UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

IN THE MATTER FDMS NO.: FAA-2015-0643 

OF NOT YET ASSIGNED 

MACH 1 AIR CHARTERS, INC. ANSWER TO 

:r: 

rn 

)> 

:Il 

-

z 

(j) 

0 

0 

0 

" m 

--1 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) COMPLAINT BY RESPONDENT _______________________ ) 

~ 

~ 

-

01> 

N 

= U'i 

COMES NOW the Respondent MACH 1 AIR CHARTERS, INC., individually, in 

answer to the complaint of the Administrator on file herein, for itself alone, and pursuant 

to 14 CFR §§13.16 AND 13.201 et seq. of the Rules of Practice, denies and alleges as 

follows: 

ALLEGATION I. 

This answering Respondent admits the allegations contained in Allegation I of the 

complaint on file herein. 

ALLEGATION II. 

I. This answering Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 

I, 2, 3 and 10 of the complaint on file herein. 

2. With respect to paragraph 9 Respondent admits that it operated an aircraft 

on May 12, 2014 but denies the wording "after the events referenced above" and by its 

admission does not admit the substance of the other allegations incorporated in the 

wording by the Administrator and therefore specifically denies any facts incorporated by 

Pa e 1 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

:D 

m 

0 

m 

-

< m 

a 
the wording set forth. 

3. This answering Respondent denies the allegations of paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 

8 , 12 and 13, both generally and specifically, whether the allegation be express or 

implied. 

4. This answering Respondent alleges that the allegations contained in 

paragraph 11 are ambiguous, incomplete confusing and therefore has insufficient 

information to either admit or deny the allegation. On that basis, this answering 

Respondent must therefor deny the allegations, both generally and specifically, whether 

the allegation be express or implied. 

ALLEGATION Ill. 

1. This answering Respondent denies admits the allegations contained in 

paragraph I, 2, and 3 of Allegation Ill. of the complaint on file herein, both generally and 

specifically, whether the allegation be express or implied, and further denies that this 

answering Respondent violated any Federal Aviation Regulation(s). 

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

This answering Respondent is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the 

complaint, and that each purported cause of action stated therein, fails to state facts 

sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering Respondent. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

This answering Respondent is informed and believes and thereon alleges that 

safety in air commerce and the public interest do not require the imposition of a civil 

Pa e 2 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 
penalty against this certificate holder. 

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

This answering Respondent is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the 

pleading is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible. 

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

This answering Respondent is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the 

actions of the F .A.A. in initiating this proceeding were without substantial justification and 

were based upon the unconscionable and unlawful actions of its employees and agents. 

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

This answering Respondent is informed and believes and thereon alleges that any 

of the actions of the Respondent as set forth herein were with the express approval, 

permission and consent of the Federal Aviation Administration by and through its 

authorized employees. 

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

This answering Respondent is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the 

appropriate Federal Aviation Regulations authorize the actions of the Respondent as set 

forth herein. 

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

This answering Respondent is informed and believes and thereon alleges that there 

were no airworthy issues involving the aircraft and that the aircraft was operated in an 

airworthy condition at all time. 

Pa e 3 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

This answering Respondent is informed and believes and thereon alleges that an 

emergency existed which authorized non compliance with the Flight Rules of Part 91. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent prays that the Administrator take nothing by its 

complaint, that the same be dismissed, that Respondent be awarded his attorney's fees 

and costs and for such other relief as the Administrative Law Judge of the Office of 

Hearings deems proper. 

DATED: May 11,2015 

STEVEN L. GRAFF, INC. 

A Professional ration 

by·~;.:~::~~~;f~ STEVEN L. GRAFF 

43399 Calle De Velardo 

Temecula, CA 92592 

(951) 303-6400 tel 

aviationcounsel@aol.com 

Attorney for Respondent 

Pa e4 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day, placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid, the 

original and copy of the ANSWER TO COMPLAINT addressed to: 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

The Hearing Docket, AGC-430 

Wilber Wright Building - Room 2W1 000 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

I further certify that I have this day, placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid, a 

copy of the ANSWER TO COMPLAINT addressed to: 

GLENN H. BROWN, ESQ. 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

222 W yTH Avenue #14 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7586 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the foregoing 

is true and correct and that this document is executed on May 11, 2015 at Temecula, 

STEVEN L. GRAFF 

Pa e 5 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT