U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

; ;. ~-

vs. 

Docket No. F AA-2013-0288 

FAA Case No. 2012S0190209 

AVIONICS MASTERS, INC., 

Respondent. Judge Sullivan 

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

The FAA hereby replies in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing as 

follows: 

FACTS AND BACKGROUND 

In its Response in Opposition to Summary Judgment, Respondent makes a number of 

assertions that, while not material to the legal and factual questions driving this case, appear to 

be presented as somehow exculpatory. Accordingly, the FAA addresses those briefly here. 

Respondent complains that the FAA "failed to attach exhibits to the [FAA]' s Motion for 

Summary Judgment that were exculpatory in nature and were timely disclosed to the [FAA] 

during the discovery process," citing Chambers & Co. Eguitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U.S., 

224 F.2d 338, 346 (5th Cir. 1955). Response '!1. Given the contents of the remainder of the 

Response, the undersigned presumes that this references the "Form 101" that was attached to the 

Response. The Administrator agrees that this document was provided during discovery, but notes 

that it is at best barely legible and was not identified by Respondent prior to the Amended 

Answer as being a document of any significance. Additionally, Respondent wholly misrepresents 

1 
the significance of Chambers, in which the Fifth Circuit simply held that it would rule based on 

the record submitted by the parties on summary judgment, rather than remanding a case without 

any apparent disputes of material fact so that the appellant could have another try and submitting 

additional evidence to create one. Chambers, 224 F.2d at 346. Even if the Form 101 created a 

genuine issue of material fact (which it does not), and even if the purported significance of the 

document had ever been disclosed in discovery (which it was not), the undersigned would not 

have been obligated to present Respondent's case in the FAA's Motion for Summary Judgment. 

An attorney, of course, has ethical obligations of candor to the tribunal, but it is ridiculous to 

suggest that the FAA was obligated to submit to the Judge a document that purportedly supports 

an argument that the Respondent had not even made at the time the FAA filed its Motion for 

Summary Judgment. 

The Respondent also continues to point out that it eventually issued a "corrected" Form 

8130-3 showing that the gyroscope was inspected, rather than repaired. Response ~ 7-8; 

Response Attachment I. While Respondent's subsequent "correction" of the Form 8130-3 is not 

material in any event, it is worth emphasizing that the "correction" of the Form 8130-3 did not 

occur until June 6, 2012, see Response Attachment I, block 13, after the FAA had discovered the 

violation on May 14, 2012, sent Respondent a letter of investigation on May 23, 2012, and 

Respondent had replied to that letter of investigation. See Summary Judgment Attachment J ~ 5; 

Attachment F; Attachment G. Respondent's "correction" of the Form 8130-3 after their violation 

had been discovered by the FAA is not any sort of mitigating factor in Respondent's favor. 

I. Respondent Admits That It Was Not Authorized To Repair Gyroscopes 

In its original Answer, Respondent asserted that it was authorized to repair the gyroscope, 

and as a result the FAA's Motion for Summary Judgment addressed this question. See Motion 

2 
for Summary Judgment at 5-8. In its Amended Answer, and agam in its Response, the 

Respondent now admits that it was not authorized to repair the directional gyro. See Response 

~ 10. Accordingly, the FAA will not address this point further. 

II. Respondent Approved the Gyroscope for Return to Service As Repaired 

Respondent does, however, continue to dispute whether it returned the directional gyro to 

service as repaired. As established by the documentary evidence, Respondent did approve the 

gyro for return to service as repaired, in violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

The central problem with which Respondent must contend in arguing against that is the 

FAA Form 8130-3 on which the Respondent explicitly approved the gyro for return to service as 

repaired. Respondent makes several arguments on this point, all in vain. 

First, Respondent asserts that it did not return the gyro to service, it only approved it for 

return to service. Response ~ 6. This semantic argument is technically correct, but unavailing. 

"Approving a part for return to service" and "returning a part to service" are typically used 

interchangeably. In a technical sense, a mechanic or repair station approved the part for return to 

service, and then the operator actually returns it to service by flying the aircraft. To argue that, 

technically, Respondent, as a repair station, only approved the part for return to service is 

unavailing because, technically, Respondent approving the part for return to service completes 

the violation. Sections 43.7 and 145.201 proscribe and prescribe a repair station's authority to 

approve an article for return to service - because Respondent was not authorized to repair the 

gyro, as soon as Respondent approved the gyro for return to service as repaired they violated the 

regulations. The fact that FAA inspectors detected the violation before the component was 

actually used in a flight does not mean that Respondent did not commit the violation. 

3 
Second, Respondent seeks to attack the significance of the Form 8130-3, arguing that it 

the form for "internal tracking." Notably, although Respondent submits affidavits, these 

affidavits do not present evidence that the Respondent only used the Form 8130-3 for internal 

tracking (or used it for internal tracking at all). Indeed, the very title of the Form belies this 

notion- the Form is called an "Authorized Release Certificate ... Airworthiness Approval Tag" 

because its function is to serve as a document by which a repair station can approve an item for 

return to service return an item or execute an airworthiness approval1 See FAA Order 8130.21G 

at 1-1 (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit K). Although Respondent cites FAA Order 

2150.3G in support of the notion that it was using the Form for "internal tracking," Respondents 

provides no citation to any location where the Order that says the Form should be used for this 

purpose, and such a use is not among the approved uses for the Form as described in the Order. 

See id. 

Third, Respondent notes that use of Form 8130-3 is optional. Response ~ 3. This is 

correct, but irrelevant. A repair station is free to develop its own form for returning articles to 

service as part of its repair station manual (subject to approval of that manual and form by its 

certificate holding district office), or under appropriate circumstances might make entries 

directly in an aircraft or engine logbook. But Respondent did not develop its own forms to 

replace the standard Form 8130-3, and so this possibility is irrelevant. Indeed, even if 

Respondent had developed its own return to service form, but for some reason chose to use Form 

8130-3 instead, that would not excuse an improper return to service executed on the Form 8130-

3. The Form 813 0-3 at issue here was used by Respondent as the formal record of the work it 

1 As a Part 145 repair station, the only function for which Respondent can use Form 8130-3 is for approvals for 

returns to service, as domestic and export airworthiness approvals are issued by FAA inspectors or designees. 

4 
performed. It was by the Form 8130-3, and only by the Form 8130-3, that Respondent took any 

action with regards to the gyro. 

Fourth, Respondent asserts that the Form 8130-3 is not the "primary document" to show 

what work it performed. This is entirely incorrect. The Form 8130-3 is exactly the document to 

show what Respondent did with an article - its entire purpose is to document what was done to 

the article, and then approve the article for return to service. In this regard, it is noteworthy that 

Respondent also forgoes its own work order as the applicable document, but rather asserts that 

the Judge should look at the "work order taken together with any supporting documents attached 

to the work order." Response ~ 4 (emphasis removed). The reason that Respondent carmot rely 

on its own work order is that, of course, the work order itself also explicitly states that 

Respondent repaired the directional gyro. Respondent instead relies on Response Exhibit 2, 

which is identified as "Page 13 of 15" of "Form 101" with regards to Work Order 8078 2 The 

page of the Form 101 submitted does not contradict Respondent's Work Order 8078 or Form 

8130-3. Indeed, both the Form 8130-3 and Work Order 8078 refer to the directional gyro as 

being inspected and repaired. See Summary Judgment Attachment D (noting that the gyro was 

"tested and inspected" and that it was repaired); Summary Judgment Attachment E at 2 (noting 

that the directional gyro was bench checked and repaired). If Response Exhibit 2 establishes 

anything, it establishes that the directional gyro was inspected, which is not in dispute. It does 

not say anything about, or establish anything about, whether Respondent also repaired the gyro 

or returned it to service as repaired. Indeed, if one does what Respondent suggests, and assesses 

what work Respondent performed based on the "work order taken together with any supporting 

documents attached to the work order," then the only conclusion one could draw is that (as 

2 Respondent has not produced the other 14 pages of the document. 

5 
expressly stated on the work order) Respondent performed a bench check on the gyro and 

repaired it. 

Fifth, Respondent asserts that it simply made a typographical error on the Form 8130-3, 

checking the wrong box in block 12 of the form. Response~ 7. Although Respondent submits an 

affidavit asserting that the representation that the gyro was repaired was simply the result of a 

clerical error when a clerk accidentally marked the box for "repaired" instead of "inspected," see 

Response Exhibit 3 ~ 10. This assertion is demonstrably false. Not only did the applicable box on 

the Form 8130-3 state "Repaired," but the description of the work performed on the on the Form 

8130-3 and the description of the work performed on Respondent's Work Order also reference a 

repair in their text. If what occurred here was simply the result of a clerk accidentally clicking 

the wrong box, then no such text would be present. 

In sum, the undisputable documentary evidence in this case demonstrates that 

Respondent approved the direction gyro for return to service as repaired. Respondent's assertions 

that its approval for return to service somehow does not matter are meritless and lack any 

foundation. Respondent's assertion that the classification of the work as a "repair" was the result 

of a clerical error is demonstrably, definitively false. 

