information as to what that alleged compliance might be until the report was issued on the same game as the replication of the a l j based is decision that the technical  it was possible polishing process employed by harold airings could remove too much material he didn't take any measurements to make his determination that this could remove too much material and he just did and he admitted that his opinion was based on the presumption so and so this apparently according to page thirty nine and they did since that we've talked about them is in computer data in the context of credibility but when it gets down to what they really want yes and once the o e m design dad and  be appropriate for under par twenty one for building a new aircraft and the specifications would not allow for this assembly which is a prepare a repair  damage provided to the inspectors and it's important to know that there is an error and the certification of the record so that a six days exhibit six is not listed access so my client provided all of this technical that is listed in library and and he also showed a graph of test measured  roller elements that were measured according to the a v m a standards which is approved by the f a a and this was discussed in the transcript dr hugh also had access to the nasa stack which supported the design of the equipment and and stan berde documentation in the los alamos documentation all of which explained how this equipment was designed experts address the cause component aspect under the definition of major repair and forty three c f r one point one and that involves what happens if a bearin data is in the nature of engineering information is because when performing and overhaul as the petitioner was doing in these cases when you are done having performed the overhaul you need to be able to verify that the component that you were working on is in an appropriate condition that technical data is going to tell you what the original design status of the component was it's also going to tell you what the limitations on that are for example what sort of service to fact was that it was using to support these repairs it asked again in a letter in january of twenty teens in both cases the petitioner was not able to produce any technical data that they they produc engine shop manual is all that they had at the time the f a a conducted the inspection so the f a a does not assert that the original equipment manufacturer data is necessary technical data is necessary the most straightforward way to get that is from the original equipment manufacturer that is something that costs money that is something that the repair station may have to go through a process with the original equipment manufacturers to get but that's the most  way as discussed in the record you can also reverse engineer a component that was something that the petitioner declined to do here and the reason that the what is now being called equipment design data become such a focus in the record at the hearing is because that's is what's in the petition or was pointing to pass the hearing petitioner's owner and indeed testifying about the data at the hearing talked about how the quote is that everyone in this room knows that we needed that data and that they specifically testify that they didn't have it anymore because the person who had access to that computer had passed away now i don't know what was in that data i don't know if what was in that data actually would have been appropriate technical data but actually ring that is focused on because that is what the petitioner was identifying to the end of the day from the perspective the point is that there had to be something yes o e m would have been easiest but there had to be something and from the agencies for that if there was nothing that's correct and therefore there's a problem with these regulations with compliance with the right absolutely or are used to students a sure in fact the findings as i read the record or that they were sewn materials that may have been omitted but the materials on that particular form were not fal have not there may have been more information that could have been added there was another section in the regulations twelve b which covers material missions i don't know how you get a twelve day intentional falsification on this record may be material omissions but that's not the charge and i really in reading the record and reading the test you're using i have no idea what you're talking about materials to action there's nothing in the record that i see understand where you might go with that but there is a specific regulation of talks about sanctioning war material omissions and there's not what is it the you think with respect to their material omission took it to a higher level of an intentional force with tension because it two different regulations and it seems to me you simply written twelve b out of the regulations at something was omitted does not mean that it cannot be an exemption i understand i'm trying to figure out how you get there in this case in this case the entries made by the petitioner are the sites to o e m manuals and they also say that having done an overhaul this conveys to a mechanic looking at this made in century that the overhaul was performed in accordance with the oh we  manual which is not accurate and that is why the statement is intentionally falls but what that tells you is that an accurate at best because i guessed so the regulations so it has a false statement provision and an admission provision and let's just i'll let's just say for the purpose of this question i'm accepting your argument that those can overlap ok and then there's an overlay that has to be intentional you could have a material emission that's unintentional you could have a false statement as unintentional but for you to so when you have to show that there is intentionality and with intentionality i guess what confused me is that the male jay never got to that resuscitated an intentional false the determination that was never made they were there because as i understand the board's decision is that come from our decisions there has to be a determination that there was subjective a subjective intention to mislead and in order to do that you have to show that even though the person has an explanation for why they were confused about the question they actually intentionally misled with their answer and i didn't see anything in n t s b order that would show me that the was i have a son and that was the totality of my answer you would i imagine leave this conversation having concluded and i would assume i asked you how many not whether you had a son yes the bet's not that's not what i'm going to say we think that's not what i'm getting here but that is the the statement that they used a particular manual and they did an overhaul what is returning them very well i mean surely mission would go beyond that because even to real mission might include the complete absence of a record entry at all if you have a mechanic performed maintenance and did not make a record entry as required by the regulations and that's not it can't be a false statement because there's literally no statement b if a repair station because the regulation in question only applies to a repair station if it or care station omits and snow just entirely of these our maintenance record entry for the purposes of misleading that is going to fall under one forty five twelve b and it's number twelve in the authorized release and the company says that it performed an overhaul in accordance with section forty three point two yes forty three point t means that they disassembled the bearing and put it back right and also as i understand it also says that it requires that for that statement to be true that the bearing was then tested in accordance with  to look at the entire statement and if you look earlier in the statement they talk about the work being performed in accordance with it and there's a manual citation to something that is a difference ideation for each of the eighty one thirty that's created because it's a different kind of bearing but what they're citing to you is that original equipment manufacturer daniel and when you have a citation to the original equipment manufacturer manual for the work performed and then you say that you a performed an s the the entry in block twelve this falls i thought you're right i thought your point correct me if i'm wrong i'd like your theory i'm not sure it carries the day that i thought your theory is that it says work performed now i know in accordance with engine manual and appoints a particular particular section and the idea is ok that tells us if you look at that section that there was an inspection and performed for some of that section but what it doesn't tell you is that there was a bunch of other stuff done too like disassembly and other things and it's the omission of those other things that are problematic from your perspective because somebody looking at this wouldn't understand that that other work was done yes and  conjunction with yes there is no mystery no matter what was your answer yes is that your theory or is that am i am i getting it wrong i thought that was that was the material that was the omission that renders this false but maybe i don't have it right  to forty three point two which is the overhaul on an overhaul requires this is simply so anybody reading this knows that the baron was disassembled and put back together and they would conclude that  comments from the audience that they know and a mechanic looking at this downstream happen this this component leaves the petitioner and goes to a park broker and then goes to an air carrier who's going to decide whether or not to put it on an airplane they would look at that the overhaul they would conclude that the overhaul was performed in accordance with that o e m manual because there is no other provision cited for the basis for the overhaul it is absolutely the case that it cites forty three point two but forty three point two is essentially the definition of overall it's like saying to say i overhauled in accordance with forty three point two it is to say i overhauled it properly but that's what  go ahead and do what what was yes and i think the one of the strongest pieces of evidence that the falsity of the scene was intentional is to look at the underlying work orders as the petitioners have asked this court to do repeatedly if you look at those is a with pages titled inspection and planning for it and there's a section of its title that proves tax day and it's your approving in accordance with and they can check either o e m tech data or mil will the o e m tech data itself is not would have o e m tech data is short for original equipment manufacturers technical data well could have been on the computer whatever it was could never have been o p m tech data if conceivably could have been technical data but it would never have been original equipment manufacturer technical data one because the original equipment manufacturer technical data is something that is created by the company that produces the part and the testimony at hearing was that the data would have been on this computer was something that was developed by the titian or when they were coming up with their own polishing process again we don't know what was actually on there but that's what they were they testified about it being are you saying they didn't have the reasonable quote the manufacturers men they did not have the original equipment manufactur manual necessary to do it over that they had it what was called in what is referred to as a end to shop manual so they had an o e m manual that will allow them to perform this stylus inspection for service defects and now i suppose i don't understand a lot of this type of but suppose that the original equipment manufacturers manual had some instructions about how to insert the ball bearings in the ring ok and so when they finish the overhaul and pull bearings out and they polish them and they're putting them back and they go to the original equipment manufacturer and follow the instructions on reinserting them the bearings now if that is what happened this statement would be true and the statement also in b twelve would be true instructions we're taking the bearing apart and putting it back together it's going to have information on what the condition needs to be after you're done polishing it the petitioner in this case presumably was based on their arguments on and on a petition for review they would have been using the mills that the military specifications for the assembly and disassembly now that that doesn't get them in compliance with the technical data issues because the mil spec is not technical data it relies on you checking with the o e m technical data but when you but again we can go back to what they're writing in their own work or their claim in their petition for review is  mills that was our tech data but literally in their own work or they were checking they were not checking bills that they were checking o e m type data which they did not have and which they knew this it didn't have so when i hear this  i just to abstract away from the the ground level technicalities of it what it sounds like is that you've got a case that the entry responses to the questions are incorrect but what you have to show in order to show intangibles was a vacation is that they were incorrect and the person filling it out knew they were incorrect and what missing from the record is there is testimony from the the company thought that this is all the question why was asking and so what you need to have is an age the determination that when the company gives that response they know that that response is incorrect in fact it has to be that there was whether it was false but if we take it from the moment that it was false then the falsity that's being conveyed is that we were that is an overhaul in accordance with original equipment manufacturer manuals the petitioner knew that it was not overhauling in accordance with original equipment manufacturer manuals that it didn't happen you knew it didn't have them it knew that it was relying on to the process not the date of it for the process it knew that it was relying hearing the petitioner asserted that it's thought that what it was doing was ok but that's not quite the same thing if if the petitioner for whatever reason believe that it was ok if it knew that the statement was false believe that it was ok to write that statement down anyway that does not excuse the i'm from the intentional false vacation that's where the distinction if you could get them out of if you charge them with a fraudulent statement that would be a defense because an additional element of intentional and look at the other as we must usually do for intent and knowledge base requirements look at the circumstantial evidence which includes as we've discussed extensively these underlying work orders and what they it's just a lot of that is is you're making an specifically charged in the f a s complaint each of those with a different kind of bearing from a different manufacturer and had its own it were so it would have its own original study come back to you have you asserted that the statement is false because they didn't have the o e m manual so where do i find the finding with respect to these three different manufacturers will i i did not apologize your honor i don't have a issue there was is it a structural repair of an engine components critical does not play into the question of whether or not it's a major repairs so there was there was evidence from the f a a expert that it was a major error no technical data that was needed evidence he also that the transcript described other data that was discussed and provided factors and so the idea that there was no technical and that's the first time anyone has ever and including that's contrary to f a a guidance that they block that there are other blocks they have the work overhauled which there's a list of ways to fill out that  his time on the job had reviewed these and and said they were ok and then all of the sudden they weren't ok so i don't think there was any falsity on the documents and that wa