which states in relevant part that each 

person performing maintenance on an aircraft engine shall use the methods, 

techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance 

manual. 
b. Section 91.13(a), which states in relevant part that no person may operate an 

aircraft in a careless manner so as to endanger the life or property of anoAer. 

c. Section 121.153(a)(2) which states that no certificate holder may operate an 

aircraft imless that aircraft is in an airworthy condition and meets the applicable 

airworthiness requirements. 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. § 46301, GoJet is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $11,000 for 

each violation of the regulations. After reviewing our investigative file, we propose to assess a 

civil penalty in the amount of $33,000 for these violations. 

Enclosed is information on GoJet's options in responding to this Notice. The options include 

participation in an informal conference with an FAA attomey and submitting information to the 

FAA for consideration. GoJet must submit, in writing, its choice of the alternatives explained on 

the enclosed information form on or before thirty (30) days after it receives this notice. If GoJet 

fails to submit its choice within that time it will have no further right to participate in the informal 

procedures. 

Mary Ellen Loftus 

Acting Regional Counsel 

By> 

moKessler 

Attomey 

and 

i^amacho 

S^or Enforcement Attomey 

Enclosiu-es:, 

Information §heet 

Reply Form 

Visitor Notification Form 

FAR 13.14,13.16 and Subpart G of Part 13 
o 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

In Reply Refer To: ACE-7 

2008CE030045 

Area Code: (816)329-3763 

Regional Counsel 

901 Locust, Room 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

RECEIVED OFFICE OF 

DAVJD HAYES 

JAN 2 9 2010 

VICE PHtsiiUfcNT AND 

GENFRALGOtJM.SR 

REGULAR and CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Cert. No. 7009 2820 0003 4532 5189 

January 27,2010 

RichWd A. Leach, President 

GoJet Airlines LLC 

11495 Naitural Bridge Rd., Suite 3 03 

Bridgeton, MO 63044 

FINAL NOTICE OF PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY 

On December 23,2008, you were advised through a Notice of Proposed Civil'Penalty that the 

FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amoimt of $33,000. As of January 27,2010, we 

have received no response to this Notice. 

1. At all times hereinafter-mentioned, GoJet Airlines, LLC (GoJet), d^/a United Express, 

was the holder of Part 121 Air Carrier Certificate Number N6WA249L. 

2. At all times hereinafter mentioned GoJet was the operator of Civil Aircraft N151GJ, a 

Canadair CRJ-700 Regional Jet, Model CL-600-2C10, registered as an aircraft available 

for use in Part 121 revenue operations. 

3. On or about November 26,2007, GoJet's contracted maintenance personnel removed 

and replaced N151GJ's number two brake assembly in accordance with the CRJ-700 

Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), which requires that maintenance personnel: 

a. Lift the main landing gear (MLG) with a j ack using task 07-12-01 -5 82-801 

(AMM task 32-43-26-000-801-AOl). 

b. Install lockpins in the MLG. (AMM task 07-12-01-582-801-A01). 

4. GoJet's General Maintenance Manual (GMM) Volume 1, Part 12.2 states that anytime 

maintenance personnel install landing gear pins into any landing gear, the mechanic must 

make an entry in the aircraft Maintenance Flight Logbook stating, "Landing gear pin 

installed, remove before flight." 
5. GoJet's contracted maintenance personnel who performed the maintenance noted in 

paragraph 3 above failed to remove the subject MLG lockpins and also failed to make the 

required entry in the aircraft Maintenance Flight Logbook, noted in paragraph 4 above, 

contrary GoJet's GMM, and contrary to FAR Section 121.363(a)(2). 

6. Consequently, at the time Nl 51 GJ was returned to service the subject MLG lockpins 

were still inserted in the aircraft's MLG. 

7. Incident to the above-noted maintenance failure, N151 GJ was forced to abort an operation 

subsequent to take-off after encountering a Gear Disagree Waming Message during a 

gear-retraction effort. 

8. On November 26, 2007, GoJet informed the FAA about the above events utilizing the 

Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program (VDRP) system. 

9. On December 10,2007, GoJet submitted a comprehensive fix proposal to the Flight 

Standards Distiict Office, St. Ann, Missouri (STL FSDO). 

10. On January 25,2008, a letter was mailed to GoJet by the STL FSDO identifying items that 

needed to be addressed and corrected by GoJet, including establishing a comprehensive fix, 

as described in FAA Order 8900.1, by no later than February 8,2008, or the VDRP would 

be rescinded. A copy of the noted letter was also hand-delivered to GoJet by STL FSDO 

personnel. 

11. Incident to receipt of the above-noted letter, GoJet's chief inspector advised STL FSDO 

persormel that GoJet would not implement the above noted comprehensive fix. The STL 

FSDO received no fiirther reply fix)m GoJet regarding this incident and consequentiy the 

VDRP was rescinded on May 1,2008. 

12. Based on the foregoing findings, N151 GJ was not in an airworthy condition on 

November 26,2007, at the time it was returned to service, due to the fact that GoJet's 

maintenance personnel failed to comply with GoJet's GMM requirements and, 

consequently, failed to remove the subject MLG lockpins as noted above. 

13. Accordingly, the operation of Nl 51 GJ, while in an imairworthy condition, constituted a 

careless act on the part of GoJet, which endangered the lives and property of the flight 

and cabin crews, and any passengers aboard, as well as the lives and property of others on 

the ground. 

14. By reason of the foregoing, GoJet violated the following sections of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations: 

a. Section 43.13(a), by virtue of 43.13(c), which states in relevant part that each 

person performing maintenance on an aircraft engine shall use the methods, 

techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance 

manual. 
b. Section 91.13(a), which states in relevant part that no person may operate an 

aircraft in a careless maimer so as to endanger the life or property of another. 

c. Section 121.153(a)(2) which states that no certificate holder may operate an 

aircraft unless that aircraft is in an airworthy condition and meets the applicable 

airworthiness requirements. 

Under Title 49 U.S.C. 46301, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $11,000 for each of 

the violations noted. By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances, we propose to assess a 

civil penalty in the amount of $33,000. 

Unless you mail or personally deliver, in writing, your request for a hearing in this matter, within 

15 days after you receive this Final Notice, we will issue an Order Assessing Civil Penalty and 

you will have no fiirther right to a hearing. If you do not submit a written request for a hearing, 

you must pay the proposed civil penalty. 

Your request for a hearing must be sent to the Hearing Docket Clerk at one of the following 

addresses: 

For service by U.S. Postal Service: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Room 2014 

For service by personal delivery or expedited courier such as Federal Express 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

600 Independence Avenue SW. 

Wilbur Wright Building, Room 2014 

Washington, DC 20591 

A copy also must be sent to the undersigned FAA attomey. Your request must be dated and 

signed, in accordance with Section 13.16 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, sent to you with 

the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty (14 C.F.R. 13.16). 

You must pay the proposed penalty by submitting a certified check or money order payable to 

the "Federal Aviation Administration," to the undersigned. In the alternative, you may pay your 

civil penalty with a credit card over the Internet. To pay electronically, visit the website at 

https://www.pay.gov. Under the Search Public Forms option, type in "FCE-FINEl." Click on 

"FAA Civil Penalty Payments - Central Region." You must then complete the requested 

information and click "Continue." You will then be directed to enter your credit card or bank 

account debit information. To use the bank account debit you will need your bank routing 
number, account number, and check number. THE FAA WILL NOT ACCEPT INTERNET 

PAYMENTS FOR AN AMOUNT LESS THAN THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE FINAL 

NOTICE. 

A.Lester Haizlip 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

Original Signed By 

David Kessler 

David Kessler 

Attomey 

cc:M])avi ;:^avidd J J.A. Hayes, Esq. 
o 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

In Reply Refer To: ACE-7 

2008CE030045 

RCC::.'''H...nr,->,. r.^ 

F£B16?0I0 

VICEPK^,.. , ,v ir>v. 

G.PW! RA ' : >. (f,•'-•. 

Office of Regional Counsel 

901 Locust, Room 506 

Kansas City. MO 64106 

Telephone: (816)329-3763 

REGULAR & CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Certified Mail Receipt Nos. 70081300000046033852 & 70081300000046033869 

February 16, 2010 

Mr. Richard Leach^^resident 

GoJet Airiines,^C 

11495 Nav^idRoad, Suite 303 

St. LoujsrlMO 63044 

AMENDMENT TO FINAL NOTICE OF PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY 

COMES NOW the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), acting by 

and through his Regional Counsel for the Central Region, and hereby amends the opening 

paragraph of the Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty dated January 27, 2010, so that it now 

reads as follows: 

On December 23,2008, GoJet Airlines, LLC, was advised through a Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $33,000. We have 

considered the information submitted at the informal conference held on September 9,2009. 

All other information contained in the original Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty shall remain 

unchanged and is hereby incorporated by reference as if, fiilly set forth herein. 

A. Lester Haizlip 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

t 

cc: David J. A. Hayes, 111, Esq.-/ 

OilglnolSgnedby 

MaikG.Camacho 

David B. Kessler 

Attomey 
EIR 2008CE030045 GoJet Airiines, LLC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date placed in the United States mail, certified mail, return 

receipt requested, and regular mail, an original Amendment To the Final Notice of Proposed 

Civil Penalty, addressed to: 

Mr. Richard A. Leach 

GoJet Airlines, LLC 

11495 Navaid Rd., Suite 303 

Bridgeton, MO 63044 

I hereby certify that I have this date placed in the United States mail, certified mail, return 

receipt requested, an original Amendment To the Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, 

addressed to: 

David J. A. Hayes, III, Esq. 

Trans States Holdings 

11495 Navaid Road 

St. Louis, MO 63044 

Alisa Gause 

Paralegal Specialist 

Dated tiiis 16* day of February, 2010. 
U.S. Department J 

Circular 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Subject: Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Date: 4/29/09 AC No: 00-58B 

^^°9^^"^ Initiated by: AFS-230 Change: 

1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides information and guidance material that 

may be used by a certificate holder, qualified fractional ownership programs (as defined in 

paragraph 4e), or a Production Approval Holder (PAH) operating under Title 14 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) when voluntarily disclosing to the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) apparent violations of those FAA regulations listed in paragraph 3. The 

procedures and practices outlined in this AC can be applied to the maintenance, flight operations, 

anti-drug and alcohol misuse prevention programs, and to the manufacturing functions of the 

PAH's organization. The procedures and practices outlined in this AC cannot be applied to those 

persons who are required to report failures, malfunctions, and defects under 14 CFR part 21, 

§ 21.3 and who do not make those reports in the timeframe required by the regulations. 

2. CANCELLATION. AC 00-5 8A, Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program, dated 

September 8, 2006; Notice 8900.39, Requiring Appropriate 14 CFR Part 119 Corporate Officer 

and FAA Office Manager Signatures for Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program (VDRP), 

dated 5/1/2008; and InFO 08021, New Guidance for Sign-off by Part 119 Designated 

Management Personnel for Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program (VDRP) Submissions, 

dated 5/1/2008 are cancelled. 

3. RELATED CFR REGULATIONS. Title 14 CFR parts 21, 39, 119, 121, 125, 133, 135, 

137, 141, 142, 145, 147 and, for qualified fractional ownership programs operating under 

part 91 subpart K, those portions of part 91 pertaining directly to the duties and responsibilities 

of the program manager, as defined in part 91 subpart K or management specifications 

(MSpecs). 

a. Voluntary Disclosure for Violations of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(49 CFR) Part 175. Voluntary disclosure of 49 CFR part 175 (HAZMAT) violations should be 

accomplished in accordance with current edition AC 121-37, Voluntary Disclosure Reporting 

Program—Hazardous Materials. 

b. Voluntary Disclosure of Violations of Anti-Drug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention 

Program Regulations under 14 CFR. Voluntary disclosure for violations of anti-drug and 

alcohol misuse prevention program regulations must be reported to the Drug Abatement Division 

Manager, AAM-800, 800 Independence Avenue S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591. Reports will be 

processed in accordance with directions from that office. 
AC 00-5 8B 4/29/09 

c. Violation Exceptions. Except as specified in paragraph 12, the VDRP does not apply to 

violations by individual airmen. 

4. KEY TERMS. The following key terms and phrases are defined to ensure a standard 

interpretation and understanding of the FAA's voluntary disclosure policy: 

a. Evidence. For the purpose of voluntary disclosure, evidence should generally be in the 

form of written documentation or reports that support a certificate holder's, qualified fractional 

ownership programs, or PAH's analysis of the disclosed apparent violation and the resulting 

elements of the proposed comprehensive fix. Evidence generally comes from the following four 

elements: 

(1) Documents or manuals reviewed. 

(2) Equipment examined. 

(3) Activities observed. 

(4) Interview data. 

b. Comprehensive Fix. A comprehensive fix is an action, or actions, proposed by the 

certificate holder, qualified fractional ownership program, or PAH, and accepted by the principal 

inspector (PI), to preclude recurrence of the apparent violation that has been voluntarily 

disclosed under this program. A schedule of the dates and events encompassed by the 

comprehensive fix must be established and included in a letter of correction. 

c. Satisfactory Fix. A satisfactory fix is a comprehensive fix in which all corrective 

measures have been completed on schedule and are satisfactory to the FAA. 

d. Principal Inspector (PI). Under the VDRP, PI refers to the appropriate maintenance, 

avionics, operations inspector, or other designated FAA official of the program office 

responsible for oversight of the area of noncompliance involved in the disclosure. 

e. Fractional Ownership Programs. Fractional ownership programs are defined in part 91 

subpart K and the associated MSpecs. Participation in the VDRP by a fractional ownership 

program is limited by the following: 

(1) Only program managers authorized in accordance with part 91 subpart K and 

MSpecs, may participate in the VDRP. 

(2) Voluntary disclosures of apparent violations by a fractional ownership program may 

only be submitted by the program manager, or an authorized representative. 

(3) Voluntary disclosures by fractional ownership programs are limited to apparent 

violations pertaining directly to the duties and responsibilities of the program manager, as 

defined in part 91 subpart K and the MSpecs. 

Page 2 Par 3 
4/29/09 AC 00-58B 

f. Regulated Entity (RE). A regulated entity is any certificate holder, fractional ownership 

program, or PAH, authorized to submit voluntary disclosures under the VDRP. 

5. BACKGROUND. Civil penalties, under the FAA's enforcement program, have always been 

considered a means to promote compliance with the FAA's regulations, not an end in 

themselves. In addition to the deterrence achieved by the appropriate use of civil penalties, the 

public interest is also served by positive incentives to promote and achieve compliance. Indeed, 

the FAA believes that aviation safety is well served by incentives for certificate holders, 

qualified fractional ownership programs, and PAHs to identify and correct their own instances of 

noncompliance and to invest more resources in efforts to preclude their recurrence. The FAA's 

policy of forgoing civil penalty actions when one of these entities detects violations, promptly 

discloses the violations to the FAA, and takes prompt corrective action to ensure that the same or 

similar violations do not recur is designed to encourage compliance with the FAA's regulations, 

foster safe operating practices, and promote the development of Internal Evaluation Programs 

(lEPs). 

6. DISCUSSION. 

a. lEPs. Certificate holders, qualified fractional ownership programs, and PAHs are 

encouraged, but not required, to develop lEPs that continually monitor company policies and 

procedures and ensure that the highest level of safety and security compliance is maintained. 

They may voluntarily disclose apparent violations of 14 CFR covered by this program in 

accordance with the procedures in this AC even though an internal evaluation program has not 

been established. Guidance on lEPs is contained in the current edition of AC 120-59A, Air 

Carrier Internal Evaluation Programs. 

b. Three Appendices. This AC is divided into the main body which addresses issues 

common to all REs utilizing the VDRP, and three appendices, with each appendix addressing 

application of the VDRP to differing groups of REs. This separation by appendices is necessary 

due to differences in the applicable procedures. The groups and their respective appendices are 

as follows: 

(1) Appendix 1 is applicable to air carriers certificated under 14 CFR part 119 and 

operating under 14 CFR parts 121 and 135. All of the entities assigned to Appendix 1 will utilize 

the Web-based VDRP system. 

(2) Appendix 2 is applicable to those other REs authorized to utilize the Web-based 

VDRP system who are not air carriers. Those other REs will be listed on the VDRP Home Page 

at: http://av-info.faa.gov/vdrp. 

(3) Appendix 3 is applicable to those remaining REs who are not yet authorized to utilize 

the Web-based VDRP system, but may still participate in the VDRP through the legacy paf)erbased program. 

7. VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE POLICY. 

a. Violation Sharing. The FAA believes that the open sharing of apparent violations and a 

cooperative as well as an advisory approach to solving problems will enhance and promote 

Par 4 Page 3 
AC 00-5 8B 4/29/09 

aviation safety. Certificate holders, qualified fractional ownership programs, and PAHs will 

receive a letter of correction in lieu of civil penalty action for covered instances of 

noncompliance that are voluntarily disclosed to the FAA in accordance with the procedures set 

forth in this AC. 

b. Violation Evaluation. In evaluating whether an apparent violation is covered by this 

policy, the FAA will ensure that the following five conditions are met: 

(1) The certificate holder, qualified fractional ownership program, or PAH has notified 

the FAA of the apparent violation immediately after detecting it and before the Agency has 

learned of it by other means. 

(2) The apparent violation was inadvertent. 

(3) The apparent violation does not indicate a lack, or reasonable question, of 

qualification of the certificate holder, qualified fractional ownership program, or PAH. 

(4) Immediate action, satisfactory to the FAA, was taken upon discovery to terminate the 

conduct that resulted in the apparent violation. 

(5) The certificate holder, qualified fractional ownership program, or PAH has developed 

or is developing a comprehensive fix and schedule of implementation satisfactory to the FAA. 

The comprehensive fix includes a followup self-audit to ensure that the action taken corrects the 

noncompliance. This self-audit is in addition to any audits conducted by the FAA. 

8. LEGAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION. Except as specified in the subparagraphs a. and b. 

below, the FAA ordinarily will not forgo legal enforcement action if the certificate holder, 

fractional ownership program, or PAH informs the FAA of the apparent violation during, or in 

anticipation of, an FAA investigation/inspection or in association with an accident or incident. 

a. Exceptions-Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) Report. If the FAA has learned 

of an apparent violation by a certificate holder, fractional ownership program, or PAH from an 

ASAP report as described in the current edition of AC 120-66, Aviation Safety Action Program 

(ASAP), a voluntary disclosure can still be accepted by the FAA, even though the FAA has 

already learned of the violation from the ASAP. 

b. Exceptions-Joint Audit. Similarly, if a regulated entity voluntarily agrees to conduct a 

joint audit (inspection) with the FAA during which an apparent violation is discovered either by 

the company or FAA members of the audit (inspection) team, the FAA may accept a voluntary 

disclosure submitted by the company, even though the FAA has already learned of the apparent 

violation during the course of the joint audit (inspection). 

9. REPEATED VIOLATION. If a repeated violation occurs, notwithstanding the fact that a 

comprehensive fix was satisfactorily completed and followed, the procedures outlined in this AC 

may apply to the disclosure of the repeated violation. Upon consideration of the facts and 

circumstances surrounding the repeated violation, the FAA will determine on a case-by-case 

basis whether a repeated violation will be covered under this policy. REs and Pis are encouraged 

to evaluate the systemic issues and circumstances surrounding each apparent violation. This is 

Page 4 Par 7 
4/29/09 AC 00-58B 

particularly important when citing a common regulation. Depending upon the specific 

circumstances associated with the event, citations of a common regulation may not necessarily 

be indicative of a common systemic failure. 

10. CLOSED CASE: CONDITIONS FOR REOPENING. If, following FAA closure of the 

investigative package resulting from a voluntary disclosure, the same or similar violations are 

discovered to have occurred prior to submission of the associated voluntary disclosure, the FAA 

does not reopen the case unless it determines that the pertinent regulated entity failed to comply 

with all the elements of the comprehensive fix agreed upon by the FAA and the entity. 

11. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. When disputes occur regarding the acceptance of a proposed 

comprehensive fix, or a modification thereto before the fix is considered satisfactory, the PI and 

the pertinent regulated entity may request that the issue be resolved at the next level of 

management within the FAA. This procedure will provide for an independent assessment of the 

areas in disagreement. 

12. SEPARATE ACTIONS AGAINST AIRMEN OR OTHER INDIVIDUAL AGENTS. 

a. Voluntary Disclosure Application. The voluntary disclosure policy applies to individual 

airmen or other agents of an employing certificate holder, fractional ownership program, or PAH 

only when all of the following occur: 

(1) The apparent violation involves a deficiency of the employing entity's practices or 

procedures that causes the employing certificate holder, fractional ownership program, or PAH 

to be in violation of a covered violation of an FAA regulation. 

(2) The airman or other agent of the employing entity, while acting on behalf of the 

employing entity, inadvertently violates the FAA's regulations as a direct result of a deficiency 

of the employing entity that causes the employing entity to be in violation of the regulations. 

(The voluntary disclosure policy does not apply to the airman or other agent when his or her 

apparent violation is the result of actions unrelated to the employing entity's deficiency). 

(3) The airman or other agent immediately makes the report of his or her apparent 

violation to the employing entity. 

(4) The employing certificate holder, fractional ownership program, or PAH immediately 

notifies the FAA of both the airman or other agent's apparent violation and the apparent 

deficiency in its practice or procedures. 

b. Procedures if Conditions are Met. When all the aforementioned conditions are met, a 

separate EIR is opened for the individual and closed with no more than administrative action in 

accordance with the current edition of FAA Order 2150.3, Compliance and Enforcement 

Program. 

c. Procedures if Conditions Are Not Met. If all the aforementioned conditions are not 

met, the PI will review all facts associated with the case and determine what action is appropriate 

for individual airmen or other agents of the employing entity. 

Par 9 Page 5 
AC 00-583 4/29/09 

d. Application of this Provision. This provision does not apply to matters concerning 

qualifications to hold an airman certificate. 

e. Special Provisions. Special provisions exist for apparent violations by certificate holders, 

fractional ownership programs, or a PAH, when a voluntary disclosure is made based on 

information in an ASAP report. In such cases, the FAA may, at its sole discretion, accept the 

corrective action recommended by an ASAP event review committee (ERC) for an accepted 

ASAP report as the comprehensive fix for the voluntary disclosure. This is acceptable when the 

following conditions all apply (even when an apparent employee qualification or competency 

issue is involved): 

(1) The FAA determines that the violation is due entirely to the actions of the 

employee(s) and not to a systematic or procedural deficiency of the company. 

(2) The employee completes the corrective action recommended by the ASAP ERC to 

the satisfaction of the FAA. 

13. APPLICABILITY OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) TO SELFDISCLOSURE RECORDS. Records submitted to the FAA for review pursuant to this 

voluntary self-disclosure program, including information submitted using the Web-based VDRP 

tool (Appendix 1), are protected from release to the public in accordance with the provisions of 

part 193 and FAA Order 8000.89, Designation of Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program 

(VDRP) Information as Protected from Public Disclosure under 14 CFR Part 193. 

ORIGINAL SIGNED by 

John M. Allen 

Director, Flight Standards Service 

Page 6 Par 12 
4/29/09 AC-0058B 

Appendix 1 

APPENDIX 1. VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE REPORTING PROGRAM (VDRP) FOR 

AIR CARRIERS 

Users authorized under this Appendix must be certificated under Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) part 119 for operations under 14 CFR part 121 and/or part 135. 

1. ACCESS TO THE VDRP WEB-BASED SYSTEM. Access to the Web-based system 

requires assignment of a login identification and a password, which are obtained via the 

following means: 

a. Air Carrier Representatives. Users named by an air carrier to represent the company on 

voluntary disclosure issues, will be added to the VDRP Web-based system by a principal 

inspector (PI) assigned certificate responsibilities for that air carrier. Each authorized 

representative will be issued a unique login identification and password for access to the system. 

Refer to VDRP User Guide at: https://av-info.faa.gov/VDRP/UserGuide.pdfor, contact VDRP 

Help Desk at (866) 285-4942 for additional information. 

b. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Personnel Access. FAA personnel may obtain 

access to the system via one of the following means: 

(1) Pis are automatically added to the VDRP system when the automated Operations 

Safety System (OPSS) recognizes the individual as a PI assigned to that regulated entity. 

.(2) FAA personnel not assigned as a PI who require access to the system will be added to 

the system by a PI, utilizing the "Add User' functionality. 

c. VDRP System Guidance. The VDRP User Guide may be found in the VDRP User 

Guide which can be accessed at: https://av-info.faa.gov/VDRP/UserGuide.pdf Additional 

assistance may be obtained via telephone from the VDRP Help Desk at (866) 285-4942. 

2. THE SIX STAGES OF THE VDRP. The Web-based VDRP employs a six stage process. 

Responsibility for each such stage is assigned either to the air carrier or the FAA, as described 

below. Except as specified in this AC, the voluntary disclosure policy applies only when 

notification of an apparent violation is made to the FAA by the certificate holder, immediately 

after the apparent violation has been discovered by that regulated entity, and before the FAA 

learns of the apparent violation by some other means. 

a. Air Carrier Requirements. Air Carriers certificated under part 119 are required to 

utilize the Web-based VDRP system for submitting voluntary disclosures to the FAA. 

b. Disclosure Notification. Notification of a disclosure to the FAA will normally be made 

via the Web-based system, unless extenuating circumstances prevent initial notification using 

that venue. 

c. Web-based VDRP System Provisions. The Web-based VDRP system contains 

provisions for indicating that the notification process was initiated via another media. When 

acceptable to the PI, initial notice of a voluntary disclosure may be submitted orally, via a written 

hardcopy, or by electronic copy, provided the air carrier enters the initial notification data via the 

Page 1 
AC 00-583 4/29/09 

Appendix 1 

Web-based VDRP system within 72 hours of the original notification. Compliance with the 

10 or 30-day limit for submission of the written report, as described in Stage 111 below, will be 

based on the date of the original notification, regardless of the submission means or media. 

3. STAGE I: NOTIFICATION BY THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER OF AN APPARENT 

VIOLATION. When the certificate holder notifies the FAA of an apparent violation, contact 

must be made with, or directed to, the appropriate PI. The notification requirement is 

automatically met when the disclosure is submitted via the Web-based VDRP system as all Pi's 

for that certificate are notified when a disclosure is submitted. However, if the certificate holder 

submits the initial notification via alternative media, as authorized in paragraph 4 below, the 

disclosure must be submitted to the appropriate PI. It is FAA policy that initial notification 

should be accomplished on a timely basis, ordinarily within 24 hours of the discovery of the 

apparent violation. However, an inspector may accept disclosures that exceed the 24 hour policy 

when the inspector determines that a later submission is justified based on the specific 

circumstances, and in view of those circumstances, the submission is still considered timely. For 

example, a voluntary disclosure based on a company violation revealed in an Aviation Safety 

Action Program (ASAP) report may require more that 24 hours from the submission of that 

ASAP report in order for the responsible company entity to become aware of the information in 

the report and to initiate a voluntary disclosure. The FAA retains sole discretion in determining 

whether a voluntary disclosure received later than 24 hours after discovery of the violation is 

timely. The certificate holder should therefore not delay notification for any reason, and should 

address, to the maximum extent possible, the following items: 

a. Brief Description of Apparent Violation. A brief description of the apparent violation, 

including an estimate of the duration of time that it remained undetected, as well as how and 

when it was discovered. 

b. Verification of Cease of Noncompliance. Verification that noncompliance ceased after 

it was identified. 

c. Brief Description of Immediate Action. A brief description of the immediate action 

taken after the apparent violation was identified, the immediate action taken to terminate the 

conduct that resulted in the apparent violation, and the person responsible for taking the 

immediate action. 

d. Verification of Evaluation. Verification that an evaluation is underway to determine: 

• If there are any systemic problems, and 

• The corrective steps necessary to prevent the apparent violation from recurring. 

e. Identification of Responsible Person. Identification of the person responsible for 

preparing the comprehensive fix. 

f. Acknowledgement of a Written Report. Acknowledgment that a written report will be 

provided to the PI within 10 working-days 

Page 2 
4/29/09 AC 00-583 

Appendix 1 

g. Initial Notification Submission by Management Officials. The initial notification of a 

voluntary disclosure must be submitted by one of the management officials specified in part 119, 

§ 119.65, or § 119.69, as appropriate, or in accordance with paragraph 3h below. 

h. Initial Notification Submission by Authorized Employees. The initial notification can 

be submitted by an employee authorized by the airline to accomplish initial notification as long 

as that employee includes a letter signed by one of the management officials specified in 

§ 119.65 or § 119.69, as appropriate. That letter must stipulate that: 

• The corporate official is aware of the disclosure, 

• The company took immediate action to cease the violation, and 

• The company has developed, or is developing, a proposed comprehensive fix for 

FAA consideration to prevent future reoccurrences of the violation, as provided by 

this AC. 

NOTE: The Web-based VDRP allows upload of documents (photos, text 

documents, letters, etc.) by the regulated entity in Stages I and i n and upload 

by the FAA in Stages II, III, IV, V and VI, to enable the attachment of 

whatever documents may be required to support their submissions. 

4. STAGE II: FAA RESPONSE TO CERTIFICATE HOLDER. The PI will review the 

Web-based submission from the air carrier and respond in a timely manner. If the original 

submission from the regulated entity was made via an alternative media (e.g., telephone, etc.), 

the PI may respond via an alternative means, but must also respond to the subsequent Web-based 

submission by the air carrier. 

a. PI Review. The Pi's review of the disclosure shall, to the extent possible, confirm the 

submission meets the following requirements: 

(1) The air carrier has notified the FAA of the apparent violation immediately after 

detecting it and before the Agency has learned of it by other means. 

(2) The apparent violation was inadvertent. 

(3) The apparent violation does not indicate a lack, or reasonable question, of 

qualification of the air carrier. 

(4) Immediate action, satisfactory to the FAA, was taken upon discovery to terminate the 

conduct that resulted in the apparent violation. 

(5) The air carrier certificate holder has developed, or is developing, a comprehensive fix 

and schedule of implementation satisfactory to the FAA. The comprehensive fix includes a 

followup self-audit to ensure that the action taken corrects the noncompliance. This self-audit is 

in addition to any audits conducted by the FAA. 

Page 3 
AC 00-583 4/29/09 

Appendix 1 

(6) The initial notification of a voluntary disclosure was submitted by one of the 

management officials specified in § 119.65 or § 119.69, as appropriate; or, the inhial notification 

was submitted by an employee authorized by the airline to accomplish initial notification and 

includes a letter which meets the requirements set forth in paragraph 3h of this appendix. 

b. PI Completion of the Review. Once the PI completes the review of the voluntary 

disclosure submission, he/she makes a determination to accept the disclosure, return it for 

editing, or find it invalid. 

(1) Acceptance: If the PI elects to accept the disclosure, the inspector completes the 

required Stage 11 entries in the Web-based VDRP and submits his/her input. Upon submission by 

the PI, the VDRP system will alert the Office Manager, via email, that the file is awaiting his or 

her review. 

(2) Return for Edit: If the PI finds the disclosure does not contain sufficient information 

to accept the disclosure, the PI has the option of returning the disclosure to the RE for editing. 

Upon selection of the "send back" button and submission by the PI, the VDRP system notifies 

the RE of the determination via email and returns the case to Stage I, pending resubmission by 

the RE. 

(3) Rejection/Invalid: If the PI finds the disclosure does not meet the requirements set 

forth in this Advisory Circular for acceptance, or it has been determined that no violation 

occurred, the PI selects "No" in response to the question, "Is this a valid self-disclosure?". Upon 

submission by the PI, the RE is notified of that determination by email. When found to be 

invalid, the case does not advance and is not assigned an EIR number. 

c. Office Manager Review of PI Determination. The Office Manager will review the Pi's 

determination to accept the voluntary disclosure. 

(1) If the Office Manager indicates concurrence with the Pi's acceptance determination 

and selects, "Submit," Stage 11 is concluded and the record will advance into Stage 111, which 

triggers automated email notification of the RE of the acceptance. It also triggers the VDRP 

system to open an Enforcement Investigative Report (EIR), with automatic assignment of an EIR 

number to the report. 

(2) If the Office Manager indicates nonconcurrence with the Pi's acceptance 

determination, the case will be referred back to the PI for reconsideration with whatever 

comments have been entered by the Office Manager. The case will not advance to Stage III until 

the Office Manager submits concurrence with the Pi's determination. 

NOTE: If, at any time subsequent to acceptance of the disclosure, the FAA 

becomes aware that the disclosure did not meet the requirements set forth 

for acceptance under the VDRP, the acceptance may be withdrawn. In such 

cases, as well in those cases where it is subsequently determined that a 

violation did not occur, the web-based system provides the option of 

"rescinding" a case, which closes the file without action within the VDRP. If 

the certificate holding office has sufficient evidence to proceed with 

enforcement action, independent of the materials provided by the air carrier 

Page 4 
4/29/09 AC 00-583 

Appendix 1 

as part of its submission under VDRP, enforcement action should be initiated 

in accordance with the procedures set forth in the current edition of FAA 

Order 2150.3. 

5. STAGE III: WRITTEN REPORT OF THE AIR CARRIER'S APPARENT 

VIOLATION. 

a. Written Report. The written report should be submitted by the air carrier, to the PI, via 

the web-based VDRP system, within 10 working-days from the date the disclosure was 

submitted to the FAA. This report must contain a detailed description of the proposed 

comprehensive fix, outlining the planned corrective steps, the responsibilities for implementing 

those corrective steps, and a time schedule for completion of the fix. If a proposed 

comprehensive fix is not fully developed within 10 working-days from the date the disclosure 

was submitted to the FAA, the regulated entity should provide at least an overview of its 

comprehensive fix plans in a written report submitted within 10 working-days after the initial 

notification to the FAA was made. In any event, a detailed description of the comprehensive fix 

should be submitted to the FAA within 30 calendar-days after initial notification. 

b. Required Input. The VDRP web-based system requires the input of the following 

information in the Written Report Stage: 

(1) A list of the specific FAA regulations that may have been violated. 

(2) A description of the apparent violation, including the duration of time it remained 

undetected, as well as how and when it was detected. 

(3) A description of the immediate action taken to terminate the conduct that resulted in 

the apparent violation, including when it was taken, and who was responsible for taking the 

action. 

(4) An explanation that shows the apparent violation was inadvertent. 

(5) Evidence that demonstrates the seriousness of the apparent violation and the regulated 

entity's analysis of that evidence. 

(6) Completion of a Risk Assessment Matrix to aid in evaluating the significance of the 

event. 

(7) A detailed description of the proposed comprehensive fix, outlining the planned 

corrective steps, the responsibilities for implementing those corrective steps, and a time schedule 

for completion of the fix and the subsequent self-audit. 

(8) Identification of the company official(s) responsible for monitoring the 

implementation and completion of the comprehensive fix and the self-audit. 

6. STAGE IV: WRITTEN REPORT REVIEW BY THE FAA. The FAA works with the 

certificate holder to ensure that the regulated entity has identified any root causes and systemic 

issues which led to the apparent violation. In this stage, the PI is also tasked with completing a 

Page 5 
AC 00-583 4/29/09 

Appendix 1 

Risk Assessment Matrix to aid in evaluating the significance of the event and the proposed 

comprehensive fix. This collaboration helps to ensure that the corrective actions contained in the 

comprehensive fix are acceptable to the FAA. 

NOTE: Should investigation of the apparent violation result in the 

determination that no violation has occurred, the EIR may be closed by 

rescinding the file and providing an explanation in the provided comment 

box. When submitted, the user is provided a warning that submitting this 

action (rescinding the file) will close the case and terminate the investigation. 

If the inspector confirms the rescission, the case is closed in VDRP on that 

date and will close in EIS ten (10) days later, with the original date of closure 

recorded in EIS. The ten day delay is provided to enable the FAA to re-open 

the file within that ten day 'Vindow" if deemed necessary. 

7. STAGE V: IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE FIX AND FAA 

SURVEILLANCE. 

a. Implementation Period. During the implementation period, the FAA and the pertinent 

regulated entity should continue to work together. The FAA may advise and assist the entity in 

correcting any identified systemic problems. Changes will be made to the proposed 

comprehensive fix when the need is identified. Upon determining that the initial implementation 

of the proposed comprehensive fix is satisfactory, the PI may issue a letter of correction in 

Stage V. Alternatively, the PI may elect instead to issue the letter of correction in Stage VI, if 

deemed appropriate. If the letter of correction is issued in Stage V, and subsequent changes are 

made to the Comprehensive Fix, the PI shall issue and upload a revised letter of correction in 

Stage VI which reflects the letter of correction as implemented. 

b. Corrective Steps. The FAA monitors the implementation of the corrective steps. 

Throughout the implementation period, the FAA assesses the pertinent regulated entity's 

corrective efforts and top management's awareness of these efforts. If, during this period, the 

FAA determines that the steps taken by the entity are not those documented in the 

comprehensive fix and acceptable corrective action by the RE is not forthcoming, the letter of 

correction may be rescinded, and appropriate legal enforcement action initiated. 

8. STAGE VI: INSPECTOR SIGNOFF. At the conclusion of the implementation period, the 

PI and the certificate-holding Office Manager will make a final assessment. Consultation with 

regional specialists, legal counsel, or other FAA personnel may be accomplished when deemed 

appropriate by the PI or the Office Manager. 

a. Stage VI Completion. If all elements of the comprehensive fix have been satisfactorily 

accomplished, including the Air Carrier's self-audit, the PI will submit the required entries in the 

Web-based system for Stage VI completion. 

b. Stage VI Submission. Upon Stage VI submission by the PI, the VDRP system will 

notify the Office Manager via email that the file is awaiting the manager's review. The Office 

Manager will then log into the VDRP system, review the VDRP file, and assess the adequacy of 

Page 6 
4/29/09 AC 00-583 

Appendix 1 

the Comprehensive Fix and it's implementation. The Office Manager must decide whether to 

concur with the Pi's determination that the Comprehensive Fix was satisfactorily accomplished. 

(1) If the Office Manager concurs with the Pi's determination, Stage VI is concluded 

upon submission of the manager's concurrence (Selection of the, "Submit" button signals 

concurrence), and the VDRP system will automatically generate the Form 2150-5 as well as 

close the associated EIR record in the Enforcement Information System (EIS). 

(2) If the Office Manager wishes to indicate nonconcurrence with the Pi's determination, 

the Office Manager will offer any comments in the comment area provided for that purpose. The 

Manager will then select the, "Return", button. Upon selection of the "Return" button, the case 

will be referred back to the PI for reconsideration with whatever comments were entered by the 

Office Manager. The case will not advance out of Stage VI until it is re-submitted by the PI and 

the Office Manager submits his/her concurrence. 

Page 7 (and 8) 

4/29/09 AC 00-583 

Appendix 2 

APPENDIX 2. VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE REPORTING PROGRAM (VDRP) FOR 

REGULATED ENTITIES, OTHER THAN AIR CARRIERS, AUTHORIZED TO 

UTILIZE THE WEB-BASED VDRP 

This Appendix is directed to those regulated entities (RE), other than air carriers, which are 

required to utilize the Web-based VDRP system. A list of those entities may be found on the 

VDRP home page at: bttps://av-info.faa.gov/vdrp. 

1. ACCESS TO THE VDRP WEB-BASED SYSTEM. Access to the Web-based system 

requires assignment of a login identification and a password, which are obtained via the 

following means: 

a. RE Representatives. Representatives named by the RE to represent the company on 

voluntary disclosure issues will be added to the VDRP Web-based system by a principal 

inspector (PI) assigned certificate responsibilities for that RE. Each authorized representative 

will be issued a unique login identification and password for access to the system. Refer to 

VDRP User Guide at: https://av-info.faa.gov/VDRP/UserGuide.pdfor, contact VDRP Help Desk 

at (866) 285-4942 for additional information. 

b. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Personnel Access. FAA personnel may obtain 

access to the system via one of the following means: 

(1) Pis are automatically added to the VDRP system when the automated Operations 

Safety System (OPSS) recognizes the individual as a PI assigned to that RE. 

(2) FAA personnel not assigned as a PI who require access to the system will be added to 

the system by a PI, utilizing the "Add User" functionality. 

c. VDRP System Guidance. The VDRP User Guide may be accessed and downloaded at: 

https://av-info.faa.gov/VDRP/UserGuide.pdf Additional assistance may be obtained via 

telephone from the VDRP Help Desk at (866) 285-4942. 

2. THE SIX STAGES OF THE VDRP. The Web-based VDRP employs a six-stage process. 

Responsibility for each such stage is assigned either to the RE or the FAA, as described below. 

Except as specified in this AC, the voluntary disclosure policy applies only when notification of 

an apparent violation is made to the FAA by the RE, immediately after the apparent violation has 

been discovered by that entity, and before the FAA leams of the apparent violation by some 

other means. 

a. RE Requirements. Those REs to which this appendix applies, are required to utilize the 

Web-based VDRP system for submitting voluntary disclosures to the FAA. 

b. Disclosure Notification. Notification of a disclosure to the FAA will normally be made 

via the Web-based system, unless extenuating circumstances prevent initial notification using 

that venue. 

c. Web-based VDRP System Provisions. The Web-based VDRP system contains 

provisions for indicating that the notification process was initiated via another media. When 

Page 1 
AC 00-583 4/29/09 

Appendix 2 

acceptable to the PI, initial notice of a voluntary disclosure may be submitted orally, via a written 

hardcopy, or by electronic copy provided the RE enters the initial notification data via the Webbased VDRP system within 72 hours of the original notification. Compliance with the 10-

or 30-day limit for submission of the written report, as described in Stage 111 below, will be 

based on the date of the original notification, regardless of the submission means or media. 

3. STAGE I: NOTIFICATION TO THE FAA OF AN APPARENT VIOLATION. When 

the certificate holder notifies the FAA of an apparent violation, contact must be made with, or 

directed to, the appropriate PI. The notification requirement is automatically met when the 

disclosure is submitted via the Web-based VDRP system as all Pi's for that certificate are 

notified when a disclosure is submitted. However, if the certificate holder submits the initial 

notification via alternative media, as authorized in paragraph 4 below, the disclosure must be 

submitted to the appropriate PI. It is FAA policy that initial notification should be accomplished 

on a timely basis, ordinarily within 24 hours of the discovery of the apparent violation. However, 

an inspector may accept disclosures that exceed the 24 hour policy when the inspector 

determines that a later submission is justified based on the specific circumstances, and in view of 

those circumstances, the submission is still considered timely. For example, a voluntary 

disclosure based on a company violation revealed in an Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) 

report may require more that 24 hours from the submission of that ASAP report in order for the 

responsible company entity to become aware of the information In the report and to initiate a 

voluntary disclosure. The FAA retains sole discretion in determining whether a voluntary 

disclosure received later than 24 hours after discovery of the violation is timely. The certificate 

holder should therefore not delay notification for any reason, and should address, to the 

maximum extent possible, the following items: 

a. Brief Description of Apparent Violation. A brief description of the apparent violation, 

including an estimate of the duration of time that it remained undetected, as well as how and 

when it was discovered. 

b. Verification of Cease of Noncompliance. Verification that noncompliance ceased after 

it was identified. 

c. Brief Description of Immediate Action. A brief description of the immediate action 

taken after the apparent violation was identified, the immediate action taken to terminate the 

conduct that resulted in the apparent violation, and the person responsible for taking the 

immediate action. 

d. Verification of Evaluation. Verification that an evaluation is underway to determine: 

• If there are any systemic problems, and 

• The corrective steps necessary to prevent the apparent violation from recurring. 

e. Identification of Person Responsible for Preparation. Identification of the person 

responsible for preparing the comprehensive fix. 

{. Acknowledgement of a Written Report. Acknowledgment that a written report will be 

provided to the PI within 10 working-days. 

Page 2 
4/29/09 AC 00-583 

Appendix 2 

NOTE: The Web-based VDRP allows upload of documents (photos, text 

documents, letters, etc.) by the RE at Stage I and Stage III and upload by the 

FAA in Stages II, III, IV, V and VI, to enable the attachment of whatever 

documents may be required to support their submissions. 

4. STAGE II: FAA RESPONSE TO THE RE. The PI will review the Web-based submission 

from the RE and respond in a timely manner. If the original submission from the RE was made 

via an alternative media (e.g., telephone etc.), the PI may respond via an alternative means, but 

must also respond to the subsequent Web-based submission by the RE. 

a. PI Review. The Pi's review of the disclosure shall, to the extent possible, confirm the 

submission meets the following requirements: 

(1) The RE has notified the FAA of the apparent violation immediately after detecting it 

and before the Agency has learned of it by other means. 

(2) The apparent violation was inadvertent. 

(3) The apparent violation does not indicate a lack, or reasonable question, of 

qualification of the RE. 

(4) Immediate action, satisfactory to the FAA, was taken upon discovery to terminate the 

conduct that resulted in the apparent violation. 

(5) The RE has developed, or is developing, a comprehensive fix and schedule of 

implementation satisfactory to the FAA. The comprehensive fix includes a followup self-audit to 

ensure that the action taken corrects the noncompliance. This self-audit is in addition to any 

audits conducted by the FAA. 

b. PI Completion of the Review. 

(1) Once the PI completes the review of the voluntary disclosure submission, he/she 

makes a determination to accept the disclosure, return it for editing, or find it invalid. 

(a) Acceptance: If the PI elects to accept the disclosure, the inspector completes the 

required Stage 11 entries in the Web-based VDRP and submits his/her input. 

(b) Retum for Edit: If the PI finds the disclosure does not contain sufficient 

information to accept the disclosure, the PI has the option of returning the disclosure to the RE 

for editing. Upon selection of the "send back" button and submission by the PI, the VDRP 

system notifies the RE of the determination via email and returns the case to Stage 1, pending 

resubmission by the RE. 

(c) Rejection/Invalid: If the PI finds the disclosure does not meet the requirements set 

forth in this AC for acceptance, or it has been determined that no violation occurred, the PI 

selects "No" in response to the question, "Is this a valid self-disclosure?". Upon submission by 

the PI, the regulated entity is notified of that determination by e-mail. When found to be invalid, 

the case does not advance and is not assigned an EIR number. 

Page 3 
AC 00-583 4/29/09 

Appendix 2 

NOTE: If, at any time subsequent to acceptance of the disclosure, the FAA 

becomes aware that the disclosure did not meet the requirements set forth 

for acceptance under the VDRP, the acceptance may be withdrawn. In such 

cases, as well in those cases where it is subsequently determined that a 

violation did not occur, the Web-based system provides the option of 

"rescinding" a case, which closes the file without action within the VDRP. If 

the certificate holding office has sufficient evidence to proceed with 

enforcement action, independent of the materials provided by the RE as part 

of its submission under VDRP, enforcement action should be initiated in 

accordance with the procedures set forth in the current edition of FAA 

Order 2150.3. 

5. STAGE III: WRITTEN REPORT OF RE'S APPARENT VIOLATION. 

a. Written Report. The written report should be submitted by the RE, to the PI, via the 

Web-based VDRP system, within 10 working-days of the date disclosure was submitted to the 

FAA. This report must contain a detailed description of the proposed comprehensive fix, 

outlining the planned corrective steps, the responsibilities for implementing those corrective 

steps, and a time schedule for completion of the fix. If a proposed comprehensive fix is not fiilly 

developed within 10 working-days, the pertinent RE should provide at least an overview of its 

comprehensive fix plans in a written report submitted within 10 working-days after the initial 

notification was made. In any event, a detailed description of the comprehensive fix should be 

submitted within 30 calendar-days after initial notification. 

b. Required Input. The VDRP Web-based system requires the input of the following 

information in the Written Report Stage: 

(1) A list of the specific FAA regulations that may have been violated. 

(2) A description of the apparent violation, including the duration of time it remained 

undetected, as well as how and when it was detected. 

(3) A description of the immediate action taken to terminate the conduct that resulted in 

the apparent violation, including when it was taken, and who was responsible for taking the 

action. 

(4) An explanation that shows the apparent violation was inadvertent. 

(5) Evidence that demonstrates the seriousness of the apparent violation and the RE's 

analysis of that evidence. 

(6) Completion of a Risk Assessment Matrix to aid in evaluating the significance of the 

event. 

(7) A detailed description of the proposed comprehensive fix, outlining the planned 

corrective steps, the responsibilities for implementing those corrective steps, and a time schedule 

for completion of the fix and the subsequent self-audit. 

Page 4 
4/29/09 AC 00-583 

Appendix 2 

(8) Identification of the company official(s) responsible for monitoring the 

implementation and completion of the comprehensive fix and the self-audit. 

6. STAGE IV: WTUTTEN REPORT REVIEW BY THE FAA. The FAA works with the 

certificate holder to ensure that the RE has identified any root causes and systemic issues which 

led to the apparent violation. In this stage, the PI is also tasked with completing a Risk 

Assessment Matrix to aid in evaluating the significance of the event and the proposed 

comprehensive fix. This collaboration helps to ensure that the corrective actions contained in the 

comprehensive fix are acceptable to the FAA. 

NOTE: Should investigation of the apparent violation result in the 

determination that no violation has occurred, the EIR may be closed by 

rescinding the file and providing an explanation in the provided comment 

box. When submitted, the user is provided a warning that submitting this 

action (rescinding the file) will close the case and terminate the investigation. 

If the inspector confirms the rescission, the case is closed in VDRP that date 

and will close in EIS 10 (ten) days later, with the original date of closure 

recorded in EIS. The 10-day delay is provided to enable the FAA to re-open 

the file within that 10-day "window" if deemed necessary. 

7. STAGE V: IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE FIX AND FAA 

SURVEILLANCE. 

a. Implementation Period. During the implementation period, the FAA and the pertinent 

RE should continue to work together. The FAA may advise and assist the entity in correcting any 

identified systemic problems. Changes will be made to the proposed comprehensive fix when the 

need is identified. Upon determining that the initial implementation of the proposed 

comprehensive fix is satisfactory, the PI may issue a letter of correction in Stage V. 

Alternatively, the PI may elect instead to issue the letter of correction in Stage VI, if deemed 

appropriate. If the letter of correction is issued in Stage V, and subsequent changes are made to 

the Comprehensive Fix, the PI shall issue and upload a revised letter of correction in Stage VI 

which reflects the letter of correction as implemented. 

b. Corrective Steps. The FAA monitors the implementation of the corrective steps. 

Throughout the implementation period, the FAA assesses the pertinent RE's corrective efforts 

and top management's awareness of these efforts. If, during this period, the FAA determines that 

the steps taken by the entity are not those documented in the comprehensive fix and acceptable 

corrective action by the RE is not forthcoming, the letter of correction may be rescinded, and 

appropriate legal enforcement action initiated. 

8. STAGE VI: INSPECTOR SIGNOFF, 

a. Conclusion. At the conclusion of the implementation period, the PI makes a final 

assessment. If all elements of the comprehensive fix, including the RE's self-audit, have been 

adequately accomplished, the PI finds the fix satisfactory and closes the case. The case remains 

subject to reopening in the event that the agreed upon actions, outlined in the comprehensive fix, 

are not completed to the satisfaction of the FAA. 

Page 5 
AC 00-583 4/29/09 

Appendix 2 

b. PI Authority to Close the Case. The PI has the authority to close the case. Consultation 

with regional specialists, legal counsel, or other FAA personnel may be accomplished when 

deemed appropriate by the PI. 

Page 6 
4/29/09 AC 00-583 

Appendix 3 

APPENDIX 3. VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE REPORTING PROGRAM (VDRP) FOR 

REGULATED ENTITIES (RE) NOT AUTHORIZED TO UTILIZE THE WEB-BASED 

VDRP SYSTEM 

1. APPLICABILITY. All REs NOT authorized to utilize the VDRP Web-based system will 

utilize the guidance contained in this Appendix for submission of Voluntary Disclosures. A list 

of authorized users of the Web-based system may be found at: https://av-info.faa.gov/vdrp. 

2. THE SIX STAGES OF THE VDRP. The VDRP employs a six stage process. 

Responsibility for each such stage is assigned either to the RE or the FAA, as described below. 

Except as specified in this AC, the voluntary disclosure policy applies only when notification of 

an apparent violation is made to the FAA by the RE, immediately after the apparent violation has 

been discovered by that entity, and before the FAA leams of the apparent violation by some 

other means. 

3. STAGE I: NOTIFICATION TO THE FAA OF AN APPARENT VIOLATION. When 

the RE notifies the FAA of an apparent violation, contact must be made with, or directed to, the 

appropriate principal inspector (PI). When acceptable to the PI, initial notice of a voluntary 

disclosure may be submitted orally, via written hardcopy, or by electronic means. It is FAA 

policy that initial notification should be accomplished on a timely basis, ordinarily within 

24 hours of the discovery of the apparent violation. However, an inspector may accept 

disclosures that exceed the 24 hour-policy when the inspector determines that a later submission 

is justified based on the specific circumstances, and in view of those circumstances, the 

submission is stil! considered timely. For example, a voluntary disclosure based on a company 

violation revealed in an Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) report may require more that 

24 hours from the submission of that ASAP report in order for the responsible company entity to 

become aware of the information in the report and to initiate a voluntary disclosure. The FAA 

retains sole discretion in determining whether a voluntary disclosure received later than 24 hours 

after discovery of the violation is timely. The certificate holder should therefore not delay 

notification for any reason, and should address, to the maximum extent possible, the following 

items with the PI: 

a. Brief Description of Apparent Violation. A brief description of the apparent violation, 

including an estimate of the duration of time that it remained undetected, as well as how and 

when it was discovered. 

b. Verification of Cease of Noncompliance. Verification that noncompliance ceased after 

it was identified. 

c. Brief Description of Immediate Action. A brief description of the immediate action 

taken after the apparent violation was identified, the immediate action taken to terminate the 

conduct that resulted in the apparent violation, and the person responsible for taking the 

immediate action. 

d. Verification of Evaluation. Verification that an evaluation is underway to determine: 

(1) If there are any systemic problems. 

Page 
AC 00-583 4/29/09 

Appendix 3 

(2) The corrective steps necessary to prevent the apparent violation from recurring. 

e. Identification of Responsible Person. Identification of the person responsible for 

preparing the comprehensive fix. 

f. Acknowledgement of a Written Report. Acknowledgment that a written report will be 

provided to the PI within 10 working-days. 