III. Respondent Presents No Argument As To The Appropriate Sanction 

As described in the FAA's Motion for Sununary Judgment, the sanction sought in this 

case is the minimum sanction that complies with the Administrator's published sanction 

guidance. Respondent, in its Amended Answer, asserts that no sanction is appropriate because it 

did not commit any violation. However, Respondent has presented no argument that, if a 

violation is found, a different sanction than the one proposed would be appropriate. Accordingly, 

the Judge should affirm the amount of the violation as well as the fact of violation. 

6 
IV. Respondent's "Affirmative Defenses" Do Not Preclude Summary Judgment 

On March 18, 2014, the Respondent filed an Amended Answer, in which it identified 

eight affirmative defenses. These are addressed below. However, as a general matter, the 

affirmative defenses identified in Answer are not actually affirmative defenses, simply factual 

assertions or mere denials of allegation. 

Respondent's first, second, third, and fourtb affirmative defenses are not affirmative 

defenses, but simply reiterations of its denials of the allegations of violation found in the 

Complaint. They do not preclude summary judgment. 

Respondent's fifth, sixth, and seventh affirmative defenses are not affirmative defenses, 

but factual assertions. Respondent's fifth affirmative defense is that the FAA Inspectors did not 

see the gyro installed on an aircraft. As discussed above, this is true, but irrelevant, as the 

installation of the component on an aircraft is not an element of the violations alleged. 

Respondent's sixth affirmative defense is that the FAA discovered the improper Form 8130-3 

before Respondent had the opportunity to "correct" it. This factual observation, even if true, does 

not address any of the elements of the regulations at issue here, and does not form a defense. 

Respondent's seventh affirmative defense is that the Form 8130-3 is not the primary document 

for the work it performed. As discussed above, this assertion is, as a matter of law, completely 

wrong. More pertinently, it is not an affirmative defense, but merely an evidentiary argument, 

which is also discussed above. 

Respondent's eighth affirmative defense is a technical opinion as to whether a particular 

functional check constitutes a repair. This is also not an affirmative defense, but an evidentiary 

point. Regardless, as discussed above, the undisputable documentary evidence establishes that 

7 
Respondent did not simply perform a functional check on the gyro, but approved it for return to 

service as repaired. 

In sum, none of the affirmative defenses presented in the Amended Answer are 

affirmative defenses, but rather justifications for Respondent's denials of the allegations of the 

Complaint. To the extent they raise relevant points, those points are addressed in Section II 

above, but the affirmative defenses have no life as affirmative defenses, and do not preclude 

summary judgment. 

V. Even If Respondent Did Not Repair the Direction Gyro, It Violated the FARs 

In Respondent's Amended Answer and Summary Judgment Response, Respondent 

admitted that (contrary to its original Answer and its discovery responses) it was not authorized 

to perform repairs on the directional gyro. It, instead, squarely presented a defense that it had not 

actually done any sort of repair, but had instead incorrectly filled out the Form 8130-3. However, 

the defense presented by Respondent itself describes a violation of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations. As a result, the FAA has filed an Amended Complaint. As alleged in the alternative 

in the Amended Complaint, if the Respondent did not repair the directional gyro, then it violated 

§§ 43.5(a) and 43.9(a)(l). 

Section 43.9(a) requires that a person performing maintenance make a maintenance 

record entry concerning that maintenance. In this case, the record entry is the Form 8130-3. One 

ofthe components ofthat entry is a description of the work performed. 14 C.F.R. § 43.9(a)(l). In 

this case, Respondent described the work performed as including a repair. Respondent asserts in 

its Amended Answer and Summary Judgment Response that that did not perform a repair. As 

described above, the undisputable documentary evidence establishes that Respondent did 

approve the gyro for return to service as repaired. However, if Respondent did not repair the 

8 
gyro, then the Respondent did not describe the work it performed as required by§ 43.9(a)(l)- it 

said that it had repaired the gyro when it had not. 

Additionally, Respondent wonld also have violated § 43.5(a), which prohibits approving 

an article for return to service until the entries required by§ 43.9 (or§ 43.11) have been made. 

As noted above, if Respondent did not perform a repair, then its maintenance record entry did not 

fulfill the requirements of§ 43.9(a). As a resnlt, when Respondent then approved the gyro for 

return to service, it violated§ 43.5(a). 

Further, the sanction described m the Amended Complaint for these violations is 

appropriate. In the Administrator's published sanction guidance, a sanction range of Minimum to 

Moderate is noted for a repair station's failure to adequately describe the work performed. 