4. STAGE II: FAA RESPONSE TO CERTIFICATE HOLDER. The PI responds with a 

written acknowledgment of the entity's initial notification. This acknowledgment includes the 

request for a written report and is sent in lieu of a letter of investigation; provided the written 

report is completed in accordance with the VDRP set forth in this AC. The PI will open an 

Enforcement Investigative Report (EIR) that will be closed out with a letter of correction 

following satisfactory development and implementation of a comprehensive fix as provided by 

schedule of implementation agreed upon by the FAA and the entity. The Pi's review of the 

disclosure shall, to the extent possible, confirm the submission meets the following requirements: 

a. The FAA was Notified. The RE has notified the FAA of the apparent violation 

immediately after detecting it and before the Agency has learned of it by other means. 

b. The Violation was Inadvertent. The apparent violation was inadvertent. 

c. The Violation Does Not Reflect a Lack of RE Qualification. The apparent violation 

does not indicate a lack, or reasonable question, of qualification of the RE. 

d. FAA Approved Immediate Action was Taken. Immediate action, satisfactory to the 

FAA, was taken upon discovery to terminate the conduct that resulted in the apparent violation. 

e. The RE Has, or Is, Developing a Comprehensive Fix. The RE has developed, or is 

developing, a comprehensive fix and schedule of implementation satisfactory to the FAA. The 

comprehensive fix includes a followup self-audit to ensure that the action taken corrects the 

noncompliance. This self-audit is in addition to any audits conducted by the FAA. 

5. STAGE III: WRITTEN REPORT OF THE RE'S APPARENT VIOLATION. 

a. Written Report Specifications. The written report should be provided to the PI by the 

RE within 10 working-days after the initial notification was made. This report must contain a 

detailed description of the proposed comprehensive fix, outlining the planned corrective steps, 

the responsibilities for implementing those corrective steps, and a time schedule for completion 

of the fix. If a proposed comprehensive fix is not fully developed within 10 working-days, the 

pertinent RE should provide at least an overview of its comprehensive fix plans in a written 

report submitted within 10 working-days after the initial notification was made. In any event, a 

detailed description of the comprehensive fix should be submitted within 30 calendar-days after 

initial notification. The written report should include the following information: 

(1) A list of the specific FAA regulations that may have been violated. 

Page 2 
4/29/09 AC 00-583 

Appendix 3 

(2) A description of the apparent violation, including the duration of time it remained 

undetected, as well as how and when it was detected. 

(3) A description of the immediate action taken to terminate the conduct that resulted in 

the apparent violation, including when it was taken, and who was responsible for taking the 

action. 

(4) An explanation that shows the apparent violation was inadvertent. 

(5) Evidence that demonstrates the seriousness of the apparent violation and the RE's 

analysis of that evidence. 

(6) A detailed description of the proposed comprehensive fix, outlining the planned 

corrective steps, the responsibilities for implementing those corrective steps, and a time schedule 

for completion of the fix and a self-audit following implementation of the corrective action(s). If 

a proposed comprehensive fix is not fully developed within 10 working-days, the pertinent RE 

should provide at least an overview of its comprehensive fix plans in a written report submitted 

within 10 working-days after the initial notification was made. In any event, a detailed 

description of the comprehensive fix should be submitted within 30 calendar-days after initial 

notification. 

(7) Identification of the company official(s) responsible for monitoring the 

implementation and completion of the comprehensive fix and the self-audit. 

b. Sample Written Report Format. The following sample is only a suggested format to be 

followed when preparing the written report that will be submitted to the FAA. While a RE 

should include at least all the elements specified below, the structure of the written report can be 

modified by the RE to fit its particular needs. 

(1) General. 

(2) Date. 

(3) Certificate type or equivalent. 

(4) Pertinent RE number or equivalent. 

(5) Company name. 

(6) Company address. 

(7) Company official filing report. 

• Name, 

• Position, 

• Telephone number, and 

Page 3 
AC 00-583 4/29/09 

Appendix 3 

• E-mail address. 

(8) Description of Apparent Violation. 

(9) Applicable 14 CFR part(s). 

(10) Date apparent violation was discovered. 

(11) Location of discovery. 

(12) Company official who discovered the apparent violation. 

• Name, 

• Position, 

• Telephone number, and 

• E-mail address. 

(13) Date and time of initial notification to the FAA. 

(14) Name of FAA official notified PI. 

(15) Company official responsible for immediate action. 

• Name, 

• Position, 

• Telephone number, and 

• E-mail address. 

(16) Duration of time apparent violation remained undetected—hours, cycles, or days. 

c. Summary of Apparent Violation. The summary should be a brief statement that 

describes the nature of the apparent violation and identifies the specific aircraft, engines, 

appliances, facilities, checkpoint, gate, cargo, and/or individuals associated with the apparent 

violation. 

d. Immediate Action. 

(1) When immediate action was taken. 

(2) Description of immediate action. This description should outline the immediate steps 

that were taken to cease the violative action. 

(3) Company official responsible for immediate action. 

Page 4 
4/29/09 AC 00-583 

Appendix 3 

• Name, 

• Position, 

• Telephone number, and 

• E-mail address. 

e. Analysis. 

(1) Summary of evidence. This summary should describe the scope of the apparent 

violation and explain how it was detected. In addition, conclusions reached regarding possible or 

probable systemic deficiencies (i.e., who, what, when, why, and how the noncompliance 

occurred) should be described. 

(2) Reasons why the apparent violation was inadvertent. 

(3) Supporting documentation. The evidence associated with the apparent violation 

should be attached. This evidence should include a statement regarding how the RE determined 

the extent of the apparent violation. 

f. Comprehensive Fix Proposal. The proposed long term corrective steps to be taken by 

the RE to preclude recurrence of the apparent violation should be listed in this section. Each 

corrective step should identify the individual or department responsible for implementing and 

completing the corrective step as well as the time allotted for completion of each corrective step. 

Examples of tyjjcs of questions or issues that a comprehensive fix proposal should address are as 

follows: 

(1) Does the apparent violation involve equipment, facilities, or individuals beyond those 

addressed in the initial notification and for which immediate action was taken? 

(2) Are procedural or organizational changes necessary? 

(3) How will it be determined whether any procedural or organizational changes are 

effective? 

(4) What procedures will be developed to ensure that the affected area is periodically 

reviewed in the fiiture so that concerns can be identified before a violation occurs? 

(5) Who will be responsible for performing periodic reviews? 

(6) To whom in the RE's organization will the results of those periodic reviews be 

reported, and how they will be documented? 

(7) A schedule for completion of a self-audit by the RE following implementation of the 

comprehensive fix to verify the action taken corrects the noncompliance. This self-audit is in 

addition to any audits conducted by the FAA and identification of the individual(s) responsible 

for conduct of the self-audit. 

Page 5 
AC 00-583 4/29/09 

Appendix 3 

g. Responsibility for Monitoring Implementation of the Comprehensive Fix. 

(1) Name. 

(2) Position. 

(3) Telephone number. 

(4) E-mail address. 

h. FAA Acceptance (to be completed by the FAA). 

(1) Name. 

(2) Position (PI). 

(3) Date. 

(4) Office. 

6. STAGE IV: WRITTEN REPORT REVIEW BY THE FAA. The FAA works with the 

certificate holder to ensure that the RE has identified any root causes and systemic issues which 

led to the apparent violation. This collaboration helps to ensure that the corrective actions 

contained in the comprehensive fix are acceptable to the FAA. 

7. STAGE V: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE FIX AND FAA 

SURVEILLANCE. 

a. Continued FAA and RE Cooperation. During the implementation period, the FAA and 

the pertinent RE should continue to work together. The FAA may advise and assist the entity in 

correcting any identified systemic problems. Changes will be made to the proposed 

comprehensive fix when the need is identified. Upon determining that the initial implementation 

of the proposed comprehensive fix is satisfactory, the PI may issue a letter of correction in 

Stage V. If the letter of correction is issued in Stage V, and subsequent changes are made to the 

Comprehensive Fix, the PI shall issue an amendment to the letter of correction which reflects the 

corrective action, as implemented. 

b. The FAA's Monitoring of Corrective Step Implementation. The FAA monitors the 

implementation of the corrective steps. Throughout the implementation period, the FAA assesses 

the pertinent RE's corrective efforts and top management's awareness of these efforts. If, during 

this period, the FAA determines that the steps taken by the entity are not those documented in the 

comprehensive fix and acceptable corrective action by the RE is not forthcoming, the letter of 

correction may be rescinded, and appropriate legal enforcement action initiated. 

8. STAGE VI: INSPECTOR SIGNOFF. 

a. Conclusion. At the conclusion of the implementation period, the PI makes a final 

assessment. If all elements of the comprehensive fix have been adequately accomplished. 

Page 6 
4/29/09 AC 00-583 

Appendix 3 

including a satisfactory self-audit by the RE, the PI finds the fix satisfactory and closes the case. 

The case remains subject to reopening in the event that the agreed upon actions, outlined in the 

comprehensive fix, are not completed to the satisfaction of the FAA. A statement of followup 

investigation, confirming that the comprehensive fix was satisfactorily implemented and 

completed, is prepared to complete the FAA's investigative package. 

b. PI Authority. The PI has the authority to close the case. Consultation with regional 

specialists, legal counsel, or other FAA personnel may be accomplished when deemed 

appropriate by the PI. 