Summary Judgment Exhibit I at B-21, Figure B-3-b(6). The range of minimum to moderate for a 

small business air agency (such as Respondent) is $935 to $7,149. Id at B-5. As described in the 

Motion for Summary Judgment, the default sanction under the Administrator's published 

sanction guidance is the midpoint of the identified range. That figure, $4,042, is the penalty 

sought in the Amended Complaint for this alternative violation, and is appropriate. 

Conclusion 

The documentary evidence in this case demonstrates that Respondent approved the 

directional gyro for return to service and, as Respondent now admits, Respondent was not 

permitted to perform such a repair. Respondent now asserts that it did not perform a repair, but a 

clerk simply selected the wrong box when completing the Form 8130-3. This is demonstrably 

false, as there are two different references to a repair on the Form 8130-3, including one in the 

textual description of the work performed, and also a reference to a repair on the work order for 

the gyro. Even on summary judgment, the Judge is not required to credit a self-serving affidavit 

9 
that directly contradicts documentary evidence. Additionally, even if the verston of events 

presented by Respondent was accurate, it would still establish a violation of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations. 

~.--\ Submitted this __ day of April, 2014. 

Christopher R. Stevensoh 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

10 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment 

has been sent this date by the following methods: 

original and one copy via certified mail: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Attention:Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

one copy via certified mail: 

Mohammad Ahmed Faruqui, Esq. 

Trial Lawyers Building 

633 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 4R 

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 

Honorable Judge I.E. Sullivan 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

Date 

11 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

National Policy 

' 

ORDER 

:8130.216 

10/26/2009 

SUBJ: Procedures for Completion and Use of the Authorized Release Certificate, FAA 

Form 8130-3, Alrworthineas Approval T f9 

This order describes the procedures for completion and use of the Federal A vlation 

Administration (FAA) Authorized Release Certitlcate, FAA Form 8130·3, Airworthiness 

Approval Tag. The order describes the use of the form fur domestic airworthiness approval, 

conformity inspections, and prepositinning; airworthiness approval nf new products and articles; 

and splitting bulk shipments of previously shipped products and articles. It also provides 

guidance for the issuance of the form for approval for return to service of products and articles, 

the export airworthi!less approval of products and articles, and the electronic exchange of the 

form. 

Manager 

Production and Airworthiness Division,AlR-200 

Distribution: A-W (IRIFSNN) -3; A,X (CD/FS) ·3; A-FFS·O (MAX} Initiated by: AIR·200 

A·FAC·O (LTD); AMA-220 (10 copies); AMA·250 (10 copies) 

AFS-600 (3 copies); AEU-100/200 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

b 
10/26/2009 8130.21G 

Chapter 1. General Information 

1-1. Purpose of This Order. This order describes the procedures for completion and use of the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Authorized Release Certificate, FAA Form 8130-3, 

Airworthiness Approval Tag (FAA Form 8130-3). The order describes the use of the form for 

the following purposes: 

a. Domestic airworthiness approval, including conformity inspections, prepositioning of 

new products or articles pending approval, and splitting bulk shipments of previously produced 

products and articles; 

b. Approval for return to service of products and articles; and 

c. Export airworthiness approval of products and articles. 

NOTE: For the purposes of this order, the term product refers only to aircraft 

engines and propellers. 

1-2. Audience. FAA personnel, designees, production approval holders (P AH), air agencies, 

U.S. air carrier certificate holders, and distributors. 

1-3. Where Can I Find This Order and FAA Form 8130-3? 

a. You can fmd this order at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_]Jolicies/orders_notices/. 

b. FAA Form 8130-3 may be obtained through normal distribution channels from the 

Logistics Center, AML-8000, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 73125. The 

telephone number is 405-954-8900 (ask for the FAA Forms Inventory Manager). FAA Form 

8130-3 also is available from the Customer Care Center, AML-30, at 405-954-3793 or toll free at 

1-888-322-9824, or may be obtained on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft. The stock 

number for FAA Form 8130-3 is 0052-00-012-9005. 

1-4. Cancellation. FAA Order 8130.21F, Procedures for Completion and Use of the Authorized 

Release Certificate, FAA Form 8130-3, Airworthiness Approval Tag, dated May 30, 2008, is 

canceled upon the effective date of this revision (that is, Aprill4, 2010). 

1-5. Explanation of Policy Changes. This revisiona. Reflects changes and updates appropriate references following publication of 

Production and Airworthiness Approvals, Part marking, and Miscellaneous Amendments; Final 

Rule in the Federal Register under docket number F AA-2006-25877. 

b. Replaces parts and appliances with the term "article." 

c. Removes references to classes of products. 

d. Deletes the term "newly overhauled" and associated guidelines from the description of 

work performed. 

1-1