Page 7 (and 8) 
> ,05/04/2018 13:38 8163233771 FAA ACE 7 p^.^^ ^^.^ ^ 

RECEIVED OFFICE OF 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DAVID HAYES 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ^. ^ « -

WASHINGTON, DC MAY U f 2010 

VICE PRESIDENT AND 

GENERAL COUNSEL 

Served: May 3, 2010 

IN THE MATTER OF 

GOJET AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA Docket No. CP10CE0003 

DMS No. FAA-2010-0025 

FAA Case No. 2008CE030045 

Judge: Richard C, Goodwin 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO 

RESPONDENT'S FIRST REDDEST FOR ADMISSIONS 

COMES NOW the Federal Aviation Administration, acting by and through its legal 

counsel, and pursuant to Section 13.220 of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions 

(14 C.F.R Section 13.201 et seq.), and submits its response to Respondent's First Request for 

Admissions. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 

1. Admit that on November 26,2007, GoJet operated flight 5382 in aircraft number Nl 51 GJ, 

Response: Admit 

2. Admit that during flight 5382, a gear disagree waming message appeared and the flight 

was returned to St. Louis afier just 16 minutes in flight. 

Response: Admit 

3. Admit that on November 26,2007 Respondent's agent Jeff Craig verbally sel f-disclosed 

that GoJet had operated Nl 51 GJ with the gear pins installed after changing the #2 main landing 

gear (MLG) brake assembly to FAA Inspector Gary Cooper. 

Response: Admit 

4. Admit that on November 26, 2007, Respondent filed an Initial Notification with the FAA 

about this incident utilizing the FAA's VDRP system. 

Response: Admit 
"^ flS/Em/vBlQ 13: 3S 8163293771 FAA ACE PAGE 02/as 

5. Admit that in its Initial Notification, Respondent advised the FAA that "while changing 

the left inboard brake assembly, the mechanic installed the [sic?] and landing gear pin in the left 

main landing gear. After completing the brake change, the mechanic failed to remove the 

landing gear pin firom the left main landing gear. GoJet Airlines General Maintenance Manual 

(volume one, chapter 3 part 12.2) requires you to make an entry in the Aircraft Maintenance 

Flight Ix>gbook stating 'Landing gear pin installed, remove before fli^t entry'. This was not 

done." 

Response: Deny 

6. Admit that on November 29,2007 Investigator Cooper, on behalf of the FAA, filed a 

response to the Initial Notification indicating that it was a valid self disclosure. 

Response: Admit 

7. Admit that on or December 4,2007, Respondent filed a Written Report. 

Response: Deny 

8 Admit the violation was inadvertent. 

Response: Admit 

9. Admit that Respondent took immediate action on November 26,2007, which included 

sending the aircraft to the maintenance hangar to perform an opemtional check of the landing gear 

retraction/extension system. 

Response: Admit 

10. Admit that Respondent submitted a Comprehensive Fix Proposal. 

Response: Admit 

11. Admit that Inspector Cooper requested changes to tlie Comprehensive Fix Proposal. 

Response: Admit 

12. Admit that Inspector Cooper issued an ultimatum that either the Comprehensive 

Fix be changed in accordaincc to his recommendations or the self disclosure would be 
05/04/2010 13:38 8163253771 FAA ACE 7 PAgg- g^,gg 

closed out/rescinded in the VDRP and a violation would be processed as an enforcement 

proceeding. 

Response; Deny. 

13. Admit that Respondent requested to speak with Inspector Cooper's supervisors 

regarding his proposed changes to the comprehensive fix. 

Response: Deny 

14. Admit that Respondent's requests to take its issues with Inspector Cooper's changes to 

the Comprehensive Fix up Hie diain of command were denied. 

Response: Deny 

15. Admit that the VDRP applies to aircraft carriers. 

Response: Admit 

16. Admit that P^cspondent is a scheduled air carrier operating under Part 121 of the CFR, 

Response: Admit 

17. Admit that a comprehensive fix, as defined in AC 00-5 SB is "an action, or action, 

proposed by the certificate holder...and accepted by the principal inspector (PI) to preclude 

reoccurrence of the apparent violation that has been voluntary disclosed..." 

Response: Admit 

18. Admit that pursuant to Paragraph 11 in AC OO-SSB, when, disputes occur regarding the 

acceptance of a proposed comprehensive fix, or a modification thereto before the fix is 

considered satisfactory, the PI and the pertinent regulated entity may request that the issue be 

resolved at the next level of management with the FAA. 

Response: Admit 

19. Admit that under the VDRP, the FAA will forgo issuing a civil penalty action when a 

violation is promptly disclosed to the FAA and prompt corrective action is taJcen. 
-05/ 0 4 / 2 01H 13:38 8163233771 FAA ACE PAGE 04/05 

Response; Deny 

20. Admit that the FAA can not use infgnnation voluntarily submitted, through VDRP as 

evidence for an FAA enforcement action. 

Response: Deny 

21. Admit that the FAA used the information contained in the self-disclosure filed by 

Respondent to bring this enforcement action. 

Response: This is partially correct. Although information fi'om the VDRP report was 

used, the St. Louis FSDO was additionally made aware GoJet returned fi-om flight through the 

FAA Daily Report Application, and a separate occurrence investigation (#2008OCCU016) was 

completed by tiic St, Louis FSDO (Reference PTRS #CE03200802965). 

22. Admit that on March 11, 2009, the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty on 

Respondent, proposing to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $50,000. 

Response: Deny 

2 3. Admit that on January 2 7, 2010, the FAA issued its Final Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty on Respondent. 

Response: Admit 

24. Admit that on February 17,2010, the FAA served its complaint on Respondent. 

Response: Deny 

Complainant reserves the right to amend or supplement its Response if and when he leams of 

the ex-istence of any other relevant and material evidence prior to hearing. Complainant will 

provide a copy of such evidence to Respondent as quickly as possible if such becomes available. 

Dated ti^is 3'" day of May 2010 

A. Lester Haizlip 

RegionaJ^ounsel 

By: 

David Kessler 

Attomey 

Federal Aviation Administration 
05/04/2010 13:38 81632g3771 FAA ACE PAGE 05/a^ 

Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, v. GoJet Airlines, Inc., FAA Docket No. 

CP10CE0003, DMS No. FAA-2010-0025 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

1 hereby certify that I have this date sent the Complainant's Response to Respondent's 

First Request for Admissions, via the methods listed below, to: 

David Hayes 

11495 Natural Bridge Road 

Bridgeton, MO 63044 

(Copy via e-mail; 1 copy facsimile to (314) 222-4314) 

Dated this 3'" day of May 2010 

David Kessler 

Legal Assistant 
Inspector Statement 

On November 26, 2007, GoJet Airlines' Chief Inspector, Mr. Jeff Craig, verbally selfdisclosed to me that GoJet operated aircraft N151GJ with the gear pins installed after 

changing the #2 main landing gear (MLG) brake assembly in St. Louis. He stated the 

aircraft returned fi-om flight due to the MLG failing to retract after take off. He also 

stated the aircraft was going to the hangar to be jacked and an operational check of the 

MLG. I immediately went to the hangar to follow up on the incident. When I arrived the 

aircraft was already down off the jacks. When I looked at the logbook I saw a logbook 

entry for the #2 brake worn and for the removal and replacement of the brake. The next 

discrepancy block was an entry stating there was a gear disagree waming message upon 

gear retraction on climb out. There was no logbook entry for landing gear pins being 

installed for the brake change. At that time I spoke to Mr. Shaun Gotlieb, the Trans 

States Airlines' mechanic, who had changed the brake. 1 asked him if he knew the GoJet 

GMM required a logbook entry for installing the gear pins. He said he had known, but 

forgot, and stated he knew now. Later, on 11/26/2007 I received an electronic 

notification of the self-disclosure through the VDRP program, which stated the gear pin 

was left in the left main landing gear. 

On 12/10/2007 Mr. Craig submitted the written report portion of the self-disclosure into 

the VDRP system. I had several conversations with Mr. Craig discussing this disclosure 

as well as another one that was open at the same time. I informed him the comprehensive 

fix submitted in the VDRP system did not meet the requirements listed in FAA Order 

8900.1 and needed to be corrected. On different occasions I advised him of what I 

thought were suggested minimum requirements to include in the comprehensive fix. On 

1/24/2008 I retumed the report in the VDRP system to GoJet listing items that needed to 

be addressed in the report. I included a comprehensive fix implementation deadline of 

2/7/2008. On 1/25/2008 1 hand carried a letter to Mr. Craig listing the same 

requirements, and stated those items needed to be addressed and a comprehensive fix 

established and submitted to the FA.A by February 8. 2008 or the self-disclosure would 

be closed oul/rescinded in Ihc \DRP system and llic vioUilion w ouki be processed as an 

enforcement utilizing FAA Order 2150.3. The next week 1 asked Mr. Craig if GoJet was 

going to provide a comprehensive fix and he stated that he was told not to, and stated that 

his hands were tied. 

Gary J. (/30per 

Aviation Safety Inspector